Talk:Orstkhoy

Rework

This article needs a lot of rework since it's based on a lot of false information from Jaimoukhas book. The Arshtins are Orstkhoy, they are a Chechen sub-ethnos and are considered one of the 9 tukkhums. -- Reiner Gavriel (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Perhaps the article should be renamed as Orstkhoy or Orstkhoï, as it's what they are commonly known as? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Muqale what do you think? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposition to change the article

Muqale WikiEditor1234567123 Assalamu Aleykum, this article is all over the place and looks more like a competition between Chechens and Ingush on who can fit in the most sources that will benefit each nation. It looks like a battleground, i propose we recreate this whole article and keep it totally neutral. In my opinion the first section is more than enough (In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition - one of the seven historical Ingush shahars.), i think we should remove the rest and only include neutral topics such as notable people from Orstkhoy, their history, the territory which they live on etc. What do you think? Goddard2000 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wa aleykum assalam. I think the Ethnicity section should remain. I didn't really have time to add in more information about the Orstkhoy history and general information so for now the page only contains information about the ethnical belonging. When I have time I will try to add more information about the Orstkhoy generally so it wouldn't be just a page about "competition between Chechens and Ingush" as you said. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity is already mentioned above, the current ethnicity section is just every source on planet earth crammed into it with 100 quotes. It looks unprofessional. If you want the ethnicity section then it is better we should delete 90% of that text and write something simple like some authors referred to Orstkhoy as Chechens (citing every source) while some referred to them as Ingush (citing every sources) but most agree that Orstkhoy are today integral parts of both nations since they are considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums and one of the seven historical Ingush shahars. Similar to how me and previous Ingush editors agreed on the Durdzuk ethnicity page (it was similar to this one before), all the current article is doing is inviting edit wars and quote/source battles. Like for example why is Ingush ethnicity section above the Chechen one when Chechens are first in alphabetical order and bigger in numbers? things like that alone will invite conflict, better we make it neutral. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I personally think the ethnicity page should remain as it is for exception the Chechen section should be shortened as it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source. The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order as the first authors who studied Caucasus mentioned Orstkhoy as Ingush. As I have already mentioned, when I have time I will try to add more information about the Orstkhoy generally like the settlement, population and composition of Orstkhoy, so the General information section wouldn't be just about the ethical belonging of Orstkhoy. Muqale what do you think? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I personally would actually completely disagree on the account that the Orstkhoy are equally a part of Chechens and Ingush. And more so, the Orstkhoy (Arshtkhoy) were a part of the Ingush nation as mentioned by the vast majority of ethnographers. And the majority of the settlements of these teips are in Ingushetia, and they also speak the Ingush language, though I do not deny that there are Orstkhoy living in Chechnya. But @Goddard2000 seems to always try to put the Chechens first in every article, I guess now we know the reason. Because "there's more of them" is a valid reason apparantly. Muqale (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale@WikiEditor1234567123 Very well we disagree then, i also completely disagree with Orstkhoy being closer to Ingush than Chechens when their DNA descends from Chechen Y-DNA branches, when basically all of their ancestral settlements are in Chechnya (Tsech-Ähk, Merzha, Galai, Yalkhara etc), and ethnic consensus studies from 1891-1925 showed that most of the Orstkhoy in their native territory identified as Chechens.

I also disagree with wikieditor's claim that most Chechen sources are based on 1 source when there are plenty of sources that connect Chechens to Orstkhoy. I think it is best we contact a third party, someone who is neutral in all of this. I'll tag an admin here in a bit.

@Muqale Alphabetical order is a legitimate reason, i have seen your previous edits specifically intended on changing the order making Ingush appear first many times but i didn't comment on it before. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with DNA genealogy so I can't comment on that. Orstkhoy ancestral villages, in particular Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe, are in Chechnya now because of the 2018 agreement which you know yourself wasn't rightful and it was done very unjustly without asking the opinions of Ingush people (I don't think this topic should be discussed more as it's sensitive for both sides). The censuses that you're referring are primary sources and can't be considered reliable here as there's old terms such as Chechens (Chechens was unifing term for all Vainakh in that period) and there's no taïp composition mentioned either, use secondary sources for these censuses instead. I didn't say the Chechen section is based on 1 source, please read my reply carefully before making such claims. I simply said that Chechen section should be shortened as it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source, the dictionary sources for example should be combined into 1 text instead of being all over the place. If you see the Chechen section then you will understand what I mean. The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you wanna make that argument then historically the settlements you listed were mentioned as Ingush settlements long before they were labelled as Chechen (see Güldenshtad and Klaproth). DNA can be heaviliy disputed because many Tsechoy and Merzhoy have shown to be on the same branches as other Ingush representatives. Also if we would determine a nation by DNA-groups, then Chechens are made up of many different peoples. This is not how nations and cultures form. There is no ethnic studies from 1891-1925 that shows that Orstkhoy actually call themselves Chechen. I know this for a fact. You are referring to classifications made by some authors, not the self-designation. As a matter of fact, at least two 19th century reports exist were Ortskhoy actually call themselves Galgai and Ingush. One in 1862 were a Fargiev familiy in Sagopshi named themselves "Galgaevtsi" (mind the F phoneme in the Fargiev surname as well, which Chechens do not have in their language) and another document were Karabulak elders wrote their names and attributed themselves to the "Ingushevski narod" in 1842. If I cannot link them here, I will upload these documents in WikiCommons, if a dispute is initiated. Aslo, a Chechen illi of 1918 mentions how Aslanbek Sheripov called his friend Sulumbek of Sagopshi an Ingush, which means that Chechens considered Orstkhoy Ingush up until then. Only in 20th century Orstkhoy and other Ingush for the most part started settling in Chechnya (Gozny) after the estblishment of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR. Also the alphabetical order point you made is a silly one. Let's say I prefer a geographical order from west to east or chronological order. To me this is not that important, but I did notice this in several articles, which is why I brought it up. I do not mind involving a third party (non Chechen or Ingush), especially one who knows Russian would be preferable. Muqale (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I will answer both Wikieditor and Muqale here.

1. Ancestral villages, Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe being part of Chechnya has been an argument since way before the 2018 agreement because it belonged to Chechen Autonomous Oblast in the 30's before Chechnya and Ingushetia was united into Checheno-Ingushetia. After 1991 when Chechnya sought independence it claimed de jure right on those territories based on 1930's and it never recognized them as Ingush so claiming that land is not Chechen is incorrect, both republics had claims on it, it wasn't until 2018 when Chechen and Ingush heads of republics agreed to recognize it as Chechen (as Chechens did for decades). So no need to claim that "you know yourself" because Chechens have had claims on that land far before 2018. You can say the 2018 deal was unjust sure but you can't say Chechnya had no claims on it. Besides Muqale's comment about "most villages belonging to Ingush" is incorrect since many of the native Orstkhoi villages lie in Chechnya even if we exclude Tsech-Ahk and Merzha.

2. Wikieditor if you don't want someone to misunderstand your quote then don't claim "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source" since it paints the picture of every text being from a single source which it's not.

3. I don't think you understand how Y-DNA research works, it's not an Alphabet where you give a certain letter to a certain nation. It's the way you trace their ancestral lines and see which clans descend from them or which are their ancestor. There is no doubt that some Orstkhoi J2 samples are closer to Ingush ones but many belong to J2 branches that are more common in Chechnya, half of Orstkhoi are made up of L3 and J1 which descend from Äkkhi/Key Chechens (as is even said in Orstkhoi folktales) (L3) and Tumsoy/Ch'anti (J1), these branches are rare in Ingushetia and when they do pop up they are almost always in Ingush Orstkhoi.

3. Guildenstedt and Klaproth are more reliable than Berger and Dubrovin for example? how come Guildenstedt mentioning a part of those villages as "District Ingush" is more legitimate than Berger referring to them as Nakhchi (Chechen) also great you mentioned one family from Sagopshi (Ingushetia) also Aslanbek Sheripov called his friend Sulumbek of Sagopshi an Ingush (an Orstkho from Ingushetia), so Orstkhoi from Ingushetia were often referred to as Ingush, and? Orstkhoi in Chechnya are referred to as Chechens by both Chechens and Ingush, nor did Orstkhoi settle in Chechnya during the 20th century only because they had and still live in regions of Urus-Martan and Achkhoy-Martan since forever. It's not like i disagreed with the fact that there are Ingush Orstkhoi, you however try to claim them more than me. I can also cherrypick sources, lets take the "Oath of allegiance" by 6 major Ingush clans in 1810, do i need to bring up the document? because there Ingush clans promise to fight the Orstkhoi and Chechens. Do i need to throw in cherrypicked sources of Russian authors and military administrators differentiating between Ingush and Orstkhoi? or calling Orstkhoi Chechens or calling them Nakhchi? Do you see the eventual game that will be played out here if you have an attitude of "Orstkhoi belonging more to Ingush" when this is your claim and Chechens disagree completely. There has been enough edit wars on this article.

4. Both of you cherrypick sources to claim Ingush belong more to Orstkhoy while downplaying the Chechen sources, you ignore 2 censuses that are 3 decades apart from each other, you ignore Y-DNA studies that actually disagree with your statements. Only thing i proposed was to make this article neutral but both of you disagree and accuse me of trying to put Chechens first in every article. It is clear we need a third party, i will contact an admin later. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Goddard2000 would you be kind enough to show where I cherrypicked sources to claim Ingush belong more to Orstkhoy? Where did I accuse you of trying to put Chechens first in every article? I really don't know what you're talking about, please refrain from these accusations which I have no part in and trying to drag me into a conflict. Thank you! Regarding your 2. Point, If I wrote that "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about the same source" then it would paint the picture of every text being from a single source, however I thought I made it clear with stating "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source". I'm not going to address your other points because I wasn't here to debate about who Orstkhoy belong more so I'm not going to be dragged in this argument. I simply told my opinion that the section of ethnicity should remain and information like the Orstkhoy settlement, population and composition should be added to the General information section which the ethnicity section belongs to so that the section wouldn't be just about the ethnical belonging of Orstkhoy. I also said that the Chechen section of Ethnicity section should be shortened. We can make the section shorter by following way:

• Dictionary sources grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
• Military collections (Военные сборники) grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
• Opinions of Historians like Berzhe and Potto grouped into 1 text in chronological order.

