Talk:Chechnya/Part 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

I'll get back to this article a couple days later when I have a little for time. I do not doubt your facts. Again, the issue is with equal representation of facts. Although the Russian govt may be telling the truth, the truth can be distorted by not telling the whole truth.

Instead of "a group of politics" (do you mean politicans?) give precisely what you mean by "politics". Who? List all these parliaments in the main article so we know.

As for the listing of presidents, it is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. I already commented there that in the case of Commonwealth Realms, Queen Elizabeth II rules in her right in that individual realm, as opposed to having that realm be a dependency of the UK. Putin is not president of Chechnya. He is head of state over Chechnya only because Chechnya is part of Russia, not because the Chechen constitution grants him special status. In contrast, if the UK were to abolish its monarchy, Queen Elizabeth would still be Queen of Australia. The crown is separate. She is queen by the virtue of the Constition of Australia, not of the UK. I have removed president of the PRC from the HK and Macau articles since Olivier has dropped his objections. --Jiang 20:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Facts: I tryed to rely on facts as much as possible, trying to find facts for the both sides. If I missed something, the only way is to wait until someone who really knows what is missing will add it. I suppose it is a wrong idea to remove some facts due to understanding that it it possible that some other facts are unknown to us. "De facto independent country statement" is not a fact because separatist government missed too much issues that are crucial to be considered as government (even "prehistoric" states like the Kievan Rus missed much less such an issues) - or Harlem may be considered as independent country too.

Columbian Encyclopedia: I don't state that the article is bad or biased (er, maybe a very very bit biased, but not intentionally), but our article is more detailed and more accurate.

Politicians: Yes, I meant politicians. I'd prefer not to put too much details in the head of the article. The timeline is described in the main article below. I'll try to add some more details into the timeline, and probably more details about groups that were involved. I'm happy to do this, but it requires a time that of course no one has... :-(

Presidents: Ok, then I'll shift this table to the format like the British Columbia.

Drbug 12:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Is it Dudayev or Dudaev?

chthonic 18 Dec 2003

I changed it all to Jokhar Dudayev since the article was inconsistent and this is the form that's most used in the English media, and most indicative of the pronunciation for English speakers.

The term 'self-declared' was so vague as to be meaningless. Who is this 'self'? The government of Chechnya? Which one? Russia? The people of Chechnya? How many? Perhaps the least contentious statement would be that Chechnya is a 'body of land between soandso' but I think this is adequate.

I also fixed the timezone.

Not to mention, a lot of this belongs in History of Chechnya.

--Xiaopo (Talk) 02:34, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Text about Akhmed Zavkayev bio facts is removed because it belongs to his bio page (and there are some more details there. It have few with politics of Chechnya.

Unlike strange guesses why no countries recognized independent Chechnya, information about Taliban is factual and may be useful. However, I moved the whole paragraph to the Ichkeria article.

Drbug 15:11, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

Edit wars are bad; I point everyone involved to the three revert rule and m:The Wrong Version. -- Grun t ҈ 14:15, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

(In the case if somebody will not notice: m:The Wrong Version is a joke article. Mikkalai 17:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Grunt, please be advised that you blocked the page without trying to figure out what actually is going on (at least, the talk page doesn't show any of your efforts); at least without warning to the parties. The protection will be removed in 24 hours. Meanwhile please try to resolve your disagreements here, in the talk page.

Dear contributors, please keep in mind that wikipedia strives to maintain Neutral point of view policy. Therefore please refrain from words that, although may seem correct, but bear exessively emotional and negative connotation. The goal of the encyclopedia to provide information, not its assessment. Obviously, in the cases of conflicts, there is very difficult to judge the same events in a neutral way. Therefore in such cases it is common to present both opposite points of view, but still in neutral terms. Therefore please reconsider your language and your contribution to the Chechnya article. It is very important to describe things from different points of view, but in a way that does not call for an edit war, which gives no good to anybody. Thank you. Mikkalai 15:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page was protected to stop the article turning into a version covering only one of two different nationalistic points of view from two people who do not appear willing to discuss the issue with each other without outside intervention. Protecting the page struck me as the simplest way to force the issue, and it still does. If things continue to get out of control, we may be forced to protect the page again. -- Grun t ҈ 17:40, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Also, dear user 194.251.240.114 please create yourself an account. It is always more pleasure to talk to a person whose name you know, even if it is only a pseudonym. Besides, having wikipedia account (easy and free of charge) has various benefits, see "Wikipedia:Why create an account?". Mikkalai 15:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear fellow disputants,

Just lately, I've added some details to this Chechen context which I regarded to clarify the subject and issues as a whole and as impartially as possible. I however realised there was a dispute underway, i.e. each time I contributed someone removed it replacing them all by some stange and partial pro-Moscow views.

I've told the truth, and nothing but the truth of what has taken place in Chechnya.

BIR

Are you the person who previously wrote as User_talk:194.251.240.114?

You can sign your Talk page posts by typing ~~~~. Thank you. --Gene s 06:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am new here - don't know the wikipedia yet well enough - I think it looks like me. What the heck is that number ? But then I saw there are others, too, so I don't be sure who has contributed and what exactly.

Who are you all there out ?

BIR

So, I assume you are the registered user User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl as well as unregistered poster from IP User_talk:194.251.240.114. If this is incorrect, please clarify. Were you the one who was posting to Chechnya page as an unregistered user?

You can sign your Talk page posts by typing ~~~~. You may want to visit the Help:Contents page to learn more about Wikipedia.

Are you interested in discussing the merits of your posts (if those were your posts) at Chechnya page? --Gene s 07:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"So, I assume you are the registered user User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl"

Yes, I am sure about that.

"...as well as unregistered poster from IP User_talk:194.251.240.114. If this is incorrect, please clarify."

I might be/not sure anymore until I've red the history section through in details if I was logged in or out when editing (A weak point in the wikipedia's procedures). I've contributed in the Chechnya section lately but seemingly not alone/the result looks like scattered.

"Are you interested in discussing the merits of your posts (if those were your posts) at Chechnya page? --Gene s 07:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

Yes. Why not. On condition that it doesn't take too much time/is focused coherently on the documented facts of the issues.

BIR

First of all it would be helpful if you could read Help:Contents on formatting and signing your posts by ~~~~. It is not difficult.

Second, let's try not to put upfront conditions on the discussion like On condition that it doesn't take too much time. Such conditions are not productive.

Third, let's look at the factual content on your latest post (when I say you I mean unregistered user posting from IP User_talk:194.251.240.114):

Original: Chechenia, is a constituent republic

Your version: Chechenia, is a "constituent", i.e. conquered and occupied part republic

The first paragraph of the article is about the de-jure and de-facto status of this republic. It seems to me that the original was factually correct. If you have evidence that the legal status of Chechnya is recognized as an occupied territory by some government or internationally-recognized organization (like OSCE), please write it in a separate paragraph. Don't forget to include a reference to the statement of recognition as an occupied territory.

Original: Flag of Chechnya

Your version: Many Flags of Chechnya

You changed an existing link to a non-existent link. The original signature under the flag was correct (it's a picture of a single flag)

A lot of edits in the second paragraph After the collapse of the Soviet Union ...

