Talk:Orstkhoy

Rework
This article needs a lot of rework since it's based on a lot of false information from Jaimoukhas book. The Arshtins are Orstkhoy, they are a Chechen sub-ethnos and are considered one of the 9 tukkhums. -- Reiner Gavriel (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming the article
Perhaps the article should be renamed as Orstkhoy or Orstkhoï, as it's what they are commonly known as? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Muqale what do you think? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposition to change the article
Muqale WikiEditor1234567123 Assalamu Aleykum, this article is all over the place and looks more like a competition between Chechens and Ingush on who can fit in the most sources that will benefit each nation. It looks like a battleground, i propose we recreate this whole article and keep it totally neutral. In my opinion the first section is more than enough (In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition - one of the seven historical Ingush shahars.), i think we should remove the rest and only include neutral topics such as notable people from Orstkhoy, their history, the territory which they live on etc. What do you think? Goddard2000 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wa aleykum assalam. I think the Ethnicity section should remain. I didn't really have time to add in more information about the Orstkhoy history and general information so for now the page only contains information about the ethnical belonging. When I have time I will try to add more information about the Orstkhoy generally so it wouldn't be just a page about "competition between Chechens and Ingush" as you said. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is already mentioned above, the current ethnicity section is just every source on planet earth crammed into it with 100 quotes. It looks unprofessional. If you want the ethnicity section then it is better we should delete 90% of that text and write something simple like some authors referred to Orstkhoy as Chechens (citing every source) while some referred to them as Ingush (citing every sources) but most agree that Orstkhoy are today integral parts of both nations since they are considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums and one of the seven historical Ingush shahars. Similar to how me and previous Ingush editors agreed on the Durdzuk ethnicity page (it was similar to this one before), all the current article is doing is inviting edit wars and quote/source battles. Like for example why is Ingush ethnicity section above the Chechen one when Chechens are first in alphabetical order and bigger in numbers? things like that alone will invite conflict, better we make it neutral. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally think the ethnicity page should remain as it is for exception the Chechen section should be shortened as it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source. The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order as the first authors who studied Caucasus mentioned Orstkhoy as Ingush. As I have already mentioned, when I have time I will try to add more information about the Orstkhoy generally like the settlement, population and composition of Orstkhoy, so the General information section wouldn't be just about the ethical belonging of Orstkhoy. Muqale what do you think? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally would actually completely disagree on the account that the Orstkhoy are equally a part of Chechens and Ingush. And more so, the Orstkhoy (Arshtkhoy) were a part of the Ingush nation as mentioned by the vast majority of ethnographers. And the majority of the settlements of these teips are in Ingushetia, and they also speak the Ingush language, though I do not deny that there are Orstkhoy living in Chechnya. But @Goddard2000 seems to always try to put the Chechens first in every article, I guess now we know the reason. Because "there's more of them" is a valid reason apparantly. Muqale (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Muqale@WikiEditor1234567123 Very well we disagree then, i also completely disagree with Orstkhoy being closer to Ingush than Chechens when their DNA descends from Chechen Y-DNA branches, when basically all of their ancestral settlements are in Chechnya (Tsech-Ähk, Merzha, Galai, Yalkhara etc), and ethnic consensus studies from 1891-1925 showed that most of the Orstkhoy in their native territory identified as Chechens.
 * I also disagree with wikieditor's claim that most Chechen sources are based on 1 source when there are plenty of sources that connect Chechens to Orstkhoy. I think it is best we contact a third party, someone who is neutral in all of this. I'll tag an admin here in a bit.
 * @Muqale Alphabetical order is a legitimate reason, i have seen your previous edits specifically intended on changing the order making Ingush appear first many times but i didn't comment on it before. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with DNA genealogy so I can't comment on that. Orstkhoy ancestral villages, in particular Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe, are in Chechnya now because of the 2018 agreement which you know yourself wasn't rightful and it was done very unjustly without asking the opinions of Ingush people (I don't think this topic should be discussed more as it's sensitive for both sides). The censuses that you're referring are primary sources and can't be considered reliable here as there's old terms such as Chechens (Chechens was unifing term for all Vainakh in that period) and there's no taïp composition mentioned either, use secondary sources for these censuses instead. I didn't say the Chechen section is based on 1 source, please read my reply carefully before making such claims. I simply said that Chechen section should be shortened as it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source, the dictionary sources for example should be combined into 1 text instead of being all over the place. If you see the Chechen section then you will understand what I mean. The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wanna make that argument then historically the settlements you listed were mentioned as Ingush settlements long before they were labelled as Chechen (see Güldenshtad and Klaproth). DNA can be heaviliy disputed because many Tsechoy and Merzhoy have shown to be on the same branches as other Ingush representatives. Also if we would determine a nation by DNA-groups, then Chechens are made up of many different peoples. This is not how nations and cultures form. There is no ethnic studies from 1891-1925 that shows that Orstkhoy actually call themselves Chechen. I know this for a fact. You are referring to classifications made by some authors, not the self-designation . As a matter of fact, at least two 19th century reports exist were Ortskhoy actually call themselves Galgai and Ingush. One in 1862 were a Fargiev familiy in Sagopshi named themselves "Galgaevtsi" (mind the F phoneme in the Fargiev surname as well, which Chechens do not have in their language) and another document were Karabulak elders wrote their names and attributed themselves to the "Ingushevski narod" in  1842. If I cannot link them here, I will upload these documents in WikiCommons, if a dispute is initiated. Aslo, a Chechen illi of 1918 mentions how Aslanbek Sheripov called his friend Sulumbek of Sagopshi an Ingush, which means that Chechens considered Orstkhoy Ingush up until then. Only in 20th century Orstkhoy and other Ingush for the most part started settling in Chechnya (Gozny) after the estblishment of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR. Also the alphabetical order point you made is a silly one. Let's say I prefer a geographical order from west to east or chronological order. To me this is not that important, but I did notice this in several articles, which is why I brought it up. I do not mind involving a third party (non Chechen or Ingush), especially one who knows Russian would be preferable. Muqale (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will answer both Wikieditor and Muqale here.
 * 1. Ancestral villages, Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe being part of Chechnya has been an argument since way before the 2018 agreement because it belonged to Chechen Autonomous Oblast in the 30's before Chechnya and Ingushetia was united into Checheno-Ingushetia. After 1991 when Chechnya sought independence it claimed de jure right on those territories based on 1930's and it never recognized them as Ingush so claiming that land is not Chechen is incorrect, both republics had claims on it, it wasn't until 2018 when Chechen and Ingush heads of republics agreed to recognize it as Chechen (as Chechens did for decades). So no need to claim that "you know yourself" because Chechens have had claims on that land far before 2018. You can say the 2018 deal was unjust sure but you can't say Chechnya had no claims on it. Besides Muqale's comment about "most villages belonging to Ingush" is incorrect since many of the native Orstkhoi villages lie in Chechnya even if we exclude Tsech-Ahk and Merzha.
