Talk:Uchar-hadji

Vandalism from Lamberd
Lamberd please, explain your vandal edits against sources--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lamberd still waiting, it's OK to use google translated messages on talk page if you struggle, if you want to bring value to the article--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruption from Zandxo
Hi, Zandxo. Please explain your last disrupting edits against sources. You're starting an edit war which is forbidden on wikipedia. According to the rules of wikipedia if someone notices that your edits are questionable you have to give arguments on talk page. I also left warning and links to the rules on your talk page --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sala-Uzden are of Chechen origin and therefore Uchar Hadji is a Chechen. I have provided a source and provide more sources. You are the one kumyk-izing Chechens and Chechnya, claiming things left and right as Kumyk. -- Zandxo (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Zandxo Although Chechen version is given in the article, I checked the additional source you provided. Firstly, what does "Lyrical poetry philological MYSTERIOUS IS SOUL'S LABOR…" source have to do with Uchar-hadji? Secondly, there is not a word about him in the source (even if it had, philological research on someone's poetry is a terrible source.


 * Thirdly the quote you provided here has nothing to do with Uchar-hadji. Forthly, You inserted a FALSIFICATION but not a quote here: "He belonged to the Sala-Uzden nobility of Vashindaroy, which are of Chechen origin and are related to the Chechen tribe Aukhovtsy." The source does not say that "he was", in fact there is nothing about him.


 * Do you think editors here are so stupid not to notice clear distortions?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The source you are mentioning first was not added by me but was already given. The source I have given, which you claim has nothing to do with Uchar-Hadji, has indeed to do with Uchar-Hadji. Uchar-Hadji belonged to the Sala-Uzden, and my source proves that Sala-Uzden are Chechens who lived at the Salasu river, and are related to the Aukhovtsiy, Chechens that live in Aukh (North Dagestan). You are trying to butcher my source and falsly translate it in hope that other editors believe you.--Zandxo (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I can read in Russian well and the source doesn't say anything about Uchar-hadji. give quotes here and we'll discuss why you claim there is anything about him. also, you for some reason seem to lie about adding Poetry as a source, you added it — proof. also you continue warring before reaching a consensus which is forbidden. I recommend you to stop.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Zandxo also, in case you read it in a wried way not on purpose, the other quote you've given is "Sala, or Salatawians, ancestors of Kumyk sala-uzdens... are considered to be related (like relatives) to Aukh people." It doesn't say Sala-uzdens are Aukh, it doesn't say Sala-uzdens are Vishderoy or whatever. It says that Salatawians are (i.e. were at that time) considered to be related to Aukh people. completely different sense. stop misinterpreting, please--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * and yet there is nothing about Uchar-kadji--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mention Uchar Hajji but it mentions the Sala-Uzden which you said "were only Kumyk", this is very false. The source I posted was from the 1800s written by a Kumyk named Shikhaliev and the book is literally called "a story about Kumyks from a Kumyk". There he explains the origin of several important peoples making up the Endirey city. He clearly explains that people like the Gueni and Sala Uzden are of Chechen origin, Sala-Uzden are mentioned as coming from the Vashindaroy which is an old Chechen teip in southcentral Chechnya. You can read book again and check 2. Сала, или салатавцы, предки нынешних кумыкских салаузденей, вышедшие из находящейся за Гумбетовским хребтом деревни Рикони; жили при речке Саласу, впадающей в Акташ; они считаются в родстве с ауховцами и принадлежат к Вашандроевской их фамилии; подобно тюменам и гуенам, сала составляют ныне в Андрееве особый квартал. --Zandxo (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I see, and gave word for word translation, you clearly see there something only you can see. try rereading it a few times without biases and you might see that the quote you gave means something other than your imagination tells you. what you do is original research here, inventing meanings not present in the source Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

the quote is about relation of salatawians to aukh people. nothing about relation of aukh to sala-uzden, or that salatawians are chechen. Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are clearly lying and butchering the quote by now. I am a Chechen, I understand what was written in the quote. The quote says that the Sala-Uzden, which you claimed are KUMYKS, are CHECHENS, from the teyp VASHTAROY (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9) and CLOSELY RELATED to the CHECHENS AKHOVTSIY (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B). UCHAR-HADJI was a SALA-UZDEN (according to other sources he was a Chechen from the teyp Gendargoy). --Zandxo (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

oh, you're from the blindly fanatical, OK then, if you see everything through Chechen prism, we have nothing to discuss here. in that case we'll call for a mediator. and you have to wait and stop edit warring. clearly I'm not alone disagreeing with your bold falsifications Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are using google translator to change Chechens to Kumyks on the english wikipedia and I am somehow the blind and fanatical, Mr arseneKOUMYK? I am fully aware that you are asking others to change my edits. Both IPs are from Russia, to be exact from Dagestan. It's a group of you and other Kumyks claiming Chechens and Chechen lands as Kumyk with no proper sources. Wikipedia should do something against you and the likes, this isn't your nationalistic forum where you can simply claim people and territories as your own, people will read these articles and thanks to you, believe in misinformation and nationalistic lies. --Zandxo (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to stop this nonsense and read wikipedia rules--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Somebody needs to keep Arsenkoumyk from this page.
This person is clearly biased and removes the sources that don't suit him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivarius Prudentiam (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

nice try, using a freshly created accounted for a mass distortion :) Wikipedia admins are not that stupid, you can create hundreds of accounts, edits speak for themselves Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Actual Wikipedia admins can see that I am a different person from Zandxo, due to my ip address and many other things like browser settings. Don't judge others by what you do yourself. You should stick to Russian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivarius Prudentiam (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * not saying you are the same, saying you're on the same editing vibe based on you edit history --5.76.35.176 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * full support to Arsenekoumyk here, the vandals are madness--5.76.35.176 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice edit history you got there Arsen. Totally not obvious. Archivarius Prudentiam (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice VPN Ghumki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandxo (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Kumyk vandalism on this page
I would like to point out that Arsenekoumyk is vandalising this page with the help of several people from Dagestan. I have provided proof for not only that Gerzel-Aul at that time was fully Chechen but also for the Sala-Uzden being Chechens. It's claimed that "while sala-uzden nobility class was inherent only in Kumyk social structure" while in fact, the Sala-Uzden are of Vashindaroy (a Chechen teyp) origin and closely related to the Aukhovtsiy Chechens, which inhabit the areas eastern of the Chechen-Dagestani border. The Gerzel-Aul fortress was a Russian fortress to stop Chechen raids to Kizlyar, there were Kumyks stationed there but NOT 300 elderman. It was a military fortress to fight off Chechen fighters, what would 300 elderman do at such a fortress? QEDK since you have blocked me from editing on this page for 72 hours, I would like to ask you to please read the conversation I had above with Arsenekoumyk and also the edit history of non-registered people, which are mostly from Dagestan. --Zandxo (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * nice fantasies, but you should just calm down and prove your point instead of giving bulks of nonsense--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you are still allowed to edit anything here. You constantly put yourself in the victim role, lie and change the translation for your own favor. I have given you my source, I can prove more source. All you did is simply stopped replying to me and reported me despite me being in the right. I demand a mod to read this conversation. --Zandxo (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * perhaps you should reflect on your edits and start discussing without emotional devotion to your cause--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been wasting 2 days on you by now. You are constantly deviating from our conversation and not even bothering discussing this. I have provided sources, translated and even pointed out where and why my sources debunk your claims, yet all you did is pretend to be the victim and report me. Read our conversation above, read through it and tell me that I wasn't discussing properly. --Zandxo (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * no, you did not. I gave word for word translations. read carefully. you can also go to dispute resolution page. otherwise we have nothing to talk about. you proved inadequacy in your edits.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You completly ignored half of the text. Here, I will quote it again and translate it for you Arsène de Koumyk, "Sala (...) ancestors of the (Kumyk class) Sala-Uzden (...) lived at the Salasu river, which flows into Aktash (...) are considered to be related to Aukhovites (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B) and are of Vashandiroy family (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9)". Try to claim this is a wrong translation or whatever. --Zandxo (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * at last, it is not full but correct. although you forgot the part that Sala-Uzdens are Kumyk--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * it's Arsenekoumyk for you, not "de"--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether Salatawians-Sala are related to Aukhs or Vashndiroy, Sala-uzdens are not according to that quote. also contemporary sources state Uchar was Koumyk. I'm sorry for disappointing you.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * you should better call admins for dispute. it's not a pleasure discussing with you anything without a neutral judgement--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You do know what (...) means, right? It doesn't say Sala-Uzdens are Kumyk, it says it's a Kumyk class, which I mentioned. Arsène de Koumyk, I take this as seeking consensus with you, I will correct this wikipedia page in 3 days, we surely both don't want people to read and believe these misinformations that are currently portrayed on the article, right? And "Sala-Uzdens" are indeed in that quote, right here "салаузденей". Sala-Uzden are Vashindaroy that lived at the river Salasu, they are Chechens. --Zandxo (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Zandxo I'm not Arsene de Koumyk for you, I'm Arsenekoumyk. there is not a word about Sala-Uzdens being some kind of Chechens, so stop pretending you're seeking consensus.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Arsène de Koumyk, I literally pointed out for you that Sala-Uzden are mentioned there. The quote clarifies that Sala-Uzden is a Kumyk class but the people are Chechens, belonging to the Teyp Vashindaroy and lived at the Salasu river. You're just closing your eyes and playing naive now. Read what the historian Amin Tesaev said about the origins of the Sala-Uzden, he uses Dubrovin and Shikhaliev as a source too https://kavkaznasledie.ru/?p=3719 --Zandxo (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * it's called WP:OR what you're doing--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See, again. You didn't take the time to read the source. Please take your time and read through it. If not, I won't be able to seek consensus with you and insist on the fact that I am in the right. --Zandxo (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * you are simply not right, call dispute and mediation if you want to prove your delusion, and we will see where it leads you.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have done that long ago if I knew how it works. Go ahead and do it for us. --Zandxo (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * go ahead and learn, you're the one who goes against consensus with edit warring and absurd edits.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My edits were legitimate, not absurd. You are going against my consensus as well. Unlike you, I have brought up sources. --Zandxo (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In general, users should desist from personal attacks. Just a heads up. --Calthinus (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus
Zandxo neutralized the article. are you fine with it? will you stop edit warring and insults, and start constructive collaboration?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's better than before, but still incomplete, biased and ignoring my sources. I will fix it to something we both might approve once my block is over. --Zandxo (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Arsenekoumyk I didn't give consensus for you to delete your try to neutralize the article! Please seek consensus in talk! --Zandxo (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Zandxo pre-war consensus version is returned. if you didn't like the last trial version and think it's biased, it makes obvious you have some agenda of chechenizing Wikipedia. from now on you have to seek for dispute resolution in order to reach consensus with me always, and I do not wish to discuss anything with you directly without a witnessing third party.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do I need to reach consensus with you? I want you to reach connsensus with me first. I am not fine with you potraying Uchar-Hadji as Kumyk. I want it tot be neutralized until we reach consensus on a suitable and right article. You are obviously closing your eyes and acting blind to everything I say. I will dispute resolution, don't worry. --Zandxo (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Chechen trace
the page does not provide a second opinion on the origin of Ochar Haji. about Chechens from Gerzel Aul and about sources indicating that Ochar Khadzhi survived that massacre. If colleagues do not mind, I intend to fix it. citing authoritative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavkazaved174017491 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * chechen sources are given already. see the article. 37.150.189.126 (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Not in sources
User Goddard2000, you insert texts with sources that do not reflect what you insert. At least I can't find them. Please give exact quotes in the original language as well as translation. And do not make reverts of reverts, it's a provocation of an Edit Warring --KrakDuck (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User KrakDuck, The claim that the Sala-Uzden are Kumyk only is false, they have been known as being Chechen too ever since the start of the Russian administration in the Caucasus. This was also reported by the Kumyk prince Devlet-Mirza Shikhaliev, i already posted the pages (page 155) in the source list before you deleted. But fine i will post the whole thing in here in russian and english.

