Talk:Battle for Height 776

message: I delete sentence about seven survived, because I did not find information about 7th soldier, also in the links that are attached to this statement. All sources confirm only 6 survivors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.130.41.97 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: seven rank-and-file soldiers survived the battle

message: I don't remember now.
: Miniseries were called “Chest imeyu” (, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405831/), sorry, can’t translate that. Musical was called “Voiny Dukha” (), it can be translated as “The Warriors of Spirit” or “The Warriors of Courage”. Also there was the movie “Grozovye vorota” (The Storm Gate, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0902981/) about the Hill 776 battle. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the titles of the miniseries and the musical?

message: "The losses of the other Russian units operating in area were never disclosed."
Did any other Russian unit fought on Hill 776 or nearby? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Did these battalions and special forces detachements had any losses in the battle of Hill 776 (or it isn't known)? And what are the unit numbers of these three battalions? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it was heavy fighting. Read  - it's the Russian version taken at the face value, and it shouldn't be to just recall these official lies about the Russian losses (Troshev, Shpak, Yastrzhembsky, everyone shamelessly lied only 31 Russians died until the truth about it came out) and also things like this and so on. --HanzoHattori 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And yes, including on this hill. Some words of explaination: I chose to limit Russian strenght to just 90 of the doomed company to not complicate things needlessly (and to not guess, too). Also, the things known for sure are extremally scarce - either Shpak or Troshev even claimed there was not air support (because of bad weather), and it may or may be not his another lie... you know. And so on. Russian official (Red Star) number of Chechen losses is 400 killed, but a guy claims he counted 200 "on the hill 776 alone". It wasn't just a single company vs the Chechens on one hill - but in this article, it is... mostly, others are briefly mentioned (outside of the infobox). OK now? --HanzoHattori 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I did this way. --HanzoHattori 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other units?

message: Quote "And yes, including on this hill. Some words of explaination: I chose to limit Russian strenght to just 90 of the doomed company to not complicate things needlessly (and to not guess, too). Also, the things known for sure are extremally scarce - either Shpak or Troshev even claimed there was not air support (because of bad weather), and it may or may be not his another lie... you know. And so on. Russian official (Red Star) number of Chechen losses is 400 killed, but a guy claims he counted 200 "on the hill 776 alone". It wasn't just a single company vs the Chechens on one hill - but in this article, it is... mostly, others are briefly mentioned (outside of the infobox). OK now?" 
Still you disregard basic information that is available from the article, that Chechen strength was at least or around 10 times the Russian VDV force on the hill, as well as the number of the supposed Chechen's dead. I checked this article about three months ago and it was far more informative then it is now. What happened to this article? One good source is the article written by two us army reservists, yet a majority of the information they provide there does not seem to be used in here at all. Because now all you have is 86 of vdv troops were massacred by Chechens, with the number of chechen dead number to about 400. Also what happened to the section about strength numbers. Also why is this even a source?  Obviously some online pro chechen rebel site has to be a credible source when it ends its news story with the following 
"Russian propaganda, trying to distort the real events, continues to tell fables about “the hordes of Mujahideen and a small group of Russian soldiers”. Telling these tall stories, these penny-a-liners are trying to make of the true and faithful Pskov commandos the allies of their good-for-nothing generals, whom the same commandos abused left and right during the battle of Ulus-Kert.
The participants of the battle in the environs of Ulus-Kert remember that they could hear on the portable radio transmitter how the Pskov commandos cursed their general, calling them rats and prostitutes.These rats and prostitutes every year organize shows of next propagandistic anniversary of their disgrace, having covered themselves with the deaths of the soldiers devoted to them. "
BTW the pictures on the site of the purported dead Russian vdv paratroopers are so grainy that anyone versed in military matters wouldn't hesitate to call them suspicious. There is no evidence of russian insignias or ranks present on the uniforms on the bodies. Whoever butchered this article on hill 776, way to go.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tebepizdetssuka (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the heavy editing of the Russian version?

message: It has no English title whatsoever? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chest imeyu

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hill_776&diff=229766990&oldid=227629136
Awesome. "Copyedit" is the new for "reverting all my edits". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was misleading edit summary.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Copyedit"

message: Why last version has been reverted? It described the event in more detail (it was 20% bigger). It is also more neutral as it avoids charged terms like Pyrrhic victory (present in older version). Restored. Please correct last version (if there are any specific problems) instead of blind reverts.Biophys (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has now been confirmed that RamboKadyrov is a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori, Captain Obvious, etc. Any edits made by these editors can be safely reverted under policy. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the policy, one must ask a checkuser to make sure that this user was a sockpuppet. There was a content question. But instead of explaining the edit, a user (who acted in a good faith) was simply blocked, without even consulting with checkuser.Biophys (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our goal is to improve content of articles. You must explain why his improvements of content are bad. For example, you now insert wrong figures of casualties. Did you read sources at all?Biophys (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Last revert

