Talk:Chechnya/Archive 2

message: Archived discussion from Talk:Chechnya
----
Dear Jiang,
I'd repeatedly ask to point specific pieces of information that seems to be doubtful for your. It requires too much time to find stone-proof sources for every minor detail. So, please specify what really seems to be potentially wrong to you. The side of article - is side of facts. It is not pro-Russian, it's just not anti-Russian. I've removed from head of the article everything that may have even low probability of being false. For your convience, I put it here again for you to comment:
# After the demise of the Soviet Union,
# the group of politics
# declared themselves a new parliament
# and declared independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
# As for 2003, the independence is not recognized by any state;
# however this declaration caused war conflicts in which 
# several rival Chechen groups
# and the Federal army was involved,
# resulted in more than 38,000 deaths in the period of 1991-2002. 
# On 2003, Federals still do not have full control on the republic.
Please point which facts seem to be possible wrong or where there is biased wording. I'll try then to find ways to make you believe that it's truth.
It is not me, it's you who is trying to insert biased things. The word "illegal" was removed a time ago.
The article from the Columbian Encyclopedia is not accurate. Well, it states that there was a parlament that declared independence. But if you have read the facts, you'd understand that it's misleading, because there are 5 parliaments of interest:
# Full quorum Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet
# Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet in building controlled by Dudaev's guards (only part of)
# Group of ex-Deputies of the Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet
# Temporary Chechen Supreme Soviet
# National Congress
Can you point which one the Columbian Encyclopedia means? I guess, they meant 3rd one, but it's only a guess - they are not accurate because they don't really care. Please be aware that 1st, 2nd and 4th have never declared independece, while 3rd and 5th did. And now please answer me - what is biased - wording of our article or wording of the Columbian Encylopedia?! We, at Wikipedia, alway has anyone who care. So, it's of better quality on controversal topics that old encyclopedias.
As for listing of presidents - note, not only Chechen Republic and Chinese SARs include references to the head of ruling state, but even such much less strict control links like UK-Australia (Queen of Australia is Elizabeth II of the UK). So, it is a de-facto rule for Wikipedia. You may wish to change this rule, but then I advise you to start from less sensitive territories. Considering that other articles are written by consensus, it seems to be logical that the same form of consensus is ok for this article too.
It doesn't really matter that Russian Government is interested in one-side view. We are talking not about representation, we're talking about facts. And Russian Government is much more accurate about facts related to these sensitive events. Because if there is mistake in the Columbian Encyclopedia, it doesn't really matters, nobody really bothers. If there is mistake in what called facts by the government, there will be huge amount of accusations in the history rewriting.
And don't forget, that I referred to this data only to refresh memory. Also, these facts are too complicated and are not used by federal propaganda. To understand situation better, please also refer to my article about teips and also know that only 2 teips (of 130 or even 300) are known to be really pro-Maskhadov. It doesn't mean that there are no other pro-Maskhadov teips, but fact that I don't know about them means that it's unlikely that there are many pro-Maskhadov teips...
Don't ask those who is neutral. Ask those who has knowledge. Or you will end up in lot of stuff that is as ignorant that it even can't be named biased.
Do you have any cause to believe that facts written by me could be wrong? Please don't misbelieve me just because I'm Russian. We are not that bad :-).
So, please, point specific words to me, and I'll try to find believable by you source of knowledge for you.
Drbug 08:46, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: Dear BIR, please take a look at your talk page: User talk:Björn-Isak Rosendahl. Mikkalai 16:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  About editing 

message: BIR 07:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing a reply ? 

