Jump to content

Talk:First Chechen War

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

Commanders

[edit]

There are now almost 60 leaders listed in the infobox on the Chechen side. I think this is too many and suggest to remove everyone who is not in the main list. Any ideas where can we move all those names? Most of them don't have wikipedia articles meaning that creating a category is not a solution. Alaexis¿question? 10:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory opinion to other Wikipedia articles

[edit]

Content in this article portrays events with different emphasis to the article on the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria with the other article seeming more pro Russian and anti Dudayev Eggappreciator2022 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermolov battalion

[edit]

Kaminitz93, I've reverted your change since it broke the formatting. I also have another question, why should we mention it separately in the infobox considering that they fought as part of the regular army [1]. Maybe it would be better to create a Combatants section and discuss it there in more detail and providing proper context? Alaexis¿question? 07:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights violations and Memorial

[edit]

I've requested a page number but even if they do say it, I don't think it's a faithful use of the source, as they explicitly say that the abuses that occurred in 1991-1994, particularly against the ethnic Russian population are out of scope of the book (p. 2 in the pdf)

Alaexis¿question? 10:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with out of scope? (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]
They literally say that the issues of human rights violations (вопросы нарушения прав человека) in 1991-1994 are not in the scope of the book (за рамками этого сборника), that is, the book does not deal with them. Alaexis¿question? 06:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you would percieve it as not being faithful, when it adds further nuance, is from a fairly impartial source(as compared to Russian official channels & Chechen separatist ones), and more so the source is cited with in-text attribution and not wikivoice, to give a clearer picture. As for the out of scope remark, it more so refers to this(page 2.):

The collection does not claim to be complete in the description of events. Moreover, the authors understand that they do not know a lot, very important information remains, unfortunately, inaccessible

As is expressed by the authors here, the report is more of bird's eye view of the period in question, rather than an in-detail report about every single case, crime, happening, and also the punctual chronology of every case. It doesn't need to be the latter, for the observation by Orlov and Cherkasov to be notable. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for adding the page number. The editors of this book explicitly say that they do not consider the human rights abuses during the 1991-1994 period (even though they acknowledge them). Their focus is on the conflict (1994-1996) and so the statement on page 218 also refers to the wartime abuses. Alaexis¿question? 07:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khloponin's quote

[edit]

Khloponin's words do not describe the situation in the early 90s. The interview you cited was given in 2010 and this is the question and the answer, google-translated with some amendments

Note that Khloponin talks about all the republics of North Caucasus and not specifically about Chechnya which is obviously a special case. Khloponin talks in present tense when he says that no one is deliberately squeezing Russians out. He says that "after the 90s ... Russian-speaking population began to migrate to where there is work." So you cannot use his words as a source for the statement that the exodus of Russians from Chechnya [in 1991-1994] was due to economic reforms of the 1990s.

Setting aside Khloponin, I agree that one of the reasons for the exodus of the Russophone population from Chechnya in 1991-1994 was the collapse of the economy of Chechnya and I'm sure that we can find sources for that. However the abuses were also real, and they explain why the scale of exodus was much greater that in other republics of North Caucasus. Alaexis¿question? 07:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmm I see your point, but why mention the reforms of the 90s then? if he is talking about the emigration after the 90s, why are the reforms of the 90s relevant at all. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Well, this is an interview and not a scholarly article, so he's not trying to be precise but rather is using the "bad 90s" trope (ru:Лихие девяностые) to explain the decrease of the share of Russians in the North Caucausian republics. The migration certainly happened both during the reforms in the early 90s and after the reforms as people moved to places with better economic situation. Alaexis¿question? 07:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due weight problems

[edit]

Following a few recent edits, the section on the state of Chechnya in 1991-1994 has a severe WP:DUE problem. Now it reads

The reader gets the impression that the harassment of non-Chechens in Chechnya during this period is an issue for which there are opposing views and neither of them is dominant. In fact this is not the case at all. The first sentence is supported by nearly all scholarly books on the subject.

1. Allah's Mountains: Politics and War in the Russian Caucasus By Sebastian Smith p. 133

Page 134 gives some specific examples of harassment.

2. Chechnya: Calamity in the Caucasus by Carlotta Gall and Thomas de Waal, p. 75


3. Tishkov, Valery (2004). Chechnya Life in a War-Torn Society. University of California Press. p. 65.

4. Anatol Lieven, Chechnya, a tombstone of Russian power, p. 75


5. John B. Dunlop, Russia confronts Chechnya, p 137 (the chapter is called Towards the ethnocratic Chechen state)

Thus, it is a consensus position that the non-Chechen population (Russians, Ukrainians, Armenians, etc.) faced harassment in the pre-war period.

Let's look at the two sources which were added which supposedly hold a different opinion. Saying that Igor Kalyanin "argued that while hardships did exist for ethnically Russian employees in Chechnya, its character and scope was mythologized and exaggerated" misrepresents the source. When giving examples of "myths" he mentions Islamist fighters, foreign mercenaries and abuses of prisoners of war. Nothing of this is relevant to the subsection on the pre-war situation in Chechnya. If anything, he does say that the situation of the Russian-speakers in Chechnya was the worst in the whole former USSR.

The only source that does say that does dismiss the persecution of Russians in Chechnya is Valeriya Novodvorskaya. Considering that she was a politician and not a historian, I think that mentioning her position which contradicts the consensus is simply undue. She held some extreme opinions, like saying that the residents of Gaza strip do not deserve any pity and that the Gazan mothers' dream is for their children to become terrorists [2]. Alaexis¿question? 20:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the same editor who thinks "terrorist" or "terrorist attacks" does not belong in the opening of the biography of Basayev. Why is her livejournal page used as a source? Mellk (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize you've just disqualified yourself from this discussion and consensus-seeking, by bringing your grudges and bias into this Mellk? If you haven't noticed this is the talk page for the First Chechen War, and not anything else. Regards. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Alaexis, I have another discussion going atm, as well as some other edits in mind also, it can stay the way it is for the time being, I'll tag you when I'm charged for this one. Regards. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Lutz

[edit]

Wohuwak12, can you explain what is the problem with using Raymond R. Lutz's book? Alaexis¿question? 18:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estimating the exact number of fighters involved in a guerrilla conflict like the First Chechen War is challenging due to the lack of precise data and the fluid nature of the conflict. Different sources might provide varying estimates, but it is difficult to pinpoint an accurate figure.
To reiterate, the Chechen forces during the First Chechen War were generally estimated to have several thousand fighters, but the exact number remains uncertain. Figures can range from around 5,000 to 20,000 fighters, but these are rough estimates and not based on any specific claims.
there is no universally agreed-upon or authoritative source that provides an exact or specific number of Chechen fighters during the First Chechen War (1994-1996). The available historical accounts and sources offer estimates, but these numbers can vary and are often approximate.
The estimated number of Chechen fighters during the First Chechen War ranges from several thousand to tens of thousands, but these are rough approximations based on various sources and analyses. Guerrilla warfare and the fluid nature of the conflict make it challenging to ascertain precise figures.
To reiterate, estimating the exact number of fighters involved in conflicts like the First Chechen War is difficult due to the lack of precise data and the complexities of such wars. If you encounter any specific claims regarding the number of Chechen fighters during the First Chechen War, it's essential to critically evaluate the credibility and sources of that information.
This is the first time I have ever seen the claim that range the fighters up to 40 thousand.
If you can provide me any other source that claims that the chechen fighters ranged up to 40 thousand in 1996 I will leave this page alone.
-Wohuwak12 Wohuwak12 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you believe that the 40k figure does not reflect the scholarly consensus. That may well be so, but if you are removing referenced material the onus is on you to provide the sources that back up the figures that "range from around 5,000 to 20,000 fighters." Alaexis¿question? 18:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grey wolves

