Talk:First Chechen War

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Russia: History / Military / Politics and law / Chechnya High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Chechnya task force.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 11, 2007.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of post-Soviet Russia#The 1996 presidential election|1996 presidential election campaign]] The anchor (#The 1996 presidential election) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

When the russians took out Dudayev by missle, the author fails to mention that his wife and son were in the car.Both died. -->Not sure about his son, but his wife Alla Dudayeva is still alive. She reportedly lives in Turkey (3man).

In Estonia. Lecha Dudayev died on the Grozny minefield in 2000, as he went first to clear the path for his men. --HanzoHattori 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chechens do not have a "long-standing hatred of the Russians." it is the russians who deported them en masse during stalins era, therefore i have changed this to: "Chechens' long-standing hatred of the Russian occupation."

the idea of a chechen insurgent fighting the russians in chechenya, is an oxymoron, they should be infact called pro independence fighters or words to that effect.

This is not correct, because the Russians intervened in the already existing civil conflict by supplying arms to the opposition to Dudaev's unrecognized government. 'Insurgent' is not a negative term, it just means against the established order, rebellious. Since Chechnya at that time was a part of Russia, insurgency is a correct way to describe anti-Russian forces (just like insurgency in Iraq is still insurgency, though it's essentially anti-occupation). I agree that one of their main goals was independence, which is already mentioned in the article. Hiron

Um, wait. So, the Dudayev's government were insurgents, right? Then who were the opposition (to the government) - the insurgents to insurgents?? "Unrecognised" is also rather questionable - the act of partition between Chechnya and Ingushetia was quite official, and stays legal to this day. Ingushetia then joined the Russian Federation alright (in 1992), but Chechnya never did until the (bogus) referendum and a new constitution in 2003 - 7 years after the first Chechen war ended!

- Occupation, Russians - I don't think the people in arms really care. And the guerillas that are now are fighting are fighting against the legitimate Chechen government.

Legitimate because made of the separatists' turncoats?

Um, so, what exactly is disputed?

Because I don't know. --HanzoHattori 08:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the article "Chechen people" says that the First Chechen War was in the 1st half of the 1800's, as well as the Second Chechen War which finished by 1850. If that is the case, then any of the Chechen military encounters HAVE to be named something else. One of these 2 articles are clearly wrong and begging for clarification. Stevenmitchell 10:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They meant the Caucasian War(s). --HanzoHattori 11:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"wiped out" too strong?

Appearently, only survivors were taken prisoner.

"After dark he finally decided to evacuate the wounded to the only armoured vehicle still working. (...) Only thirteen of the forty wounded survived to be taken prisoner. Savin abandoned the railway station on the evening of 2 January, leaving on foot with the remaining officers and soldiers until they found several abandoned armoured vehicles. They headed out of town but they too were caught by the Chechens. The Colonel died on the street from shrapnel wounds beside his wrecked vehicle. The entire Maikop Brigade, over 1000 men, had been wiped out in just sixty hours." [1]

--HanzoHattori 22:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that all but 13 solders were killed, and that those 13 were taken prisoner?

I am reading through, an this is what seems to be. That would be an extraordinary event, not a single solder to return from the battle! That would qualify as "wipped out". Instead of saying "completely wipped out", you can say "wipped out. (Its only 13 survivors were taken prisoner [2].)"

Did you notice that someone has gone through the text, and replaced every "fighter" and "separatist" with "terrorist"? I agree, some of them were terrorists, i.e. deliberately killed civilians, but fighting against solders is not "terrorism". It is "separatism", they are "rebel fighters", but only those individuals that deliberately target civilians are "terrorists".:Dc76 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Also, Maikop brigade - from the latter part of the same book (not online):

"No one knows the full count of the Russian dead. The official figures are far too low, partly because many of the soldiers were not wearing tags and their bodies, burnt to a cinder, were unidentifiable. Almost every soldier can name someone who died who does not appear on the official list. Survivors of the 131st Maikop Brigade said that over 1000 men died in Grozny. In Maikop, the capital of Adygeya, the North Caucasian town where the Brigade is based, one of the tanks destroyed on New Year's Eve stands on a plinth. Repainted but still bearing the hole from a grenade hit, it dominates a memorial to those who died. Lists of the fallen are carved on six black granite slabs. They hear just 110 names."

Mind you, officially Russia lost only ~1,800 KIA/MIA in the course of entire battle. --HanzoHattori 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, still:

"The 81st Motor Rifle Regiment lost half its 1114 men, according to survivors. The 503rd and 45th Regiments also took a hammering, with casualties running into the hundreds. Their bodies lay for weeks beside their burnt-out tanks all over central Grozny, prey to stray dogs and cats that roamed the abandoned city. Several soldiers were burnt alive trying to climb out of the top of their tanks. Their blackened bodies and charred limbs, reaching out, were frozen in action, in some of the most gruesome images of the war.

The extent of the slaughter was never admitted at the time and only emerged gradually. Two days after the disaster an official statement from the Defence Ministry said that Russian forces in the city were `regrouping', and admitted they had encountered intense resistance but consistently refused to issue casualty figures.

(...)

Chechen fighters took Chauvel for a long and dangerous tour of the battleground on 2 January. Dodging snipers, they worked their way towards the airport up a wide avenue several miles long, littered with the wreckage of the Russian army. Chauvel counted 100 burnt-out pieces of armour that day and estimated he saw 800 dead Russian bodies -- and he did not even make it as far as the railway station. `It was a slaughter. Along that street there are spaces of grass and trees in front of the houses. Two tanks would be lying hit in the middle of the road, and the others had panicked and turned in between houses. We even found dead Russians on the third floors of buildings.'

As he looked at wreck after wreck and bodies of soldiers strewn in pieces, Chauvel realized he was witnessing a humiliating disaster for the Russian army on a scale that no one could have imagined. `There were heavy tanks and troop-carriers, armoured personnel-carriers and troop trucks completely burnt, the bodies still inside. There was a mobile headquarters truck with communications. Everything was completely destroyed, the bodies burnt inside. They had hit the commander's vehicle, the Chechens were pleased with that. They kept saying "Command. Command."'

There were body parts everywhere, blown apart by explosions and blasted up on to the trees and trolley-bus wires above, where they still hung. Some bodies had been systematically butchered, a head sliced cleanly and placed apart on the pavement, undoubtedly the work of Chechen swordsmen. `It was unbelievable. I had never seen anything like it,' Chauvel said.

(...)

They suspected that their men of the 81st Motor Rifle Regiment were in big trouble. Dug in at the Rodina collective farm near the airport, they crouched in the gun emplacements, eating their cold rations between loads. `Those first days during the storm of Grozny were the worst. No one knew exactly where to fire, where the enemy was, even who the enemy was.' It was only after a week that they learned of the fate of their comrades. Zavyolov remembered a single battle-scarred APC limping home to the base. Alone, out of the company of fifteen armoured vehicles and 225 men, they had survived and fought their way out. The shell-shocked men could barely speak, but slowly over the next days, away from their officers, the story came out. `They told us how they were trapped for a whole week, they did not know where to go, they did not know even what to try to do, how or where to go,' Zavyolov said. `They told us how our tanks burned. How they moved from one place to another, trying to break out but always pinned down. They broke out with real difficulty, they were completely surrounded.'"

--HanzoHattori 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence

Despite having overwhelming manpower, weaponry and air support, Russian forces were unable to establish effective control over the mountainous area because of many successful Chechen guerrilla raids.

Which mountainous area? In which offensive operation did this occur? What kind of Chechen guerrilla raids? Can you be more specific about what is meant by "effective control"?

It doesn't need significant expansion, but there is no context, and it would be easier to read if the above questions were answered. Rintrah 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More information needed

This needs expansion:

The rebels seized Soviet Army weapons.

In the following month, Dudayev won overwhelming popular support to oust the interim, central government-supported administration. He was made president in an election which was unmonitored by any third party, and later alleged to be fraudulent.[citation needed] Dudayev then issued a unilateral declaration of independence. In November 1991, President Yeltsin of RSFSR dispatched Internal Troops to Grozny; but they forced to withdraw when Dudayev's forces prevented them from leaving the airport.

Where and how did they sieze the weapons?

How was popular support shown? I want to know more about the election. Rintrah 13:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This also needs expansion:

Pro- and anti-Dudayev factions of militants fought for power, sometimes in pitched battles with heavy weaponry. Rintrah 13:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felgenhauer:

"In June 1992 the Russian authorities withdrew all Russian defense personnel and their families from Chechnya. Almost all the arms and military equipment of Russian army units in Chechnya were left behind. This included, according to semi-official estimates: 42 tanks (T-62M and T-72); 66 armored combat vehicles (ACVs) - BMP-1, BMP-2, BTP-70, BRDM-2; 30 122mm towed howitzers D-30; 58 120mm PM-38 mortars; 18 B-21 Grad MRLs; 523 RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launchers and 77 ATGW (Concurs, Fagot and Metis); 18,832 AK-74, 9307 AK-47 (AKM), 533 sniper rifles, 1160 machine-guns; 4 ZCU-23-4 Shilka, 6 ZU-23 and an unspecified number of Igla portable SAMs; 152 Czech-made L-39 trainer-bomber jets, 94 L-29, several Mig-15, Mig-17, An-2 airplanes and 2 Mi-8 helicopters.

The arms could not have been recovered without a major military operation, since the cadre (skeleton) units based in Chechnya could not defend themselves. But a major invasion of Chechnya, to free the besieged Russian garrisons and to organize a withdrawal of the armaments and the men, would have certainly led to armed clashes and loss of life. Such action would have been extremely unpopular in Russia, would have almost certainly been condemned by the Supreme Soviet and maybe even used to initiate a successful impeachment procedure to oust President Boris Yeltsin. So no one in the administration dared to provoke an armed clash in Chechnya with uncertain results. Therefore a tacit agreement was reached that allowed the Russian servicemen and their families to withdraw peacefully and Dudayev to get the arms.

This tacit agreement clearly followed the pattern of other Russian Armed Forces withdrawals from the former Soviet republics. In 1992 the Russian army was used to cutting its losses and retreating."

As for the Chechen Civil War, it was between Dudayev and various folks like Beslan Gantamirov (his former mayor of Grozny), Ruslan Labazanov (his former chief of bodyguards), or Ruslan Khasbulatov (everyone knows him). At one point Dudayev's 600 regulars barely controlled Grozny, and even Basayev was against him (as was his Vedeno region). Dudayev's opponents at the time also included his former prime minister and his former first chief of staff. --HanzoHattori 17:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen declaration of independence

Can someone who knows something about the subject rewrite or clarify the Chechen declaration of independence section (particularly the second and third paragraph)? As it stands, it is not well written. Rintrah 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Info

Please expand and clarify this: After staging another coup attempt in December 1993, the opposition organized a Provisional Council as a potential alternative government for Chechnya, calling on Moscow for assistance. Rintrah 07:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Now that the copyediting is done, can people find references for the article? It deserves to be higher than B class. Rintrah 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?

Aren't there a few too many pictures in this article? IDK, it just seems that way to me. oops, forgot to sign! --69.120.63.248 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Every one powerfully complements its adjacent text. Rintrah 03:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to this article?

The article read much more nicely on, say, 9 December than it does now. I think edit creep has crippled the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rintrah (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, it was just vandalism. No matter then. Rintrah 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are encouraged to make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them. You say my contributions are "no matter" because they are "just vandalism." You defend reverting my work in articles with an edit summary accusing me of "being annoying." Attacking a respected editor as a 'vandal' is a serious offense. I would be in my right to report you, requesting that you be admonished for personal attacks. I am an academic historian, the author of multiple featured articles related to Russia, and one of the site's longest tenured editors. Few editors have accomplished more in efforts to bring articles related to Russian history up to standard than I have. I am clearly not a vandal. An apology would be in order.

Regarding this article, my edit is not coming out of nowhere. I am the original main article of this article, using public domain text from a Library of Congress Country study, an unquestioned source of reliable information and high quality writing. You, however, restored a version of the article noted for containing possibly inaccurate text and missing citations. The current version is terrible. It reads like a yellow press battle narrative, with little comparative and structural-historical perspective. The rude response to my attempt to bring this article back up to standard has strengthened my resolve to clean up this article. 172 | Talk 16:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I apologise.

