Wikipedia

Talk:Second Chechen War/Archive 3

< Talk:Second Chechen War
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 2600:1009:B063:F6E5:5428:C1FC:1EA3:5E45 in topic Deleting information
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Government control of media

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This following sentence opposes the referenced BBC article: "The Russian government's control of all Russian television stations and its use of repressive rules, harassment, censorship, intimidation[58] and attacks on journalists almost completely deprived the Russian public of the independent information on the conflict."

The very first sentence in the article is: "Russia's main commercial TV station has accused the Russian military in Chechnya of censorship and intimidation."

A complete contradiction. These accusations are pointed at the military, not the government or the media. And the article also does not say anything about attacks on reporters.

Then the article says: "NTV, the largest privately owned television channel, has often used interviews with soldiers to give a harsher picture of the war than the one painted by media tied more closely to the Kremlin, and has begun to distance itself from official reports." ... "Several Russian newspapers have become increasingly critical of the army's reports on the conflict, pointing out discrepancies in the casualty tolls given by different spokesmen."

So the government doesn't control "all television stations", nor is the Russian public "almost completely deprived of independent information". These parts aren't mentioned at all making it sound like there is no such thing as independent media in Russia or that all Russians get is state created propaganda. There seems almost little point in referencing the BBC article since the paragraph is a work of fiction. LokiiT (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, please read the article about NTV Russia. Now the government does control all the TV stations (at least all that are available to the people for free). Saying that Russian public is "almost completely deprived of independent information" is an overstatement, imho. There exist radio stations, newspapers and magazines that are critical of the goverment. Finally there's Internet, of course. What do you want to change in the article about all this? Alæxis¿question? 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Most important of all is to remove/fix the unsupported claims. Those being: "The governments...use of repressive rules, harassment, censorship, intimidation[58] and attacks on journalists".. These were accusations directed at the Military so that should be clarified. And like I said, the article doesn't say anything about attacks on journalists.
The fact that the government controls all TV stations now is only partially relevant. There was still time during the war where it wasn't, but reading this article you would never know that. That fact is not even referenced in this article either, so how can it be trusted? It should be clarified and referenced, and if you're going to go out of your way to mention that fact it should be made clear that there are still other types of independant media in the country like you mentioned. Right now it feels like I'm reading about media coverage in China or something.
The sentences I posted above from the BBC article should be noted somewhere in the section as well since the war didn't start the day after the government took control of the television media. Particularly the one about newspapers though, that is still relevant today. LokiiT (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
One must be very specific here. You disputed the following segment: "The governments...use of repressive rules, harassment, censorship, intimidation[58] and attacks on journalists". Good. If you think this is poorly sourced, please add {{Fact}}. Anyone can easily provide ten more sources to support this statement. That will be Amnesty International statements, other newspapers and journals and books, not only BBC.Biophys (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing whether or not it's actually true or that it's poorly sourced. A reference was cited, and some things that oppose the referenced article were written. Understand what I'm trying to get at? It's not that it's missing citations, it's that it conflicts the ones provided and the claims cannot be confirmed, and it also gives a false impression of overall media freedom in the country. Exaggerating and twisting facts while omitting others that conflict with a certain point of view can be seen as propaganda or disinformation. LokiiT (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you suggest to write instead and based on what sources?Biophys (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Unemployment rate is determined as the percentage of those in the workforce without jobs. So the fact that every fifth Chechen doesn't have work isn't very helpful to the reader who'd want to compare this figure to these rates somewhere else (taking into account that we have official statistics that don't contradict Jamestown's info).

The info about Chechen unemployed constituting 62 % of of all the Southern FD unemployed is rather old (2005) and not of great value imho. Alæxis¿question? 07:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nearly 80 per cent of the population of Chechnya is unemployed, giving it the highest unemployment rate in Russia (UNDP, 15 May 2007" [1]

This info could be added although I'd like to see exact wording. Also it's not clear is it 2007 or 2006 data. Alæxis¿question? 08:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing conflict, Ingushetia