message: Dear disputant,
: Are you addressing me - Gene s?
Firstly, I found that your contribution to the Chechen issue as a whole has some informative value, too, so it deserves to be clarified in some details instead of deleting it in order to make the story just complete.
: I am not sure what you mean by "your contribution". My personal contribution to the article content is minimal. You can look at the history of edits and see that I have not contributed to the article much. I mostly reverted your edits which I perseive as biased, poorly written, unsubstantiated, redundunt.
Secondly, I automatically assumed that as a Russian your mere aim was to support cospodin Putin's adventurous campaign, and to justify the continuing imperial colonial behaviour there for the audiance on the internet. But let's see...
: I don't think you can assume anything about my nationalty, ethnical identity, views which I may hold on various subjects. Such assumptions of yours just display your bias. 
In 19th century, Chechnya got rudely conquered by Tsar's generals, and factually Chechen leaders, nor people, never agreed on joining Russia, nor undersigned such a legally binding document (if disagreed it's up to you to present the document:=)
: Let's just discuss the facts. Using statements like "rudely conquered" is not productive because it requires an explanation why this conquest was particularly rude compare to other conquests. Your statement never agreed on joining Russia is incorrect. For example, a new constitution was passed in all-Chechen referendum on March 23, 2003. This constitution declares Chechnya a part of RF. You are welcome to write about objections to the process of passing this constitution. But the referendum took place, the constitution passed. And that's a fact.
Since then Chechnya was administrated like the other similar areas under the Russian imperial throne, and that went on during the Soviet Union given, of course, some cover by well-known soviet methods laboured succesfully everywhere in the post-WW2 Soviet sphere in Eastern Europe, until the Soviet collapse.
: OK. What's your point?
Then suddenly, maybe due to Yeltsin's decentralisation and the Baltic recovered independence etc., the elected Chechen leaders in-charge, including ex-soviet general Johar Dudayev, saw an open window.
Then they, beeing legally in Charge, declared Chechnya as a sovereign independent state, which followed by a Russian attempt of re-conquest, the first Chechen war, that ended at the mutually undersigned peace treary in Khasavyurt, Dagestan (which is, by the way, a Turkic name for that land, too)...
: Well, you may want to review the second paragraph of the article. This is covered in it. This is also covered in the fifth paragraph of the section Politics. Legal status of Khasavyurt treaty is covered in the last paragraph of the section History. Do you have anything substantial to add to the current description? Any new facts not already covered? Do you see any factually wrong information there which you deem necessary to remove? If yes, please point exactly what is wrong and where. 
: You may also take a look at the writing of User:Drbug on this Talk page - at the very top of the page. It explains why the second paragraph of the article is written in this way.
But I need to have a lunch break...to be continued.
--BIR 09:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind that this discussion is NOT on Chechen politics. This is a discussion of facts and wording of the article Chechnya and your edits to that article. --Gene s 10:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: A lot of Chechen history is covered in the article History of Chechnya --Gene s 10:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chechnya, constituent or conquered part of the RF ? 