As to which of the two versions is better, I don't like how the Library of Congress article is written, and disagree it is high-quality writing. I see nothing wrong with the article narrating the events of battle; its lack of perspective on whatever you mentioned (I'd appreciate simpler English here) is easily mended; if you take the time to do so, that is. Please improve the current article instead of reverting it to the other article, which is quite unsatisfying. Rintrah 07:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old article was "unsatisfying" for those interested in detailed battle accounts. Such information can go in the individual entries about the battles. 172 | Talk 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chechen Wars?

This article is about the First Chechen War, defined within the article as a war between Chechen nationals and Russian military forces for Chechen independence. I see why other conflicts may hold relevance, but why is there a need for a section on them within this article? Perhaps it should be linked, and put on the Chechen wars page, but it doesn't really belong in an article about this specific conflict.71.30.52.249 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. --HanzoHattori 12:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying anon ip

Is there a way to semi-protect the talk page? If so, please. --HanzoHattori 06:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 1995 Offensives

For some reason, there's only a brief and unconclusive description of Russian offensives in April and especially May-June 1995 ("Mountain offensive"). Also, the ceasefire of April 26 — May 12 isn't mentioned at all. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Dudayev's coup

Can someone help me find some more sources about what exactly happened during Dudayev's coup? The only source I can find is here: http://www.amina.com/article/partition2.html where it's said that they threw "Vitali Kutsenko" (chief of the PCUS) out of the window. Now I don't want to be a faultfinder, but being thrown out of a window doesn't necessarily result into death, and this source doesn't confirm his death, but wikipedia does. I can't find any info on "Vitali Kutsenko" to confirm his fate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union? by Matthew Evangelista, Kutsenko was either was thrown out of window or fell trying to escape the Supreme Soviet building. During the "decommunization" actions, Dudayev's supporters also seized the TV and radio stations, and the republican headquaters of the KGB. Yeltsin's Moscow authorities consequently supported Dudayev against Zavgayev, who has previously supported the hardline putchists against Gorbatchev (they also thought they would win over Dudayev by promoting him to high command position if he returned to the service - but Dudayev instead had ideas of creating a confederacy of the Muslim North Caucasian republics). --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian government sez:

"On February 1, 1995, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation instituted legal proceedings pursuant to article 64, item A, 70-1, 133-1, section 1, and 74, section 3, of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation. The investigating team has collected sufficient evidence to charge Dzhokhar Dudayev with illegitimately seizing power in the Chechen-Ingush Republic and preventing its governmental bodies from functioning, as he publicly called for acts of terrorism as well as ethnic, social and religious strife in the republic. Dudayev committed the aforementioned crimes under the following circumstances. In 1991, so as to materialize his schemes, he united and led extremist, nationalist-minded paramilitary groups, composed, among others, of criminals. In an effort to realize his designs, in August 1991 he had his men capture the buildings of the republican television centre in Grozny, and of the Supreme Soviet and the Council of Ministers of the Chechen-Ingush Republic, thereby causing material damage to the state. On September 6, 1991, Dudayev’s associates rushed into Grozny’s political education centre during a session of the Supreme Soviet of the republic and attacked Doku Zavgayev, legitimately elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, seriously injuring him. As a result of their actions, Grozny City Council deputy V. A. Kutsenko was killed. With that same objective in mind, armed Dudayev-led groups seized the republican KGB premises on October 5, 1991. As they were storming the building, lieutenant colonel N. B. Ayubov, then on duty, was shot dead. To retain power in violation of the law, Dudayev used his paramilitary groups for putting up, in December 1994 and January 1995, armed resistance to the federal army and militia as these latter were trying to restore constitutional order in the Chechen republic, which inflicted heavy casualties." --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! - PietervHuis 21:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Evangelista's book is btw avaible at http://books.google.com/books?id=inc4KfEHymYC&printsec=frontcover#PPP1,M1 --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came upon this:

In Chechen political life two politicians oppose: local chief of the PCUS and speaker of Republican parliament Doku Zavgayev, and a Muscovite Chechen Ruslan Khasbultov, that was one of the close supporters of Boris Yeltsin and vice-speaker of the Russian parliament. After the election in June 1991 of Boris Yeltsin to the presidency of Russia, Khasbultov becomes speaker of the Russian parliament. Naturally, he tries to replace Zavgayev by his man, however Doku Zavgayev resists. Zavgayev placed in all the Republic's key-posts men of his teype, and usurped the power in Chechnya-Ingushetia.

August 19-21, 1991, an putsch attempt has been undertaken in Moscow, aiming to dismiss the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. A crowd, conducted by militants of the NCChP, invades the central place of Grozny. The Republic's leader, Doku Zavgayev, temporized before condemning putschists, until their failure becomes obvious. August 22, leaders of the NCChP ask for the resignation of the Chechen-Ingush parliament and of his speaker Doku Zavgayev because of their supposed support of the putschists. Militants of the Congress seized the republican television, by which General Dudayev spoke to inhabitants of the Republic and explained demands of the opposition. August 25, an extraordinary session of Chechen-Ingush parliament took place in Grozny. After having listened to General Dudayev, deputies rejected the claims of the NCChP and asked to stop riots. August 26, a delegation of the Russian parliament comes to Grozny. Its members warn Zavgayev that the political crisis in Chechnya cannot be settled by force. In the following days, the praesidium of the Chechen-Ingush parliament resigns, whereas Zavgayev and his deputies remain in their posts. An attempt of talks between the republican parliament and the opposition failures. Deputies reject again the NCChP's demands and describe the actions of the Chechen radicals as anti-constitutional.

August 31, the interim speaker of the Russian parliament, Ruslan Khasbulatov arrives in Grozny, whereas the unrest flares up the city: rallies, strikes, barricades on fire, overturned buses. September 1-2, the third session of the NCChP states that the republic's parliament is dismissed, its executive commitee assumes all the power on all the territory of Chechnya-Ingushetia. September 3, Chechen-Ingush parliament introduces the state of emergency in the Republic, but police and military, whose units are situated in Chechnya-Ingushetia, proclaim their neutrality in the conflict. The NCChP's militants control Grozny and most of districts of the Republic. Barricades are raised in Grozny's streets. September 4-5, the republic's parliament and the NCChP oppose, in trying to attract on their side the rural populations.

September 6, Doku Zavgayev holds a meeting with deputies, mayors and directors of factories of the Republic in the building of the political center. Zavgayev states that he will remain in his functions. The National Guards of the NCChP seize the building and interrupt the meeting, whereas the police, who have to protect it, don't interfere. Several persons have been wounded or molested during the assault, whereas the chief of the PCUS of Grozny, Vitali Kutsenko, is defenestrated. The National Guards forced Zavgayev to sign his resignation. The NCChP's executive committee announces in newspapers that the Chechen-Ingush parliament and its speaker have resigned. A temporary committee, conducted by Yaragui Mamodayev, is created to replace the executive power. The NCChP controls the administrative buildings, the Republic's television and radio station, whereas the mobilization on the central square in Grozny continues since three weeks.

September 6, some factories of the Republic begin the presidential electoral drive, in proposing the candidacy of Salambek Khadjiev, deputy of the Soviet parliament and former Minister of oil of the USSR. September 7, several parties of the opposition having supported Jokhar Dudayev, condemn the forced dissolution of the Republic's parliament and accuse the President of the NCChP's executive committee of having usurped the power. September 10, General Dudayev states that the aim of the NCChP is the creation of an independent and democratic state. September 11, refugee in a mountain village, Doku Zavgayev speaks by the radio to inhabitants of the Republic. He affirms that he controls the situation in Chechnya-Ingushetia. The speaker of the Russian parliament, Ruslan Khasbultov, sends a telegram to the NCChP's executive committee and expresses his satisfaction about the Zavgayev resignation. September 12, talks begin between a Russian government delegation and the NCChP's executive committee. These negotiations don't give any concrete result. The National Guards continue to enlist volonteers and already count several thousands of fighters. The executive committee forms the customs' service, employees of which get settled in the airport and on the borders of the Republic. Ruslan Khasbultov arrives in Grozny. He asks for the resignation of all the deputies of Chechnya-Ingushetia, that in his mind are involved in thieving, corruption and speculation. By local television, Khasbultov states that it is not possible to bear any longer such a situation and affirms that the people demand to take "strong measures". However, anti-Dudayev's opposition organizes a Democratic Reforms' Movement, DRM, that unites the Association of the Intelligentsia, the Civil Concord Movement and the Social-Democrat Club. Salambek Khadjiev is elected President of the MRD. The MRD announces that Chechnya is threatened by the institution of a dictatorship in the style of Zviad Gamsakhourdia. According to the MRD, this dictatorship can be imposed by shade economy's lobbies.

September 15, in absence of Doku Zvagayev and of his first deputy A. Petrenko, the last session of the Chechnya-Ingushetia's parliament takes place in Grozny. The building, where the session takes place, is surrounded by the National Guards. Under the Ruslan Khasbultov's pressure, deputies vote for the resignation of the parliament's speaker, Doku Zavgayev, and the self-dissolution of the parliament. The general elections are fixed for November 17, 1991. A temporary organ of power is formed: the Temporary Supreme Council, TSC, composed of 32 deputies, mainly belonging to anti-Zavgayev opposition. At the same time, Ingush deputies meet in Nazran and proclaim an Ingush Republic. September 17, the republican movement of the Greens announces its disagreement with the policies of the NCChP; the leader of the Greens, R. Goytemirov leaves the ministerial committee of the NCChP. September 18, the number of TSC members is reduced to 13. The vice-president of the the NCChP's executive committee, Khusseyn Akhmadov becomes its president, whereas the "man of confidence" of Ruslan Khasbultov, Yuri Cherny, is elected its deputy. The TSC announces that in addition to the general elections, it also prepares the presidential elections. September 25, the anti-Dudayev opposition, united in a block "Round Table", demands to the NCChP to not usurp the power, to free the television and the radio and to dissolve armed formations. Five members of the TSC, controlled by Yuri Cherny, disapprove of the usurpation of the power by the NCChP's executive committee. September 26, Ruslan Khasbultov sends a telegram, in which he warns that if the power is usurped by the "informal organizations" (NCChP), the results of elections won't be recognized. September 27, three Ingush members leave the TSC, because of the proclamation of the Ingush Republic. Nine members remain in the TSC: 4 men of Khousseyn Akhmadov (NCChP) and 5 deputies, controlled by Yuri Cherny (man of Khasbultov). October 1st, 4 members of the TSC, under the direction of Akhmadov, publish several legislative acts in the name of the TSC, including an act on the separation of Chechnya-Ingushetia in two republics. Yuri Cherny states that all the acts, issued by Akhmadov, don't have any legal force, because they have not been voted by the majority of the TSC's members. October 2, Khusseyn Akhmadov denies the declaration of Tcherny and affirms that all the acts, including the act on the presidential elections, have been adopted legally. At the same time, the block of anti-Dudayev opposition "Round Table" holds a meeting in Grozny, with the participation of trade unionist leaders and of the deputy of the TSC's president Yuri Cherny. Again, the opposition condemns the illegal taking of the power by the NCChP and asks to dissolve the National Guards, to stop the blockade of the republican radio and of television station and to cancel the holding of the Chechen republican presidential elections, foreseen for October 19.

October 5, seven from nine members of the TSC meet in Grozny home with representatives of the republic parliament and trade unionist leaders. They decide to cancel the acts, adopted by Akhmadov, and to dismiss Akhmadov from the post of TSC president. 7 TSC members ask the Republic's interior minister to assure the protection of TSC and to disarm the NCChP's National Guards. The National Guards take the House of Trade Unions, 7 members of the TSC run off. The same day the National Guards seize the republican heardquarters of the KGB. During the assault, one agent of the KGB is killed. October 6, the the NCChP's executive committee dissolves the TSC because of subversive actions and provocations. General Dudayev states that members of the TSC entered a plot with the KGB, having for goal to undertake a coup d'Etat in the Republic. The TSC continues to work in clandestinity. A Russian government's delegation, conducted by Russian vice-president, Alexander Rutskoy, comes to Grozny. It meets all participants of the conflict: members of the executive committee of the NCChP, members of the TSC and representatives of anti-Dudayev's opposition. The Rutskoy visit has no result. October 7, the TSC restarts its activities in Grozny in its former composition of 37 members. It asks for the population to boycott the presidential elections, announced by the NCChP's executive committee, and announces its own presidential elections, foreseen for November 17. October 7-8, the NCChP's National Guards seize during the night the headquarters of the TSC in Grozny.

