Talk:Battle for Height 776

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

seven rank-and-file soldiers survived the battle[edit]

I delete sentence about seven survived, because I did not find information about 7th soldier, also in the links that are attached to this statement. All sources confirm only 6 survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.130.41.97 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the titles of the miniseries and the musical?[edit]

I don't remember now.

Miniseries were called “Chest imeyu” (Russian: Честь имею, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405831/), sorry, can’t translate that. Musical was called “Voiny Dukha” (Russian: Воины духа), it can be translated as “The Warriors of Spirit” or “The Warriors of Courage”. Also there was the movie “Grozovye vorota” (The Storm Gate, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0902981/) about the Hill 776 battle. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other units?[edit]

"The losses of the other Russian units operating in area were never disclosed." Did any other Russian unit fought on Hill 776 or nearby? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three battalions of paratroopers and several special forces detachments, supported by a battalion of artillery. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Did these battalions and special forces detachements had any losses in the battle of Hill 776 (or it isn't known)? And what are the unit numbers of these three battalions? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it was heavy fighting. Read [1] - it's the Russian version taken at the face value, and it shouldn't be to just recall these official lies about the Russian losses (Troshev, Shpak, Yastrzhembsky, everyone shamelessly lied only 31 Russians died until the truth about it came out) and also things like this and so on. --HanzoHattori 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, including on this hill. Some words of explaination: I chose to limit Russian strenght to just 90 of the doomed company to not complicate things needlessly (and to not guess, too). Also, the things known for sure are extremally scarce - either Shpak or Troshev even claimed there was not air support (because of bad weather), and it may or may be not his another lie... you know. And so on. Russian official (Red Star) number of Chechen losses is 400 killed, but a guy claims he counted 200 "on the hill 776 alone". It wasn't just a single company vs the Chechens on one hill - but in this article, it is... mostly, others are briefly mentioned (outside of the infobox). OK now? --HanzoHattori 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we can skip the "strenght" altogether, and just say "at least 84" (these known for sure now, even if just one of the units engaged) and "at least 25" (confirmed for the area) killed, respectively. Talking about the infobox, of course. --HanzoHattori 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did this way. --HanzoHattori 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I think it's much better now. --HanzoHattori 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heavy editing of the Russian version?[edit]

Quote "And yes, including on this hill. Some words of explaination: I chose to limit Russian strenght to just 90 of the doomed company to not complicate things needlessly (and to not guess, too). Also, the things known for sure are extremally scarce - either Shpak or Troshev even claimed there was not air support (because of bad weather), and it may or may be not his another lie... you know. And so on. Russian official (Red Star) number of Chechen losses is 400 killed, but a guy claims he counted 200 "on the hill 776 alone". It wasn't just a single company vs the Chechens on one hill - but in this article, it is... mostly, others are briefly mentioned (outside of the infobox). OK now?" Still you disregard basic information that is available from the article, that Chechen strength was at least or around 10 times the Russian VDV force on the hill, as well as the number of the supposed Chechen's dead. I checked this article about three months ago and it was far more informative then it is now. What happened to this article? One good source is the article written by two us army reservists, yet a majority of the information they provide there does not seem to be used in here at all. Because now all you have is 86 of vdv troops were massacred by Chechens, with the number of chechen dead number to about 400. Also what happened to the section about strength numbers. Also why is this [2]even a source? Obviously some online pro chechen rebel site has to be a credible source when it ends its news story with the following "Russian propaganda, trying to distort the real events, continues to tell fables about “the hordes of Mujahideen and a small group of Russian soldiers”. Telling these tall stories, these penny-a-liners are trying to make of the true and faithful Pskov commandos the allies of their good-for-nothing generals, whom the same commandos abused left and right during the battle of Ulus-Kert. The participants of the battle in the environs of Ulus-Kert remember that they could hear on the portable radio transmitter how the Pskov commandos cursed their general, calling them rats and prostitutes.These rats and prostitutes every year organize shows of next propagandistic anniversary of their disgrace, having covered themselves with the deaths of the soldiers devoted to them. "

