Talk:Second Chechen War

If someone feels that the word "terrorism" does not apply to Moscow appartment house bombings, please visit the page September_11,_2001_attacks and try to change the word 'terrorism' to something you feel more "approptiate" or "neutral" there first. --Gene s 05:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who's the leader on the pro-independence Chechen side ?

Provide evidence if he's Basayev.

Of course there is no such evidence because the current president is Alu Alkhanov. Do you need evidence for that?

No. Alu doesn't lead the resistance, because he's the next Kremlin pick-up for a puppet administrator. The elections were heavily criticised for example by the US dept. of state.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But just provide evidence if he leads the resistance instead of the pro-Moscow regime.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Otherwise, see Yahoo Chechen list from 1999-2004 to get evidence of Mashadov's leadership.--BIR 13:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please stop refering to your useless list. The "list" is not a source of reliable data.

On the contrary, it is as reliable as the sources it quotes. Please, go there and read.--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We had been over this many times before. The "list" is not a reliable source of information. Please stop using opinions as facts. --Gene s 14:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any web site where Maskhadov claims responsibility for any fighting in Chechnya since, say 2002? --Gene s 14:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You may try the Chechenpress.com or .info. He's definitely on the lead as the commander-in-chief of the ChRI resistance army. You already know that. For a long time, it has been a russian trick to deny his status in media purposely, and now you try the same...--BIR 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a page where Maskhadov claims responsibility for any military action in Chechnya since 2002. --Gene s 14:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.chechenpress.info/ichkeria/dokumenty/prezident/index.shtml --BIR 15:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.chechenpress.info/news/2004/09/16/18.shtml --BIR 15:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You posted a link where Maskhadov condones the terrorist act in Beslan and otherwise defends the terrorists. What do you want to do with this link?

Actually, after consideration I won't object if you link Maskhadov with terrorists. He is a terrorist after all, you proved it. Good job. --Gene s 04:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was asking for a real independent link. Do you want a counter link form Russian media? Try again. --Gene s 15:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If youn insist on calling the resistance, I'll have to insist on calling them terrorists. --Gene s 15:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "independent" and "resistance"

Resistance to what? The word "forces" is neutral.

I am not sure if I'll repent, but, this time ok.

Provide evidence that the islamic groups are independent.

In one of the latest international interviews of Reuters, BBC, or AFP etc. might be also a Russian one (don't remember which one anymore, but definitely one of them) that was also published some time ago on the LIST when asked about Basayev's position in the ChRI administration Mashadov stated something like "Basayev has chosen to act separately from us".--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As usual, you don't have a valid link. No link - no discussion. The "list" is not a mainstream media. Your personal opinion cannot be treated as fact. Even if an interview with Maskhadov was publshed by BBC, I am sure BBC also published Putin when he said that both Maskhadov and Basayev are terrorists. Don't mix propaganda with valid sources of information. --Gene s 07:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In an aftermach of the Dubrovka act of terror, also Basayev was interviewed by the mass media many times. He admitted his partisipation and resigned from the ChRI administration, and told details like that the Dubrovka wasn't the planned target but the Duma deputants were. The operation, reportedly, turned off-tracked by one Terbikayev, a FSB counter-agent of Chechen origin, and resulted an anti-ChRI inhuman carnage which only strengtened Putin's political position leading finally to the topical attempt of cancellation of democracy.--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I remember Putin said Maskhadov is in the same group of terrorists as Basayev. Why should separatist propaganda be treated differenntly than federalist propaganda?

You seem to be condoning terrorism. Do you belive killing Duma deputies would not have been a terrorist act? Do you believe that "off-tracking" of the killing of deputies by FSB makes it OK to kill other people?

--Gene s 07:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Gene s 14:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A determination for Putin's campaign ?

I would like to remind you again that this is not a political forum. This is an encyclopedia. Any discussion not related to the content of the current article (Second Chechen War) is off topic.

Would you say that the war still underway is either a simple war or an antiterrorist operation ?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say the last paragraph of the article is quite clear on it.