Alexander Rutskoy makes a very negative report to the Russian parliament about the actions of the NCChP: havoc in the administrative buildings, abductions of republican officials, aggressive attitude of the National Guards. Deputies recognize the TSC as the only lawful organ of power in Chechnya-Ingushetia and invite the TSC to take "all necessary steps to stabilize the situation". The Russian parliament gives a time limit of 24 hours to the armed formations to give back their weapons. The executive committee considers the Russian parliament's decree as "a coarse and provocative interference in the affairs of the Chechen Republic" and as a "declaration of war". Rutskoy proposes to Dudayev and to the NCChP to participate in the elections under the aegis of the TSC, if they submit to the ultimatum. General Dudayev rejects the offer and states: "Our rights, we hold them from our people." The NCChP proclaims a general mobilization of all men from 15 to 55 years old, and proclaims illegal all the decrees issued by the TSC. The office of the public prosecutor of Chechnya-Ingushetia is seized by the National Guards, whereas the president of the Vaynakh Democratic Party Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, proclaims the jihad, holy war against infidels, and calls his supporters to arms. October 10, two rallies take place in Grozny. The first is anti-Russian and conducted by the NCChP, another is organized by the anti-Dudayev opposition. Several local militias are organized in the rural zones. October 13, the Russian television announces that the the NCChP's executive committee condemned to death in absentia Ruslan Khasbultov and Alexander Routskoy, the Chechen side denied the information. Another delegation from Moscow visits Grozny. The NCChP's leaders accept to cancel the general mobilization, if the Russian parliament in its turn cancels the ultimatum. The NCChP's executive committee confirms the holding of the republican presidential and general elections October 27. It announces that at present the question about the separation from the Soviet Union will not be solved during a referendum untill after the elections of October 27. At the same time, representatives of the NCChP's executive committee, of the TSC and of the democratic forces' demonstration in Grozny form a "state committee of national concord". The TSC and the democratic forces (anti-Dudayev's opposition) insist on the delaying of the October 27's presidential elections and on the conservation of Chechnya-Ingushetia.

October 19, Russian President Boris Yeltsin gives an ultimatum to the NCChP. General Dudayev announces that the pressure by force on behalf of Yeltsin can not be accept by a people "that fights for its liberty". October 26, Jokhar Dudayev says in an interview to the AP agency that after he's elected President of Chechnya-Ingushetia, he will study the question "on the possibility to lead a war against Russia". October 27, under the aegis of the NCChP, the presidential elections take place in Chechnya-Ingushetia. They are boycotted by the Ingush and Cosack districts of the Republic. The TSC warns that these elections have no legal value. The opposition states that only 30% of voters have participated in the voting of October 27. Elected President of Chechnya, Jokhar Dudayev announces that the Chechen presidential and general elections of October 27, were a logical crowning piece of the way of Chechnya toward the independence. October 29 TSC and anti-Dudayev's opposition begin to form popular militias in counterweight of the National Guards of Dudayev. The TSC begins an electoral drive for the general elections, fixed for November 17. At the same time, Ruslan Khasbultov is elected speaker of the Russian parliament. November 3, Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia states that he supports President Dudayev. November 8, Boris Yeltsin introduces the state of emergency in Chechnya-Ingushetia, and gives the order about the confiscation of firearms that the population possess. President Dudayev introduces the state of war and affirms to be invested of "powers of exception". He warns Moscow about the possibility of "terrorist acts, including bomb attacks against the nuclear power stations". Dudayev states to the AFP that Moscow is proclaimed a "disaster-stricken zone", in adding that "all the Caucasus is going to stand up [against the aggressor]". Planes transporting troops land in Khankala, military airfield of Grozny. On the next day, the National Guards of the NCChP block the Khankala's airfield, whereas about ten thousand demonstrators meet in the center of Grozny. They protest against the introduction of troops. Without using weapons, the Russian soldiers are transported, under the control of the National Guards, from Khankala to Vladikavkaz (Northern Ossetia). November 11, the Russian parliament cancels President Yeltsin's decree on the introduction of the state of emergency in Chechnya-Ingushetia.

The Chechen revolution's results are the arrival of General Dudayev and of the NCChP, dominated by radicals, to the power in Chechnya, the separation of Chechnya-Ingushetia, the creation of several armed formations (National Guards of the NCChP, militias of the anti-Dudayev's opposition), the failure of a democratic transition and weakening of the opposition to the Dudayev's regime following the Russian intervening. The success of Chechen radicals in general and of Jokhar Dudayev in particular can be explained by the superposition of several factors. These were President Yeltsin's weakness (he fought at the same time against the Soviet President Gorbachev and the Rutskoy-Khasbulatov's tandem), the neutrality of the Soviet Army (it didn't yet become the Russian army), the other Moslem minorities' radicalization (in Tatarstan, for example), and the intervening of Gorbachev (Soviet President personally opposed to the use of force in Grozny). In fall 1991 during the Chechen revolution, Gorbachev was still in power.

--HanzoHattori (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--94.192.80.191 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)== Chechen losses ==[reply]

What's the source for "6,000"? --HanzoHattori (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/iskhanovinterview.pdf says 2,000 killed (a private estimate though). --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian book on Russia/USSR military losses in XX century estimates only 2500-2700 Chechen fighters killed, which is strange because this book is almost "official", but this estimate isn't official at all. According to this 2005 Kavkaz Center article (sorry, it's on Russian, maybe they have it in English section), there were 3800 fighters killed and more than 7500 wounded during the first war. They also give Russian losses for 1994-1996 as up to 80 000 KIAs and 150-180 000 WIAs :) 195.248.189.182 (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it's important to remember that it's difficult to get accurate estimates regarding deaths/injuries in any Soviet/Post-Soviet Russian situation. For example, the Stalin era, and so on. Russia has never been open with those kind of figures. It's best to use the most standard source anyone can find and say 'current estimates stand at...', because, like many Russian conflicts, it's quite possible that we will never know. --94.192.80.191 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I'm not sure what do you mean by blatant crimes committed before Russian forces crossed the border (who committed them then - Dudayev's men?) but in any case war crimes were certainly committed after that. It's absolutely irrelevant who started everything first. I can remind you of the ethnic cleansing of non-Chechens in the early 90s, then one may remember deportation of 1944 or something even older. The info I've restored is sourced and undoubtedly relevant to the article. Alæxis_¿question? 16:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, to quote myself:

Also, the first crimes against civilians were commited before they even first crossed the border in 1994, when the drunk soldaty killed several Ingush villagers, few fellow soldiers, and even the Ingush minister of health.[3] --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were extremally demoralized to begin with. And CA's revelations are bull. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, as of use of vodka, they drunk.... much. There were incidents of them drinking before going into combat. They were mostly drunk in their APCs when they went in the New Year into Grozny - even their generals ordered them to attack during a libation to celebrate Grachev's birthday. There was actually an Internal Troops brigade which was known as ."always drunk" (the 205th). Guerrila warfare tactics are usually always the same, no revelations there. But having a drunk army, THIS is something unusual. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omg, what all this has to do with the question we're discussing?

What's wrong with the word 'fugitive'? According to my Collins dictionary it is 1) a person who flees 2) a thing that is elusive or fleeting 3) fleeing, esp from arrest or pursuit 4) not permanent; fleeting; transient 5) moving or roving about. Here the word is used in its first meaning (to flee is 'to run away from', if you're interested). If it's the only problem you see here why have you reverted the whole edit then? Alæxis_¿question? 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I never heard about anyone pretending to be Red Cross personnel in this war. I know only about the FSB sowing rumours the Red Cross are their spies (with deadly effect). --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you heard is also absolutely irrelevant here... Alæxis_¿question? 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys it may have been de facto independence but it was also full independence. It was a russian defeat, just like americans lost the war in Vietnam. There's many who don't want to admit that either, but it's stated here as well Vietnam War. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Looks like wikipedians do not like neutral point of view, right? Why people can't write "victory of Federal Forces" in article about Second Chechen War, but can write here "Chechen victory"? May be, it is Anti-Russian sentiment?
Why we can let be only text about Khasav-Yurt accord and de-facto independence of ChRI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.82.185 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to declare victory in a conflict that is still ongoing (second chechen war). The Chechens won the first war, maskhadov became their president which is what they wanted. Why not make itclear it was a chechen victory? May be, it is Islamophobia? - - PietervHuis (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The war has been enden years ago, but no-one can declare a peace, because all the terrorist key people has been killed. It is a Chechen point of view. Yes, Federal Forces have been lost the war as such, but army still was there, so we can't just say "It was a victory".
AND:
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

You don't sound very neutral yourself when you call rebels "terrorists". But all leaders who got killed were succeeded. Since when do you finish a war just by killing the leaders? So if Rebels kill Putin they've won the war? Weird reasoning. Umarov is still alive so a peace treaty could be signed. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, actually the question of who won the 1CW isn't that simple (regardless of my own opinion). Although some sources would say about Chechen victory other are more vague. And rebels certainly didn't get all they wanted - Russia didn't recognise CRI as an independent country, for example. So I propose not to write about victories in both articles since the results of these conflicts are already summarised in the infoboxes. Alæxis_¿question? 16:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia DID recognize the CRI and Aslan Maskhadov. It's all in the Khasav-Yut accord. The victory seems pretty obvious for me, but I'll wait until others share their opinion instead of starting an edit-war - - PietervHuis (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Russia didn't recognise CRI as an independent country. Would you argue with this? Alæxis_¿question? 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the Khasav-Yurt accord it was stated the status of Ichkeria would be discussed 5 years from the signing. However, Russia DID recognise the CRI as the legitimate government of Chechnya and so did every other country in the world. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about it? I'd love to see sources confirming your last sentence.

What I want to say is that Chechens didn't get everything they wanted. Besides Khasav-yurt agreement was seen by many as a truce rather than a genuine peace treaty (you can check it yourself easily). Alæxis_¿question? 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that calling the First Chechen War a Chechen victory might offend certain people or maybe even hurt their pride but the plain and simple fact is that after the separatists' '96 offensive the position of the federal army in Chechnya could not be maintained and it had to be withdrawn under very unfavourable terms, whether or not the Chechens got everything they wanted in the Khasav-Yurt treaty does not even bear any relevance to this matter. On the infobox of the Second World War an allied victory is mentioned, in the infobox of the American Civil War a Union victory is mentioned. The First Chechen War was a clear Chechen victory and should be listed as such. If you disagree with this you may find comfort in the fact that any Chechen success in the First Chechen War was undone in the Second when their capitol city was shelled into oblivion for the second time in 6 years and their de facto independance was lost.ForrestSjap (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is exactly my point. The 1CW was Chechens' victory just like the second one was their defeat. I'm arguing for the consistency here... Alæxis_¿question? 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second war would be their defeat if the conflict was completely over and it's not.

That Russia recognised Maskhadov as the leader of Chechnya was inside the khasav yurt accord, the accord can be viewed online so you can check it out. On top of the accord a peace treaty between maskhadov and yeltsin was signed as well. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is with this "Steve Crossin" guy?

He reverts everything I write!

I think he's going to undo this, too... --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Budyonnovsk.jpg

The image Image:Budyonnovsk.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you take this numbers?

"All units of the 131st 'Maikop' Motor Rifle Brigade sent into the city, numbering more than 1,000 men, were destroyed during the 60-hour fight in the area of the Grozny's central railway station, leaving only about 230 survivors (1/3 of them captured)."

"...more than 1,000 men..." is total number of 131st 'Maikop' Motor Rifle Brigade. In area of operations was 840. But take part in Battle of Grozny only 446. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvin.Pen'Dragon (talk • contribs) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this. Actually the book that is cited there says: "The entire Maikop Brigade, over 1000 men, had been wiped out in just sixty hours." This doesn't mean that all of the brigade's soldiers were killed. Btw, I couldn't find the number of survivors (230) there.