Russian translation: 2. Сала пли Салатовцы, предки пын ѣ ганнх ъ Кумыкскпх ъ Сала-узденей, вышедшис нзе нахо - дящейс я за Гунбетовскимъ хребюме деревни Рикони ; жили при р ѣ ч к ѣ Саласу, впадающей въ Акташъ ; они считаются въ роиствѣ се Аухоеца - МИИ н нривад.исжатъ ке Вашаиидроевской их ъ ФЭми.иии ; подобно Тюменам е и Гуенамъ, Сала составллют ъ иып ѣ въ Андреевѣ особый кварталъ.

2. Sala or Salatavians, ancestors of the Kumyk Sala-Uzdens came from Gumbet district in the village of rikvoni, they are related to the Aukh tribes and descend from the Vashindaroy clan

The Russian translation was hard to put in here because its in old Russian but you will see it if you go to page 155 of the 1848 magazine that u can easily find in the source i posted. --Goddard2000 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you see what it says? It says Sala are related to Aukhs, not Sala are Chechens. You distorted the facts. Not in the source, alas. KrakDuck (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User KrakDuck, It says Sala are related to Aukhs and that they are from the tribe of Vashindaroy, do u know where Vashindaroy is? its in central Chechnya and is a big Teip. If someone says they are related to Aukhs (Dagestani Chechens) and from the tribe of Vashindaroy (a Chechen teip) then the most logical conclusion would be that Sala are Chechens or at the VERY LEAST descended from Chechens. So your claim that Sala-Uzden are not related to Chechens is very false and my edit very right. Only one distorting facts here is you, i will talk to you on the Aukh page which you have distorted after we have come to a consensus in here. I say its only right to bring back what i edited, your version is extremely biased to Kumyks. --Goddard2000 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I read other threads here. Look at "Kumyk vandalism on this page". User used the same source as you a long time ago. And he didn't even realize that the source does not even remotely means what he thought. It's like all population of England are French because some of Englishmen have French relatives. Obvious nonsense, but here again. KrakDuck (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it's even more remote! The source word by word: "Salatavians, ancestors of KUMYK Sala-uzdens;...; supposed to be related to Aukhs... from Vishanderoy..."

So! The source says Kumyk Sala-uzdens. Does not contain the word "Chechens" at all. And you still insist that it's a proof for your point? I see it as a perfect source for the point in the article, which says that Sala-uzdens are Kumyk. Well, it even says so directly... KrakDuck (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User KrakDuck English-French can't even be compared to this since the Sala-Uzden or Saloy-Eli in Chechen today consider themselves both. There are Sala-Uzden in Dagestan who say they are Kumyk and there are Saloy-Eli in both Dagestan and Chechnya that say they are Chechen. Shikhaliev considered the Sala-Uzdens to be Kumyk but he also acknowledged their Chechen ancestry so it completely destroys your argument that Sala-Uzden were inherently Kumyk. I put Uchar-Hajji as a "Chechen-Kumyk" because of this reason, not that he is only Chechen or only Kumyk because i looked for a neutral ground which you do not want. You yourself acknowledged that Uchar-Hajji is called Chechen by some scholars and there are sources which directly call Uchar-Hajji a Chechen. Your argument that he isn't Chechen is that he comes from the Sala-Uzden and my counterargument is that the Sala-Uzden are also Chechen + their Chechen ancestry was acknowledged by Kumyks. The source doesn't need to contain "Chechen" for it to be understood, it mentions that Sala-Uzden are related to Aukh and Guenis both of whom Shikhaliev says hails their origins from Chechnya. So my proposition is to let this article be neutral and not Kumyk biased. This is the only fair solution. --Goddard2000 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You wrote a lot of your thoughts, but where is it in the source? It says Sala are Kumyk. KrakDuck (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

100% of what you wrote is called Original Research, WP:OR. It's not allowed on Wikipedia. KrakDuck (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User KrakDuck, I wrote a lot of arguments for why it should be there, do you want me to talk like a robot? Fine ill bring up the points and sources in detail so we can be done with this.

1. You admit that Uchar-Hajji was also called Chechen directly by many sources but i will post some of the sources anyway so its fair. -(Source: Гапуров Ш. А. Чечня и Ермолов: 1816—1827 гг. — ГУП "Книжное изд-во" *page 322*) -(Source: Магомедов Р. История Дагестана: очерки и документы. — Дагестанское книжное изд-во, 2004. *page 181*) -(Source: Гаммер М. Шамиль: Мусульманское сопротивление царизму: завоевание Чечни и Дагестана. — КРОН-ПРЕСС, 1998. *page 66*)

2. Your argument that Uchar-Hajji can't be Chechen is because he belongs to the Sala-Uzden which you believe are only Kumyk, My arguments against that:

2(1). Sala-Uzden are written down as being of Vashindaroy origin (Chechen clan) and are related to the Aukh people (Chechen tribes) by the Kumyk prince Shikhaliev in 1848. Although he says the Sala-Uzden are Kumyk and this is his right since many Sala-Uzden did and do consider themselves Kumyk however many also dont and still retained their Chechen heritage. -(Source already posted in the edit history)

2(2). Sala-Uzden or "Saloy/Saloy-Eli" as they are called in Chechen are considered to be Chechens in their folklore. Sources for this is the Ingush folklore collector Malsagov who collected tales from 1970 some of whom mention Saloy as a teip. Another source is a Vashindaroy elder who's folktale is recorded in the Vashindaroy clan website. -(Source: А. О. Мальсагов. Нарт-орстхойский эпос вайнахов *page 178*) -(Source: http://vashandaro.com/news/2018-12-20-322)