[edit]

I would advise discussing the issue here instead of engaging in back and forth reverts. @Karabakhazerbaycandir: @Wohuwak12: Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the dispute I need to say I agree with Wohuwak regarding this. I don't think there's evidence that the Grey wolves have been involved in any battle in Chechnya. If they were then their numbers would most likely be limited to a couple of fighters, which is a due weight issue. Even if they were not then this would still be an issue as their numbers weren't of any significance. The same can be said for the foreign mujahideen. If I remember correctly there was only around 100 foreign fighters in Chechnya (ignoring the UNA-UNSO) most of which were of Arab origin, according to Dodge Billingsley - an expert on the topic. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian volunteers

[edit]

@Lemabeta I would advise you to refrain from adding 'Georgian volunteers' to the list of belligerents in the infobox. The presence of one or two Georgian soldiers, does not constitute the involvement of a state or a significant independent group in the conflict. Belligerents are parties that have an official and substantial involvement in a conflict. This usually means state actors or major insurgent groups, not individuals who may have participated on their own accord. The sources you are citing are seemingly interviews with an individual who claims to have fought in the Chechen War. This is nowhere sufficient to establish the involvement of a broader group or a state. For an entity to be listed as a belligerent, there needs to be substantial evidence of organized, collective involvement. This might include official recognition by the entity itself, multiple independent sources corroborating the scale of participation, or evidence of direct involvement by the entity in the conflict's operations. What you are doing is basing the inclusion on a single, uncorroborated personal account, which is not only misinformation but also leads to an inaccurate representation of this war. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ola Tønningsberg, just wanted to say that I agree that Georgia should not be included as a combatant. The presence of some Georgians is well documented but it doesn't mean that Georgia as a country was Chechnya's ally. Alaexis¿question? 19:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ola Tønningsberg @ Alaexis Then dont mention Georgia as a country but mention Georgian volunteers. It was you who edited and wrote Georgia instead of Georgians in the first edit. Georgia as a country gave humanitarian aid but not a military intervention, other than providing weapons, therefore lets write Georgian volunteers instead of Georgia as an ally country.. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really address the points I made above. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were more than one or two volunteers from Georgia, many of the Zviadist loyalists continued fighting on the side of Chechnya. Who are you to dictate what needs to be included in the article and what shouldnt? Georgian volunteers fought on the side of Chechnya in the First Chechen war and it needs to be mentioned. Lemabeta (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to add a source that says that there were many of them, or gives their number. Alaexis¿question? 09:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that you've added talk about just one volunteer, who didn't play a major role in the First Chechen war. They can be used in the article about him, but not in this article. Alaexis¿question? 09:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

[edit]

Regarding the persistent attempts to declare the Russian official sources as unreliable, this in itself needs to be verified by sources. It's also necessary to provide sources that prove that the alternate estimates are more reliable. Until this is done, there is no reason this article shouldn't follow the general format of conflict templates of listing first the estimate each side provides for its own casualties, while avoiding POV terms like "claims". Kostja (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 February 2024

