Talk:Abu al-Walid

More information

I am aware of some factual inaccuracies in the article. I am in the process of gathering more info and hopefully I will soon weed them all out. ForrestSjap 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just corrected some mistakes and added some information. I will now begin writing a chapter about accusations of terrorist acts. I hope it will be finished soon so I can add it. ForrestSjap 20:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that's about it for now. pretty much complete for as far as I can tell. ForrestSjap 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of referenced content

Dear 82.27.39.34, please discuss your elaborate plans on the talk page before removing truckloads of well referenced sections of an article. I have written this article myself, and you can rest assured that I am not an agent of the Russian propaganda machine. I am in fact a great forespeaker of Chechen independence and I have tried my best to keep this article as objective as possible. Your edits were simply outrageous and I have reverted them all. Feel free to discuss this with me here. ForrestSjap 08:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

OK.

What is your proof linking Salafi Islam to terrorism?

Was fighting occupying Russian forces (ie the MAK) terrorism and why would it lend credibility to the claim that a person who fought those occupying troops would then be a terrorist?

Which definition of terrorism covers fighting occupation troops in Iraq?

As regards Chechen women, how is stating 'someone did this, and this is the reason they did it' encouraging it or defending it or announcing it?

If I stated Peter Sutcliffe did such and such and the reasons he did it were blah blah blah, does that mean I have become his supporter or defender or I am encouraging more of what he did?

The article states there is no proof of Abu Walid ever committing terrorism, so isn't it obvious that the title should not say 'INVOLVEMENT IN TERRORISM?'

'NON INVOLVEMENT IN TERRORISM' would be more appropriate then, would it not?

The section talks about Russian accusations, hence 'RUSSIAN ACCUSATIONS OF TERRORISM' is suitable don't you think? 82.27.39.34 09:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then if you insist.

I am not linking Salafism to terrorism, never have, never will. I do not claim the activities of the MAK were terrorism, never have, never will. I do however claim that having been trained by the MAK adds credibility to rumors of involvement in terrorism. This because many suspected and convicted terrorists were Arab Volunteers of the Soviet-Afghan War trained by the MAK, and the MAK was in fact the predecessor of Al-Qaeda. I also feel I should point out that by implying the claims of involvement in terrorism against Al-Walid are more credible, I am not implying they are actually more likely to be true. By using the word credibility I am referring to the perception of these claims by the public. Let's face it, most people are more likely to beleive a person is involved in terrorism when he is a Salafi Muslim and a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan war, than when he is a moderate Catholic trained in car maintenance. As for the statements about suicide operations. Suicide operations are not means of conventional warfare and in the case of the conflict in Iraq they are not used for military gain, but for manipulating public opinion. I consider these actions to be terrorism and the section belongs in this chapter. Responding to questions about suicide bombings (on civilian targets) by Chechen women, al-Walid tried to explain the motives of these women and the fact that they had been brutalized by the Russian occupation forces. Yes, this is called defending, in any case, Al-Walid is making a statement about acts of terrorism so this section should not be removed. The title 'involvement in terrorism' is suitable because it is a question rather than a statement, the chapter is about al-Walid's involvement in terrorism and anyone interested in it should read it to get to know what his involvement actually was. It is neutral and does not contain any judgment, whereas 'non-involvement in terrorism' or 'Russian accusations of terrorism' are obviously biased. That will be all for now. ForrestSjap 09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

1: What is your justification then for stating that because Abu Walid was a Salafi it lends credibility to ACCUSATIONS of terrorism? Your statements regarding Western public perception are irrelevant - EVERYBODY accuses their opponents of being terrorists, and trumpets this to their own people who (in the West for example) end up thinking that any Muslim who fights anyone for any reason is by definition a terrorist. This is not what Wikipedia is about.

Credible means 'able to believed or trusted' - so of course you are implying they are more likely to be true, otherwise you're using the wrong word!