Given that the ChRI MFA site tells that about 24 000 Chechen children have already died due to the war, do you consider that as an overestimation, or true?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the "MFA" is a propaganda outlet. Any data from there is a suspect.

In this regard, how would you determinate Putin's personal style of conduct on the scale of A short-sighted plain terrorist ending in a forever ingenious statesman ?--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would determine that Putin's personal conduct is off-topic unless you justify inclusion of it here. There is an article Vladimir Putin. You may want to read it.

For your eyes only, as the British say - even if you wasn't a James Bond;=)
The Dagestan Provocation (http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/tsets-5.htm)Just looks like a Finnish site, near your home, I think.--BIR 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record - this was yet another nationalistic remark from you.

Just for somebody's record, I didn't regard you a Brit nor a Finn, if you red carefully. In plain English, you is often a passive form, and near your home doesn't mean that you are a Finn.--BIR 08:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the article, the author is pedding his/her agenda. It's apparent even from the title. No self-respecting journalist would open an article as The series of events known as the Dagestan provocation. Known by whom? Known where? The conclusion opens the investigation. Really impartial, right?

Actually, the title is The Eurasian Politician - October 2003, The Background of Chechen Independence Movement V:,The Dagestan Provocation. Don't be afraid to read, for then the facts may be known by you, too.--BIR 08:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to think. Who is this "Eurasian Politician"? Why is this propaganda web site any better than any other propaganda web site? Are you saying the title "Dagestan provocation" is unbiased and impartial?

The article seems to belong to [http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/main.htm

the Eurasian Politician] collections, and for one I regard it highly.

And we already established that your opinion makes no difference. It does not matter if you regard them highly or completely disregard them. Who are they? It looks to me that are some university students.

What impartial investigations ? By whom, given the recent political developments, right?--BIR 08:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, you agree that these people are biased? Then if you believe they are biased, why are you posting links to them? --Gene s 08:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given the recent political developments, read the given sources to get informed, please.

You avoded the issue of bias again. If I write someting and post it to the web, does it become a source of information worthy of inclusion here? Why should I read ramblings of some students? Are they good students getting straight A's or something?

The paragraph above is just your personal opinion, that grants nothing either.

Well, I explained why I believe so. You posted no rebuttal, making it clear that you agree with my assessment of bias.

So, you agreed that Putin's methods in the regards of Chechnya resemble more the ones of terror than acts of an statesman ? Right.--BIR 10:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please point me to the statement where I said so. --Gene s 10:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gradually, your techniques of dispute (endless feedbacks etc.) have started to repeat themselves,

You are the master of evasive discussion. You never answer my questions. Whenever you find it difficult to answer or to find evidence, you just start a new section. I suggest you look at your own act. Remember, it was you who barged in and started rewriting articles with loaded language and false information.

so, please, present new ones to keep me awaken.--BIR 10:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As usual, you miss the point again. I don't care if you sleep or not. Let me remind you. You have an agenda of adding loaded language and kooked-up opinions to Chechnya-related articles. I was prety much satisfied with the way they were written until you appeared. --Gene s 10:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to educate your English, not k but c like cooked-up.

Dear English teacher, please spend a few seconds of your valuable time and look up the word "kook" in a dictionary before you make a fool of yourself again. For example here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kook).

You don't give up easily. Don't you ? I like it. Although I am no teacher, but just in case, I can't help but help if necessary. I think the online dictionary you suggested doesn't know literally a combined expression "kooked up" you used in the fist place. In addition, there are a valid commonly-known expression "to cook up" and its derivation "cooked up". --BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In addition, my dictionary and the other online ones I searched gave none or following results about a "kook": Keepers Of Odd Knowledge; Kook, Abraham Isaac, Jewish mystic, fervent Zionist...; Albert J. Kook, Early Chinese Bronzes (1970); and of course the one you linked; someone regarded as eccentric or crazy and standing out from a group.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, a word "kook" really is an American slang expression, but further "kooked" or even "kooked up" do not exist in dictionaries. Instead, such expressions as a "cook-up", "to cook up", or "cooked-up" are proper standard English. Given the context where you kindly used "kooked up" you seemingly ment "cooked up". Otherwise it either doesn't make sense or it is'nt English.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then decently, back to the issue, i.e. your views on Putin's reported methods, please.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Chechnya article was nothing but accurate or even encyclopedic.