Could you please write the sources of your numbers? Alæxis_¿question? 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Main information I take from this. And aboun number of the brigade's soldiers who assist in Battle of Grozny this. All links to Ru resurses, but I think it will not be problem for You. Korvin.Pen'Dragon (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sources are obviously not worse than any other. However blogs aren't considered reliable (see WP:V#SELF) and so some other sources are needed... Alæxis_¿question? 08:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... I don't think, that exists another source with such in-depth information. Maybe here or here. On last link it's possible to see official list of killed. Korvin.Pen'Dragon (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV language in Chechen declaration of independence

The way it was written, using only one Russian source to claim Kutsenko was pushed out of the window is definitely POV, considering other sources say he could have fallen out while trying to escape. Restored a NPOV version which mentions both possibilities, pushed or fell. Martintg (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely agree. The Pieter's version was more neutral and more carefully worded. Lokii, Please do not tell that I was "not involved". If you wish, I will be permanently involved here.Biophys (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tishkov book

I think we can use the book as a source. I have not read it but looked through the Amazon review [4]. The book is written by Valery Tishkov, who seems to be a respectable academics with reputation albeit working in Russia. Gorbachev has only written preface for it, he is also rather an opposition figure in 2000th Russia. The book is published by a respectable American publishing house specializing in academic publications. I see no obvious red flags here, it is certainly not worse then newspapers and dubious websites used as source Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Alex. Not only is the book written with the help of Mikhail Gorbachev, the main author himself Valery Tishkov himself is a member of the Public Chamber of Russia set up by Vladimir Putin himself. This book is full exceptional claims, and the one adressed in this article is one of them. Tishkov's work had been criticised before for writing politically motivated works not close to scientific truth.[5] Tishkov also claimed that the 2003 referendum in Chechnya was an "accurate reflection of Chechen opinion" even though they were described by international observers as deeply flawed.[6] We really need better sources for that per WP:REDFLAG. For regular statements and events, sure. But not exceptional claims. Grey Fox (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this kind of ends it: Tishkov was a minister himself under Boris Yeltsin, also at the time of the First Chechen War.[7] Don't worry though, I don't deny that discrimination happened during the rule of Dudayev. I'll add other sources for that too. My problem is the number "tens of thousands". I've read quite a couple of books and articles about this period of history now, and while information is often contradictory, most tent to agree that many Russians also fled during the war, and that their houses were destroyed by Russian bombardments killing thousands of their own civilians. I'll try to add proper sources soon. Grey Fox (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more sources. If you have any contradistinction data please add them too. According to [8] 300 thousand plus of russophones were either killed or dispalced between 1989 and 2006 almost achieving Hitler's dream of pure Aryan population in the region. I think we have got enough displaced people to fill "tens of thousand" mark for the pre first war, during the first war and between the wars period. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article about supposed genocide is extremely dubious, it also completely fails to mention the bombing of grozny which killed thousands of ethnic Russians and destroyed their homes. Besides where are the mass graves? If genocide did happen it would have been covered by human rights groups, but it's not. Memorial only speaks of discrimination. This is an exceptional claim and not an exceptional source so we'd better just stick with Memorial.

Anyway, here is some other information:

"Apprehensive of the increasing influence of Islam, many ethnic Russians simply left, an estimated 19,000 in 1991 alone." Unity Or Separation: Center-periphery Relations in the Former Soviet Union, By Daniel R. Kempton, Terry D. Clark

"Again, Chechnya was not an isolated case, rather an extreme version of events taking place in many newly independent republic of the collapsed Soviet Union – where an estimated 25 ethnic-Russians became minorities and foreigners overnight. They left in droves from civil war and poverty in Tajikistan, they suffered political and linguistic discrimination in the Baltic republics. Of course, little did those Russians fleeing Chechnya know that they were only the first wave of refugees. The second would come in 1994 when Moscow sent the army in and the trapped ethnic-Russians suddenly found themselves being bombed by their so-called protectors. By the end of the war in 1996, the Russian community had almost vanished. As a result the anti-Russians aggression was not only a tragedy for the ethnic-Russians, but left the Chechen economy debilitated." Allah's Mountains: Politics and War in the Russian Caucasus By Sebastian Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Fox-9589 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I am new to Wikipedia and this article, but not to the academic study of the Chechen wars or to the scholarly controversies surrounding it. While I would agree that Tishkov's position and scholarship is not without flaw, his book cannot be rejected wholesale simply because he was at one point a member of the Russian government. The point that the claim he made and to which I referred is apparently not backed up beyond his text, though, is taken. Nonetheless, apropos of the criticism by Vakhit Akaev [9] I would like to suggest that Akaev read Tishkov's book in manuscript before publication (Tiskhov 2004: 7) and that his review was published under the auspices of the Jamestown Foundation, itself not an apolitical institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aytta2 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia Aytta2. Tishkov was a minister under Boris Yeltsin. Boris Yeltsin himself ordered the invasion of Chechnya which included the large amount of atrocities. That makes it a primary source, which isn't good enough for WP:REDFLAG. I don't know exactly what he wrote, but I've read publications before of him which often contained exceptional claims. I'm not sure what country you're in, but being a minister under a dubious president is extremely damaging here. A minister here had to resign because people found out she was a minister under Dési Bouterse. Our future queen Princess Máxima of the Netherlands's father was a minister under Jorge Rafael Videla which caused a lot of controversy, and he was not allowed to attain her marriage in the Netherlands because of that. Tishkov himself was a minister under Boris Yeltsin during the First Chechen War. It's not a neutral and/or reliable source, otherwise we could write this article completely based on the memoirs of Russian government officials.

I think the problem is fixed now, Alex added a source from a respected human rights group which carries the same information. I don't agree with the other sources though. The first is from Izvestia which is government controlled. I don't know about the second Russian source, but that one speaks about "genocide" even which is extremely redflag and the writer isn't notable. So I propose to just use the memorial source and the two other sources I published above. Grey Fox (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I agree that the problem is fixed, yet would like to point out that Tishkov's book is not in any way a memoir; it is a work of scholarship (anthropology) written by a prominent academic and "concerned citizen" who, yes, in 1992 was a government official under Yeltsin. But he has consistently condemned the violence on both sides. If you read the book you will soon find this: "The behavior of Yeltsin [and others] was incomprehensible... They opted for atrocities, revenge, and other ugly tactics... in principal it was criminal" (Tishkov 2004: 74). -- Aytta2 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would enjoy reading Tishkov's books but still take his claims with a grain of salt. Maybe he did criticize Yeltsin, but it didn't prevent him from participating in his government, and in 2005 he again joined the Russian government. If he really cared that much about human rights in Chechyna he wouldn't. I'm glad things seem solved now. Grey Fox (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sokolov-Mitrich's works

I can't understand why his works are removed from the article. The edit summary reads 'sokolov mitrich is criticized by a human rights group as well as the government'. First, how and by whom was he criticised? Was he criticised for this book of for some other things? Alæxis_¿question? 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here Alaexis[10]. My point is that we can't just base exceptional claims on dubious and/or non-notable russian writers/journalists. Anyway there's quite enough sources now so there shouldn't be a problem anymore. Grey Fox (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There he's criticised (and rather mildly, I'd say) for his article about ethnic problems in Yakutia. Imho it hardly has anything to do with Chechnya.

Yes, there are more sources now. So, why can't we add this one if it confirms what other ones (more credible in your opinion) say? Alæxis_¿question? 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about Chechnya, but nevertheless about ethnic tensions. I'm not saying we can never use his citations, but we should be careful when it comes to exceptional claims. It's hard for me to read his entire work because I don't speak Russian, but it's more or less unnecessary to add his version of events when we already have them from respected academics and human rights organisations. It's also a matter of principles to not base this entire article on the work of Russian journalists (we want to strife for a well balanced article don't we). Grey Fox (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...resulted in Chechnya's de facto independence from Russia as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria."

How can Chechnya's de facto independence be a result of the war? It had de facto independence before the war already. Offliner (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 11, 1994, Russian forces launched a three-pronged ground attack towards Grozny. The main attack was temporarily halted by deputy commander of the Russian Ground Forces, Gen. Eduard Vorobyov, who then resigned in protest, stating that it is "a crime" to "send the army against its own people."[17] Many in the Russian military and government opposed the war as well. Yeltsin's adviser on nationality affairs, Emil Pain, and Russia's Deputy Minister of Defense Gen. Boris Gromov (esteemed commander of the Soviet-Afghan War), also resigned in protest of the invasion ("It will be a bloodbath, another Afghanistan," Gromov said on television), as did Gen. Borys Poliakov. More than 800 professional soldiers and officers refused to take part in the operation; of these, 83 were convicted by military courts and the rest were discharged. Later Gen. Lev Rokhlin also refused to be decorated as a Hero of Russia for his part in the war.

The Chechen Air Force (as well as the republic's civilian aircraft fleet) was completely destroyed in the air strikes of the very first few hours of the war, while around 500 people took advantage of the mid-December amnesty declared by Yeltsin for members of Dzhokhar Dudayev's armed groups. Nevertheless, Boris Yeltsin's cabinet's expectations of a quick surgical strike, quickly followed by Chechen capitulation and regime change, were misguided. Russia found itself in a quagmire practically instantly. The morale of the Russian troops, poorly prepared and not understanding why and even where they were sent, was low from the beginning. Some Russian units resisted the order to advance, and in some cases, the troops sabotaged their own equipment. In Ingushetia, civilian protesters stopped the western column and set 30 military vehicles on fire, while about 70 conscripts deserted their units. Advance of the northern column was halted by the unexpected Chechen resistance at Dolinskoye and the Russian forces suffered the first serious losses.[17] Deeper in Chechnya, a group of 50 Russian paratroopers surrendered to the local militia, after being deployed by helicopters behind enemy lines and then abandoned.

Yeltsin ordered the Russian Army to show restraint, but it was neither prepared nor trained for this. Civilian losses quickly mounted, alienating the Chechen population and raising hostility to the Russian forces, even among those who initially supported the attempts to unseat Dudayev. Other problems occurred as Yeltsin sent in freshly trained conscripts from neighboring regions rather than regular soldiers. Highly mobile units of Chechen fighters caused severe losses to Russia's ill-prepared, demoralized troops. The Russian military command then resorted to carpet bombing tactics and indiscriminate barrages of rocket artillery, causing enormous casualties among the Chechen and Russian civilian population.[18] On December 29, in a rare instance of a Russian outright victory, the Russian airborne forces seized the military airfield next to Grozny and repelled a Chechen armored counterattack in the battle of Khankala; the next objective was the city itself. With the Russians closing in on the capital, Chechens began to hastily set up defensive fighting positions and group their forces in the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.79.125 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty figures

The casualty figures seem very unrealistic and either downplayed for the one side or just simply exaggerated for the other.

How did the Chechens secure their independence when loosing more than half their combatants and the Russian forces loosing something below 10% ? this doesn't make any sense and I think figures from different sources, maybe allready provided in the casualties section should be displayed too so that people can draw their own logical picture with the different estimates. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute for Strategic Studies - " The 2004 chart of Armed Conflict " (in: The Military Balance, 2004/05), one might think a quite serious and reliable source, puts the number of fatalities in this 1994 to 1996 Chechnya conflict at 35,000. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strength

"Strength" section of sidebar at top of article doesn't list which side the figures are for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.76.255 (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on First Chechen War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties source

Both links to the only source alleging 50000 - 100000 civilian deaths are now defunct. We can't just let unproven hearsay remain as fact on this encyclopaedic page, can we?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on First Chechen War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on First Chechen War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.watchdog.cz/index.php?lang=1&show=000000-000004-000001-000203
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrvc.net/htmls/references.htm
Added archive https://archive.is/20070801170345/http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/stress.htm to http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/stress.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1996%2F08%2F22%2Fwrus22.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrvc.net/htmls/references.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrvc.net/htmls/references.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061122084849/http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=14&&issue_id=740 to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=14&&issue_id=740

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders

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

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

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

Attack on Grozny in the Second Russo-Chechen War- The Vostok troops in the city.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory opinion to other Wikipedia articles

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

Ermolov battalion

Kaminitz93, I've reverted your change since it broke the formatting. I also have another question, why should we mention it separately in the infobox considering that they fought as part of the regular army [11]. Maybe it would be better to create a Combatants section and discuss it there in more detail and providing proper context? Alaexis_¿question? 07:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Grey Wolves Gokturk Flag.svg

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

Human rights violations and Memorial

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

“

Кроме того, за рамками этого сборника остались вопросы нарушения прав человека на территории Чечни в период 1991–1994 гг., а вместе с тем необеспеченность защиты этих

прав, в том числе прав многочисленного русского населения, привела уже тогда к вынужденному исходу из Чечни десятков тысяч человек).