2: Which leads to my next point - US supported freedom fighters of the MAK become retrospective terrorists when SOME OF THEM later become opposed to the US do they? Maybe if you use George Bush's dictionary, but such statements have no place on Wikipedia. Which organisation should Abu Walid have trained under at the time of the Soviet conflict and which crystal ball should he have had in order to ensure that one day such far fetched accusations of terrorism would not be levelled at him?

3: Walid talked about suicide operations on OCCUPATION TROOPS - perhaps you're getting this mixed up with attacks on civilians. Of course attacks on OCCUPATION TROOPS are for military gain. Suicide attacks may be unconventional to people who use F16's to kill people en masse, but I don't see the relevance here. Which is the terrorism, fighting occupation troops or the suicide part? If you claim it is the suicide part then in order to appear rational, you will have to call anyone who ever took a drug overdose or hanged themselves a terrorist also.

4: Stating why somebody did something is not defending, well not according to the laws of logic at least. In any case, what proof do you have that Walid was referring to suicide attacks by the Chechen women on CIVILIANS?

Of course the section should be removed as it is under a heading stating Walid's involvement in terrorism! Otherwise create a new section with an appropriate heading for it.

5: A question has a question mark. Without a question mark it is a statement. There is no proof of terrorism, and the only referenced accusations are made by Russia, so I've no idea why you claim 'RUSSIAN ACCUSATIONS OF TERRORISM' is biased. 82.27.39.34 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what Wikipedia is all about. Man, I had things so messed up but now that you've shown me the way everything is suddenly very clear. I will undo your edits one last time, after that I will report them as vandalism. What you are doing has NOTHING to do with contributing to this medium; you scan articles for content that is not to your taste and then delete it. Be constructive and create something instead of just undoing other people's work because you happen to not like it. Also, you appear to know your way around Wikipedia but you are using an unregistered IP. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out you've already been banned and are now using a different IP to continue your 'work'. Keep in touch! ForrestSjap 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

As you are now exposed as a propagandist due to your reverts despite your capitulation and defeat in this debate, it is in fact I who will be looking into contacting Wikipedia or taking whatever other action I can if you revert again. 82.27.39.34 21:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

So user Strothra what are your justifications for the changes you have made to the article? As well the points above, do you think it's neutral to use the word insurgents instead of fighters, why the word solid, why the word unclear instead of unknown? 82.27.39.34 07:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I am not involved in this content dispute, I was simply correcting an act of vandalism. Removing cited content from Wiki is vandalism. Please learn how to properly edit Wikipedia before trying to make major changes. --Strothra 07:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Not necessarily it isn't, and (having read the vandalism article) in this case it definitely isn't. There is a proper reason for removing the content, it is irrelevant and not on the subject matter of the heading it is under. As well as restoring irrelevant content, you have made a number of changes to the article with your reversion which makes the article fail the test of neutrality. 82.27.39.34 08:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Since you appear to beleive you have 'soundly defeated' me in the debate, I will reply to your statements one more time. I have dropped the discussion not because I was overwhelmed by the superiority of your arguments (in fact, all you did was rephrase the arguments you had alreday presented and repeat them), but because you are utterly unreasonable, rude, paranoid AND BECAUSE YOU MAKE EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS HOPING IT WILL ADD TO THE FORCE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS. It appears you are on some sort of rage-fueled crusade against what you perceive to be 'propaganda' on Wikipedia and I have had enough experience with people like you to know very well that it is completely useless to try to argue with you because it will lead to nothing. You have a one-tracked mind and you will not compromise or tone down. I have requested third party intervention for the dispute and if other, reasonable people beleive all your edits were just I will let you have your way, but in my opinion your edits are vandalism, and I beleive some people might agree with me. It is your right to disagree, but it is not your right to hop around on Wikipedia and delete anything that you think is not right. I also noticed you have placed an NPOV tag above the article, that is also your right but if you don't mind, I will place it under the 'Involvement in Terrorism' section since that seems to be the only section of the article you thoroughly disagree with. I hope third party moderators will review the dispute soon and hopefully we can come to a solution, untill then any further communication between you and me on this subject would be pointless so I will refrain from replying to your comments. ForrestSjap 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

1. You have no answers no my points, and here you launch an ad hominem diatribe and excuses, which only reinforces your defeat in the debate.