Ok. I correct. The Chechnya article was anything but accurate or even encyclopedic.--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have agree with that. Maybe your statement is even a bit too flattering.

Thanks. Let's agree on that you had to agree with that--BIR 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is quite narrow by its content, and I doubt that anyone seriously in this field can exploit it fully. Just lazy additional journalists may try it for some hinterland papers expecially if there are professionally written articles avaiable on the internet, including the LIST sources and footnotes, of course.

I just found it full of embedded elements of pro-Moscow propaganda I red all too often done by the tecniques I saw all too often.

Oh, I see. You really meant something else in the first phrase. You should really get someone to help you with English. Anyway, if you felt that way, why did you refuse to argue the article points, but concentrated on adding loaded language? If you believe it's full of pro-Moscow propaganda, why did not you remove it? Instead you were only adding pro-separatist propaganda. Do you think an article full of pro-separatist propaganda is better that an article full of pro-Moscow propaganda?

Factually, I considered it as tool to lead the lazy journalists up to the guarden path. In short; the ChRI and her leadership's role were ignored; for example, just Basayev was shown to lead some islamist insurgents and that's all the resistance, Kadyro's puppet regime was regarded as the ChRI one etc.--BIR 10:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links, links, links. No links, no discussion. And no, the "list" is not a source. --10:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Basayev's militants independent !

The globalsecurity link you provided did confirm crearly that Basayev's groups operated independently from the Chechen governement. Therefore, I agree that the word independent must be added contextually there in the text body.--BIR 10:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. They are saying so. Without providing a source for this information, but I guess it's no big deal. But you, as already happened many times before, don't recognize a difference between years. The last paragraph is about post-2002, the SF is about 1999. Why is it so difficult for you to see a 3+ year difference? Why do you keep adding external links to the article body? --Gene s 10:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Independent analyses and reports

the beginning of the crisis

- *[ http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30389.pdf "De Facto independence", "Chechen resistance" etc.]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/chechnatism.htm Chechen Nationalism and the Tragedy of the Struggle for Independence]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/chechtale.htm A Tale of Two Theaters: Russian Actions in Chechnya in 1994 and 1999; "The 1999 intervention was executed according to a well-conceived plan. According to the former Minister of Internal Affairs and Yeltsin loyalist Sergei Stepashin, the plan was prepared for execution in March 1999 but was delayed."]

- *[ http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/secchech/secchech.htm The Second Chechen War: The Information Component]

- *[ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/mvd/post_cccp.htm FAS: Post-Soviet Developments]

-*[ http://phrusa.org/research/chechnya/chech_rep.html Physicians for Human Rights: Endless Brutality, Ongoing Human Rights Violations in Chechnya]

In the heat of the crisis

_ *[ http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewdocument.php?download=1&doc_id=6093 IHF Report: The Silencing of Human Rights Defenders in Chechnya and Ingushetia]

- *[ http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=6087 Russian Federation: Joint NGO Statement on the Beslan Hostage Tragedy]

- *[ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/riyadus.htm FAS: Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM)]

-* [ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/iipb.htm FAS: Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)]

Signs of 'Realpolitik' on Chechnya developments

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/09/uk9329.htm HRW: ä U.K.: Postponing Rights Report Sends ‘Wrong Message’]

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/08/russia8415.htm HRW: Russia: Conditions in Chechnya and Ingushetia Deteriorate]

-*[ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/29/russia7248.htm HRW: Briefing to the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights]

-*[ http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/cau/cau_200409_253_1_eng.txt IPWR: Life After Beslan]

-*[ http://www.watchdog.cz/?show=000000-000004-000002-000016&lang=1 Prague Wacthdog: Is Beslan the result of Russian policies in the Caucasus?]

