Talk:Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria recognition[edit]

See also: Talk:Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan/Archive_1 § Chechen_Republic_of_Ichkeria_recognition

I'm going to post this on the talk pages for all three articles in question to try and get some consensus.

  • From the Taliban article: despite having diplomatic recognition from only three countries: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the unrecognized government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
  • From the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article: Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban government.
  • From the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria article: There are no countries that officially recognize Chechen independence... it was recognized by the Taliban, but the ChRI never recognised the Taliban in turn

So did they recognise the Taliban or not? --Horses In The Sky 20:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yandarbiyev did, as a private person (in 2000).

recognition[edit]

I don´t know if the talibans recognized CRI but I am sure that the Georgian Republic, in the time of Gamsaxurdia recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.

Prove it. --Golbez 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Islamic State of Afghanistan under Taliban rule recognized the state its even mentioned in the BBC documentary Smell of paradise where former president of Chechnya explains how and when they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.57.185 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Is there a map of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? Thanks. Georgianis | (t) 07:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it coterminous with Chechnya? --Golbez 08:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one?

Chechnya and Caucasus map

-- Georgianis | (t) 10:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms[edit]

It's a lying wolf in a circle. I can't provide it now, but you can see it on the first of these armoured vehicles. --HanzoHattori 13:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"New" (not really) flag[edit]

For a few years now there's the black flag of Jihad added in (alike the red stars to many flags once, for example in Yugoslavia). It's cut-and-pasted on the green field, in the oval-shape. --HanzoHattori 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I think it was introduced after 1999 (or maybe in 1998?). --HanzoHattori 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, this page needs to be proof-read by a native speaker of English - this would create a better impression on the reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.149.67 (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Emirate is only half of the story[edit]

Actually, Umarov's action was a weird act by the active president who has dissaloved his own country by a decree. But it's not like everyone obeyed. Akhmed Zakayev (his former personal friend and comrade) et al (including reportedly many active ethnic Chechen fighters) believe ChRI still exists. Umarov's clique now hounds them with the threats of actions by the Emirate's mukhabarat and what not. --HanzoHattori (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Zakayev's article needs to be updated, he's now the prime minister of Ichkeria's government-in-exile. --HanzoHattori (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. After reading more of Umarov's statements it looks more like he incorporated Ichkeria into the Caucasian Emirate. Where does Zakayev claim he's president of Ichkeria now? - PietervHuis 01:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister. The post of president is either vacant or abolished, I'm not sure (in any case no one removed Umarov, he removed himself). See Chechenpress for their part of the story and Kavkaz Center for the other one (and their respective associated websites). --HanzoHattori (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2007/11/30/9148.shtml is a repost from Jamestown Foundation (so you don't think they suddenly talk about themselves in third person ;)) but pretty informative. Somewhere out there there are also their mukhabarat threats etc. Zakayev in the meantime attempts to salvage of Ichkeria as much as he can, for example http://www.chechenpress.co.uk/english/news/2007/12/18/01.shtml --HanzoHattori (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-note I don't think the idea of the Caucasian Emirate is all that bad (from rebel perspective). If you check out the history of all the wars in the caucasus you can see that the muslim states that did not want to be subject to russian authority tried to form a state similar to the caucasian emirate, like the mountain republic and the caucasian immamate. Sheikh Abdul Halim also wanted to work together with the other states and thats how the caucasus front was established (if im correct). - PietervHuis 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Enlisting North Caucasian fighters to operate in their own homelands (volunteers in Chechnya were already in '94) is the other thing than capitulating to their (and Movladi Udugov's) demands to abolish the whole idea of the Chechen state entirely. Personally I see this as an act of treason. If you saw the link I showed you, even "pan-Islamist" Basayev, who basically co-ordinated the Caucasian Front and even died in Ingushetia, didn't agree on any of this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? You might be right but at the same time let's not forget the Dagestan War, where Basayev wanted independence for Dagestan too. - PietervHuis 05:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs)

