Talk:Chechnya

See Talk:Chechnya/Part_1 for old discussions.

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:

1. After the demise of the Soviet Union,
2. the group of politics
3. declared themselves a new parliament
4. and declared independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
5. As for 2003, the independence is not recognized by any state;
6. however this declaration caused war conflicts in which
7. several rival Chechen groups
8. and the Federal army was involved,
9. resulted in more than 38,000 deaths in the period of 1991-2002.
10. 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:

1. Full quorum Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet
2. Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet in building controlled by Dudaev's guards (only part of)
3. Group of ex-Deputies of the Chechen-Ingush Supreme Soviet
4. Temporary Chechen Supreme Soviet
5. 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)

Page protected

Edit wars are bad; I point everyone involved to the three revert rule and m:The Wrong Version. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 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. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 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)

About editing

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

Signing a reply ?

BIR 07:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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:

1. Referndum on the Constitution took place
2. Constitution was accepted in this referendum
3. 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)

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.

That's the first topic you listed.

Yes, this is indeed the first objection I listed.

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.

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).

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?

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)?

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.

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?

"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)