[edit]
I (User:GreenC) am posting this WP:RM on behalf of User:Chechendemocrat1 to help them with the correct procedure. The original post is Special:Diff/1194729504/1209203020
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. On one hand, editors argue First Chechen War and Second Chechen War are non-neutral. On the other hand, editors argue that they are the common name. As WP:NPOVTITLE endorses the use of non-neutral common names, consensus is in favor of the current titles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– These labels emphasize the involvement of both parties in the conflict and avoid a one-sided presentation that could give the impression that only one side is responsible for the conflict, so it is completely incorrect to label it that way. It can also help to better understand the geopolitical and historical background of the conflict by taking into account Russia's role as the dominant power in the region. User:Chechendemocrat1 14:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Chechnya has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going by search result counts, "First Chechen War" has 10 times the results as "First Russo-Chechen War". People say Google Hits don't count, but I can't imagine why we would ignore an order of magnitude difference.
  • We are not always required to follow the crowd. Sometimes sources are biased and/or wrong. We need to present things neutrally, because we are an encyclopedia, unlike the other sources which are different genres of writing. If most sources called it "Glorious Russian Victory Over Chechnya" that would be a problem. There are exceptions to common usage.
  • First Russo-Chechen War is more specific in that it names both sides, whereas First Chechen War only names one side of the war. Articles like Vietnam War are named after the location, which is more neutral. It's not Vietnamese War which is a 1-sided POV ie. looking at it from the perspective of America.
This is a complicated case because WP:COMMONNAME tell us "First Chechen War", but WP:NPOV tell us this is a biased perspective, like calling it the Vietnamese War, which is no different than calling it the 'Resistance War against America' (the name used from the Vietnamese perspective). A middle ground approach is to name it after the location and not the people. Thus First Chechnya War. However, I think "First Chechen War" can also refer to the location. But I'm not clear on this. Assuming Chechen War is an acceptable way to refer to the location then I don't think it should change. If not, then it should be First Chechnya War (example). -- GreenC 16:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful response! I understand your point about "First Chechen War" being the commonly used term. However, I still believe renaming it to "First Russo-Chechen War" has strong merits in line with Wikipedia's core principles:
Neutrality:
You mentioned WP:NPOV. While "First Chechen War" might be popular, it only names one side, creating a potentially biased perspective. "First Russo-Chechen War" explicitly mentions both, aligning with NPOV.
Historical Accuracy:
"First Russo-Chechen War" factually reflects the involvement of two parties, not just Chechnya. This nuance offers better historical understanding and acknowledges both sides' perspectives and motivations.
Clarity and Context:
Including both parties provides immediate clarity about the conflict's nature and who was involved. This is crucial for readers unfamiliar with the context.
Adding "Russo-" positions the war within the broader Russia-Chechnya struggle, offering crucial historical context and understanding the conflict's wider implications.
Consistency and Precedents:
Many historical conflicts follow this format,like "Second World War" or "First Punic War." Using the same format maintains Wikipedia's consistency and reflects established neutral naming conventions.
Other Wikipedia articles on wars use this format, making the suggestion consistent with existing practices.
Additional Considerations:
While "First Chechen War" might be common now, language evolves. More inclusive and accurate terms often gain favor over time.Renaming reflects this evolution and aligns with contemporary historical understanding.
Including both parties demonstrates respect for the involvement and sacrifices of both sides, acknowledging their roles in the conflict.
I understand your concern about search results, but ultimately, Wikipedia strives for neutrality and historical accuracy. Renaming to "First Russo-Chechen War" aligns with these core principles and ensures a more inclusive and representative portrayal of the conflict for all readers. Chechendemocrat1 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should make a post in Bold, like everyone else, register how you are voting: oppose or support the rename request. The issue is with rules (policy). See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVTITLE are the main rules in play. Then make an argument why the specifics of this case apply to those rules. It sounds like you are making a case for NPOVTITLE, which is the same case I am making, the current titles fails NPOV. -- GreenC 16:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming the article to "First Russo-Chechen War." While I understand "First Chechen War" is more common, it excludes one side, potentially creating a biased perspective. As per WP:NPOVTITLE, neutrality is paramount. "First Russo-Chechen War" explicitly mentions both parties, fulfilling this requirement. Additionally, including both parties provides clarity and context, aligning with Wikipedia's standards. Chechendemocrat1 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"First Russia–Chechnya War" or "First Russo–Chechen War" falsely implies that this is the first war between Chechnya and Russia. Mellk (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about implying it's the first-ever war between Chechnya and Russia, here's why I believe "First Russo-Chechen War" is a more appropriate alternative:
Specific Scope: Unlike broader terms like "Chechen Wars" or even historical conflicts, "First Russo-Chechen War" pinpoints the war within the context of the modern Russian Federation. This distinction is crucial, as the dynamic of this conflict was significantly different from prior Tsarist-era campaigns due to both Chechnya's brief period of independence and the post-Soviet power vacuum.
Acknowledging Historical Context: Yes, there was indeed a history of conflict between the regions, even before the Russian Empire. However, these earlier conflicts don't negate the need for a name that clearly identifies this specific, modern war. Many regions and countries have had multiple wars with the same adversary over centuries – this doesn't mean we can't number those conflicts for clarity.
Precedence: The term "Russo-Chechen" is not without precedent. It's parallel to other conflicts named geographically, like the "Russo-Japanese War" or "Sino-Vietnamese War." These terms also don't deny previous historical engagements. Chechendemocrat1 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While WP:COMMONNAME is important for naming conventions, there exists other criteria for naming articles. See WP:CRITERIA. The term "Russo-Chechen" specifies the belligerents involved, which more accurately captures the precision and accuracy criteria than "Chechen war". With a quick search on Google you can find several scholarly sources that use the "Russo-Chechen" naming convention as opposed to simply "Chechen war". So it's definitely not an uncommon name for the conflict. Some sources use "1994-1996 / 1999-2000 Russo-Chechen War". I'm not completely opposed to a name change if it is sourced. Generally "First / Second Chechen war" are the most accepted names for this conflict. I'm interested to hear what others think. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Judging by this user's contributions so far, this account seems to have been made solely to advocate for the term "Russo-Chechen War". Bordering on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, at least from my understanding of the policy. Feel free to correct me.
Personally, I think WP:COMMONNAME trumps other WP:CRITERIA in this case, but I'm still pretty inexperienced, so I'd like to hear other folks' perspectives before finalizing my choice. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a valid issue as I explained in my !vote above. We don't normally say "Vietnamese War" this is highly POV and biased. -- GreenC 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Scholarly sources overwhelmingly use the current title when referring to the conflict 3750 vs 201. Alaexis¿question? 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can still use that name, but change "Chechen" to "Chechnya" so it concerns a war at a location, and not war on a people. Otherwise it really is highly POV in the same we don't say "Vietnamese War". We are not required to follow the crowd with common usage. Sometimes sources are biased and/or wrong. We need to present things neutrally, we are an encyclopedia. WP:NPOVTITLE is more important than WP:COMMONNAME, IMO. See also WP:NDESC. -- GreenC 21:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "First Chechnya War" is even less frequently used [3]. Also, Chechen is also an adjective meaning "of Chechnya" so I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. Alaexis¿question? 09:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the same page, above COMMONNAME, there is also WP:NPOVTITLE. And other policies. Sometimes there are conflicts between the policies. IMO, NPOV is a stronger case than common name. We frequently see biased and POV things that are very commonly said, but we don't repeat them (in wiki voice), because it violates NPOV policy.
    If Chechen is also an adjective meaning "of Chechnya", it is still possible to read Chechen both ways, as "of Chechnya" or as "Chechen people". In which case we can reduce the controversy by changing Chechen --> Chechnya. As for common name, it's basically the same thing. -- GreenC 16:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and arguments of other users in discussion. HappyWith (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:NPOVTITLE? It's on the same policy page as WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes, there are NPOV issues, COMMONNAME is only one of multiple things to consider. Not a single editor has addressed the NPOV issue and that is concerning.-- GreenC 19:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to NPOV I would support the "Russo-Chechen" naming convention. Many experts on this topic like John Dunlop use this in connection with the Chechen wars. I've frankly never heard it being named "Chechnya war". Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you for bringing this up because I didn't realise that saying "chechen war" is pov/biased until your comment. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. First/Second Chechen War and Chechen Wars are widely used terms in literature. The proposed title also falsely implies that this is the first war between Chechnya and Russia. Mellk (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mellk, you believe WP:COMMONNAME is more important than WP:NPOVTITLE, in this case, if so, home come? -- GreenC 02:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is "First Chechen War" a POV title? The term "Russo-Chechen War" is used far less frequently. Similarly "Iraq War" could be considered to be "US-centric" but this is used far more often than alternatives. Mellk (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already been explained in this page by multiple parties. "Iraq War" is the neutral location of the war, we don't called "Iraqi War" or "Vietnamese War", which only can make sense if you are not Iraqi or Vietnamese. This naming is insulting to the people who fought in those wars, it's a classic case of the victor writing the history, rather than a neutral description. And to make it even more neutral, just name both sides who fought in the war. -- GreenC 15:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I can also say that "Iraq War" is "insulting" because it does not mention who began this war. Next someone will say that the term "Chechnya" is "insulting" and we should instead use "Ichkeria". The difference in usage was already mentioned. Stop bludgeoning, this is the third time you replied to someone with the same argument. Mellk (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a slippery slope fallacy. It's standard to name something after the place it happened, or was found. Vietnam War, Kennewick Man, etc.. It's not typical to name wars after people, particularly something as sensitive as wars with winners and losers. There are some exceptions like Indian Wars, but the talk page there shows a number of editors unhappy with that name also.
    Bludgeoning. That's bad faith. Obviously COMMONNAME is not wrong - if that was all you considered no RM was needed. But we also have a policy WP:NPOVTITLE. I want to understand what voters think about NPOVTITLE. It helps clarify the core question in this RM. -- GreenC 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. Wendylove (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wendylove, you believe WP:COMMONNAME is more important than WP:NPOVTITLE, in this case, if so, home come? -- GreenC 15:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The appeals to WP:NPOV above are I think misguided. The article title is just a handle and follows the common name. See Wikipedia:NPOVTITLE and note, it's a difficult call in many cases including this one. But redirects from these other names should be created. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

results field

[edit]