message: : No, this is not "it".
You did'nt give grounds if Chechnya is constituent. 
: Well, if you can read and comprehend English, then you would read my answer above on referendum and constitution.
:: I do and did. 
::: I took liberty of properly indenting your comments so they do not mix with mine.
::The referendum took place in an occupied contry and it was organised by the occupying force, and it was therefore faked. That's the observed fact.
::: So, if this is an observed fact, there should not be any difficulty for you to provide a link to some authority which makes such statement. It could be an official statement of some government or parlament, it could be a statement by an international organization, etc. Please provide such reference. Until you provide it, you are just expressing your personal opinion. I do not believe your personal opinion is worthy of being noted in an encyclopedia article.
::: Once you have such reference, you can write about it like "Such and such authority does not recognize the referendum and declares the legal status of Chechnya is occupied territory". That would be correct and factual. You should have no problem providing such data. Right?
:: This should be included in the referendum paragraph of the Chechnya text. That's the point I said quite clearly...and proved, too. 
::: What should be included? That "BIR believes that The referendum took place in an occupied contry and it was organised by the occupying force, and it was therefore faked". Do you think you opinion is that important?
:: Your comment hasn't content in details or any other informative aspects but I see that you aim to justify the present takeover of the ChRI by this referendum info that I found groundless and more than biased. 
::: I have no idea what you are talking about. What comment? What is groundless? Are you saying the referendum did not take place at all? 
::: My aim is to keep this article clean from groundless statements and hysterical language. Facts are welcome, Loaded (language) is not.
::Please, focus on the detailed facts instead of politically motivated attempt to create such justifications Loaded (language). 
::: I am trying to keep on the facts. You constantly wade off and try to pass wild accusations and unsubstantiated rumors as facts. Your use of the loaded language is a legitimate concern as well.
That's the first topic you listed.
: Yes, this is indeed the first objection I listed.
:: So, we're about to go on this issue now, all along the others later on ?
::: I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
The referendum was just fake as every single election since the occupation began:
: Actually, you have several assertions here: the referendum was invalid, several elections, including Russian parlamentary elections, and two presidential elections were invalid. Just for the record: you are trying to provide evidence for the first item only. You made the other statements without even attempting to prove them.
:: Just give any other dated "election" there but only in Occuped Chechnya, I'll dig up details of execution. It's the Russians' business how they do with their own elections in Russia proper, although this is questioned, too, but such Russian elections hardly belong to this Chechen context. Russian elections should be informed on the wikipedia article conserning Russia. 
::: I have a suggestion. Keep away from statements like Occuped Chechnya. If you want to get anywhere,  try to use neutral language. Read WP:NPOV on staying neutral. If you cannot stay neutral, maybe it's best for you to stay out of contested issues like Chechnya.
::: Now, if you say 'occupied Chechnya', you have to prove it first. You have not done it so far. Second, I claim that every election in Chechnya is valid because no government, parlament or international organization declared that it is invalid. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, because you are not a government, a paralament, or an international organization. Are we clear on this?
::: This issue is closed unless you provide a reference to a statement by any government, parlament or an international organization. 
1. The adundance of Russian troops take part in, based on some federal law (Chechnya was regarded as a federal district even in advance of "referendum" that should have confirmed its federal status,=)allowing them to vote where they are stationed in the federation.
: Well, that's the local law. If you want to write about it, do so. But state it as a fact, don't use Loaded (language).
:: A local law to legalise a foreign force to vote on behalf of a sovereing state! Sounds interesting. Could you tell more about this peculiar, probably localised feature? As far as I know, since the ChRI independence such alien legislation as Soviet one was cancelled and replaced by the ChRI constitution etc. regulations stipulated by the elected ChRI parliament still in-force.
::: Provide a reference to a statement by any government, parlament or an international organization recognizing Chechnya as a sovereign state. This issue is closed unless you provide the link.
2. Some willing collaborators were put in busses and circulated from a poling station to another...
: Write it up, don't use Loaded (language). Is someone stopping you from writing about FACTS in a manner consistent with the rest of the article?
:: Ok. I re-write this quite coolly: Some people were willing and some people were made willing to vote by saying that they will not be given bread, food etc. if they don't collaborate, and they were packed in busses and circulated between polling stations, so they, too, voted several times per each. I thing this was mentioned in some news clips around the date March 23, 2003, on the LIST I mentioned. 
::: Your "list" is a public forum where individuals express their personal opinions. References to the "list" are generally useless and unproductive. Provide a reference to the real source of information. Make sure your writing covers only what is actually written in the source, not some wild stuff which the article does not touch.
3. Some foreign journalists accessed to the spot jokingly took part in, and if I remember correct a record one journalist did was that he voted four times...
: See above. Write about it, provide the name of the journalist who said it. Provide links to a reputable source so anyone would know that you are not making this up. Is it so difficult to write about facts without using Loaded (language)?
:: I did it indeed, so don't read my lips but those given clips, please. I thik this is the fact proven and so be it quite unloaded.
::: See above regarding "clips", "list" etc. Do you understand a difference between a public forum and a reputable source of information? That journalist probably did not write to that "list" did he? He wrote in a news paper. So, if you want to be taken seriously, reference the newspaper, give the name of the journalist. Is this clear?
: Suppose you are correct and there were irregularities during the referendum. What's the authory which invalidated the whole referendum based on these abuses? Please state the specific name of the authority which declared this referendum invalid.
:: Of course, none on the Russian side on the spot. Which one could do it under occupation? Exept the ChRI administration which factually did it by regulations, declarations, etc. and by quite loaded guns, too. Is this now too loaded:=)
::: Did I say you have to provide evidence from the Russian side? Provide a reference to a statement by any government, parlament or an international organization which declared Chechen referendum invalid. For example, I think, representatives of the Arab League were present during the referendum. They must have made a statement on validity of the referendum, right? So, you can just find what they said and use it. 
You'll find a lot of articles of this full-fledged and self-styled referendum on the LIST 
: I am NOT interested in reading some posts on a public forum. These are posts by individuals expressing their personal opinions. Do you understand a difference between the source of information and an opinion about it? Fact - opinion? Understand difference? Provide links to a reputable source of information which supports you claims. For example, one claim - one source. It should be enough if the citation is good and the source is reputable. OK? Is it difficult?
:: Actually, are you saying you are'nt interested in true facts? However, this wikipedia is seemingly interested in facts. Behind every clip there are on the LIST quite valid sources of the world's mainstream impartial and professional newspapers, besided every such opinion, as you say, is criticized and then connected relevantly to the chain of the articles. So, those comments, that you say are opinions, are rather conclusions. There is a difference between an opinion and a conclusion, you surely know.
::: You have a genuine problem with telling apart facts from opinions.
:::: I am afraid that have to disagree. For example, your wording just above is an mere opinion which I however regard as a restorative notice, and what's commented on the LIST related to chains of news from different sources, are in fact factual conclusions of topical events which everyone can follow and finally verify mostly from original sources, i.e. they are facts as much as the methodology of studing is conserned, as everyone can see.
  