 * 2. Wikieditor if you don't want someone to misunderstand your quote then don't claim "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source" since it paints the picture of every text being from a single source which it's not.
 * 3. I don't think you understand how Y-DNA research works, it's not an Alphabet where you give a certain letter to a certain nation. It's the way you trace their ancestral lines and see which clans descend from them or which are their ancestor. There is no doubt that some Orstkhoi J2 samples are closer to Ingush ones but many belong to J2 branches that are more common in Chechnya, half of Orstkhoi are made up of L3 and J1 which descend from Äkkhi/Key Chechens (as is even said in Orstkhoi folktales) (L3) and Tumsoy/Ch'anti (J1), these branches are rare in Ingushetia and when they do pop up they are almost always in Ingush Orstkhoi.
 * 3. Guildenstedt and Klaproth are more reliable than Berger and Dubrovin for example? how come Guildenstedt mentioning a part of those villages as "District Ingush" is more legitimate than Berger referring to them as Nakhchi (Chechen) also great you mentioned one family from Sagopshi (Ingushetia) also Aslanbek Sheripov called his friend Sulumbek of Sagopshi an Ingush (an Orstkho from Ingushetia), so Orstkhoi from Ingushetia were often referred to as Ingush, and? Orstkhoi in Chechnya are referred to as Chechens by both Chechens and Ingush, nor did Orstkhoi settle in Chechnya during the 20th century only because they had and still live in regions of Urus-Martan and Achkhoy-Martan since forever. It's not like i disagreed with the fact that there are Ingush Orstkhoi, you however try to claim them more than me. I can also cherrypick sources, lets take the "Oath of allegiance" by 6 major Ingush clans in 1810, do i need to bring up the document? because there Ingush clans promise to fight the Orstkhoi and Chechens. Do i need to throw in cherrypicked sources of Russian authors and military administrators differentiating between Ingush and Orstkhoi? or calling Orstkhoi Chechens or calling them Nakhchi? Do you see the eventual game that will be played out here if you have an attitude of "Orstkhoi belonging more to Ingush" when this is your claim and Chechens disagree completely. There has been enough edit wars on this article.
 * 4. Both of you cherrypick sources to claim Ingush belong more to Orstkhoy while downplaying the Chechen sources, you ignore 2 censuses that are 3 decades apart from each other, you ignore Y-DNA studies that actually disagree with your statements. Only thing i proposed was to make this article neutral but both of you disagree and accuse me of trying to put Chechens first in every article. It is clear we need a third party, i will contact an admin later. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Goddard2000 would you be kind enough to show where I cherrypicked sources to claim Ingush belong more to Orstkhoy? Where did I accuse you of trying to put Chechens first in every article? I really don't know what you're talking about, please refrain from these accusations which I have no part in and trying to drag me into a conflict. Thank you! Regarding your 2. Point, If I wrote that "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about the same source " then it would paint the picture of every text being from a single source, however I thought I made it clear with stating "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source ". I'm not going to address your other points because I wasn't here to debate about who Orstkhoy belong more so I'm not going to be dragged in this argument. I simply told my opinion that the section of ethnicity should remain and information like the Orstkhoy settlement, population and composition should be added to the General information section which the ethnicity section belongs to so that the section wouldn't be just about the ethnical belonging of Orstkhoy . I also said that the Chechen section of Ethnicity section should be shortened. We can make the section shorter by following way:
 * Dictionary sources grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
 * Military collections (Военные сборники) grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
 * Opinions of Historians like Berzhe and Potto grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
 * If you want, I can remake the Chechen section myself by grouping the sources and making it in chronological order just like the Ingush section, we can discuss the details of the proposal in my talk page if you want.
 * WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor you should read the start of my answer again as i said right at the start that this reply was to BOTH you and muqale not you alone. Cherrypicking means when you pick sources that agrees with your side while ignoring the other sources. For example Muqale prefers Guildenstedt's source where he refers to Orstkhoy territory as "Ingush district" over Berger who says that they are Chechens. He thinks because Guildenstedt said it first then Ingush should be above Chechens and it shouldn't be in alphabetical order which he thinks is "silly" even though its a very normal proposition. Reason why it's cherrypicked is because he ignores other 18th century sources that do not call these tribes Ingush but divide them, he posts some old man named Fargiev and uses it as a source for Orstkho being Ingush as if this is an argument that Orstkhoi are more Ingush. As if this source trumps other sources like the censuses that say Orstkhoi villages are full of Chechens.
 * Now i forgot to answer your previous comment about "census shouldn't be reliable because it uses Chechen which was used for all Nakhs", did you even read the sources before you wrote this? check 1926 census for example, Ingush are MENTIONED, they are mentioned in the Sunzhensky Okrug on page 280, they are also mentioned on page 441 in Chechen okrug in one of the villages. However on page 445 ALL Orstkhoy villages such as Tsech-ehk, Yalkharoy, Gerite, Belkharoy, Meredzhi,Muzhichi,Khaikharoi and others are mentioned as inhabitants being CHECHEN, not Ingush, not Karabulak not anyone else. So don't use the "Chechen was used for everyone" argument when Ingush are clearly mentioned even in Chechen okrug. This is what i mean when i say you are biased, muqale too claims most Orstkhoy are Ingush but "moved to Grozny in 20th century", this is a ridiculous claim and only shows he has no idea about the ethnography of Chechnya. I can give you over 30 surnames from Orstkhoi in Bamut alone where these Orstkhoi from the mountains of tsech-ahk etc that were mentioned in the census (not Karabulak) moved. Orstkhoi did not just settle in Karabulak and other North Ingush territories, they lived everywhere in Achkhoy-Martan and Urus-Martan. Check page 454 of the "Akhchoy-Martan" villages, find me 1 village that has Ingush, there is none, there are just Chechens and 1 village that has both Chechens and Cossacks. That is all i have to say about the sourcing and bias in this article. This is why i think this article should be neutral, especially now when you have 2 editors that claim Ingush are closer to Orstkhoi.