-*[ http://www.watchdog.cz/?show=000000-000004-000001-000120&lang=1 Prague Watchdog: Four Putinist years in Chechnya]

-*[ http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=caucasus Yahoo Chechnya page]

Violation of 3RR by User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl

Just for the record. --Gene s 15:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR by User:Gene s

Just for the record.--BIR 15:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

section Military impact of the Chechen resistance, October - June, 2004

This section is copied from separatist's web site. It presents unverified data as facts. It has nothing to do neutral point of view or even with factual accuracy. --Gene s 06:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. This comment above is seemingly your very personal opinion. In your own words, do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact in general? Further and so far, you've failed to credit your hypothesis. Just give some hard evidence, that is impartially and internationally monitored sources of information, or until then you're regarded as promoting merely some dim pro-Moscow aspects in this issue instead of such encyclopedic or even scientific ones not to speak about any neutralism.--BIR 08:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I claim that the section info was copied from a separatist web site, thus it is inherently POV. If you have another reputable source for this information, please list it. Otherwise it's nothing but propaganda. --Gene s 08:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the very same way, one may proclaim anything published, say, on the Interfax beeing just propaganda. Thanks again for a piece of advice of methods practised by you. The Chechenpress has always been taken seriously by those focused on the Chechen issue, nor anyone has argued that in Russia or internationally, whereas, every now and then, the fuss among the interested ones has been only about the credibility of the often contradictory Kavkazcenter, which has been even regarded occasionally as a site of the sophisticated undercover pro-Moscow disinformation against the Chechen resistance along these long years of the Chechen war.--BIR 09:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I claim you failed one more time in proving your point until you give the source of the kinds of the internationally and inpartially conducted reputable ones. So, until then you're quilty of POV yourself, and of propaganda, too. It's up to you to list now, so, please, just go ahead.--BIR 09:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV.

This is not about politics. This is about article content.

Do you deny that the numbers in the section were copied from a separatist web site? Do you have any other source of information which supports the numbers? Do you deny that the separatist web site is biased? What are you actually trying to say? Are you saying that the unverified numbers provided by one side of the conflict are the final truth?

Read WP:NPOV.

--Gene s 10:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite see why the info published on their official site were somewhat unaccurate just because of that "separatism". On the contrary, as everybody familiar with Russian manifestation knows, the numbers of losses in Russian troops won't have any political consequences in the Chechen favour, until the numbers rise, say, up to 1-5 millions of troops.

... losses in Russian troops won't have any political consequences ... until the numbers rise ... to 1-5 millions of troops. So, you are truly a rasist, right? In your opinion Russians are some sort of untermenschen, who don't grieve or suffer loss of the loved ones? Your hate for Russians impares your judgement. Otherwise I don't see how any intelligent person would say that. --Gene s 12:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this is very funny of you. In the beginning of the war, one ethinic Russia stated this. When the target is stone-set, namely the ChRI as a constituent part of Russia etc. stuff, then no price is too high. This is the way politicians and generals are used to think. Nor I like the untermensch attitude the Chechens are targetted in Russia recently.--BIR 13:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Are your saying that someone else made this racist statement and now it's OK for you to repeat it without thinking?