Latest comment: 15 years ago34 comments4 people in discussion

In all honesty what is this WP:SOAP image that someone is trying to paint that the conflict is still ripe and volatile? Based on sources like this which are two years old? Two years old I might have listed it as ongoing, yet now it is finished, with exception of a bomb or a shooting going on here or there, the fighting is over. Most of all, Russia no longer views this as a committed military conflict, and that's including even official military memos, all control is in the hands of the local police, like in any other Russian region. Also what is this bullshit wrt Ingushetia? Makes one think that Magas is now looking like Grozny in 1990s... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ingushetia might be even worse than Grozny in 1990's. Do you know how small that republic is? There's daily shootings and killings there, as well as disappearances. The Jamestown Foundation is a good academic source, Here's their archive[2] you can check it out if you want. And for your information, I added the link about Ingushetia because someone added a source concerning how the "rebel movement is largely disabled". This may be true, but same goes for Ingushetia's mvd, and per wp:npov either both should be included or excluded.
npov also applies to Russia's idea that "the war is over". Caucasian resistance/rebels do not. Remember when George Bush declared the Iraq war over in 2003 or so? Is it over because of that? No! Al-Maliki recently also declared the war is over, that doesn't make it a fact however.
I don't know how well you follow the conflict, but even the Federals have noted a large rise in insurgency over the past few months. I can show you many sources reporting on the conflict in the Caucasus also from today (I added a link from 2 years ago because you alleged that the conflict ended in 2002). Here[3] you can see a list of daily fighting that I try to update. I haven't updated the last 2 months so don't look there, but as you can see people are dying every day. So what's the defenition of a conflict? Check Ongoing conflicts. There's conflicts ongoing that have far less casualties than this one. The UN's defenition of a Major War is 1000 casualties per year. You have a point that it doesn't seem to reach 1000 casualties a year anymore (I'm not sure on this) like it previously did, but when something isn't a major war, that doesn't mean it's no longer A war. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes having myself fought in the conflict I have followed it from first perspective. Having been to both Checnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan several times since 2000 and your propaganda infested sources are wrong. Look at it this way, when was the last time Russian Air Force bombed a target in Chechnya/Ingushetia, when was the last time regular Russian Army had to use artillery and armour? When was the last time regular Russian Army was involved (compared to Iraq that is a difference). Also the insurgents don't have control of a single aul, let alone a city. I think there is a difference between the armour fighting of 1999/2000 and that now. Once again Pieter I encourage you to visit the region, forget about wiki policies, just to see for yourself that you can indeed drive to any part of the republics walk out, talk to locals people and the only guns will be those issued to the law-enforcing personell. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)`
I would love to visit Russia including the Northern Caucasus, and maybe I just will one day. The problem is that I don't want my western looks provoke a kidnapping like my friends neighbour Arjan Erkel. Travels to the Chechnya are still derecommended by our travel agencies, and now also the rest of the Caucasus which has seen a large rise in insurgency. Another problem is, I don't think people there are able to speak English.
I live in the northern Caucasus, and security is of course a concern if you don't know the customs, but I know for a fact Chechens like the rest of peoples of the Caucasus greet guests and visitors very warmly, irrespective of where they are from. That is real Chechens, not insurgent scum, but since the latter don't exist anymore, that eliminates the problem.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what makes you think that Russian soldiers aren't active anymore, or don't use artillery regularely anymore. It happens constantly. Not everywhere, but certainly the mountain regions. The city of Nazran is covered with helicopters every day and convoys looking for road bombs. I can source all that if you want. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Preferably real videos showing those helicopters, with landmarks of Nazran in the foreground. And those helicopters have to be military ones, not the ones belonging to the growing tourist industry of sightseening the mountains from the air, and dropping skiers in the winter (did that in KBR, awesome!). --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Haha that's funny, but not what the sources say. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Your sources are as untrustworthy as is reality of the situation, until recently you've not even acknowleged that Grozny has been rebuilt. Like I said with jamestown it is as dubious as they come, I'm no surprised that if they for april fools add that winter is all year round in Russia, and armed bears walk the streets, you'll believe that. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong about how "kadyrovites" control entire Chechnya now too. Here's a source[4]. As you may be able to read (it's Russian) rebels still control the mountains. Federals don't even dare to go in there, they just try to pound it with artillery every day. I can show you more sources concerning that if you want. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well there were publications that proved Saddam was in posession of WMDs, that was based on intelligence, not on some Czech site, with POV statements. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Prague Watchdog is an indenpendent news agency. I don't think what makes you think it's a propaganda site. I know you want the conflict to be over, but as the Jamestown foundation concludes: "The constant mobilization of forces in the region and the on-going expansion of the conflict zone represent a clear answer to those who wish the conflict would simply go away".[5] - Pieter_v (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Jamestown is a neoconservative organisation, that is based half way across the world. I don't see how you can even trust such a resource per its credibility. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Jamestown is one of the best sources you can get for this conflict. Run a check I guess. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That half of the attacks they report take place only in their publications? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what makes you believe in the transaction from "Insurgency" to "Localised sporadic fighting" ?? What's the difference? And what do you base this on? I doubt you have sources concerning that and it falls under wp:or. Best is to simply have the start of the conflict listed there, like every other war page does. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:COMMONSENSE is what it falls under and the fact that once can visit Chechnya at will as a tourist as opposed to summer 2000, without even any searches, particularly northern Chechnya, the fact that regular transport now goes there, rail and air, the fact that its within the Russian legal framework, i.e. your credit card will work at the Grozny branch of your bank (or Shatoy for that matter) is enough evidence. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Same goes for Iraq, for many years already. I know Iraqi's here, they visit their family regularely. That's not evidence that any conflict is over. The only thing we're able to draw conclusions from is casualty counts. And also, even the northern region has seen a rise in attacks lately.[6] (that's just one example). But it doesn't matter. Northern Iraq was always very calm too. Nobody here denies that war is over do they? Three police officers were killed in Karachay Cherkessia recently, an area which hasn't seen killings for years. Even federals admit there's a rise again now that rebels have regrouped. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, a policeman was killed in Vologda Oblast, does that make that region also home to conflict? Fact is that whilst some regions show a rise in crime (not insurgency), the epicentre of the conflict, Chechnya has become dormant, and the conflict is now completly different from what it was back in 1999. That is a difference. To attribute the bombings and terrorism as evidence of the continuation of the original tank battles of the 1999-2002 war is equal WP:OR, why not put the final date of Vietnam War as December 1989, just because that the day that Vietnamese pulled out of Cambodia? The war is finished as it is. I don't consider police anti-crime operations as part of warfare. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Kuban you're biased, you call insurgents criminals, who are you to judge them? Yes the war is different from '99, but that doesn't make it over. The UN's defenition of a major war is more than thousand casualties a year. Maybe it doesn't reach one thousand anymore, but that still doesn't mean that war in general is gone. It's a conflict, just like for example the turkish-pkk conflict is still ongoing. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not biased, these people have caused suffering to their own, and to other people. They capture schools and butcher children, behead their prisoners and live by looting and hatred. Yet you accuse me of bias, when even after Basayev confirmed he is a terrorist, you go on and defend him against. Yes they are criminals and human scum and the biggest mistake was that their parents did not use condoms on that unfortunate night. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Kuban is correct. Of course there is still random violence and shootings in the region, but it certainly isn't a "conflict" let alone a "war" any longer. Pieter you sound like you really want the war to be ongoing (do you work for the propaganda organization Jamestown, yourself?), but all of your logic and reasoning is faulty. The facts speak against you. The few hundred separatists left are unorganized, leaderless and without support or direction. There are no feasible goals left within their reach. They might live in the mountains and blow a car up once a year for the next 40 years out of spite, until they die of old age or get killed, but that doesn't mean the conflict will go on for 40 years. LokiiT (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, Laotian Civil War ended in 1975, and that is beyond the fact that there are still remains of the Secret Army in Laos. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Lokii you don't have evidence that separatists are limited to a "few hundred". Or are you going to quote the great Ramzan Kadyrov who estimated some 10 hungry mujahids left in the mountains? You're making a caricature of the daily killings by saying that "a car blows up once a year". Fighting happens every day. You say "I want the war to be ongoing", but it sounds more like you really want the war to be over. It's not. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And for whatever reason both of you hate the Jamestown foundation, which is one of the best sources you can get for wikipedia, memorial also recently published how "War comes to Ingushetia". - Pieter_v (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Russian authorities say a few hundred. Outside organizations say no more than 2 thousand. It's safe to assume the number is relatively low. There is fighting and daily killings in Los Angeles, does that make it a war zone? More faulty logic there. Yes, of course I want the war to be over, why wouldn't I? It seems sadistic of you to want so hard for the ruthless and brutal killings to continue, but gladly it's not, and gladly things really are getting back to normal, slowly and painfully, but surely, despite what you want to believe.
Russian authorities said a few hundred indeed and they've been proven wrong. Outside organizations have made low estimations too, but they don't know the amount. Maybe now that violence has increased they will estimate it higher who knows. Also 2,000 is chechnya alone, not the rest of the Caucasus. That's still a lot.
And as for Jamestown, the reason we hate it is because it's an anti-Russian, neo-conservative propaganda foundation. Look into the history of it and you'll see exactly what I mean. I can understand why Russophobes would love it so much, since it does tell you exactly what you want to hear (That Russians are all evil and Chechen separatists are heroes and the war will never end until Chechnya is "free from the evil grips of Russia" etc..) but as far as facts, neutrality and accuracy go, it's not worth the bandwidth it uses up. LokiiT (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds more like you're another Russian patriot who doesn't like criticism. And no I don't 'enjoy war' as you make me out to do, I'm just being realistic for factual accuracy. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. And honestly, the Jamestown foundation isn't the only agency that acknowledges an increase in warfare. - Pieter_v (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not Russian for starters, nor am I from Russia. It's a little concerning that you would accuse anyone who doesn't agree with the Jamestown anti-Russian propaganda of being "another Russian patriot who doesn't like criticism". Doesn't that say something about your neutrality? I see no purpose in extending this conversation any further, you've shown your true colors. LokiiT (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Uhhm you said "the reason we hate it is because it's an anti-Russian" which made me believe you were Russian. Sorry if I insulted you. It's just that you don't like an organisation because it's supposedly "anti-russian". I really don't see where that comes from, they always report on conflicts from both sides. - Pieter_v (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, any organization that is anti *anything* shouldn't be used in my honest opinion. If you actually think Jamestown presents a neutral, let alone honest point of view I really don't know what to say. We might as well start using old Pravda articles for topics on American wars..sound fair? LokiiT (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So is that the only criterion to use Jamestown, because of its POV? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? The Jamestown is trustworhty, if you don't believe it run it through the wikipedia checks and guidelines. - Pieter_v (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia checks and guidelines aren't the be all end all authority on reliable sources. Wikipedia is full of propaganda and garbage, you know that as well as I do. LokiiT (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, but I don't see how that applies here. New update: "Despite Russia’s failure over the last nine years to put an end to the conflict in the North Caucasus"[7]. Furthermore, agencies that cover ongoing conflicts all over the world all list the Northern Caucasus as one.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Both Memorial and Human Rights Watch acknowledge the conflict too [14]. This discussion has come up several times now, the key is that a conflict doesn't just end when one side declares himself the victor. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