Basically, you changed a readable paragraph into an unreadable one. All your changes seem to be centered on emotions and not supported by references to factual data. For example you changed their independence is not recognized by any state to their independence is not yet recognized by any state so far. The original was factually correct. Your edit implies that some government is about to recognize Chechnya's independence. Please state the specific government source which declares that this government is about to recognize Chechnya as an independent country. If you cannot do that, then your edit is just your point of view not supported by facts.

Edits in the Links section

First, I believe the official government site should go first. It's an officially recognized government. Second, adding occupiers to it is wrong, because it's just your point of view, unsupported by facts.

The word Separatist is not offensive, it's descriptive - it means those, who want to separate Chechnya from Russia. Pro-resistance is less precise. It would require an explaination on what the resistance is against. Against Maskhadov?

By adding a lot of links to pro-separatist media, particularly specific articles, you are polluting the links and skewing the NPOV of the links section. Links to CNN or BBC articles are more neutral thus more suitable.

And final, you may want to visit the article Ichkeria. It is actually the article on the administrative entity headed by Dudaev/Maskhadov.

--Gene s 08:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Gene S&other disputants,

It would be helpful if you could read Help:Contents on formatting and signing your posts by ~~~~. It is not difficult. You may also try the Wikipedia:sandbox to practice with wiki formatting.

Since you did not answer any of my points above, I have to assume that you have no objections to my arguments. --Gene s 11:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Firstly on politics recently in situ:

Ahkmed Zakayev is the minister of culture in the ChRI government, residing in the UK. Ilyas Akhamov is the minister for Foreign affairs of the ChRI covernment, residing in asylum granted by the USA. Just see the official page of [1] Ministry for Foreign affairs of the ChRI.

No one questions the fact that there is an alternative Chechen government. In fact, this part is covered in the fifth paragraph of the section Politics.

The recent elections to replace Kadyrov sn. didn't quite reach the democratic standards, says the US dept. of state and some other international sources, too. See for example the US dept. of state [2] daily breafings.

This is covered in the third paragraph of the section Politics. If you want to expand on it, please do so, but be specific and be ready back up any of your statements with links to reputable sources.

In the regards of the other details that may be disputed now or later on, I recommend you and the others possibly interrested in the Chechen issue to read firstly the complete news databases on the internet: about the first war in Chechnya [3] about the second war in Chechnya [4]

Undoubtedly there are multiple formal and informal collections of news links on various subjects. The fact that these collections exist do not add anything to this discussion. Please be more specific.

The databases are collections of up-to-date news from a day to another contributed worldwide, and they are moderated coherently and quite internationally.

It's fine that the databases exist. I am not questioning the quality of these databases. I just do not believe their mere existence is relevant to the discussion of your specific edits.

Unfortunately, the databases are only in English, and not in Russian.

This is also irrelevant.

--Gene s 11:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BIR

...and, by the way, about the international recognition of the ChRI, every now and then, right now due to the Russo-Georgian dispute over South Ossetia, the breakaway but internationally constituent part of Georgia, which aims to rejoin North Ossetia and therefore Russia, the tensions are high in the Georgian parliament to consider a recognition for the ChRI, while the Russian Duma is about to consider the South Ossetian status anew.

Well, then add a comment with a link to the Georgian parlamentary web site or some other reputable new agency. Be specific. Don't just point to a web site where the reader has to spend half a day sorting through irrelevant articles. --Gene s 11:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just read the Georgian news at [5]and similarly the Russian news at [6].

Well, I visited the site and did not find the artcle you refere to. Please be more specific. The sites are big. --Gene s 11:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BIR

What about this one [7]?

This is an abridged translation of an article in a Russian newspaper posted to a message board. The article is about improper comments by Kadyrov Jr. on Georgian-S.Ossetian conflict. Why is it special? How is it relevant to your edits on the page Chechnya?

Of course, there are plenty of these news.

That much is certain. Internet is full with various news. How is it relevant to your edits on the page Chechnya?

Just put "Georgia", etc. word of interest in the search box and enter, so you'll get these details, and sub-details.

Thank you for explaning to me how the search works. If you want to prove your point, you put "Georgia" into the search box and find the relevant article.

the Civil.ge as well as the interfax have archives where to search.

Then please search the archives for the relevant data if you want to prove your point. --Gene s 12:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just have a good luck !

BIR

It would be helpful if you could read Help:Contents on formatting and signing your posts by ~~~~. It is not difficult. You may also try the Wikipedia:sandbox to practice with wiki formatting. --Gene s 12:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you red these easy-to-use databases mentioned above you'll create a good comprehension of the Chechen issue in general as well as in details.

We are not discussing these "easy-to-use databases". We are discussing your specific edits on the page Chechnya. I don't see how my reading of these "databases" is relevant to the discussion of your edits.

I listed my objections to your edits one by one. Do you see them above? If not, let me know and I will highlight them for you. Do you understand my objections? Do you agree or disagree with those objections? If you disagree, please be specific, give answers to each of them, or explain why you refuse to answer.

I am not interested in a general discussion on Chechen politics. I am interested in a discussion on the merits of your specific edits. Are you willing to defend them?

In your opinion, what is that I need to prove exactly more or specially?

You made edits which I claim to be emotional, biased, poorly written, redundant. I listed my objections to them specifically in a list, one by one. Do you have anything to say on the subject of those edits and my objections to them? So far you concentrated on discussing merits of various news databases which is not relevant to the discussion of your edits. If you choose to answer, be 'specific.

I don't quite get your point.

My point is simple: lets discuss your edits on the page Chechnya, not various news, databases etc.

BIR

Why are you refusing to sign your posts by a standard signature? --Gene s 14:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the original point of mine was the international, diplomatic recognition of the ChRI, that some Georgian parlamentarians considered due to the Russo-Georgian dispute over South Ossetia, namely that such an international recognition hasn't taken place "so far" but it's about to happen if tensions rise too high against Georgia.

I already answered this. Please don't repeat your points.

On the other hand, some Lithuanian politicians just look like ready for such a movement quite emotionally A letter of honour

No one is stopping you to write about it in a coherent manner. Write a paragraph, try to be as unbiased as possible.

You may want to keep in mind that you tend to misrepresented the content. The article you cited is a letter of one Lithuanian politicial published on a pro-separatist web site. Even though it's so emotional, nowhere in the letter he calls for the recognition of Chechen independence.

Could you point out any congrete reasons why the ChRI shouldn't be recognised as a souvereign state less than for example the USA was during and after the American revolution or the war of independence. She had the Btitish "occupiers" and "administrators" and "national traitors" on her soil but Washington's scouts wiped them all away. Later on, the Americans and the British have become the best friends. well...what to say about a true Russo-Chechen friendship this soon.

This is not the point. The point is, ChRI is not recognized as of 2004 by 'any government. That's a fact. The article states this fact in plain language. When (or if) the independence is recognized, the article should be updated to reflect the new development. You should not misrepresent the facts. You should not mix fact with fiction.

So, it's ok. to say that the ChRI hasn't been recognised, but it's more correct to admit that "not yet" and "so far", because in these premises nobody knows the future for sure. Russian intergity A good example in Chechnya... The right of rejoining of the Ossetian people We recognize...