If you want, I can remake the Chechen section myself by grouping the sources and making it in chronological order just like the Ingush section, we can discuss the details of the proposal in my talk page if you want.

WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikieditor you should read the start of my answer again as i said right at the start that this reply was to BOTH you and muqale not you alone. Cherrypicking means when you pick sources that agrees with your side while ignoring the other sources. For example Muqale prefers Guildenstedt's source where he refers to Orstkhoy territory as "Ingush district" over Berger who says that they are Chechens. He thinks because Guildenstedt said it first then Ingush should be above Chechens and it shouldn't be in alphabetical order which he thinks is "silly" even though its a very normal proposition. Reason why it's cherrypicked is because he ignores other 18th century sources that do not call these tribes Ingush but divide them, he posts some old man named Fargiev and uses it as a source for Orstkho being Ingush as if this is an argument that Orstkhoi are more Ingush. As if this source trumps other sources like the censuses that say Orstkhoi villages are full of Chechens.

Now i forgot to answer your previous comment about "census shouldn't be reliable because it uses Chechen which was used for all Nakhs", did you even read the sources before you wrote this? check 1926 census for example, Ingush are MENTIONED, they are mentioned in the Sunzhensky Okrug on page 280, they are also mentioned on page 441 in Chechen okrug in one of the villages. However on page 445 ALL Orstkhoy villages such as Tsech-ehk, Yalkharoy, Gerite, Belkharoy, Meredzhi,Muzhichi,Khaikharoi and others are mentioned as inhabitants being CHECHEN, not Ingush, not Karabulak not anyone else. So don't use the "Chechen was used for everyone" argument when Ingush are clearly mentioned even in Chechen okrug. This is what i mean when i say you are biased, muqale too claims most Orstkhoy are Ingush but "moved to Grozny in 20th century", this is a ridiculous claim and only shows he has no idea about the ethnography of Chechnya. I can give you over 30 surnames from Orstkhoi in Bamut alone where these Orstkhoi from the mountains of tsech-ahk etc that were mentioned in the census (not Karabulak) moved. Orstkhoi did not just settle in Karabulak and other North Ingush territories, they lived everywhere in Achkhoy-Martan and Urus-Martan. Check page 454 of the "Akhchoy-Martan" villages, find me 1 village that has Ingush, there is none, there are just Chechens and 1 village that has both Chechens and Cossacks. That is all i have to say about the sourcing and bias in this article. This is why i think this article should be neutral, especially now when you have 2 editors that claim Ingush are closer to Orstkhoi.

There is no need to remake any section now, it is better we await for a third neutral party but i stand by my words that both of you show extreme bias as i showed above and therefore this article should be completely neutral like i proposed. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Goddard2000 you clearly referred also to me by saying "you both". I didn't cherrypick sources to prove that Ingush are closer to Chechens. I didn't accuse you either of anything and I wasn't biased, so as been mentioned, please refrain from these accusations which I have no part in. I don't understand why you are dragging the discussion into this direction when the original topic was about Ethnicity section being removed. Regarding census, when I said Chechen ethnonym was used for everyone, I was referring to the late 19th century census of 1891 (if I'm not wrong) and did you purposely ignore the "and there's no taïp composition mentioned either"? The census of 1926 doesn't mention of taïp or surnames so they can't be proven that the Chechens who lived in Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe in 1926 were Orstkhoy. Let's not continue on this topic because this is not what I came to discuss about in the first place and let's not get dragged in this direction. I simply was discussing about the Ethnicity section and you suddenly started saying that I accused you of something, that I'm biased and so on. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I said you cherrypicked 18th century sources that mentioned Orstkhoi as Ingush while ignoring other sources that clearly divided the 2 but i'll admit that my cherrypicking comment was more directed towards Muqale and some of the wording got mixed up. There are a lot of 18th century authors that connected Karabulaki to Chechens and divided Nakhs between Karabulaki, Ingush and Chechens.

I haven't checked the 1891 source yet but i assume its the same there, i'm sorry but you're attempt at downplaying the 1926 census makes me doubt your intentions of creating an article that is fair to everyone. Are you now claiming that Tseche-Ahke and the 28 other Orstkhoi villages whos inhabitants were named as Chechens in 1926 are not ethnic Chechens?? this is an insane claim and this is what i'm talking about when i say bias. All of these villages were inhabited by Orstkhoi, or are you saying there were NO Orstkhoi living in Chechnya at all during this period?? Goddard2000 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible, just maybe, that the traditions of this group diverge from both the Chechen and Ingush peoples? AKA Chechen language but Ingush garb? I would refrain from saying "insane claim" as I believe Wikieditor isn't acting in bad faith. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian Not really, the problem here is that the Karabulak or Orstkhoi have taken part in the ethnogenesis of both nations, the ones living in Chechnya have no difference than Chechens, their dialect is part of the Galanchozh dialect similar to their neighboring clans, their Y-DNA descends from Chechen highlands etc. The 1926 consensus i talked about pretty much seals the deal that the Orstkhoi living in Chechnya are ethnic Chechens, otherwise they would identify as Ingush or something else. Muqale doesn't seem to understand this and brings up Orstkhoi that identify as Ingush as sources and claims "90% are Ingush" when he has no evidence of this. Sorry if i'm tagging you a lot i just want you to know every detail and fact of our discussion. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The amount of text in both sections needs to be trimmed as it gives the sense of WP:UNDUE to the article, when the article be better expanded in talking about the history, culture, notable tribe members etc. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, in my opinion there shouldn't even be an "ethnicity" section because this topic is controversial and both sides claim this tribe. If we have an ethnicity section would it not make sense just to write what i proposed? this:

"some authors refer to Orstkhoy as Chechen (references), while some authors refer to them as Ingush (references) but most agree that the tribe belongs to both nations as Orstkhoy are one of the 9 historical Chechen Tukkhums and one of the 7 historical Ingush Shahars"

There would be less edit wars as is seen in this article, i mean even the last source in "modern times" section, a newspaper by Ingush Orstkhoi claiming Orstkhoi are just Ingush, really? there are many sources of Chechens Orstkhoi saying the opposite. Things like this only invite counter sources and quoting. It clogs up the article and makes it look unprofessional. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fine to note the disputed origins and go into SOME detail regarding the difference of sources, but each section needs to be significantly trimmed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

LegalSmeagolian I will see what I can do with the Ingush section, for me it looks as short as possible but I will try to shorten it. I proposed to Goddard2000 for the Chechen section to be shortened by following way but he declined:

• Dictionary sources grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
• Military collections (Военные сборники) grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
• Opinions of Historians like Berzhe and Potto grouped into 1 text in chronological order.

What do you think about this? I'm willing to discuss about the Chechen section with Goddard2000 on my talk page if he sees any issues with my proposed design. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The text i proposed does note that there are disputed origins and it would provide all the references needed for people who are interested in the origins. My problem with the Ethnicity section was that it mentions Ingush before Chechens and provides a quote + sources above Chechen sources and quotes. Even if they are both trimmed this ethnicity sections shouldn't be divided into 2, i for one believe if there are sections then it should be alphabetical order but the other two editors disagree. Many Chechens would disagree with them, therefore i propose we combine these 2 sections into a text similar to how its written in the intro of the article:

"In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition as one of the seven historical Ingush shahars."

Like this but with the ethnicity section shortened and combined into this text with references like i proposed. In my opinion this would solve the edit war race to put one nation's quotes and text above each others in a tactic to catch the readers eye. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you really want the Chechen mention first in the current ethnicity section. That possibility is already mentioned first in the lead, and I would say that it makes more sense for the rest of the article to follow the lead, but I am concerned that you might not be approaching this with a NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with trimming some quotes, however user Goddard2000 mentions that he has a problem with Ingush being mentioned first in the article and insists using an alphabetical order (Chechen before Ingush) for some reason, instead of a chronological order of the sources which makes more sense, since initially the Orstkhoy villages were linked with the Ingush. I have issues with his preposed phrase "In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition as one of the seven historical Ingush shahars." - Since some authors like Dalgat (late 19th century) mentioned that the Chechens only had 6 tukkhums, this gradually became 8 (Mamakaev), and at the end of the 20th century Chechen authors added another one (the Orstkhoy), who were 90% of the time classified as an Ingush society. Muqale (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I have shortened the Ingush section enough, it is fine as is. I don't mind your groupings for the Chechen section - I would say it WOULD make sense however to have the Chechen section first, as that is the first group mentioned in the lead. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree also to put Chechens first but again this in my opinion would cause edit wars because each nation think their nation should be above. If we accept the current state of shortened text then Chechens should be first alphabetically as it is in the intro of this article. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order as the first authors mentioned the Orstkhoy as Ingush so it would make sense. After the end of Caucasian War, authors like Berzhe and others started to mention Orstkhoy as Chechen. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I will say the following claim in the article is compelling that the two competing ethnic origins were contemporary theories: According to Jacob Reineggs (1780), the Ingush language differs from the language of the Karabulaks. He notes that, "Having taken the language into consideration, we can fairly conclude that these peoples had different origins, because what the Ingush says is his neighbor, a Kist, sharing with him only one small river, does not understand, and both of them cannot answer Karabulak in his language." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There hasn't been any wars with this page so far. The last source in "modern times" section, a newspaper by Orstkhoy doesn't claiming Orstkhoy are just Ingush, where do you see such text? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All of this got tangled together because we answered too fast, i'm gonna answer both WikiEditor1234567123 @LegalSmeagolian

Reason why i mentioned this in the noticeboard was to make it neutral i.e to not have 1 nation above each other, this is what i proposed first in here. If there is to be an ethnicity section as is now with shortened text then in my opinion Chechens should be first like in the intro section and because of alphabetical order. But again i preferred my proposition that i proposed in the noticeboard.