The |results= field has become untenable in this article due to continuous IP and red account edits. According to the infobox documentation, if there is no very clear victor it should not be used at all. I have removed it entirely from the infobox and will delete restorations, unless or until there is consensus for its restoration. -- GreenC 00:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it was "Chechen victory" for years and none of those IPs and red editors produced good arguments as to why it should be changed.
This is not one of those conflicts with unclear results. Alaexis¿question? 07:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article body and sources are unclear about an unambiguous victory on either side. For example "Yeltsin declares Russian victory over Chechnya" - I realize this might be internal propaganda but still the fact he could even make the statement does not suggest clear unambiguous victory. And it's original research for us to conclude one way or another. The infobox can have a tendency towards outsized influence in culture, such as through AI training, and drive by readers checking basic facts. Everyone knows this, and it takes 5 seconds to flip the switch to weight in one's favor. Thus the continuously disruptive fiddling, hedging, refactoring, etc.. It's a sure sign of a problem when this is occurring. The best way to deal with it is to force editors to engage in editing the article with sources. The infobox should reflect what the article (and by extension the sources) conclude. -- GreenC 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we need to add the result to the article body first. I'll check the sources. Alaexis¿question? 21:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what if instead of "x victory" we put "see aftermath" just like in the Iraq war wiki? 5.13.22.146 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox instructions say to exclude it entirely, unless there is a clear victor, and even then it should only say a single word. This rule came about after years of hard won experience how contested this field becomes. -- GreenC 22:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis@GreenC Would the analysis of Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin (Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.) be enough? Here it's an informative article and analysis by him where he quite clearly admits Russia was defeated. There are also articles by Russian journalists such as this where a Russian defeat is admitted. We could also use Western sources such as "FMSO (Foreign Military Studies Office)" which did an analysis on the First war and quite clearly demonstrated that Russia was defeated I have yet to see someone reputable claim a Russian victory in this war or claim it to be some ambiguous ending. The article of Yeltsin claiming a Russian victory is from May 28th 1996 i.e 3 months before Operation Jihad (4th Battle of Grozny) which led to the Khasav-Yurt accords. Goddard2000 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one can find the Russian defeat sentiment. One can also find other sentiments:
  • New York Times: "Like the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the first Chechen war ended in a stalemate. " [4] by Andrew Higgins, 2019.
  • Tufts University: "The war reached a stalemate, with neither side fully capable of defeating the other." [5]
  • BBC: "But is it fair to say that the stalemate ending in the devastation of the first Chechen war" [6]
  • Foreign Policy Research Institute: "After a stalemate and peace agreement" [7]
Many more "stalemate" sources available. Not to say who is right, only there is no clear consensus. Per the Infobox rules, without a clear consensus, there should be no result in the infobox. -- GreenC 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does a stalemate occurring in a war mean the war had no victors or losers? Quick check on some of your sources show that a stalemate in a war could mean defeat for one side as we see in the "Tufts University" article you linked, Quote: "the humiliating defeat of Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya". While the article does claim "the war reached a stalemate and neither side was fully capable of defeating the other" it still regards the war as a defeat for Russia (which would mean a Chechen victory).
The same goes for the New York Times article, it does indeed claim the first war ended in a stalemate but then again it mentions in the article that Quote: That made the ascent of a strongman like Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. agent who vowed to restore order and avenge Russia’s defeat in Chechnya, and again it refers to a Russian defeat Quote: In August 1996, Gen. Aleksandr Lebed, Mr. Yeltsin’s national security adviser, reached an agreement with the Chechens to stop the fighting. Mr. Yeltsin, increasingly infirm, erratic and under siege politically, initially balked at the deal, which effectively acknowledged Russia’s defeat, but ultimately endorsed it..
So as you can see a stalemate doesn't necessarily mean there were no victors, stalemate on the battlefield can lead to negotiations that favor one party over the other which thus can be interpreted as a victory. Did the first Chechen war result in a stalemate on the battlefield? sure one can argue that Chechens besieging Grozny in August 1996 led to a somewhat stalemate since Grozny wasn't fully taken by either side but can one really claim the war wasn't a Chechen victory when the peace treaty led to Russia removing every soldier from Chechnya? I recommend reading the sources i posted if you haven't already, in my opinion their arguments are solid and as i demonstrated above a stalemate does not necessarily mean no victors. Goddard2000 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Tufts document appears to be contradictory:
  1. the humiliating defeat of Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya
  2. The war reached a stalemate, with neither side fully capable of defeating the other
When you read the document, the context of #1 is that Russians themselves considered it a "humiliating defeat", internally. While externally, the Tufts University paper says it was a military stalemate. It is a matter of historical perspective.
The same is true for the NYT piece, he is framing it from Russia's perspective at the time.
You may say, if one side admits defeat, is that not good enough? Maybe. But it ignores later opinions that say it was a stalemate, who are not Russians or have any stake in it. Obviously, some Russians who considered it humiliating in the aftermath were attempting embarrass Russia into finishing the business. Poking the bear.
All this should be explained in the body of the article. We can and should document multiple POVs. -- GreenC 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's contradictory at all, the war did reach a stalemate with neither side fully capable of defeating the other but the negotiations did lead to a Russian withdrawal which is why Tufts admits it was a Russian defeat. I also don't think the result of this war is as contentious as you claim. Most see it as a Chechen victory, 2 of your articles accept this version, Philip Wasielewski doesn't emphasize much on the war and Meghna Chakrabarti from what i can tell only mentions Chechnya in 1 article. Are these sources really comparable to the ones i posted that did an in depth analysis?
I can bring more and compare them, for example Maria Esmont who was a reporter that was on the frontlines during the actual war and witnessed the end of the war reports it as a Chechen Victory: Source
Articles from major Russian propaganda channels even today admit Russia lost the war: Source
Several Russian political scientists like Aleksey Malashenko admit it: Source
Is Meghna Chakrabarti's (1 interview about Chechnya) opinion of a stalemate (again stalemate does not necessarily mean no Victors) comparable to Maria Esmont's reports from Chechnya?
Is Philip Wasielewski's (hasn't written even 1 in depth paper on the Chechen wars) mentions of Chechen stalemate comparable to the analysis of Khramchikin and the western FMSO study on the Chechen wars? I haven't even brought up any Chechen sources that all unanimously agree on a Chechen victory. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are describing a military stalemate resulting in a political defeat. The Template:Infobox military conflict docs advises against non-standard slicing and dicing like this. It says when there is ambiguity, link to the Aftermath section to describe what happened. The outcome can not be effectively understood with the single phrase "Chechnya victory". -- GreenC 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the arguments by Goddard2000 more convincing. Yes, there are sources that consider it a stalemate, but it seems that numerically there are many more sources considering it a defeat for Russia. I also think it makes sense: a military stalemate meant that Russia could not bring Chechnya back under control, which was its main goal.
Most of the sources discussed here are newspaper articles (even if written by experts) and think tank pieces. I'd suggest checking scholarly sources, maybe it will be easier to determine the scholarly consensus there. Alaexis¿question? 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Template:Infobox military conflict: the |results= "should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the immediate result". Since you agree with Goddard2000 it was both a stalemate militarily and a political defeat for Russia, a result of "Chechnya victory" would hide the ambiguity of a military stalemate. The recommend course in cases like this to link to the Aftermath section that fully describes the results. -- GreenC 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really an ambiguity, you are solely relying on 2 articles (none of which includes an authoritative source on the Chechen-Russian wars) that just said it's a stalemate (it does not mean there was no victor as i demonstrated with the other 2 sources). If you want to put an emphasis on the version of a stalemate it is still possible to add an aftermath section where it is mentioned (however it should be mentioned by authoritative sources if there even are any). The "Chechen victory" or "Chechen republic of Ichkeria Victory" should remain in my opinion, i have brought enough sources (experts from both Russian and Western side, journalists that were in place during the war and peace negotiations and Russian propaganda channels) from authoritative sources. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is ambiguity. The war was fought to a military standstill, stalemate, whatever you want to call it. Many sources say this, in so many words. You said so yourself. Then there was a treaty, and they withdrew from the country they invaded, under terms, not as an unconditional surrender. This series of complex and nuanced events can not be unambiguously described by a result field that only says "Chechen victory". Have you read the Infobox documentation? Do you understand why we have these rules? -- GreenC 00:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said one could see the battlefield as a stalemate, not that it was one, the war itself ended diplomatically as a victory (the battle of Grozny where Chechens basically surrounded Russians in Grozny led to diplomacy). The series of complex and nuanced events have been described as a Chechen victory by several authoritative sources on the matter (which i provided), so did 2 of your own sources. You have yet to provide a single authoritative source on the Chechen wars that argued the war wasn't a victory for one side. Does a sentence where "stalemate" is mentioned in an interview by Meghna Chakrabarti really warrant a removal of "Chechen victory" from the infobox when we have other more authoritative sources that speak of a Chechen victory?
I believe Khramchikhin and the FMSO study are enough to put back "Chechen victory" in the infobox, one is a Russian political scientist, the second is a research and analysis center for the United States Army. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are at a dead-lock should we maybe put it up for a vote? Goddard2000 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An WP:RfC is definitely an option. I still urge you to do a review of scholarly sources that focus on this conflict. This would be the best possible argument. Alaexis¿question? 11:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's really clear multiple reliable sources see stalemate. Goddard frames it as a "military stalemate and political victory" situation, and in a perfect world we might say |result=military stalemate and political Chechen victory, but the infobox rules say do not do that, instead leave the result field blank and explain the ambiguities in the article. More sources:
  • Bellamy, Alex J.; McLoughlin, Stephen (2018). Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention. Springer Nature. p. 25. Before reaching a negotiated settlement, the parties reached a 'mutually hurting stalemate'.. The First Chechan War ended in a stalemate, when the Russian regime failed to impose its will on Chechnya.. The indecisive nature of the ending helped precipitate a second round of violence which did result in a decisive victory for Russia
Note: indecisive nature of the ending followed by a decisive victory for Russia in the second war.
Note: the peace accord acknowledged the stalemate between the two sides.
  • Cimbala, Stephen J. (2007). Russia and Postmodern Deterrence. Potomac Books. The first Russo–Chechen war fought by post–Cold War Russia ended in political stalemate in 1996 after two years of fighting.
Note: ended in political stalemate
That's three books, I can many more. Again, this concerns the rules for the Infobox. Bigger picture, it looks like the stalemate POV has been almost entirely excluded from this article, probably intentionally over the years, with the results field in the infobox the point of the spear. This is why when there is ambiguity among sources we don't use the results field. -- GreenC 18:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These books certainly seem more authoritative on the matter than the other two (Wasielewski & Chakrabarti), i can't access them all but i think it's a good start. I would like to point out though that even some of these sources acknowledge a Russian defeat such as Cimbala on the "Conclusions: Lessons on the War" ( i don't know the page, i can only use the previews), Quote: "Shortage of realistic political strategy contributed significantly to the Russian Defeat".
I can't tell how much in depth the George and Bellamy sources go into the Chechen wars but either way they seem to support your claim of a no victor. As I said before we could add a "stalemate" in an aftermath section but i disagree with removing "Chechen Victory". We should in my opinion do a WP:RfC like Alaexis suggested. What do you think? Goddard2000 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what {{Infobox military conflict}} says about the |result= field:
result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Summary by GreenC:
  1. The result field is optional not required
  2. The result field if kept either needs to say "Chechen victory", "Inconclusive" or link to the #Aftermath section.
  3. The result field should not conceal ambiguities
  4. Omit the result field vs. speculating
I don't think we can say "Inconclusive" because there are sources that say Russian defeat, and likewise saying "Chechen victory" makes the result of the war look unambiguous despite all these sources saying stalemate. Both "Chechen victory" and "Inconclusive" violate #3, ambiguities ie. the "indecisive nature of the ending" per the cited sourced Springer Nature. That leaves linking to the #Aftermath section which is a good idea anyway to explain what happened in prose with multiple POVs and sources, versus a single word that hides complexity. -- GreenC 01:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the core issue here is that you assume the ending of the conflict is truly ambiguous among scholars while i believe it's not. We have both provided sources that support our claims, however 3 of your sources (Tufts & Higgins & Cimbala) claim a defeat for Russia while still mentioning a stalemate and all of my sources mention an outright Russian defeat. We have already seen that a "stalemate" (even at the end of the war) can lead to a Victory for one side (Tufts & Higgins & Cimbala) so i don't think a mention of a "stalemate" should be grounds to claim ambiguity in the war.
Even if we assume that the sources like Bellamy (et al.) & George claim of a stalemate means no victor then should we not compare them to other scholarly sources? does a few sources claiming no victor really mean the conflict end result is ambiguous according to scholarly consensus? if more reputable sources claim Chechen Victory? Perhaps some undue weight is given to certain sources?
I think we should request a comment (WP:RfC) and see what others think because you removed "Chechen Victory" from the infobox and claimed this conflict was ambiguous while using sources like Yeltsin declaring a victory to support this claim when this Yeltsin declaration happened 3 months prior to the end of the war and start of the deciding battle (4th Battle of Grozny). As i already mentioned three of your linked articles that you used to support a claim of ambiguity claimed Russia was defeated. That is why i think we should involve others, some might know much more about this conflict than us. Goddard2000 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This war concluded not by military means but by negotiated settlement. Nowhere in the negotiations or accord did Russia admit defeat. The "immediate result" of the accord was neither side won or lost. After the accord, it became a psychological and PR blow to Russia, who was an imperialist power against a small country, and perceived as a loss by some observers inside and outside Russia. There is a concept in academia called the "Mutually Hurting Stalemate", first proposed by William Zartman in the late 1980s, and applied to many small wars around the world post-WWII, which ended without unconditional surrender. A google search finds many sources about it but here and here are examples. Many sources refer to the First Chechen War as an example of a Mutually Hurting Stalemate. Situations like this are why the Infobox emphasizes to use the immediate result of the war. I'm not suggesting it say "Indeterminate" (although a good case can be made) but there is enough ambiguity how to describe it. Either way, the article should discuss Mutually Hurting Stalemate. -- GreenC 02:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Goddard2000 that an RfC is needed at this stage. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I'm pretty sure the RfC will end with the decision to only have a link to the relevant section of the article in the infobox but you never know. Alaexis¿question? 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is impossible