 * There is no need to remake any section now, it is better we await for a third neutral party but i stand by my words that both of you show extreme bias as i showed above and therefore this article should be completely neutral like i proposed. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Goddard2000 you clearly referred also to me by saying "you both". I didn't cherrypick sources to prove that Ingush are closer to Chechens. I didn't accuse you either of anything and I wasn't biased, so as been mentioned, please refrain from these accusations which I have no part in. I don't understand why you are dragging the discussion into this direction when the original topic was about Ethnicity section being removed. Regarding census, when I said Chechen ethnonym was used for everyone, I was referring to the late 19th century census of 1891 (if I'm not wrong) and did you purposely ignore the "and there's no taïp composition mentioned either"? The census of 1926 doesn't mention of taïp or surnames so they can't be proven that the Chechens who lived in Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe in 1926 were Orstkhoy. Let's not continue on this topic because this is not what I came to discuss about in the first place and let's not get dragged in this direction. I simply was discussing about the Ethnicity section and you suddenly started saying that I accused you of something, that I'm biased and so on. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I said you cherrypicked 18th century sources that mentioned Orstkhoi as Ingush while ignoring other sources that clearly divided the 2 but i'll admit that my cherrypicking comment was more directed towards Muqale and some of the wording got mixed up. There are a lot of 18th century authors that connected Karabulaki to Chechens and divided Nakhs between Karabulaki, Ingush and Chechens.
 * I haven't checked the 1891 source yet but i assume its the same there, i'm sorry but you're attempt at downplaying the 1926 census makes me doubt your intentions of creating an article that is fair to everyone. Are you now claiming that Tseche-Ahke and the 28 other Orstkhoi villages whos inhabitants were named as Chechens in 1926 are not ethnic Chechens?? this is an insane claim and this is what i'm talking about when i say bias. All of these villages were inhabited by Orstkhoi, or are you saying there were NO Orstkhoi living in Chechnya at all during this period?? Goddard2000 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it possible, just maybe, that the traditions of this group diverge from both the Chechen and Ingush peoples? AKA Chechen language but Ingush garb? I would refrain from saying "insane claim" as I believe Wikieditor isn't acting in bad faith. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @LegalSmeagolian Not really, the problem here is that the Karabulak or Orstkhoi have taken part in the ethnogenesis of both nations, the ones living in Chechnya have no difference than Chechens, their dialect is part of the Galanchozh dialect similar to their neighboring clans, their Y-DNA descends from Chechen highlands etc. The 1926 consensus i talked about pretty much seals the deal that the Orstkhoi living in Chechnya are ethnic Chechens, otherwise they would identify as Ingush or something else. Muqale doesn't seem to understand this and brings up Orstkhoi that identify as Ingush as sources and claims "90% are Ingush" when he has no evidence of this. Sorry if i'm tagging you a lot i just want you to know every detail and fact of our discussion. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The amount of text in both sections needs to be trimmed as it gives the sense of WP:UNDUE to the article, when the article be better expanded in talking about the history, culture, notable tribe members etc. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, in my opinion there shouldn't even be an "ethnicity" section because this topic is controversial and both sides claim this tribe. If we have an ethnicity section would it not make sense just to write what i proposed? this:
 * "some authors refer to Orstkhoy as Chechen (references), while some authors refer to them as Ingush (references) but most agree that the tribe belongs to both nations as Orstkhoy are one of the 9 historical Chechen Tukkhums and one of the 7 historical Ingush Shahars"
 * There would be less edit wars as is seen in this article, i mean even the last source in "modern times" section, a newspaper by Ingush Orstkhoi claiming Orstkhoi are just Ingush, really? there are many sources of Chechens Orstkhoi saying the opposite. Things like this only invite counter sources and quoting. It clogs up the article and makes it look unprofessional. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine to note the disputed origins and go into SOME detail regarding the difference of sources, but each section needs to be significantly trimmed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * LegalSmeagolian I will see what I can do with the Ingush section, for me it looks as short as possible but I will try to shorten it. I proposed to Goddard2000 for the Chechen section to be shortened by following way but he declined:
 * Dictionary sources grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
 * Military collections (Военные сборники) grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
 * Opinions of Historians like Berzhe and Potto grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
 * What do you think about this? I'm willing to discuss about the Chechen section with Goddard2000 on my talk page if he sees any issues with my proposed design. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The text i proposed does note that there are disputed origins and it would provide all the references needed for people who are interested in the origins. My problem with the Ethnicity section was that it mentions Ingush before Chechens and provides a quote + sources above Chechen sources and quotes. Even if they are both trimmed this ethnicity sections shouldn't be divided into 2, i for one believe if there are sections then it should be alphabetical order but the other two editors disagree. Many Chechens would disagree with them, therefore i propose we combine these 2 sections into a text similar to how its written in the intro of the article:
 * "In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition as one of the seven historical Ingush shahars."
 * Like this but with the ethnicity section shortened and combined into this text with references like i proposed. In my opinion this would solve the edit war race to put one nation's quotes and text above each others in a tactic to catch the readers eye. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like you really want the Chechen mention first in the current ethnicity section. That possibility is already mentioned first in the lead, and I would say that it makes more sense for the rest of the article to follow the lead, but I am concerned that you might not be approaching this with a NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree with trimming some quotes, however user Goddard2000 mentions that he has a problem with Ingush being mentioned first in the article and insists using an alphabetical order (Chechen before Ingush) for some reason, instead of a chronological order of the sources which makes more sense, since initially the Orstkhoy villages were linked with the Ingush. I have issues with his preposed phrase "In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition as one of the seven historical Ingush shahars." - Since some authors like Dalgat (late 19th century) mentioned that the Chechens only had 6 tukkhums, this gradually became 8 (Mamakaev), and at the end of the 20th century Chechen authors added another one (the Orstkhoy), who were 90% of the time classified as an Ingush society. Muqale (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I have shortened the Ingush section enough, it is fine as is. I don't mind your groupings for the Chechen section - I would say it WOULD make sense however to have the Chechen section first, as that is the first group mentioned in the lead. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree also to put Chechens first but again this in my opinion would cause edit wars because each nation think their nation should be above. If we accept the current state of shortened text then Chechens should be first alphabetically as it is in the intro of this article. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order as the first authors mentioned the Orstkhoy as Ingush so it would make sense. After the end of Caucasian War, authors like Berzhe and others started to mention Orstkhoy as Chechen. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will say the following claim in the article is compelling that the two competing ethnic origins were contemporary theories: According to Jacob Reineggs (1780), the Ingush language differs from the language of the Karabulaks. He notes that, "Having taken the language into consideration, we can fairly conclude that these peoples had different origins, because what the Ingush says is his neighbor, a Kist, sharing with him only one small river, does not understand, and both of them cannot answer Karabulak in his language." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any wars with this page so far. The last source in "modern times" section, a newspaper by Orstkhoy doesn't claiming Orstkhoy are just Ingush, where do you see such text? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All of this got tangled together because we answered too fast, i'm gonna answer both WikiEditor1234567123 @LegalSmeagolian
 * Reason why i mentioned this in the noticeboard was to make it neutral i.e to not have 1 nation above each other, this is what i proposed first in here. If there is to be an ethnicity section as is now with shortened text then in my opinion Chechens should be first like in the intro section and because of alphabetical order. But again i preferred my proposition that i proposed in the noticeboard.