2(3). Argvanian manuscript from Dagestan that has been studied by professional historians shows the origin of the Sala-Uzden and how they got to Dagestan. This study of the manuscript coincides with both the description of the Kumyk prince Shikhaliev and Russian historian Dubrovin. -(Source: https://kavkaznasledie.ru/?p=3719)

2(4). Collection of Chechen Saloy-Eli DNA tests which shows you many Sala-Uzden still consider themselves Chechen. (Source: https://oramash.ru/load/gaplogruppa/j2/saloj/9-1-0-137)

2(5). Toponyms of the Sala-Uzden all over Chechnya such as Sala-Irzu, Salay and others from the book written by a descendant of the Sala-Uzden noble Bashirov (from the Adzhi Sala-Uzden line) (Source: Этническая история Терско-Сулакского междуречья (на примере семьи Башир-шейха Аксайского)" - Баширов М. С.-Э., Хасмагомадов Э.Х. *page 13*)

So here i have first shown source which call Uchar-Hajji a Chechen and refuted your claim that the Sala-Uzden are Kumyk only. These sources are all in front of you and you can check them. I will admit that i only added just 1 source and should have added these in the first place. The only logical next step is to make the article less Kumyk-biased and bring the Chechen version too. This is the only fair solution, we aren't talking about some fringe-theory, the ethnic background of Uchar-Hajji has been reported by many as being Chechen. --Goddard2000 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

1) Gammer is half-fiction novel-like. But I suppose we may add it into Descent section, where Chechen version is already given, although it's a modern source without any reference to another primary source, very doubtful.

2.1) Not agreed. It's pure original research

2.2) Original research

2.3-2.4) I'm sure it's original research, but they are newspaper articles, don't wanna waste my time.

2.5 From what I briefly saw in this book, this Bashir is Kumyk, but anyway it's not an argument, original research again.

3. There are sources in the article illuminating Chechen descent version.

Only thing I might agree to is adding a sentence in the header, something like - "some modern sources call Uchar a Chechen."

And please, stop running in circles and giving original thoughts (read research). KrakDuck (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User KrakDuck,

1) If you dont like Gammer and dont want modern sources then we can take Friedrich von Bodenstedt source from 1840's where he calls Uchar-Hajji a Chechen and also a Russian source from 1915.

-Source: Friedrich von Bodenstedt "Die Völker des Kaukasus und ihre Freiheitskämpf gegen die Russen" 1848, *page 339-345*

-Source: Спутник пассажира по Владикавказской железной дороге и прилегающей к ней части Северного Кавказа. Ростов - Владикавказ. - Пг., 1915. *page 228 "Chechen Mullah"* and *page 267 "Chechen Mullah Uchar-Hajji" *

2.1) What is original research? Sala-Uzden are related to a Chechen tribe (Aukh) and descend from a Chechen clan (Vashindaroy), If you want we can write "Although Sala-Uzdens are descended from the Chechen clan Vashindaroy and related to the Chechen tribe Aukh according to Kumyk Prince Shikhaliev" unless you deny that Vashindaroy and Aukh are Chechens in the first place.

2.2) Yes original research by the reporters of Chechen folklore which clearly considers Saloy or Sala-Uzden Chechen. Hence your claim that Sala-Uzdens are ONLY Kumyk holds no weight according to Chechen AND Kumyk sources.

2.3-4) They are not newspapers, its a paper by professional historians that was uploaded on this website. Sources and names are given there. Dont be shy check it out.

2.5) Bashir was not Kumyk, this is even proven by genetic tests done by his descendants (yet another proof that Sala-Uzden were Chechens too)

3. Your Chechen sources are crammed up with Kumyk biases on both sides, had you been considerate of Chechen sources you would have mentioned Uchar-Hajji as Chechen.

4. I see you posted a source from 1837 of someone calling Uchar-Hajji's son a "Komkoy"(Kumyk), there are sources from 1836 claiming that he is a Chechen which was discovered by another Kumyk, although he attributes this as a mistake by the Russian general ofc))

"The Chechen Khadzhi-Mehmed, known to you from my previous reports, returned to Chechnya at the end of last year, under the guise of loyalty to our government, intending to strengthen between his fellow tribesmen, entered in connection with Tashev-Khadzhi and uses all his influence to spread the harmful Sharia" ..."

Source: http://kumukia.ru/article-86.html

Come to a consensus now or i will report you for being Kumyk-biased and vandalizing pages. I suspect you are the sock-puppet of Arsenekoumyk who's banned. --Goddard2000 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please report. No consensus. Let's see about WP:Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. No sources, original research and bias are not welcome. KrakDuck (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"No sources" he says right after i posted over 7 of them, some of them even primary such as the Bodenstedt one. Lets see what the admins say. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There isn't even one new source from you, only your personal guesswork and originality KrakDuck (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User CaucasusDot,I have looked for nothing but a neutral stance for both Kumyks and Chechens on this article, since Duck refuses to come to a consensus ill talk to you instead. The introduction you changed is fine and fair but it is still biased towards the Kumyks in the "Descent" section.

1. If we decided to change "Some modern scholarship" into "Some scholarships/Some old and modern scholarships" it would give a more fair view of the situation. Since it is not only modern scholarship that says he is Chechen, one example is the German Bodenstedt source i posted from 1848. Since his source is in Old German and hard for some to find ill post the translated English text that proves this:

""Soon a fearless Chechen appears in the house where both generals and their entourage have gathered. “Why is your people,” Grekov begins his speech, “having violated the agreement, started the war again?” “Because you were the first to break the treaties and because my people hate you as their executioner,” the mullah replied.

“Shut up, traitor! - the angry general interrupted him, - can't you see that your comrades have left you and you are in my hands?"

^this is a small excerpt and referred to Uchar-Hajji on page 355-357.

2. The Sala-Uzden part which Arsene designed as a bomb-shell evidence to remove any doubt of Uchar-Hajjis Kumyk ancestry is also full of mistakes. Uchar-Hajji's ancestry is not 100% confirmed as being Sala-Uzden, there are other theories too but it is fair to let the Sala-Uzden part stay if you remove the "Inherently" Kumyk part. I have posted several sources of Sala-Uzden and their Chechen ancestry + how they were never Kumyk only. They are called Saloy-Eli in Chechen (Literally a translation of Sala-Saloy + Eli (Noble in Nakh) - Uzden (Noble in Turkic-Persian) and are mentioned several times in our folklore and history. It would be only fair to add that Sala-Uzden were Chechens too. Most of Chechen-Kumyk issues with historical characters come from great leaders of the Sala-Uzden class like Tasha-Hajji, Uchar-Hajji, Bashir-Sheikh and others. People have to realize that these men felt a connection to both of our nations for the previous mentioned reasons. --Goddard2000 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop warring please with false representation of sources. Source on "sala" says it's a Kumyk class, stop inserting false texts. KrakDuck (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR by Goddard2000
As user Goddard2000 flooded the previous topic of this talk page, I'd like to point out that he has a problem explaining how the he** these:

"Сала пли Салатовцы, предки пын ѣ ганнх ъ Кумыкскпх ъ Сала-узденей, вышедшис нзе нахо -дящейс я за Гунбетовскимъ хребюме деревни Рикони ; жили при р ѣ ч к ѣ Саласу, впадающей въ Акташъ ; они считаются въ роиствѣ се Аухоеца - МИИ н нривад.исжатъ ке Вашаиидроевской их ъ ФЭми.иии ; подобно Тюменам е и Гуенамъ, Сала составллют ъ иып ѣ въ Андреевѣ особый кварталъ."

..where it says "Kumyk Sala-Uzden", means that there is some "Chechenity". I see plenty of flood and WP:OR. This article seemingly might be used for promoting some marginal ideas. Some rhetorics of Goddard above, example, "Kumyks claim Chechen lands", "Kumyks claim Chechen identity", instead of giving the explanation to his WP:OR, are very concerning and unacceptable here on Wikipedia.--IrelandCork (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction, it's another user making statements about lands, but the rest is still in place.--IrelandCork (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User, IrelandCork spare me the attempts at trying to make me into a Kumyk-hating Nazi. I have many Kumyk friends and have never insulted this nation. I have explained the text 100 times to your previous accounts (that got banned). Shihkhaliev is describing the foundations of the Kumyk nation which part of it is the "Gueni" which he says comes from Nashkha (Chechnya) implying that they have Chechen origin which they do and then he mentions the Sala-Uzden which he says have Vashindaroy (Chechen clan) origin and are related to the Aukh and Gueni. I didn't write that Shikhaliev literally wrote that they are Chechen, he implied that they have Chechen origins. I added more sources(which you didn't check) which explain how the Sala-Uzden came to Dagestan and how they are of Chechen origin. All of this destroys your argument that Sala-Uzden are inherently Kumyk. Get any of the Wikipedia admins in here and ill explain in detail. --Goddard2000 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI No_original_research. Quote: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Your edits do not comply with that, apart from problems with flooding and WP:Ethics.--IrelandCork (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What are you even on about, how is changing "modern scholarship" into "Scholarship" original research? explain this? how can it be "modern scholarship" when Uchar-Hajji has been called and considered a Chechen from sources going back all the way to the 1800s when he lived? Your weak attempts at nit-picking are pathetic and they didn't work in the Aukh article and they won't work here. Further more my sources about Sala-Uzden being of Chechen origin are not "original research", YOU were the one that made original research and decided that the Sala-Uzden are only Kumyk and posted some Dagestani paper as a source. Well i posted 3-4 sources that confirmed Sala-Uzden (Saloy-Eli) are also Chechen, to deny this means you are heavily biased and anti-Chechen. I accept that Sala-Uzden are both Chechen and Kumyk but you dont.