You are saying that some government is considering recognition of ChRI. Well then, cite a government source of any government. Please cite some ministry of foreign affairs/DOS press release, parlamentary vote, mainstream news media article, anything credable. I opened the first article inyour list. It sais: "We respect Russia's territorial integrity and we hope that Russia will take the similar position regarding South Ossetia" Mikheil Saakashvili added. So, pleeeeese stop posting irrelevant links. Besides, using "yet" and "so far" in the same phrase is usually poor grammar.

In my opinion, the databases above give the good comprehension of the latest 10 years' developments in the regards of Chechnya.

This is not a discussion about a database! Not about database. OK? Not about database. It's about your edits. Are we clear on this?

In your opinion, what is that I need to prove exactly or more than already done there?

Answered above.

--Gene s 14:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BIR

Why are you refusing to sign your posts by a standard signature? --Gene s 14:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, I see that our replies went one upon another, lets focus on the topics one by one, otherwise the clue of the discussion disappears in the black hole of the internet...

Well, try to learn how to format your posts.

Well, from which to start excatly ?

Read Help:Contents on formatting and signing your posts by ~~~~. Try the Wikipedia:sandbox to practice with wiki. Then take the list of my objections in the beginning of this article and answer them one by one.

Anyway, I repeat what I said about the ChRI recognition diplamotically...

You said so, yes. But you did not prove it.

--Gene s 14:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BIR

Why are you refusing to sign your posts by a standard signature? --Gene s 14:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About editing

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

[edit] Signing a reply ?

BIR 07:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chechnya, constituent or conquered part of the RF ?

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)

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)

A lot of Chechen history is covered in the article History of Chechnya --Gene s 10:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chechnya - constituent or conquered part of recent Russia ?

Hi Gene S,

Here above on the subject line is the first topic of our dispute to be continued from. I think that I clearly proved that Chechnya got just conquered and never agreed on becoming a constutuent part of Tsars' Russia, neither of the Soviet Union nor of this post soviet-collapse Russia of Yeltsin or of Putin.

This is an incorrect assesment. You have not proved anything so far. You claimed that Chechen people never agreed to be a part of Russia. That's incorrect. I answered it above. I guess I have repeat it for you: Chechen Constitution was passed on a naional referendum in 2003. It's a fact. The constitution declares Chechnya to be a part Russia. That's a fact. That means Chechen people at least once agreed to be a part of Russia. That means your statement is untrue. Is that clear?

I see you didn't reject this here, nor gave a link or document, but it's still proclaimed in the Chechnya text that Chechnya is now somehow "constituently" in Russia.

Are you asking for a text of the new Chechen constitution? Is that what you are saying?

That "constituent" position wasn't created until Putin had the ChRI occupied, established the government of some installed occupiers (Russian colonialists) and national traitors, and finally staged some fake elections in a country still under occupation etc...

Lets deal with facts, not emotions. Your emotional involvement with the subject is counterproductive. Just point exactly which you think is untrue:

Referndum on the Constitution took place
Constitution was accepted in this referendum
Constitution declares Chechnya to be a part of the Russian Federation.

Please be specific.

You may want to read an article on Loaded (language). Such loaded language as yours is unacceptable for an article which is supposed to be impartial and just report on facts.

If you have factual evidence that the elections or referendum were not free, please write it in the article. You might first read the second paragraph of the section Politics, just to make sure your writing is adding something new to what is already covered there. Don't forget to back up your statements with links to reputable sources. If you cannot backup some of your claims, plese keep them to yourself because they will be removed as unsubstantiated rumors.

Well, once upon the Soviet time, the very same methods and bayonetts were "laboured" when the Baltic stated got corpotated in the SU, freely and voluntarely;=)

We are not talking about Baltic or any other countries. Please keep focused on the subject. The subject is the facts and wording of the article Chechnya and your edits in this article. I am not going to discuss anything ourside of this subject.

By the way, to keep this coherent and fair, and almost in the same way you adviced me, I appreciate if you wrote your replies independently instead of editing those of mine, because it gives a conseption of scattering those of mine somehow purposely. --BIR 11:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am answering your posts in a way which is custom to Wiki Talk pages. I would appreciate if you could finally learn about Wiki markup language and start answering my points one by one instead of making a new paragraph of text. Which mostly just repeats your earlier words without any new insight. --Gene s 11:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear BIR,

First, to prevent accusations that I promote "imperial point of view" by byzantine methods using flaws in the Wikipedia policies having no proofs supporting this point of view, most of items related to the newest history mentioned by you were discussed and answered here in the Talk page earlier. Your description is just a part (a very biased one) of the very complicated story. Then, some of them are also covered in the NPOV manner in the article itself. However, if you are really interested in the Chechen history, it's worth to be discussed and hopefully this discussion may lead to significant additions and improvements in the History of Chechnya article.

Second, much more important, the Wikipedia's policy is not to conduct original research. Wikipedia doesn't create knowledge, it reflects what people know or think to know. Wikipedia is not intended to solve complicated legal tasks. It is not intended to resolve flaws in the international laws. All governments agree that Chechnya doesn't have a status of "occupied territory", it doesn't have a status of "independent country", and all agree that Chechnya is a constituent part of the Russian Federation. All encyclopedic resources treat Chechnya as a constituent part of the Russian Federation. Any removal of this fact is non-encyclopedic biased attempt to promote non-neutral point of view.

Thank you for your attention! And please, considering that you are novice here, please please read and understand Wikipedia policies before making edits on any sensitive subject.

Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 13:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] So, Chechenya is proven to be occupied. That's it.

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)

"Short list"around the date March 23, 2003.

[8] [9] [10] [11]

[12] [13] [14]

[15] [16]

/ Russian servicemen voting

[17]

[18] /Even foreign journalists voting witout difficulties

I insist you not to disintegrate my points, but produce your own, please. --BIR 13:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Indeed, which legal person did recognise the ChRI ?

/ THE RUSSIAN-CHECHEN PEACE TREATY 12 MAY 1997

Peace Treaty and Principles of Interrelation between Russian Federation and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

The esteemed parties to the agreement, desiring to end their centuries-long antagonism and striving to establish firm, equal and mutually beneficial relations, hereby agree:

1. To reject forever the use of force or threat of force in resolving all matters of dispute.

2. To develop their relations on generally recognized principles and norms of international law. In doing so, the sides shall interact on the basis of specific concrete agreements.

3. This treaty shall serve as the basis for concluding further agreements and accords on the full range of relations.

4. This treaty is written on two copies and both have equal legal power.

5. This treaty is active from the day of signing.

Moscow, 12 May 1997. (Signed)

B. Yeltsin A. Maskhadov President of the Russian Federation President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

I am sure the other copy of this nice and mutually inter-governementally agreed document is filed somewhere there in Moscow, too.--BIR 11:01, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now you are talking. Now we are getting somewhere.

If you could be so kind as to point me to the exact clause in the treaty where ChRI sovereignity is recognized by the Russian Federation. Just give me the section number - 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.