It is false to claim that Karabulaks were not connected to Chechens, in fact there are a lot of sources that connect all 3 Ingush, Karabulak and Chechens but also divide like for example:

Yan pototsky: "“Chechens, Ingush and Karabulaks are branches of the same people;”

“At the end of the day, I arrived in Kalugai, and could only sketch a chain of glaciers, which is located behind another chain, where the Karabulak people of the Misjegsky live”"

Guildenstedt: " The land of the Karabulaks lies near the Martan, or Fartan, which flows into the Sunzha on the right, below the Shemilgora stream. They have no princes, but only elders. They speak Kist, Chechen or Mitsdshegin dialects. "

Shteder: “I followed the banks of the Sunzha through the fertile valleys and fields of the Ingush to the mountains. On the other side, 4 versts to the east, in the wooded foothills, there are 34 villages of Akhgurts, which are a mixture of Karabulaks and Ingush.

As you can see, 18th century wasn't all authors assuming Karabulaks were Ingush, the theory that all 3 were same but also separate was very prominent during this time.

Goddard2000 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course there were some authors who mentioned Karabulaks (Orstkhoy) as separate from both Ingush and Chechens. I will try to add this in the same section when I have time, I will also add population, settlement and composition of Orstkhoy. However before Authors like Berzhe started to indicate Orstkhoy as Chechen, there were authors who mentioned Orstkhoy as Ingush before him, so chronological order would be the best here and would be more appealing to a person reading the article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also the modern times article, do you honestly believe there was an Orstkhoy paper for all Orstkhoy that claimed Orstkhoy were not Chechens? Korigov, Belkharoev are Ingush, i'm not sure by Merzhoev but i assume he's Ingush too. I mean this newspaper lost all credibility if it says something controversial like that, they ignore censuses and hundreds of thousands of Chechen Orstkhoi? it is pretty ironic that 1 year after the publication of this article the Chechen nationalist state of Ichkeria was founded by an Orstkho who was a vehement Chechen nationalist. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian@Muqale@WikiEditor1234567123

I don't understand the chronological argument when the very first sources in the 18th century divide the 3 or connect them all and for some like Guildenstedt terms like Chechen language and Midzheg (name for Chechens by Kumyks) is used for all 3. Even the first quote in the Ingush section from 1851 makes no sense as the editor assumes Berger was the first one that referred to Karabulaks as Chechens when this was a common term used for Karabulaks by Russian commanders who fought in Chechnya. For example General Rozen writes in 1830 that Karabulaks are a part of the Chechens: https://drevlit.ru/docs/kavkaz/XIX/1820-1840/Rosen_R_F/text.php

Chronolgical events are also mentioned in the "History" section why should 1-2 source that connect Ingush to Karabulaks from 18th century be the reason for Ingush being above Chechens when the first text in this article mentions Chechens first because of alphabetical order. I would also like to point out the bias of the editors in here since we have written a lot in here and it can be tiring to read all of it again. Muqale has again revealed his bias when he says "this gradually became 8 (Mamakaev), and at the end of the 20th century Chechen authors added another one (the Orstkhoy), who were 90% of the time classified as an Ingush society."

This is incorrect as i have proven time and time again, there are even 2 censuses by Russia from 1890-1926, the 1926 specifically shows that all Karabulak/Orstkhoi native villages in the highlands regarded themselves as Chechens. I provided the source above, this source is downplayed and thrown away by Wikieditor who claims they were probably not Orstkhoi when he has no evidence for that.

Dalgat mentioned 6 tukkhums, Mamakaev mentioned 9, Chechen manuscripts from 1828 mentioned 13 tribes, Russian authors often divided Chechens by over 20 divisions. I'll also remind you that Dalgat proposed that both Chechens and Ingush (also naturally Karabulaks) can be referred to as Nakhchi (the self name of Chechens). So i don't see why we should change that section. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Dalgat's original work was published in 1934 and I will have you know that the original phrase was 'the Ingush use the term Nakh and Vainakh to refer to themselves as well" (page 6 of the 1934 edition) This phrase was conviently changed to 'the Ingush often refer to themselves as Nakhchoy' along with several others parapgrahs in 2008 published by the fund of an ethnic Chechen Aslanbek Aslakhanov, which makes Dalgat 2008 edition a distortion of the original. And you made the claim traditionally one of the 9 Chechen tukkhums how is it traditional when you yourself just mentioned that there is no real number apparantly. I just pointed out that you refer to tukkhums and the first mention of Chechen tukkhums was made by Dalgat and he listed 6 Chechen tukhums. Which later turned to 8 by Chechen author Mamakaev, and now it seems to be 9. Inconsistent if you ask me. Muqale (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Dalgat's original work was heavily edited by Zaurbek Malsagov (Ingush who came up with the term Nakh and Vainakh) and he cut the entire preface of Dalgat's original work where Dalgat mentioned the Nakhchuy in a letter to his daughter. Nice conspiracy theory though, but regarding Tukkhums what does it matter if the number changes according to some authors? the same can be said about Ingush Shahars where suddenly the "Ghalghay shahar" becomes "Tsori Shahar" and "Khamkhi shahar" or when Fyappi Shahar changes names to Metskhal Shahar? even in Chechen society change happens within the nation, one clan sometimes becomes a tukkhum similar to how Melhi are regarded as the historical 9 Tukkhum. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Gyuldenshtad (1770-1773) mentions Galai, Yalkharoy, Arshti, Hai, and other settlements as part of the settlements of the Bolshie and Malie Ingushi (also written by Klaproth).
• Pallas (1793-1794) states that the Karabulaks (Orstkhoy) stem from the Ingush or Galgai.
• Bronevsky (1823) divides the Kist nation into 2 groups: the nearby Kisti-Angushi-Karabulaki and second group are the Chechens and states that among their dialects the Chechen dialect differs from the root language.
• Danilevski (1846) wrote that the Chechen dialect differed from the root language of the Ingush and Karabulaks.
• Actual 19th century reports and document exist where Orstkhoy families name themselves Galgai or Ingush.
• The Orstkhoy in their native tongue are completely similar to the Ingush, in the mountains they live near the river Fortanga, just like Ingush say it, Chechens say Martan. Orstkhoy familiy Fargiev would not exist in Chechnya, since the phoneme F is absent in the Chechen language. Famous Chechen revolutionary Aslansbek Sheripov in 1918 calls an Orstkhoy abrek (Sulumbek of Sagopshi) an Ingush. This are not just surface-level classifications, but actual ethnography. The sources you provide where Orstkhoy are called Chechen, are often those were even the Ingush are labeled Chechen. This statement has long been debunked by linguists and researchers. Like I said, Orskthoy are also represented among Chechens nowadays and this deserves to be mentioned, but you have no basis to claim that the Chechen should be put first, since the Orstkhoy only secundarily can be attributed to Chechens. Alphabetical order is not a vaild argument in my opinion, especially since you emphasize the importance of putting Chechens first.

Muqale (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the Act of 1810. This was between two lowland communities, not the entire nation. In that case, there are also many documents (AKAK) showing the hostilities between Karabulaks and Chechens, in the notes of Ermolov, Evdokimov and others. Even Städer said that Karabulaks and Chechens became enemies. Best to leave aside politics for this one, since it does not contribute to the article, and gives more cause to edit war. Muqale (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Guildenstedt puts Orstkhoi settlements in the "district of Ingush" but also says they speak a Kist/Chechen/Midzheg language
• Pallas indeed says so
• Bronevsky divides Kist nation into 4, he divides them by Kist, Ingush/Lamur, Karabulak, Chechen/Sheshen/Michkiz

"Of these, the Chechens, as the most populous tribe, occupy more than half of the Kist lands and, in the reasoning of the difference noted among them with other Kist [179] tribes in customs and dialect, constitute a special department, due only to the similarity of the language to the Kists; consequently, it would be possible to divide the Kistinsky region into two parts: that is, into the inhabited by the Kists in the closest sense, by whose name we mean the Ingush, Karabulaks and other tribes, and into the Chechen region; but this should provide a better knowledge of the Caucasian topography."

Then Bronevsky goes on to write:

"Gildenshtet mentions the following districts of the Kist province: Ingush; Ahkingurt; Ardakhli; Vapi, Oset, Makarl; Angush (Big); Shapkha, or Small Angush.

Chechen, divided into districts: Arakhi, Kulga or Dganti, Galgai, or Galga, Dzhanti, Chabrilo, Shabet, Chiskhrikaker, Karabulak, Messeti, Mereji, Galashka, Dubai."