Calthinus Could you please change it back to my edit to make it more neutral? none of us want to "fight" over an article that barely gets 50 views a day but as of now this article is very biased and in favor of Kumyks. All of my sources you can find in the talk page, i wrote down the pages and where you can find the books, one of them is in German i could translate it if you want but i assure you that it's legitimate.

--Goddard2000 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * could you list all the relevant sources here? That would make it easier. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus No problem, Although i would want to make a suggestion to how the page should look like first.

The "Events in Gerzel aul in 1825" is very one-sided and biased. It calls the inhabitants of Aksay Kumyks and ignores its Chechen inhabitants which did live there (source can be found in Descent part where Ermolov mentions that half of its inhabitants are Chechens). In my opinion it would be fair to just write "Aksay inhabitants" and not mention any nation in this part.
 * This is weird. Sources say "Kumyks from Aksay were gathered for assisting Chechen insurgance". Do you understand that it's WP:OR what you're claiming? Just a few sources describing gathered people as Kumyk and Tatar, all "biased" it seems..:
 * Кавказская война, Ермоловский времени, Потто, 1994
 * В лесах и аулах Чечни, В.А. Потто
 * Кавказ, Ковалевский, 1914
 * Полное собрание сочинений, Том 46 Лев Толстой Гос. изд-во худож. лит-ры, 1934

" Yermolov's intention was also to force the people of Aksay to terminate any relations with Chechens." Could be changed to "terminate any relations with the rebels from other parts of Chechnya". This would make the article more neutral to both sides since Aksay has been written down many times as Chechen village and previously according to some sources was named "Bilit" which is the name of the Bilto clan in Turkic. Good source on the history and Chechen side of the story about Aksay is this study: https://kavkaznasledie.ru/?p=3753

"In retribution, Aksay was destroyed by Russian forces and it was forbidden for the Kumyks to ever resettle on their lands again." < this has no source and i have a hard time imagining Kumyks were not allowed to settle there again since Aksay is to this day majority Kumyk. Also this text implies that only Kumyks were purged from the town while the Chechens weren't touched?

Now then the "Descent" part, the "some modern scholarship" text is implying that it was only recently that Uchar-Hajji was called Chechen. This is false.

Source 1: Friedrich von Bodenstedt "Die Völker des Kaukasus und ihre Freiheitskämpf gegen die Russen" 1848, *page 355-357*

http://apsnyteka.org/455-Bodenstedt_Die_Volker_des_Kaukasus_und-ihre_Freiheitskampf_gegen_die_Russen.html

The text is in German so ill translate it for you: "Soon a fearless Chechen appears in the house where both generals and their entourage have gathered. “Why is your people,” Grekov begins his speech, “having violated the agreement, started the war again?” “Because you were the first to break the treaties and because my people hate you as their executioner,” the mullah replied.

“Shut up, traitor! - the angry general interrupted him, - can't you see that your comrades have left you and you are in my hands? I will order you to be tied up and your lying tongue to be pulled out ... "

And then it goes to him stabbing the generals etc etc, this source is from 1848 just 24 years after it happened, hardly anything "modern" about this.

Source 2: Спутник пассажира по Владикавказской железной дороге и прилегающей к ней части Северного Кавказа. Ростов - Владикавказ. - Пг., 1915. *page 228 and 267*

http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/20683-sputnik-passazhira-po-vladikavkazskoy-zheleznoy-doroge-i-prilegayuschey-k-ney-chasti-severnogo-kavkaza-rostov-vladikavkaz-pg-1915

Yet again Uchar-Hajji is called a Chechen Mullah and the source is from 1915 so again, nothing modern about this.

Now about the "contradicting" part, first of all there are many sources on Uchar-Hajji's origin. It's not 100% known if he is Sala-Uzden (Saloy-Eli) but i dont mind this text since the most convincing theory is that he was indeed a Sala-Uzden. This does not mean he couldn't be Chechen though since Sala-uzden are known as the Saloy-Eli in Chechnya and today are called Saloy. Many consider themselves Chechen and their Chechen origin has been implied by the Shikhaliev source i posted.

Source 3: Шихалиев Девлет-Мирза Махмудович (Магометович). Рассказ кумыка о кумыках 1848

https://e-libra.su/read/532280-rasskaz-kumyka-o-kumykah.html

You can ctrl + f and search for "Вашандроевской" this is a Chechen clan and according to Shikhaliev are related to the Gueni and Aukh peoples (both Chechens). This source does not outright say they are Chechens but its implied but neither does it deny that they can be Chechens. To support this i posted more sources on how the Saloy-Eli are mentioned in our folklore, how they still exist among us today and their origin story from a manuscript.

Source 4: http://vashandaro.com/news/2018-12-20-322

Recorded folktale about Saloy-Eli from an elder, the tale is in the official Vashindaroy clan website.

Source 5: https://kavkaznasledie.ru/?p=3719

Manuscript from Argvani, Dagestan which tells the story of how the Saloy-Eli (Sala-Uzden) came to Dagestan.

Another source which i dont know how to post a link of in here is "Этническая история Терско-Сулакского междуречья (на примере семьи Башир-шейха Аксайского)" - Баширов М. С.-Э., Хасмагомадов Э.Х" It talks about the Sala-Uzden and noblemen such as Uchar-Hajji, Tashu-Hajji and Bashir-Sheikh. --Goddard2000 (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork Stop trying to disrupt, if you want to address these sources then do it below my post.

Doesn't matter if Kumyks have tales about Sala-Uzden being Kumyk because thats the point. That both Chechens and Kumyks consider them theirs and that u can't just say they are ONLY one thing like your source does. So be a man and stop acting like a baby, you are embarrassing yourself. Also i have a hard time believing an Irish man would be so emotionally invested into this, especially conveniently right after 2-3 similar accounts were banned recently and had the same opinions as you. Maybe i should report this account for sockpuppeting too? just like you reported me. --Goddard2000 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it matters all over this talk page if Chechen has folk, and you'll rub our noses in it non-stop, but it doesn't when Kumyk have? Nice approach. Also, it's non of your business who is a man and woman, an Irish man, or a Chechen baby here. You're here to prove you point, and not to exercise disdain and trash talk as it's been duly noticed.--IrelandCork (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork Again stop editing inside of my edit, you are trying to disrupt it.

Many sources also call the elders "Chechens" or "Chechens and Kumyks" or "Aksayan", what is it you dont get? the town was multi-ethnic with its inhabitants at the time of this event being HALF CHECHEN like the source in "Descent" says. You think of the 300 elders that gathered in the town square all of them were Kumyk? despite the town being half Chechen? despite the sole reason for them being gathered is because Chechens from the south came to start an uprising? So in your opinion all Chechens (half of Aksay) did nothing when Chechens from other areas came to Aksay and only the Kumyk inhabitants helped them? do you not realize how idiotic this sounds?

Why do you throw an "Anglo-Saxon" Chechen or whatever source at me? its made by an amateur while i posted a scientific paper by the historian Amin Tesaev who is a professional historian. His paper was posted in a journal but unfortunately i dont know how to post it here so i found the next best thing. ALL of his claims in that article has sources so you can look in the sources instead of throwing ridiculous fairytales that have no part of this discussion.

Russian generals and historians are notorious for calling one tribe or person several different nationalities, one example is Tasha-Hajji who is called Chechen by some Generals and Kumyk by others. Same thing with Imam Shamil who is called Kumyk by some and Avar by many. Russians weren't experts in who is who, and besides the bodenstet and the other source were mention in order to show you that Uchar hajji wasn't called Chechen RECENTLY. You do know what scholarship entails right? you have to compile and study history which is what these two sources did and they are certainly not modern

Your hypocrisy shows when you post a source that doesn't mention Kumyks anywhere and then you criticize the Shikhaliev source who gives the names of Chechen clans as being the ancestors of Sala-Uzden and Gueni. --Goddard2000 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus, Another important source i forgot to mention was: "О Кавказской линии к присоединенном к ней Черноморском войске или Общие замечания о поселенных полках, ограждающих Кавказскую линию, и о соседственных горских народах. С 1816 по 1826 год" from 1829. This is an important source since it is a book compiled of General notes and events. This book was published 4 years after the Gerzel-Aul incident and on page 239 it describes Uchar-Hadzhi as "Mullah of the Chechen nation". Yet again another argument that Uchar-Hadzhi wasn't called Chechen recently when you have sources describing him Chechen just 4 years after the incident.