By the way, the fact that the treaty was signed is mentioned in the third paragraph of the section History. You are welcome to expand on it as long as you use neutral language. --Gene s 11:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you remember,B. Yeltsin was the first president of the post-Communist Russia which legally broke away from the SU led that time by Gorby (as he was called by the anglo-saxons). This is the legal document where both parties recognise some bilateral procedures and peaceful co-existence.

Yes. Yeltsin indeed was the president of RF. Yes, he did sign it, and yes, he agreed to follow some procedures.

Later on, during the latest congress of the organisation of the Islamic countries in Malesia, the recent Russian president, V. Putin took part, too, and gave an interview where he clearly stated (I just shorten his long message) that "factually we recognised the ChRI but they missed their option". You mau find the exact wording from the LIST, or from related news sources.

I believe you. It's quite possible that Putin said that ChRI had a de-facto independence. Please refrain from references to the "list" because it's unproductive. Either find a real source, or just don't refer to any source. "List" is useless.

The fact, that Russia did recognise the ChRI at least as the co-existing legal person or actually as a souvereign partner or state, was discussed by some law specialists then,

No. There is a big difference between de-facto independence and de-jure recognition of independence. I don't think you have any evidence for the latter.

If you want to expand on the discussion of de-facto Chechen independence in 1996-1999, please research the subject and write it up. Avoid loaded language, be concise, report just facts and everything should be OK.

but because of well-documented reasons withdrew from this treaty, and by well-documented methods launched a military invasion into the ChRI territory, is another case.

Yes, the reasons are well documented, the Second Chechen War indeed happened. Do you have anything new to add to the subject?

Another then internationally legal person, recognised in its time by a few states who therefore gave it a legal position, was the Talaban government of Afganistan, who did recognise the ChRI, but as far as I remember she didn't recognise the Talibs in turn.

--194.251.240.114 11:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree it's an unfortunate ommission from the present article that the recognition of ChRI by Taliban is missing from the article. I believe it should be mentioned there.

--Gene s 12:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Ichkeria article, by reason that Taliban recognized Ichkeria, not Chechnya. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 18:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the introduction (Chechnya) says As of 2003, their independence is not recognized by any state, obviously that applies to Ichkeria too. It's not outright wrong, but I think it's kind of misleading not to mention Taliban there. And it's 2004 now. --Gene s 05:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I figured I would run into an edit war here, but....

I'm a professional writer (and occasional Wiki contributor). When I gave up on Encarta's rather pathetic Chechnya article and headed to Wikipedia for a more in-depth look at the history and demographics of the place, I was expecting to find and edit war going on. I was surprised, however, to find that the war has left curious readers and researchers with an article no better than the one in Encarta. I've read a little bit of the editing discussion, and I can't really see why the interested parties (ie the participants in the edit war) can't simply come up with a little bit of neutral language, let the facts speak, and where the facts are in dispute by ideologues in the discussion, simply acknowledge both sides of the dispute.

I personally think that a professional writer would be a great asset to wiki in general and this article in particular. -Gene s 11:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see an article which talks about, among other things:

And you can just write it up. I don't think anyone would object if the writing is well-researched and impartial. --Gene s 11:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What percentage of the people who live in Chechnya speak Russsian vs Chechen, what percentage are muslim vs orthodox, and what were those numbers before independence was declared in 1991?
A discussion of the mass deportation of Chechens to Kazakhstan earlier in the century(does the Wiki article even MENTION that?
Discussion of what happened during the period of semi-independence in the 1990s. What form of government emerged? Were ethnic russians persecuted? Was there in fact semi-independence?
Some mention, at least, of the natural resources of the area. I understand there is oil, which would provide some indication of why Moscow has been unwilling to simply let Chechnya go.
More discussion of this question in general; why has Russia been so adamant about holding on to Chechnya?

I have no answeres to your questions. You may want to take a look at the History of Chechnya. It has something on the subject. --Gene s 11:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the Wiki, the ideologues on both sides of the Chechen question have made this page essentially useless as a research tool for the vast majority of disinterested users who simply want to find out more about this place (this place which gets you so passionate that you spend your days editing the page or trying to erase the work of those who have).

This edit war is primarily about use of loaded language by then anonymous poster, who later registerd as BIR. --Gene s 11:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So declare a truce, divide off the disputed parts, and make the page work, people. Remember, there are actual readers out here too.

Why don't you just write up and see what happens? --Gene s 11:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And as far as I can see, the Whole Chechnya section is wide open and readable. I think it has been all the time, so please, just go on, if you like. True is, some topics are under this discussion, while the visitors may be welcomed , albeit some clear mistakes should be corrected.

Just one to mention. Akhmed Zakayev, residing recently in the UK asylum, never was then ChRI Minister for Foreign Affairs but one of culture, and once upon the time, a special envoy, too. The ChRI Minister for Foreign Affairs is Ilyas Akhmadov, residing recently in asylum granted by the USA.--BIR 12:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, Mr Jackbrown, I think, you may also interview him in person there on the spot, in the USA.--BIR 13:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips and responses, folks. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a Chechnya expert to volunteer to rewrite the article or make any significant contributions yet (my interests and expertise run toward North Africa). However, I will repeat that it would be extremely useful to see a much expanded demographics section (surely there are russian-language sources for that information around) and a more detailed pre-1990s modern history section. There is, for example, an extremely interesting Spanish language book on the creation of 20th century Chechen nationalism, which I saw once at a book fair in Madrid. Anyone read it? -JB

jackbrown 16:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added some numbers from the 2002 Census.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:11, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I threw in a few population figures for ethnic russians which I obtained from the US State Department's area studies handbook. The stuff I came here looking for originally--so I thought I'd share now that I found it.

By the way, Gene, I had forgotten to look in the history page, and there was indeed a discussion of the mass deportation. A topic worthy of it's own article, if any Chechnya experts are reading the page. jackbrown 10:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be too unpatient

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)

[edit] UN Charter and Chechnya

The term "separatist" is loaded against the right of peoples to self-determination according to to the UN Charter, to which Russia as well as other major powers claimed that it agreed.

Well, it is not. It's a descriptive term. For example BBC uses the term "Chechen separatists" (use Google) quite freely. It's hard to accuse BBC of being pro-Russian.

The recent Chechen resistance agaisnt de-facto Russian occupation regards its members as "freedom-fighters", rather than such "separatists", so why shouldn't that be used as a self-determined term by those who are conserned? In general, anywhere in encycklopedic contexts, the people are called as they determine themselves. The term "separatist" is politically loaded by an extremely one-sided way. It aims to say that the ChRI did separate from something still in function. As far as I remember, they didn't.

Well, can you name one terrorist who willingly calls himself "terrorist", and not a "fighter-for-something". Should all terrorists be called "freedom-fighters" because they like this name? And by the way, I am not advocating the use of "terrorist" to describe Chechen separatists. Not all of them the are fighters either. Some are politicians. It's correct to call a politician "separatist". It's incorrect to call a politician "freedom-fighter".

You'll surely tell me if wrong and (naturally give the partisipants in here proper sources and documentation), but legally, the ChRI declared her independence from the Soviet Union where she did belong as a Soviet republic to, and she didn't quite "separate" from such a legal person as Russia, which was then a Soviet republic (such the largest one)among others, too, incorporated with some national districts, too. In the same time, also Russia declared her independence from the then-ceased Soviet Union.