• The rest i have already talked about, Aslanbek Sheirpov calls an Ingush Orstkho living in Ingushetia an Orstkho, an Ingush Orstkho living in Ingushetia identifies as Orstkho etc. Meanwhile the earliest censuses in Chechen-Orstkho villages all identify as ethnic Chechens

I only mentioned act of 1810 to show that Ingush and Karabulaks were divided even in many military reports but sure, we don't need to go into that. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also @LegalSmeagolian , i would like to point out that this whole thing of changing names etc was started by one of the editors @WikiEditor1234567123 , before his first edit this whole article had almost for 10 years been the same and had the version of text which i proposed we add, namely:

"Differentiation from Chechens and Ingush"

Below this section there was an explanation (although Ingush weren't mentioned in the text itself) which could've been fixed if what i proposed was done then. @WikiEditor1234567123 removed that whole section and only added Ingush while removing Chechen. Yet i am accused by them of trying to put Chechens first? when only thing i have done here is propose to return to the original edit. Later on Tovbulatov got involved and so started an edit war with Wikieditor. Would not this whole thing be solved if we went back to the original version and fixed up the text that had been there years before these edit wars? Goddard2000 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you just find a source that is pre 1770 referring to them as Chechen or not Ingush? That solves this whole chronology debacle. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the sources that connect them to Chechens or Ingush are after-1780-90, before that they are always referred to as an independent political entity by Russians. Here is a letter from 1763 for example that mentions Karabulak as independent from Chechens and Ingush and Michiks: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/XVIII/1700-1720/Rus_dag_otn/101-120/119.htm

The chronological order is a weak excuse after edit warring over this article and removing an already established section of this article, like i showed above, Pallas theorized that Karabulaki could've come from Ingush, Guildenstedt said they spoke Chechen etc etc, are we supposed to count the months between these two sources and order them that way when alphabetical order was established long time ago. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There wasn't a edit war in this page. Could you please show me where there was edit war? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide special diff which shows that I "removed that whole section and only added Ingush while removing Chechen"? Could you provide special diff which shows that I had war with Tovbolatov in this page? You really like to accuse me of alot of things that I didn't do, please refrain from doing that. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How does one upload diffs? and i misspoke, you didn't start it, someone else with an IP removed the whole text and added Ingush text, Tovbulatov because of that added Chechens above that one and it stayed that way until you and him started edit warring and you moved Ingush above Chechen. This is what i meant by Edit war. I would gladly provide diffs but here it is:

11:13, 21 February 2023 WikiEditor1234567123 talk contribs  28,151 bytes +21  →General information: Reordered in chronological order Goddard2000 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ip user and tovbolatov didn't even edit war, one added to the Ingush section and the other added to the Chechen section, don't see any edit war. Where do you see supposed edit war in that diff showing me? I reordered according to the chronological order just like in the Russian Wikipedia, that's all. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagreeing and deleting some of Tovbulatov's edit can't be considered edit warring? Tovbulatov added a quote about Ingush being a Chechen tribe which you deleted (i disagree with Tovbulatovs action here), Tovbulatov adds Chechen above Ingush after the person with IP acc deletes an already established chunk of text and headline while putting Ingush only, you one up Tovbulatov by putting Ingush above Chechens. Who decided it was supposed to be in chronological order? It was alphabetically before everyone started editing and that IP removed the text. If you don't see the edit history as edit warring and 2 sides trying to throw in their version of the article then i don't know what to tell you. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian Please have a look at this source: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/14951-ch-2-o-narodah-tatarskogo-plemeni-i-drugih-ne-reshennogo-esche-proishozhdeniya-severnyh-sibirskih-1799#mode/inspect/page/82/zoom/4

German Professor Johann Gottlieb Georgi, in his" Description of all the peoples" in 1799 wrote the following about Karabulaks or Orskthoy, "before anything they were called Yugush (Ingush), but they refer to themselves as Arshtas (Orstkhoy)."

On the previous page you will see the mentioned Yugush are the Ingush. Muqale (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to post a different translation of that text that includes more information (source: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/XVIII/1760-1780/Gottlib_Georgi/text1.htm) :

"Karabulaki. They used to be called Yugush, but they call themselves Arshts, they make up a not very crowded crowd of people. Their language consists of Kistin and Chechen dialects. Previously, they were subject to the Aksai princelings." Goddard2000 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you agree that the sources calls them Ingush. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I never disagreed with this, but they were always related to Chechens in every 18th century source that mentions them, even this one that said they also spoke a Chechen dialect. Oldest sources mention Karabulaks separately but late 18th century ones mention them next to Ingush and Chechens. Hence why i think Ethnicity section should be limited to what i proposed. Otherwise i don't mind a historical chronologically written down in a history section of them being mentioned during this date or that. But when speaking in the context of who the tribe belongs to most or earliest when this topic is controversial and who's oldest sources refer to them as a separate polity then i think it should be more simplified. Goddard2000 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

@WikiEditor1234567123 Salam Aleykum, since our previous discussion has stalled for a moment i would like to look into some of the sources with you in this article. The modern times section has a paper that i can't find anywhere online, this one "Коригов, Мержоев, Белхороев, Х., М., М. (1990). Последнее слово — за нами : ст., рубрика «Резонанс» // Комсомольское племя : газ. / орган Чечено-Ингушского Рескома ВЛКСМ. — Гр., 01.11.1990. — № 44 (5555). — (издавалась в 1957—96, с 1991 под назв. «Республика», с 2003 преемницей считается газ. «Молодежная смена»)."

Could you please post it here if you have it? because all we have from it is a quote that no one can verify. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Wa aleykum assalam. Give me a week, I will try to find it. Leave it alone while I will be trying to find it, thank you. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain why you put the neutrality tag in the article? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright i'll wait, the neutrality tag was for the noticeboard i created a couple days ago. I tagged you there then, didn't you see it?

You can find it here:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Just ctrl + f your name and you'll find it. I am required to add that tag in this article if i create a noticeboard for it. I just forgot to do it right away. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you show me where Güldenstädt refered to Orstkhoy "language" as Chechen? Thank you. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Guldenstedt says that they speak a Kist or Chechen dialect:

"The Karabulaks are a nomadic people who have their own villages in the mountains to the north, in the upper reaches of the Sunzha and its 6 tributaries. The land of the Karabulaks lies near the Martan, or Fartan, which flows into the Sunzha on the right, below the Shemilgora stream. They have no princes, but only elders. They speak Kist, Chechen or Mitsdshegin dialects. On the Shemilgora stream, on the right side of the Sunzha, there is the village of Boko, named after the ruling family; There are about 40 families in this village." (Они говорят на кистинском, чеченском или мицдшегинском наречиях)

Here he identifies the entire Kist language (Nakh peoples) as Chechen language and also uses an old Chechen term for all Nakhs (Mitsdzheg):

"In the Andean language, cysts are called "mitsdshegis buturul" (Mitsdzheg people). They are also called Tatars and Circassians. Therefore, they can be called "mitsjegi", and the country - "Mitzjegia". The peoples of this province speak different, very different dialects. The Kist, or Chechen, language is not related to any of the Caucasian languages ​​and in general to any language known to me." (Кистинский, или чеченский, язык не родствен ни )

But speaking of Guildenstedt, could you please quote the part where he refers to Karabulak district (okrug) as Ingush? as it says in this article, because i have been reading Guildenstedt for a while now and i can't come across a quote like that. He refers to Karabulak Okrug as a separate Kist district no? he for sure mentions some Karabulak villages as part of "Shalkha" (little Angusht) but he doesn't refer to them as Karabulak. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you tell me the page too? I'm having trouble finding it. Regarding Karabulak District, I didn't find mention of it being called specifically Ingush but he mentioned many Orstkhoy villages as part of the Little Ingush. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You did mention that Karabulak district specifically belonged to Ingushetia proper but now you edited it out apparently, but here is the diff to prove it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orstkhoy&diff=1145742914&oldid=1145565334. Regarding the pages, would vostlit source be enough? we have already posted it before and i am a bit busy atm to find a pdf version of Guildenstedt. Vostlit version is pretty much the same as the book, here: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/XVIII/1760-1780/Gildensdedt_2/text3.htm

Would you not agree that based on chronological order that the Karabulak (Orstkhoi) were mentioned closest to Chechens in this case? Guildenstedt is after all the first source that talks about Karabulak-Chechen-Ingush relations.

For Chechens: He calls the language that Karabulaks and other Kists (Nakh people) speak a Chechen language, he refers to all Nakh peoples (Kist) by the Chechen term "Midzhegi" and he also specifically says that Karabulaks speak the "Chechen" dialect of the Kist language (which he previously referred to as Chechen as well).

For Ingush: He refers to some Karabulak villages as part of "little angusht" even though he doesn't specify that these villages are Karabulak but we know based on the names of some of those villages that they are Orstkhoy. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that chronologically (Orstkhoy) were mentioned closest to Chechens in this case as it's not true. Guldenstadt mentions that they speak Kist, Chechen or Midzhegi dialects meaning they speak different dialects, not just Chechen as you mentioned. Regarding Midzhegi that you for some reason added, Guldenstadt writes that Kist is more suitable for Nakh peoples as meaning of Midzhegi is not quite the same as Kist. I propose we remove this text as it clutters up the space for no reason. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all your source about "opposes to Chechens", i could not find this at all since i was reading the German version from 1834 by klaproth (page 153). I couldn't find that mention anywhere there nor in the vostlit site i shared with you but i checked the Russian edition in a pdf (2002 edition) and it said it there. So i'll leave it at that for the moment.

Second of all, lets compare who Guildenstedt connects Orstkhoi (Karabulak) to most shall we? we will use Russian version (http://apsnyteka.org/443-gildenstadt_puteshestvie_po_kavkazu.html).

Pro-Ingush:

Page 241: Guildenstedt refers to some Orstkhoi villages as part of "Shalkha district which Russians call Little Angusht due to its in conjunction with the previous one (Angusht)". So basically it's called little Angusht because of its proximity to the actual Ingush district. The text in the article that claims its in "Ingushetia proper" makes then no sense either since it would not be Ingushetia proper as it was already mentioned as "District of Angusht" which is separate from "Shalkha district (Little Angusht)".

Pro-Chechen:

Page 239: Guildenstedt refers to all Kist (Nakh peoples) as Midzhegi (term for Chechens) but as you rightfully pointed out he felt like Kist was more suited.

Page 239: He refers to all Kist (Nakh peoples) language by the name Chechen (but also uses Kist and Midzheg).