In his long declaration, Astemirov explained why the Emirate was declared now. The KBR rebel leader revealed some details in his audio message about how the rebels prepared the establishment of the Emirate. The most interesting thing in what Astemirov had to say concerned his negotiations with the Chechen warlord Shamil Basaev in Nalchik, the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria, in 2005. According to Astemirov, Basaev met him and Ilyas Gorchkhanov, then the leader of the Ingush rebels. Astemirov and Gorchkhanov told Basaev that they wanted to create the Caucasian Front in the North-West Caucasus and to initiate a large-scale struggle against Russian rule in the region. At the same time, Basaev said that the Ingush and KBR rebels should give an oath of loyalty to Abdul-Khalim Sadulaev, then the leader of the Chechen rebels. Astemirov said that the negotiations were not easy, because Basaev demanded from Gorchkhanov and Astemirov that they cease any hostilities against the authorities if the Kremlin agreed to have peace talks with Sadulaev. Astemirov and Gorchkhanov insisted that they would agree to this only if Basaev promised them that the future independent Chechen state would be totally Islamic, without any of the attributes of an infidel governing structure, like a presidency or parliament, and would not have the word "republic" in its name. Basaev rejected these demands and said that if Astemirov and Gorchkhanov did not agree to give an oath of loyalty to Abdul-Khalim Sadulaev as the president of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria they should not expect any assistance from Basaev and other Chechen rebel commanders. Astemirov and Geriskhanov ultimately agreed to Basaev's demands.

Astemirov said, however, that after the deaths of Sadulaev and then Basaev, he sent a letter to Dokka Umarov asking him what he thought about the idea of declaring an Emirate that would replace Ichkeria. Umarov agreed and appointed Astemirov head of the Caucasian insurgency's Sharia Court instead of Mansur Yelmurzaev, a Chechen Islamic scholar who was against the Emirate idea and urged saving Ichkeria as a symbol of the Caucasian resistance.

In their own words. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I'm thinking of replacing the makeshift infobox on this page by a 'former country infobox' (like the one used in the article about the Irish Republic and add a lot of info. This is a sensitive subject so let me know what you think about it. ForrestSjap (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's a good idea, it would be great if you could include a similar map with Chechnya highlighted along with it. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikimedia Commons has one, I'll start working on it today.ForrestSjap (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the new infobox, let me know what you think about it. ForrestSjap (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
Чеченская Республика Ичкерия
Noxçiyn Respublika Noxçiyçö
Нохчийн Республика Нохчийчоь
1991–1999
Anthem: Anthem of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
The Chechen Republic in the Caucasus region
The Chechen Republic in the Caucasus region
StatusIn exile since 2000
CapitalGrozny, renamed Dzokhar-Ghala in 1996
Common languagesChechen, Russian
Religion
Sunni Islam
GovernmentRepublic
President of Ichkeria 
• 1991 – 1996
Dzokhar Dudayev
• 1996 – 1997
Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev
• 1997 – 2005
Aslan Maskhadov
• 2005 – 2006
Abdul Halim Sadulayev
• 2006 – 2007
Doku Umarov
History 
7 February, 1990
1 November, 1991 1991
11 December, 1994 – 31 August, 1996
7 August, 1999 – 14 September, 1999
26 August, 1999 1999
6 February, 2000 – present
Area
15,300 km2 (5,900 sq mi)
CurrencyRussian ruble¹
Preceded by		 Succeeded by
Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
Chechen Republic
¹ Plans to introduce Chechnya's own currency, the Nahar, were abandoned when the Second Chechen War broke out.

Looks great to me, I'll look into making a better map. I wouldnt't include "war in dagestan" though, since chechnya didnt have much to do with it and the iipb wasnt a representative of the chechen government - PietervHuis (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about important historic events. Listing the War in Dagestan does not suggest that the war was waged by the ChRI but rather that it had a significant impact on it, which it did, since it was the casus belli of the Second Chechen War.ForrestSjap (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the cacus belli for Russia, who used it as a pretext for reinvading Ichkeria. It kinda does suggest that the war was waged by the ChRI, even though the ChRI condemned the invasion. The war wasn't on chechen soil so theoratically we shouldn't list it. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideal, but I think we can use this map [1] for now. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A segment of text[edit]

The following text seems to disappear from this article:

In lieu of the devastated economic structure, kidnapping emerged as the principal source of income countrywide, procuring over $200 million during the three year independence of the chaotic fledgling state.[1] In May 1998, Valentin Vlasov, a personal envoy of Boris Yeltsin, was kidnapped and released on November 13; the Russian government reportedly paid a $7 million ransom for his release.[2] On October 25 1998, Shadid Bargishev, Chechnya's top anti-kidnapping official, was killed in a remote controlled car bombing as he was about to begin a major campaign against hostage-takers. In March of 1999, General Gennadiy Shpigun, the Kremlin's envoy to Chechnya, was kidnapped at the airport in Grozny, and ultimately found dead in 2000.