2. Your statement that I do not have the right to delete is incorrect.

3. I will leave the NPOV tag where it is now unless I later find out it should be at the top of the article.

4. You are being hypocritical, you constantly revert ALL changes, even the ones which correct blatant NPOV, not just the ones you incorrectly consider vandalism. You state earlier "I have written this article myself" and it seems that this is part of the problem. See OWNERSHIP OF ARTICLES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

YOU are the reason discussion is pointless as you chose to not participate in it, after you had initiated it. You have not compromised or toned down, even though I made the perfectly reasonable suggestion the deleted text could be kept (though I still don't see the value or significance of it) under a new heading, as neither of the two deleted points relate to Abu al-Walids's so called 'involvement in terrorism'. 82.27.39.34 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

While I agree that the wholesale removal of the sourced material does not serve the article, there do seem to be issues in the article as it stands right now concerning neutrality. The title of the disputed section "involvement in terrorism" lends itself to a point of view. In the absence of proof, it would be more properly titled "allegations of terrorist involvement". There are other statements within that section that seem to lend themselves to a point of view: "His devout Salafism and the fact that during the Soviet-Afghan war he has trained at the Maktab al-Khidamat adds credibility to these claims." It might be proper to state "According to CNN, his devout...." According to my reading of policy, however, this is the kind of claim that must be attributed in order to prevent our drawing conclusions from sources.

As far as this is concerned: "Apparently, the threats have never been carried out. There are no instances known of casualties caused by mines laid by Chechen fighters on Russian territory since al-Walid released this statement." Do we have a source for this? Again, it reads a bit like WP:OR.

I agree with some of the changes made by User:82.27.39.34 here. Although I'm not sure that the change of "insurgent" to "fighter" is necessary, since insurgent has a specific and context-appropriate meaning, I also don't see any harm in the change. "fighter" is also a neutral word.

Reporting on statements released by Abu al-Walid seems entirely appropriate, as long as the language used in doing so is neutral. Are there specific concerns about the validity of the sources?

It seems to me that you're both acting in good faith. :) Though I understand that the topic may be a little sensitive (or even extremely sensitive), I believe that the article will benefit from your discussion if you can manage to maintain civility and work towards consensus. --Moonriddengirl 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been some time since I last reacted here but I think it is a good thing we now have a third opinion. I want to underscore once again that my problem was not the fact that User:82.27.39.34 wanted to change several things in order to make the article more neutral, my problem was the fact that he removed large amounts of content, claiming it was irrelevant and even going so far as calling it propaganda. I will make several edits in order to make the article more neutral where possible. First of all, I understand how the line "His devout Salafism and the fact that during the Soviet-Afghan war he has trained at the Maktab al-Khidamat adds credibility to these claims." might be misunderstood to mean something I do not wish to imply, therefore I will remove it. I will also change the title of the section as Moonriddengirl suggested, I will however not opt for 'Russian accusations of terrorism' or 'Non-involvement in terrorism' but for something more neutral. I will also make some edits to the section about suicide operations in Iraq. I will however change the word 'fighter' back to 'insurgent', as the word insurgent is in my opinion completely neutral and, as Moonriddengirl argued, context-appropriate. The line about al-Walid being reclusive will also be kept, but I will place it in a context to prevent confusion as to the reason why it's mentioned. I will not make any changes to the section where al-Walid's reaction to Chechen female suicide bombings can be found, I think this section is relevant and neutral. The claim that no mines have been laid by insurgents is not sourced, but in this case it could be argued that the lack of sources is in itself a source, since the Russian media would have reported on such an event extensively if it had ever taken place. I will change it though. I hope we can all agree now. ForrestSjap 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes have been made, I hope we can all live with it now. If so, let me know and I will remove the NPOV-tag. ForrestSjap 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to note that I'm still monitoring the discussion in case further third opinion input is necessary. :) Hopefully your changes will be satisfactory for User:82.27.39.34 as well. --Moonriddengirl 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this. I don't know what happened to User:82.27.39.34, it appears he hasn't been editing a lot lately. What do you think of the changes so far? ForrestSjap 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good step towards achieving balance. My experience with third opinion tells me there may be another round or so of conversation, assuming that User:82.27.39.34 is interested in continuing to collaborate on the article. It can be hard to anticipate reactions to specific word choices and such. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just made some more edits. If nobody objects by tomorrow I will remove the NPOV tag ok? ForrestSjap 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection. If User:82.27.39.34 wishes to contest the changes, the tag can certainly be restored while the conversation resumes. --Moonriddengirl 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The tag has been removed.ForrestSjap 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'll watch the page for a few more days in case conversation resumes. If I miss it or it returns thereafter and you feel I can be of some help, please drop me a note at my talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will, thanks for helping out!ForrestSjap 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Familiar propaganda