BOTH KAVKAZ CENTER AND RUSSIAN MEDIA OUTLETS EXAGGERATE AND FALSIFY THE REPORTS ON BATTLES AND CLASHES. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH KAVKAZ'S VIEWS ON THE TALIBAN AND AL-SHABBAB AND THE UNITED STATES, BUT THE WEBSITE IS NOT RUN BY THE CHECHEN SEPARATIST IN ANY WAY, JUST PEOPLE SYMPATHETIC TO THEM. THE NUMBERS KAVKAZ USUALLY GETS IS FROM RUSSIAN MEDIA OUTLETS ANYWAYS. AND RUSSIAN MEDIA OUTLETS ARE SYMPATHETIC TO RUSSIA DUHHH. KAVKAZ CENTER IS A RELIABLE SOURCE ON THE CHECHEN WAR ONLY NOT THEIR OTHER MATERIAL. BUT JUST BECAUSE SOME OF THEIR ARTICLE ARE MORE MILITANT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD COMPLETELY NOT USE THEM AS A SOURCE. DO YOU THINK RUSSIAN MEDIA OUTLETS TELL THE COMPLETE TRUTH JUST BECAUSE THEIR A GOVERNMENT/ARMY AND NOT REBELS? RUSSIA IS NOTORIOUS FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE FULL TRUTH ON THEIR CASUALTIES. THE UNITED NATIONS REPORTED THAT RUSSIA LOST AN ESTIMATED 12,000 TROOPS IN THE CAUCUS FROM 1999 TO 2006. AND WITH ALL THE JOURNALIST AND REPORTERS BEING KILLED FOR CRITICIZING RUSSIAN LEADERS AND THEIR POLICIES I WOULDN'T PUT IT PAST THEM TO EXAGGERATE OR LIE ABOUT CASUALTIES AND REBEL ATTACKS. WE ARE ALL HEAR TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE, LETS DO THAT AND STOP ARGUING. AND YES MERGE Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) WITH THE 2ND CHECHEN WAR, THE WAR IS STILL ONGOING, BOTH SIDES ARE FIGHTING STILL AND VIOLENCE ONLY INCREASES IN THE SUMMER. BOTH SIDES HAVE COMMITED ATROCITIES. NO INFORMATION IS PERFECT ON THIS CONFLICT BUT LETS DO THE BEST WE CAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You can remove Yamadayev

