Jump to content

Talk:2004 Nazran raid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aftermath

[edit]

Good job. The "Aftermath" section would be good to have. Were there any actions besides disranking of officials (e.g., retaliation, preventive actions, etc,)? International reaction? `'mikka 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maskhadov about the nazran raid

[edit]

[1] Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2004 Nazran raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

Reiner Gavriel instead of arguing there in the article I would like to discuss here in the talk page. Could you provide source that the Ingush militants were under wing of Ichkeria in this battle? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obvious fact since it was an Ichkerian operation, under whose command should they have been? The commanders were Basayev, Umarov and Taziev, all Ichkerian generals. Provide me a source that the Ingush fighters were part of an independent group and not under Ichkerian wing. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you claimed first that they were under Ichkerian wing then you should prove it first. Vilayat Ghalghaiche was part of Caucasus Emirate but not Ichkeria. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vilayat Ghalghaiche first was under the Ichkerian wing, to be exact under the Caucasian Front which is part of the Ichkerian Armed Forces. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian front was created in 2005 and the Vilayat Ghalghaiche existed since 2000 under various names. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under which names to be exact? Even if that is true, it's irrelevant due to the Ingush fighters involved in the Nazran raid being part of the Ichkerian wing, as I said several times already. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such names like Jamaat Shariat (not to be confused with the Dagestani Jamaat) and Shariat Special Operations Group. So you don't have source that the Ingush fighters in Nazran raid were part of Ichkerian wing? I asked for source and you haven't given me yet and you went in the Vilayat Galgaycho and edited the page. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ignoring what I am saying on purpose? That doesn't make your "arguments" stronger. Yes, apparently they had the names "Jamaar Shariat" and "Shariat Special Operations Group", but where? What operations did they carry out, who were their leaders, what was their goal? How were they involved in the Nazran Raid? Taziev was a commander of the Ichkerian army up until 2007. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring what you're saying. You're ignoring my question, you still haven't given me the source that the Ingush fighters in Nazran raid were part of Ichkerian wing. You also went in the Vilayat Galgaycho and quickly edited the page to your point of view. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance fighters commanded by radical Chechen field commander Shamil Basayev staged multiple attacks against police and security personnel in Ingushetia in June 2004, killing some 80 people. Who was the commander of the Ingush fighters in the Nazran raid? Which "Ingush group" fought there? I corrected Vilayat Galgaycho. If you want to see someone who "quickly edits the page to his point of view", you should check out your edits on the Russian wikipedia. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result section in infobox

[edit]

@Targimhoï: There being some Ingush militants with the Chechen forces does not make this an Ingush victory nor is it relevant to the battle's notability. "Ingush victory" should not be in the result unless it is relevant to the subjects notability or reliable sources describe it as such, which it does not. Otherwise I believe it gives this section undue weight. Minority viewpoints such as this are generally not presented this way on Wikipedia. On another note, please refrain from reverting my edit where I removed an unreliable source, as per WP:GLOBALSECURITY. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation among other issues

[edit]

Hey, @WikiEditor1234567123:. Seems to be a lot of bias and misinformation being spread here and I will point out the issues with your edits. To start of this attack was carried out by the Chechen republic of Ichkeria. All the commanders are part of Ichkeria. “Ingush jamaat” is not a separate entity even though you seem to insist this is “vilayet ghalghayche”, which only started to exist a year after this attack in 2005. This conflicts factual information, considering that Ingush jamaat was part of the separatist armed chechen forces themselves. This is evident by the three sources you provided for your claim.

  • The first source says the ingush jamaats emir is subordinate to “ahmad” who is the commander of Ichkerias ingush sector, and who was also promoted by the president of Ichkeria, implying these are part of the separatist armed chechen forces.
  • The [second] you provided supports my argument and says Taziev (an ichkerian commander) was appointed leader of the ingush insurgent sector by Basayev (top general of Ichkeria), meaning these forces are subordinate to Ichkeria.
  • Your third source, on page 73, states Ingush jamaat is subordinate to an Ichkerian organization called Caucasian front, which by the way was led by Basayev.