 * It is false to claim that Karabulaks were not connected to Chechens, in fact there are a lot of sources that connect all 3 Ingush, Karabulak and Chechens but also divide like for example:
 * Yan pototsky: "“Chechens, Ingush and Karabulaks are branches of the same people;”
 * “At the end of the day, I arrived in Kalugai, and could only sketch a chain of glaciers, which is located behind another chain, where the Karabulak people of the Misjegsky live”"
 * Guildenstedt: " The land of the Karabulaks lies near the Martan, or Fartan, which flows into the Sunzha on the right, below the Shemilgora stream. They have no princes, but only elders. They speak Kist, Chechen or Mitsdshegin dialects. "
 * Shteder: “I followed the banks of the Sunzha through the fertile valleys and fields of the Ingush to the mountains. On the other side, 4 versts to the east, in the wooded foothills, there are 34 villages of Akhgurts, which are a mixture of Karabulaks and Ingush.
 * As you can see, 18th century wasn't all authors assuming Karabulaks were Ingush, the theory that all 3 were same but also separate was very prominent during this time.
 * Goddard2000 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course there were some authors who mentioned Karabulaks (Orstkhoy) as separate from both Ingush and Chechens. I will try to add this in the same section when I have time, I will also add population, settlement and composition of Orstkhoy. However before Authors like Berzhe started to indicate Orstkhoy as Chechen, there were authors who mentioned Orstkhoy as Ingush before him, so chronological order would be the best here and would be more appealing to a person reading the article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the modern times article, do you honestly believe there was an Orstkhoy paper for all Orstkhoy that claimed Orstkhoy were not Chechens? Korigov, Belkharoev are Ingush, i'm not sure by Merzhoev but i assume he's Ingush too. I mean this newspaper lost all credibility if it says something controversial like that, they ignore censuses and hundreds of thousands of Chechen Orstkhoi? it is pretty ironic that 1 year after the publication of this article the Chechen nationalist state of Ichkeria was founded by an Orstkho who was a vehement Chechen nationalist. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @LegalSmeagolian@Muqale@WikiEditor1234567123
 * I don't understand the chronological argument when the very first sources in the 18th century divide the 3 or connect them all and for some like Guildenstedt terms like Chechen language and Midzheg (name for Chechens by Kumyks) is used for all 3. Even the first quote in the Ingush section from 1851 makes no sense as the editor assumes Berger was the first one that referred to Karabulaks as Chechens when this was a common term used for Karabulaks by Russian commanders who fought in Chechnya. For example General Rozen writes in 1830 that Karabulaks are a part of the Chechens: https://drevlit.ru/docs/kavkaz/XIX/1820-1840/Rosen_R_F/text.php
 * Chronolgical events are also mentioned in the "History" section why should 1-2 source that connect Ingush to Karabulaks from 18th century be the reason for Ingush being above Chechens when the first text in this article mentions Chechens first because of alphabetical order. I would also like to point out the bias of the editors in here since we have written a lot in here and it can be tiring to read all of it again. Muqale has again revealed his bias when he says "this gradually became 8 (Mamakaev), and at the end of the 20th century Chechen authors added another one (the Orstkhoy), who were 90% of the time classified as an Ingush society."
 * This is incorrect as i have proven time and time again, there are even 2 censuses by Russia from 1890-1926, the 1926 specifically shows that all Karabulak/Orstkhoi native villages in the highlands regarded themselves as Chechens. I provided the source above, this source is downplayed and thrown away by Wikieditor who claims they were probably not Orstkhoi when he has no evidence for that.
 * Dalgat mentioned 6 tukkhums, Mamakaev mentioned 9, Chechen manuscripts from 1828 mentioned 13 tribes, Russian authors often divided Chechens by over 20 divisions. I'll also remind you that Dalgat proposed that both Chechens and Ingush (also naturally Karabulaks) can be referred to as Nakhchi (the self name of Chechens). So i don't see why we should change that section. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dalgat's original work was published in 1934 and I will have you know that the original phrase was 'the Ingush use the term Nakh and Vainakh to refer to themselves as well" (page 6 of the 1934 edition) This phrase was conviently changed to 'the Ingush often refer to themselves as Nakhchoy' along with several others parapgrahs in 2008 published by the fund of an ethnic Chechen Aslanbek Aslakhanov, which makes Dalgat 2008 edition a distortion of the original. And you made the claim traditionally one of the 9 Chechen tukkhums how is it traditional when you yourself just mentioned that there is no real number apparantly. I just pointed out that you refer to tukkhums and the first mention of Chechen tukkhums was made by Dalgat and he listed 6 Chechen tukhums. Which later turned to 8 by Chechen author Mamakaev, and now it seems to be 9. Inconsistent if you ask me. Muqale (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dalgat's original work was heavily edited by Zaurbek Malsagov (Ingush who came up with the term Nakh and Vainakh) and he cut the entire preface of Dalgat's original work where Dalgat mentioned the Nakhchuy in a letter to his daughter. Nice conspiracy theory though, but regarding Tukkhums what does it matter if the number changes according to some authors? the same can be said about Ingush Shahars where suddenly the "Ghalghay shahar" becomes "Tsori Shahar" and "Khamkhi shahar" or when Fyappi Shahar changes names to Metskhal Shahar? even in Chechen society change happens within the nation, one clan sometimes becomes a tukkhum similar to how Melhi are regarded as the historical 9 Tukkhum. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Gyuldenshtad (1770-1773) mentions Galai, Yalkharoy, Arshti, Hai, and other settlements as part of the settlements of the Bolshie and Malie Ingushi (also written by Klaproth).
 * Pallas (1793-1794) states that the Karabulaks (Orstkhoy) stem from the Ingush or Galgai.
 * Bronevsky (1823) divides the Kist nation into 2 groups: the nearby Kisti-Angushi-Karabulaki and second group are the Chechens and states that among their dialects the Chechen dialect differs from the root language.
 * Danilevski (1846) wrote that the Chechen dialect differed from the root language of the Ingush and Karabulaks.
 * Actual 19th century reports and document exist where Orstkhoy families name themselves Galgai or Ingush.