Surely I would. You are rehashing your statements from before. You are not adding anything new to the discussion. You might want to visit the Montevideo_Convention page and describe to me how Ichkeria meets the requirements (a)-(d).

Did'nt she?

Who is "she"?

In here, Russia. As far as I am educated in English, countries, Ships and some vehicles are female in English which has generally quite a neutral grammer compared to German or French, but you may go on saying "it" as well.--BIR 13:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In that sense, Russia and the ChRI become legal persons from the same ceased legal person, namely the SU, and rather they are companions in independence. However, quite unfortunately, Russia did try to overtake her minor companion once (the first war of Yeltsin against the CHRI), and second time (the Putin-conducted war) is just underway.

No they did not. Your statements are emotional but not informative. Please support them by references to factual data. Don't just repeat yourself.

I wonder why the usually and highly professional BBC might use the term "separatist" because it's both legally and factually pretty wrong. All you dear partisipant in the UK, please, call the BBC and tell them to use correct terms and avoid such one-sided and loaded term even by a minor accident !!!!!!

Well, the reputaition of BBC for impartial coverage is quite extensive. For example, BBC refuses to use the word "terrorism" to describe the hostage taking at Beslan.

Indeed. Maskadov's statement on the BBC and Chechenpress--BIR 13:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To be a separatist one must separate from something first. To declare an indepencence and to be occupied by some third partner is another case both legally and also quite journalistically !!!

That's incorrect. See definition at Separatism.

Either Russia did ask the ChRI to join back in the SU but in Russia instead, nor aims herself to join back, so in a case of siding with Russia, one ought to speak of unification instead,(or of re-unification if regarded that Tsars' ceased Russia is somehow re-born legally in the form of Yeltsin's and Putin's one), and the people who simply resist this unification should be named as the resistance, which is quite neutral by international standards and practises of wording, and its members are simply and in the most accurate way, freedom-fighters.

This is becoming tiresome. Can you support your words with factual data? Your rant is emotional, yes, but it's quite empty on facts.

In a case that the SU had been re-established both the possibly resisting Russians and Chechens etc. may bear a term "separatism, or "separatists" most legally.

In any case, right now a term "separatism" is merely a political and somehow emotional determination, and hardly accurate in this encyclopedic way.--BIR 09:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No it is not. Provide evidence in support of your words.

It would be a misuse of the term "separatist" to apply it to a conquered and occupied people seeking independence.

No it would not be. But using the terms "conquered and occupied" would be. And you use the term people quite liberally. Below you say "international community" ... is used not to refer to people but to refer to governments. Same applies to Chechen proclamation of independence. It was proclaimed by a government.

UN Resolution 1514(XV), accessible at http://www.gibnet.com/texts/un1514.htm, spells out the meaning of the right of peoples to self-determination. If the people of a country prefer federation with another country, but a minority seek separation, then it would be valid to call that minority separatist. As Chechnya has never, by free vote of Chechens in a genuine referendum like the 1999 referendum in East Timor, opted to be incorporated in any Russian empire or federation, and has been so incorporated only ever by Russian military force, it is prematuire to refer to those seeking independence as "separatist". The fact that the Russians would rather bomb Grozny to rubble than agree to such a referendum is strong evidence that they do not believe the Chechens would want federation with them.

That what happened in Grozny in the beginning of Russia-conducted unification happened up to the high extent by force, and that could be proven still by widely-spred documentation, and the still-visible bullet-holes in houses which can't be called factually nothing but rubble, and it ended quite encycklopedically in the slaughter of civilian inhabitants whether they were Russians, Chechens etc.

Yes, and it's described as war - see First Chechen War, Second Chechen War.

I tend to agree on the wording above that is just correct and impartial. It just tells the plain facts. Given the documented facts, could you tell it in any other way and stay impartial? If so, please, give your suggestions as well as documentation, footnotes etc. and stay unloaded up to the most possible extent, please.--BIR 09:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have no doubt that you agree. But that does not mean much. You advocate replacement of relatively neutral language with highly emotive language. It's not outright wrong, but such use should be justified and supported by evidence. --Gene s 09:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And this is a lot of loaded statements. You have to produce evidence for each of them. The referendum on constitution took place.

Just in case another election which was monitored internationally,

[19]- In January 27, 1997, Aslan Maskhadov won two-thirds of the vote among thirteen candidates in fully recognized as free and fair by the OSCE, the United States and the Russian Federation. On February 12, 1997, Maskhadov was inaugurated in the presence of hundreds of guests from around the world.--BIR 12:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You got to be kidding with links to separatists sites. Do you really believe their coverage is impartial? Do you want me to produce links from Russian media? Does you "source" explain if the former Russian residents of Chechnya were allowed to vote? Do you have numbers on how many non-Chechens have fled the republic?

Reportedly, most non-Chechen Russians have fled due to the Chechen war one. Houses turned rubbish by random shelling. Those who remained voted usually in the presidential and parlamentary elections arranged after the war. In the Chechen war two, the invading Russian army shelled impartially Grozny where many died in this friedly fire.

And of course you can provide links, supporting your opinions, right? And those links are not from one of the sides of the conflict, and not from the "list". Please do disclose them now. I am holding my breath in anticipation. --Gene s 14:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, Maskhadov was elected in 1997. I am not sure if he was elsected for 4 or 5 yars. Suppose for 5. What year is it now? 2002 or 2004?

Yes for 4 years. According to the ChRI constitution still legally in force, under occupation the state institutes and the president continue their functions until there will be a peace again, and the elections can take place without fear.

And according to the current Chechen constitution Maskhadov does not hold any office. And the new elections took place. And your claim of occupation is not generally shared.

I am getting tired of your rants. You are not telling anything new, you are not providing any evidence, you are just rehashing your earlier words. Accept it as a fact: loaded language will not be tolerated in this article. Look at Beslan hostage crisis page. There was A LOT of discussion over a simple matter if the word "terrorism" can be used. And that is a case where a unanymous agreement over substance was reached. There is no unanymous agreement over substance here. The language you want to put in the article is not going to fly. --Gene s 14:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There weren't internationally reported abuses in these elections, contrary to the later special referendum you mentioned, and every presidential candidate agreed on the result, so Mr Maskhadov was elected for the ChRI president quite legally. Also the parlamentary elections took place in the very same way. So, the ChRI had, as well as still has, all the legally valid adminstrative institutes to declare her independence, what she did, too. By the way, has Russia ever unsolved officially, that is according to legal norms, the Yeltsin-Maskhadov treaty pasted above ? Do you happen to know about it ? --BIR 12:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and what is your point? Kadyrov was elected too. Referendum on constitution took place as well.

It was internationally monitored. Yes, there were abuses, but the monitors did not declare it invalid. And then there is a question of authority of those, who declared Chechen independence in the first place. You might want to read the History of Chechnya as well.