As for politicians, this discussion is about specific content of the article. This is NOT about global politics. It's about specific wiki article. --Gene s 13:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact is quite reliably, at least no repurable impartial one has denied it, that recently Russia keeps on loosing approximately 50-150 troops weekly in Chechnya, and not to speak about the past yet.--BIR 07:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If this is so, then provide a source for this information. What is your source? Just the separatist web site? Then say "According to unverified data from one side of the conflict, the losses of the other side amount to .... per week. According to the same source there are no losses on the separatist side". That would be fair, correct and impartial. Can you do that? --Gene s 09:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another fact is this hasn't made any affect on the Russian politics regarding Chechnya and therefore, most likely, this won't make either in the future until the losses amount over the news blockage by numbers or just unpredictibly mediawise.--BIR 07:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, that makes it OK for you to make racist statements? --Gene s 09:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These facts are just cool military and political and therefore encyclopedic ones, and they haven't anything to do with rasism - exept on the Russian side increasingly towards Chechnya - while turning the whole society gradually into totalitarism. After a period this will be encyclopedic, too. Don't worry. Just sit, be patient and wait - while doing noting.--BIR 07:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What facts? There is only one fact so far - that one side of the conflict publishes these numbers. That's the ONLY fact. There is NO evidence that these numbers are correct even remotely. Knowing you tendency to misrepresent facts, they are double suspect. For exaplme, you added a link to Alu Alkhanov interview claiming Russia's decision to send troops into separatist Chechnya ten years ago was a mistake (in Russian). That's a blatant lie. Alu Alkhanov did not say anything like that in the interview, not even anything which can be interpreted this way. --Gene s 09:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of all the philosophers, why the heck just this German one, Nietzsche, is this topically popular in Russia ? Untermensch...! Gimme a break ! I don't see sense why you mixed some wayward or wicked philosophy of your own in here if just not in order to mislead the people here while beeing in a defensive position yourself. --BIR 07:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

wayward or wicked philosophy of your own. And what that philosophy would be? You made a racist statement. You still continue to make racially colored statements. You continue to defend you racially-motivated position. That makes you a racist, no matter what you might believe.

Did you read WP:NPOV and WP:WIN? I bet you did not.

Did you read WP:NPOV and WP:WIN? I bet you did not. --Gene s 09:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I admire your tehcniques, but I've red Orwell's novel "In 1984", too, and know how the meanings of words can be turned 180 degrees "slavery is freedom etc.", now, in your way labeling a strict anti-chauvinist opinion as a rasist one. I've seen this happening before, too, but not quite on me, so I tend to regard that labeling everyone opposing the topical Russian chauvinism against the others, the dark, the Caucasians etc., this way is your standard method to shut up one's mouth.--BIR 09:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You made a statement to the extent that Russians won't do anything until a few million of them are killed. That's racism. Pure and simple. Since you defend this statement, you are a racist. I have nothing further to say. --Gene s 10:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. One more time no. This is just a militarily political fact of the nature of any war taken place on earth applied to this war, too. The war itself is the way to continue politics by other means, stated already by Carl von Clausewicz. Btw.,A German surname mixed with a Polish wicz/son.

Anyway, in a war the ratling parties always measure their goals and manifestation by human losses, and up to which extent they are ready to pay, in troops until they overwhelm one party's tolerance. This Russian war in Chechnya is no way different from that. But now, this is very special, Russia is purposely done to stand enormous losses by the information warfare, that is extensive blockage and filtration of military news, while the human rights abuses continue without interruption in order to break-up the resistance on the spot. The citizens' access to the onfield facts is prohibited, but anyway the rumours are spreading, so the majority conscipts try their best to avoid the military service, and finally only some 10% of the young men annually end at the army.--BIR 11:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read WP:NPOV and WP:WIN? --Gene s 12:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. It just looks to me that you don't have lived with different kinds of people of the world or unlikely been abroad from where you might reside now. So, you don't have a clue what you try to talk about.

To you, everyone criticising your dear Russia is just a rasist. Therefore I find these talks unproductive, say, quite boring. --BIR 06:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you honestly see no difference between criticism and racim? You are continuously making racial statements (like your dear Russia). Do you think your racism is cool in some way?