 * The Orstkhoy in their native tongue are completely similar to the Ingush, in the mountains they live near the river Fortanga, just like Ingush say it, Chechens say Martan. Orstkhoy familiy Fargiev would not exist in Chechnya, since the phoneme F is absent in the Chechen language. Famous Chechen revolutionary Aslansbek Sheripov in 1918 calls an Orstkhoy abrek (Sulumbek of Sagopshi) an Ingush. This are not just surface-level classifications, but actual ethnography. The sources you provide where Orstkhoy are called Chechen, are often those were even the Ingush are labeled Chechen. This statement has long been debunked by linguists and researchers. Like I said, Orskthoy are also represented among Chechens nowadays and this deserves to be mentioned, but you have no basis to claim that the Chechen should be put first, since the Orstkhoy only secundarily can be attributed to Chechens. Alphabetical order is not a vaild argument in my opinion, especially since you emphasize the importance of putting Chechens first.
 * Muqale (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you mentioned the Act of 1810. This was between two lowland communities, not the entire nation. In that case, there are also many documents (AKAK) showing the hostilities between Karabulaks and Chechens, in the notes of Ermolov, Evdokimov and others. Even Städer said that Karabulaks and Chechens became enemies. Best to leave aside politics for this one, since it does not contribute to the article, and gives more cause to edit war. Muqale (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Guildenstedt puts Orstkhoi settlements in the "district of Ingush" but also says they speak a Kist/Chechen/Midzheg language
 * Pallas indeed says so
 * Bronevsky divides Kist nation into 4, he divides them by Kist, Ingush/Lamur, Karabulak, Chechen/Sheshen/Michkiz
 * "Of these, the Chechens, as the most populous tribe, occupy more than half of the Kist lands and, in the reasoning of the difference noted among them with other Kist [179] tribes in customs and dialect, constitute a special department, due only to the similarity of the language to the Kists; consequently, it would be possible to divide the Kistinsky region into two parts: that is, into the inhabited by the Kists in the closest sense, by whose name we mean the Ingush, Karabulaks and other tribes, and into the Chechen region; but this should provide a better knowledge of the Caucasian topography."
 * Then Bronevsky goes on to write:
 * "Gildenshtet mentions the following districts of the Kist province: Ingush; Ahkingurt; Ardakhli; Vapi, Oset, Makarl; Angush (Big); Shapkha, or Small Angush.
 * Chechen, divided into districts: Arakhi, Kulga or Dganti, Galgai, or Galga, Dzhanti, Chabrilo, Shabet, Chiskhrikaker, Karabulak, Messeti, Mereji, Galashka, Dubai."
 * The rest i have already talked about, Aslanbek Sheirpov calls an Ingush Orstkho living in Ingushetia an Orstkho, an Ingush Orstkho living in Ingushetia identifies as Orstkho etc. Meanwhile the earliest censuses in Chechen-Orstkho villages all identify as ethnic Chechens
 * I only mentioned act of 1810 to show that Ingush and Karabulaks were divided even in many military reports but sure, we don't need to go into that. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also @LegalSmeagolian, i would like to point out that this whole thing of changing names etc was started by one of the editors @WikiEditor1234567123 , before his first edit this whole article had almost for 10 years been the same and had the version of text which i proposed we add, namely:
 * "Differentiation from Chechens and Ingush"
 * Below this section there was an explanation (although Ingush weren't mentioned in the text itself) which could've been fixed if what i proposed was done then. @WikiEditor1234567123 removed that whole section and only added Ingush while removing Chechen. Yet i am accused by them of trying to put Chechens first? when only thing i have done here is propose to return to the original edit. Later on Tovbulatov got involved and so started an edit war with Wikieditor. Would not this whole thing be solved if we went back to the original version and fixed up the text that had been there years before these edit wars? Goddard2000 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you just find a source that is pre 1770 referring to them as Chechen or not Ingush? That solves this whole chronology debacle. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources that connect them to Chechens or Ingush are after-1780-90, before that they are always referred to as an independent political entity by Russians. Here is a letter from 1763 for example that mentions Karabulak as independent from Chechens and Ingush and Michiks: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/XVIII/1700-1720/Rus_dag_otn/101-120/119.htm
 * The chronological order is a weak excuse after edit warring over this article and removing an already established section of this article, like i showed above, Pallas theorized that Karabulaki could've come from Ingush, Guildenstedt said they spoke Chechen etc etc, are we supposed to count the months between these two sources and order them that way when alphabetical order was established long time ago. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a edit war in this page. Could you please show me where there was edit war? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you provide special diff which shows that I "removed that whole section and only added Ingush while removing Chechen"? Could you provide special diff which shows that I had war with Tovbolatov in this page? You really like to accuse me of alot of things that I didn't do, please refrain from doing that. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How does one upload diffs? and i misspoke, you didn't start it, someone else with an IP removed the whole text and added Ingush text, Tovbulatov because of that added Chechens above that one and it stayed that way until you and him started edit warring and you moved Ingush above Chechen. This is what i meant by Edit war. I would gladly provide diffs but here it is:
 * 11:13, 21 February 2023 WikiEditor1234567123  talk contribs  28,151 bytes +21  →General information: Reordered in chronological order Goddard2000 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ip user and tovbolatov didn't even edit war, one added to the Ingush section and the other added to the Chechen section, don't see any edit war. Where do you see supposed edit war in that diff showing me? I reordered according to the chronological order just like in the Russian Wikipedia, that's all. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing and deleting some of Tovbulatov's edit can't be considered edit warring? Tovbulatov added a quote about Ingush being a Chechen tribe which you deleted (i disagree with Tovbulatovs action here), Tovbulatov adds Chechen above Ingush after the person with IP acc deletes an already established chunk of text and headline while putting Ingush only, you one up Tovbulatov by putting Ingush above Chechens. Who decided it was supposed to be in chronological order? It was alphabetically before everyone started editing and that IP removed the text. If you don't see the edit history as edit warring and 2 sides trying to throw in their version of the article then i don't know what to tell you. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @LegalSmeagolian Please have a look at this source: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/14951-ch-2-o-narodah-tatarskogo-plemeni-i-drugih-ne-reshennogo-esche-proishozhdeniya-severnyh-sibirskih-1799#mode/inspect/page/82/zoom/4
 * German Professor Johann Gottlieb Georgi, in his" Description of all the peoples" in 1799 wrote the following about Karabulaks or Orskthoy, "before anything they were called Yugush (Ingush), but they refer to themselves as Arshtas (Orstkhoy)."