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

lol --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not remove, the infobox also deals with past commanders. What's funny btw is that Yamadayev received a hero of Russia medal. - Pieter_v (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing new. Most "heros" of October revolution and Civil war (like Tukhachevsky) have been convicted by Russian courts or "troikas" as criminals and in fact were criminals. Yamadaev is only a last example (see citation of Suvorov in Soviet historiography).Biophys (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, maybe they'll make a special cell block for the Chechnya-related Heroes of Russia, Yuri Budanov etc. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

death of ingush opposition activist Magomed Yevloyev

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For some time I was afraid this was about to happen. [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Fox-9589 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:Photo09.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. --08:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"The campaign largely reversed the outcome of the First Chechen War, in which the region gained de facto independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria."

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How can Chechnya's de facto independence be a result of the First Chechen War? Chechnya had de facto independence before the war already. Offliner (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Status section

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With the official ending of the counter-terrorism operation on 16 April 2009, perhaps the "Status" section should be re-written (and shortened)? I thought I would discuss it here first before I start poking at it. :-) Gb-uk (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Many many sources describe it as a conspiracy theory

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Many sources, much much more credible than Alexander Litvinenko and co., including The Washinton Times, The New York Times, The Times, Princeton University have referred to it as a "conspiracy theory".--Miyokan (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please everyone take it easy. Yes you can call it a conspiracy theory.

the line "lthough critics claimed that the bombings have been directed by Russian FSB and Russian government officials" should be fine, nothing more nothing less. It doesn't refer to the conspiracy as a fact, it only says that critics claim so and thats a fact.

The intro should be a short introduction for new users to understand what happened that started the war. They can click "russian apartment bombings" and "invasion of dagestan" for further information

- PietervHuis (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose to keep the introduction the way it is now, I made it shorter and more neutral, we can add all the other "details", like who led the IIPB and what critics say about the apartment bombings lower in the article - PietervHuis (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree.--Miyokan (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're changing it again. There's no need for "the official investigation". The official investigation also blamed North Vietnam for the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and Marinus van der Lubbe for setting the reichstag ablaze. - PietervHuis (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan, "official investigation" is POV. The investigation was carried out in Russia, it would be an official investigation if it was investigated by the UN or something. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, an investigation most certainly does not have to be carried out by the UN to be called "official", however you can certainly write that the "official" investigation has its critics.--Miyokan (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an independent investigation either. Why don't you add that too? I've changed it back to what it used to be. I hope you can live with that. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with writing that it was a government investigation. How it is now is fine if you can't live with writing "official investigation".--Miyokan (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're going by conspiracy theories, then why not list others? For example, there is a convincing conspiracy theory (without any direct evidence) that CIA aided anti-Russia movement in Chechnya which lead to at least one of these bombings. Or supposedly found dead bodies of African-Americans in Chechnya, contracted to fight against Russians. Since conspiracy theories are usually "cherry-picked proofs" at best, people tend to believe the ones that suits their political ideas/motives. In the case of accusations against FSB, it probably suits someone's russophobic views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.255.197 (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Start date of war

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

According to all the sources I've seen (for example "Chechnya: From Past to Future" book, Moscow Defense Brief article, etc.) the war began in early August when Chechnya based militants launched their invasion of Dagestan, and Russia launched a large-scale counteroperation to repel the attack. Biophys claims the war began on 26 August, but this is not correct. Offliner (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What sources are you talking about? Could you give some links? Where it was published? Pages? Moscow Defense Brief (article created by you) is unnotable advocacy organization and hardly a reliable source. Biophys (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at the two refs I inserted into the article. Ref nums 12 & 13 currently. Offliner (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's only quote books as reliable secondary sourced per WP:RS:
  1. "Second Chechen war begain in September" ("Encyclopedia of the developing world‎" - Page 597)[16]
  2. "The second Chechen war began in the fall of 1999 after apartment block bombings in Russia were blamed on Chechen terrorists" Elusive security: states first, people last‎ - Page 64 by Laura Neack[17]
  3. "The second Chechen war, began in September 1999[18]
  4. "Second Chechen War began in September 1999"[19]
  5. "the beginning of the second Chechen war in October 1999" [20]
  6. "The start of the second Chechen war in the fall of 1999" [21]
  7. "Moscow's decision to start the second Chechen War in October 1999" [22]
  8. "in deciding to launch the second Chechen war in September 1999" [23].

And so on, and so on. None of the books claim it to begin in August. Your quotations from books, please? According to all this sources, the war was launched by Russia.Biophys (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to refer to Sakwa, please provide precise quote where he tells the date of the beginning of war, as I did.Biophys (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
An article by Michael Orr (a Senior Lecturer at the Conflict Studies Research Centre) published on the think tank GlobalSecurity.org in 2000 says it started in August.[24] "Since August 1999 a new war has been in progress" That's a more reliable source on military affairs than the random array of books you cited, only one of which was written by a military expert. Why not just say the second half of 1999? LokiiT (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What you cited is an "opinion piece" of a single person (it tells: "The opinions expressed in the article are his own"); the Center has nothing to do with it. Author tells about hostilities "since August" without explaining if he actually means Dagestan war, apartment bombings, or something else. No surprising, because the article is on a different subject: performance of Russian forces in the war. In no way this is more reliable than tons of published books (reliable secondary sources). I am still waiting for a precise citation of date from the book by Sakwa, which would be as reliable source as one of the books I cited above.Biophys (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So what if it's an opinion piece? He's a military expert, therefore he knows more than some general books that just mention Chechnya briefly. And not all of the books you cited are reliable. One is an encyclopedia for starters, which is a tertiary source, not a secondary source. In fact only one of those books is written by military experts. The rest are non-authoritative on military matters and should not be given the final say. Just because a bunch of simpletons say the Earth is flat doesn't mean it's true. You're much better off asking a scientist, whose opinion is worth more than all the simpletons combined.

