Talk:Timeline of the Second Chechen War

message: is right now rather awkward, but I don't know how to name this. "Chechen insurgency" is broadly used, but it would be misleading (if compared to complexity of Iraqi insurgency article), and also it's a very limited list as assassinations, aircraft crashes, terrorism, war crimes, etc. are elsewhere.. "Post-March 2000 guerilla warfare in Chechnya"? "Fighting in Chechnya since April 2000"? 
Also, I guess a Dagestan insurgency article would be good, as it predates the official Caucasian Front for a long time. --HanzoHattori 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title 

message: What is the evil "press language"? Where is the rule to "rmv [it] altogether"? Do you have allergy on the word "rebels" or something? It's used more than all the others altogether, so I guess you have learn to live with it somehow. Oh, and btw - the Chechens never even called themselves "rebels" (boeviki, mujahideen if radicals), this is how the West christened them (incidentally, this is English-language website). --HanzoHattori 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a website, but an ENCYCLOPEDIA! And an international one, not only English. IMO the people that are fighting against Russia are nothing but terrorists and nationalists, but that would not be neutral now would it? I don't like the term rebel, and I do not thing you will be comfortable with "terrorist" either. Why push an opinion when you can avoid it? Lastly press language is exactly how all of the events were written, cut and pastes from newspapers, the article needs a clean up and it needs one urgently. --Kuban Cossack 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I seriously can't understand you, KK 

message: What sense is with a references stating "22" or "[23]"? --HanzoHattori 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Officially the Second Chechen War is long over, is there a point in renaming the article or splitting it off?--Kuban Cossack 12:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the Russian government wants the world to beleive that the war is long over, doesn't mean that it is actually so. It appears that the separatists still have a political structure, leadership, an armed force of sorts and maybe even territory, and for as far as I know, no peace treaty has ever been signed between the Russian Federation and a representative of this separatist government since the outbreak of the Second Chechen War. In fact, fighting in the region, although perhaps increasingly sporadic, appears to continue. Therefore I think it is right to consider the Second Chechen War as an ongoing war, with the guerilla phase integrated into it's history. ForrestSjap 13:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about what people want others to believe, Kavkazcenter wants people to believe that the republic of Ichkeria still de jure exists (despite the fact that the UN has chosen to support Russia in its territorial integrity)... In truth, the guerilla combat that took place in the early 2000s after Russia outsed the Ichkerian regime differs substantially from the kind we are seeing there now, most of all in scale. What appears and what not appears is also not for us to judge. The bottom line is that the involvement of Russian military in this is increasingly falling, most of the combat is between the Kadyrovites and the Umarovites. De facto it is equivelant of a civil war except one that is limited to the southern districts of Chechnya (northern steppe parts, especially north of the Terek are fully pacified). Which makes me wonder should we split the article based on this time scale. --Kuban Cossack 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not beleive the Kadyrovites operate Mil Mi-8's like the one that was shot down yesterday night. In fact, the presence, or lack of it, of the Russian military in the region, and the scale and nature of the conflict today, are hard to judge for anyone who is not actually there, because whatever we know, we know either through separatist channels or Russian media, neither of which are reliable. Resuming, I still beleive the article should remain the way it is. ForrestSjap 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: One would write summaries here. --HanzoHattori 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partitioned