 * On the previous page you will see the mentioned Yugush are the Ingush. Muqale (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to post a different translation of that text that includes more information (source: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/XVIII/1760-1780/Gottlib_Georgi/text1.htm) :
 * "Karabulaki. They used to be called Yugush, but they call themselves Arshts, they make up a not very crowded crowd of people. Their language consists of Kistin and Chechen dialects. Previously, they were subject to the Aksai princelings." Goddard2000 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that you agree that the sources calls them Ingush. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I never disagreed with this, but they were always related to Chechens in every 18th century source that mentions them, even this one that said they also spoke a Chechen dialect. Oldest sources mention Karabulaks separately but late 18th century ones mention them next to Ingush and Chechens. Hence why i think Ethnicity section should be limited to what i proposed. Otherwise i don't mind a historical chronologically written down in a history section of them being mentioned during this date or that. But when speaking in the context of who the tribe belongs to most or earliest when this topic is controversial and who's oldest sources refer to them as a separate polity then i think it should be more simplified. Goddard2000 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of oldest source
I will compare the dates of the current sources that are used in this article, our disagreement all boils down to which source mentions the Orstkhoy first, Shtelin or Guildenstedt? Guildenstedt's travels in the Caucasus from 1770 to 1773 was thoroughly recorded by him in his diary, the date and often the months are given in his writing. However he himself never published this work. It was published by Pallas from 1787-1794, Pallas records the dates of his writings on the page of contents on page 6

1770 (pages: 34-42) He mentions Ingush on page 36 He gives a description of the land of the Ingush and located them as living between Terek and Sunzha rivers and Kambileevka river in the north (there are no Orstkhoi villages in this territory), on the east they border Chechens. There is no mention of Orstkhoy.

1771 (pages: 43-142) There is no mention of Orstkhoy during this year by Guildenstedt. Shtelin however does mention Orstkhoy in his 1771 map and writing "description of Circassia". Here Shtelin explains that the Karabulaks (i.e Orstkhoi) live in "Kumiskay or Chechen land" (he further explains that it's called "Kumiskay" due to the sandy terrain so it's unrelated to the ethnic Kumyks of the similar name).

1772-1773 Georgia (pages: 146-223) No mention of Orstkhoy, we can tell that this chapter started from date 1772 due to page 202 where he points out it's 1772

1773-1774 Description of nations (pages: 223-257) First mention of Orstkhoy by Guildenstedt, we can tell that this is from 1773-1774 because he refers to the date 1773 on page 242 and the date 1774 on page 239 Thus Shtelin 1771 mention of Orstkhoy PREDATES Guildenstedt mention of Orstkhoi from 1773-1774. I have provided all the sources for fellow editors to fact check this information. This is why i put the Shtelin source above Guildenstedt which was the agreed upon rule (to put earlier sources above) but my edits were removed and the map i uploaded was deleted. Goddard2000 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Guldenstadt attended the treaty between Ingush and Russia in Angusht in 1770, where the Ingush were represented by the villages of districts of Angusht and Shalkha. Here some of the villages of Angusht and Shalkha districts were Orstkhoy ancestral villages such as Arshty, Yalkharoy, Dattykh, Meredzhi etc, the Orstkhoy of these villages migrated into an area later on, that became known as Karabulak. This makes the earliest source regarding Orstkhoy belonging to the Ingush being from 1770. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Guildenstedt attended the Angusht treaty in 1770, if you read on page 36 then Guildenstedt (while visiting them) described the territory of this people as living between source of Sunzha and Terek with the Kambileevka river in the north. Tell me, which Orstkhoy ancestral village is situated in this described territory? Here are some coordinates on google maps: Arshty (43°08'20.6"N 45°07'45.9"E), Yalkharoy (42°55'13.0"N 45°16'28.0"E), Dattykh (43°01'52.0"N 45°06'03.7"E) and Meredzhi (42°56'16.0"N 45°07'58.0"E). Which of the mentioned Orstkhoy villages live between the Terek-Sunzha sources and Kambileevka in the north? Goddard2000 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not turn away from the main topic. I don't want to repeat myself again, I already told you that the Guldenstadt attended the treaty between Ingush and Russia in Angusht in 1770, where the Ingush were represented by the villages of districts of Angusht and Shalkha which included many Orstkhoy ancestral villages such as Dattykh, Arshty and others. This being said, the earliest source regarding Orstkhoy belonging to the Ingush is from 1770. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How am i turning away from the topic? please read page 36 where he talks about attending the treaty in 1770, he describes their territory as between sources of Sunzha-Terek and Kambileevka in the north. Did any of the villages you mention (which Guildenstedt only mentioned 3 years after 1770 as i proved above) live in this territory? It is a simple yes or no. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The second question to you is does Guildenstedt refer to these villages by name in 1770 or 1773 first? if you believe he mentions them first in 1770 then please quote him word by word and provide a page. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. What we can establish is that you are very actively trying to make it seem that Güldenstädt, who was ACTUALLY in this region in 1770, unlike Stahlin, supposedly took a whole 2 years (whilst being on the spot) to figure out the names of Ingush villages and Orstkhoy settlements? You do realize that in the letter to commander I.D. Neymch in 1770 (Treaty) exactly 24 Ingush elders of 24 main villages signed the letter with their names (exactly 24 names - in the letter called the Kistetin elders), and it is Guldenstädt in 1770 who also mentions 24 villages and lists many other ancestral Orstkhoy villages, like Meredzhi, Yalkhara, Dattykh, Galay, and most importantly Arshty (directly linked whith the Orstkhoy-Arshtkhoy ethnonym) who he attributes to them and concludes that other tribes or people living east of these villages are opposed to them and commonly called Chechen.
 * 2. As for Stählin’s map, we can establish that Karabulaks (inhabitants of a specific lowland area with Orstkhoy clans also lived) is designated as a part of Kumitzki (Kumyk) territory. Now when actually looking at the source, regardless of whatever ethymology Stälin gives, this area is called Kumyk and Chechen. If anything, you we can only establish Karabulaks (not all Orstkhoy) being mentioned in the territory of Kumyks and Chechens (not only Chechens). Since in fact Karabulak is a Kumyk name for my this particular area, which we cannot ignore.
 * There is somewhat of a contradiction here, as Güldenstädt includes Chechens and Karabulaks as a part of the Kistin nation, while Stälin on the other hand completely excludes them and only labels The Ingush as Kists. Either way, Güldenstädt's source chronologically still comes first - 1770. Muqale (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Guildenstedt in 1770 refers to Ingush villages LIVING inside Terek-Sunzha sources and Kambileevka in the north, which Orstkhoy village live on that territory?. He never says that villages such as Meredzhi, Yalkhara, Dattykh, Galay etc are Ingush. He mentions an Angusht district and later on mentions that next to it is Shalkha district which is named "Little Ingushetia" by the Russians due to the proximity of the original Ingush land. He writes this in 1773, He made NO mention of those villages in 1770, not one, provide a quote or a page as i have done. You have done nothing but argue and make assumptions while not providing any source.