All I remember from the news I red during these years abut this referendum (must dig up something again from databases) is that such a referendum was monitored. The veto procedure even didn't belong to the monitors' mandate, and they were licensed merely to observer, nor such rights were ever attached on their political superiors or institutes. Finally, everything got observed and reported, albeit some feeble resolutions were published. Then, quite simply, the Russian diplomatic apparatus played down each of them in turn :=)--BIR 12:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is a good relatively impartial article on Chechnya for your education http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/chechnya/

That's all folks. However, the result doesn't prove that referendum was quite ok. legally or it did justify the occupation. It only shows the actual value of those institutes for taxpayers who, after all, "finance" them;=) I doubt that anyone has quite 100% true recognised the validity of the mentioned referendum, but adviced impartially everyone involved to seek a political solution in cricis.--BIR 12:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is "it"? You keep ranting for days. You have not provided a single good link to support your extreme opinons. Only "list" and separatist media. --Gene s 12:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another misleading term is "international community". This is used not to refer to people but to refer to governments, most of which are despotic and none of which has the permission of its people to invoke their name in agreeing to the incorporated status of Chechnya. The right of the Chechens to self-determination is not limited by the wish of governments to deny them that right.

That's correct, but it works both ways. Those who claim Chechen independence are also despotic governments. --Gene s 06:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dion Giles dgiles@central.murdoch.edu.auDelete as repeats an item

You can use ~~~~ to sign your messages. Just type four tildas after the message. --Gene s 06:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The ChRI was factually recognised...

...by the Russian federation as an equal legal person, and that position was never removed by anyone in spite of the late takeover of the ChRI. This fact must be included in the Chechnya article. See the treaty text above.

No. It was discussed before. Recognition was never explicit.

...by the one-time Taleban government of Afganistan, which was then itself becoming internationally recognised, as a one-time legal person. However, the ChRI never recognised the Talebans in turn.

Yes, I think it should be mentioned in the article. You should also point out that ChRI did not recognize Taleban in exchange.

...many times by the recent Russian president when interviewed. The most remarkably, in the regards of the10th summit of the Organiosation of the Islamic Countries, in Putrajaya, Malaisie, 16 th and 17th October, 2003.

Provide references.

These recognitions ought to be included in the article because it's just wrong and a plain error to say "recognised by none". --BIR 06:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can note those which are supported by evidence.

Please do not add external links to the body of the article. All external links should go to appropriate section. --Gene s 07:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

Please explain:

Why a link on Peace Treate deserves ALL CAPS? No other link is capitalized.
Why does it deserve expansion beyond the title? The other links are not expanded beyond the necessary
Why do you insist on placing a broken link to the peace treaty?
Separatist is a descriptive term. Pro-resistance is not descriptive because it requires explanation on who is resisting what.
Only in (only in Russian) is not informative. It does not change the meaning, just adds clutter.

--Gene s 08:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To avoid further mutual clashes, give me a complete set of your rules in one package, please.

Try to use your own judgement. Try to be a cooperative member of the community. When you add links, make sure they look like the other links, try to sort links by importance. For example, you added yet another link to the "list" in Polish (!) and placed it above Washigton Post and New York Times articles. Do you really believe that a second citation of a Polish article is more important than direct links to reputabvle English-language newspapers? Obviously your "list" has thousands of articles. Do you want to post all of them here?

I listed my specific objections to your changes above. Do you believe I am being unreasonable?

Btw., wo did authorise you here as a moderator ?--BIR 09:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am a self-appoined moderator. Are you upset by that? --Gene s 09:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] An agenda to set items one by one ?

I regard the texts above too scattered, especially yesterday's one, to agree on nothing. Therefore, I suggest we formulate an agenda of topics under dispute, and settle them one by one while staying diciplined.

OK. You think about what you want added to the article. I am pretty much satisfied with the way it covers major events. And of course it can be expanded and/or polished.

Otherwise, this leads nowhere, and means only that we waste time.

Exactly. I am very happy that you finally understood it.

Think about it.

I have nothing to think about here. I am satisfied with the current factual coverage.

In the meantime, I focus on my work,...and maybe dig up relevant sources of the latest topic we somehow discussed about, namely Putin's interviews on the ChRI position through the Yeltsin-Putin regime. --BIR 10:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Regime". Watch your language. Otherwise it appears like you are not learning anything from this discussion. This is not a political forum. --Gene s 10:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

régime, excludig the word's dietary aspect, of course. I don't know its semantics in Russian, but you have probably it in use, too. Actually, I didn't find anything special to learn yet.--BIR 12:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be the problem - your are refusing to learn to avoid loaded language. "Regime" with respect to elected government is a derogative term. Do you want me to insist on calling Mashadov's government "regime" or the government of whatever your country is? --Gene s 11:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must say that I don't quite agree. Regime, is French by origin, 1. system of government, 2. police authorities, public order, set of rules, 3. constitution, 4. dietary rule (you perhaps know how important the French kitchen is culturally to them). Really I can't help if it has got something derogative when implemented in Russian, nor I thing I have to change my dictionary.

Evidently, you are not a native English speaker... Please read English political news on different topics to feel the difference. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Putin has clearly recognised the ChRI independence

Moscow Times, Monday, Oct. 20, 2003. Page 1 By Caroline McGregor, Staff Writer

Al-Jazirah Interviews Russian President Putin on Iraq, Domestic, Foreign Policy Doha Al-Jazirah Satellite Channel Television in Arabic 17 Oct 03

" Regarding Chechnya, my mission is not to distract attention from what is taking place there. Rather, on the contrary, my mission is to draw attention to Chechnya and let the world, particularly the Islamic world, objectively know about the events in Chechnya. If you are interested in this issue, we will discuss it in detail later.

However, you know that we in Russia have basically recognized for years the independence of Chechnya. However, the people of Chechnya have not practically gained this independence.

They have been occupied by powers camouflaged by Islam, which spread strange ideas unrelated to this religion. Islam is the religion of peace. Like world religions, it calls for goodness, love, and humanity. You also know that in 1999, an attack took place on Dagestan, Chechnya's Muslim neighbor. The people of Dagestan carried arms and requested help from the central authority in Russia. I will not be able to forget the scenes I saw on television screens and during my personal trip to the scene of the events. Those scenes prompted us to take stern measures to prevent terrorist actions. "

A relevant sub-link

This isn't first, nor last time he did it publically. In fact, you have already admitted that he did, but asked a relevant source. So here are you, please.

Yes, he talks about a de-facto recognition of Chechen independence in 1995-1999. I don't think there was any question that Chechnya was de-facto independent. What are you trying to prove? --Gene s 11:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I've pointed out that the Russian federal legal institute, the president, had recognised the ChRI independence, and that fact has some content in the societies conducted by legal norms.

Well, first of all, you have provided a link to the "list" again which in turn quotes Moscow Times which in turn translates Putin's words from Russian or maybe from Arabian, translated from Russian. Moscow Time article is not freely accessible. The same interview in say, RussiaJournal does not have this quote. Thus I fail to confirm the quote. But let's assume the quote is accurate. As I said before, Putin talked about de-facto independence of Chechnya, i.e. he expressed his opinon that in the past Chechnya received de-facto independence but people were unable to enjoy it. OK, I can agree wih that. What's you point? --Gene s 12:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then, let's move to another point ?--BIR 11:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you. You have an agenda. I don't. --Gene s 11:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The recognition of the ChRI independence

My point was that I proved - before the Talk disappeared - that the elected Russian federal institute, the president, had recognised the ChRI independence.