”

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

What do you mean with out of scope? (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

They literally say that the issues of human rights violations (вопросы нарушения прав человека) in 1991-1994 are not in the scope of the book (за рамками этого сборника), that is, the book does not deal with them. Alaexis_¿question? 06:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would percieve it as not being faithful, when it adds further nuance, is from a fairly impartial source(as compared to Russian official channels & Chechen separatist ones), and more so the source is cited with in-text attribution and not wikivoice, to give a clearer picture. As for the out of scope remark, it more so refers to this(page 2.):

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

As is expressed by the authors here, the report is more of bird's eye view of the period in question, rather than an in-detail report about every single case, crime, happening, and also the punctual chronology of every case. It doesn't need to be the latter, for the observation by Orlov and Cherkasov to be notable. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for adding the page number. The editors of this book explicitly say that they do not consider the human rights abuses during the 1991-1994 period (even though they acknowledge them). Their focus is on the conflict (1994-1996) and so the statement on page 218 also refers to the wartime abuses. Alaexis_¿question? 07:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khloponin's quote

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

“

Interviewer: Many experts associate the cessation of the outflow of the Russian-speaking population from the republics and their return to their places of residence with the stabilization of the situation in the North Caucasus ... Are there real possibilities for this?

Khloponin: In my opinion, the fact that the exodus of the Russian-speaking population is a problem is now obvious to all the leaders of the national republics. But the media often uses a false thesis that someone is squeezing someone out, or something is being deliberately done in order to continue such an outcome. I would formulate this problem in a different way - I think that nothing has been done so far to preserve or ensure the return flow of the Russian-speaking population on the territory of the republics. But no one deliberately squeezes anyone out. After the 90s, as a result of the reforms taking place in the country, a situation really developed in which the Russian-speaking population began to migrate to where there is work - and this is the European part of our country.

”

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

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

hmm I see your point, but why mention the reforms of the 90s then? if he is talking about the emigration after the 90s, why are the reforms of the 90s relevant at all. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Well, this is an interview and not a scholarly article, so he's not trying to be precise but rather is using the "bad 90s" trope (ru:Лихие девяностые) to explain the decrease of the share of Russians in the North Caucausian republics. The migration certainly happened both during the reforms in the early 90s and after the reforms as people moved to places with better economic situation. Alaexis_¿question? 07:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due weight problems

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

“

According to some commentators ethnic Russians and other non-Chechens faced constant harassment as they fell outside the vendetta system which protected the Chechens to a certain extent. Others, such as Igor Kalyanin, argued that while hardships did exist for ethnically Russian employees in Chechnya, its character and scope was mythologized and exaggerated. Valeriya Novodvorskaya on the other hand, citing a lack of evidence, completely dismissed the systematic persecution of Russians in Chechnya, while instead emphasizing the mass casualties Chechens endured during the conflict.

”

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

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

“

Russians, who had been promised peace under the new Chechen republic, were leaving in their thousands for the southern Russian regions of Stavropol and Krasnodar. Many of those who stayed faced constant harassment, or were even forced from their apartments and robbed or killed.

”

Page 134 gives some specific examples of harassment.

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

“

Russians were the most vulnerable group in the lawlessness gripping the republic. There was a big increase in robberies, burglaries and murders... A particularly ugly practice was that of forcing people to sell their apartments at gunpoint. Russians were especially prey to this because they did not have large extended families

”

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

“

From the very beginning of the "national revolution" violence and social disruption increased in Chechnya, as did the militarization of marginal social groups... The aggression targeted "aliens", particularly Russians

”

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

“

The Russian population, however, suffered especially badly. Because of this and of growing physical insecurity, many left

”

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

“

The lack of effectiveness of the law enforcement organs in Chechnya left the Russian-language populace unprotected and adrift

”

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

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

The only source that does say that does dismiss the persecution of Russians in Chechnya is Valeriya Novodvorskaya. Considering that she was a politician and not a historian, I think that mentioning her position which contradicts the consensus is simply undue. She held some extreme opinions, like saying that the residents of Gaza strip do not deserve any pity and that the Gazan mothers' dream is for their children to become terrorists [12]. Alaexis_¿question? 20:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the same editor who thinks "terrorist" or "terrorist attacks" does not belong in the opening of the biography of Basayev. Why is her livejournal page used as a source? Mellk (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize you've just disqualified yourself from this discussion and consensus-seeking, by bringing your grudges and bias into this Mellk? If you haven't noticed this is the talk page for the First Chechen War, and not anything else. Regards. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Alaexis, I have another discussion going atm, as well as some other edits in mind also, it can stay the way it is for the time being, I'll tag you when I'm charged for this one. Regards. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Lutz

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

Estimating the exact number of fighters involved in a guerrilla conflict like the First Chechen War is challenging due to the lack of precise data and the fluid nature of the conflict. Different sources might provide varying estimates, but it is difficult to pinpoint an accurate figure.

To reiterate, the Chechen forces during the First Chechen War were generally estimated to have several thousand fighters, but the exact number remains uncertain. Figures can range from around 5,000 to 20,000 fighters, but these are rough estimates and not based on any specific claims.

there is no universally agreed-upon or authoritative source that provides an exact or specific number of Chechen fighters during the First Chechen War (1994-1996). The available historical accounts and sources offer estimates, but these numbers can vary and are often approximate.

The estimated number of Chechen fighters during the First Chechen War ranges from several thousand to tens of thousands, but these are rough approximations based on various sources and analyses. Guerrilla warfare and the fluid nature of the conflict make it challenging to ascertain precise figures.

To reiterate, estimating the exact number of fighters involved in conflicts like the First Chechen War is difficult due to the lack of precise data and the complexities of such wars. If you encounter any specific claims regarding the number of Chechen fighters during the First Chechen War, it's essential to critically evaluate the credibility and sources of that information.

This is the first time I have ever seen the claim that range the fighters up to 40 thousand.

If you can provide me any other source that claims that the chechen fighters ranged up to 40 thousand in 1996 I will leave this page alone.

-Wohuwak12 Wohuwak12 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you believe that the 40k figure does not reflect the scholarly consensus. That may well be so, but if you are removing referenced material the onus is on you to provide the sources that back up the figures that "range from around 5,000 to 20,000 fighters." Alaexis_¿question? 18:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grey wolves

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

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

Georgian volunteers

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

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

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

This doesn't really address the points I made above. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were more than one or two volunteers from Georgia, many of the Zviadist loyalists continued fighting on the side of Chechnya. Who are you to dictate what needs to be included in the article and what shouldnt? Georgian volunteers fought on the side of Chechnya in the First Chechen war and it needs to be mentioned. Lemabeta (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add a source that says that there were many of them, or gives their number. Alaexis_¿question? 09:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that you've added talk about just one volunteer, who didn't play a major role in the First Chechen war. They can be used in the article about him, but not in this article. Alaexis_¿question? 09:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

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

Requested move 21 February 2024

I (User:GreenC) am posting this WP:RM on behalf of User:Chechendemocrat1 to help them with the correct procedure. The original post is Special:Diff/1194729504/1209203020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Note: WikiProject Chechnya has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support or First Chechnya War or First Russia-Chechnya War

Going by search result counts, "First Chechen War" has 10 times the results as "First Russo-Chechen War". People say Google Hits don't count, but I can't imagine why we would ignore an order of magnitude difference.
We are not always required to follow the crowd. Sometimes sources are biased and/or wrong. We need to present things neutrally, because we are an encyclopedia, unlike the other sources which are different genres of writing. If most sources called it "Glorious Russian Victory Over Chechnya" that would be a problem. There are exceptions to common usage.
First Russo-Chechen War is more specific in that it names both sides, whereas First Chechen War only names one side of the war. Articles like Vietnam War are named after the location, which is more neutral. It's not Vietnamese War which is a 1-sided POV ie. looking at it from the perspective of America.

This is a complicated case because WP:COMMONNAME tell us "First Chechen War", but WP:NPOV tell us this is a biased perspective, like calling it the Vietnamese War, which is no different than calling it the 'Resistance War against America' (the name used from the Vietnamese perspective). A middle ground approach is to name it after the location and not the people. Thus First Chechnya War. However, I think "First Chechen War" can also refer to the location. But I'm not clear on this. Assuming Chechen War is an acceptable way to refer to the location then I don't think it should change. If not, then it should be First Chechnya War (example). -- GreenC 16:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful response! I understand your point about "First Chechen War" being the commonly used term. However, I still believe renaming it to "First Russo-Chechen War" has strong merits in line with Wikipedia's core principles:

Neutrality:

You mentioned WP:NPOV. While "First Chechen War" might be popular, it only names one side, creating a potentially biased perspective. "First Russo-Chechen War" explicitly mentions both, aligning with NPOV.

Historical Accuracy:

"First Russo-Chechen War" factually reflects the involvement of two parties, not just Chechnya. This nuance offers better historical understanding and acknowledges both sides' perspectives and motivations.

Clarity and Context:

Including both parties provides immediate clarity about the conflict's nature and who was involved. This is crucial for readers unfamiliar with the context.

Adding "Russo-" positions the war within the broader Russia-Chechnya struggle, offering crucial historical context and understanding the conflict's wider implications.

Consistency and Precedents:

Many historical conflicts follow this format,like "Second World War" or "First Punic War." Using the same format maintains Wikipedia's consistency and reflects established neutral naming conventions.

Other Wikipedia articles on wars use this format, making the suggestion consistent with existing practices.

Additional Considerations:

While "First Chechen War" might be common now, language evolves. More inclusive and accurate terms often gain favor over time.Renaming reflects this evolution and aligns with contemporary historical understanding.

Including both parties demonstrates respect for the involvement and sacrifices of both sides, acknowledging their roles in the conflict.

I understand your concern about search results, but ultimately, Wikipedia strives for neutrality and historical accuracy. Renaming to "First Russo-Chechen War" aligns with these core principles and ensures a more inclusive and representative portrayal of the conflict for all readers. Chechendemocrat1 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should make a post in Bold, like everyone else, register how you are voting: oppose or support the rename request. The issue is with rules (policy). See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVTITLE are the main rules in play. Then make an argument why the specifics of this case apply to those rules. It sounds like you are making a case for NPOVTITLE, which is the same case I am making, the current titles fails NPOV. -- GreenC 16:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support renaming the article to "First Russo-Chechen War." While I understand "First Chechen War" is more common, it excludes one side, potentially creating a biased perspective. As per WP:NPOVTITLE, neutrality is paramount. "First Russo-Chechen War" explicitly mentions both parties, fulfilling this requirement. Additionally, including both parties provides clarity and context, aligning with Wikipedia's standards. Chechendemocrat1 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"First Russia–Chechnya War" or "First Russo–Chechen War" falsely implies that this is the first war between Chechnya and Russia. Mellk (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about implying it's the first-ever war between Chechnya and Russia, here's why I believe "First Russo-Chechen War" is a more appropriate alternative:

Specific Scope: Unlike broader terms like "Chechen Wars" or even historical conflicts, "First Russo-Chechen War" pinpoints the war within the context of the modern Russian Federation. This distinction is crucial, as the dynamic of this conflict was significantly different from prior Tsarist-era campaigns due to both Chechnya's brief period of independence and the post-Soviet power vacuum.

Acknowledging Historical Context: Yes, there was indeed a history of conflict between the regions, even before the Russian Empire. However, these earlier conflicts don't negate the need for a name that clearly identifies this specific, modern war. Many regions and countries have had multiple wars with the same adversary over centuries – this doesn't mean we can't number those conflicts for clarity.

Precedence: The term "Russo-Chechen" is not without precedent. It's parallel to other conflicts named geographically, like the "Russo-Japanese War" or "Sino-Vietnamese War." These terms also don't deny previous historical engagements. Chechendemocrat1 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While WP:COMMONNAME is important for naming conventions, there exists other criteria for naming articles. See WP:CRITERIA. The term "Russo-Chechen" specifies the belligerents involved, which more accurately captures the precision and accuracy criteria than "Chechen war". With a quick search on Google you can find several scholarly sources that use the "Russo-Chechen" naming convention as opposed to simply "Chechen war". So it's definitely not an uncommon name for the conflict. Some sources use "1994-1996 / 1999-2000 Russo-Chechen War". I'm not completely opposed to a name change if it is sourced. Generally "First / Second Chechen war" are the most accepted names for this conflict. I'm interested to hear what others think. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Judging by this user's contributions so far, this account seems to have been made solely to advocate for the term "Russo-Chechen War". Bordering on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, at least from my understanding of the policy. Feel free to correct me.