Page 242: In the "Chechen district" section he says that the "kistin nation" (Nakh peoples) is also OFTEN referred to as "Chechen nation".

Page 243: In the "Karabulak district" he points out specifically that the Karabulaks speak a Kist language (Nakh) in the Chechen dialect

So your argument for putting Ingush section above Chechen section because of "Chronology" makes no sense, earliest Karabulak sources refer to them as a separate people, earliest sources that refer to them as any of the 2 modern Vainakh nations clearly use the Chechen term and Chechen language for the Karabulaks rather than Ingush. So if we go by your methodology the Chechen section should've stayed above the Ingush one. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Since I am tagged in this conversation, I will reply.

"Karabulak" is a Kumyk name for the place where Orstkhoy (Arshtkhoy) families settled. N. Volkova in her work Этнический состав населения Северного Кавказа в XVIII-начале XX века. (1974) on page 160 writes the following: "the Great and Little Ingush, according to Klaproth, included 24 villages, including Galga, Aka, Betsi, Alkhor, Korbi, Bushu, Golay, Noi, Goi (Hai), Tsulai, Meler, Palang, etc. Most The names cited by Klaproth point to the origins of the Ingush migrations: the village Galgai-Yurt (modern Kambileevskoye) - to the upper reaches of the river Assa, Aka - should be associated with the Akkins, Alkhor - with Yalkhoroi, Korbi - with the village of Kerbi-te near the village of Erzi or in Akki, Bush - possibly from the villages of Vauche (Vaush) in the Akka society, Golay - with Galanchozh, Tsulai, Meler - with the Galgai villages of Tsoli, Meleri, etc."

As you can see, all the named villages are attributed to the Ingush. In the list of references at the bottom of the page in Volkova's work, we see that this paragraph is based on the writings of Güldenstäd published by Klaproth (Dr. J.A. Güldenstädts Beschreibung der kaukasischen Länder, umgearb., herausg. und mit Anmerkungen begleitet von J. Klaproth). And once again, all these villages are classified as Little and Great Ingush. Among these are many Orstkhoy villages like Arshti, Galashki, Meredzhi, Hai, etci. These are the ancestral villages of the Orstkhoy, so if they are mentioned first as Ingush - then chronologically they were mentioned FIRST as Ingush, just like German Professor Johann Gottlieb Georgi, in his" Description of all the peoples of Russian State" in 1799 wrote about Karabulaks: "before anything they were called Yugush (Ingush)". Muqale (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on why Volkova is mentioned in this case, no one denies that some Arshtkhoy and Chechen villages are part of the "Shalkha (Little Angusht)" territory, Guildenstedt explains why they are referred to as "Little Angusht" on page 241 and it's due to a geographic reason. We should only look at Guildenstedt's book since it is the first one. Lets take an example here since you brought up Gottlieb, he says in 1799 that Orstkhoy "were called Ingush but they call themselves Arshte", how is this text better than what Guildenstedt says 20 years before him when he says on page 242 that Kistin nation is often referred to as "Chechen nation"? It is clear that the earliest source in this article refers to Karabulaks as Chechen more than Ingush since Guildenstedt: 1. Says that "Chechen" is often used as a term for all Kists (Nakh people), 2. refers to the Kist language (Nakh people) as Chechen. Nowhere does he connect the Karabulak people with Ingush aside from a couple of villages which he doesn't even say are Karabulak.Goddard2000 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Volkova gave insight into Guldenstädt's work, so why not? Also, it was that same Guldentstäd who wrote : "The district of the Ingush or Kists, lies between the sources of the Sunzha and the Terek and the Kumbelai River, which flows into the Terek. In the north - they border on Little Kabarda, in the west - on Ossetia, in the east - on the Chechens, in the south - on the icy mountains. This nation, which calls itself by both names, can field about 5,000 combat-ready men in the field. They are completely free and subject to no knyaz..." (etc). So why then are you making it seem that when Guldenstädt is talking about the Karabulaks speaking a "Kistin" language, as well as Mitjzdegi and Chechen, that Kisti does not refer to Ingush but specifially Chechen? This does not at all imply that the Karabulaks are more Chechen than Ingush, and if you really wanna talk about the language,thaen let's establish a few fundamentals: 1) Orstkhoy are always located near the Fortanga and Assa rivers. Just like the rest of the Ingush people, Orstkhoy call this river Fortanga or Forta. In the Chechen language this river is called Martan. 2) Orstkhoy familiy Fargiev is non-existent among Chechens, because the phoneme (consonant) F is not present in the Chechen language. Which again indicates that the Orstkhoy are closer to the Ingush than Chechens. Though I do not deny that they also are represented among Chechens. Muqale (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Goddard2000 I'm afraid but what you're doing is clearly forgery, you're adding your own text which isn't in the source. Guldenstadt didn't state that Kists are often called Chechen or that Karabulaks speak Chechen dialect. Refrain from doing this please. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I will answer both Muqale and Wikieditor here:

Volkova's insight does not disprove what i said, i never denied that some Karabulak villages were included in Little Angusht (although Guildenstedt didn't say they are Karabulak) so i'm confused why you mentioned her. Guldenstedt did indeed mention the district of the Ingush and described its territory, a territory which is between the sources of Terek-Sunzha and Kambileevka in the north. If we map out Guildenstedt's description then the territory of the "Ingush" only exists in the modern Tarskoye valley which indeed is where the original Angusht village existed. It is then noteworthy that he describes the territory east of this as Chechen. It is obvious that Ingush are called Kist, i never stated that Kist wasn't used for Ingush. it's used for everyone, however Guildenstedt rightfully notes on page 242 that "The name of these inhabitants (Chechens) is often understood as all Kist peoples" i.e the term Chechen is often used for all Kist peoples. This is especially noteworthy since he on page 243 says that the inhabitants of the Karabulak okrug (which he doesn't connect to the Ingush at all) speak in a "Chechen or Midzheg dialect". In Guildenstedt's writings we understand 2 things that the entire Kist peoples are often referred to as Chechen and the Karabulaks specifically speak in a Chechen dialect. Maybe this is why Guildenstedt in a previous text on page 36 refers to the eastern neighbors of Ingush as Chechens.

(This is mostly for Wikieditor who accuses me of forgery)

Page 242: https://runivers.ru/bookreader/book10423/#page/243/mode/1up

Page 243: https://runivers.ru/bookreader/book10423/#page/244/mode/1up

Also cmon, F consonant, really? don't you know that the F consonant exists in the Chechen Galanchozh and Melhi dialects, unless you want to disagree with most linguists and claim that these dialects are not part of the Chechen language. Just because the consonant doesn't exist in the literary language (due to influence from Itum-Kali, Cheberloy, Ichkerian, Sharoy dialects) of the Chechens does not mean that the consonant does not exist at all in the language. I don't think i have to explain this to you, surely you already understand the fundamentals of language. The Cheberloy dialect of the Chechens for example has no umlauts whatsoever similar to the Batsbi language, does this mean the dialect is not part of the Chechen language or the Vainakh languages? or that Chechen can't claim toponyms without umlauts as Chechen because the literary language is not 1 for 1 similar to it's Cheberloy dialect? No it doesn't. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Now let's have another look at what it actually says on page 242:

Right before the Chechen district, which is described as an area that occupies the Lower Argun and upper reaches of the Sunzha, we see that same list with the villages attrtibuted to the Ingush. Among them we see the ancestral villages Galai, Galashki, Meredzhi, and more importantly Arshte (which is directly linked to the Orstkhoy/Arshtkhoy enthnonym). And we can also read the phrase "the people who live near other rivers flowing into the Sunzha form another party that is opposed to this one and which is usually called Chechen."

and on page 243 the one you mentioned you seem to ignore 1 contradiction reagrding the Karabulaks: You chose to focus on where it says that they speak Mitzjegi or Chechen dialect, but we can also read "The Chechens call them Arish Toyaj, but the Ingush and Karabulaks themselves - Arshte. Which once again indicates the similarity between them and the rest of the Ingush, since they do not even refer to themselves like the Chechens refer to them. You are trying to spin it your way, whilst disregarding all other proof. Muqale (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I never denied that Orstkhoy villages were mentioned in the Shalkha (Little Angusht) district, it seems pointless to mention it all the time. What is most important is that Guildenstedt explains that the term "Chechen" (not Ingush) is used often for all Kist people (also Karabulak) and that the Karabulaks specifically speak in a Chechen dialect. This can be seen before Guildenstedt (who wrote this after 1774) when his German colleague Jacob Staehlin made the first detailed map of Chechnya and Ingushetia while including Karabulak in Chechnya (in 1771). Staehlin's map of Ingushetia is 1 to 1 with Guildenstedt's description of Angusht (between sources of Terek-Sunzha and Kambileevka in the north, Chechnya in the east). Also since you mentioned the F consonant and its usage in other sources, in this one it is called "Martank" which is the literary Chechen version.

Arish Toyaj and Arshte hardly differ that much, in fact i'd argue that "Arish Toyaj" is mispronounced "Arshtkhoy" which is a name for Orstkhoi in both Chechen and Ingush, besides if Ingush and Karabulak language was closer then Guildenstedt would make note of this but instead he specifically said that the Karabulaks spoke in a Chechen dialect, not Ingush. The comparison of pronunciation of the ethnonym is unnecessary when Guildenstedt already explained to us which dialect is closer to Karabulak. Goddard2000 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Btw, the "Ingush ethnic array" part is original research, nowhere did Guildenstedt say this, he only mentioned that these villages were part of Little Angusht which was called that way due to the proximity of the original Angusht territory. Only time Guildenstedt referred to Ingush as a people and their whole territory was on page 36 where he described them living between Sunzha-Terek sources and Kambileevka. Goddard2000 (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiEditor1234567123 Why delete the Reineggs quote? i thought we were doing this chronologically? By the way i am planning on restoring the Chechen section above the Ingush section since we already agreed to put it chronologically (i.e the source that supports either of Chechen or Ingush first should have their section above). I have already provided the earliest source and as we can see the Shtelin source clearly puts Orstkhoy in Chechnya. To summarize lets review the late 18th century sources.