Source: https://runivers.ru/lib/book7596/394230/     < you can find the pdf file right under the book cover --Goddard2000 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Quote: "В 1858 г. царской администрацией было издано распоряжение «О недозволении поселить аулы на прежнем жительстве». Так было воспрещено... а всем без исключения аксаевским князьям и узденям селиться на месте Старого Яхсая." Source, Очерки истории северных кумыков [Текст] / Ю. М. Идрисов, Махачкала, 1998. IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This website https://proza.ru/2012/04/28/745 says Anglo-Saxons are related to Chechen teips and the name is related to Chechen clan Engenoy, and Avraam talked "Vainakh". Shall we bring it to Wikipedia also? You can always write "I assure you it's a solid source", can't you?--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * https://e-libra.su - Exactly, and it also says "Kymyk Sala-Uzdens" no anything about Chechens.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Basically you say that those participants of the events who were ordering to destroy Aksay didn't know the difference between Chechen and Kumyk while interacting every day with them, and that some later compilers knew it better.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Shikhaliyev gave a few versions and a statement of relation to some tribe, he doesn't say "they are Chechen". A hundred times it was quoted above. Will you stop playing this game please? Read WP:OR, please.. It's not funny anymore.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you think Kumyks wouldn't have folklore and tales and family histories and trees? How is that Saloy-Eli an argument. WP:OR.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Molla of Chechen nation does not reflect ethnicity. Shamil also was imam of Chechens, but not Chechen. original research.--KrakDuck (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, I just wanted to apologize, I have not been able to find the time to follow this. If I do end up with time, I will come back here and weigh in. Life outside of Wiki and all. It's good that we're talking in terms of sources now, and some of these presented by both of you do look possibly good, so that's progress, and I'm glad. I also very much agree with you,, about the erh... precision of historical Russian references to Caucasus peoples. Quite late, even Avars were called "Circassians". This is why reliance on secondary sources preferably published after 1950 is preferable. --Calthinus (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it's arguable, no objective sources in the modern time, they all rely on primary sources and russian empire was a military state, everyone was an officer, including famous scholars in ethnology. and good modern sources are already given in the article, Goddard just flooding your attention with indefinite circle of absurdities--KrakDuck (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically, we should throw out any and all articles covering anything to do with Russia? Somehow, I don't think so. --Calthinus (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that was the point. If anything until 1960s is not good, and only modern Chechen Academy sources and people without scholar degrees overweigh old sources, nothing would be left.--IrelandCork (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Calthinus Take your time, this article however imo is pretty easy to edit. Only thing i am arguing for is that there is plenty of proof of Uchar being Chechen and that Aksay was half Chechen. This isn't the case with the article now standing, its very biased and i haven't deleted anything atm since i dont want to wage an edit war. My option is pretty neutral and fair to both sides i think, it doesn't favor Kumyks or Chechens and lets the reader decide by looking up the sources, dont you agree? --Goddard2000 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * bunch of original research and crazy bloggers as source, good sources are already in the article. also your talk manner is trash talking others. you did it with me and you continued with Irelandcork. maybe in Chechnya it's possible ty torture and abase people who don't agree with some marginalities, as we see from recent events but you should try to be less of aggressive abuser and more polite here, it has limits.--KrakDuck (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Dont bring in politics in Chechnya for no reason, now because you interrupted my quotes in here a lot was deleted so ill post them again:

1. Lots of things happened in Aksay from 1825 until 1858, it wasn't abandoned in fact in 1836 Naib Tasha-Hadzhi besieged it Source: https://books.google.ru/books?id=aILsBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B9&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxyIm19OjSAhXDQpoKHWGPDTwQ6AEIRzAJ#v=onepage&q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B9&f=false

2. I never said there were no sources calling him Kumyk, again you forget the initial point of why i posted the source. It was to show you that old scholarship from the 1800s considered him Chechen as well so your point about it being "modern scholarship" as if it happened only recently is false.

3. Amin Tesaev is a professional historian, he often writes for the Academy of Sciences of the Chechen Republic (Grozny), here is one example of his paper in a journal. Its on the main website of the Chechen Academy: http://anchr.ru/ch/tallam/tallam-3-20-2020/

I suggest now we leave this page for calthinius to read, you have voiced your opinion and i have voiced mine. --Goddard2000 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Calthinus, not calthinius. Commenting iteratively here.
 * (1) Whatever Al(')bert Machigov says about Chechens and Early Medieval England.... it doesn't matter here. He's not RS and has no bearing on this.
 * (2) Imam Shamil was an Avar, end of story, and I have never seen him called a "molla/imam/whatever of the Chechens" without Avars, Laks, etc also being listed.
 * (3) Although we have to keep in mind that nobody in Chechnya is really able to write freely on anything (not that Dagestan is so much better), Goddard is right that Tesayev appears to be a credentialed scholar. It appears that some of the works cited are not peer-reviewed. But imo, in this source desert, it's better than nothing. There is some caution necessary. For example, Tesaev says this -- ... but the word yurt generally occurs in Chechen toponyms mostly in the lowlands and is plausibly connected to the Turkic yurt (as in English), from Proto-Turkic *yūrt, meaning "dwelling place". However, despite this, my ultimate analysis is that Goddard's proposal is correct -- the page should present both theories on his ethnicity, and you can't simply dismiss Tesayev, who is, yes, a credentialed scholar.
 * (4) This statement by KrakDuck -- -- is insanely offensive, to say the least. Yes, it is true that in Chechnya, some real shit happens. You don't rub that in someone's face to make a point. This isn't "kids be nice", there is no way you can possibly professionally engage when someone is behaving like that. Stop immediately.
 * (5) Preferably don't use sources from 1914 or 1934 if it can be helped.
 * In summary, yeah, Goddard's position is here is fairly vindicated, and to be honest, I don't think further sneers about the unfortunate political situation in Chechnya will be tolerated (remember, is watching). Cheers all. --Calthinus (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Calthinus. 1. With ragerd to Tesaev, you're allowing a precedent when the whole branch will be filled with sources from people without any scholar achievement. I think it opens Pandora box, there are hundreds of local "writer-historians" who write whatever fantasy. 2. Sources on his Chechen descent are already given. That wasn't an issue at all. The issue was Sala-Uzden sources and original research on that part. It seems you slid from the topic, but no wonder, because all that flood has it as the exact goal.--IrelandCork (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Slippery slope is not a policy. He's a credentialed historian. If the work is peer-reviewed, then that's that. To ascertain that, there is WP:RSN. --Calthinus (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Calthinus Sorry, just to clarify, if I write an article and publish it in some journal (in Russia it's usually paid or "connections" based thing), and I don't have any professional "level", it can be allowed on English Wikipedia? I'm asking because on Russian Wikipedia modern authors must have real scholarship credentials like "candidate or professor (doctor) of historical sciences" and alike, and not only some kind of "fame".--IrelandCork (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Currently, this paragraph is a mess -- . Most readers will be bewildered with the Uchar/Ochar switching, and bringing up the rather foreign concept of the sala-uzden caste. This issue is taking up half the page, and it's practically WP:COATRACK when we're going into Kumyk anthropology. I'd like to just delete it, and leave only one sentence on the dispute about his ethnicity, in the lede, with the useful sources (Leitzinger for one) preserved there. You guys okay with that?--Calthinus (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Calthinus That's what I was suggesting in my first Admin Noticeboard request. Instead I got smashed by looped wording-waterfalls, accusations in idiocy and hypocrisy :-). I'm sure Sala-Uzden part is entirely irrelevant.--IrelandCork (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus, Hello i just wanna talk about some of the sources, I dont think Tesaev meant that "yurt" is a Chechen word, he has mentioned other times that it wasn't. He was just translating "Chir-yurt" what it means in Chechen, specifically the "Chir" part. As for the sources from 1848-1915 etc those were only brought up because the previous text said that some "MODERN" scholarship called Uchar-Hajji Chechen implying it was something new. But since you are proposing to delete it then i dont mind not using the sources. How will the "Events in Gerzel aul" part look though? In my opinion it should be neutral since the current text implies only the Kumyks in Aksay helped the rebels from other parts of Chechnya.

Here is my proposition:

1.

Should be changed into:

2.

Should be changed into:

3.