The Chechen de-facto independence in 1996-1999 was never in question. You did not prove anything beyond the fact which was not really contested. By the way, did you read the previous discussion at Talk:Chechnya/Part_1?

Talk did not disapper. You erased the contents of the article.

The fact has legal consequences in societies conducted by legal norms, and also in this encycklopedic context, too.--BIR 12:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are. And it's quite strange that you do not believe so. It-was-not-legally-recognized. OK? Not legally recognized. You can't change this fact.

How come !? How was that ? The democratically elected Russian federal state institute, her president, carries out an act of state by undersigning a peace treaty with an esteemed party, in which context the ChRI is clearly mentioned "equally and mutually".

Your play with words is not going to change the fact that Chechen independence was not legally recognized. You are providing circumstantial evidence which only supports the view of de-facto Chechen independence in the past. The de-facto Chechen independence is not questioned. Not questioned. Understand? Yes, no please. It's agreed that in 1995 (or 1996?) - 1999 Chechnya was de-facto independent. But it was never legally independent. Do you understand difference between legal and factual? Yes? No?

Now, do you insist that his act of state was illegal? On what grounds ?

I only insist on a simple fact that your play with words is not going to change the fact that Chechen independence was not legally recognized.

Inevitably this makes one to ask what might be the legal aspect of other similar acts of state this special institute had done with other recognised independent entities worldwide ?

You may ask whatever you want. The fact is simple - it was not legally recognized. Period.

I don't tend to ask anything more, but I just state the facts above in details of this well-documented de-facto recognition. I thank you for your insider's view on recent Russian aspects. Also I tend to apreciate how you shed light on these legislative reforms that took place during the latest 14 years in Russia.

Yes, we have agreement on de-facto Chechen independence in the past. For the rest of your statement, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you stay focused on the subject? --Gene s 11:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Albeit, in a case that someone aims to make a relly important and binding deal with the Russian federation, or with any federal citizen, institute etc. could you advice how to ensure that it stays valid ?--BIR 11:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not a lawer. I am not going to give you a legal advise. If you want a legal advise please retain a licensed lawer. --Gene s 11:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But here, that shouldn't be focused on, but there, in the context of Russia. In the cection dedicated to the legislature aspect.--BIR 06:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You should (a) stop adding external links to article bodies. Stop doing it. OK? All external links should go to external links section. Do you understand this? (b) Stop messing with URLs. You clearly don't understand what a standard URL is. Go to http://www.w3.org/ and learn first. --Gene s 07:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe I've, for one and for a while, meticulously obeyed your self-styled rules also in this aspect you mentioned here above.--BIR 11:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to put it midly. Your statement is provably false. You have added external link to the article body of 1997.

In there, I just added a missing link to that peace treaty quite propely indeed. There wasn't nothing in the place the link pointed to.

Do you see any other external links on that page which are done in the same fashon as you did yours? What makes you believe your link deserves special treatment compare to the other 100 or so entries on that page? Do you see other people adding links to their favorite sites on that page? If anyone is interested, there is an internal link to Chechnya page where your link is already placed.

Even if you had your reasons, you still made a false statement: "I've ... meticulously obeyed". You have not. --Gene s 06:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You did it on Sept 7 as a registered user, I corrected your edit, but on Sept 8 you did it again as an IP. You converted URLs on Chechnya page removing trailing slashes, and in one case making a broken URL out of a valid one. Do you know the purpose of the trailing slash in an URL? It would be nice if you could stop making such, mildly speaking, knowingly false statements.

In my opinion, I only made those links avaiable for everyone interested. Those slashes just prevented those links to appear on my screen. I tried many times with slashes and without, and finally the latest position functioned technically from here.--BIR 14:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's clarify. Did you try to open the site http://chechnya.gov.ru/ and it did not open, but http://chechnya.gov.ru opened? Is this correct? "Yes" or "No" please.

Did you try to open the site http://www.chechnya-mfa.info/legal/1.htm and it did not open, but http://www.chechnya-mfa.infolegal/1.htm opened? Is this correct? "Yes" or "No" please.

Let me make a wild guess. You tried to open one of the "Foreign Ministry" links. When it did not open, you assumed it was because of my edits. It did not cross your mind that the site itself does not work, right? ---Gene s 06:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And try to get this - I am not making "my self-styled rules". I am simply following the rules of this community. And I am asking you over and over and over again to act as a member of this community, not like some freedom-fighter. OK? You appear to view Wikipedia only as a forum for promoting your extreme views. --Gene s 11:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, I just try to get anything from here, you wording tends to be quite rude every now and then, and right now, I am afraid that just rude. But, however, I tend to pay attention to everyone's freedom quite peacefully, also in this regard of ours.--BIR 14:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, you feel the statement "your self-styled rules" was pollite and appropriate, right? And your references to my naionality/ethnicity are also appropriate? And your stubborn desire to pass your opinion for facts is not offensive? --Gene s 06:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Basically, I am not interested in anybody's nationality,

This is very good. Keep it this way. Please stop referring to Russian semantics, not sure about implementation in Russian (language), I assumed you Russian, Yeltsin's regime. Am I referring to you as Chechen? Am I saying anything about Finnish semantics? Am I calling Finnish government Matti Vanhanen's regime? --Gene s 08:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just realised that you are keen on Russian views and eager to share light on this sore subject.

I am not keen on anybody's views. I want to keep this article clean from extreme opinions and loaded language. That's all. Any new facts supported by reputable sources are welcome, regardless of which side of the conflict may see them as favorable. --Gene s 08:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For me it's quite neutral, if anybody appers a Russian etc. For ex., I admire culture, science etc. developed there. And, not to speak about the quality of politics, if I had to chose recently between the Americans and Russians, to deal further with, I might prefer Russians recently, because I found it there less poor, at least the people there are more honest in whatever they do, whether it was good or bad. You never know about Uncle Sam...--BIR 07:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Only thing I, the most strongly, oppose is just this unhappy miserable Russian campaign on the ChRI. However, the state - as a just-developing post-soviet society - of recent Russia may explaine it further than the well-developed state of the USA which carrie dout a plain invasion of Iraq under various pretexts she clearly aped from Putin's adventure in the ChRI.--BIR 07:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Am I calling the campaign happy and glorious? Any war causes death and devastation. This one is no exception.

Let's not discuss the US invasion in Iraq bacause it does not seem relevant to the contents of this article. --Gene s 08:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, you did conclude youself too hasty and assumed too much. Later on, like today, I let myself to be provocated too far. However, in order to keep this productive, I hereby confess I got provogated too easy to emphasise beyond the focus.--BIR 07:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also I pointed that the both undersigned esteemed parties as a whole in the peace treaty had recognised mutually one another as independent legal persons, and also a set of rules.--BIR 12:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, treaty was signed. That's not a question. No, it did not even mention the words "sovereignity" or "independence".