What can I think about you if Russia isn't dear to you ? --BIR 11:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what you think, but keep your racist remarks to yourself. And go read WP:NPOV and WP:WIN. --Gene s 12:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read WP:NPOV and WP:WIN? --Gene s 07:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Therefore you admitted my assumption and hereafter you're regarded as an anti-Russian person !! How on earth you dare to be such ?! Quite unpatriotic a viw from you indeed. In addition, I study Wiki, so I know unpatriotism isn't mentioned there as a deadly sin, so far I don't insist you a capital punishment but let you go free on condition that you behave youself. Despite, you're a good, say, transpatent introducing person of special thinkings.--BIR 13:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"admitted my assumption", "Quite unpatriotic a viw", "let you go free on condition that you behave youself". Do you yourself actually know what it was supposed to mean? I certainly don't understand a thing from your writing. It seems completly incoherent collection of words. You should really try hard to comprehend the WP:NPOV and WP:WIN. Once you grasp these two basic concepts, it will be a lot easier for you to contribute productively to wiki. --Gene s 14:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what you think, but keep your anti-Russian unpatriotic remark to yourself. Do you think it's cool someway? If you don't know what the anti-Russian unpatriotic viw means then how dare you not to keep Russia dear. And then go read [1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4168701.stm) and behave youself decently.--BIR 15:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About Alu's remarks on the 10th anniversary of beginning of the CW1 in which he clearly admitts that as an error: ...The authority of Dudayev until 1994 already fell so that in the case of renewed elections he would not become the President. I am confident of this. Therefore, I think, that the December military operation was error. Because of it Dudayev again proved to be the uniting figure for the Chechens...--BIR 15:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also this makes me to wonder how I hit someone's nerves to make you to lead me up to the endless subpaths. So,...about the credibility of the often contradictory Kavkazcenter, which has been even regarded occasionally as a site of the sophisticated undercover pro-Moscow disinformation against the Chechen resistance along these long years of the Chechen war...I wonder if it was just this why?--BIR 09:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read WP:NPOV and WP:WIN? --Gene s 10:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC).

So, it would be just in vain to "lie" there as long as the losses are just 100-150 troops per a week. Why to do that in their factual recent position? None in Washington, DC, or elsewere has disputed these numbers, nor the Russian military spokespeople seriously but just jokingly in a pretty clumsy way. In addition, outside Russia nobody wants to get involved in this issue, so I don't quite see your point in these small numbers which nobody really cares about whether they are true ot not.

Read WP:NPOV. This is about article content, about how you represnt numbers. The numbers are unquestionably biased. If instead of pasting a buch of links you wrote something like "according to ... casualties reach ..." that would be impartial covearge. Read WP:NPOV for more examples of how to present data in a neutral way. Why don't you write in in a manner consistent with Wiki policy of WP:NPOV? What is the problem with being neutral? --Gene s 12:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All I wanted to say that the ChRI resistance is very existent and it's still fighting for the Chechen freedom. It has made and still makes a military impact, too. All the news and other sources agree on that internationally as well as domestically in Russia. All you needed to do was that you did contribute by your own comparative numbers in this "military impact" section.

All I wanted to say that the ChRI resistance is very existent and it's still fighting for the Chechen freedom - then write it in an intelligent way. Don't poste a bunch of links, don't misrepresent facts, don't use loaded language. Try to be impartial. Don't be pro-separatist or pro-federalist. Be neutral. Did you read WP:NPOV? --Gene s 12:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't it but instead deleted the whole section in fear of a few small politically meaningless numbers, and therefore you just comfirmed from your point of view that they are true. Thanks.--BIR 11:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not true. YOU deleted the {{sectNPOV}}, thus claiming that he section was neutral. The section was horribly written (as a bunch of links) and represented numbers from one side of the conflict as truth. That's wrong. The sectNPOV was the least to offset it. --Gene s 12:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, in here you say something I agree with. Although the article was quite informative it has turned scattered along the process. Hereby I consider to re-write it. In the meantime the article should remain in situ as it was yesterday. So far, you haven't contributed any relevant sources one may benefit from. Almost all such soursces seem to be mine. Why?--BIR 13:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read WP:NPOV? Please answer yes or no. Also read WP:WIN. Make sure you follow these guidelines. --Gene s 13:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently researching/writing a paper on Chechnya and I noticed that as well - why is it still up at all? Also the previous section on the "non-existent" war appears ridiculously biased -- the author does a search including prominantly "Russian casualties, losses," and acts like its shocking evidence when the results are a bunch of links to Russian casualty/loss reports? When I finish this paper I may try to aid this entry with some of the facts I've come across --Kris F - 30 Nov 2004