Should be changed into:

4. Also >

Should honestly be removed since the source posted was referring to an incident in 1858 (23 years after this incident) and Aksay was inhabited by Chechens and Kumyks between this time period. Famous Naib Tasha-Hadzhi also besieged the town in 1836 so this sentence is incorrect in my opinion. What do you think? -Goddard2000 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. Disagree, Aksay is called "a settlement of Kumyks", encyclopedia. Also, there is no source that the elders were Chechen. If you state it, it must have some source. And statistical data showed it was populated predominantly by Kumyks after resettlement, link, link
 * 2.,3. is OK
 * 4. Disagree, the decree of 1858 is directly related to the destruction of Aksay in 1825. This statement is incorrect, in 1883 we see only 23 Chechens in Aksay. Since the end of the Caucasian War Chechens were moved only to Khasavyurt district, not out, source "З. Х. Ибрагимова ЧЕЧЕНЦЫ В ЗЕРКАЛЕ ЦАРСКОЙ СТАТИСТИКИ (1860—1900) Монография Москва «ПРОБЕЛ-2000» 2006". --IrelandCork (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Calthinus see this is why i brought up the sources from 1848, 1829 and 1915, Irelandcork disagrees that even 1 of the elders could have been Chechen despite all of my above posted sources where Uchar-Hadji (one of the most prominent elders of the ones gathered) being called Chechen or a "Mullah of the Chechen nation". Seems weird that a mullah of the Chechen nation alone would live in a 100% inhabited Kumyk town no? take this with Ermolovs report in the "Descent" part where he reports that half of the inhabitants are Chechen in Aksay. So 300 elders from Aksay gather in Gerzel-Aul, Aksay being half Chechen and one of the most prominent one is called Chechen in sources from the 19th and 20th century. Wouldn't it be a logical conclusion that of the gathered elders in Aksay not all would be Kumyk? as for the settlement belonging to Kumyks i am not arguing against that. Braguny in Chechnya belongs to the Chechen republic yet is a Kumyk majority town.

4th point doesn't make sense whatsoever, how is the decree from 1858 related to 1825 when the town we are talking about has been fought over between this time period 1825-1858? Why are you even mentioning 1883? and why are you bringing sources that talks about 1883 now? There are sources of military reports where its said that Naib Tasha Hadzhi besieged Aksay in 1836 so it was obviously settled between 1825 and 1858.

Source:https://books.google.ru/books?id=aILsBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&dq=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B9&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxyIm19OjSAhXDQpoKHWGPDTwQ6AEIRzAJ#v=onepage&q=%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B9&f=false

-Goddard2000 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus Another thing, the source about Aksay being half Chechen in "Descent" is hard to find so ill post it here with the pages and quotes:

Source: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/4762-ch-2-1816-1827-g-1868 *Page 23*

Quote: "None of the Kumytsky Princes dared, leave without being accompanied by a Chechen. So the Kachkalyk society took the best lands of Aksaevskie, and in the city of Aksay itself at least half of the inhabitants there were Chechens. The Kumyks were supposed to give them passage through their lands for robbery within our borders and, in case of persecution, refuge. Many, both voluntarily and under duress, participated in thefts with them."

As you can see the General of the Caucasian line during this time said that Aksay was half Chechen and that the "Kachkalyk society" (Chechens living on the Kachkalyk ridge) controlled the best lands in Aksay. This report was done in 1825 the same year as this event. Dont you think its silly to say that of these 300 elders from Aksay that gathered in Gerzel-Aul all of them were Kumyk? The town was 50% Chechen, Chechens living there had the best lands etc. So when Chechens from southern Chechnya come to start a rebellion in Aksay only the Kumyks help them? not the Chechens there who were known raiders of the Caucasian line? This is why i propose to make the article more neutral and why i proposed to change those quotes above.

Also another source from 1888 by the Russian historian Veidenbaum calls Uchar-Hadji a Chechen, yet another source that calls him Chechen from the 19th century i.e its not from some "modern scholarship".

Source: http://apsnyteka.org/492-veydenbaum_putevoditel_po_kavkazu.html *page 258*

Quote: "Then Adzhi the Chechen Mullah stabbed Lisanevich"

Hope this helps. - Goddard2000 (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's my thoughts.
 * (1) Tesaev -- he absolutely meant that the placename is of Chechen origin, and neglected to mention that yurt is a Turkic word from Proto-Turkic *yūr5. Have other credentialed historians been similarly ignorant about linguistics? Yes. Did he mess up? Yeah, it seems so. I have passive knowledge of Russian.
 * (2) Goddard's proposal #1ː I would prefer . The ethnicity of the village's inhabitants is obviously contentious. Their ethnicity is also not the point. We can just omit it. All this crap about who was there when and who was there first is pointless. The name Aksay is obviously Turkic but this doesn't close the topic; the lowlands, Aukh included, have gone back and forth between Chechens and Kumyks and Nogais and etc for centuries, we could end up going all the way back to 1300 CE if we continue this way -- or even the BCE era when Scythians (who I suppose not only Ossetians but also Balkars/Karachays/Kumyks can reasonably claim as their partial ancestors while Chechens are less inclined to do so for obvious reasons) arrived. IrelandCork meanwhile disputes this, citing Aksay being called "a settlement of Kumyks". Imo, this is missing the point. The ethnicity of hte village is not the topic of this page, it is better we simply neutralize the contention by removing ethnic references to begin with, especially because, as I noted earlier, the whole area has gone back and forth throughout history, and, additionally, I fundamentally distrust most sourcing on this matter. Maybe it was repopulated predominantly by Kumyks after resettlement but that's irrelevant for the time period we're talking about, and says close to nothing about who lived there beforehand, especially since Russian imperial policy was to dispossess Chechens of lands by whatever means (Dunlop has discussed as much) and Kumyks were relatively "loyal" (this is OR on my part -- and that's okay on talk pages, policy wise).
 * (3) Goddard's proposal #2 is essentially removing ethnicity from the sentence, and I completely agree. Regarding, "the Aksay Kumyks' support to the Chechen rebels" --> "the Aksay support to the rebels", I'd prefer "the support in Aksay for the rebels" since the village itself is not a living creature and can't "support" anything.
 * (4) Goddard's proposal #3 -- again, I todally agree, and actually it's correct also because "all Kumyks dead" is wrong because it implies that all Kumyks in the village were killed. Which appears to be false.
 * (5) Goddard's proposal #4 -- here I'm more cautious. If the source says Kumyks were forbidden to resettle there, we should say that. If they did anyways well that's hardly surprising, it's the Kavkaz, breaking rules set by Russians is street cred :).
 * Overall, we have to avoid this page turning into a COATRACK about historical demographics. Because that's not the topic. --Calthinus (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus I dont want to seem like a Tesaev apologist but i feel like i have to comment on this since he was my source. Tesaev has mentioned before that yurt is Turkic. In the very same article you quoted from he says "yurt is Turkic, its borrowing by Chechens cannot be questioned" and then mentions several Chechen villages. I think the point he was trying to make was that "Yurt" while being of Turkic origin was by that point part of the Chechen language so claiming that "Chir-yurt" is turkic solely based on "yurt" would be wrong, as we know all languages have borrowings which eventually become an integral part of the language.

My proposal at part 5 is valid in my opinion because the source has nothing to do with the Gerzel-Aul events in 1825. The source literally mentions 1858, in 1818 Aksay, Endirey and Kostek faced a massive Chechen deportation by Ermolov. He forced thousands of Chechens to move to Chechnya proper and basically ethnically cleansed them and empited dozens of villages. Does this mean i can use this source in the "Events of gerzel-Aul 1825" part and say that Chechens were deported? even though this event happened before 1825? That wouldn't be right in my opinion. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus Another thing, is it possible to change the intro? "original sources as Kumyk and some other a Chechen" sounds biased imo, would be better if we changed it to: "Uchar Hadji (Otshar Yaqub from Aksay) was according to some original sources as Kumyk,[2][3][4] according to some other original sources a Chechen,[5][6][7][8] elder, who killed two Russian generals at once.[2][9]"

The "original" should be in both, would be more accurate. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Re Tesaev -- yeah this is correct, and you can argue that "yurt" became a part of Chechen, sure. But this wasn't Tesaev's argument. He outright neglected the matter entirely and presented the name as quintessentially Chechen, which is not really a balanced treatment of the matter. Even if -yurt became part of Chechen (sure: -ville in English is from French, Slavic borrowed -grad/-gorod/etc from Germanic etc), if you are making an argument against a Turkic etymology, you can't just neglect this -- it's equally possible that Kumyks resuffixed a Chechen name... and chir itself can be etymologized to Turkic; or: Georgian or Armenian where it refers to dried fruit aaaand we know a Georgian diaspora once lived in the area. Personally though I do agree with Tesa(y)ev that the name is probably Chechen but I think he could have handled that matter better .... It's a weak argument on his part at best. I'm not saying don't use him. I'm saying "use with caution". I don't doubt his credentials as a historian.
 * Yeah, I agree about the intro. I'd change it to "Kumyk (cites) or Chechen (cites)".
 * Re thee 1818/1825/1858 sourcing -- I agree that's an issue, and Yaarmul's policies toward Chechens should be covered -- but not on this page necessarily. But does this negate a statement about Kumyks being forbidden to resettle after this event? It doesn't seem to contradict that. If the source says Kumyks, well... --Calthinus (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Calthinus, some time ago you say that military sources are not good as sources, and now the only account of any Chechens in Old Aksay in 1825, which is not supported by any ethnographic works, from general Yermolov, is super relevant and allows to wipe out all mentions from other sources that gathered there were indeed Kumyks, punished for breaking their word and helping Chechens. isn't it a biased approach? shall we rename an article "Kumyks" into "Kumyks, which are Chechens speaking Turkish", I'm sure Arsanukaev or Tesaev or Bakaev or Akhmadov would have written about that by now.