Here's a bit of a timeline from the same think tank, globalsecurity, which clearly shows acts of war occurring in August (and this is not an opinion piece):

  • On 7 August ... Days after he was appointed, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin predicted the insurgents would be driven out of Dagestan in two weeks. Russian troops relied mainly on air power and heavy artillery against suspected insurgent positions in the sparsely populated Dagestani mountains.
  • On 25 August Russian troops said they had regained control of all mountain villages seized by Islamic separatists in the southern Dagestan region
  • On 26 August Russian air strikes targeted two Chechen villages where against Muslim insurgents who were retreating from neighboring Dagestan were being sheltered.
  • As of 08 September Russia's Interior Ministry reported ground combat in and around 11 villages in the Novolak region, about 50 kilometers northwest of the Dagestani capital, Makhachkala.
  • By mid-September 1999 the militants were routed from several villages they had seized.

The actual invasion into Chechnya took place later, but clearly the war started in August as these events began to unfold. Again I'll suggest that we just say it started in the second half of 1999, or mid 1999, but I won't settle for saying it started in September because that completely ignores the fact that the first shots were fired in Dagestan, in August, and everything that followed was a result of that initial invasion. LokiiT (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thus, we have eight books (want more?) against one article. The majority view is very much obvious. Your points above are obviously about the Dagestan war that had happened in August. However, a vast majority of secondary sources (the books I cited above) does not consider Dagestan war to be a part of Second Chechen war. They consider Dagestan war as a separate event and an official casus belli of the Second Chechen war.Biophys (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard Sakwa (p.16 of the book): The second North Caucasian military operation began on 2 August 1999 when federal forces supported Dagestani units to repel the first Chechen invasion of the republic, and federal forces then entered Chechnya on 1 October 1999.
  • Alexander Cherkasov and Dmitry Grushkin (p.191): There is no generally accepted date for the start of the war. Federal forces occupied the border heights on 29 September 1999. The bombardment of Grozny began on 21 September. Extremist bands invaded Dagestan on 6 September in the Novolaksy district and on 8 September in the Bolikh district.' In practice, however, military activity began in Tsumadin district on 2 August. Offliner (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Alexander Pashin (Moscow Defense Brief): The second Chechen war can be divided into two stages: Stage 1 - August 1999 (the invasion in Dages­tan) through March 2000 (the siege of Komsomolskoye village) - was marked by large-scale hostilities. Stage 2 - begun in April 2000 and continuing to this day. The number of major hos­tilities sharply declined and active guerilla war­fare began. So according to him, the second war includes the Invasion of Dagestan. Offliner (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
And another, Russian military reform, 1992-2002 By Anne Aldis, Roger N. McDermott, page 153: "In the second Chechen campaign (...) In the first stage, in Daghestan from 2 August to 30 September 1999..."
Quantity doesn't trump quality Biophys. We now have three academic articles, a military think tank timeline and three books that specialize in the Russian military/Chechnya that all say it started in August. You gave us a bunch of random books that mention Chechnya on one page, only one of which can be considered academic material. "Putin's Russia", a no name encyclopedia, "The Jack Ryan Agenda" (this book is about Tom Clancy novels.....) I'm actually changing my mind. The majority view among military/Chechnya experts is that the war started in August, so that's what the article should say. The majority view among non-experts isn't important. LokiiT (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Need a source

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some others, including David Satter, Yury Felshtinsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky and Alexander Litvinenko, as well as the secessionist Chechen authorities, claimed that the 1999 bombings were a false flag attack coordinated by the FSB in order to win public support for a new full-scale war in Chechnya, which boosted Prime Minister and former FSB Director Vladimir Putin's popularity, brought the pro-war Unity Party to the State Duma and him to the presidency within a few months.

Oh really? Secessionist Chechen Authorities claimed that? Which ones? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Missing a clear statement on the outcome

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11455058 The photos show that the conflict is fundamentally over and won big time by Russia (as much as you can claim that USA won in Iraq). There may be occasional unrest, but so are in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. YOu should state clearly that this is a decisive Russian victory with the outcome of the restoration of Russian government, as much as you state that the outcome of the First Chechnya war was a De Facto Independence of Chechnya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.176 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Providing sources and direct quote

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

With regard to this edit. This is direct quote of Stepashin

В отношении Чечни могу сказать следующее. План активных действий в этой республике разрабатывался начиная с марта. И мы планировали выйти к Тереку в августе-сентябре. Так что это произошло бы, даже если бы не было взрывов в Москве. Я активно вел работу по укреплению границ с Чечней, готовясь к активному наступлению. Так что Владимир Путин здесь ничего нового не открыл. Об этом вы можете спросить его самого. Он был в то время директором ФСБ и владел всей информацией. Я всегда был сторонником сильной и жесткой политики в Чечне. Но я бы хорошо подумал, стоить ли переходить Терек и идти дальше на юг.

from his interview to "Nezavisimaya gazeta".