::: If I write to that forum something, does it become a fact, even if it's a completely made up story? Do you understand that a public political forum cannot be used as a reliable and reputable source of information? Do you understand this or not? Please stop using the "list" as a source of information.
::: -- Gene s 09:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And I insist you learn to properly format your posts, please. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in a productive manner, you have to learn how to use its markup language. It's not difficult. Besides, do you always come to a new place and demand that others obey by your rules?
--Gene s 13:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I am new but learning fast these feature, so your lead might be narrowing in these technical aspects;=) I am used to be quite rule-obedient and productive as far as I see the game stays fair. Albeit, I found this wikipedia has many good points&guality I am going to support, however I doubt that its merited contents end in such "professors'" dusty bookselves without peculiar affects on life further.--BIR 07:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, Chechenya is proven to be occupied. That's it. 

message: I, for one, politely tend to agree on having some mutual misunderstanding of wordings between disputants, but I, for one again, am ready to deepen aspects a little further than these initials above may enlighten, on condition that dear fellow disputant agrees on unemotional fact-oriented co-operation, of course.
We've a chain of listed topics to discuss about, and we've just began from basics, i.e. the ChRI legal status which has been the most salient point of the whole Russo-Chechen dispute during the latest 10 years and even before. --BIR 12:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't be too unpatient 

message: Thank you anyway,
It's just a pity that the practices and theory of the internalional law is vague up to this extent. Quite surely, this brings nothing but misery to the international relations as well now as later.
I consider myself beeing less quilty of sofism, ranting or ignoring anyting essential.
I think the discussion has been quite telling and the truth is either here or there out on the internet for everyone.
If I could Russian well enough, I would put Visotsky's theme of the truth here...
The theme that isn't popular anymore...seemingly.
--BIR 11:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The truth runs naked 

message: For your eyes that the dispute continued for a while in the discussion of Ilyas Akhmadov.
It obviously turned off when one esteemed disputant gave up when focused on the unpleasant origins of the Chechen war II.--BIR 06:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dispute continued... 

message: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Chechen leaders declared themselves to be the legitimate government, had a new parliament elected and declared independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. As of 2003, their independence is not recognized by any relevant state. This declaration led to an armed conflicts in which competing Chechen groups and the Russian Federal army were involved, resulting in about 150,000 deaths in the period of 1994-2003.
----------------
Gentlemen,
 
The content of the paragraph above is more accurate than that recently in situ.
The Government was then legitimate, and factually recognised by the already mentioned peace treaty, (we've already agreed on it) in spite of the late developments of events. If not in your opinion, please, give a relevant (G7, G8 etc.) source, footnote etc. to deny it.
: I was not the one who reverted your edits, but I will add my two cents. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's about the the events in 1991, not 1997, then the peace treaty was signed. --Gene s 12:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 1997 peace treaty just confirmed the 1991 reached status quo legally. That's the fact.--BIR 12:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The paragraph is about 1991 for crying out loud. Do you understand the difference between 1991 and 1997? These are two different years! What do you know about 1991 election? --Gene s 12:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  To CRY OUT EVEN MORE LOUDLY !!! (You hardly compete an old drill sergeant;=) Who the heck was the one who mentioned 1991 in this context !!!!!!! In 1991 the SU disintegrated itself. January, Soviets stormed Vilnius. Feb., Lithuania voted for independence. June, Russia elected Yeltsin. July-Aug., Warsaw pact dissolved, SU collapsed, Yanayev's junta, Estonia's independence, Gorby went home... Everyone left the SU. The context you this happily involved didn't content 1991, I think, exept a note to the SU collapse. BTW., I've began to think that many things were then better than now, albeit many peoples lived in a plain slavery...but in that regard, how's it different now? They still live in the same slavery, poorness, misery etc. Communists killed a lot of people, true, but so does Putin, too.--BIR 12:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Dear BIR, could you please be so kind to read at least History of Chechnya#Post-Soviet Chechnya? It may help you to understand which events are described in the short summary (which you are trying to replace with a loaded language and wrong information). Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 13:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Paragraph corrected... 

message: Those should be in the article about Ichkeria, this one is about the Russiam federal subject, so the correct one have to be used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.161.89 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why flag and coat of arms of Ichkeria?