Personally, I think WP:COMMONNAME trumps other WP:CRITERIA in this case, but I'm still pretty inexperienced, so I'd like to hear other folks' perspectives before finalizing my choice. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a valid issue as I explained in my !vote above. We don't normally say "Vietnamese War" this is highly POV and biased. -- GreenC 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Scholarly sources overwhelmingly use the current title when referring to the conflict 3750 vs 201. Alaexis_¿question? 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can still use that name, but change "Chechen" to "Chechnya" so it concerns a war at a location, and not war on a people. Otherwise it really is highly POV in the same we don't say "Vietnamese War". We are not required to follow the crowd with common usage. Sometimes sources are biased and/or wrong. We need to present things neutrally, we are an encyclopedia. WP:NPOVTITLE is more important than WP:COMMONNAME, IMO. See also WP:NDESC. -- GreenC 21:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "First Chechnya War" is even less frequently used [13]. Also, Chechen is also an adjective meaning "of Chechnya" so I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. Alaexis_¿question? 09:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the same page, above COMMONNAME, there is also WP:NPOVTITLE. And other policies. Sometimes there are conflicts between the policies. IMO, NPOV is a stronger case than common name. We frequently see biased and POV things that are very commonly said, but we don't repeat them (in wiki voice), because it violates NPOV policy.

If Chechen is also an adjective meaning "of Chechnya", it is still possible to read Chechen both ways, as "of Chechnya" or as "Chechen people". In which case we can reduce the controversy by changing Chechen --> Chechnya. As for common name, it's basically the same thing. -- GreenC 16:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and arguments of other users in discussion. HappyWith (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:NPOVTITLE? It's on the same policy page as WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes, there are NPOV issues, COMMONNAME is only one of multiple things to consider. Not a single editor has addressed the NPOV issue and that is concerning.-- GreenC 19:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to NPOV I would support the "Russo-Chechen" naming convention. Many experts on this topic like John Dunlop use this in connection with the Chechen wars. I've frankly never heard it being named "Chechnya war". Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you for bringing this up because I didn't realise that saying "chechen war" is pov/biased until your comment. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. First/Second Chechen War and Chechen Wars are widely used terms in literature. The proposed title also falsely implies that this is the first war between Chechnya and Russia. Mellk (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mellk, you believe WP:COMMONNAME is more important than WP:NPOVTITLE, in this case, if so, home come? -- GreenC 02:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is "First Chechen War" a POV title? The term "Russo-Chechen War" is used far less frequently. Similarly "Iraq War" could be considered to be "US-centric" but this is used far more often than alternatives. Mellk (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been explained in this page by multiple parties. "Iraq War" is the neutral location of the war, we don't called "Iraqi War" or "Vietnamese War", which only can make sense if you are not Iraqi or Vietnamese. This naming is insulting to the people who fought in those wars, it's a classic case of the victor writing the history, rather than a neutral description. And to make it even more neutral, just name both sides who fought in the war. -- GreenC 15:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can also say that "Iraq War" is "insulting" because it does not mention who began this war. Next someone will say that the term "Chechnya" is "insulting" and we should instead use "Ichkeria". The difference in usage was already mentioned. Stop bludgeoning, this is the third time you replied to someone with the same argument. Mellk (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slippery slope fallacy. It's standard to name something after the place it happened, or was found. Vietnam War, Kennewick Man, etc.. It's not typical to name wars after people, particularly something as sensitive as wars with winners and losers. There are some exceptions like Indian Wars, but the talk page there shows a number of editors unhappy with that name also.

Bludgeoning. That's bad faith. Obviously COMMONNAME is not wrong - if that was all you considered no RM was needed. But we also have a policy WP:NPOVTITLE. I want to understand what voters think about NPOVTITLE. It helps clarify the core question in this RM. -- GreenC 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. Wendylove (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wendylove, you believe WP:COMMONNAME is more important than WP:NPOVTITLE, in this case, if so, home come? -- GreenC 15:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The appeals to WP:NPOV above are I think misguided. The article title is just a handle and follows the common name. See Wikipedia:NPOVTITLE and note, it's a difficult call in many cases including this one. But redirects from these other names should be created. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

results field

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

I think that it was "Chechen victory" for years and none of those IPs and red editors produced good arguments as to why it should be changed.

This is not one of those conflicts with unclear results. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article body and sources are unclear about an unambiguous victory on either side. For example "Yeltsin declares Russian victory over Chechnya" - I realize this might be internal propaganda but still the fact he could even make the statement does not suggest clear unambiguous victory. And it's original research for us to conclude one way or another. The infobox can have a tendency towards outsized influence in culture, such as through AI training, and drive by readers checking basic facts. Everyone knows this, and it takes 5 seconds to flip the switch to weight in one's favor. Thus the continuously disruptive fiddling, hedging, refactoring, etc.. It's a sure sign of a problem when this is occurring. The best way to deal with it is to force editors to engage in editing the article with sources. The infobox should reflect what the article (and by extension the sources) conclude. -- GreenC 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we need to add the result to the article body first. I'll check the sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what if instead of "x victory" we put "see aftermath" just like in the Iraq war wiki? 5.13.22.146 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox instructions say to exclude it entirely, unless there is a clear victor, and even then it should only say a single word. This rule came about after years of hard won experience how contested this field becomes. -- GreenC 22:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis@GreenC Would the analysis of Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin (Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.) be enough? Here it's an informative article and analysis by him where he quite clearly admits Russia was defeated. There are also articles by Russian journalists such as this where a Russian defeat is admitted. We could also use Western sources such as "FMSO (Foreign Military Studies Office)" which did an analysis on the First war and quite clearly demonstrated that Russia was defeated I have yet to see someone reputable claim a Russian victory in this war or claim it to be some ambiguous ending. The article of Yeltsin claiming a Russian victory is from May 28th 1996 i.e 3 months before Operation Jihad (4th Battle of Grozny) which led to the Khasav-Yurt accords. Goddard2000 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one can find the Russian defeat sentiment. One can also find other sentiments:

New York Times: "Like the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the first Chechen war ended in a stalemate. " [14] by Andrew Higgins, 2019.
Tufts University: "The war reached a stalemate, with neither side fully capable of defeating the other." [15]
BBC: "But is it fair to say that the stalemate ending in the devastation of the first Chechen war" [16]
Foreign Policy Research Institute: "After a stalemate and peace agreement" [17]

Many more "stalemate" sources available. Not to say who is right, only there is no clear consensus. Per the Infobox rules, without a clear consensus, there should be no result in the infobox. -- GreenC 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does a stalemate occurring in a war mean the war had no victors or losers? Quick check on some of your sources show that a stalemate in a war could mean defeat for one side as we see in the "Tufts University" article you linked, Quote: "the humiliating defeat of Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya". While the article does claim "the war reached a stalemate and neither side was fully capable of defeating the other" it still regards the war as a defeat for Russia (which would mean a Chechen victory).

The same goes for the New York Times article, it does indeed claim the first war ended in a stalemate but then again it mentions in the article that Quote: That made the ascent of a strongman like Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. agent who vowed to restore order and avenge Russia’s defeat in Chechnya, and again it refers to a Russian defeat Quote: In August 1996, Gen. Aleksandr Lebed, Mr. Yeltsin’s national security adviser, reached an agreement with the Chechens to stop the fighting. Mr. Yeltsin, increasingly infirm, erratic and under siege politically, initially balked at the deal, which effectively acknowledged Russia’s defeat, but ultimately endorsed it..

So as you can see a stalemate doesn't necessarily mean there were no victors, stalemate on the battlefield can lead to negotiations that favor one party over the other which thus can be interpreted as a victory. Did the first Chechen war result in a stalemate on the battlefield? sure one can argue that Chechens besieging Grozny in August 1996 led to a somewhat stalemate since Grozny wasn't fully taken by either side but can one really claim the war wasn't a Chechen victory when the peace treaty led to Russia removing every soldier from Chechnya? I recommend reading the sources i posted if you haven't already, in my opinion their arguments are solid and as i demonstrated above a stalemate does not necessarily mean no victors. Goddard2000 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Tufts document appears to be contradictory:

the humiliating defeat of Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya
The war reached a stalemate, with neither side fully capable of defeating the other

When you read the document, the context of #1 is that Russians themselves considered it a "humiliating defeat", internally. While externally, the Tufts University paper says it was a military stalemate. It is a matter of historical perspective.

The same is true for the NYT piece, he is framing it from Russia's perspective at the time.

You may say, if one side admits defeat, is that not good enough? Maybe. But it ignores later opinions that say it was a stalemate, who are not Russians or have any stake in it. Obviously, some Russians who considered it humiliating in the aftermath were attempting embarrass Russia into finishing the business. Poking the bear.

All this should be explained in the body of the article. We can and should document multiple POVs. -- GreenC 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's contradictory at all, the war did reach a stalemate with neither side fully capable of defeating the other but the negotiations did lead to a Russian withdrawal which is why Tufts admits it was a Russian defeat. I also don't think the result of this war is as contentious as you claim. Most see it as a Chechen victory, 2 of your articles accept this version, Philip Wasielewski doesn't emphasize much on the war and Meghna Chakrabarti from what i can tell only mentions Chechnya in 1 article. Are these sources really comparable to the ones i posted that did an in depth analysis?

I can bring more and compare them, for example Maria Esmont who was a reporter that was on the frontlines during the actual war and witnessed the end of the war reports it as a Chechen Victory: Source

Articles from major Russian propaganda channels even today admit Russia lost the war: Source

Several Russian political scientists like Aleksey Malashenko admit it: Source

Is Meghna Chakrabarti's (1 interview about Chechnya) opinion of a stalemate (again stalemate does not necessarily mean no Victors) comparable to Maria Esmont's reports from Chechnya?

Is Philip Wasielewski's (hasn't written even 1 in depth paper on the Chechen wars) mentions of Chechen stalemate comparable to the analysis of Khramchikin and the western FMSO study on the Chechen wars? I haven't even brought up any Chechen sources that all unanimously agree on a Chechen victory. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing a military stalemate resulting in a political defeat. The Template:Infobox military conflict docs advises against non-standard slicing and dicing like this. It says when there is ambiguity, link to the Aftermath section to describe what happened. The outcome can not be effectively understood with the single phrase "Chechnya victory". -- GreenC 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the arguments by Goddard2000 more convincing. Yes, there are sources that consider it a stalemate, but it seems that numerically there are many more sources considering it a defeat for Russia. I also think it makes sense: a military stalemate meant that Russia could not bring Chechnya back under control, which was its main goal.

Most of the sources discussed here are newspaper articles (even if written by experts) and think tank pieces. I'd suggest checking scholarly sources, maybe it will be easier to determine the scholarly consensus there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template:Infobox military conflict: the |results= "should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the immediate result". Since you agree with Goddard2000 it was both a stalemate militarily and a political defeat for Russia, a result of "Chechnya victory" would hide the ambiguity of a military stalemate. The recommend course in cases like this to link to the Aftermath section that fully describes the results. -- GreenC 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really an ambiguity, you are solely relying on 2 articles (none of which includes an authoritative source on the Chechen-Russian wars) that just said it's a stalemate (it does not mean there was no victor as i demonstrated with the other 2 sources). If you want to put an emphasis on the version of a stalemate it is still possible to add an aftermath section where it is mentioned (however it should be mentioned by authoritative sources if there even are any). The "Chechen victory" or "Chechen republic of Ichkeria Victory" should remain in my opinion, i have brought enough sources (experts from both Russian and Western side, journalists that were in place during the war and peace negotiations and Russian propaganda channels) from authoritative sources. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is ambiguity. The war was fought to a military standstill, stalemate, whatever you want to call it. Many sources say this, in so many words. You said so yourself. Then there was a treaty, and they withdrew from the country they invaded, under terms, not as an unconditional surrender. This series of complex and nuanced events can not be unambiguously described by a result field that only says "Chechen victory". Have you read the Infobox documentation? Do you understand why we have these rules? -- GreenC 00:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said one could see the battlefield as a stalemate, not that it was one, the war itself ended diplomatically as a victory (the battle of Grozny where Chechens basically surrounded Russians in Grozny led to diplomacy). The series of complex and nuanced events have been described as a Chechen victory by several authoritative sources on the matter (which i provided), so did 2 of your own sources. You have yet to provide a single authoritative source on the Chechen wars that argued the war wasn't a victory for one side. Does a sentence where "stalemate" is mentioned in an interview by Meghna Chakrabarti really warrant a removal of "Chechen victory" from the infobox when we have other more authoritative sources that speak of a Chechen victory?