But I do not have to provide primary source. I also provided good secondary source, a book by Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this source. Normally a secondary source would be fine, but of course the reason for my edit was that this Assassins book is not a reliable secondary source since it was funded/sponsored by Berezovsky, who has a conflict of interest with regards to Putin and his government.LokiiT (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think the book was sponsored by Berezovsky? Do you know any publications about this? Goldfard worked for Berezovsky for a period of time, but Felshtinsky is not associated with him, as far as I know.Biophys (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Felshtinsky is also associated with Berezovsky. They're all part of the same team. Read this. LokiiT (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what exactly do you mean. This is interview given by Felshitisky, but it has little to do with Berezovsky. He tells:
"The first signal of danger came in November, 2002. This was an e-mail sent by a former FSB officer, now in prison in Moscow because he went against the system. He sent an e-mail to Alexander telling him the decision was made to kill him, and also that someone had been sent to Boston to check out the best way to assassinate me."
"Security is more of an issue for my wife and children than me. They are frightened. Before I came to London they asked me to promise not to drink tea or take meals with strangers, and the FBI advised me not to travel. But what can you do to be safe against improbable crimes? I always thought that a US passport was my security. Now I cannot be sure. Even if Putin is not guilty of giving the direct order, he is responsible for creating a system which by law allows the FSB to kill people whom it considers to be an enemy of the Russian state." Biophys (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how it could be any more clear. "From that moment the two men's collaboration began, resulting in the Blowing Up Russia manuscript. Berezovsky was instrumental in providing the money for the book and its accompanying documentary"
If you personally choose to believe what a Berezovsky sponsored author says about Putin and all his evil doings, that's your business. But it's not appropriate for wikipedia, and you know that. LokiiT (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Nobody mentioned notorious "New Year" fight of 84th ORB (reconnaissance battalion)with Khattab's forces near Duba-Yurt mountain village —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.124.119.63 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Let me start with introducing myself, first. I guess I can safely say I'm a kind of semi-expert, or an "Internet Expert", on the subject, in the meaning I've never been anywhere near the region, nor even spoke in person (not through the Internet) to anyone from there, but I've read several books on the subject and read thousands of articles since 1995, so I'm pretty well informed. Also I'm not a native English speaker, and especially I have problem with the tenses, so excuse me all my errors.

So, I came upon this article by accident and I saw many glaring errors in the bloated infobox. I fixed them, but then I see the claim it's a part of something called "Insurgency in the North Caucasus". I go there, and I see a very strange extremely HUGE (282 kb!) article on God know what really (unencyclopedic and uninformative, completely trivial, written in really broken English in what appears to be mostly unedited computer translation of Russian articles, this kind of stuff). At first, I spent several hours trying to clean it up, then I realized it has no sense whatsoever, restarted it from the very scratch (in the end leaving it how it is in its current form). HOWEVER, then I go to check the articles I just linked, and spend several more hours cleaning-up/updating/rewriting several of them (the Ingush and Dagestani Jamaats, what the Wikipedia calls the "Civil war in Ingushetia", some more), but then I came upon the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings and even after a short look at this huge article I see how even this is completely detached from reality as well. At this moment, I felt completely overhelmed, because not only I would have to basically rewrite most of the articles on the subject, I would also write many more myself, and all of this... it would take all my free time for many days, or even weeks, so I decided to rather make a collaborative project out of this, and so I decided to share my thoughts here (for the lack of a better idea where to do this).

And then, I just realized how even the basics of this, the alleged end of the 2nd Chechen conflict and the beginning of the "Insurgency in the North Caucasus" on April 15, 2009, this is not correct too! At this date, nothing really happened - the Russian government just, AGAIN (there were several such declarations in the past), declared "mission accomplished" for its "counter-terrorist operation", this time to give Kadyrov more power that he demanded. That's all. There was no peace treaty, the rebels did not surrender, nothing of this. The violence in Chechnya did not end, it did not even continued as before, in fact it instead sharply escalated: more fighting, more terrorism and state terror (in particular the house burnings), even many suicide bombings that were not seen for years. And outside Chechnya, just NOTHING AT ALL has changed: there too the same forces continued to fight the same enemy forces, just more. How this would make supposedly an end of the war, I don't know.

However, if you want to see the very day the Second Chechen War, the Chechen separatist conflict since 1999, the war between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, has actually ended, this happened in 2007, on the day Umarov declared the Caucasus Emirate and abolished Ichkeria and even Chechnya altogether. There can be a "Chechen War" if (quite suddenly) the separatists are not fighting for Chechnya anymore! Or are not even calling themselves "Chechens" (for the reason it's not a Vainakh word, you know, but previously of course they called themselves this way). (Not all of them, but there was only one major field commander who did not follow Umarov, he died in 2010 and I don't know what his men did after this.) And it can be since then safely called the Caucasian insurgency, of course. (Before this date, even the non-Chechen groups in the local republics fought for Ichkeria - the Chechen Basayev was setting them up and controlling them, and eventually even forcing them to take oath to Maskhadov when the Caucasian Front has been formally set up, so it was all still the Chechen war no matter where and with who involved.)

As of the Caucasian insurgency article, once we decide when exactly this did start to begin with - I'd like to have an article discussing the sources, scale, developments and trends of the conflicts in each of the enbattled republics, to have the major incidents and people covered, human rights situation, and its own infobox too (btw, I just checked was just amazed how biased and uninformed is an article on the 2010 Chechen Parliament attack).