[edit]

Hardly a day goes by without an IP or red editor making biased and/or unsourced edits. I don't like Russia, at all, but the pro-Chechan anti-Russian biased editing in this article is extreme. It's so bad I wonder if it's a Russian false flag operation to discredit the article entirely ie. a "if you can't beat them, join them", strategy. -- GreenC 17:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw the slow-moving edit war about the result in the infobox. I don't think that's particularly important to be honest. Were you referring to that or to something else as "anti-Russian editing"? Alaexis¿question? 20:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May 27
May 23:
May 22:
May 19:
May 15:
Some of those are the infobox results. Still, it shows multiple users and types of users are continually engaged in biased editing. It does not look like the same person but casual driveby editing. The infobox result is actually very important because it gets picked up by Google, AI etc.. as an easily digestible binary answer to "who won the war" which then has a large impact outside Wikipedia in shaping perceptions. -- GreenC 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps the right course of action is to request page protection. Alaexis¿question? 09:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PP requested. -- GreenC 14:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PP indef was implemented. They have switched to using real account names. If they continue to edit war without discussion, I will request the accounts are blocked. This page is under sanctions. -- GreenC 17:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

[edit]

The Result/Outcome of this War was a CLEAR Chechen Military victory - Russian Strategic Failure. The Russians WITHDREW without accomplishing any of its OBJECTIVES. It ceded same terrority back to Chechnya without occupying it. 2A00:23C8:180E:EE00:6196:2DAA:E8F7:2422 (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for edit request. See discussions above, specifically the rules of the |result= field in the infobox. -- GreenC 22:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree, there needs to be an objective edit. 2601:248:5181:5C70:F407:1C36:A131:1B6D (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its usage is optional (not "needed"), according to the infobox rules. You should read the rules. -- GreenC 06:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grodnensky's book

[edit]