It is futile to try to maintain a Wiki article about Muslim supremacist aggression, as long as any ignorant Muslim jingo is able to obliterate what you write, and substitute his own grandiose propaganda.

"...with KavkazCenter claiming he was killed by an air strike while preparing for prayer..."

Gimme a break.

Abu al-Walid al-Ghamdi was killed by the Russians in Daghestan, where his job was to receive money via corrupt Muslim charities. I doubt al-Ghamdi ever even set foot in Chechnya.

209.121.88.198 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Complaint by ForrestSjap:

I have just reviewed your edits on the Abu al-Walid article which was largely written by me, and I am rather puzzled by them. I don't really see your point. I didn't revert the edits because I if you do have a point I would very much like to know it. Also if you really want to improve articles, don't be sloppy and make sure your edits are gramatically correct. Let me know what you have to say on this.ForrestSjap (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to make the lead more consise and "encyclopedic". If you see any gramatical mistakes I will correct them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point on some of the concision issues, although I still don't follow most of them, but if you want to improve an article by making it more concise, be thorough and read back what you've done. I will not point out the mistakes that now occur in the text, because you would easily find them yourself if you so much as glanced at the text after you edited it. Permit me to make some edits, see if you agree, and if you don't we can discuss it again here. I also found your last edit[1] somewhat confusing. I don't know if there's any official Wikipedia policy dictating the specific order in which you placed the text, but I think it is rather illogical. Please explain.ForrestSjap (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making your intentions clear with your last edit.[2] I am working on the 'concision issues' which you perceive to be in in the article, I will have them fixed by tomorrow, the rest of your ridiculous edits will be reverted. Go fight your crusade someplace else.ForrestSjap (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now let's be civil. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:No personal attacks --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph added to lead

I added a new paragraph to the lead as charges of terrorism are commonly mentioned in connection with Abu al-Walid.

Abu al-Walid was accused by Russians of terrorist attacks on civilians, and "there are allegations that al-Walid is variously an agent of Saudi intelligence, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Bin Laden's al-Qaeda." While al-Walid has neither confirmed nor denied these charges, he has condemned percieved Russian abused in Chechnya.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already noticed your edits, and I disagree with their necessity. The charges of terrorism commonly mentioned in connection with al-walid are not so commonly mentioned at all. They are mentioned almost solely in one context. Russian press releases. I have created this article a long time ago and have kept an eye on it ever since because I know it is a sensitive subject. On one hand it has to be protected against Jihad-fans who consider al-Walid an untouchable hero and won't rest untill every mention of terrorism is removed, and on the other hand it has to be protected against deeply Islamophobic Americans and Russians who believe it is their duty to expose every AK-weilding Muslim as a bloodthirsty terrorist. You can rest assured, I do not have a hidden agenda, I just wish to keep the article informative and neutral. If you really have a point, let me know and I will look into it. But most of your recent edits are not necessary and only serve to highlight certain aspects which you beleive are to be emphasized. Please let me know what your main concern is so we can try to work this out.ForrestSjap (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure I speak for all wiki editors in thanking you for creating the article and keeping tabs on it, I must remind you Wikipedia is a collective endeavor. No article is owned by its creator. I think you find my short paragraph fair, balanced, with no undue wieght or POV. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found some grammar errors in my edits and have attempted to correct them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to put emphasis on these allegations. First of all Russia accuses ALL CHECHEN REBELS of links with Al-Qaeda, but they never ever provide proof. Second of all there's already a giant paragraph about it. It's fine the way it is. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to delete it from the lead. There is great interest among the internatinoal public in who is or is not associated with al-Qaeda and Abu al-Walid's reply is included. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Ulus-Kert