Political violence was rife as well. On December 10 Mansur Tagirov, Chechnya's top prosecutor, disappeared while returning to Grozny. On June 21 the Chechen security chief, Lecha Khulygov, and a guerrilla commander, Vakha Dzhafarov, fatally shot each other in an argument. The internal violence in Chechnya peaked on July 16 1998, when fighting broke out between Maskhadov's National Guard force led by Sulim Yamadayev and radical Wahhabi-sect militants in the town of Gudermes; over 50 people were reported killed and the state of emergency was declared in Chechnya.[3]

I think that is important and should be mentioned somewhere.Biophys (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your next. Current version tells nothing about kidnapping of Vlasov, which is a notable thing. It tells nothing about Tagirov, and so on. It is not a good idea to delete comments of other users, especially if they are wrong. If you do this with other users, they might blame you of WP:CIV violation. Good luck!Biophys (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC) May be text about kidnappings should be moved to another article?Biophys (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this information should not have been removed.ForrestSjap (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I did not just delete an entire segment of text. I rewrote parts of it, and added in new information inbetween. I've put Tagirov back in, not vlasov though. Vlasov wasnt killed he was simply kidnapped by criminals for a while. I try to remove small details like that. It's already noted that there was a lot of kidnapping, no need to give out a list of names of people who were kidnapped. This is a page about a country. You don't find such information on Russia for example (it should belong on the border incident of the 2nd chechen war) - PietervHuis (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Vlasov's kidnapping belongs to another article, such as Kidnappings in Chechnya. But it would be good to place this somewhere.Biophys (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tishkov, Valery. Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Page 114.
  2. ^ Tishkov, Valery. Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Page 120.
  3. ^ Further emergency measures in Chechnya

Hmm?[edit]

Yeah, Hmm..I think that it isnt right to have the forward going to the Chechen Republic, because the Chechen Rep. of Ichkeria still does exist, which proves in the infobox of having a president in the year 2007. --88.149.120.201 (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why it says in Exile since 2000...- PietervHuis (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality largely disputed[edit]

It Concerns these paragraphs[2] recently added by User:Miyokan which contain a huge amount of serious allegations all by a single writer Richard Sakwa (who himself comes from Moscow). There's a number of policies that forbid to present all these allegations as fact. The most important one Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

The text alleges that the government of Ichkeria was responsible for "mass human rights violations" and "international terrorism", all massive allegations about a foreign government. We can't write pages this way, imagine finding a Georgian writer who alleges the same stuff about the Abkhazian government, or a writer who writes these allegations about Russia, or the United States of America and a user with a grudge towards Chechen independence would understand you just can't present them as fact.