Another issue is due weight. I hope you are aware of the due weight policy on Wikipedia. I have already discussed this issue (to which I got no answer) with user:Targimhoi (now banned), who was making the same arguments and edits as you do. Ethnic ingush fighters operating in the separatist armed chechen forces doesn’t make this an ingush victory and neither is it relevant to the battles notability. Adding additional sources saying ingush participated does not change this fact. It would be like saying pakistan won over argentina during falklands war because some soldiers were Pakistanis. You also have a long history of edit warring after checking the revisions on this page, which is filled by your disruptive editing. Three accounts making much of the same edits as you have subsequently been banned. You have also been edit warring the Russian version of this page.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add this material and mainly dropped by to add a short description, but looking at the added material, this sourced statement: "The same year, the Chechen and Ingush militants carried out a successful raid on the Russian interior forces in Nazran, Ingushetia, killing 80 troops" does seem to support the version as it was presented. If it was a group of militants of mixed ethnicities, including some local, that seems like a significant detail to mention, while portraying it as pertaining to only one of the two groups seems misleading. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing against Ingush fighters under Ichkeria participating in the battle. The issue here is mostly due weight and acting as if these fighters are part of a separate entity, which they are not. We should be objective on this matter and describe it as it is, which is that fighters of the separatist Chechen republic carried out a raid in Nazran. I have already written a few lines down that Ingush were included in the ranks of the attacking force. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will breakdown on three main things that Ola has disputes with:
  • 1. There's 6 sources that I provided for the militants being Ingush so there's no undue weight here and it should be in the lead-section righter after the mention of Chechen militants ("Chechen and Ingush militants").
  • 2. Ingush Jamaat should be in the Infobox as there's 3 sources for their participation, one of which says that they played key-role in the raid. However for that I think we can maybe find a middleground by adding "*" before the text Ingush Jamaat, similarly how the Ingushetia is in the Infobox, what do you think?
  • 3. The result should be Chechen-Ingush Separatist victory as there's a source which mentions that: "The same year, the Chechen and Ingush militants carried out a successful raid on the Russian interior forces in Nazran, Ingushetia, killing 80 troops". I don't understand why is this one even disputed if there's a reliable source for that. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already demonstrated that the sources you used contradict the changes you made. The sources don't state that Ingush Jamaat is separate from Ichkeria, and they don't refer to the victory as a "Chechen-Ingush victory". Instead, they simply report that Chechen and Ingush militants successfully carried out a raid. Therefore, there's no reason to modify the result section since it's well-established that the "Ingush Jamaat" led by Taziev was a small and diverse group, composed of Chechens, Arabs, Kabardino-Balkarians, and Kalmyks. However, the crucial point is that they were all affiliated with Ichkeria. Your comparison of Ingushetia autonomous republic of the Russian Federation to a small 30-man ChRI unit doesn't make sense either since it would imply including every unit of Ichkeria involved, as well as the Russian MVD, FSB, GRU, and so on. On a final note, the overall notability of the subject does not change with extra citations. It has already been established that some Ingush fighters were included in the attacking force. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if Ingush Jamaat's leaders are said to be subordinate to ChRI, the sources still do mention that Ingush Jamaat participated in the raid and played key role in the raid, some sources even claiming that the Ingush Jamaat organized the raid. If Ingush Jamaat's leaders are said to be subordinate to Ichkeria according to few sources, then as I mentioned previously, we can add "*" before Ingush Jamaat similarly to how Ingushetia is in the infobox, your comparison of Ingushetia and Ingush Jamaat is unneccesary. The source reporting that Chechen and Ingush militants successfully carried out a raid does give a reason to modify the result section to what the source says, which is, that it's Chechen-Ingush victory as the raid done by Chechen and Ingush militants was succesful. You still haven't given a valid reason on why you keep on moving the text about Ingush militants from lead-section to a section down below. The "undue weight" reason doesn't fit here because there's clearly enough sources mentioning the Ingush miliants. The raid was done by a group of militants of mixed ethnicities, here it being Chechen and Ingush, which makes it misleading to portray it as pertaining to Chechen miliants. To me it looks like this discussion is just going back and forth, with no progress being made. How about we will settle this in WP:DRN? Although I'm not sure how it works, but we will see how it goes. Also regarding Ingush Jamaat: during the Nazran raid, Ali Taziev wasn't the leader of Ingush Jamaat. He only became the leader of Ingush Jamaat after the death of Ilyas Gorchkhanov in 2005, who was previously the first leader of Ingush Jamaat. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not there were significant numbers of Ingush separatists involved is highly relevant to the overall narrative, as this is the difference between an external attack from Chechnya and a combined external/internal one. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Nazran_raid&oldid=1196391199"