BTW the pictures on the site of the purported dead Russian vdv paratroopers are so grainy that anyone versed in military matters wouldn't hesitate to call them suspicious. There is no evidence of russian insignias or ranks present on the uniforms on the bodies. Whoever butchered this article on hill 776, way to go. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tebepizdetssuka (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russians provide various numbers: (numbers AFAIR) 400 (Red Star article), 500, 700, or even more killed Chechens (I do not keep an exact track, you know) - and here even someone wrote 300. Same with the supposed Chechen strenght: 500 (Yastrzhembsky during the battle), 800, 1,000, 1,500, 2,500 and so on (Chechens say 90 were engaged aginst the company, and 12 died). They are unreliable because there are manym and remember the really, really shameless lies on the number of dead Russians in the destroyed company, before the thruth came out itself. And the same thing kept happening ever since the start of the first war, for example there are only 110 names on the official memorial to the Maikop Brigade (to cite from the NYT: Almost every soldier can name someone who died who does not appear on the official list. Survivors of the 131st Maikop Brigade said that over 1000 men died in Grozny. In Maikop, the capital of Adygeya, the North Caucasian town where the Brigade is based, one of the tanks destroyed on New Year's Eve stands on a plinth. Repainted but still bearing the hole from a grenade hit, it dominates a memorial to those who died. Lists of the fallen are carved on six black granite slabs. They hear just 110 names.). It goes to the point when they completely invented the "Chechen ambush" (completely with a detailed account, including how "the bandits managed to escape because they mined they escape routes") in order to hide the deadly attack on one OMON unit on another, and this was also in March 2000. And again, there isn't even a ONE really official version from the Russian perspective, or at least I'm not aware of such one. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, we would, for example, believe Yastrzhembsky, and say 500 Chechens attacked, believe someone else and say 1,000 of them died (as someone wrote here), making them all die twice, and then this geroy Shpak and say 12 Russians died. (Let's see: Col. Gen. Georgy Shpak, the Russian paratroops commander, said Saturday that 12 of his troops and hundreds of rebels had been killed in recent days around the gorge. "We're seeing the heaviest fighting ... and several losses," he told Russia's RTR television. But he denied reports that 70 paratroopers had been killed in the past two days. Federal troops were suffering losses in a battle with some 500 militants near the village of Selmentauzen, halfway between the Argun and Vedeno gorges, according to the office of the top presidential aide on Chechnya, Sergei Yastrzhembsky. The office refused Saturday to provide numbers of casualties.[3] Back then, cautiously, At least 50 Russian servicemen were killed in the area during the past week, the Interfax news agency quoted unidentified military sources as saying Saturday. - and even this was denied by geroy Shpak... also known as a "rat and prostitute", to cite Tebepizdetssuka now, and then only proceeded to "update" his 12 to 31 (lies, lies, lies). In the same article, there's also on the glorious OMON-OMON battle, how it was shown back then - as the "well-organized" Chechen attack, and also some major spin at "freeing" of the hostages who were free already for a quite some time - it was only evactuation from the war zone.) We can. But I won't. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe the final official number is 84, not 86. --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we will probably never exactly know, the rule of thumb to estimate inflated casualtynr's is put a whole zero, it depends the pr intents or pr ratio in what way the zero flexibility will be applied. Not uncommonly 1 zero doesnt suffice. You may wonder strongly why the russian army would bother so much over 84 deads, when in fact several 1000's of russians died. then you will think a higher nr of russians died there. you may notice the russians first put the number of casualtys with the chechens lower, then you know they probably been hit harder then that. I find Russian (+sovjet) numbers are slightly more reliable then nato(+terror war) ones, appear so quite a lot even, but you can still not be sure if they don't exagerate or underestimate with a factor of like 3,4 and i would guess incidentally much more. In fact if you scale up this one incident you might want to scale up quite a lot of others. I would say 84 is still on the very optimist side, and to connect 400 chechen dead to the hill would be a slight exageration. It could all be quite different, 200-300 russians dead, 200-300 chechens?,84-500? who knows, yet article makes me wonder how many chechens got killed in that war, and by what artillery, for example near this hill. That calculation doesnt even bode as ill. 860 at most for the whole rooted gorki? 24.132.170.97 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you LIE to people? Why should I beleive Kavkaz-Center or U.S. Generals' meanings about that battle when i have 6 survivours who tell me what they have seen and done? They tell about 1600-2000 "rebels" where fighting against them and Russian forces killed at least 350 of them (350 where definitively found!!!) but maybe the "rebels" took some of their death people with them. So i don't care your lies and "refers" on Independat, Kavkaz-Center and Russian embassy in Thailand and so on! It is not possible that 70 "rebels" kill 84 soldiers - equiped with at least two BMD, heavy MGs and Artillery support, sitting on the hill - losing by that "only" 12 fighters! The Russian numbers are much more closer to the truth!

alright[edit]

Alright, there is some valid points there, but that still does not really answer anything. I am just saying that to have something in the wiki page on this is better then anything. For example to mention whether or not the 6th vdv company was getting the air or artillery support it needed or requested. I mean despite that supposedly the quality and training of Russian forces have went down overall the top elite units are still have high standards of training and they are not supplied that shabbily either. VDV being more or less the equivalent of us army rangers it is hard to imagine them just being slaughtered like babies, and the pro Chechen guerrilla site does not have any tangible proof to offer that it only took 70 of their Mujahideen to wipe out the vdv company, or that the company was 200 man strong. I'll be back later, the official Russian version as presented in the by the 2 army reservists didn't really make much sense either. BTW did you ever hear of incidents where Russian units purposely engaged each other to fight over supply dumps and ammo in Chechnya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tebepizdetssuka (talk • contribs) 08:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They actually said it was 100-strong ("Pskov commandos"), the others were others. And no, but I heard about clashes over illegal oil production and transportation (between pro-Russian Chechen formations too, like here) and the OMON-OMON fighting too was presented by some survivors as a hit job on their commander (who was killed). The latter is releated to our article's subject, as both "took place three weeks before the presidential elections in Russia, and the authorities were therefore loth to allow any bad news from Chechnya to hit the headlines. (...) With only three weeks before the presidential elections, the public had become accustomed to news reports claiming successive victories in the military campaign against the Chechen separatists."[4] Also, the Russian paratroopers are just paratroopers. There are whole divisions of them, and actually VDV are a kind of a separate service to the Army (alike the US Marines). --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you'd like to check out the performance of the REALLY elite Russian troops (Alpha, SOBR - no, the OMON are not elite), supported without limitations by heavy firepower, check out Kizlyar-Pervomayskoye hostage crisis (which is, yes, "my article" - but with a plenty of independent sources and neutral eyewitnesses, as you see). By the way notice the fantasy story about the "destroyed Chechen convoy" (supposedly 150 killed[5]), later completely abandoned in favor of 150 killed in the whole incident. Stuff like this is usual in the official Russian reporting. Also look at the scale (hundreds of Chechens, thousands of Russians, thousands of hostages, several days of the most intense attacks and counter-attacks) and casualties (maybe about 200 or so killed total). --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Pervomayskoye, the best Russian troops were used in stupidiest way possible (pretty typical feature of the whole First Chechen war), like ordinary infantry. 15 January assault (yeah, not "for the next three days", there was just one assault) was like First World war - you know, infantry attack in the open field with several BMPs and helicopter support (no artillery, no aviation, no Tu-160s, no nuclear bombs, believe it or not) - is it the way Special Forces meant to be deployed? Do you remember Mogadishu, October 3-4, 1993, or Iran, April 25, 1980? How many superb SEALs died after just one lucky RPG shot on June 28, 2005? And hey, what is heavy firepower - what number of artillery pieces/bombers was used, could you please give any figures except three GRAD launchers and several Su-25 sorties (one GRAD rocket per minute sounds like a hell of fire support)? By the way, the whole Pervomayskoye affair reminded me of Ap Bac '63, this comparison appeared in my mind right now. Sorry, I know it have to be discussed on different talk page, but you mentioned it here.
Talking about 6th Company, no, they hadn't any air support, and yes, they had heavy arty support (1200 shells on Feb 29 - Mar 1). 195.248.189.182 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chest imeyu[edit]

It has no English title whatsoever? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyedit"[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hill_776&diff=229766990&oldid=227629136

Awesome. "Copyedit" is the new for "reverting all my edits". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was misleading edit summary.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last revert[edit]

Why last version has been reverted? It described the event in more detail (it was 20% bigger). It is also more neutral as it avoids charged terms like Pyrrhic victory (present in older version). Restored. Please correct last version (if there are any specific problems) instead of blind reverts.Biophys (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been confirmed that RamboKadyrov is a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori, Captain Obvious, etc. Any edits made by these editors can be safely reverted under policy. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under the policy, one must ask a checkuser to make sure that this user was a sockpuppet. There was a content question. But instead of explaining the edit, a user (who acted in a good faith) was simply blocked, without even consulting with checkuser.Biophys (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our goal is to improve content of articles. You must explain why his improvements of content are bad. For example, you now insert wrong figures of casualties. Did you read sources at all?Biophys (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Seeing as Biophys has taken it upon himself to re-include edits of a pain in the arse banned sockpuppet, the POV is now in question. For example, the edits made to figures in the infobox are sourced to a Chechen terrorist website. We have already ascertained that they are not a reliable source except with attribution...and at the same time the POS ban-evading sockpuppet has also totally thrown out all Russian information. So long as only the terrorist POV is allowed to be put forward, at the insistence of numerous editors, there is no NPOV in this article. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am here to put forward the Russian POV, albeit in an NPOV way, what is it with others who don't even pretend to abide by these policies? --Russavia Dialogue 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are several sources about this in the article, one of them The Independent: [6]. Biophys (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There is no such thing as "Russian POV". There is only your or my personal POV.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just where are the Russian claims in the infobox? They have been erased by the POV-pushing sockpuppet and was reinstated by yourself. As I clearly said in one of my revision, as they are edits by a sockpuppet, we all need to go thru them to see that the banned user isn't able to have any control or say over this or any other article. They are gone (with good riddance) and have no say in such things. But that suggestion was outright ignored. --Russavia Dialogue 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about the numbers of Russian dead, but the number of Chechen's killed. Only the Chechen terrorist website source is presented here, when it is obvious from the article that these numbers are totally disputed by all sides. What you have presented above has nothing to do with the issue. --Russavia Dialogue 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Chechen side they killed 200+ Russian soldiers, but we provide Russian side estimate (84). It is common practice to provide military losses by each side X that have been officially admitted by the side X. Everyone boasts about killing lots of enemies.Biophys (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely disgusting external link being reinserted into article[edit]

In this edit I have removed two links; the one to Youtube because it is a copyvio. The second because as per WP:EL it adds nothing to the article, except for 10 gratuitous photos of dead Russian soldiers. The link is http://old.kavkazcenter.com/eng/photo/ulus-kert/. (with the warning that it shows dead bodies in all ten photos). In the next edit, Biophys re-inserted the Kavkaz link, but leaves out the Youtube link, but has edit summary of "let's keep sources by all sides". After removing it, he has reinstated the link with the edit summary of "this is relevant and neutral link - it only shows images provided by one of the sides in the conflict. Please ask at WP:RS if you have concerns." Biophys has been around long enough to differentiate between a sources and external links, in which case I can only hope that it is simply confusion on the part of himself, but the link is by no means neutral, as he admits himself with it only shows images provided by one of the sides in the conflict, but most importantly, it adds nothing to gaining further information which can't be sourced within the article itself. It is not being used as a source, it wouldn't even qualify as a source, and the inclusion of a link with nothing but disgusting and gratuitous photos is not within what we as a project are supposed to stand for. I am not going to revert the inclusion of this link again, but will leave this open to comment from other users. --Russavia Dialogue 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disgusting and gratuitous" are far from objective terms; I agree the copyviolation should be removed, but photos of war-dead are included in many articles about - for example, Japanese battles in World War II. The Kavkaz link is ill-named, so I've renamed it to remove some of the "Russian invaders" nonsense - but it deserves to stay and meets the requirements of WP:EL. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article[edit]

This article appears to be erroneously named. The only source which I have found which gives this battle a name it is called Battle of Height 776.0. Is there any reason this is called Battle of Hill 776? --Russavia Dialogue 07:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I fixed this edit.Biophys (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, your fix seems to be misquoting the soure. The articles mentioned, source 3 and 4, state that 70 and 75 chechen fighters were involved in the battle. Where does the 700-750 number come from? I advice to either: 1.Change the number of rebel fighters to the ones mentioned in the source and add smth like claimed by Chechen Side, or 2. Remove those sources (3,4) from the numbers Юсуф (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man, but that was my edit. I actually fixed the number to 70-75 per source. You are welcome to improve this and other articles.Biophys (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, my apologies)) I got totally confused by the editing system (i know it aint that complex xD). Anyways, sorry again, and keep up the good work!)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Юсуф (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal[edit]

I have corrected another misquote in the article. The original misquote of the Kavkaz-centre article claimed, that the rebels were executed for betrayal, while the Kavkaz-center artcile clearly states, that the rebels in question were executed as the result of betrayal, after the were turned in to russian forces by a traitor. Юсуф (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again, there was a strange game with numbers here. Fixed.Biophys (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image On The Front[edit]

The picture on the front, as well as the rest of the set from the kavkazcenter.com (link at the end of this page), does not relate to the “Battle for Height 776.0”(29.02-03.03.2000) events. All the images were taken from the “Ambush at Vedeno” (17.11.1999) video tape, which was aired on major Russian TV channels back in December 1999. The record shows bodies of the 31st Airborn Separate Brigade paratroopers. It was a reconnaissance patrol consisting of 14 men, of which 12 were KIA, 2 were taken prisoners and released later on. Dead soldiers were identified as Roman Igoshin , Andrej Fladung, Dmitrij Baluho, Andrej Novgorodskij, Sergej Borisov, Viktor Kiselev, Aleksej Kovalenko, Artem Veselev, Aleksej Visjachkin, Andrej Kotel'nikov, Andrej Popov, Andrej Chernjaev. Please do not post inappropriate images and links unless you can prove relation to the original events. Babalooma (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"1,600", or a HUGE misunderstanding[edit]

This was for the entire retreat/breakthrough - you know, on the other side there were many THOUSANDS of Russians trying to surround them (paratroopers and others), but all of those 1,600 fighters were NOT assaulting the height (and btw, besides this company there were also other Russians involved in this particular fight - artillerymen for example - but never mind now), but rather getting out (while transporting weapons, ammunition, their wounded, etc) out of the encirclement - and many others also fought as the rear guard, in diversionary attacks, in their own blocking positions (like some road and a Russian armoured column), in the fighting elsewhere in the nearby mountains, and so on (at the very same time). And the cited sources VERY CLEARLY say only a few dozen fighters were involved in this fight ("Battle for Height 776"), of which 12 died, so claiming they said otherwise is simply a lie.

It's like to say that (for example) some small isolated Allied force at a blocking position at the Falaise pocket fought alone against exactly all of up to 100,000 German soldiers leaving Normandy. Really, that would be really just as stupid as this, come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.160.239.145 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting article !!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

No honor the the fallen airborn soldiers.... Kavkaz Center - terrorist sources unbelievable... And the strengh .. that's absurd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.74.57 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist Source ![edit]

Why some "writers" are posting sources from AlQaeda sponsored homepages like KavkazCenter ? This is one of the most unreliable source of the world. Holy shit that are terrorists!

If you look at the www.kavkazcenter.com homepage you can see in the header some of the most cruel terrorists of the world! The whole world is looking for them and we provide sources of them.

This is awful!

There are a lot of sources also from the USA which can provide highly reliable information.--Saiga12 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. A source of rebels is OK as a source about the rebels. All Russian losses are according to Russian sources.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should we post terroristic propaganda sources also in Articles about Astan ?! --Saiga 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic Bias[edit]

The casualties are pathetically toned down for the Chechens. Yet another sadly lacking Western article about Chechnya. Keep it up, morons. -Shamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.166.150 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive deletions[edit]

Please stop your massive deletion of text you do not like [8]. It is fully sourced not only to Kavkaz Center but also to many other publications. This is not the way to prove your point.Biophys (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are flooding a lot of articles in wikipedia with your terroritic propaganda!
And you are editing the page withing 24hours several times ! --Saiga 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
And so does BBC: like here?Biophys (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post sources of terrorists[edit]

Or should we start to post the casualties of the Talibian, claimed by them in Astan? No we don't do this. Cause your terroristic web-space is claiming a lot of s***. Do not provide anymore terroristic propaganda on wikipedia! Or should we start to post the things like this: "Mujahideen released a summary of military operations..." This claims are just ridiculous! And why you delete my contribute to your talk page [9] ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me who initially included this reference to Kavkaz Center. But I checked it and found fully consistent with our policies. It is common practice to indicate the losses as claimed by the respective combatants in the war/battle boxes. For example, the losses by Russian side are indicated as claimed by Russian side. But the same applies to any other side of the conflict. Kavkaz Center was an official site of the Chechen side during the wars.
Now about your edit in this article. I am sorry, but this is forgery. You refer to a source (whatever it is) and give numbers that the source claim to be wrong. This is something indeed inconsistent with out policies.Biophys (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That are terrorists do not mix Chechen's with terrorists, you are not objective and trying all the time to provide your extremism in wikipedia articles.
You are editing my contributes to our page, providing all the time false information, Kavkaz Center was never something official Chechnya was occupied by terroristic forces
like Astan by the Taliban! And you should stop with your terroristic propagand!
Maybe we could meet us in Moscow and talk about our different angles of view about editing wikipedia articles and other things. Mhh maybe i saw your nick some where else ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have only two official sites to my best knowledge, Kavkaz Center, and Chechenpress. Both sites are recognized as such and frequently quoted by mainstream news outlets, such as BBC. Biophys (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Official site of whom? Of the Terrorist? If it is so what is the "Official" site of AlQaeda? --Saiga 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Those are de facto sites of remaining representatives of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria that was effectively recognized by Russia in Khasavyurt Accord. Biophys (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mujahideen released a summary of military operations against Anglo-American invaders and Karzai puppets in Helmand for Saturday, February 13. According to these data, more than 50 US invaders have been killed or injured and 16 US have been tanks destroyed on Saturday in separate incidents in Marjah, Garmsir, Nad Ali and Now Zad districts of the Helmand province. Kavkaz Center