At best we could include a sentence about Richard Sakwa's allegations somewhere in the article, later probably contradicted again by other writers or former Chechen government officials. Other policies concerning the neutrality here are WP:UNDUE and plain WP:NEU. Grey Fox (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite agree with you. The ethnicity of the author (and, btw, Sakwa is certainly not a Russian surname) can't make a source less reliable (it's nowhere mentioned in WP:RS). If the book in question was published in Russia there would be legitimate concerns over its reliability. This is not the case here - it's a book by Western scholar published in London. So, in my opinion these claims should be attributed (rather than presented as fact) if some source claimed the opposite or if someone expressed doubts over the reliablility of Sakwa's work. If you know of any such works please let us know.
Finally, these claims aren't that exceptional. Compare them with what is written there and check the references provided there. Alæxis¿question? 07:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're a Russian user yourself so I'm not too surprised you defend a disputed version. The allegations are extremely exceptional, Alaexis, they are all about a foreign government. No, one's ethnicy shouldn't matter. I didn't mention his ethnicy actually, which is unknown, but this man did grow up in Russia. Even if he didn't it shouldn't matter per se, but I noted it just to help convince you that this man isn't a neutral analyst. If we can write massive paragraphs containing the allegations of a single writer, I could do the same on the page Russia all form Chechen writers, and I don't think you would agree on that either. [
Again, Sakwa's allegations can have a place in this article, but not compose 20% of it unless you're not strifing for a neutral article. His exceptional allegations aren't backed up by human rights reports (if they are please show me) and largely repeat allegations put forward by the Russian government. Grey Fox (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point here is that it's not proven that his works are not reliable. By proof I mean either criticism of his works or someone else's work that contradicts the allegations Sakwa made in his book. Alæxis¿question? 11:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's many, for example read some books by Anna Politkovskaya. Anyway there's also a matter of common sense here. As far as I know you're a moderate user and you would understand that filling 20% of this page with citations from one of her books isn't the way to achieve a neutral article either. Grey Fox (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is another issue. Let's discuss it below.
What did Politkovskaya write about inter-war period in Chechnya? Could you be more specific here? It's an honest question, I really don't know what did she write about it and I have the impression that she concentrated on some other things. Alæxis¿question? 11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Pietervhuis, he is certainly a reliable source, he is an academic teaching in the UK with numerous degrees and a Phd from the UK, your "he is not reliable because he is Russian" argument is laughable.--Miyokan (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, because everything I've said comes down to "he is not reliable because he is Russian". I see you're vilifying me personally and not addressing my arguments at all. Also I see that you've deleted the neutrality tag which seems like a decleration to start an edit war Grey Fox (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

The article about Chechnya has a small human rights section. Imho such section of similar size would be warranted here. Alæxis¿question? 11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but the one on Chechnya's page is composed of human rights reports, not allegations from a writer. There were some human rights reports on the death penalty in Ichkeria that I remember, we can use those. As for your previous questions, the human rights abuses such as kidnapping were alleged by the government of Ichkeria to be carried out mainly by men such as Arbi Barayev (who according to many worked for the FSB) and Yamadayev who currently serves under GRU. On the other hand Russia alleged alleges that the Ichkeria'n government was the one responsible. Grey Fox (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, unless you can provide reliable, third party sources (ie not the government of Ichkeria), that refute that these things occured, then there is nothing disputed.--Miyokan (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is. The statements by the government of Ichkeria are as relevant as the statements by Russian officials, and if you read Russia's Chechen whitebook all their statements are simply repeated by Sakwa. Anyway there's enough third party sources that describe a completely different setting during the years of independence. Grey Fox (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I urged and still urge you to bring at least some of them. Alæxis¿question? 12:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will, but you understand this'll take some time. Anyway the point is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Allegations that a government is responsible for "thousands of killings" and "mass human rights violations" should be backed up by human rights organisations (as with claims of genocide). Otherwise they can merely be inserted as "writer Sakwa alleges that...". Grey Fox (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know Memorial human rights watchdog. This is what its representative said in 2000. Mostly it's a criticism of Russian actions during the 2nd Chechen War but there's one paragraph about the inter-war period:
I'll be waiting for your sources. Alæxis¿question? 13:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's relevant and true. But surprisingly I don't see Memorial publishing anything about "thousands of political opponents murdered" which further indicates that we're dealing with WP:REDFLAG. Grey Fox (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not written there that "thousands of political opponents were murdered", it's just written that "Bandits and terrorists killed thousands of Chechens". Anyway, I agree to write something like "according to Sakwa bandits and ..." in this case. Alæxis¿question? 13:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

I created a short summary of Sakwa’s allegations:

Writer Richard Sakwa alleged that during the years of independence Chechnya became a base for international terrorism and that the inhabitants of Chechnya endured large scale human rights abuse with the authorities directly involved.[1]

Apparently this is not enough and User:Miyokan thinks that instead Sakwa’s allegations should take up 30% of this page. Anyway let’s see what bizar things Sakwa has to say and more importantly, what sources he uses. Unfortunately Sakwa doesn’t publish his sources, so we should find out where he got all his ideas from.

During the three year period of de facto independence under Maskhadov, practically nothing was achieved in terms of restoring the economy and the social sphere, and there was a lack of constructive effort to do so. The process of Arabization continued, above all in the form of the Islamization of the republic and the imposition of Sharia law.

Basically all of this is covered in the article already. The chaos is discussed already, and Maskhadov’s installment of a Sharia Law is also documented. I don’t see the reason to repeat everything twice as it’s totally inconvenient and amounts to wp:undue.