No matter now many times you are going to repeat yourself, it's not going to change a siple fact that Chechen independence was not legally recognized. Denial is not going to get you anywhere. --Gene s 13:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Based on what presented above, I've started to think that the ChRI independence was legally recognised, but then that recognition was removed somehow.--BIR 11:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if it was legally recognized, then undoubtedly there were statements made by governments, foreign embassies opened in Chechnya, Chechen ambassadors were accepted as such in various contries. Find references to the statements by governments. If you are correct, it should not be too hard. --Gene s 11:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There were actually some kinds of reported diplomatic developments then,(the ChRI had representatives abroad etc.) but the ChRI had been economically ruined by the first war, and the second one broke in two years. In the meantime, the Russian diplomatic apparatus slowered down such develpments abroad (as already mentioned in the article) quite effectively indeed.--BIR 14:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point #1. For the record - you failed to provide requested links. By default it's been confirmed: Chechnen independence was never legally recognized.

So, as you tell about this detail, would you give a legal relevant source how the ChRI independence was undone. So far, I haven't seen or learnt in any context, how the Russian federation declared a war in a constitutional way on the ChRI, given that recently there is the Russian army in the ChRI, nor that the Russo-Chechen peace threaty was ever invalidated by Russian legal norms either, given that there aren't peace there either.--BIR 11:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I ask something like When did you stop beating your wife?, how could you possibly answer my question? Your question is of the same nature. legal relevant source how the ChRI independence was undone. There is no such thing - it cannot be "undone" if it was not done in the first place. As for the peace treaty, as far as I know it was Chechen warlord Basayev who broke it. --Gene s 11:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We aren't yet shareing light on Mr Basayev involement in 1999,

You asked a question, I answered it. If you do not want my answers, don't ask questions. --Gene s 06:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

but that the ChRI was de-facto recognised much earlier by Russia in 1997, and later on this fact was publically confirmed by president Putin himself in several occasions, the most remarkably in the regards of the 10th Congress of the Islamic Countries.--BIR 14:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You don't need to repeat statements which are already agreed upon. We agreed that Chechnya was de-facto independent in the past. "De-facto recognized" is an invalid term. Move on. --Gene s 06:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Source of Polls?

I'd like to see all these polls that have found that "most Chechen citizens see the Chechen Republic as being within the Russian Federation." I don't necessarily doubt that statement's accuracy, I just would like to see the polls for myself, mostly to examine their methods. Could the original author of that line possibly add them to the External Links section?
--Xinoph 17:13, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Xinoph,

I don't know if this meets your requirements, but you may be interesting in checking http://www.validata.ru/e_e/chechnya/ Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 12:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to mention, that Russian version of the above mentioned site contains much more details on every study. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 14:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Put it in the article.--Xinoph 15:39, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Done. You could do it yourself however. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A determination of de-jure recognition ?

Dear scholarly enlightened disputant(s),

Please, could you advice what the internationally applied determintation of the recognition of a souvereign independent state is?

How is it given ?

How is it lost ? --BIR 12:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is a vague part of international law, because territorial integrity and right to self-determination are contradictory. However, despite both principles are basic for the international law, the former prevails. There exist constitutive theory of statehood and declarative theory of statehood - which theory is correct is a controversial issue in international law. However, now Ichkeria fails to possess statehood in both theories. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 17:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your kind advice. I found it essentially informative.

Given the kernel principles embedded in the declarative theory of statehood;" the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications": (a) a permanent population (that consists mostly of Chechens and Nogays permanently in situ); (b) a defined territory (the mapped and guarded ChRI territory); (c) government (three democratically elected presidents and parliament, and in addition relevant state organs) ; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states (not quite acredited ambassadors but legally authorised representatives and envoys abroad).

I would point out that the ChRI had clearly matched these a,b,c points.

Also from the point of the constitutive theory of statehood, "a person of international law which is recognised as sovereign by other states", I'd like to remind that this may have been fulfilled when a) the federal Russian institute did undersign a peace treaty as an esteemed party with another undersigned one, b) and the same institute has in many occasions admitted the fact publically, and c) the one-time recognised Taleban government of Afganistan did it for one.

In this Chechen case, just none of these criterias seems vague or contradictory.

In addition, reportedly the ChRI had officially notified her determined will to assume sovereignty and declared her independence according to valid international norms.

Sincerely,--BIR 08:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear BIR,

taking in account that I consider your previous actions as ranting and ignoring others' words, I think that you are not just mistaken, but you have a strong agenda, and you only try to enforce it. I suppose your arguments a sofism, having nothing with the international law, which is only suitable to enforce diletants to agree your POV. I won't waste my time discussing you, sorry. Maybe I'm mistaked, sorry then, but anyway ask others who may have more spare time. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 09:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The truth runs naked

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)

[edit] The dispute continued...

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)

Everybody interested is in a postition to read by oneself the facts of the origin of the cricis on the yahoo groups ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chechnya-sl/ ). Also included in the external links section here in the Chechnya article. News are quoted from the world's mainsteam news media and also from some essential international organisation's publications, including the G7 and Russia, recently G8, based mass media.--BIR 06:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Especially, the August-November 1999 articles are quite telling.--BIR 06:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, the ChRI hardly joined Russia when Maskhadov was elected for the ChRI president by valid procedures. Nor the declaration of the ChRI independence was never drawn back.--BIR 06:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A Paragraph corrected...

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)

The 1997 peace treaty just confirmed the 1991 reached status quo legally. That's the fact.--BIR 12:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

The parliament was elected by international norms, monitored etc.

The independence was really declared.

The Taleban government, and more or less Yeltsin's regime, recognised it, although the Taleban one isn't relevant by its recent position.

In the CW I, there really were a group on the Russian side, but finally every Chechen fought Russia together - even Kadyrov, so "several rival groups" isn't quite encyclopedic even if pro-Moscow views were promoted here.

Otherwise, I can't help but be afraid that your tendency is to advocate some political goals instead of encyclopedic ones.--BIR 11:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Dear Mr Bug, you're barking a wrong tree

In this regard you might mean, it wasn't me. I believe I didn't mix anything. Maybe someone else did, see history.--BIR 12:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Besides, 150 000 casualties are merely an educated approximation, given that one in three Chechens have died of all of them. Statistically, this makes even more than 300 000 people calculated by their pre-wars demography.--BIR 12:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

150 000 casualties are merely an educated approximation. Please provide source for this information. --Gene s 13:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I insist that 38 000 is just a biased underestimation you shouldn't be quilty of, as a true scientist, and I found it as valid as the official statistics of federal losses in troops.--BIR 12:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please provide source for this information. --Gene s 13:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear BIR, I of course din't accuse you in changing number of casualties! I know that the wrong information (250 000 casualities) was inserted by Levzur, a convinced Georgian nationalist hating Russians. This 250 000 was replaced with 150 000 by someone because 250 000 looks TOO high.

If you (or someone else) have references to more or less plausible analysis by some institution (maybe HRW?), it would be nice to point it. But before this we shouldn't use these 150 000 casualties number just because it is misleading - in reality, no one knows how much people died there, especially non-combatants...

38 000 is an officially confirmed minimum (it is not federal troops casulties, it's total casualties, by the way). Therefore, "more than 38 000" is a strong fact. "about 150 000" is not.

Believe me, I'm trying to be a bit more encyclopedic. I don't feel real difference between 50 000 and 150 000 - both numbers are too large... Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 13:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)