@Iask1, @Dushnilkin, please stop edit warring and explain why you want to remove/keep it here at the talk. Alaexis¿question? 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked another user to create a discussion page, well, since you intervened, then fine. The source should be left, at least because it fits the standards WP:RS, there is no reason to delete it. The comment about the fact that he is a participant in the war and a Russian officer is unverifiable, at least I only found information that he has a doctorate in political science.
The aforementioned user commits several violations on this article at once.
1:The infobox article added a result (by the way, fictional, but more on that later) that does not match the parameters Template:Infobox military conflict The result window can only contain X victory or Indecisive.
2: Several violations of WP:LIE
  • a) Firstly, the result window, not a single source in the article confirms this, but on the contrary, refutes it!
  • b)Information has been added to the forces of the parties window, which is not in the source, here is a direct quote: The garrison of Bamut under the command of Ruslan Khaykhoroev was 800 people.¹ To capture Bamut, 2,610 people, 45 tanks, 115 infantry fighting vehicles, 17 armored personnel carriers, 12 BRDM, 75 guns and mortars, 9 anti-aircraft guns (166th and 136th omsbr, msb 324th MSP, 94th obron BB) were concentrated.
P.S. Also in the article about Bamut, Grodnensky book is the main source even before my edits, it's just crookedly framed and I did it more clearly to check the information, the user apparently didn't even bother to check it and just deleted my edits.
Thanks for creating the discussion.
1: In a later work from 2007, he indicated the figure of 1,000, so I indicated it in the infobox Dushnilkin (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re 2a), the |result= field has been discussed in sections above. There is no consensus to include an infobox result field at all, per the infobox rules linked to by Dushnilkin. -- GreenC 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cited this rule as a criticism activities of the user on the Battle of Bamut page, not here. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, it's been the same problem here. -- GreenC 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a book that is clearly not neutral. The author mostly describes Chechens as bandits and terrorists. Literally, the first sentence in the book is:
"There are bandit governments, can there be a bandit nation?"
And the first chapter starts:
"An evil Chechen crawls to the shore".
It spews racist, and extremist views, one of such views is about the horrific and verified historical fact about the Chechen genocide. He denies it by writing:
"In addition, another trump card for the warmongers has become the selective memory of the alleged "heroic struggle" waged by the Chechens "for freedom" during the Caucasian War, as well as the extremely mythologized memory of Stalin's deportation and "genocide" unleashed against the Chechens."
He also denies genocides committed against Chechens, such as the Samashki massacre, Novi aldi massacre, and others.
This is far from a neutral source that should be used in Wikipedia. Iask1 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: This refers to the banditry that spread in Chechnya during the first war. In principle, he described this in detail, indicating that he meant the comprehensive support of the Ichkeria fighters. He claims that with the complete elimination of the militants themselves, life in Chechnya will return to normal and only a memory will remain of banditry, he never claimed that all the people are bandits: Unfortunately, one cannot disagree with Boris Kagarlitsky's statement that the mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare that takes place in Chechnya will "last exactly as long as certain social and cultural norms are reproduced in society, which made it inevitable."
2: Not a literal quote from the author, it's even highlighted in parentheses
3: He did not deny the deportation anywhere, an entire chapter is devoted to this, where he tries to find the objective reason for this action.
Criticism looks more like pulling information out of context and violating WP:NPOV in some aspects, for example, the rejection of a different point of view on the historical process. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "banditry" that spread in Chechnya according to this guy is the separatist, which makes it a non-neutral source. He also describes people who support the Chechens as "warmongerers" and "bandit supporters", how is this a source that can be used in Wikipedia? Also, he believes that banditry is Chechen culture, quote from the book: "The main means of their existence, at the expense of which the Chechen clans-teips lived, was ordinary robbery - banditry. (Even in the not so distant Soviet times, Chechens preferred to work in the sphere of trade and services or were engaged in semi-mafia industries.)"
  2. The quote is from a Chechenphobic poem by Mikhail Lermontov, if he is quoting it or saying it himself doesn't matter, that is what he uses to describe the Chechens.
  3. He denies it in the first chapter, have you read the book? He called the genocide, quote: "an extremely mythologized memory of Stalin's deportation and "genocide" unleashed against the Chechens" In the very first paragraph of his book, it is clear what he believes if you read his book. Not to mention him also denying other massacres in the first war.
Iask1 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: The certain consensus that the source comes to does not make it "not neutral" in your opinion, then Martin Gilbert, who calls the Germans criminals in World War I/II, is not neutral, this is not how it works. The coverage of certain facts builds a certain position in the reader, why the author himself cannot adhere to it?
2: Well, you answered your own question, the chapter is devoted to the history of the Caucasian war, this passage was added to show the attitude of Russian society to the events in the Caucasus at that time.There is no conclusion anywhere that he personally speaks like that about Chechens, it is WP:OR.
3: Again, it is not the process that is being refuted, but the claim that Stalin arranged the deportation for nothing (We will not transfer the topic of the dispute to this, I just explained the position of the author, I myself think that it is not very correct). If the author says extraordinary information for you, it does not mean that he is not neutral, for example, a source that denies the massacre in sribny [uk] is currently accepted in world historiography as the most reliable, and then there is a denial of the intentions of genocide, as in the cases of samashki, rather than the fact of the massacre itself.
  • a) I remind you that the bias of the source in certain matters cannot be the reason for removing it from the text of the article, please read wikipedia:BIASEDSOURCES.
Dushnilkin (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The comparison of this author to Martin Gilbert is misplaced. Although opinions may be raised, Gilbert is a master at source notation and presents his argument using accepted historical methods. This author, however, seems to allow a personal bias against Chechens and to pick and choose events that prove his point.
2. Your claim that quoting Lermontov's poem is mere representation of historical Russian views does not convince. The author himself integrates this rhetoric into his narrative and supports these arguments of his with claims on Chechen society. This is more than contextualization-it means lending support to such ideas for the promotion of a biased view. This fits into WP
where sources touting discriminatory or fringe perspectives cannot be considered reliable for establishing historical fact.
3. The author described the very punitive action by Stalin against the Chechens as an "extremely mythologized memory." This trivializes a grave historical atrocity which has been widely recognized by reputable historians and international institutions. While there may be many interpretations about events in scholarship, blatant denial or trivialization of atrocities when no substantial evidence exists as to its occurrence is a trademark of unreliability. This approach jettisons documented facts for an agenda; and further, it destroys neutrality on the source.
Analogy to Sribny sources that denied the very fact of genocide is misleading. Serious historiography, as a rule, makes a distinction between intentions and events-something which the author cannot substantiate with equal care but resorts to dismissive rhetoric, which, of course, cannot be put on the same page as responsible historical debate.
While WP allows non-neutral sources to be used, their usage must be contextualised and attributed and also counterbalanced with neutral or opposing sources. The level of bias herein stands out in such a way that, if included in an article, they will mislead readers unless significantly hedged. Permitting such sources to dominate an article or substantially inform an article would indeed run against Wikipedia's objective showcasing verifiable and balanced information.
Only the most blind bias and discriminatory rhetoric lead the author to make himself unreliable. Their work, properly attributed can be cited to demonstrate a point of view, but it cannot be used uncritically to provide a voice of neutrality or authority. To do so misrepresents the very principles of neutrality and verifiability Wikipedia uses. Iask1 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: Let's break down the answer into points.
  • a) Well, if we talk about Martin Gilbert, he uses mainly literature as a source, not archival documents, and shows an obvious bias towards the Germans during the First World War, especially in the chapters on the great retreat and the Battle of the Marna.
  • b) Besides, Grodnensky also has reasons, according to your own logic, I don't think that such literature, which tries to reflect people's views, can achieve specific neutrality, so you are violating WP:NPOV right now, accepting the non-neutrality of one author, criticizing another for it. This rule was created primarily for wikipidists, not for sources.
2: Again, the chapter is devoted to historical information, the author did not add anything from himself, in confirmation of my words I will say that there are numerous references to letters from the governors of the Caucasus. In your words, there is no appeal with facts confirming the author's Chechenophobia, the topic and purpose of the book touches on very thorny issues - interethnic relations, it is incredibly difficult to avoid some biased moments at this time, I refer to Wikipedia:BIASED again. In addition, most likely in the paragraph below, you meant the battle of Bamut, I must say right away - at the moment this is one of the few literary sources covering the moments of the battle, so we have to quote it. Well, even so, I still did not see the quote directly from the author, which confirmed his marginality, etc., again, you conclude neither on the basis of a direct quote, but on WP:OR.
3: Again, you are referring to a personal opinion, if the author has tried to introduce something new into historiography, it does not mean that he is neutral, you deny the source because he comes to a consensus that you do not support. Historical science would not have developed to our modern level if the description of events in all sources was so one-sided and the authors did not try to engage in revisionism. Grodnensky in this case comes to interesting conclusions which can be considered for inclusion in the article, or discuss it on the discussion page, in any case, at least this chapter corresponds to all parameters WP:RS, with the exception of harsh statements (towards collaborators who supported Nazi Germany) The author uses a wide archival list of sources.