 * 2. Staehlin clearly says "КУМЫЦКАЯ, ИЛИ ЧЕЧЕНСКАЯ, ЗЕМЛЯ" (Kumitskay OR Chechen land) i.e either name is fine and he explains that the name comes from the tatar word for sand. All nations that he mentions in this territory are Nakh peoples. You are distorting sources yet again and doing original research which is not allowed on wikipedia. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. L. Städer actually says that in these parts a mixture of Ingush and Karabulaks live, if you wanna talk specifics. That still does not cancel the fact that Güldenstadt still attrtibuted these villages to the Ingush districts and not to the Chechen. Whya are you beating around the bush? This should not be that hard to accept.
 * 2. Sureyou can state Kumitskiy or Chechen land. DThough, the first is still linked to the Kumyk name, I can provide researchers from Dagestan who state this as well. But you cannot leave out Kumitzki part and state that this is equal to Chechens this, because Kumyks cannot be ignored as they are desginated on the map and there is distinct line between them and Chechens on the map. Muqale (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. We aren't talking about mixtures of Ingush and Karabulaks, if you want to talk specifics we can mention of the "Galgai district" (a notable Ingush society" which is referred to as a Chechen district by Guildenstedt and through that assume all other Ingush districts are Chechen. But that is silly since we are only talking about which source mentioned Orstkhoi villages and exonyms first. I am the only between us two that provide pages and quotes. You are doing nothing but making assumptions about what an 18th century author meant here or there.
 * 2. I have already mentioned the Kumiskay source in the text of the map, i can put it in the text but to claim the author claims its "Kumyk territory" is original research when he already explains in the source that it is named so due to the Sandy terrain of the land (steppe part in the north). We already know that Kum is also sand in both Chechen and Ingush. There is no distinct line between them, he already explains in the source that all 4 belong to 1 territory. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Güldenstadt himself listed Galga among the 24 villages. I do not know what you are talking about. He even state the the Ingush or Kists call themselves Galga. You are making assumptions and implications in stead of actually sticking to the source.
 * 2. Does Staehlin actually say that Kumiktsaya comes from the a Nakh word? Kumitzi is term which was used for Kumyks throughout history. On what page does he say this is Nakh term? Both names Karabulak, Chechen are of turkic origin. Why pretend that its not? Okay, I agreed, that all of this is calles Kumitskaya or Chechen land. You cannot leave out the Kumitskaya part. Muqale (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Guildenstedt clearly states that the Galgai society belongs among the Chechens. This is mentioned by Bronevsky on page 157 and the Guildenstedt book we are using as a source (Atalikov translation which is one of the most complete versions) on page 407.
 * 2. Staehlin doesn't need to say it comes from the Nakh word, you and me already know the Nakh word is of Turkic origin. What he does is explain that the word Kum comes from Tatar (Turkic). What you are doing is assuming he refers to the Turkic people, this is the same as assuming that "Georgia" in the US are ethnic Georgians due to similarity of name. The author already explains who lives in that land. I already left in the Kumitskaya part since the very first edit. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree to putting in the etymology and "Kumitskaya-Chechens" in the text instead of just saying "Chechnya". That is fair but there shouldn't be mention of "Kumyk" since he never refers to that land as part of Kumyk the people, just the "Kum" the term for sand. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the first Shtaelin/Guildenstedt argument, that can be left for another time. We can come to a consensus to have the article stay as IS as long as neither party edits out the opposite section (Ingush/Chechen). Goddard2000 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @WikiEditor1234567123 did you find the newspaper source? you said to give you a week. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. I didn't find it, but if it's a well-known appeal through the newspaper, then surely it should be somewhere. I will try to find it later and verify. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Waaleykum Salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, i wouldn't call it a well-known appeal but alright. We need to verify it. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @WikiEditor1234567123Assalamu Aleykum, have you found the source yet? for the newspaper? I think we should remove it until you at least find it. I have given you weeks to find the source. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wa aleykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Yeah no problem, you can remove it. However if I verify the source, then I will add it back. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally think the source is non-authoritative either way but fair enough. For now we will delete it. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @WikiEditor1234567123 Just want to explain here in case you are planning on deleting my edit regarding Krupnov.
 * There is a difference between:
 * "не случайно остатки карабулаков не считающих себя чеченцами"
 * and
 * "не случайно остатки карабулаков не считают себя чеченцами"
 * Krupnov wrote the first text which means "who do not consider themselves Chechens", if he wrote the second then it would be "it is no coincidence that the remnants of the Karabulaks don't consider themselves Chechens". The key here is the difference between считают and считающих, i changed it to "who do not consider themselves Chechens". Besides i think we can both agree that Orstkhoy do not live in only those villages listed by Krupnov, despite what he meant in his text. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @WikiEditor1234567123 Why delete the Shteder source and call it forgery? i got it from Dzurdzuki (Ingush website) here on page 6, it's also on some blogs hereGoddard2000 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Quote from page 6: "у их соседей: чеченцев, гихов и аттигеров, с которыми они одного происхождения и говорят на одном и том же языке." Goddard2000 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it seems Shteder mentions that Karabulaks and Chechens have 1 origin and that they speak one language, but not that "out of their neighbors the Chechens are closest to them in language and origin". Plus, I couldn't find the quote you cited in the pp. 210–211 so my removal is understandable. I suggest changing the text to something like "Shteder mentions that Karabulaks and Chechens have 1 origin and that they speak one language" based on that quote you cited. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your removal is not understandable at all, you said this text doesn't exist in the source and called it "forgery" after deleting it. Meanwhile it is on the exact same page as the text about Ingush in this article which is why i edited in page 210-211 like it was for the text about Ingush. I don't understand how you could miss the part about Chechens, the source i provided is the translation by Atalikov by the way.
 * Regarding the "out of all their neighbors", Karabulaks, Ingush and Chechens are neighbors are they not? Shteder mentions Ingush in his work does he not? he even talks about Ingush-Karabulak mixed villages on page 9. He quite clearly says that "their neighbors Chechens, Gekhians and Attagians share one origin and language". I think my "out of their neighbors" sentence is valid, especially since the Ingush related text in this article has texts like this: Ten years later, L. L. Shteder, making notes about Karabulaks, gives an almost textbook description of the unique details of typical Ingush vestments, cited by travelers and authors of the late 18th-19th centuries, often replicated on the images of that era and no longer characteristic of any other of the peoples Caucasus.. All based on what exactly? who said these vestments etc are unique and typical to only Ingush?
 * Also the text The first descriptions of the Orstkhoys by European authors in the second half of the 18th century identified them predominantly with the Ingush What is your source for this?