Hee Pieter, ik denk dat het vervangen van de afbeelding van de slag bij Ulus-Kert niet verstandig is. Die afbeelding voegde wat toe in de context van die sectie van het artikel, en de nieuwe afbeelding is niets veel meer dan een foto van al-Walid, die is er in principe al en staat bovenaan het artikel. Ook zag ik dat je bij het uploaden vermeld hebt dat je denkt dat ie in het PD is. Dan gaat ie geheid verwijdert worden. ik heb die problemen eerder al gehad met foto's van Muhannad en Abu Hafs, en het beste kun je fair use bepleiten, omdat alle foto's van hen zijn genomen en vrijgegeven door de rebellen zijn er geen vrij beschikbare alternatieven. Ik zou wat spaarzamer zijn met het toevoegen van afbeeldingen want copyright-breuk wordt vrij streng gecontroleerd. Ik ga dit artikel binnenkort trouwens weer eens onder handen nemen. Groeten! ForrestSjap (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, ik heb de foto teruggeplaatst. De foto is inderdaad erg relevant maar doordat het van een opname is, is hij ook van slechte kwaliteit

Ik maak me niet echt zorgen wat betreft de copyrights, ik heb al eerder gehad dat afbeeldingen werden verwijderd, is verder niet erg. Bovendien komen ze daarvoor pas in aanmerking wanneer iemand het aangeeft, en dan heb je nog genoeg tijd om er iets aan te veranderen.

Het is een mooie foto van Walid, er zijn er nog veel meer uit die series. Misschien vind je het nu iets te vol dan mag je het wel weghalen. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ja dat klopt, maar er zijn geen beter afbeeldingen te vinden, ik heb deze op Chechenpress gevonden. Ik ken de andere afbeeldingen uit de serie inderdaad, ik denk dat deze op termijn wel aangekaart gaat worden maar we zien wel hoe het zich ontwikkelt.ForrestSjap (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ulus-Kert.jpg

The image Image:Ulus-Kert.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. --01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Death in Ingushetia?

http://www.kommersant.com/p468033/r_1/Abu_Al-Walid_Was_a_Shakhid_Twice/ --Asperchu (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2004/04/20/2682.shtml

  Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071130000643/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/English/Archive/Archive?ArchiveID=2405 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/Archive/Archive?ArchiveID=2405
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070325235928/http://www.jamestown.org:80/publications_details.php?volume_id=400&issue_id=2899&article_id=23471 to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=400&issue_id=2899&article_id=23471
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070616120220/http://www.alwatan.com.sa:80/news/index.asp?issueno=2451 to http://www.alwatan.com.sa/news/index.asp?issueno=2451

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} 02:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206130030/http://www.cacianalyst.org/view_article.php?articleid=1100 to http://www.cacianalyst.org/view_article.php?articleid=1100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206130034/http://www.cacianalyst.org/view_article.php?articleid=2337 to http://www.cacianalyst.org/view_article.php?articleid=2337
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060322132744/http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=2&issue_id=328&article_id=3598 to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=2&issue_id=328&article_id=3598
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930193550/http://jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2369881 to http://jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2369881

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} 22:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)