Any thoughts? Please comment/discuss below, thanks! --Asperchu (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(Just reminding about this after an archive bot action.) --Asperchu (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no one's really interested anymore, so I'll be just bold. --Asperchu (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite impressive text, Asperchu. Those article (in really broken English) had written mostly by Russians so basically they don't deserve taking serious. It's like Germans opinion about Poles in 1940. Despite the fact you're "Internet Expert" I presume you've grasped very clearly what is going on. Lors787

Umm. The comparison is invalid. Zhozhoba12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.31.82 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Infobox

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The infobox seems to consist out of arbitrarily written ideas, speculations and dated info, which need to be revised and/or explained. Let's take it from the top:

  • In the "commanders and leaders" section, Boris Yeltsin is listed in the first place. However, who ever wrote that, seems to have been ignorant of the fact that Yeltsin resigned from his post as the President of Russia on the 31 December 1999 (and thus commander-in-chief) four months into the conflict, a conflict which went on for further five months, or another nine years if you include the "Insurgeny phase". He thus cannot be listed on the top of that section.
  • In the "Belligerents" section, the author seems to have a poor understanding of Wikipedia:Weight. Al-Qaeda is listed as a belligerent on the Chechen side. However, their numbers were at most in the hundreds. This is undue weight. A couple of hundred fighters among 22,000-30,000 Chechen fighters is a marginal number of about 2-3 percent. We also had Kazakh fighters, Afghan, Uzbek, and others, but we did not list them here for the obvious reasons. As an example, Bosnian War is a good way how this should be done: there were Bosnian, Croat and Serb fighters on all three sides, but only the banner which is commanding them should be included. Al Qaida can be mentioned in the text, preferably in the volunteers paragraph.
  • The "Casualties and losses" section is confusing. It claims 3,675 dead on the Russian side, but source no. 4 gives a link that says "3,501 servicemen died and 35 went missing", which does not add up [25]. Source no. 5 gives a number of "3,603 killed and 32 missing". Source no. 6 is a dead link[26], source no. 7 does not mention any total numbers of killed. Considering the claim that 2,364-2,572 Interior ministry troops were killed, we have the same problem: source no. 8 is once again a dead link [27], source no. 9 does not mention that number, source no. 10 only mentions 200 killed in the four years since 2002[28], source no. 11 also does not mention a total number of killed, but only killed in 2007, source no. 12 is again a dead link, the same one as no. 6. Finally, source no. 13 mentions actually a higher number of dead, 4,572 killed![29] I don't know who wrote this, but whoever he is, he should try to read with understanding and check what he is posting here, first.

I was surprised at just how many errors this infobox sections has. This should be brought into order ASAP. If there are no objections, I will correct all this mess the following days.--THX113883 (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Use archive.org for the dead links. Khazar (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Even when I use archive.org, it still gets me a dead link for this one [30]. For the other links, the problem is that some of these sources say something different than what is claimed in the infobox conflict.--THX113883 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If that's the case, then you'll have to match the numbers to what the links say. Khazar (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


I'm just a student. Maybe I did something about lakes, not understood. What I wanted to see from the Wikipedia article is - who befohllen an attack with tanks - Armie against Chechen city Grosni? Was not that the General Gromowhoi (the former defense minister Russia)? Thanks in advance.Kingruedi354354 (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 31 external links on Second 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Second 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Second 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}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Second 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, 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) 10:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Second 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, 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) 22:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Second 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, 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) 14:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Graphic mutilation images

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello

I think it's a bit of a bad idea to have such graphic mutilation images so visible on this page. I know it's an encyclopedia and censorship is bad .etc but the JFK article hides their graphic images behind spoiler tags, and I think it would be better to do the same for this one. It's not that great an experience to scroll down this interesting article and then see two images of heavily mutilated and decapitated bodies staring you in the face. Popping them behind a spoiler tag would be ideal for user experience as it means people can still view the horrors of warfare but can also prepare themselves for it (and chose to skip it if they prefer). --82.20.70.163 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It is English Wikipedia policy not to censor content. Nor do we use spoiler warnings or any sort of spoiler tags. Articles are to contain content which is relevant and educational on the topic. We do not pass subjective judgement on what content some readers may or may not find objectionable. Articles on sexual or medical topics may contain explicit anatomical images, articles on works of fiction may contain plot "spoilers", articles on religious topics may contain content banned or deemed objectionable by adherents of that religion, and so on.
On the other hand content should not be gratuitously offensive or shocking. Images or other content are expected to be genuinely relevant and educational, and controversial content may be replaced with a less controversial version if the replacement is of equal or greater educational value and it equally or better fulfills the purpose of including the original content.
I see the images you mentioned were recently removed. I carefully considered whether they should be restored. It is appropriate for a discussion of war crimes to contain graphic images, see for example Rape of Nanking. However in this case it was unclear to me that the images were depicting war crimes at all, or how they were relevant to the section other than being generically mangled dead bodies. Nor did I find the captions helpful in establishing such a connection. As someone generally inclined to restore controversial images which have been removed, I see no clear reason to oppose removal of these particular images. Alsee (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Invasion or Not an Invasion

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

How can this war be called an invasion when Chechnya is part of Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.224.36 (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Chechnya was not even part of Russia until 2000. Your statement "Second Russian invasion of Chechnya from the rebel Chechen point of view (Russian: Второе российское вторжение в Чечню)", is like saying it is the only Chechen rebel opinion? Given Chechens have long hatred on Russia, I doubt it is just a "rebel" opinion. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
A brief look at the first page of Google Search results for the "Second Russian invasion of Chechnya" indicates the uses of this particular phrase by sources such as Israeli author Yagil Henkin[31], British politician Julian Lewis [32], U.S. research associate Muhammad al-`Ubaydi [33], independent Russia-based journalist Andrei Smirnov of the Jamestown Foundation [34], Andrew Akin of the Air University [35], RFE/RL editorial [36]...
Perhaps, a more accurate wording would be that "the Second Chechen war is also called the Second Russian invasion of Chechnya by some Western and Western-aligned authors"?
That would necessarily include the rebel Chechen leaders, since they are Western-aligned, but also include Russian Western-aligned authors, as well as Western politicians and scholars.
--Document hippo (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem of the issue isn't that simple. I agree this is a bit Western-aligned, but Chechnya was occupied by Russia since 19th century, at that time France and Britain were busy consolidating colonies abroad and they did not give a damn about Chechens. The fact that Chechens see it as an invasion is quite legit here. For Chechens, especially Ichkerian supporters, they simply state they want to liberate their country. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:TITLE, we should use the terms that are most frequently used by the sources. If you search Google books, it becomes clear that the name 'Second Chechen War' is by far the most widely used, both by Western and Russian authors. Unless it can be demonstrated that the conflict is called 'Second invasion...' by multiple reliable sources, I don't think that it should be mentioned in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 20:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Plans for invasion