I don't think we can come to any conclusion ourselves, this is the third sentence, but we just deny each other's words, so I'll just ask WP:RFC and tag this users:@Alaexis, @GreenC. Dushnilkin (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the structural problem is the source/data is in the infobox. The binary "yes/no" is an inherent structural flaw of computers, it flattens nuance and context, which causes many problems in society. Perhaps a compromise to include the source and data, but not in the infobox, rather in the body of the article where appropriate context can be included. It's the same problem with the results field. -- GreenC 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I generally think that the differentiation of the forces of the parties by dates is incorrect and it is necessary to include the final data in the infobox. But as I understood (correct if not) do you mind Grodnensky book in the article? Dushnilkin (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. a) The comparison to Martin Gilbert is a misleader. Gilbert's historical writing, while sometimes criticized for interpretive bias, is written according to established methodologies of history: primary and secondary sources, within norms of scholarship. Grodnensky's writings alternate between references to the archives with overtly ethnophobic, and Chechenophobic statements. Quoting obscene rhetoric, or more tacitly, reflecting societal attitudes so speaks outside the bounds of responsible historiography. Above all, neutrality in history requires academic integrity, which includes the judicious contextualization of such quotes—not their adoption as fact.
b) While it is true, of course, that no source is perfectly neutral, in Grodnensky's case, this bias is so thick as to make him unreliable. Reflecting a view in the society does not have to be unneutral in itself, but the transmitting of this view without adequate criticism, as Grodnensky has done, already borders on advocacy of that view. Neutrality here should be weighed not only according to Wikipedia's source policy but also according to the principles of objective historiography that the source keeps.
2. While Grodnensky refers to archival materials, the problem lies not with the sources in and of themselves but with his interpretation of them. The citation of Lermontov's poem, which conceptualizes Chechens as congenitally bandit-like, is more than an archival reference-it is an active deployment of a pejorative stereotype to frame the author's argument. This goes beyond mere reflection of historical attitudes to perpetuation of those biases, supporting my claim of Chechenophobia. Furthermore, Grodnensky's wider narrative, and including downplaying the deportation of Chechens as "mythologized," shows a propensity of diminishing atrocities and portraying a one-sided view. Regarding the battle of Bamut, though Grodnensky may offer peculiar facts, it is imperative that such a source should be contrasted with even more balanced and reliable accounts so as not to give an uncritical narrative influenced by Grodnensky's perspective. Stuffing a piece with the heaviest of biased material sans attribution and alternative perspectives is a clear violation of WP rules and might mislead readers. The claim of Battle of Bamut lacking litterature is not right, battle of bamut was among the most well know battles and most well documented due to its significance.
3. Of course, revisionism per se is not a problem, as it should correspond to the standards of scholarly rigor and neutrality that make it credible. That of Grodnensky does not hold up because he makes ethnically tendentious interpretations, whereas the conventional scholarly consensus on such facts as the deportation of Chechens is discarded.
In any case, WP rules do not automatically guarantee the source using archival references. The author's analysis, tone, and methodology come into reliability, too. Grodnensky's selective framing and derogatory language regarding Chechens-even about the collaborators-suggest that his work cannot be treated as some sort of neutral historical analysis. Such bias requires careful contextualization and cannot be presented as authoritative in a Wikipedia article without violating WP.
It is very important to establish, before the escalation to RFC, why the inclusion of Grodnensky needs qualification or rejection on substantial issues. The patterns of bias underlined by me, from perpetuating stereotypes to playing down atrocities, undermine Grodnensky's reliability as a neutral source. Even if some archival sources would support the claims, overt ethnocentrism of the author would demand deliberation. While the RFC may ultimately decide, Dushnilkin's argument downplays clear evidence of bias which is against the principles of WP. Any use of Grodnensky should be very carefully attributed and balanced out with countervailing perspectives to prevent dissemination of undue bias. Iask1 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: I remind you, Martin Gilbert quoted quotes where Germans are literally called pigs (without exaggeration), but his works are accepted anyway, because the quote does not reflect the author's position on this.
2: a) In general, the first part of your answer repeats the provisions above, I will only say that you also adhere to your position one-sidedly, Grodnensky outlined several points of view in this chapter and finally came to a personal consensus, in this case, of course, the citation does not correspond to the standard of academic works, but it cannot be called marginal either - it was carried out work with consideration of alternative points of view.
b) The administration has already added an increased level of protection to the article, as it considered your actions vandalism, firstly this is a violation WP:LIE in the the table of the result and the forces of the parties (There are sources in the article mentioning the capture of the village, but there is no question of 8,000 Russians in the source) Secondly, the violation WP:RS because you save links to YouTube.
If there is a lot of literature, fine! But at least specify it in the article.
3: Grodnensky work is obviously not a standard of neutrality, however, the form of the narrative does not allow us to conclude that the source needs to be removed, I have given you a rule several times, (Wikipedia:BIASED) but you continue to write the same thing, in any case, we do not have a source that would take into account the strength of the rebels in 1995/1996, so I indicated this work.
Again, I have asked you several times to give direct quotes, specify them (with a mention of the chapter, of course) and our discussion will be built around this. For now, you're just repeating previously written texts, forcing me to repeat requests. Your behavior may be considered trolling in the discussion. At the next such response, I will simply request WP:RFK an unanswered response and wait for the results that the administration will bring. Dushnilkin (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Such a comparison falls short for at least the following reasons: Gilbert explicitly embeds such quotes within more extensive scholarly narratives and does not embrace them as his conclusions. Meanwhile, Grodnensky's repetitive deployment of stereotype upon stereotype regarding Chechens-as for example, the contention that banditry represents the height of Chechen culture-perpetuates no parallel academic distance or criticism. The key issue is not the mere quoting of disparaging remarks, but how those remarks are used. Grodnensky integrates these stereotypes into his framing and conclusions in such a way that an impression is given that these disparaging notions are part of his historical analysis. The pattern here, as mentioned above, goes against his reliability as an objective source.
2. A) While Grodnensky may claim to explore various points of view, the continued use of pejorative terms and belittling rhetoric, such as described in the case of downplaying the Chechen deportation, makes him unable to draw any neutral conclusion. This is not a question of following "one-sidedly" anyone's position but rather acknowledging that Grodnensky fails the standards of neutrality outlined in WP. The quotation of archival documents does not save a source from criticism if its conclusions are based on biased or ethnically charged narratives. The closeness of Grodnensky's conclusions to such biases draws the conclusion of flawed methodology and reduced reliability of him as a source.
2. B) Both accusations are misleading and groundless; the changes to the result section of the infobox were made after modifying yours, and your change is supported by reliable sources and common knowledge in the war. Any discrepancies in your sources should have been discussed, not accused of vandalism. Your earlier edits to the Chechen number of fighters also cited sources more reliable than those introduced by you. Also it was not me who edited the Russin number of fighters, or the results section before, i only reverted it to what it was before you made changes.
2. C) While WP discourages citing YouTube for factual claims, this depends on the content and uploader. Material hosted on YouTube from reputable publishers or archival institutions can be reliable, provided they meet Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, which is inline with the youtube source in battle of bamut. You should evaluate each source on its own merit, rather than automatically discounting them because of hosting. In any case, adding stronger more widely accepted references would eliminate the problem.
3. Biased Sources: Although WP allows the use of non-neutral sources, it also calls for careful attribution and balancing with other views. Grodnensky's ethnocentric framing is on the side of typical bias and far into problematic grounds in that fringe perspectives become presented as the mainstream historical analysis. Even if his work is retained for certain data points, this has to be heavily qualified in the article.
Specific Quotes: I have, on several occasions pinpointed the place of the quote in question: the first paragraph of the book. You continue to disregard my clarification and shift responsibility, reproaching me for repetition. This denial of the reference makes your claims of good faith participation in the discussion pretentious. The first paragraph explicitly frames Chechens in a derogatory way, using stereotypes fully concordant with greater Chechenophobic narratives. This itself is enough to call Grodnensky's neutrality into question and to necessitate significant attribution and counterbalance when citing his work. Trolling Allegations:
Accusations of trolling or bad faith on my part constitute a violation of the policy of assuming good faith in Wikipedia discussions. Repeated requests for information that has already been given constitute a form of derailing rather than a contribution to addressing the substantive issue of Grodnensky's reliability. Iask1 (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, it's like you're intentionally copying your messages, replacing a few words there, so I'll only answer about YouTube. Adding such sources requires creating a talk page and discussions about it there, but it definitely cannot replace a literary source.
I asked you to quote Grodnensky, which confirms his direct agreement with these non-derogatory passages from Lermontov's verse, I wrote about this several times, but you continue to write the same thing.

