Talk:Second Chechen War/Temp

message: I've taken the time to rewrite the article from scratch to avoid the risk of tainting it with any material that might be under copyright protection.  I've also noticed a lengthy and sometimes acrimonious edit history.  With that in mind, I have striven to achive as neutral a point of view as possible, and I have tried to restrict my statements to demonstrable facts.  I have attempted to ensure that different perspectives on the conflict are represented, and that opinions and analysis are marked as such—and kept to a minimum.  Finally, I have tried to present a level of detail (where possible) suitable for an encyclopedia.  In the interest of clarity, I have attempted to cover key points of the conflict rather than every detail.  It is perhaps a philosophical point, but I believe it very important for an encyclopedia to provide concise, pithy information suitable for the educated layperson...but not so much minutiae as to drown readers in detail.
I would humbly suggest that edits to this page be carried out with the utmost care not to inject inflammatory material or unsubstantiated POV.  I encourage all editors—of this article as with all articles—to be frugal in the use of any potentially loaded terms.  I have no intention of trying to take 'ownership' of this article, but I would encourage all editors to discuss substantial contributions, modifications, and deletions on the article's Talk page before adding them.  Wikipedia doesn't need another edit war, and they leave everybody involved in a bad mood.  I would rather see a few extra weeks spent refining and discussing this article than see several days of page protection, revert warring, personal attacks, and an article littered with  or  tags.
With respect to material from other sources, it's not appropriate to copy text directly, even if a few words are changed.  If you don't feel confident paraphrasing other text, provide a link and try to summarize the key points here on the Talk page (please try to indicate what new information is present, and why it is important to add).  I'm willing to try to incorporate important information into the article.  Because I lack any professional or personal vested interests in this topic, I would welcome the role of informal moderator in editing this article. 
That said, I am not an expert on Chechnya.  It's actually a topic I've dealt with only in passing until now.  Check my contribution history; I've been mostly involved in editing science-related articles, and my area of expertise is molecular biology.  Because Chechnya is not my (professional) field of research, I have found that doing this rewrite has been highly educational. :)  Please jump right in if I have made demonstrable factual errors: incorrect dates, mispelled names, grammatical errors.  Accept my apologies in advance for any major gaffes.
Yours truly in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration,
--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewritten from scratch

message: Seen from the world's high street news agencies the crisis in Chechnya is nothing but local, desides, the adverse parties of the conflict are one remarkably overwhelming superpower and one tiny nation. The former has had locally all the institutional  news medias at disposal, and the later has had only some sporadicly spontaneous channels of news. Eventually, the mainstream agencies worldwide have automaticly echoed, first and foremost, the points of view "filtrated"  in the former one's sphere rather than delivered from the later one's reality on the spot.
So, in oder to lighten your burden, I wouldn't weight a lot the above mentioned daily news but rather their in-depth analyses here. Instead, I would prefer some other more professionally focused kinds of directions like human rights organisations, national academies of military studies, and even private conflict-oriented institutes in this peculiar issue. The researchers of those have already evaluated the details taken from the local news sources of the both adverse parties quite neutrally and coherently.
The problem has been that the later tiny adverse party never could "institutionalize" the news from its reality well enough for the world headlines - exept some infamous media-atractive incidents of indefinite origin which ended up in headlines quite hasty while the organised large scale human rights abuses never did as a whole.
About sources: one has better to read first the analyses and reports and take notes of dated interesting details. Then, in order to widen the scope one may, for example, search the yahoo.groups database. Here are just a few topics: 5836, 5877, 5887, 5913, 5942, 5949, 6113, 6138, 6303....etc. until you can cover the rest  from February 2000 to March 2003 by these   two links  
This far, you've proceeded quite well with the renovation of the article. Just go ahead for free on your way. We might focus on details, at long least, when it's complete.--BIR 13:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category analysis of valid sources - the news institutes tend to weight only another institutes 

message: * Among other things, Chechnya was mentioned in the regards of the latest Bush Putin Summit.--BIR 06:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chechnya abuses on the map 

message: Below are all of the links that were in the original Second Chechen War article.  I think it might be best to select the most relevant/comprehensive/accessible/representative of them, but leave the vast majority out of the article.  (Yes, I know that list of traits may be hard to satisfy.)  We want to give a representative sample, not drown the reader in data, speculation, and virtual paper.
Since each section below has a specific thesis it aims to demonstrate, it might be sufficient to take the most comprehensive/representative article from each section for the article's link list.  We don't need to hit our readers over the head with these things.  
Any thoughts on what should be kept—or added—, and why?
Cheers, TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of links 

message: Hi,
I'm merging the content here back into a non-copyvio reverted version of Second Chechen War.  I would urge moderate, reasoned, NPOV edits for the future.  I would also urge editors to limit their use of templates on the article page. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger back into Second Chechen War 

message: Ok. So far the stuff looks great. The "ugly boxes" just reflect the minds of totalitarianism where they are accumulated from. --BIR 15:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, go on