The population was still fleeing the republic. There was a real threat of ecological and epidemiological catastrophe. The cities and destroyed villages were not rebuilt, and thousands inhabited dilapidated housing with no sewerage, no water and often no electricity. There was no medical provision to speak of. People were dying of epidemics and starvation, with the death rate among children particuarly high, and practically all the population were in need of some sort of psychotherapy.

These statistics are relevant and with all of it Sakwa quotes another writer Robert Meier But the order in which placed is dubious, because readers could draw a parallell that the government is somehow responsible for this mess, even though the paragraph itself does not say so. The chaos is discussed in the article already, and as you can read was largely the result of the First Chechen War. There’s many sources for that unused, such as Chechnya had been badly damaged by the war, the economy was in a shambles and not enough aid was coming in to finance reconstruction. [3] It should also noted that these problems still persist after the collapse of the Ichkerian government.[4]

In Maskhadov's Chechnya the majority of the population endured destitution and degradation accompanied by the continuing enrichment of the leaders of the new regime, 'the new Chechens', and the ringleaders of the armed bands with 'grabbed' the national wealth. There were 157 armed groups active in the republic, who divided among themselves income and spheres of influence. Owing to its organized criminality, Chechnya became the biggest producer, consumer and dealer in narcotics and weapons in South Russia.

Here we simply have allegations of Sakwa which he doesn’t source. He speaks of corruption and pulls out a number of statistics, which is interesting. Where does his idea that 157 armed groups were active come from? It seems almost directly copy pasted from the proKadyrov website Chechnyafree.ru (see here: [5]) which is undoubtly a bad source for this. It gets more obvious because Sakwa seems to completely copy other allegations from the chechnyafree article such as the paragraph about Chechnya’s census and other information. And yes the chechnyafree article is much older, already standing since 2000.[6]

In Chechnya during the republic's de facto independence, there were human rights violations on a mass scale. Murder, arrests, kidnapping and trade in human beings became commonplace. On average, in Chechnya there were 60-70 crimes per week, including 8 to 10 murders. The authorities and power structures of the regime were directly involved in the crimes. A slave market operated openly in the center of Grozny, with hundreds of people (mainly Chechens) held captive as hostages and subjected to violence. Kidnapping people for exchange aquired endemic proportions, with more than 3,500 Chechens ransomed between 1996 and 1999. Bandits and terrorists killed thousands of Chechens, many of whom had fought against separatists and mercenaries. Chechnya became an international criminal cesspool of the CIS and became a base for international terrorism. Terrorists from many different countries became active on its territory, with their activities financed by foreign extremist centers.

And these are the worst allegations. Again Sakwa does not use sources for his statistics so how he found out these statistics is an enigma. A few google hits helped me trace them back though.

Professor Gakayev indicates that human rights are violated in Chechnya on a mass scale. Murder, kidnapping and trade in people have become an everyday occurrence. According to the data of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria alone, 3,558 crimes were committed and 246 people kidnapped in 1997 (50 people were kidnapped during six months of 1998). On average, 60-70 crimes, including from one to five murders, are committed in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria every week.

Sounds familiar? This article dates back from 1998.[7] For some reason however Sakwa felt the need to change “one to five murders a week” to “eight to ten murders a week”. Sakwa’s worst allegation is that “the authorities were directly involved”. If that’s not WP:REDFLAG then what is?

As for the “open slave market” here’s a more accurate report on that[8]

The last two sentences are again redflags. First of all it alleges that “thousands opponents were killed by bandits” which even contradicts his own fabricated statistics of “8-10 murders a week”. Furthermore together with the allegations that Chechnya became “a base for terrorism” Sakwa names Ibn al-Khattab a terrorist, and per WP:TERRORIST this is unacceptable for a neutral encyclopedia. Further more Khattab is never proven to have attacked civilians so Sakwa’s idea of terrorism is simply an opinion.

Well this took me a lot of effort. All in all I don’t mind a reference to Sakwa’s allegations, but a dozen of paragraphs is way too much, as well as the way all his allegations are presented as fact. The way I summarized it is not in violation of policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG.