Arbitrary break

[edit]

In general, I am requesting WP:RFC Dushnilkin (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep accusing me of repeating myself, but I’ve clearly stated multiple times that the quote I’m referring to is in the first paragraph of Grodnensky’s book. It explicitly describes Chechens as living through "ordinary robbery—banditry." This reflects the same derogatory sentiment from Lermontov’s verse. Whether or not Grodnensky explicitly says, "I agree with this," is irrelevant—he uses the stereotype to frame Chechen culture, which is clearly biased. Ignoring this context to claim neutrality is misleading.
As for YouTube, let’s clarify what Wikipedia actually says under WP:VIDEOLINK:
"There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted... The originator of the content, not the platform that hosts it, should also be ascertained before using the content as a source."
This clearly means that reliable sources hosted on YouTube (e.g., official channels) can be cited. Your claim that adding YouTube links requires a talk page discussion is a blatant lie. Furthermore, it wasn’t even me who edited the video link, so accusing me of doing so is both misleading and irrelevant.
Lastly, I’ve told you multiple times where the Grodnensky quote is located—it’s in the first paragraph of the book. Instead of acknowledging that, you keep accusing me of repeating myself without actually engaging with my points. Your refusal to address these issues is what's dragging out this discussion. Iask1 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have already answered the quote that you gave initially, the author explained his position in the afterword, (if you mean the quote: there is a bandit state -maybe a bandit people?) I have already given the quote. I repeat briefly, there is a description of Chechen society during the war, and the accusation is put forward towards the top leadership of the country, not the people, so the above quote cannot be used as an argument (it can be compared with Nazi propaganda during World War II, although the comparison is certainly not accurate - my suggestion, not Grodnensky's).
And now let's go to YouTube. First, refer to the rule correctly, it is WP:YOUTUBE-EL, Secondly, only a popular video show or an official channel can be considered as a reliable source, here is a quote: If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), In our case, this is a 364-person (!) channel that does not conduct any research, it is not even dedicated to the battle of Bamut, but refers to the battles for Grozny in August 1996, indicating such a source is a violation WP:OR, because this is working with the original source - a video from a Russian soldier. Study the rules and what you refer to in the article, incorrect quoting in this case is a violation WP:LIE. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dushnilkin, I don't see Youtube currently used in the article. Am I missing something? Alaexis¿question? 21:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all references to it, but the user I was discussing with regularly listed it as the source. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can't find the number 72 thousand in Grodnensky's book (your link. Can you clarify where is it there? Alaexis¿question? 21:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a quote later. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to experts, after the cessation of hostilities, the Armed Forces had about 60 thousand small arms, more than 2 million pieces of ammunition, several dozen tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and artillery units in their hands. According to the Security Council, on October 1, 1996, the grouping of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in Chechnya amounted to 39,188 people (12,990 - the Ministry of Defense; 24,229 — the Interior Ministry; 1,699 — the police and riot police). But only the regular army of bandits consisted of 47,000 fighters, to which should be added 25,000 fighters of the "local self-defense" units. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that he doesn't quote his sources. Interestingly, elsewhere he says that in January 20061996 there were 4,700 Chechen fighters in total (К январю 1996 г. группировка боевиков (до 4700 человек личного состава, в том числе около 280 наемников...) была сосредоточена в основном в четырех районах Чечни — восточном, южном, западном и центральном:). How do you explain the discrepancy? Alaexis¿question? 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 2006 is the stage of the guerrilla war after the second Chechen war, it does not apply to this topic. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both figures refer to 1996 (the end and beginning respectively). Sorry, I made a typo in the previous post. Alaexis¿question? 16:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then the discrepancy by month - January 1996 is the period of retreats and defeats of the Chechens, including the surrender of Grozny. October 1996 - ± a month after the end of hostilities, respectively, the group did not have time to demobilize and reflects the maximum allowable number of troops of Ichkeria. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno... Do you think you can find more sources which give similar numbers? Alaexis¿question? 21:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think. I understand too little about the historiography of this topic and don't know where to look for something like this. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried searching on Google Books and found a discussion of the number of Chechen fighters in The Post-Soviet Wars by Christoph Zurcher (p. 108). According to him there were 7 thousand fighters in 1995 and the maximum number ever was 9 thousand in 1999. He says he used Russian sources, interviews in Chechnya and Western media reports.
As long as Grodnensky remains the only source to give the number in tens of thousands, and considering that elsewhere he gives a different number which is much closer to other estimates, I think we shouldn't include it in the article. Alaexis¿question? 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Russian sources in 1999 determined the number of Chechen troops in c. 20,000.
If you are interested, you can search a little about the figures in 1996, and the inclusion of Grodnensky book in the article depends on you, I am not going to edit it. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which source says there were 20k Chechen troops? Alaexis¿question? 08:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[8] Dushnilkin (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we have it in the Second Chechen war infobox already. Alaexis¿question? 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Chechen_War&oldid=1263817139"