The person who added the sections (User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl) is extremely stubborn. He starts a revert war when anyone touches his writing. Look at the edit history. He feels that anything but the blatant pro-separatist bias is a supression of his free speech. The article is relatively obscure thus there is not enough peer pressure to remove the propaganda. If you edit (or remove) the POV material, I will support you in case he reverts again. --Gene s 05:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. It's my own product based on the Chechenpress reviews of war, as everyone may see it oneself if just not a biased pro-Moscow policies operative, say, advocate--BIR 11:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nor anyone could say that, for example, the Jamestown foundation in Washington, DC, was somehow biased or, generally speaking, for the Chechen independence.--BIR 11:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

section How the existent war turned publicly non-existent

The section is currently not much more than a collection of external links. Thus, it violates the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Please rewrite the section in a meaningful way, so it actually represents a digest of linked articles instead of being a list of external links. Otherwise, the section should be removed because it does nto add much to the content of the article. --Gene s 10:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The section continues to be completely unclear. What is it supposed to represent? What is the purpose of this section. It seems to be some random text copied from somewhere and pasted here without a context.

Nop. Believe or not, it's my own product based on the given international independent and unbiased sources.--BIR 13:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The information warfare has been the kernel of war on the Russian side while the onfield operations turned into a stalemate resulting wide-scale abuses on the Chechen civilians.--BIR 13:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The section Prospects of warfare in the cricis [sic!] should be rewritten to remove all loaded language and dubious claims (like "usually reliable Chechen resistance news agency". "usually reliable"? By what standards? Who is the judge?) and should be actally incorporated with the rest of the article. Grammar and spelling need improvements as well. --Gene s 13:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could't provide evidence for your point. Give a valid reputable international and impartial URL to justify your extreme pro-Kremlin non-NPOV opinion against the Chechen resistance and its news agency. Try to remember there are two ratling parties in this issue, one aiming to keep Chechnya a Russian constituent part, and another aiming to make it independent. To be encyclopedic you must take both views into account.--BIR 13:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try one last time, although I am pretty sure it's futile.

"You could't provide evidence for your point" - which exactly point is that? Let's see. I said (a) the loaded language should be removed; (b) claims like "usually reliable" are dubious; (c) the section should be incorporated with the rest of the article; (d) your grammar and spelling need improvement. Now you are saying I need to prove some of these points. Please be specific. What kind of proof do you need?

"your extreme pro-Kremlin non-NPOV opinion against the Chechen resistance". Please give me a link to my edits in the article space that illustrate my "extreme pro-Kremlin opinion". Please be specific. Provide a link to the diff which you see as "extreme pro-Kremlin".

"Try to remember there are two ratling parties in this issue, one aiming to keep Chechnya a Russian constituent part". You actually try to remember that the "ratling parties" (whatever that means) do not have such disagreement. You may have an agenda to keep/not keep Chechnya in Russia. I only want to edit this article for clarity and NPOV. My disagreement is over the content of this article, not political issues. I don't like the fact that you pollute the articles with loaded language, dubious claims, huge number of external links, and odd writing.

--Gene s 09:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A ratling party is a standard expression in the Queen's English. I based my writings on the impartial international sources which contribution I quite didn't perfect yet. For one, you've skilfully curbed the facts that may harm one ratling party of the conflict by way of Wiki rules contradicting its original purposes beginning from the nature of the Dubrovka gas lately ending in labouring the copy rights procedures against the Wiki-publishing of the origins of the war, and not to speak about "separatism" which was enough to make another ratling party's official internet site unmerited. Until proven otherwise I regard your ways of editing biased and dubious. The fact that some 250-300 000 people (not such "insurgents" but civilians en masse) have got killed already on the spot doesn't quite indicate your do-not-have-such-disagreement claims.--BIR 15:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edited

I felt the need to edit a little bit because whoever recently edited this has some spelling problems. I'm not really an expert on the war so I didn't add any info but maybe one of you people could do it. Well......Bye!-Flyingcheese 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Oh yeah,do any of you know the proper way to spell Chechnya? Or is it Checna? Or Chechnia? I don't know could somebody tell me, PLEASE? Thanks!!!-Flyingcheese 18:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When in doubt, use google test:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechnya 2,290,000
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechnia 30,600
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Chechna 1,100

"Chechnya" wins --Gene s 05:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me.-Flyingcheese 10:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...........