 * Also, source about 1858 basically implies that some kumyk uzdens tried to return to Old Aksay (saying that there existed Aksay before 1858 as an argument that kumyks couldn't be denied to settle there is quite stupid as we I believe all understand an elementary thing that there were Old Aksay before 1825 and new Aksay after 1825), and were are forbidden to resettle there, source does say Kumyk btw


 * Brokgauz encyclopedia as I see says that Aksay and former Old Aksay is Kumyk. perhaps we shall write a script "substitute all Kumyk by Chechen" for wikipedia. why bother and keep anything about Kumyks if there are ubiquitous claims of Chechens in every Kumyk molla, elder, village and so on? AScience Academy of Chechnya will provide the source for anything, on-demand--KrakDuck (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And it's not a joke on the Academy at all, there is a nice example about Abdulhakim Ismailov who is famous for the photo of soviet flag on Reichstag. there are unstoppable campaigns in media and "scientific pieces" that he is Chechen from some teip. good thing we have cameras today and he managed to give an interview stating in kumyk that he is kumyk, although it doesn't stop chechens from continuing writing and creating films about him as a chechen. so let's do that, let's make Henry IV and Barack Obama Chechen, Tesaev's pen is ready--KrakDuck (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What are you on about? Right now the page says nothing about the ethnicity of inhabitants of Aksay at any point in time. Are you actually here to right an encyclopedia, or just to insult people on talk pages? --Calthinus (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * i've not insulted anyone yet, here stating facts about how history is done over there, for insults we have Goddard2000 as you clearly saw.--KrakDuck (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus Very well, Chir-yurt isn't the matter here so better to leave it then. As for the Kumyk source, its portrayed in a way that when after Gerzel-Aul was burned then only the Kumyks were resettled. This is a problem because the source which was added for this is from 1858 i.e this resettlement took place in 1858, this was ordered in 1858, this is 23 years after this event. As we know from the sources i posted the town of Aksay was inhabited and even fought over between 1825 until 1858 so i dont understand why we should add this source? I would have had no problem if it was unrelated to the 1825 event but this source is literally right after the battle in 1825. Also why is this source even necessary? Even if they were banned from settling there in 1858 they are still the majority there today. Aksay now in 2021 is like 99% Kumyk, should we also add that they were allowed to return? as Irelandcork mentioned they were also the majority in 1886. So i dont see the point in adding the source that has nothing to do with the events of 1825. Maybe its better if we create an Aksay article and add the chronological history there. Goddard2000 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be like writing about the battle of Vedeno in 1859 and right after say "after the battle all of the Chechens were not allowed to settle there" then add a source talking about the deportation of Chechens in 1944. Goddard2000 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Calthinus it's a misconception that Chechens were continuously removed from some lands, only Yermolov and Stalin had that as a policy, in other periods Chechens were continuously given territories by various Russian administrations.
 * Since the end of 18th century Chechens are moved to lowlands, with particular activities since 1809 under Gudovich. With presents in the form of money and lands Chechens subjugate in 1811. РОССИЙСКАЯ ПОЛИТИКА В ЧЕЧНЕ В ПЕРИОД НАМЕСТНИЧЕСТВА А. П. ТОРМАСОВА Ш. А. Гапуров, С. С. Магамадов, В. В. Черноус, Научная мысль Кавказа, 2016.
 * 1811 General Tormasov decrees to persuade Chechens to resettle to lowlands: Бирюков А. В. Российско-чеченские отношения в XVII — середине XIX вв. // Вопросы истории. — 1998. — № 2
 * Governor Vorontsov in 1860-70s used to force Chechens to resettle to Kumyk lands, Покровский Н. И. Кавказские войны и имамат Шамиля / Предисл. Н. Н. Покровского, введ. и прим. В. Г. Гаджиева. — М.: РОССПЭН, 2000. — С. 27. — ISBN 5-8243-0078-X.
 * In 1870-1890 Russian administration resettled Chechens to the line from Gerzel to Endirey, number of Chechens in Hasawyurt trippled. this policy continued till revolution З. Х. Ибрагимова ЧЕЧЕНЦЫ В ЗЕРКАЛЕ ЦАРСКОЙ СТАТИСТИКИ (1860—1900) Монография Москва «ПРОБЕЛ-2000» 2006
 * In 1920s Chechnya's territory is increased by Bolsheviks as a reward for the help in establishing Bolshevik rule in Caucasus, Grozny district and other territories south of Terek are included in Chechnya Бугай Н. Ф., Гонов А. М. Кавказ: народы в эшелонах (20‑60‑е годы). М., «Инсан», 1998. с. 86
 * After deportation and return Nogai steppe north of Terek is incorporated into Chechnya as a way to compensate for catastrophic deportation.Ногайцы и территория их расселения в политике российского государства на Северном Кавказе в конце XIX - первой половине XX в, ВАК, 2018, Д.Ш. Рамазанова. --KrakDuck (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of you, historical demographics is not the topic of this page.--Calthinus (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * just FYI, as you ORed on it in your comment--KrakDuck (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Calthinus I wasn't talking about the historical demographics, i was talking about how a decree from 1858 isn't a proper source to an event from 1825. KrakDuck Chechens were settled on Kumyk lands? are you sure its not the other way around? literally two of the biggest components of your nation (Gueni and Salatavians) are of Chechen ancestry)) About your statement that "Chechens only moved down during the 18th century" i would love to address since this is big misinformation. Chechens are written down by Russian documents as inhabitants of Dagestan since the 16th century. One of the most powerful prince in Dagestan was Shikh-Murza who belonged to the Okoki tribe. But anyway Calthinus is right, lets focus on Uchar-Hajji and not the demography history of Dagestan. Goddard2000 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, you don't have to give us this pretense, "are you sure", just read the sources--KrakDuck (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ridiculous highly unrelated statement about shihmirza - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%9E%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9, so much of a great and powerful. nice tactics, through some rubbish into discussion and make it seem you operate with reason, while laughing out loud how unaware admins here about what you're doing.--KrakDuck (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You think your cherry-picked sources are the only ones in the world? there are sources from 1720's that talk about Chechens living all the way to the Caspian sea, documents from 1746 where Kachkalyk (Chechens) are allowed to come back to their land near Endirey, sources from 1756 where Sala-Uzden prince Adzhi greets the Endirey citizens as "Nakhshai" (Chechens), sources from 1780s of travelers noting how Chechens live near the caspian sea and fish near Chechen Island. So no your sources from 1800s dont paint the full picture at all, Chechens have lived in central Dagestan for a very long time before some russian general decided to re-settle some chechens during the 1800s. Anyway this is my last post regarding this in here. Calthinus When do you think we could edit the last part? Goddard2000 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * on english wiki these marginal matter is OK for uneducated in the topic community, enjoy why it lasts--KrakDuck (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Enjoy why it lasts" is this a threat? had i used your tactics i would have already created 10 reports based on this comment)) Also i dont think its smart to talk down to the admins and imply they are unaware of anything)) But anyway lets leave it and wait for Calthinus answer Goddard2000 (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Calthinus i think we are almost done with the article no? just the intro part and the ending left. We were gonna change it so it mentions that Chechen mentions were also original sources right? As for Kumyks not being resettled..cmon, Aksai was settled by Kumyks from 1825 until today. The source that is used is 1. an order in 1858 and 2. Only referred to princes and nobles of Aksai. It does not mention ethnicity anywhere so again "kumyks were never allowed to settle there" is a ridiculous sentence. Irelandcork mentioned above how in 1886 majority of Aksai was Kumyk.

"In 1858, the tsarist administration issued a decree "On the prohibition of settling auls in their former residence." So it was forbidden ... to all Aksaev princes and uzdens, without exception, to settle in the place of Old Yakhsai."

^ this is the source, no where does it mention Kumyks, it talks about princes and nobles (uzdens) whom among them as we know from other sources existed the Sala Nobles who were also considered Chechen.