1771 Shtelin: Puts Karabulak (Orstkhoy) in Chechnya and excludes them from Ingushetia. Also creates the first map on Chechnya which includes Karabulak territory.

1774 Guildenstedt: Puts some Karabulak villages in Shalkha district which Russians call "Little Ingushetia" due to its proximity to Ingush district, Karabulak speak a Chechen dialect and Guildenstedt says that "Chechen" term is OFTEN used for all Kist (Nakh peoples) including Karabulaks (as we can see in Shtelin's source).

1781 Shteder: Says that Karabulak (Orstkhoy) neighbors are "Chechens, Gikhov (Gekhians) and Attagov (Attagians) whom they share 1 origin and language with". Note that Shteder doesn't mention Ingush here despite mentioning them before in his writing.

1793 Pallas: Says Karabulaki come from Ingush.

1799 Gottlieb: Says "before anything they were called Yugush but they call themselves Arshte and speak in Kist and Chechen dialects"

Despite the edit warring that went on in edit history of this article and despite you putting Ingush section above Chechen without consensus i still contacted you and discussed with you in here before redoing your edit. I agreed to your terms that "First source that connects Orstkhoi to a certain nation gets to be first" and now i have proven that Chechnya was mentioned first. This is why i am telling you that i will put Chechen section above again, so there won't be edit warring.

Also, what do you think about creating a separate census section in this article? Goddard2000 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You made a complete mess of the Ingush origin section adding to your interpretations of sources, especially the Staelin one, where it is not Chechens but Kumyks that border de Ingush or Kisti, and even if Karabulaks are mentioned in the area of the Kumyks, that does not include all other Orstkhoy (mountainous) villages because Karabulak is only a sepecific area where Orstkhoy lived. You completely ignored the fact the Gyuldenstäd attributed the majority of ancestral Orstkhoy villages to the Ingush in 1770 (Gyuldenstadt in mentioned he witnessed the treaty between the elders of these villages in 1770), just to focus on the part where he says that Karabulaks speak a Kistin, Midzjekh or Chechen dialect. You also ignored the part where Gyuldenstäd opposed the majority of Orstkhoy villages to Chechens. You've added contracticting sources, where you choose selective quotes, for instance, since Staelin excluded Chechens from the ethnonym Kisti and said Ingush and Kisti are one, how are you then going to add Reineggs who said the Ingush and Kisti don't understand eachother and both of them in turn do not understand the Karabulaks, but it was that same Reineggs that also said that Chechen and Karabulak language derives from the Kistin language. Reineggs source is anything but a trustworthy one, since he is the only one in history who claimed that Ingush do not understand other Ingush speaking or even Chechen speaking tribes. This is ridiculous. Chronologically the Orstkhoy are still named Ingush before Chechen. Muqale (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make a mess at all, i can tell you didn't look at the sources i provided. First of all lets put the Reineggs source aside since i didn't undo Wikieditors edit where he removed that source entirely. Lets take the first source that mentions the relation of Karabulaks to Chechens or Ingush.

I posted the map already and the source :https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/XVIII/1760-1780/Stelin_Jakob/text1.htm

It's from his 1771-1772 work "Описание Черкесии" where he mentions Chechens:

"Kumyskay, OR CHECHEN, LAND" (Meaning that it can be called both)

"It is named after the Tatar word "kum", that is, sand , for many areas are sandy; there is a lot of fertile land."

"The main rivers here are Enderi, Asai, Martan, Gik, or Eoh, Rakhnar, Alda, Argunka, Dishalka, or Daplik, Karasu, Khunchames, Mushak, Harkalan. Between them there are villages and dwellings of princes and nobles of three peoples: Chechens, Karabulaks, Atakhiz. A fourth people, the Tavlins, can be added to them."

I knew you would mention Kumyks but Shtaelin already explains why he called it "Kumycki", it is unrelated to the Kumyk people:

As you know "Ghum" is also sand in Chechen and Ingush borrowed from the Turkic "Kum" so no, this geographic territory has nothing to do with Kumyks, otherwise he would include them in his writing or include their lands in the territory (which he didn't). Now you have deleted the map and any mention of Shtaelin. I see that you only use sources that favor you. I will contact the admins about this since you are clearly edit warring.

@LegalSmeagolian Could you please take a look at this? i will also make a new noticeboard. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You've not reached consensus with other users to rearrange the article, even when you have been given more than enough evidence that the Orstkhoy where mentioned first as Ingush in 1770. You chose to focus on one or more dubious phrases and decided to ignore the vast majority of Orstkhoy villages being attrtibuted to the Ingush by Guldenstädt in 1770. Also Karabulak is merely a part of the Orstkhoy villages, they are also represented in Galashians who majority of historians label Ingush as well. You've initiated this edit war because you don't like the idea of Ingush being mentioned first on this article. At one point you even changed the heading on the Chechen origins section, to make it bigger than the Ingush one.. The Chechen section remained unedited by @WikiEditor1234567123 and myself, but you kept removing and altering sources in the Ingush origins section, clearly operating in bad faith and trying to minimize the connection of the Orstkhoy to the Ingush people. Muqale (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Goddard2000 I explained myself why I removed Reineggs quote, his quote which isn't in favor of ethnical belonging of Orstkhoy to Ingush shouldn't be in the Ingush section even if it doesn't mention Chechens. I don't if you're doing it deliberately or not, and excuse me for saying this but you're making a mess out of the Ingush section by adding bunch of text which doesn't agree with Orstkhoys' ethnical belonging to Ingush. Further more you rearranged the Ingush and Chechen sections' orders when we didn't come to an agreement. The earliest source is from 1770, from Guldenstadt who attributed many Orstkhoy villages such as Yalkaroy to small Angusht, not Staelin one, where it's Kumyks that border Ingush people and as been already mentioned by Muqale — even if Karabulaks are mentioned in the area of the Kumyks, that does not include all other Orstkhoy (mountainous) villages because Karabulak is only a sepecific area where Orstkhoy lived. The majority of earliest sources attributed Orstkhoy to the Ingush, so no, Chechen section shouldn't be first in chronological order. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale @WikiEditor1234567123

Consensus was not reached the first time this article was changed, we already agreed upon the rules that the earliest source is represented first. I already provided the earliest source and thus put it up, and i'll have you know that this source is earlier than Guildenstedt who wrote about what we discussed in 1774 (how else would he mention the dates 1773 and 1774 when the Naur raid took place in the same text??) while mine was from 1771 (according to other sources 1772). The map was most definitely from 1771 however. You accuse me of choosing dubious phrases yet you ignore the phrases that do not agree with your text. Karabulak is the main center of the Orstkhoi lowlands as you know and the earliest source in 1771 puts them precisely in Chechnya and excludes them from Ingushetia. This you cannot deny as the facts are right before your eyes.

I will remind you that it wasn't i that started to put nations above each other, it was wikieditor who did it first and made the rules (without trying to reach a consensus with anyone). Why am i attacked for following his rules? do you not agree with the 1771 source? are you calling it fake? well? make your opinion clear first before we continue.

As for the header edit, i did not even notice that i did that before you showed me now. Besides what would i benefit from making a header bigger when the Ingush section is already above and anyone can change the header. The edits i made in Ingush section were ALL valid, which exact edit do you disagree with? i used all sources and even explained the sources in here.

I will now report you for edit warring on the noticeboards, i will tag you there, i'm talking about Muqale. We should wait until a neutral party intervenes, before this all talk is useless since we cannot come to an agreement. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You've rewritten the Ingush section, while a dispute was ongoing in the talk page, based on your own interpretation of some works, and selectively ignoring vital parts of works, even after acknowledging them Muqale (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Which section did i rewrite, elaborate, the part where i acknowledged a source said Ingush? did i delete that source? i did nothing to that source other than expand on it by including Gottlieb's further statement that Karabulaks spoke "Kist and Chechen" dialects (which you kept in the article so i have no idea what the problem is). You are trying to make a case against me from thin air. Bring me ONE sentence that i edited unfairly, was it Guildenstedt? Pallas? Shteder? Shtelin? (which you completely distorted while ignoring the source), Gottlieb? which one? You accuse me of editing in the Ingush section, well what do you want me to do? All 18th century works were included in the Ingush section, i merely added the part where they mention Chechens (which bothers you clearly), then i add the oldest source from 1771 and you delete it and the map (oldest map that show delineation between Chechnya and Ingushetia) and maliciously distort it, ascribing the "Kumyk term" to the ethnic Kumyks when the author himself says that it's called "Kumytsk or Chechen land", "It got its name from Kum which means sand in Tatar (also in Chechen and Ingush as you know) due to the sandy terrain of this land". Goddard2000 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Güldenstadt is the earliest source, since he himself states he was present at the time of the Ingush treaty with Russian in 1770, and names all the villages we discussed. I only removed the map, which clearly does not show Karabulaks or Orstkhoy and show the Kumyks neigbouring the Kists-Ingush. Kumyks is the name of a real nation, with their own language and history. Muqale (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Guildenstedt mentioned an event in 1770 where Ingush sign a deal with Russia but then 1 page before he refers to an event in 1774 on page 239 and 2 pages after on page 242 mentions an event in 1773, right so we have now established that Guildenstedt was a time traveler. Him having traveled in the Caucasus from 1770-1773 doesn't matter if he writes the events that unfold after this period (clearly after 1774). Not to mention that we don't know which date he wrote all of this, his work was only published in 1787. As for you Kumyk argument, you know and i know that this source which i have linked many times did not mention Kumyks the ethnicity but rather Kumitsk the term for Sandy land which the source explained was named this way due to the sandy terrain. Both of us also know that Kum exists in the Chechen language and means precisely sand since we borrowed it from Turkics. I will edit out some of your distortions and delete the edit about "enemies" between Karabulaks and Chechens since you yourself said this shouldn't be included. I will change your distortion on Shtelin source as well but not put it above others until we get an unbiased party in here. Goddard2000 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of oldest source

I will compare the dates of the current sources that are used in this article, our disagreement all boils down to which source mentions the Orstkhoy first, Shtelin or Guildenstedt? Guildenstedt's travels in the Caucasus from 1770 to 1773 was thoroughly recorded by him in his diary, the date and often the months are given in his writing. However he himself never published this work. It was published by Pallas from 1787-1794, Pallas records the dates of his writings on the page of contents on page 6

1770 (pages: 34-42) He mentions Ingush on page 36 He gives a description of the land of the Ingush and located them as living between Terek and Sunzha rivers and Kambileevka river in the north (there are no Orstkhoi villages in this territory), on the east they border Chechens. There is no mention of Orstkhoy.

