Talk:Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush

message: It looks like some part of the sentence is missing.
Also, Burds writes in his article that more than 700 people were killed in Khaibakh. Are the figures above from the book by Yakovlev or from somewhere else? Alæxis¿question? 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is from book by Yakovlev; he probably tells about the number of people who were burned alive in one of the buildings. The number by Burds is possibly total number of victims.Biophys (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actuall number of victims is not known. It could be described as "from 300 up to 700" depends on the author and your own bloodlust.Ias130 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: mistake

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aardakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jWeINeYx?url=http://www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/Burds-FifthColumnists.pdf to http://www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/Burds-FifthColumnists.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Tony Wood wrote a book calling for the separation of Chechnya from Russia, which is cited in this article. It is a controversial source that has been met with considerable criticism: "His volume is too thin, and suffers too much from oversimplification and one-sidedness and does not give a fair coverage to the problem. the Russians in it are portrayed as barbarians, the author does not even hint at the bitter debates an dilemmas that the war gave rise to. On the other hand, he paints the Chechens as great martyrs, and not as real people with their virtues and vices."Sonofagunner (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the critic here seems to have their their own biases, I have removed Tony Wood as sources that haven't attracted large amounts of criticism are preferred. The only place I left Wood was for the name "Chechevitsa" -- I really doubt that that could be controversial. Now, can we stop posting tons of material intending to justify the deportation on a page that is about the deportation, not about the alleged collaboration? --Yalens (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

text: This page should be renamed back to "Operation Lentil" per WP:Common name, as one can see from Google search. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to move it back but it won't let me. How do you move back to a page that technically exists? --Yalens (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I Think Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush is an even better title (just like Deportation of the Crimean Tatars). Operation Lentil only refers to the initial deportation, not the years of exile. Lentil is also a derogatory phrase; the operation was cynically called 'Chechevitsa' ('Lentil') because this word resembles 'Chechen'. Machinarium (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Maybe Deportation of the Chechen and Ingush peoples? What Yalens thinks? But I also see another problem. The entire peoples were deported by Stalin, officially because some of their members collaborated with Nazi. Yes, this should be noted on the page. But this is not a valid justification of the genocide. Nothing is valid justification for genocide. Therefore, discussion of this in background section seem excessive. We have another page, 1940–44 insurgency in Chechnya. Well, maybe we have to say here that Stalin wanted to punish people for the insurgency, but only if this can be reliably sourced. From what I read, that was not an explanation because many other peoples were deported, even though they were not engaged in any insurgencies.My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Only issue with that is that Balkars, Karachays, and Kalmyks were also targeted. But I suppose the parts of the operation that affected them could be given their own page? I don't see anyone who's likely to make such a page at this moment, sadly, so it seems the logical place for the effects on those three peoples is here, meaning we can't say just "Chechens and Ingush". --Yalens (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Those campaigns took place at a different dates and should be seen as a different campaigns, despite similarities. Yes they also deserve their own articles. Machinarium (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: --Yalens (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Wood 

message: Currently, the article includes the following statements:
Of these links, [4] leads to a page which says that according to Nekrich, net losses of Chechens constituted 22% and net losses of Ingush constituted 9%, and that it's the percent closer to minimal than maximal.
[1] is a book by Nekrich. At page 138 of Nekrich, in Table 2, it's stated that net losses of Chechens between 1939 and 1959 (after allowing for wartime losses) were 131,000 (22%), and of Ingush 12,000 (9%). At the same page Nekrich writes that "[t]hese figures are closer to minimal than maximal estimates".
[2] is a book by Dunlop. At pp. 70-71 Dunlop cites several investigations. One is Bugai's study based on NKVD's figures which says the death toll of Chechens from 1944 to 1948 constituted 101,036. Then, Dunlop cites investigations based on Soviet census figures, such as that by Tishkov group which concluded: "Indirect [kosvennye] losses of growth from the deportation constituted about 200,000 among the Chechens." In the next paragraph, Dunlop cites two other investigations based on Soviet census (Conquest and Nekrich), which lead to smaller figures.
[3] is a book by Gammer I was unable to obtain by now, so cannot comment on it (yet).
Based on my reading so far, I believe that the data on the death toll of Chechens and Ingush, as currently cited in the above fragments of the article, violates WP:Verifiability. In particular, figures concerning "indirect losses of growth" are presented as "estimates for deaths" or are used as sources for the statement that "hundreds of thousands of Chechens and Ingushes died or were killed".
Hope that helps.
Document hippo (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, on should probably tell something like that: "According to estimates, between 100,000 and 200,000  of Chechens and Ingushes died or were killed during the round-ups and transportation, and during their early years in exile"? My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid, that wouldn't help. According to Dunlop, the figure 200,000 refers to "indirect losses of growth". He uses the words "In similar fashion" and "similar conclusions" to discuss other studies based on census figures. I don't think that "indirect losses of growth" mean that all these people were killed or died. I think it includes the unborn babies, which results in a higher figure. Document hippo (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