I'll repeat the way to properly enter Sakwa's allegations into this article:

Writer Richard Sakwa alleged that during the years of independence Chechnya became a base for international terrorism and that the inhabitants of Chechnya endured large scale human rights abuse with the authorities directly involved.[1]

Aleaxis do you see this fit? Grey Fox (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a problem. This version is based on a single source and therefore represents certain POV. Grey_Fox, you should find other good sources on this subject, cite them, and reduce the personal opinions by Sakwa to create a more correct and neutral version. Good sources on this subject are Death of a Dissident, book Surgeon under fire by Khassan Baiev and publications by Politkovskaya.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1[edit]

Basically all of this is covered in the article already. The chaos is discussed already, and Maskhadov’s installment of a Sharia Law is also documented. I don’t see the reason to repeat everything twice as it’s totally inconvenient and amounts to wp:undue.


These statistics are relevant and with all of it Sakwa quotes another writer Robert Meier But the order in which placed is dubious, because readers could draw a parallell that the government is somehow responsible for this mess, even though the paragraph itself does not say so. The chaos is discussed in the article already, and as you can read was largely the result of the First Chechen War. There’s many sources for that unused, such as Chechnya had been badly damaged by the war, the economy was in a shambles and not enough aid was coming in to finance reconstruction. [9] It should also noted that these problems still persist after the collapse of the Ichkerian government.[10]

I gather that you don't dispute these facts per se but its redundancy and lack of context. It's indeed written that Aslan Maskhadov tried to concentrate power in his hands to establish authority, but had trouble creating an effective state or a functioning economy. The situation proved out of control of the government, and the republic remained chaotic. However, as you can see it's not sourced at all. So I propose to write as follows in the history section and remove all these passages from human rights section.

So the reader will get the idea of what 'chaotic situation' meanы. Alæxis¿question? 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's much better (I'll look into it more carefully later). What would be even better is to include more of the human rights reports instead from the 20th century. You found this one already[11] and I couldn't help notice you found this one too: The situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation. Report of the Secretary-General . This looks very useful. It contains a lot of concerns for the human rights at the time, as well as the effect the first war had on them. Most importantly, human rights groups are considered neutral (at least these ones).
You're still busy with your replies right now so sorry if im disrupting your posts by replying too early. Grey Fox (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like we've agreed about this point. I will post other replies in subsections tomorrow since it's already quite late here. Alæxis¿question? 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2[edit]

As for the “open slave market” here’s a more accurate report on that[8]

Well, let's use this source alongside Sakwa's book. The existence of a slave market in Grozny is not mentioned in this version so I propose to leave this passage in the Human rights section. Alæxis¿question? 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide reliable, third party sources (ie not the government of Ichkeria, or Russian government critics), that refute that these things occured, then there is nothing disputed. Richard Sakwa is an academic, an English university teacher and an expert on the subject, so far you have not provided any reliable, third party sources which refute what he said in his book.--Miyokan (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not Russian government critics". This is interesting, Richard Sakwa is a chechen government critic, how is this different? Anyway human rights reports and any other book I've read do not contain any information whatsoever on the redflag allegations Sakwa puts forward, that's a refutation itself. You've now reverted your actions again, even though it's in clear violation with policies such as WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE, WP:NEU, WP:IINFO and more. Participate on the discussions here and further concensus building or leave it to others please, because the edit warring is useless. Grey Fox (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Miyokan and Alaexis, could you please provide exact pages were Sakwa makes these claims per WP:Verifiability? Claiming that any sources by "Russian government critics" are unreliable is absurd. Obviously, Sakwa is not one of the critics. Why do you think that "friends" of Russian government like Sakwa are more reliable? Note that anyone can be an academic and an agent of influence at the same time. There are many examples of that.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3[edit]

And these are the worst allegations. Again Sakwa does not use sources for his statistics so how he found out these statistics is an enigma. A few google hits helped me trace them back though.


Sounds familiar? This article dates back from 1998.[7] For some reason however Sakwa felt the need to change “one to five murders a week” to “eight to ten murders a week”. Sakwa’s worst allegation is that “the authorities were directly involved”. If that’s not WP:REDFLAG then what is?

The only discrepancy is the number of murders per week. It's a shame that Sakwa does not quote his sources... Here I propose to give the lower estimate of the number of murders and using Gakayev's article as a source and keep other info from Sakwa's book.