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Sextus Caedicius, why do you think that Stepashin's words about Russian plans to invade Chechnya should be mentioned in the lede? I see at least two possible problems with it. First, Stepashin is a politician and the interview was given in the run-up to the elections, so taking it at face value is problematic. Second, every military makes contingency plans all the time and most of the time they are not realised. So Stepashin's interview can be mentioned in the body of the article, but it should not be mentioned in the lede, unless there are secondary sources which mention is equally prominently. Alaexis¿question? 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually Richard Ware makes the same point re contingency plans in Chechnya: From Past to Future (p. 86)

So we see that scholars differ in their interpretations of this interview. Alaexis¿question? 05:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Image caption incorrect?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's an image captured "Grozny, the capital city of Chechnya, in March 1995 during the Second Russo-Chechen War", showing the destroyed city of presumably Grozny. The image is confusing: it appears in an article about the Second Chechen War, taking place in 1999 and 2000, printed next to a paragraph about the Second Battle of Grozny, also having taken place in those years. Either it's an image of destroyed Grozny during the First Chechen War and thus doesn't belong in this article, or it's a photograph of Grozny during the Second Chechen War, which makes date stated in the caption impossible. Either way, the caption is definitely wrong. Am I just confused? 217.89.119.238 (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleting information

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I am going to post my sources, The New York Times and a research paper from Tufts University that itself quotes John Dunlap, Human Rights Watch, Robert Seely, and Christopher Zurcher, all experts in the field, since every time I post this information it is deleted.

Estimates of the number of civilians killed range widely from 20,000 to 100,000[ii], with the latter figure commonly referenced by Chechen sources. Most scholars and human rights organizations generally estimate the number of civilian casualties to be 40,000[iii]; this figure is attributed to the research and scholarship of Chechnya expert John Dunlop, who estimates that the total number of civilian casualties is at least 35,000.[iv] This range is also consistent with post-war publications by the Russian statistics office estimating 30,000 to 40,000[v] civilians killed. The Moscow-based human rights organization, Memorial, which actively documented human rights abuses throughout the war, estimates the number of civilian casualties to be a slightly higher at 50,000.[vi] The number of ethnic Russian civilian losses is estimated at 25,000-30,000, or roughly 85% of the total deaths.

There is no commonly accepted methodology for counting civilian fatalities during the First Chechen War. Most attempts to record fatalities focused on combatant deaths. Neither party to the conflict recorded accurate numbers of civilian deaths, and any records failed to disaggregate victims based on ethnicity. Although the Russian statistics office published a list citing approximately 40,000 civilian casualties in the war’s aftermath, the humiliating defeat of Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya and the resulting unwillingness of Russian officials to provide accurate accounts of civilian or military losses have complicated efforts to determine total civilian casualties on both sides. Chechen officials have also released estimates of total casualties for both this conflict (1994 – 1996) and a second conflict (1999 – 2000), estimating losses at 160,000, but the figures are not further disaggregated.[vii] Efforts to verify statistics were further complicated by the lack of independent monitors and journalists on the ground in Chechnya during the wars.

Nonetheless, sources estimate that a large percentage of civilian fatalities occurred during the invasion of Grozny between December 1994 and March 1995. From the beginning of the invasion to the middle of February, fatality estimates range from 25,000[viii] to 30,000[ix] civilian deaths. This range indicates that the majority of the civilian fatalities in the entire war occurred during a mere four-month window. Of the estimated 25,000[x] killed in the invasion of Grozny, it is estimated that 18,000[xi] were killed by mid January. According to General Dudayev, the first president of the Chechen Republic, 85 percent of civilians killed in the invasion (approximately 25,500)[xii] were ethnic Russians due to the fact that the Chechens were the first to evacuate the capital; this estimate is close to the figure put forward by Russian human rights campaigner Sergei Kovalyov, who estimated the number of ethnic Russian deaths at 24,000.[xiii] The ethnic Russian population in Chechnya was 24.5% in the last Soviet census of 1989. In the 2006 census, ethnic Russians accounted for 3.4% of the population of Chechnya. 2600:1009:B01C:6320:B19B:B131:3DD0:5EFF (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever that is, this level of detail does not go in the goddamn lead of the article, which is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article, not a brand new expansion of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be mostly about the First Chechen War. Alaexis¿question? 17:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the casualty estimates, etc...are estimates for both conflicts, not strictly for just the 2nd Chechen War. In fact, most of the information combines both conflicts. Most sources agree on 35,000-40,000 civilian casualties, 50,000 is the highest reliable estimate I've seen. Most also, as I referenced a New York Times article, 3rd party historians on Chechnya, official office of statistics figures, official censuses, and even leaders from Chechnya itself, agree that 85% of civilian casualties were ethnic Russians, most of them in the beginning of the first war. But if figures from both wars are going to be combined like they are throughout this article, I certainly think it's only fair to point that fact out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B063:F6E5:5428:C1FC:1EA3:5E45 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Chechen_War/Archive_3&oldid=1146794677"