I believe Khramchikhin and the FMSO study are enough to put back "Chechen victory" in the infobox, one is a Russian political scientist, the second is a research and analysis center for the United States Army. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are at a dead-lock should we maybe put it up for a vote? Goddard2000 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:RfC is definitely an option. I still urge you to do a review of scholarly sources that focus on this conflict. This would be the best possible argument. Alaexis_¿question? 11:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really clear multiple reliable sources see stalemate. Goddard frames it as a "military stalemate and political victory" situation, and in a perfect world we might say |result=military stalemate and political Chechen victory, but the infobox rules say do not do that, instead leave the result field blank and explain the ambiguities in the article. More sources:

Bellamy, Alex J.; McLoughlin, Stephen (2018). Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention. Springer Nature. p. 25. Before reaching a negotiated settlement, the parties reached a 'mutually hurting stalemate'.. The First Chechan War ended in a stalemate, when the Russian regime failed to impose its will on Chechnya.. The indecisive nature of the ending helped precipitate a second round of violence which did result in a decisive victory for Russia

Note: indecisive nature of the ending followed by a decisive victory for Russia in the second war.

George, Julie A. (2009). The Politics of Ethnic Separatism in Russia and George. Palgrave Mcmillian. p. 82. The First Chechen War lasted from 1994 to 1996, ending with the Khasavyurt Accord, which acknowledged the stalemate between the two sides..

Note: the peace accord acknowledged the stalemate between the two sides.

Cimbala, Stephen J. (2007). Russia and Postmodern Deterrence. Potomac Books. The first Russo–Chechen war fought by post–Cold War Russia ended in political stalemate in 1996 after two years of fighting.

Note: ended in political stalemate

That's three books, I can many more. Again, this concerns the rules for the Infobox. Bigger picture, it looks like the stalemate POV has been almost entirely excluded from this article, probably intentionally over the years, with the results field in the infobox the point of the spear. This is why when there is ambiguity among sources we don't use the results field. -- GreenC 18:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These books certainly seem more authoritative on the matter than the other two (Wasielewski & Chakrabarti), i can't access them all but i think it's a good start. I would like to point out though that even some of these sources acknowledge a Russian defeat such as Cimbala on the "Conclusions: Lessons on the War" ( i don't know the page, i can only use the previews), Quote: "Shortage of realistic political strategy contributed significantly to the Russian Defeat".

I can't tell how much in depth the George and Bellamy sources go into the Chechen wars but either way they seem to support your claim of a no victor. As I said before we could add a "stalemate" in an aftermath section but i disagree with removing "Chechen Victory". We should in my opinion do a WP:RfC like Alaexis suggested. What do you think? Goddard2000 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what {{Infobox military conflict}} says about the |result= field:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Summary by GreenC:

The result field is optional not required
The result field if kept either needs to say "Chechen victory", "Inconclusive" or link to the #Aftermath section.
The result field should not conceal ambiguities
Omit the result field vs. speculating

I don't think we can say "Inconclusive" because there are sources that say Russian defeat, and likewise saying "Chechen victory" makes the result of the war look unambiguous despite all these sources saying stalemate. Both "Chechen victory" and "Inconclusive" violate #3, ambiguities ie. the "indecisive nature of the ending" per the cited sourced Springer Nature. That leaves linking to the #Aftermath section which is a good idea anyway to explain what happened in prose with multiple POVs and sources, versus a single word that hides complexity. -- GreenC 01:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the core issue here is that you assume the ending of the conflict is truly ambiguous among scholars while i believe it's not. We have both provided sources that support our claims, however 3 of your sources (Tufts & Higgins & Cimbala) claim a defeat for Russia while still mentioning a stalemate and all of my sources mention an outright Russian defeat. We have already seen that a "stalemate" (even at the end of the war) can lead to a Victory for one side (Tufts & Higgins & Cimbala) so i don't think a mention of a "stalemate" should be grounds to claim ambiguity in the war.

Even if we assume that the sources like Bellamy (et al.) & George claim of a stalemate means no victor then should we not compare them to other scholarly sources? does a few sources claiming no victor really mean the conflict end result is ambiguous according to scholarly consensus? if more reputable sources claim Chechen Victory? Perhaps some undue weight is given to certain sources?

I think we should request a comment (WP:RfC) and see what others think because you removed "Chechen Victory" from the infobox and claimed this conflict was ambiguous while using sources like Yeltsin declaring a victory to support this claim when this Yeltsin declaration happened 3 months prior to the end of the war and start of the deciding battle (4th Battle of Grozny). As i already mentioned three of your linked articles that you used to support a claim of ambiguity claimed Russia was defeated. That is why i think we should involve others, some might know much more about this conflict than us. Goddard2000 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is impossible

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

I only saw the slow-moving edit war about the result in the infobox. I don't think that's particularly important to be honest. Were you referring to that or to something else as "anti-Russian editing"? Alaexis_¿question? 20:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

May 23:

May 22:

Special:Diff/1224653769/1225214896

May 19:

Special:Diff/1224516037/1224635121

May 15:

Special:Diff/1224047715/1224049437

Some of those are the infobox results. Still, it shows multiple users and types of users are continually engaged in biased editing. It does not look like the same person but casual driveby editing. The infobox result is actually very important because it gets picked up by Google, AI etc.. as an easily digestible binary answer to "who won the war" which then has a large impact outside Wikipedia in shaping perceptions. -- GreenC 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the right course of action is to request page protection. Alaexis_¿question? 09:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PP requested. -- GreenC 14:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PP indef was implemented. They have switched to using real account names. If they continue to edit war without discussion, I will request the accounts are blocked. This page is under sanctions. -- GreenC 17:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

No consensus for edit request. See discussions above, specifically the rules of the |result= field in the infobox. -- GreenC 22:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grodnensky's book

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

I asked another user to create a discussion page, well, since you intervened, then fine. The source should be left, at least because it fits the standards WP:RS, there is no reason to delete it. The comment about the fact that he is a participant in the war and a Russian officer is unverifiable, at least I only found information that he has a doctorate in political science.

The aforementioned user commits several violations on this article at once.

1:The infobox article added a result (by the way, fictional, but more on that later) that does not match the parameters Template:Infobox military conflict The result window can only contain X victory or Indecisive.

2: Several violations of WP:LIE

a) Firstly, the result window, not a single source in the article confirms this, but on the contrary, refutes it!
b)Information has been added to the forces of the parties window, which is not in the source, here is a direct quote: The garrison of Bamut under the command of Ruslan Khaykhoroev was 800 people.¹ To capture Bamut, 2,610 people, 45 tanks, 115 infantry fighting vehicles, 17 armored personnel carriers, 12 BRDM, 75 guns and mortars, 9 anti-aircraft guns (166th and 136th omsbr, msb 324th MSP, 94th obron BB) were concentrated.

P.S. Also in the article about Bamut, Grodnensky book is the main source even before my edits, it's just crookedly framed and I did it more clearly to check the information, the user apparently didn't even bother to check it and just deleted my edits.

Thanks for creating the discussion.

1: In a later work from 2007, he indicated the figure of 1,000, so I indicated it in the infobox Dushnilkin (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2a), the |result= field has been discussed in sections above. There is no consensus to include an infobox result field at all, per the infobox rules linked to by Dushnilkin. -- GreenC 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited this rule as a criticism activities of the user on the Battle of Bamut page, not here. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, it's been the same problem here. -- GreenC 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book that is clearly not neutral. The author mostly describes Chechens as bandits and terrorists. Literally, the first sentence in the book is:

"There are bandit governments, can there be a bandit nation?"

And the first chapter starts:

"An evil Chechen crawls to the shore".

It spews racist, and extremist views, one of such views is about the horrific and verified historical fact about the Chechen genocide. He denies it by writing:

"In addition, another trump card for the warmongers has become the selective memory of the alleged "heroic struggle" waged by the Chechens "for freedom" during the Caucasian War, as well as the extremely mythologized memory of Stalin's deportation and "genocide" unleashed against the Chechens."

He also denies genocides committed against Chechens, such as the Samashki massacre, Novi aldi massacre, and others.

This is far from a neutral source that should be used in Wikipedia. Iask1 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1: This refers to the banditry that spread in Chechnya during the first war. In principle, he described this in detail, indicating that he meant the comprehensive support of the Ichkeria fighters. He claims that with the complete elimination of the militants themselves, life in Chechnya will return to normal and only a memory will remain of banditry, he never claimed that all the people are bandits: Unfortunately, one cannot disagree with Boris Kagarlitsky's statement that the mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare that takes place in Chechnya will "last exactly as long as certain social and cultural norms are reproduced in society, which made it inevitable."

2: Not a literal quote from the author, it's even highlighted in parentheses

3: He did not deny the deportation anywhere, an entire chapter is devoted to this, where he tries to find the objective reason for this action.

Criticism looks more like pulling information out of context and violating WP:NPOV in some aspects, for example, the rejection of a different point of view on the historical process. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "banditry" that spread in Chechnya according to this guy is the separatist, which makes it a non-neutral source. He also describes people who support the Chechens as "warmongerers" and "bandit supporters", how is this a source that can be used in Wikipedia? Also, he believes that banditry is Chechen culture, quote from the book: "The main means of their existence, at the expense of which the Chechen clans-teips lived, was ordinary robbery - banditry. (Even in the not so distant Soviet times, Chechens preferred to work in the sphere of trade and services or were engaged in semi-mafia industries.)"
The quote is from a Chechenphobic poem by Mikhail Lermontov, if he is quoting it or saying it himself doesn't matter, that is what he uses to describe the Chechens.
He denies it in the first chapter, have you read the book? He called the genocide, quote: "an extremely mythologized memory of Stalin's deportation and "genocide" unleashed against the Chechens" In the very first paragraph of his book, it is clear what he believes if you read his book. Not to mention him also denying other massacres in the first war.

Iask1 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1: The certain consensus that the source comes to does not make it "not neutral" in your opinion, then Martin Gilbert, who calls the Germans criminals in World War I/II, is not neutral, this is not how it works. The coverage of certain facts builds a certain position in the reader, why the author himself cannot adhere to it?

2: Well, you answered your own question, the chapter is devoted to the history of the Caucasian war, this passage was added to show the attitude of Russian society to the events in the Caucasus at that time.There is no conclusion anywhere that he personally speaks like that about Chechens, it is WP:OR.

3: Again, it is not the process that is being refuted, but the claim that Stalin arranged the deportation for nothing (We will not transfer the topic of the dispute to this, I just explained the position of the author, I myself think that it is not very correct). If the author says extraordinary information for you, it does not mean that he is not neutral, for example, a source that denies the massacre in sribny [uk] is currently accepted in world historiography as the most reliable, and then there is a denial of the intentions of genocide, as in the cases of samashki, rather than the fact of the massacre itself.

a) I remind you that the bias of the source in certain matters cannot be the reason for removing it from the text of the article, please read wikipedia:BIASEDSOURCES.

Dushnilkin (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The comparison of this author to Martin Gilbert is misplaced. Although opinions may be raised, Gilbert is a master at source notation and presents his argument using accepted historical methods. This author, however, seems to allow a personal bias against Chechens and to pick and choose events that prove his point.

2. Your claim that quoting Lermontov's poem is mere representation of historical Russian views does not convince. The author himself integrates this rhetoric into his narrative and supports these arguments of his with claims on Chechen society. This is more than contextualization-it means lending support to such ideas for the promotion of a biased view. This fits into WP

where sources touting discriminatory or fringe perspectives cannot be considered reliable for establishing historical fact.

3. The author described the very punitive action by Stalin against the Chechens as an "extremely mythologized memory." This trivializes a grave historical atrocity which has been widely recognized by reputable historians and international institutions. While there may be many interpretations about events in scholarship, blatant denial or trivialization of atrocities when no substantial evidence exists as to its occurrence is a trademark of unreliability. This approach jettisons documented facts for an agenda; and further, it destroys neutrality on the source.

Analogy to Sribny sources that denied the very fact of genocide is misleading. Serious historiography, as a rule, makes a distinction between intentions and events-something which the author cannot substantiate with equal care but resorts to dismissive rhetoric, which, of course, cannot be put on the same page as responsible historical debate.

While WP allows non-neutral sources to be used, their usage must be contextualised and attributed and also counterbalanced with neutral or opposing sources. The level of bias herein stands out in such a way that, if included in an article, they will mislead readers unless significantly hedged. Permitting such sources to dominate an article or substantially inform an article would indeed run against Wikipedia's objective showcasing verifiable and balanced information.