I agree that the claim about the involvement of authorities is rather important. So let's write 'According to Richard Sakwa the authorities ...' here. Alæxis¿question? 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, we should as well as find the words of government officials on this (I believe they're from their whitebook). I've been looking into the years of independence and there's a lot of interesting information, about the behaviour of the chechen government, the financial and political situation, the rivality between warlords and the relation between Russia and the government of Maskhadov. Many of it seems very useful, same goes for the years under Dudayev. Grey Fox (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've (temporarely) replaced the allegations with the report you linked from Memorial, maybe we will have additional info later on. I'm not sure yet if I support a seperate section on human rights. It's true that the current page of Chechnya has a seperate section too, I'm not sure if I support that either. However, the page for Russia for example doesn't have a seperate section on human rights either (but instead a seperate article). Grey Fox (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out those words from the book of Richard Sakwa are not at all his words and it's wrongfully cited. The book is a collection of material written by several writers. The exceptional claims were put forward by a pro-moscow chechen named gakayev, who served in the pro-moscow government during the first chechen war, so we can't use that, at least for the exceptional claims.[12]

I'll be do my best to improve this article sometime soon, and have collected a lot of archive material so we can get an objective picture of what this nation was like. There's many other similar articles of previous states that we can follow, including layout formations and the like. Another interesting addition would be a description of what the government was like in exile, and details on its army. Grey Fox (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Richard Sakwa. Chechnya: From Past To Future. p. 32. ISBN 1843311658.
  2. ^ 1
  3. ^ 2

Coat of Arms and Flag Outdated?[edit]

I've found more references to a different flag and coat of arms like: http://russiatrek.org/chechnya-republic Than the wolf one and standard flag. I won't be changing it until I find something more solid, because the majority of what I am finding seems to come from another wiki, New World Wiki, and I just find that iffy. But, again, I'm not finding anything on the wolf coat of arms (Besides the one picture above). References please? ItsWolfeh (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flag your link has is the one of the loyalist autonomist republican government. The flag used here is of the separatist government. They are two different entities, and have two different flags. --Yalens (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"East west cali" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect East west cali. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid edit warring[edit]

New editors should realize that it is vandalism to erase fully sourced statements. If you have a disagreement, please ADD it to the discussion, making sure that you cite your own reliable sources. Disputes have to be taken to this talk page or you will get in trouble for edit warring. Casting aspersions on the integrity of other editors violates the rule that you must assume good faith. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Now to the the issue of bias in sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources which states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Rjensen (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen: I've just deleted a sourced fact as I believe it violates WP:SYN. Happy to discuss it here. Alaexis¿question? 16:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes[edit]

Sextus Caedicius, re this edit, I think that there was a NPOV problem with the section which I tried to fix. The UN report that is cited in it describes both Samashki massacre and attacks on civilians by Chechen militants, specifically the Budyonnovsk raid.


We could either describe the atrocities committed by both sides without giving details (as I have done) or provide details for both. I don't think it's NPOV to have no mention of Budyonnovsk and Kizlyar hostage crises in the article about CRI. Alaexis¿question? 17:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis I didn't take issue with Budyonnovsk and Kizylar incidents being included, but rather the removal of a good excerpt from a thrid party source on the Samashki incident. You're welcome to include that excerpt about Budyonnovsk in the article if you want. Both Budyonnovsk and Samashki should be mentioned in my opinion.Sextus Caedicius (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was that this information was present in the wikilinked article about the Samashki massacre, but I'm fine with your changes too. Cheers, Alaexis¿question? 20:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De facto state vs de facto independence[edit]