message: Seeing as Biophys has taken it upon himself to re-include edits of a pain in the arse banned sockpuppet, the POV is now in question. For example, the edits made to figures in the infobox are sourced to a Chechen terrorist website. We have already ascertained that they are not a reliable source except with attribution...and at the same time the POS ban-evading sockpuppet has also totally thrown out all Russian information. So long as only the terrorist POV is allowed to be put forward, at the insistence of numerous editors, there is no NPOV in this article. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am here to put forward the Russian POV, albeit in an NPOV way, what is it with others who don't even pretend to abide by these policies? --Russavia Dialogue 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are several sources about this in the article, one of them The Independent: . Biophys (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. There is no such thing as "Russian POV". There is only your or my personal POV.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And just where are the Russian claims in the infobox? They have been erased by the POV-pushing sockpuppet and was reinstated by yourself. As I clearly said in one of my revision, as they are edits by a sockpuppet, we all need to go thru them to see that the banned user isn't able to have any control or say over this or any other article. They are gone (with good riddance) and have no say in such things. But that suggestion was outright ignored. --Russavia Dialogue 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: We are not talking about the numbers of Russian dead, but the number of Chechen's killed. Only the Chechen terrorist website source is presented here, when it is obvious from the article that these numbers are totally disputed by all sides. What you have presented above has nothing to do with the issue. --Russavia Dialogue 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Chechen side they killed 200+ Russian soldiers, but we provide Russian side estimate (84). It is common practice to provide military losses by each side X that have been officially admitted by the side X. Everyone boasts about killing lots of enemies.Biophys (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: In this edit I have removed two links; the one to Youtube because it is a copyvio. The second because as per WP:EL it adds nothing to the article, except for 10 gratuitous photos of dead Russian soldiers. The link is http://old.kavkazcenter.com/eng/photo/ulus-kert/. (with the warning that it shows dead bodies in all ten photos). In the next edit, Biophys re-inserted the Kavkaz link, but leaves out the Youtube link, but has edit summary of "let's keep sources by all sides". After removing it, he has reinstated the link with the edit summary of "this is relevant and neutral link - it only shows images provided by one of the sides in the conflict. Please ask at WP:RS if you have concerns." Biophys has been around long enough to differentiate between a sources and external links, in which case I can only hope that it is simply confusion on the part of himself, but the link is by no means neutral, as he admits himself with it only shows images provided by one of the sides in the conflict, but most importantly, it adds nothing to gaining further information which can't be sourced within the article itself. It is not being used as a source, it wouldn't even qualify as a source, and the inclusion of a link with nothing but disgusting and gratuitous photos is not within what we as a project are supposed to stand for. I am not going to revert the inclusion of this link again, but will leave this open to comment from other users. --Russavia Dialogue 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Disgusting and gratuitous" are far from objective terms; I agree the copyviolation should be removed, but photos of war-dead are included in many articles about - for example, Japanese battles in World War II. The Kavkaz link is ill-named, so I've renamed it to remove some of the "Russian invaders" nonsense - but it deserves to stay and meets the requirements of WP:EL. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolutely disgusting external link being reinserted into article

message: This article appears to be erroneously named. The only source which I have found which gives this battle a name it is called Battle of Height 776.0. Is there any reason this is called Battle of Hill 776? --Russavia Dialogue 07:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: I fixed this edit.Biophys (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I have corrected another misquote in the article. The original misquote of the Kavkaz-centre article claimed, that the rebels were executed for betrayal, while the Kavkaz-center artcile clearly states, that the rebels in question were executed as the result of betrayal, after the were turned in to russian forces by a traitor. Юсуф (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Betrayal

message: The picture on the front, as well as the rest of the set from the kavkazcenter.com (link at the end of this page), does not relate to the “Battle for Height 776.0”(29.02-03.03.2000) events. All the images were taken from  the “Ambush at Vedeno” (17.11.1999) video tape, which was aired on major Russian TV channels back in December 1999.  
The record shows bodies of the 31st Airborn Separate Brigade paratroopers. It was a reconnaissance patrol consisting of 14 men, of which 12 were KIA, 2 were taken prisoners and released later on. 
Dead soldiers were identified as Roman Igoshin , Andrej Fladung, Dmitrij Baluho, Andrej Novgorodskij, Sergej Borisov, Viktor Kiselev, Aleksej Kovalenko, Artem Veselev, Aleksej Visjachkin, Andrej Kotel'nikov, Andrej Popov, Andrej Chernjaev.
Please do not post inappropriate images and links unless you can prove relation to the original events.
Babalooma (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image On The Front