Only the most blind bias and discriminatory rhetoric lead the author to make himself unreliable. Their work, properly attributed can be cited to demonstrate a point of view, but it cannot be used uncritically to provide a voice of neutrality or authority. To do so misrepresents the very principles of neutrality and verifiability Wikipedia uses. Iask1 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1: Let's break down the answer into points.

a) Well, if we talk about Martin Gilbert, he uses mainly literature as a source, not archival documents, and shows an obvious bias towards the Germans during the First World War, especially in the chapters on the great retreat and the Battle of the Marna.
b) Besides, Grodnensky also has reasons, according to your own logic, I don't think that such literature, which tries to reflect people's views, can achieve specific neutrality, so you are violating WP:NPOV right now, accepting the non-neutrality of one author, criticizing another for it. This rule was created primarily for wikipidists, not for sources.

2: Again, the chapter is devoted to historical information, the author did not add anything from himself, in confirmation of my words I will say that there are numerous references to letters from the governors of the Caucasus. In your words, there is no appeal with facts confirming the author's Chechenophobia, the topic and purpose of the book touches on very thorny issues - interethnic relations, it is incredibly difficult to avoid some biased moments at this time, I refer to Wikipedia:BIASED again. In addition, most likely in the paragraph below, you meant the battle of Bamut, I must say right away - at the moment this is one of the few literary sources covering the moments of the battle, so we have to quote it. Well, even so, I still did not see the quote directly from the author, which confirmed his marginality, etc., again, you conclude neither on the basis of a direct quote, but on WP:OR.

3: Again, you are referring to a personal opinion, if the author has tried to introduce something new into historiography, it does not mean that he is neutral, you deny the source because he comes to a consensus that you do not support. Historical science would not have developed to our modern level if the description of events in all sources was so one-sided and the authors did not try to engage in revisionism. Grodnensky in this case comes to interesting conclusions which can be considered for inclusion in the article, or discuss it on the discussion page, in any case, at least this chapter corresponds to all parameters WP:RS, with the exception of harsh statements (towards collaborators who supported Nazi Germany) The author uses a wide archival list of sources.

I don't think we can come to any conclusion ourselves, this is the third sentence, but we just deny each other's words, so I'll just ask WP:RFC and tag this users:@Alaexis, @GreenC. Dushnilkin (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the structural problem is the source/data is in the infobox. The binary "yes/no" is an inherent structural flaw of computers, it flattens nuance and context, which causes many problems in society. Perhaps a compromise to include the source and data, but not in the infobox, rather in the body of the article where appropriate context can be included. It's the same problem with the results field. -- GreenC 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I generally think that the differentiation of the forces of the parties by dates is incorrect and it is necessary to include the final data in the infobox. But as I understood (correct if not) do you mind Grodnensky book in the article? Dushnilkin (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. a) The comparison to Martin Gilbert is a misleader. Gilbert's historical writing, while sometimes criticized for interpretive bias, is written according to established methodologies of history: primary and secondary sources, within norms of scholarship. Grodnensky's writings alternate between references to the archives with overtly ethnophobic, and Chechenophobic statements. Quoting obscene rhetoric, or more tacitly, reflecting societal attitudes so speaks outside the bounds of responsible historiography. Above all, neutrality in history requires academic integrity, which includes the judicious contextualization of such quotes—not their adoption as fact.

b) While it is true, of course, that no source is perfectly neutral, in Grodnensky's case, this bias is so thick as to make him unreliable. Reflecting a view in the society does not have to be unneutral in itself, but the transmitting of this view without adequate criticism, as Grodnensky has done, already borders on advocacy of that view. Neutrality here should be weighed not only according to Wikipedia's source policy but also according to the principles of objective historiography that the source keeps.

2. While Grodnensky refers to archival materials, the problem lies not with the sources in and of themselves but with his interpretation of them. The citation of Lermontov's poem, which conceptualizes Chechens as congenitally bandit-like, is more than an archival reference-it is an active deployment of a pejorative stereotype to frame the author's argument. This goes beyond mere reflection of historical attitudes to perpetuation of those biases, supporting my claim of Chechenophobia. Furthermore, Grodnensky's wider narrative, and including downplaying the deportation of Chechens as "mythologized," shows a propensity of diminishing atrocities and portraying a one-sided view. Regarding the battle of Bamut, though Grodnensky may offer peculiar facts, it is imperative that such a source should be contrasted with even more balanced and reliable accounts so as not to give an uncritical narrative influenced by Grodnensky's perspective. Stuffing a piece with the heaviest of biased material sans attribution and alternative perspectives is a clear violation of WP rules and might mislead readers. The claim of Battle of Bamut lacking litterature is not right, battle of bamut was among the most well know battles and most well documented due to its significance.

3. Of course, revisionism per se is not a problem, as it should correspond to the standards of scholarly rigor and neutrality that make it credible. That of Grodnensky does not hold up because he makes ethnically tendentious interpretations, whereas the conventional scholarly consensus on such facts as the deportation of Chechens is discarded.

In any case, WP rules do not automatically guarantee the source using archival references. The author's analysis, tone, and methodology come into reliability, too. Grodnensky's selective framing and derogatory language regarding Chechens-even about the collaborators-suggest that his work cannot be treated as some sort of neutral historical analysis. Such bias requires careful contextualization and cannot be presented as authoritative in a Wikipedia article without violating WP.

It is very important to establish, before the escalation to RFC, why the inclusion of Grodnensky needs qualification or rejection on substantial issues. The patterns of bias underlined by me, from perpetuating stereotypes to playing down atrocities, undermine Grodnensky's reliability as a neutral source. Even if some archival sources would support the claims, overt ethnocentrism of the author would demand deliberation. While the RFC may ultimately decide, Dushnilkin's argument downplays clear evidence of bias which is against the principles of WP. Any use of Grodnensky should be very carefully attributed and balanced out with countervailing perspectives to prevent dissemination of undue bias. Iask1 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1: I remind you, Martin Gilbert quoted quotes where Germans are literally called pigs (without exaggeration), but his works are accepted anyway, because the quote does not reflect the author's position on this.

2: a) In general, the first part of your answer repeats the provisions above, I will only say that you also adhere to your position one-sidedly, Grodnensky outlined several points of view in this chapter and finally came to a personal consensus, in this case, of course, the citation does not correspond to the standard of academic works, but it cannot be called marginal either - it was carried out work with consideration of alternative points of view.

b) The administration has already added an increased level of protection to the article, as it considered your actions vandalism, firstly this is a violation WP:LIE in the the table of the result and the forces of the parties (There are sources in the article mentioning the capture of the village, but there is no question of 8,000 Russians in the source) Secondly, the violation WP:RS because you save links to YouTube.

If there is a lot of literature, fine! But at least specify it in the article.

3: Grodnensky work is obviously not a standard of neutrality, however, the form of the narrative does not allow us to conclude that the source needs to be removed, I have given you a rule several times, (Wikipedia:BIASED) but you continue to write the same thing, in any case, we do not have a source that would take into account the strength of the rebels in 1995/1996, so I indicated this work.

Again, I have asked you several times to give direct quotes, specify them (with a mention of the chapter, of course) and our discussion will be built around this. For now, you're just repeating previously written texts, forcing me to repeat requests. Your behavior may be considered trolling in the discussion. At the next such response, I will simply request WP:RFK an unanswered response and wait for the results that the administration will bring. Dushnilkin (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Such a comparison falls short for at least the following reasons: Gilbert explicitly embeds such quotes within more extensive scholarly narratives and does not embrace them as his conclusions. Meanwhile, Grodnensky's repetitive deployment of stereotype upon stereotype regarding Chechens-as for example, the contention that banditry represents the height of Chechen culture-perpetuates no parallel academic distance or criticism. The key issue is not the mere quoting of disparaging remarks, but how those remarks are used. Grodnensky integrates these stereotypes into his framing and conclusions in such a way that an impression is given that these disparaging notions are part of his historical analysis. The pattern here, as mentioned above, goes against his reliability as an objective source.

2. A) While Grodnensky may claim to explore various points of view, the continued use of pejorative terms and belittling rhetoric, such as described in the case of downplaying the Chechen deportation, makes him unable to draw any neutral conclusion. This is not a question of following "one-sidedly" anyone's position but rather acknowledging that Grodnensky fails the standards of neutrality outlined in WP. The quotation of archival documents does not save a source from criticism if its conclusions are based on biased or ethnically charged narratives. The closeness of Grodnensky's conclusions to such biases draws the conclusion of flawed methodology and reduced reliability of him as a source.

2. B) Both accusations are misleading and groundless; the changes to the result section of the infobox were made after modifying yours, and your change is supported by reliable sources and common knowledge in the war. Any discrepancies in your sources should have been discussed, not accused of vandalism. Your earlier edits to the Chechen number of fighters also cited sources more reliable than those introduced by you. Also it was not me who edited the Russin number of fighters, or the results section before, i only reverted it to what it was before you made changes.

2. C) While WP discourages citing YouTube for factual claims, this depends on the content and uploader. Material hosted on YouTube from reputable publishers or archival institutions can be reliable, provided they meet Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, which is inline with the youtube source in battle of bamut. You should evaluate each source on its own merit, rather than automatically discounting them because of hosting. In any case, adding stronger more widely accepted references would eliminate the problem.

3. Biased Sources: Although WP allows the use of non-neutral sources, it also calls for careful attribution and balancing with other views. Grodnensky's ethnocentric framing is on the side of typical bias and far into problematic grounds in that fringe perspectives become presented as the mainstream historical analysis. Even if his work is retained for certain data points, this has to be heavily qualified in the article.

Specific Quotes: I have, on several occasions pinpointed the place of the quote in question: the first paragraph of the book. You continue to disregard my clarification and shift responsibility, reproaching me for repetition. This denial of the reference makes your claims of good faith participation in the discussion pretentious. The first paragraph explicitly frames Chechens in a derogatory way, using stereotypes fully concordant with greater Chechenophobic narratives. This itself is enough to call Grodnensky's neutrality into question and to necessitate significant attribution and counterbalance when citing his work. Trolling Allegations:

Accusations of trolling or bad faith on my part constitute a violation of the policy of assuming good faith in Wikipedia discussions. Repeated requests for information that has already been given constitute a form of derailing rather than a contribution to addressing the substantive issue of Grodnensky's reliability. Iask1 (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, it's like you're intentionally copying your messages, replacing a few words there, so I'll only answer about YouTube. Adding such sources requires creating a talk page and discussions about it there, but it definitely cannot replace a literary source.

I asked you to quote Grodnensky, which confirms his direct agreement with these non-derogatory passages from Lermontov's verse, I wrote about this several times, but you continue to write the same thing.

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

You keep accusing me of repeating myself, but I’ve clearly stated multiple times that the quote I’m referring to is in the first paragraph of Grodnensky’s book. It explicitly describes Chechens as living through "ordinary robbery—banditry." This reflects the same derogatory sentiment from Lermontov’s verse. Whether or not Grodnensky explicitly says, "I agree with this," is irrelevant—he uses the stereotype to frame Chechen culture, which is clearly biased. Ignoring this context to claim neutrality is misleading.

As for YouTube, let’s clarify what Wikipedia actually says under WP:VIDEOLINK:

"There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted... The originator of the content, not the platform that hosts it, should also be ascertained before using the content as a source."

This clearly means that reliable sources hosted on YouTube (e.g., official channels) can be cited. Your claim that adding YouTube links requires a talk page discussion is a blatant lie. Furthermore, it wasn’t even me who edited the video link, so accusing me of doing so is both misleading and irrelevant.

Lastly, I’ve told you multiple times where the Grodnensky quote is located—it’s in the first paragraph of the book. Instead of acknowledging that, you keep accusing me of repeating myself without actually engaging with my points. Your refusal to address these issues is what's dragging out this discussion. Iask1 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have already answered the quote that you gave initially, the author explained his position in the afterword, (if you mean the quote: there is a bandit state -maybe a bandit people?) I have already given the quote. I repeat briefly, there is a description of Chechen society during the war, and the accusation is put forward towards the top leadership of the country, not the people, so the above quote cannot be used as an argument (it can be compared with Nazi propaganda during World War II, although the comparison is certainly not accurate - my suggestion, not Grodnensky's).

And now let's go to YouTube. First, refer to the rule correctly, it is WP:YOUTUBE-EL, Secondly, only a popular video show or an official channel can be considered as a reliable source, here is a quote: If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), In our case, this is a 364-person (!) channel that does not conduct any research, it is not even dedicated to the battle of Bamut, but refers to the battles for Grozny in August 1996, indicating such a source is a violation WP:OR, because this is working with the original source - a video from a Russian soldier. Study the rules and what you refer to in the article, incorrect quoting in this case is a violation WP:LIE. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]