1771 (pages: 43-142) There is no mention of Orstkhoy during this year by Guildenstedt. Shtelin however does mention Orstkhoy in his 1771 map and writing "description of Circassia" . Here Shtelin explains that the Karabulaks (i.e Orstkhoi) live in "Kumiskay or Chechen land" (he further explains that it's called "Kumiskay" due to the sandy terrain so it's unrelated to the ethnic Kumyks of the similar name).

1772-1773 Georgia (pages: 146-223) No mention of Orstkhoy, we can tell that this chapter started from date 1772 due to page 202 where he points out it's 1772

1773-1774 Description of nations (pages: 223-257) First mention of Orstkhoy by Guildenstedt, we can tell that this is from 1773-1774 because he refers to the date 1773 on page 242 and the date 1774 on page 239

Thus Shtelin 1771 mention of Orstkhoy PREDATES Guildenstedt mention of Orstkhoi from 1773-1774. I have provided all the sources for fellow editors to fact check this information. This is why i put the Shtelin source above Guildenstedt which was the agreed upon rule (to put earlier sources above) but my edits were removed and the map i uploaded was deleted. Goddard2000 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Guldenstadt attended the treaty between Ingush and Russia in Angusht in 1770, where the Ingush were represented by the villages of districts of Angusht and Shalkha. Here some of the villages of Angusht and Shalkha districts were Orstkhoy ancestral villages such as Arshty, Yalkharoy, Dattykh, Meredzhi etc, the Orstkhoy of these villages migrated into an area later on, that became known as Karabulak. This makes the earliest source regarding Orstkhoy belonging to the Ingush being from 1770. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Guildenstedt attended the Angusht treaty in 1770, if you read on page 36 then Guildenstedt (while visiting them) described the territory of this people as living between source of Sunzha and Terek with the Kambileevka river in the north. Tell me, which Orstkhoy ancestral village is situated in this described territory? Here are some coordinates on google maps: Arshty (43°08'20.6"N 45°07'45.9"E), Yalkharoy (42°55'13.0"N 45°16'28.0"E), Dattykh (43°01'52.0"N 45°06'03.7"E) and Meredzhi (42°56'16.0"N 45°07'58.0"E). Which of the mentioned Orstkhoy villages live between the Terek-Sunzha sources and Kambileevka in the north? Goddard2000 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not turn away from the main topic. I don't want to repeat myself again, I already told you that the Guldenstadt attended the treaty between Ingush and Russia in Angusht in 1770, where the Ingush were represented by the villages of districts of Angusht and Shalkha which included many Orstkhoy ancestral villages such as Dattykh, Arshty and others. This being said, the earliest source regarding Orstkhoy belonging to the Ingush is from 1770. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

How am i turning away from the topic? please read page 36 where he talks about attending the treaty in 1770, he describes their territory as between sources of Sunzha-Terek and Kambileevka in the north. Did any of the villages you mention (which Guildenstedt only mentioned 3 years after 1770 as i proved above) live in this territory? It is a simple yes or no. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The second question to you is does Guildenstedt refer to these villages by name in 1770 or 1773 first? if you believe he mentions them first in 1770 then please quote him word by word and provide a page. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1. What we can establish is that you are very actively trying to make it seem that Güldenstädt, who was ACTUALLY in this region in 1770, unlike Stahlin, supposedly took a whole 2 years (whilst being on the spot) to figure out the names of Ingush villages and Orstkhoy settlements? You do realize that in the letter to commander I.D. Neymch in 1770 (Treaty) exactly 24 Ingush elders of 24 main villages signed the letter with their names (exactly 24 names - in the letter called the Kistetin elders), and it is Guldenstädt in 1770 who also mentions 24 villages and lists many other ancestral Orstkhoy villages, like Meredzhi, Yalkhara, Dattykh, Galay, and most importantly Arshty (directly linked whith the Orstkhoy-Arshtkhoy ethnonym) who he attributes to them and concludes that other tribes or people living east of these villages are opposed to them and commonly called Chechen.

2. As for Stählin’s map, we can establish that Karabulaks (inhabitants of a specific lowland area with Orstkhoy clans also lived) is designated as a part of Kumitzki (Kumyk) territory. Now when actually looking at the source, regardless of whatever ethymology Stälin gives, this area is called Kumyk and Chechen. If anything, you we can only establish Karabulaks (not all Orstkhoy) being mentioned in the territory of Kumyks and Chechens (not only Chechens). Since in fact Karabulak is a Kumyk name for my this particular area, which we cannot ignore.

There is somewhat of a contradiction here, as Güldenstädt includes Chechens and Karabulaks as a part of the Kistin nation, while Stälin on the other hand completely excludes them and only labels The Ingush as Kists. Either way, Güldenstädt's source chronologically still comes first - 1770. Muqale (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Guildenstedt in 1770 refers to Ingush villages LIVING inside Terek-Sunzha sources and Kambileevka in the north, which Orstkhoy village live on that territory?. He never says that villages such as Meredzhi, Yalkhara, Dattykh, Galay etc are Ingush. He mentions an Angusht district and later on mentions that next to it is Shalkha district which is named "Little Ingushetia" by the Russians due to the proximity of the original Ingush land. He writes this in 1773, He made NO mention of those villages in 1770, not one, provide a quote or a page as i have done. You have done nothing but argue and make assumptions while not providing any source.

2. Staehlin clearly says "КУМЫЦКАЯ, ИЛИ ЧЕЧЕНСКАЯ, ЗЕМЛЯ" (Kumitskay OR Chechen land) i.e either name is fine and he explains that the name comes from the tatar word for sand. All nations that he mentions in this territory are Nakh peoples. You are distorting sources yet again and doing original research which is not allowed on wikipedia. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

1. L. Städer actually says that in these parts a mixture of Ingush and Karabulaks live, if you wanna talk specifics. That still does not cancel the fact that Güldenstadt still attrtibuted these villages to the Ingush districts and not to the Chechen. Whya are you beating around the bush? This should not be that hard to accept.

2. Sureyou can state Kumitskiy or Chechen land. DThough, the first is still linked to the Kumyk name, I can provide researchers from Dagestan who state this as well. But you cannot leave out Kumitzki part and state that this is equal to Chechens this, because Kumyks cannot be ignored as they are desginated on the map and there is distinct line between them and Chechens on the map. Muqale (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

1. We aren't talking about mixtures of Ingush and Karabulaks, if you want to talk specifics we can mention of the "Galgai district" (a notable Ingush society" which is referred to as a Chechen district by Guildenstedt and through that assume all other Ingush districts are Chechen. But that is silly since we are only talking about which source mentioned Orstkhoi villages and exonyms first. I am the only between us two that provide pages and quotes. You are doing nothing but making assumptions about what an 18th century author meant here or there.

2. I have already mentioned the Kumiskay source in the text of the map, i can put it in the text but to claim the author claims its "Kumyk territory" is original research when he already explains in the source that it is named so due to the Sandy terrain of the land (steppe part in the north). We already know that Kum is also sand in both Chechen and Ingush. There is no distinct line between them, he already explains in the source that all 4 belong to 1 territory. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Güldenstadt himself listed Galga among the 24 villages. I do not know what you are talking about. He even state the the Ingush or Kists call themselves Galga. You are making assumptions and implications in stead of actually sticking to the source.

2. Does Staehlin actually say that Kumiktsaya comes from the a Nakh word? Kumitzi is term which was used for Kumyks throughout history. On what page does he say this is Nakh term? Both names Karabulak, Chechen are of turkic origin. Why pretend that its not? Okay, I agreed, that all of this is calles Kumitskaya or Chechen land. You cannot leave out the Kumitskaya part. Muqale (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Guildenstedt clearly states that the Galgai society belongs among the Chechens. This is mentioned by Bronevsky on page 157 and the Guildenstedt book we are using as a source (Atalikov translation which is one of the most complete versions) on page 407.

2. Staehlin doesn't need to say it comes from the Nakh word, you and me already know the Nakh word is of Turkic origin. What he does is explain that the word Kum comes from Tatar (Turkic). What you are doing is assuming he refers to the Turkic people, this is the same as assuming that "Georgia" in the US are ethnic Georgians due to similarity of name. The author already explains who lives in that land. I already left in the Kumitskaya part since the very first edit. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I can agree to putting in the etymology and "Kumitskaya-Chechens" in the text instead of just saying "Chechnya". That is fair but there shouldn't be mention of "Kumyk" since he never refers to that land as part of Kumyk the people, just the "Kum" the term for sand. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also the first Shtaelin/Guildenstedt argument, that can be left for another time. We can come to a consensus to have the article stay as IS as long as neither party edits out the opposite section (Ingush/Chechen). Goddard2000 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiEditor1234567123 did you find the newspaper source? you said to give you a week. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. I didn't find it, but if it's a well-known appeal through the newspaper, then surely it should be somewhere. I will try to find it later and verify. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Waaleykum Salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, i wouldn't call it a well-known appeal but alright. We need to verify it. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiEditor1234567123Assalamu Aleykum, have you found the source yet? for the newspaper? I think we should remove it until you at least find it. I have given you weeks to find the source. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wa aleykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Yeah no problem, you can remove it. However if I verify the source, then I will add it back. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally think the source is non-authoritative either way but fair enough. For now we will delete it. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@WikiEditor1234567123 Just want to explain here in case you are planning on deleting my edit regarding Krupnov.

There is a difference between:

"не случайно остатки карабулаков не считающих себя чеченцами"

and

"не случайно остатки карабулаков не считают себя чеченцами"

Krupnov wrote the first text which means "who do not consider themselves Chechens", if he wrote the second then it would be "it is no coincidence that the remnants of the Karabulaks don't consider themselves Chechens". The key here is the difference between считают and считающих, i changed it to "who do not consider themselves Chechens". Besides i think we can both agree that Orstkhoy do not live in only those villages listed by Krupnov, despite what he meant in his text. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@WikiEditor1234567123 Why delete the Shteder source and call it forgery? i got it from Dzurdzuki (Ingush website) here on page 6, it's also on some blogs hereGoddard2000 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Quote from page 6: "у их соседей: чеченцев, гихов и аттигеров, с которыми они одного происхождения и говорят на одном и том же языке." Goddard2000 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it seems Shteder mentions that Karabulaks and Chechens have 1 origin and that they speak one language, but not that "out of their neighbors the Chechens are closest to them in language and origin". Plus, I couldn't find the quote you cited in the pp. 210–211 so my removal is understandable. I suggest changing the text to something like "Shteder mentions that Karabulaks and Chechens have 1 origin and that they speak one language" based on that quote you cited. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Your removal is not understandable at all, you said this text doesn't exist in the source and called it "forgery" after deleting it. Meanwhile it is on the exact same page as the text about Ingush in this article which is why i edited in page 210-211 like it was for the text about Ingush. I don't understand how you could miss the part about Chechens, the source i provided is the translation by Atalikov by the way.

Regarding the "out of all their neighbors", Karabulaks, Ingush and Chechens are neighbors are they not? Shteder mentions Ingush in his work does he not? he even talks about Ingush-Karabulak mixed villages on page 9. He quite clearly says that "their neighbors Chechens, Gekhians and Attagians share one origin and language". I think my "out of their neighbors" sentence is valid, especially since the Ingush related text in this article has texts like this: Ten years later, L. L. Shteder, making notes about Karabulaks, gives an almost textbook description of the unique details of typical Ingush vestments, cited by travelers and authors of the late 18th-19th centuries, often replicated on the images of that era and no longer characteristic of any other of the peoples Caucasus.. All based on what exactly? who said these vestments etc are unique and typical to only Ingush?

Also the text The first descriptions of the Orstkhoys by European authors in the second half of the 18th century identified them predominantly with the Ingush What is your source for this?

1. Guildenstedt never identified Karabulaks with Ingush, he merely mentions 2-3 villages (which we know are Karabulak, but he didn't) as Shalkhian (which Russians call little Angusht). Guildenstedt doesn't connect Ingush to Karabulaks at all, in fact he mentions Karabulaks separately from both Chechens and Ingush but says "they speak in a Chechen dialect".

2. Shtaelin identified Karabulaks to Chechens and say they live in Chechnya.

3. Shteder identified Karabulaks to Chechens, only thing he connects to Ingush is Karabulak shield and vestment i guess.

4. Gottlieb identified Karabulaks to Ingush (he just says they were called Ingush before) but mentions they speak a Chechen dialect.

5. Pallas identified Karabulaks to Ingush.

As you can see every 18th century source (except maybe Pallas i haven't checked that one fully yet) identified Karabulaks with Chechens either in ethnic origin and language. This is why i have "neutrality is disputed" in this article, you have taken a lot of liberty in your sentences about Karabulaks in here, if you want to change a simple sentence "out of all" then these other sentences that you have written about Karabulaks should also be changed. I propose removing "predominantly" and just write that Shteder compares Ingush vestment or shield to Karabulak ones for a start. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ingush Origins:

The first descriptions of the Orstkhoys by European authors in the second half of the 18th century identified them with the Ingush

Ten years later, L. L. Shteder, making notes about Karabulaks, gives an almost textbook description of the unique details of typical Ingush vestments, cited by travelers and authors of the late 18th-19th centuries, often replicated on the images of that era.

Chechen Origins:

In 1781, L.L. Städer, while making notes about the Karabulaks, mentions that their neighbors the Chechens share with them one origin and language

What do you think?

@WikiEditor1234567123 Goddard2000 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense how you claim that Karabulaks speaking a dialect of Chechen language is connecting to Chechens but large Karabulak ancestral villages being called Ingush and Karabulaks having the typical Ingush vestments not connecting Karabulaks to Ingush. Overall, you still have Gottlieb and Pallas who both mention the Karabulaks as Ingush. Now about Staehlin. Just so you know, he even mentions Tavlins (Avars) in the Kumyk/Sandy or Chechen land, not mentioning him including Ossetians and Ingush in the Tatar land. He doesn't mention Karabulaks as Chechen, please show me where he does? I agree with your suggested paragraphs, but remove "their neighbors" from Shteder paragraph, it's really not necessary as we know that Chechens are their neighbors. Regarding the paragraph about Tatartup fortress, I will remove it since it's really not notible enough to be in the history section and just takes up space. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

My removal was understantable, because I literally couldn't find that text in the pp. 210–211, you should check them yourself and see that the quote wasn't there. Here's the link to the book in Dzurdzuki website. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Guildenstedt calls Galgai a Chechen Okrug, he also says in his earliest writings from 1770 (page 36 in Atalikov) that Ingush live between Sunzha and Terek, then he says that Chechens live west of Ingush right after, meaning all those settlements he later attributes to Sholkhi are Chechen according to his first geography (similar to how Shtaelin mapped it). I won't change that though, if i find a secondary source that elaborates on this moment i'll add it. I'm only telling you this because you criticize Shtaelin's description of Tavlins in Chechnya but Guildenstedt contradicts himself very often too (i.e Galgai is a Chechen okrug etc). Anyways since you agree with my paragraphs i will edit those in and we can lay this to rest for the moment. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to answer the Karabulaks = Chechens part, we have already been through this, the land on which the Karabulaks live according to him he calls "Kumytskaya (Sandy land) or Chechnya", i.e Karabulaks live in Chechnya. It's already in the article. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Chechen Dictionary

Assalamu aleykum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Goddard2000, could you please add Chechen Dictionary source in the [ Note Tag 2] in the Name section similar to the way I added Ingush Dictionary source? I'm not familiar with Chechen sources so I thought that you could help me out there. Thanks. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Waaleykum Salam, i'll have to look into them later since i am not familiar with most dictionaries. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable people

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Goddard2000, what do you think about making a "Notable people" section? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Waaleykum Salam, i don't mind it, it should be included. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ethnical belonging

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Muqale and @Goddard2000. I'm proposing for the ethnical belonging section to be changed to like 2 paragraphs where there will be used only modern sources (not older than Soviet Period), the text will be something like:

According to some sources, Orstkhoy are Chechen,[here will be the citations grouped in a note] according to others, they are Ingush.[here will be the citations grouped in a note] Orstkhoy either consider themselves a separate ethnicity or identify themselves as Chechen or Ingush.[here will be citations]

The reason why I want for the ethnical belonging section to be cut down is because of WP:AGE MATTERS (most sources are from 19th century), WP:PRIMARY (most of them are primary sources, to which WP:OR can follow). That being said, the article won't ever be a GA if the article has these sources. Also imo, we don't need to have a whole section where we will explain every single source and what they've said (the article will become too long). Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Goddard2000 and @Muqale! There's been no replies from two of you for 4 months, so I'd like to hear your opinions first before I proceed rewriting the section. Best regards, WikiEditor^123… 12:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wa'aleikum As'salam @WikiEditor1234567123. Orstkhoy for centuries make up a significant part of the Ingush nation, and to a lesser degree [but also] make up a part of the Chechen nation. I see no reason why we should be comprimising on this historical fact. The early history of the Akkins is also more attrtibuted to the Ingush, but saying they are equally Chechen and Ingush would not be accepted by Chechen historians, nor would I deem it objective to now claim that Akkins are equally Ingush and Chechen. So this is my point. If you want to change the lay out, and improve the article, I have no problem with it, as long as you stay objectively accurate. Muqale 18:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@WikiEditor1234567123 Waaleykum Salam, i forgot to answer this the last time i saw it. I didn't and still dont understand what you mean, you want to remove everything we posted in both Chechen and Ingush section and replace it with just a sentence? isn't that what i initially proposed before we had a big debate about it? like literally my argument was that we should not have a block of text with sources thrown in like a competition to see which side has more sources. This was my original proposal:

"the current ethnicity section is just every source on planet earth crammed into it with 100 quotes. It looks unprofessional. If you want the ethnicity section then it is better we should delete 90% of that text and write something simple like some authors referred to Orstkhoy as Chechens (citing every source) while some referred to them as Ingush (citing every sources) but most agree that Orstkhoy are today integral parts of both nations since they are considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums and one of the seven historical Ingush shahars"

Could you elaborate more on your proposal? I personally have no problem with the current state of the ethnicity section. Goddard2000 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my proposal is similar to that of yours. WikiEditor^123… 06:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)