 * 1. Guildenstedt never identified Karabulaks with Ingush, he merely mentions 2-3 villages (which we know are Karabulak, but he didn't) as Shalkhian (which Russians call little Angusht). Guildenstedt doesn't connect Ingush to Karabulaks at all, in fact he mentions Karabulaks separately from both Chechens and Ingush but says "they speak in a Chechen dialect".
 * 2. Shtaelin identified Karabulaks to Chechens and say they live in Chechnya.
 * 3. Shteder identified Karabulaks to Chechens, only thing he connects to Ingush is Karabulak shield and vestment i guess.
 * 4. Gottlieb identified Karabulaks to Ingush (he just says they were called Ingush before) but mentions they speak a Chechen dialect.
 * 5. Pallas identified Karabulaks to Ingush.
 * As you can see every 18th century source (except maybe Pallas i haven't checked that one fully yet) identified Karabulaks with Chechens either in ethnic origin and language. This is why i have "neutrality is disputed" in this article, you have taken a lot of liberty in your sentences about Karabulaks in here, if you want to change a simple sentence "out of all" then these other sentences that you have written about Karabulaks should also be changed. I propose removing "predominantly" and just write that Shteder compares Ingush vestment or shield to Karabulak ones for a start. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ingush Origins:
 * The first descriptions of the Orstkhoys by European authors in the second half of the 18th century identified them with the Ingush
 * Ten years later, L. L. Shteder, making notes about Karabulaks, gives an almost textbook description of the unique details of typical Ingush vestments, cited by travelers and authors of the late 18th-19th centuries, often replicated on the images of that era.
 * Chechen Origins:
 * In 1781, L.L. Städer, while making notes about the Karabulaks, mentions that their neighbors the Chechens share with them one origin and language
 * What do you think?
 * @WikiEditor1234567123 Goddard2000 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think?
 * @WikiEditor1234567123 Goddard2000 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense how you claim that Karabulaks speaking a dialect of Chechen language is connecting to Chechens but large Karabulak ancestral villages being called Ingush and Karabulaks having the typical Ingush vestments not connecting Karabulaks to Ingush. Overall, you still have Gottlieb and Pallas who both mention the Karabulaks as Ingush. Now about Staehlin. Just so you know, he even mentions Tavlins (Avars) in the Kumyk/Sandy or Chechen land, not mentioning him including Ossetians and Ingush in the Tatar land. He doesn't mention Karabulaks as Chechen, please show me where he does? I agree with your suggested paragraphs, but remove "their neighbors" from Shteder paragraph, it's really not necessary as we know that Chechens are their neighbors. Regarding the paragraph about Tatartup fortress, I will remove it since it's really not notible enough to be in the history section and just takes up space. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My removal was understantable, because I literally couldn't find that text in the pp. 210–211, you should check them yourself and see that the quote wasn't there. Here's the link to the book in Dzurdzuki website. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Guildenstedt calls Galgai a Chechen Okrug, he also says in his earliest writings from 1770 (page 36 in Atalikov) that Ingush live between Sunzha and Terek, then he says that Chechens live west of Ingush right after, meaning all those settlements he later attributes to Sholkhi are Chechen according to his first geography (similar to how Shtaelin mapped it). I won't change that though, if i find a secondary source that elaborates on this moment i'll add it. I'm only telling you this because you criticize Shtaelin's description of Tavlins in Chechnya but Guildenstedt contradicts himself very often too (i.e Galgai is a Chechen okrug etc). Anyways since you agree with my paragraphs i will edit those in and we can lay this to rest for the moment. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to answer the Karabulaks = Chechens part, we have already been through this, the land on which the Karabulaks live according to him he calls "Kumytskaya (Sandy land) or Chechnya", i.e Karabulaks live in Chechnya. It's already in the article. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Chechen Dictionary
Assalamu aleykum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Goddard2000, could you please add Chechen Dictionary source in the [ Note Tag 2] in the Name section similar to the way I added Ingush Dictionary source? I'm not familiar with Chechen sources so I thought that you could help me out there. Thanks. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Waaleykum Salam, i'll have to look into them later since i am not familiar with most dictionaries. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable people
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Goddard2000, what do you think about making a "Notable people" section? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Waaleykum Salam, i don't mind it, it should be included. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ethnical belonging
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Muqale and @Goddard2000. I'm proposing for the ethnical belonging section to be changed to like 2 paragraphs where there will be used only modern sources (not older than Soviet Period), the text will be something like: "According to some sources, Orstkhoy are Chechen,[here will be the citations grouped in a note] according to others, they are Ingush.[here will be the citations grouped in a note] Orstkhoy either consider themselves a separate ethnicity or identify themselves as Chechen or Ingush.[here will be citations]" The reason why I want for the ethnical belonging section to be cut down is because of WP:AGE MATTERS (most sources are from 19th century), WP:PRIMARY (most of them are primary sources, to which WP:OR can follow). That being said, the article won't ever be a GA if the article has these sources. Also imo, we don't need to have a whole section where we will explain every single source and what they've said (the article will become too long). Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Assalamu alaikum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Goddard2000 and @Muqale! There's been no replies from two of you for 4 months, so I'd like to hear your opinions first before I proceed rewriting the section. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 12:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wa'aleikum As'salam @WikiEditor1234567123. Orstkhoy for centuries make up a significant part of the Ingush nation, and to a lesser degree [ but also ] make up a part of the Chechen nation. I see no reason why we should be comprimising on this historical fact. The early history of the Akkins is also more attrtibuted to the Ingush, but saying they are equally Chechen and Ingush would not be accepted by Chechen historians, nor would I deem it objective to now claim that Akkins are equally Ingush and Chechen. So this is my point. If you want to change the lay out, and improve the article, I have no problem with it, as long as you stay objectively accurate. Muqale 18:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @WikiEditor1234567123 Waaleykum Salam, i forgot to answer this the last time i saw it. I didn't and still dont understand what you mean, you want to remove everything we posted in both Chechen and Ingush section and replace it with just a sentence? isn't that what i initially proposed before we had a big debate about it? like literally my argument was that we should not have a block of text with sources thrown in like a competition to see which side has more sources. This was my original proposal:
 * "the current ethnicity section is just every source on planet earth crammed into it with 100 quotes. It looks unprofessional. If you want the ethnicity section then it is better we should delete 90% of that text and write something simple like some authors referred to Orstkhoy as Chechens (citing every source) while some referred to them as Ingush (citing every sources) but most agree that Orstkhoy are today integral parts of both nations since they are considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums and one of the seven historical Ingush shahars" 
 * Could you elaborate more on your proposal? I personally have no problem with the current state of the ethnicity section. Goddard2000 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, my proposal is similar to that of yours. WikiEditor123… 06:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)