Following the recent round of reverts, I've added citations to two books which describe Chechnya as de facto independent in the late 1990s. Calling it a de facto state is a bit less common, but there are sources which do it, see International Society and the De Facto State by Scott Pegg. If someone has an issue with this wording, let's discuss it here. Alaexis¿question? 12:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "De facto state vs de facto independence", it is "de facto state" vs "rebellion in a certain area". When you say "de facto independent" you must explain from "what". Real answer is - independence from the laws of the country. Criminal that break national laws can call themselves a government then. It is nonsense.
"Someone said something" (or wrote in a book) is not an argument. We must use common sense to evaluate what someone has said. The entire territory of the planet already belongs to different states. There are people who want to separate part of the territory of one state and call themselves its government, and for a while they can hold the territory by force. This is not enough to be called a state. It's just a crime. The real state, whose laws are violated, destroys these criminal structures and restores order.
Even the wording "After achieving de facto independence from Russia in 1996"... "the Chechen government failed to establish order." in itself is meaningless. What does it mean? Some people stopped fulfilling the commands of the state, part of whose territory they seized and could not build a state administration there.
Therefore, it is not an actual state, but an imaginary state that exists only in the imagination of the invaders. This "state" is not recognized by anyone. So self-proclaimed state at best.176.77.51.209 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and original research. Any changes you make must be supported by reliable sources. Alaexis¿question? 15:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading recognition[edit]

The international recognition section suggests that Ukraine has recognized this entity as independent or whatever, but this is not the case (yet). There is a different bill for this. At the moment the parliament voted to recognize the territory as "temporarily occupied". See [13] for example. So this comes across as OR and is misleading. Mellk (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the same thing with the infobox. Since when has it been a "partially recognised" state? Recent changes are OR and unsourced. Mellk (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here.
  1. Was not it recognized as an independent state by Russia itself per Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty, and was not it a de facto independent state - for a period of time? If so, this should be noted in the infobox.
  2. According to RS[14],[15], the resolution has been already adopted ("A total of 287 Ukrainian lawmakers adopted a resolution on Tuesday, Oct. 18, recognizing the occupation and genocide of the Chechen people.") and it is different from another resolution proposed in July by Olexiy Honcharenko and Musa Magomedov. How exactly this should be framed could be a question, but it probably deserved to be noted in the infobox.My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was de facto independent and it is already noted in the infobox, what exactly do you propose? Alaexis¿question? 18:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to include Russia in International recognition section. It was recognized by Russia only for a period of time (a few years), which should be noted in the Table. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There was no formal recognition of independence. Status of Chechnya was also deferred to 2001. Russia still claimed Chechnya as part of Russia at the time. Mellk (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not an expert, but simply looking at RS [16], it says about the agreement: Zakayev said that ... in the end Moscow agreed to recognize Chechen independence, even though the logical next step -- the establishing of formal diplomatic relations -- was never taken. It also says: "The final document was indeed entitled "Peace Treaty and Principles of Inter-relations." The two sides agreed to abjure forever the use of force or threat of force in resolving disputed issues, and to build bilateral relations "on the generally recognized principles and norms of international law.". It says "international law" rather than "Law of Russian Federation" as it would be if Chechnya remained a federal subject of Russia. Hence it was a recognition of independence in 1997, was not it? You say: "Status of Chechnya was also deferred to 2001". Are you talking about the Khasavurt agreement? Any ref? My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the treaty was ambiguous to the point that both sides could interpret it to their liking. But this is reflected in RS, for example: "The treaty, a brief five sentences, formalizes the cease-fire reached last August. It does not mention, or resolve, Chechnya's demand for independence... The Kremlin has not ceded independence to Chechnya, but both sides appeared willing to set aside the question during today's ceremony."[17]. Mellk (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes, the agreement was too vague, hardly a de juro admission of Chechen independence. OK. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two entities[edit]

@Dark4tune, regarding this edit, my point was that the previous text (Since the 2000s, several entities have claimed to be an exile government of Ichkeria.) described the situation more accurately. Both Zavgayev and Umarov claimed to be the successors of ChRI. Alaexis¿question? 08:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may chime in: IMO, the question has to be whether there were actually (at any point) two exile governments claiming to represent the ChRI at the same time. As long as Umarov considered himself head of the Chechen Republic, Zakayev's faction was at least nominally loyal to him. When Umarov declared that the republic had been replaced by the emirate in 2007, he effectively and officially no longer represented the republic, as he no longer considered it as existing. From this point, Zakayev's faction was the only group to still call themselves the ChRI exile government.
Thus, strictly speaking, there were never several entities claiming to be the ChRI exile government; however, there have been several groups claiming to represent a Chechen government. Applodion (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are very correct, Applodion. The Caucasus Emirate was never meant to be a continuation of the Ichkerian government, but a successor to it. This is what I had in mind when I made those edits. Dark4tune (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chechen_Republic_of_Ichkeria&oldid=1206636145"