text: How do you suggest to modify this text? I made my suggestion above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't thought of how the text could be modified. Yes, I've seen your suggestion. Thanks for participating. Document hippo (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please suggest your version. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, it was not my intention to do so. Document hippo (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the book on me right now; if I remember properly, part of the "loss in growth" explanation was (a) to account for large numbers of infants (and old people) who died of exposure and (b) because, distrusting the NKVD data, that is what authors used as the next best proxy to estimate losses. I agree that it should be reworded so not as to give the impression that say, 200000 were slaughtered on spot or died in transport, as that is not what the authors were saying. My very best wishes' suggestion was a good start, at least. --Yalens (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If that helps, please, have a look: . That's all I've got. I used to talk to some Chechens and I know deportation is a sensitive topic. Document hippo (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is still raw and quite sensitive. I'm quite busy at the moment but I intend to get back to this in time.--Yalens (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

text: All good points. I have edited the article in the meantime, and hope it is better now. I intend to improve the section even further. The 200,000 figure refers to demographic losses, which includes unborn children and low birth rates, not the total figure of the dead. In order to clarify, I have added several sources which all give different estimates of the death rates.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you very much for your assistance, much appreciated. --Yalens (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The death toll of deportation 

message: Stalin's 1921 quote about the "suffering and extinction" of the Chechens should stay in the article. This source mentions it directly in the context of the deportation.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I do not see it. What it tells and on which page? If the source makes such connection, then OK, it should stay - I agree. However, we must explain on the page - what is the connection, exactly - per the source. We can not just blindly cite it without explaining the context. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see it in the link I provided . It is in the book Russia and Chechnia: The Permanent Crisis: Essays on Russo-Chechen Relations edited by Ben Fowkes, chapter by William Flemming, p. 65.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Author gives this only as an epigraph. This is actually words by Stalin about the oppression of ethnic minorities in the Imperial Russia, right? The point apparently is that Stalin himself oppressed them a lot more. That is true, but I think the quotation should either be removed or placed to some context. Otherwise, it is not obvious for a reader why it is there. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What I don't get is why he would say that "these people were doomed to extinction"? It is unclear if he meant that as a threat or as a comment on the state in Imperial Russia, as you claim. Given what he did 23 years later, one could reasonably conclude the former, actually.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1920s, Stalin was responsible for "national/ethnic" policies, especially in Caucasus, and that quote belongs there. Author of the book meant this quotation as an irony. This is huge subject related to the history of creation of the Soviet Union (the dispute between Stalin and other bolsheviks about "autonomization", etc.), part of that was well described in books by Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov, a Chechen historian. Why he would say that "these people were doomed to extinction" [by the Imperial Russia]? That was basically a propaganda cliche. Did he plan deportations in 1921? Maybe (they did the same with Cossacks in 1920), but this should be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not taking either "side" here but I would like to add that one thing the page is lacking right now is RS writing on the history of Chechen-centre relations especially among the red elite between 1910s-1944. This belongs in Historical background and would greatly enrich the page if done in a concise but holistic manner. The development from a Communists and Chechen separatists having a common foe in the Whites up till the events of 1944, a mere 2-3 decades later, was a winding road. Plus Avtorkhanov, I have seen some discussion on this in the past and will post sources here once I get some time and can successfully locate them.--Calthinus (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Avtorkhanov is really the best for this but there are certain reasons it is not prudent to use him, mostly to do with Wikipedia politics with a view to the future. The guy gets the short end of the stick. Smith has a broader view to take into consideration [. Here's Dunlop [] -- see if you can get access to the relevant pages. Gammer -- poli.vub.ac.be/publi/orderbooks/secession/secession-04.pdf -- has a useful bit on this (and some other good material -- "A chain of attempted genocides", he makes a lot of useful points connecting strategies used by different Russian states including the Soviet Russian state to each other). Indeed there is much in common with the 1917 period with the current period in terms of the cooptation of the right wing of Chechen society by Russian governments for their own purposes[] (this comment by me is out of scope, but the paper can be of use). See also 15-16 [] -- what these have in common is that the roots of the deportation go back further than 1942. Instead, it was an act of exasperation after a long string of Soviet attempts to bring Chechen society under their control, even when they had once allied with (the conservative religious) parts of the Chechen political class in 1917. Sorry this is a bit underwhelming. I'll be back with more. --Calthinus (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are very welcome to include this info. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Extinction quote

message: I see both ардахар (ardakhar) and арадахар (aradakhar) used. The article currently gives the former. Can someone clarify this? Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this word. If there is a source add.--Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ардахар or арадахар 

message: Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes against humanity category removal