message: This was for the entire retreat/breakthrough - you know, on the other side there were many THOUSANDS of Russians trying to surround them (paratroopers and others), but all of those 1,600 fighters were NOT assaulting the height (and btw, besides this company there were also other Russians involved in this particular fight - artillerymen for example - but never mind now), but rather getting out (while transporting weapons, ammunition, their wounded, etc) out of the encirclement - and many others also fought as the rear guard, in diversionary attacks, in their own blocking positions (like some road and a Russian armoured column), in the fighting elsewhere in the nearby mountains, and so on (at the very same time). And the cited sources VERY CLEARLY say only a few dozen fighters were involved in this fight ("Battle for Height 776"), of which 12 died, so claiming they said otherwise is simply a lie.
It's like to say that (for example) some small isolated Allied force at a blocking position at the Falaise pocket fought alone against exactly all of up to 100,000 German soldiers leaving Normandy. Really, that would be really just as stupid as this, come on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.160.239.145 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "1,600", or a HUGE misunderstanding

message: No honor the the fallen airborn soldiers....
Kavkaz Center - terrorist sources unbelievable...
And the strengh .. that's absurd!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.74.57 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disgusting article !!!!!!!!!!!!!

message: Why some "writers" are posting sources from AlQaeda sponsored homepages like KavkazCenter ?
This is one of the most unreliable source of the world. 
Holy shit that are terrorists!
If you look at the www.kavkazcenter.com homepage you can see in the header some of the most cruel terrorists of the world! The whole world is looking for them and we provide sources of them.
 
This is awful!
There are a lot of sources also from the USA which can provide highly reliable information.--Saiga12 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. A source of rebels is OK as a source about the rebels. All Russian losses are according to Russian sources.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Should we post terroristic propaganda sources also in Articles about Astan ?! --Saiga 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist Source !

message: The casualties are pathetically toned down for the Chechens. Yet another sadly lacking Western article about Chechnya. Keep it up, morons. 
-Shamil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.166.150 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathetic Bias

message: I just have a simple questions, did anyone ever seen more than 70 Chechen fighters assaulting any target at once? Its basically disadvantage for them. In reality there was 2000 Chechens passing the place and they sent first 20 than 40 more Chechens to prevent any ambushes. The airborne soldiers started fire, after 2 hours they all were killed by snipers.. And event was under command Hattab,shahid inshallah not Walid. Nakh  05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely. But we do not need any OR here. This incident was widely publicized in a huge number of sources. I suggest to return to the most complete version, but simply indicate: ...people per Checehn sources and ... people per Russian sources in the box. That would be fair.Biophys (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Nakh, could you, please, provide any references to your information, may be to any newspaper in Chechen? The problem is that only information that's referenced to published sources can be used. ellol (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: lol article

message: I have undone the last edit by Saiga, as it was a completely rewritten article without consensus on the talk page. To avoid edit wars over casualties and strength of the chechen forces, I have replaced them with "uncertain", until a consensus is reached.
According to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES, "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research." I think Kavkaz Center should be avoided as a source. It is nether secondary, high quality or neutral. Sources like U.S. Army Combined Arms Center on the other hand should be encouraged.D2306 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree to include any numbers published by U.S. Army Combined Arms Center or mentioned in books by any reputable authors. Using numbers as claimed by the both sides (say, xx per Chechen side and yy per Russian side) is also fine. The number of Russian forces and losses by Russian side (as claimed by Russian side) are highly reliable and can be immediately included. Numbers of Checehn forces and losses are a matter of dispute. They are very different per different publications in Russian press, for example.Biophys (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit wars

message: Where are the 400-600 dead Chechen corpses ? Where is a single source that would prove those obviously overexaggarated numbers ? The Russian government ? Like they did with the Chechnya war estimates countering the figure given by Soldier's Mothers 1-5 ? Please provide adequate sources and figures, otherwise delete. There is no place of Russian nationalism and propaganda in an online lexica. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we had the same discussion on german-wp: 100-200 killed rebels were claimed initially by russian officers, the number later rose to about 400 in the russian press (500 in a few cases). Since russian reports indicate the recovery of dead bodies during the two days after the battle, an exact number can not be given. The separatists admitted only 25 losses, but their website "kavkazcenter" has been put on the blacklist  by user:Saiga12 on 1st march, and should therefore not be used as source any more.Alexpl (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casaulties and the legendary so called "Federal claims" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battle for Height 776. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061121000633/http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3726&article_id=2371084 to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3726&article_id=2371084
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battle for Height 776. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010421012906/http://www.aeronautics.ru/chechnya/030700.htm to http://www.aeronautics.ru/chechnya/030700.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle for Height 776. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101141137/http://rt.com:80/programs/russia-close-up/pskov-ready-for-battle/ to http://rt.com/programs/russia-close-up/pskov-ready-for-battle/
*Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20061121000633/http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3726&article_id=2371084 with https://web.archive.org/web/20060515231512/http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3726&article_id=2371084 on http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3726&article_id=2371084
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724084157/http://www.thailand.mid.ru/chech3.html to http://www.thailand.mid.ru/chech3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328112853/http://www.russiatoday.ru:80/news/news/21264 to http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/21264
*Added  tag to http://news.sawf.org/Lifestyle/7978.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle for Height 776. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617033021/http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/caucasus/P38 to http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/caucasus/P38
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) 10:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified