Talk:Durdzuks

WP:BOMBARD; WP:OR
Dear colleagues, the primary sources do not specify the nature and origins of the Durdzuks but the article sees frequent WP:BOMBARD; WP:OR what should be avoided. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 13:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Identity of Durdzuks
,, please discuss whether to include the disputed content here rather than edit warring. If you continue I'll request blocking the page. Alaexis¿question? 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Controversial points have already been discussed with one user, and we came to a common decision. User "benjamin" rolls back authoritative sources. Niyskho (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There’s no need to discuss with Niyskho as he’s a fake “Ingush” propagandist who’s trying to divide Chechen and Ingush people and interpret history in his own way. Chechens and Ingush always had the same history and always will be brotherly nations no matter what you do or say. Chechens and Ingush were the same nation until modern times. You can quote your “authoritative” sources but we both know these sources aren’t reliable and probably were written by imperialists who wanted to cause division between us. Ingush are very good people and will always be brothers to us Chechens. Franklin Benjamin 123 (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Бекханов
Blaze Wolf and Liz Please do something about Бекханов. Бекханов has only recently joined and instantly went on to vandalize the page which is very suspicious to me since it might be that he had other accounts where he did same thing. He wrote his own text without any source. He clearly has an agenda against Ingush people because he wrote "the Ingush and Batsbi, who have nothing to do with the Dzurdzuks". Not only that but he edited the Russian page about Durdzuks and wrote same thing. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to your comment but may I ask you something about the sentence "Some researchers localize the Durdzuks in the mountainous Ingushetia". I'm sure there are researchers that localize the Durdzuks only in Chechnya as well. Phrasing it like that is completely unnecessary when the major source about the Durdzuks mentions how the Gligvi split off from the Durdzuks, indicating that the Gligvi were part of the Durdzuks and then became independent. I support phrasing it like I did here. What do you think about that? Reiner Gavriel (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you name those major sources please? I don't support phrasing it like that. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Vakhushti Bagrationi mentions in his work "Geography of Georgia" from 1745 that the Gligvi split off from the Durdzuks and reside in the village of Angushti. This is one of the earliest mentions of the Gligvi, possibly the earliest. The sentence "Some researchers localize the Durdzuks in the mountainous Ingushetia" is simply wrong and appears to me like an attempt to exclude Chechens, despite the majority of sources (and in my opinion the stronger ones too) portray the opposite of what is being implied here. I find the statement simply absurd, given the actual narrative of the sources. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with Reiner Gavriel version, there’s no doubt that Durdzuks were ancestors of both Chechens and Ingush peoples, so I don’t understand what’s the point of this localisation and saying that Durdzuks are only associated with Ingush people and not Chechens. Even in the source that mentions this says that it’s a very weak opinion. Franklin Benjamin 123 (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Well if so then why not remove this text too: "others believe that during the Middle Ages the population of Chechnya was known to the South Caucasian peoples under the name "Durdzuks" (or "Dzurdzuks"), and the population of Ingushetia under the names "Gligvi", "giligii"? It also looks to me like an attempt to exclude the Ingush people. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You are leaving out the first part of the sentence "in which most researchers identify the Durdzuks as the ancestors of modern Chechens and Ingush". It is clarified that the Durdzuks were the ancestors of both, Chechens and Ingush up to a certain point were the Gligvi split off from the Durdzuks. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Reiner Gavriel by the way do you know that Vakhushti Bagrationi excludes the Chechens completely? He wrote Chachans (Chechens) separate from the Durdzuketia. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That is wrong. He doesn't exclude Chechens, but doesn't use the term Chechnya for all of the territory due to it being simply a city in the Sunzha region at that time and was mainly applied for the lowerland. It wasn't until the 19th century until this exonym was used for all Chechens (including highlanders and many times even for Ingush). Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what city in the Sunzhensky district are we talking about? The ethnonym "Chechen" appeared from the village "Chechen-Aul" which was located a hundred kilometers from Sunzha on the border with Dagestan. Your theory that the Gligvs descended from the Dzurdzuks is unreliable, because if we refer to the same maps and records from Vakhushti Bagrationi, we will see that he considered the Gligvs, the Dzurdzuks to be one people, and the Chechens to be completely different, and Vakhushti is the most reliable source, since he is Georgian .Erzi Tower (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about the Sunzhensky district, I am talking about the Sunzha river. Georgian ambassadors who visited the area in 1665 mention the city of Chechen there, far away from the border with Dagestan. Vakhushti himself said that the Gligvi descend from the Durdzuks, placing the latter west of the the Aragvi river which means it's Western Chechnya. So if the Gligvi (Ghalghai) are only Glivgi then who are the Durdzuks? They are obviously West Chechens. Vakhushti is ont the only authority, he didn't visit Chechnya and didn't describe it in detail. He also talked about the Tsova people (Bats) and didn't include them among the Durdzuks. Does that mean they are not related to the Chechens and Ingush? No, it doesn't mean that. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem article
Blaze Wolf and Liz, please pay attention to this problematic article, there is a vandal who vandalizes and rolls back the neutral version of this article, he destroys authoritative sources and refers only to some theories. Ingush Orsthoy (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with me? I'm not admin. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Evidence (Sources) needed for statement "In the 16th century the Gligvi split off from the Durdzuks, starting the formation of the modern Ingush people".
@Reiner Gavriel I am awaiting proof for this statement. Please provide source material with page numbers. Muqale (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Vakhushti Bagrationi describes in his work "Geography of Georgia" the people in the North of the Georgian border, saying following: "All these the gorges that we have described were originally Dzurdzuketia". Hereby he refers to the gorges he mentioned right before: Gligva, Kisteti and Dzurdzuki. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And at what point does he say the "Gligvi split off from the Durdzuks in the 16th century", which made you decide to claim that this was the beginning of the formation of the modern Ingush people? Muqale (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what it means when one people split off from another people under a new name. The Gligvi, which were part of Dzurdzuketia, are not the Ingush to the same extent as they exist today. Gligvi/Ghalghaj referred to the Ghalghaj territory with Targim, Egikhal and Khamkhi as the settlements in the center. These families/clans were responsible for spreading out the name to the Nakh people surrounding them. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You've now changed your statement to "the Georgian noble geographer Vakhushti of Kartli, mentions in the 18th century that the  "Gligvi" , which is the Georgian ethnonym corresponding to the selfname of the Ingush people today, Ghalghaj, deriving from a territory in the Dzheirakhsky district of Ingushetia,  split off from the "Durdzuks" ." Are you making it up as you go along? Where does Vakhushti specificially say that it was the "Gligvi that split off from the Dzurdzuks" ? This is a deviation from the truth and implies something else. And then you follow up with tha the claim that  "the rest of the Dzurdzuks are still known today as Chechens" . Which again, is an attempt to exclude the Ingush . You also ignore the fact that Vakhushti places the Gligvi to the east of Durdzuks, which implies that it refers to territory further away from present-day Chechnya.
 * Vakhushti's exact quote was " Durdzuketi was divided in: Kisti, Durdzuki and Gligvi " - and eventually states - "all these previously mentioned  still make up (the country) Dzurdzuketi. ". So what you are doing is changing the source material to make it seem that the Ingush are only the Gligvi who for some weird reason splitt of from the rest of the tribes which Vakhushti locates mostly in mountainous Ingushetia, since the author does not mention any river or mountain or village in his description that corresponds with those in Chechnya. Do explain your logic, if it is not vandalism. Muqale (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Vakhushti clearly says "All these the gorges that we have described were originally Dzurdzuketia". Which gorges were described prior? Kisteti, Dzurdzuki and Gligvi. He also says "the name of Gligo (Ghligho), the grandson of Dzurdzuk". Nowhere does Vakhushti locate the tribes mostly in mountainous Ingushetia. Although his description is quite bad, he is precise about the Gligvi, not only does he locate them on the "Gligva river" and the village on this river, Angushti, he is also familiar with some of their customs and rules. He is aware about such information on the Gligvi, yet he differentiates them with Dzurdzuki and Kisteti. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Distorting original statements made by the author in source material seems to be a habit of yours, on Ingush related articles especially. The book where the Georgraphy of Durdzuketi is descpribed in is M. Dzhanashvili's "Известия грузинских летописей и историков о северном Кавказе и России. Тифлис, 1897 год". I assume you understand Russian, since you often refer to Russian sources. On page 65 Vakhushti clearly states that the country " Durdzuketi consists of: 1) Kisti (Kisteti) 2) Durdzuki and 3) Gligvi " and on p. 78-79 states " these were originally Dzurdzuketia and still make up the country Dzurdzuketi ", and no where does it say that it was the Ghlighvi that split off, these are your own words . The village Angusht (see Ingush) is described as a part of the country Dzurdzuketi, unlike Chechen (Chachan) which is described as a community near Avars (current Dagestan) on page 83 of the same book, who weren't even a part of Dzurdzuketia per Vakhushti . The Gligva river you mention is not described to be be where Angusht is located, but the actual words are "the Gligva river (obviously the river Assa) connects to Boragnis-tskali (Sunzha) and on this same rive is the village Angushti." Now let’s look at another one of your statements: “nowhere does Vakhushti locate the tribes mostly in mountainous Ingushetia” — wrong again. For one, when talking about Kisteti he mentions Dzheyrakh which is located in western part of mountainous Ingushetia, and near them a little to the south he places the Dzurdzuks, and to the east of them Gligvi . Chechens like today always lived further to the east from the Ingush, which means that there is  no way that tribes to the west of Gligvi are in anyway related to Chechens, especially since Angusht and Dzheyrakh are mentioned near Kisteti — Dzheirakh and Angusht = Ingushetia and exactly like I said — where Vakhushti mostly locates the Kisti, Durdzuki and Gligvi.  I will replace the falsified statement you added to the article with the real quote and will ask you to provide proof that Vakhushti said otherwise (provide page number of source) before reverting my edit. --Muqale (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

About who the Durdzuks are
@WikiEditor1234567123 Do you know what unanimously means? Every single scholar, be they Chechen, Ingush, Russian, Soviet, Western or Georgian agree that Durdzuks is a term used for Chechens and Ingush, unless you have a source that says Durdzuks are Avars, Ossetians or another Caucasian people. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC))


 * I wouldn't use the word unanimously as it's not the correct word for that, there's same amount of sources linking the Durdzuks with Ingush only. I suggest writing "some" instead of "unanimously". WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * what does it matter? All  sources connect them with either Chechens, Ingush or both. Wikipedia doesn't take only "some" sources into account, but the whole picture. I also haven't checked the other sources besides Stephen Rapp(among the sources which supposedly connect them with only Ingush), but Stephen Rapp doesn't imply any of what is written. I'm seeing problems with cherrypicking of sources in this article, and Rapp is an example of that. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC))
 * @WikiEditor1234567123 How about engaging in the talk page, instead of edit-warring? Could you also provide an excerpt from Klaproth(page 239), where he explicity connects Dzurduks to Ingush? my version of Klaproth does not mention Ingush on page 239, this may be due to us having differing versions. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC))
 * How about you will refrain from making scenarios out of thin air? Nobody here is edit-warring. Here is snippet from the page 239: "Bei den Georgianern heisen nämlich, seit sehr alten Zeiten, die oberen Gegenden des Flusse Kumbalei, an dem die Inguschen wohnen, ძურძუკეთი Dsurdsukethi, und sollen vom დურძუკოს Dsurdsuk’os ihren Namen erhalten haben." Here's the translation: "Since very old times, the Georgians have called the upper parts of the river Kumbalei, on which the Ingush live — Dsurdsukethi, who are said to have received their name from Dsurdsuk'os." In the article, there's a link to this page too . I also don't really understand your point in putting the text about village Zurzakoy above the text "Historians link the Durdzuks to mountainous Ingushetia and identify them with the Ingush people", to me it's clear that it's undue weight and should be moved lower. Here's a snippet from Rapp's book aswell that you for some reason keep on removing from the text "Historians link the Durdzuks to mountainous Ingushetia and identify them with the Ingush people": "Hewsen identifies Durdzuks, arm. Durckk', as the ancestors of the modern Ingushes. See also Kurtsikidze/Chikovani, "Pankisi," pp. 10-12, for the Durdzuks as the modern Vainaxs (Vainakhs), i. e., the ancestors of the Chechens and Ingushes." Here we can see Rapp mentioning both the opinions of Durdzuks being solely ancestors of Ingushes and the opinions of Durdzuks being the ancestors of the Vainakhs, i. e. Chechens and Ingush. So why do you keep on removing this source from the text "Historians link the Durdzuks to mountainous Ingushetia and identify them with the Ingush people"? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus reached earlier on this article regarding this section, I suggest sticking to it. @Sextus CaediciusThe mention of the village Zurzakoy is no problem, but needs to then be moved down to toponyms like the Gate of the Durdzuks in the Assa Gorge. Muqale (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome to participate in this very discussion and consensus seeking. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC))
 * First of all, this text under the ethnonym section is translated and plagarized directly from the Russian article on Durdzuks:
 * "Historians link the Durdzuks to mountainous Ingushetia and identify them with the Ingush people,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] others believe that in the period of the Middle Ages, the population of Chechnya was known to the South Caucasian peoples under the name 'Durdzuks', or 'Dzurdzuks' and the population of Ingushetia under the names 'Glighvi', 'Ghilighvi'.[17][18][19] The Georgian historian V. N. Gamrekeli claims that 'Durdzuk' is definitely and, with all its references, uniformly localized, between Didoeti-Dagestan in the east and the gorge of the Terek River, in the west.[20]"
 * This is how it's written in the lead of the Russian article covering the same topic:
 * "Одни исследователи локализуют дзурдзуков в горной Ингушетии и отождествляют с ингушами[1][2][3][4][5], другие считают что в период Средневековья южно-кавказским народам население Чечни известно под именем «дурдзуков», или «дзурдзуков»[6][7][8], а население Ингушетии под именами «Глигви», «гилигии»[9][10]. Другие же исследователи отождествляют их в общем с предками как ингушей, так и чеченцев[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Грузинский историк В. Н. Гамрекели утверждает, что «Дурдзук» определенно и, при всех его упоминаниях, единообразно локализуется, между Дидоэт-Дагестаном на востоке и ущельем реки Терека, на западе[18]."
 * This is not compliant with Wiki, you have to give attribution to the person who originally wrote the text when translating, check out this for more info.
 * As for undue weight, it is mainly when viewpoints are clashing or an idea is fringe. Zurzakoy being connected with Durdzuks, is not given excessive weight as it is merely a sentence in the wikitext, nor does it clash with Durdzuk being unanimously identified as an ancient/medieval exonym for Vainakhs(Chechens & Ingush). Now onto sources/claims connecting Durdzuks to specifically Chechens or Ingush, generally these should be kept for the wikipages on Chechens and Ingush people respectively. Moreover Stephen Rapp mentiones both Chechens and Ingush, Klaproth on the very same page you linked also claims(very rough translation):
 * "According to the saga of the Geoirgians, who embroider their genealogical table through Thargamos the Archfather Noah of the Mofaichen traditions, the inhabitants of Dzurdzukethi are said to belong to the oldest peoples of the Caucasus, and then they occupy the whole country, from the upper Terek to the border of the Lesghier, with deep names."
 * Lesghier in this instance are inhabitants of Dagestan. He is very specifically refering to both Ingushetia and Chechnya here. Unless the original writer on ruwiki is claiming that Ingush alone lived all the way from the banks of Terek until the border with the peoples of Dagestan.
 * Let's take a further look at Volkova now also which is also cited in the excerpt connecting Ingush specifically to Durdzuks. Page 135 reads:
 * "Much more often than the self-name of the Chechens, various ethnonyms of a collective nature are known in the written sources of the past, sometimes denoting Chechens and Ingush as a whole. Such are the Durzuks) (Durdzuki) of the Georgian chronicles - a term chronologically preceding the ethnonym of the (kistin)."
 * Page 136 reads as follows:
 * "The chronicle of 1204, in the story about the dispatch of troops by Queen Tamara against the rebellious mountaineers, lists the regions of Didoeti, Pkhoeti, i.e. Pshav-Khevsureti, and Durdzuketi (89, 88]. The latter region apparently included territories Since there is no doubt that in the 13th century this part of the Caucasus Mountains was inhabited by the Vainakhs, then, therefore, the term durdzuk of the Georgian sources of that time meant precisely the Chechen-Ingush tribes."
 * Excuse the rough translations, but google translate is the quickest, and the point comes across either way.
 * Rapp, Volkova & Klaproth mention both Ingushetia and Chechnya. Eremyan, Genko, Sotavov & Meyer are harder to find online, if not impossible, given the dishonest citation of the prior sources I'm inclined to say they are dishonestly citated as well. It seems as though whoever copypasted this from ruwiki did so without even skimming the sources at least. Giving this article a further makeover is worthwhile. Note that these sources listed can be used to specifically cite the exonym's connection to Ingush, that however should be done on the wikipage for Ingush people, where that is the sole topic, likewise with the Chechen page as well. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC))
 * You didn't explain to me why you removed the Rapp source from the text "Historians link the Durdzuks to mountainous Ingushetia and identify them with the Ingush people" as he mentions both the opinions of Durdzuks being solely ancestors of Ingush and the opinions of Durdzuks being the ancestors of the Vainakhs. Here's also what says in pages 136–137 in Volkova's work which you didn't show:
 * "Этот термин не исчезает в Грузинской историографии XVIII столетия, хотя неизвестнен по доступным мне материалам в источниках XV—XVIII вв. Вахушти называет Дзурдзукети в числе других областей, связываемых им с территорией современной Ингушетии (Кистети, Джариехи, Глигвети). «Выше Кистети,»—пишет он,—находится Дзурзукия с постройками, селениями и башенями» [45, 151]. Если Кистетия помещалась им в среднем течении р. Армхи, то Дзурзукия находившаяся, по сведениям того же автора, выше (т. е. южнее Кистетии), Охкарохи, правого притока Терека, находящегося еще южнее Армхи. Таким образом, в грузинской литературе XVIII в. этническое содержание имени дурзуки (дзурзуки) по сравнению с источниками XI в. несколько изменилось: если в XI в. дурзуками именовали вайнахами в целом, то в XVIII столетии этим именем называли лишь часть народа, а именно его западные группы ." I didn't translate this text because I think you already know Russian as you use Russian sources but incase you don't, then you can quickly use a translator tool and translate the text. What we can see here is that Volkova says that during the 18th century the Durdzuk term became only used to refer to the Ingush and the country (Durdzuketi) was localized solely in Ingushetia. Regarding the Zurzakoy village, I still stand by my point that it's needs to be moved down. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding Klaproth, there's a reliable secondary source — Volkova, which you yourself had mentioned. In page 139 she says that Klaproth places Durdzuketi in river Makaldon (Armkhi) which is in Ingushetia. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honest question, are you even reading my arguments? Specifically about giving attributions for translations which are just ripped out of the corresponding page in ruwiki, or where the wikitext/sources connecting Ingush specifically to Durdzuks should be included? Or how Rapp, Volkova and Klaproth connect Durdzuks to both Ingush and Chechens? Also the supposed consensus you are pointing doesn't exist, as it involves a notorious sockpuppet. You're just going off on unrelated topics. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC))
 * @WikiEditor1234567123 Here is an excerpt from "The history of the peoples of the North Caucasus from ancient times to the end of the 18th century" by authors Piotrovskiy and Narochintskiy, a source you recently added reads as follows on page 126:
 * "The ethnonym Durdzuki is also found in Arabic writings. It can be applied that in x century, to the knowledge of written sources, the ancestors of the Chechens and Ingush of the inquiry, were found as 'yakhchamatyans', 'kists' and 'durdzuks'"
 * Does this read like it specifically connects Ingush to Durdzuks? It's hard to even understand what you are arguing for, and when you are questioned on something you just keep adding more and more sources, as if it somehow justifies the wikitext you are proposing. Should we also make a separate sentence with 7+ sources that connect Chechens with the Durdzuks, or a sentence for the Kists of the Pankisi valley? (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC))
 * I was referring to page 152, not 126: "Вахушти Багратиони (XVIII в.), возможно, опираясь на не дошедшие до нас древнегрузинские источники, утверждал, что «Дзурдзукети» (в данном случае, очевидно, горная Ингушетия) входила при кахетинском «царе» Квирике III (1010—1037 гг.) в состав Кахетии." Here it specifically connects Ingush to Durdzuks. To me it's not clear what you're arguing either and you also keep on removing rapp source, I will add the quotes for rapp source so you won't remove it again. You're free to add your sources but make sure they're reliable and authorative, but why you mentioning Kists of the Pankisi valley, what about them? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read your "arguments". I didn't know about giving attribution for translations but now I will know, thanks for letting me know that. Volkova is for a reason cited for both arguments as she also states that in 18th century the ethnonym was used only for Ingush, excluding Chechens. Rapp likewise Volkova, should be cited for both arguments and not only one as he mentions both the opinions of Durdzuks being only the ancestors of Ingush and the opinions of Durdzuks being the ancestors of Chechens and Ingush. Here in Talk:Nakh peoples, the discussion between Goddard2000 and Niyskho where they got consensus is still present. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Provide citations
this article is absolute mess. please provide direct citations. the only major credible source here are the Georgian chronicles. other sources are have no citations and they should be provided. if not the article must be cleaned up and only Georgian sources will stay. 2603:7000:3700:87E3:7CE9:1FE9:4107:D619 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Muqale you have not provided the citation sources. and you should discuss on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:6CA8:EEC5:A431:CAB7 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "the only major credible sources here are Georgian chronicles". This is a very strange statement, considering there are dozens of authorative citations and sources provided in the article, and are agreed upon by several users, as you can see on the talk page. Adress each and every statement you disagree on, and we will discuss. But consensus must be reached before removal of big part of the article. Muqale (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Georgian Chronicles have exact citations that can be verified. all other Georgian and russian sources have no citations for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:6CA8:EEC5:A431:CAB7 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think you are aware of Wikipedia guidelines. You have deleted big chunks of text with citation sources and page numbers, whilst claiming they are invalid because they are not Georgian. Are you saying that the work of every other historian or researcher is not valid, because they are not Georgian, and only the Georgian ones can be trusted? Muqale (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are following what I said. What I said is that the "Georgian Chronicles" are the only primary source that has verified citations. and then if you read well I said "all other Georgian and russian sources have no citations for verification." Какабадзе, Robakidze, Gamrekeli, they are all georgian and I am requesting their citations be provided to be verified. Including prince Vakhushti. The citations please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:6CA8:EEC5:A431:CAB7 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You've added the tag "citation needed" at the end mulitiple phrases where citations were provided and are not needed. Those citations are verified. It is not up to you to request them, you can simply look up the books and pages, instead of adding unnecessary tags. Georgian Chronicles are not the only reliable source. This article needs to be returned to stable version. Muqale (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the tag "citation needed" because they are needed to verify. Unless you verify the sources and provide citations, tags will stay. Those Russo-georgian sources need to have exact citations so provide them.

An unsigned comment was added, I do not not who I am replying to. But the user with whom disussion was initiated is misusing the 'citation needed' tag in the article, also he removed big chunks of text and references, without valid cause. Sources are already verified, he just does not prefer them. --Muqale (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * just because I don't have registered account doesn't mean my input does not matter. I know how wikipedia rules are important and you should provide citations and stop removing tags. so far you provided none of the citations. no one is deleting sources, I am requesting citations as these Russo-georgian sources are not verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:CC8A:B5DB:ECB9:4EA4 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On what grounds are you claiming they are not verified? Muqale (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * you have removed the tags again without providing citations. all those georgian and russian sources are not verified and need exact citations from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:75F4:6DE9:DBE8:4215 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No interest in whatever this is, I just fix issues with short form refs. These were broken as the citations were translated but not the short form refs. IP editor I think you may be miss using citation needed, it's used when there is no reference. I think, but I'm not certain, that you trying to challenge the references that are already in the article. If that is the case you should look into the failed verification template, and explain why this is the case for each reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I challenge all those georgian and russian refeerences without proper citations because most of them may be extremely biased or have vague mention if any of the issue. north Caucasus history has rather sketchy research and I am requesting verification and citations to be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:75F4:6DE9:DBE8:4215 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia divides this issue. So citations have been provided (so again citations needed isn't appropriate), verification comes from you. If you check these sources and find they don't match the claims you should add failed verification but you will have to check them yourself. There's no-one to "request verification" from, we are all just volunteer editors. if you don't believe the claims being made but haven't checked the references provided you should use dubious, but you will need to provide reasoning on why you believe the claims are dubious. Again there's no-one who will do this for you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone aheeqd and change the incorrectly used citations needed tags with dubious ones instead. However someone will likely remove them unless you can give a good reason for them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * none of those sources can are available to check and verify. that is why i request they put the exact citations from that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:696A:C232:860F:FBAA (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Aah! Do you mean you want quotes from sources? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ANNOTATION this is something that can be helpful. as you added many of these sources are you able to provide the quotations? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * yes yes I mean the exact quotes from sources it is so so important that we verify them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3700:87E3:29F3:F99B:2F43:14E0 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)