Hey BIR you should take spelling lessons if you can't spell view (which you spelt as viw) and nope (which you spelt as nop). Yeeaahh, well anyway just wanted to tell you that.-Flyingcheese 10:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Also I need new spectacles because I seemingly hit wrong keys, too--BIR 11:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was sarcasm you know,right?-Flyingcheese 11:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

=)--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah,what are spectacles?-Flyingcheese 11:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Eyeglasses--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also that's missing keys altogether not just hitting different ones.-Flyingcheese 11:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) True--BIR 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good glad that's over.-Flyingcheese 12:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And here's another face: >_<-Flyingcheese 13:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet another possible copyright violation

BIR: Did you obtain a permission to copy contents of www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2003/tsets-5.htm ? Please provide evidence of obtaining such permission. --Gene s 12:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gene S: I don't quite think I "copied" this one of the sources up to the extent that it shoud be highlighted with the regards of copy rights at all. Rather, the items were taken from the variety of sources.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your version:

In July 1999 the Russian Interior Ministry troops suddenly violated the peace treaty with Chechnya, destroyed a Chechen border post, and on 29th July, captured a road section of 800 meters. Chechens replied by shooting in nights to Russian positions.

The original:

In July 1999, the storm clouds started to gather, as the Russian Interior Ministry troops suddenly violated the peace treaty with Chechnya, destroyed a Chechen border post, and on 29th July, captured a road section of 800 meters. Chechens replied by shooting in nights to Russian positions.

The work is clearly derived. Thus it is a copyright violation. By polluting wiki with copyrighted text your are breaking the law. Stop doing it. If you do it one more time I will report you for repeated copyright violation. This is the third of fourth time when you knowingly pollute wiki with copyrighted texts. --Gene s 13:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope. As everyone can see (in the original context) this fact proves that Russia first conducted an act of war, thus Basayev and others acted on their own but after 3 months of this mentioned act. Seemingly, this truth just makes you to worry here, not such as copy rights which you just laboured against the free delivery of Wiki info. Nor the quote of mine violates copy rights as everyone can see by oneself. The thuth is Russia started the war first. That's an undeniable encyclopedic fact.--BIR 13:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also I tend to keep on thinking that if I wrote facts freehand, you've asked reputable URLs, and if finally given such you'd just gainsaid by way of your own widened copy rights views. And then, if I wrote freehand and footnoted the facts quoted by reputable sources, you'd gainsaid by way of overprotracted Wiki practices of your own. Just perfect.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hereafter, this is for the records, I regard the measures above as the evidence of purposeful censorship in order to side with one overwhelming ratling party of this terrible conflict, if just not intentional vandalism against the original sanctified Wiki intentions.--BIR 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is seriously lacking in NPOV, reads more like a mish-mash of both sides propoganda. The First Chechen War shows a content/style/structure if not perfect then certainly more preffered. It should focus more on facts not on `he said, she said`, and when areas on dispute arise (such as Basayev`s role in the rebel movement) a more balanced approach is needed. This conflict still runs today and many of the issues and facts are sill up in the air.--Mazzarin 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BBC viewpoints

Here are some prominent interviews of the people who are either observers or involved in the crisis [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4082431.stm)--BIR 08:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non copyvio rewrite

There is a rewrite of this article from scratch at Second Chechen War/Temp; hopefully it alleviates some of the NPOV concerns, as well.

Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed copyvio material

Hi,

I've reverted the copyvio addition, and I'm in the process of merging in the fresh content from the temp article page. Hopefully this should address some of the NPOV concerns and help to remove the ugly profusion boxes on the page.

See also the talk page of the temporary article for further discussion (though further comment on the development of this article should be made here).

--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Influence on Russian politics

I've drafted a beginning of a description of the effects of the Second Chechen War on Russian politics, but I'm definitely not an expert on the topic. Factual, neutral contributions are welcome; speculation should be sharply limited, however. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Second_Chechen_War"