That's also true right ? My supporter of Terrorists ?
And why do you edit my contributes to this page ?!?!?!? --Saiga 12:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This posting is irrelevant to the subject of this article. This article has nothing to do with US or Karzai.Biophys (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course terrorist supporter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made massive removal of text sourced to a lot of publications other than kavkaz.org: [10]. Why? Biophys (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The manner how it was written! The one who wrote that, tried to humiliate the Russian's in the article. It was not objective enough.

--Saiga 23:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, "I do not like it". That's not an argument. You can not just remove from the articles whatever you do not like, although this is factually correct and well sourced.Biophys (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol article[edit]

I just have a simple questions, did anyone ever seen more than 70 Chechen fighters assaulting any target at once? Its basically disadvantage for them. In reality there was 2000 Chechens passing the place and they sent first 20 than 40 more Chechens to prevent any ambushes. The airborne soldiers started fire, after 2 hours they all were killed by snipers.. And event was under command Hattab,shahid inshallah not Walid. Nakh 05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. But we do not need any OR here. This incident was widely publicized in a huge number of sources. I suggest to return to the most complete version, but simply indicate: ...people per Checehn sources and ... people per Russian sources in the box. That would be fair.Biophys (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nakh, could you, please, provide any references to your information, may be to any newspaper in Chechen? The problem is that only information that's referenced to published sources can be used. ellol (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on! Any Chechen source is terrorist, or islamist source to you. And without them we have left only Russian mass media which roughly lying.(For excample Ryazan Scandal, with house bombing.) By the way, due to consorship of Caucasus Center site in russia I can even find that little information.. Nakh 04:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

I have undone the last edit by Saiga, as it was a completely rewritten article without consensus on the talk page. To avoid edit wars over casualties and strength of the chechen forces, I have replaced them with "uncertain", until a consensus is reached.

According to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES, "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research." I think Kavkaz Center should be avoided as a source. It is nether secondary, high quality or neutral. Sources like U.S. Army Combined Arms Center on the other hand should be encouraged.D2306 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree to include any numbers published by U.S. Army Combined Arms Center or mentioned in books by any reputable authors. Using numbers as claimed by the both sides (say, xx per Chechen side and yy per Russian side) is also fine. The number of Russian forces and losses by Russian side (as claimed by Russian side) are highly reliable and can be immediately included. Numbers of Checehn forces and losses are a matter of dispute. They are very different per different publications in Russian press, for example.Biophys (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.profcartoon.com/pictures/icons/bobja01.pdf[edit]

Casaulties and the legendary so called "Federal claims"[edit]

Where are the 400-600 dead Chechen corpses ? Where is a single source that would prove those obviously overexaggarated numbers ? The Russian government ? Like they did with the Chechnya war estimates countering the figure given by Soldier's Mothers 1-5 ? Please provide adequate sources and figures, otherwise delete. There is no place of Russian nationalism and propaganda in an online lexica. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we had the same discussion on german-wp: 100-200 killed rebels were claimed initially by russian officers, the number later rose to about 400 in the russian press (500 in a few cases). Since russian reports indicate the recovery of dead bodies during the two days after the battle, an exact number can not be given. The separatists admitted only 25 losses, but their website "kavkazcenter" has been put on the blacklist [11] by user:Saiga12 on 1st march, and should therefore not be used as source any more.Alexpl (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle for Height 776. 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 19:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle for Height 776. 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 17:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle for Height 776. 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) 12:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle for Height 776. 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) 10:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_for_Height_776&oldid=1199620810"