So the problem i have with  < this sentence is:

1. People lived in Aksai from 1825 until now. It was never depopulated to great extents. It was fought over in 1836 which i posted the source for. This source even talks about it in part 6 how Aksai became a hub and trading city after these events > http://kumukia.ru/article-9102.html#x05

2. The source that was posted by krackduck refers to an event that was 23 years after this event

3. The source krackduck posted mentions NOTHING about ethnicity, it talks about banishing of some princes and noblemen, are we to believe all Kumyks were nobles and princes? surely for princes and noblemen to exist there needs to be peasants??

So i think its more neutral if we delete this sentence altogether Goddard2000 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

My Bad the previous website i posted did mention that Aksay was depopulated and moved to a different town called "New Aksay" http://kumukia.ru/article-9102.html#x05 < on part 6

But they were allowed to resettle later on and the city became a hub. However no ethnicity was mentioned and as we know Aksay was half Chechen during this time. I change my mind about deleting the sentence and stand corrected on this part. But i would still like to make some adjustments to the sentence.

{tquote| In retribution, Aksay was destroyed by Russian forces, and it was forbidden for the Kumyks to ever resettle the land again}}

into this:

{tquote| In retribution, Aksay was destroyed by Russian forces, and the inhabitants were settled in "Novy Aksai"}}

^This would be better in my opinion, we would keep the tradition of not mentioning ethnicity and no ethnicity was mentioned in the source krackduck posted. So since the town was already half Chechen we can assume that it wasn't Kumyks alone that were not allowed to live in Aksai. Goddard2000 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The source does say that when denying the right to return to Old Aksay lands the agrument was that "Kumyks were removed from Old Aksay by the tsar's decree". So, there were attempts to return to Old Aksay's lands by Kumyk families who formerly populated the village, but they were denied and the denial was reinforced by a formal decree. And it's about Old Aksay which was destroyed in retribution for 1825 events. Clear and vivid fact. --IrelandCork (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This source does indeed mention Kumyks but its obvious that it wasn't Kumyks alone since the town was already half Chechen. I think its reasonable to assume that there were Chechens among the people that weren't allowed to settle the town. After all where would half of its population (Chechens) go? go up in smoke? Anyways i propose we keep this section without nationalities and if we include one then we need to include both to be fair. It is up to Calthinus now, lets wait and see what he says. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Goddard2000 It's obvious for WP:OR gurus and fantasy compilers.--IrelandCork (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * About "almost half of the population". It's present only in Yermolov's account, who was a military general and, as we've figured out, military generals are not reliable sources on their own without secondary sources. And there is no any source accounting for any statistics of Chechens in Aksay at the time and later. Only in 1883 after huge campaign by settling Chechens to Khasavyurt we have exact statistical data of 23 Chechen Aksayans. So there aren't a single source there was anyone to go up in smoke in the first place.--IrelandCork (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the source states clear facts about Aksayan Kumyks and does not say anything about Chechens. Adding Chechens or removing Kumyks will be WP:OR here.--IrelandCork (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes Cork lets throw away all of my sources that include historical researchers from 1800s calling one of the most important elders of Aksay a Chechen, lets ignore military reports from his time period that call him Chechen, lets ignore the Main General of the Caucasian line talking about half of Aksay being Chechen, lets ignore everything and only add your sources. Also i removed Krackducks source which talked about Uchar-Hadzhi's son being Kumyk as if this confirms that Uchar Hadji himself was Kumyk. Plenty other sources call his sons Chechen like here: http://kumukia.ru/article-86.html

Quote: "The Chechen Khadzhi-Mehmed, who is known to you from my previous reports, returned to Chechnya at the end of last year, under the guise of loyalty to our government intending to strengthen between his fellow tribesmen, entered in connection with Tashev-Khadzhi and uses all his influence to spread the sharia, which is harmful to us." ..."

We already agreed to not post about his sons before, Caucasusdot removed the previous edit by Krackduck who tried to insert a source about his son. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a great mystery how, on a page about a single individual, we have managed to yet again slide back into arguing about historical demography. Why not just write Historical demographic disputes in Central Dagestan? re yes there are sources about Chechens living on the shores of the Caspian near the Aktash but this is not what we're talking about nor is it relevant to the page....... The obvious solution here is just to avoid any and all ethnonyms, since the ethnicity of people isn't even the salient factor here. Both Chechens and Kumyks -- and practically everyone in the Caucasus save the Ossetes -- was on and off fighting the Russians during this period (and alternatingly cutting deals with them when convenient). How are we even onto the ethnicity of his sons? --Calthinus (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus This is exactly why i proposed that we mention NO ethnicty in the Gerzel Aul events related to the inhabitants of Aksai, Of us 3 (duck, cork and me) i have been the only one that has said that we should keep it without ethnicties (removing that kumyks have been resettled and writing aksay instead etc) but that hasn't been changed yet, could we do it now and be done with this? All of my mentions of Chechens living in Caspian sea etc were in response to ducks misinformation about us supposedly "Living on kumyk lands". The part where i mentioned uchar hajjis son was in response to duck's edit in the main page which i removed. This talk page is cluttered now with unnecessary information that has nothing to do with this page. So lets just make the "Gerzel-Aul" event part without any ethnicity. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that duck added the son source as just a source + quote in the source. I thought he edited it in the article itself, guess that is fair, my bad for undoing it before. Also noticed that Calthinus fixed the "Gerzel-aul" section of the article, i am fine with how it looks now. It is neutral for both Chechens and Kumyks. Thank you Calthinus and thank you IrelandCork & KrakDuck for interesting civilized dialogue that made us all come to an agreement. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing of a civilized talk. You're a poor editor, who thinks only of trying to insult with a lie in every edit. You may be proud with your mastery in deception of admins here, who are far from experts in Caucasian history, but your lies will get back to you. You tried this "propaganda", as it's called below, on Russian Wikipedia but guys there at least know where Caucasus is and can read Russian and have some grasp of the question, and admins cut your gibberish at once. So, it's just the lack of knowledge of locals you exploited, be proud of that for now.--IrelandCork (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Goddard2000, Calthinus, what's this madness? the source is says about Uchar, what are you both talking about when you mention his son? The article's name contains the name of the son. Calthinus, will you check at least something that Goddard lies about or you're gonna just take what he gives you every time. THE SOURCE IS ABOUT UCHAR. --KrakDuck (talk)

KrakDuck Dont pretend you didn't read my last post where i said that i misunderstood your source and admitted that undoing it was wrong. We are done with this article now. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Goddard2000 Congrats on making a laughing stock out of admins here, if only they understood one day how you tricked them into marginalizing the article usingtheir complete profanity in the topic. Five star propaganda medal to you.--KrakDuck (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus, El_C, This is getting out of hand, this man is harassing me not the first time and is now accusing me of propaganda and not to mention "making the admins in here a laughing stock". I dont want to make 100s of reports all the time but im tired of being unnecessarily tagged in here and insulted. Me and Calthinus came to an agreement and we settled it but it looks like Krackduck won't stop, he also has a history (him and Irelandcork) of rooting trough my past and trying to find edits that can get me banned. I am only here to seek a consensus and edit in peace but these 2 are waging wars on me. This is ridiculous Goddard2000 (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * if someone WP:STALKs you and you have no real violations, you don't really have to fear another report on ANI: frivolous reports are dismissed, or worse, subject to WP:BOOMERANG.--Calthinus (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, imo -- don't restore the History of Chechnya category. Whatever his ethnicity, this is not the history of Chechnya.--Calthinus (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus Why not? It involved Chechens and Uchar-Hadji is someone who is reported to have been a Chechen. Wouldn't be fair to have history of kumyks and not history of chechnya. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * History of Chechens absolutely. And the history of the whole Caucasus broadly. But do we need to territorialize an encyclopedia? I think it's important to avoid the appearance of "territorial claims". It's a trivial thing that goes a long way in making the topic area sane to edit in, so I appreciate it, personally. In the end it's good for all of us, because you can't get back hours in your life spent arguing about these unimportant points. It's better to expand the encyclopedia, we all win. --Calthinus (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think an important point here to is that History of Kumyks is okay just as History of Chechens would be, but History of Kumykia/Chechnya is not, because such fixed mutually exclusive "territories" are kind of a recent thing. The lands of the Chechens and Kumyks had mutual enclaves within each other, some overlap as with Aksay itself, but the "territory" terms conjure up the idea of fixed zones on some world map that don't overlap. --Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright fair enough. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Placing comments inside others' signed comments is strictly prohibited

 * please take note KrakDuck and IrelandCork. If you need to, quote excerpts, but this is otherwise a prohibited practice whose repetition is a cause for sanctions. Thanks. El_C 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, I removed all the violating comments. Feel free to restore these so long as they are placed in the normal way (i.e. not inside a signed comment). El_C 15:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . --Calthinus (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)\
 * Thanks, moved them out.--IrelandCork (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)