Talk:Grozny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Human geography (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Chechnya (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chechnya, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chechnya on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Complaint[edit]

This article is pathetic, for a city probably more ruined than Baghdad. Nomination after seeing a program on BBC last night about it all. I know some of the details on Chechen war etc. are in other articles, but the city (if what remains can be called such) deserves a decent article. Zoney 14:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree Zoney and I've just made a mental note to try and expand this some time, although I suspect I'll run into a dearth of information on the place. From pictures I have seen of Grozny it does look like it's been completely laid waste over the years. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article could do with a little, hmm, balance. As it is it reads as if it was written by a junior official at the Kremlin press office, e.g. no mention of the fact that the Russian government pounded this city into small pieces, killing thousands of its own citizens in the process, or that the billions of dollars it subsequently allocated for Grozny's reconstruction after the 1994-96 war went missing.

First of all this article is fair and is balanced, I personally took part in liberating Grozny in 2000 and pieces or not there was a city to liberate. Also most of the population between 1990 and 2000 fled, particulary the indegious Russian minority so fact is thousands or not, most of the buildings were empty when we entered it in spring 2000.--Kuban Cossack 15:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr anonymous, if the Russian government allocated billions of dollars for Grozny's reconstruction after 1994-1996 (personally I doubt it could have been anywhere near that figure) then it consisted indeed of drunks and imbeciles, because it was the separatist government of Maskhadov and Basaev who pocketed Russian and Saudi money (and yes, they also gave a lot between 1996 and 1999) and did not use it to reconstruct Grozny but to strengthen and export the Islamist revolution. You got the date wrong. (Pan Gerwazy)--pgp 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Article of the week? They have to be kidding. KNewman 12:16, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Name origin[edit]

the city was named after Ivan IV of Russia "The Terrible"

A dubious claim; removed until confirmation. Originally it was a fort, and the name "Grozny", which also means "threatening". was pretty natural. mikka (t) 17:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit confirmed; article updated. mikka (t) 17:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the word "grozny" also mean "thunderous"? -Tajik24 (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian (Terek Cossack) issue[edit]

I have added to the article about the history of Russian minority in the city. I would like anyone to tell me, if they know anything about the massacre that took place in 1944, just before the Chechens were deported. Kuban kazak 12:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


No "massacre" took place. In fact, the situtation was so peaceful that NKVD units sent to deport were disguised as frontline troops on R&R, vacationing in civilian houses.

This treachery allowed them to suddenly take the Checheno-Ingush populations by surprise on the Red Army Day and round up all people without practically any resistance (few men however managed to flee to the mountains, and there "bandits" staged a desperate struggle for several years after).

Separatist propaganda used this fact in 1994, when Udugov announced that Russians are really coming to deport them again and not only pacify as officially stated. This unified even much of anti-Dudaev opposition against the intervention. (anonymous)


The suggestion that there was no armed resistance by Chechen insurgents (as well as the suggestion that they did not collaborate with the Nazis) is untrue. Valentin Pikul' states in Barbarossa (most recent printing: 2006, AST, ISBN 5-17-024912-8) that at one time shortly before the siege of Stalingrad, almost all of the bomber planes active on the Caucasian front had to be diverted to quell the insurgency in Chechnya, and that Nazi aircraft made regular air-drops in the Chechen mountains and transmissions between Chechen insurgents and the Nazis were intercepted. Moonshiner 04:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide" facts[edit]

No, it's NOT "confirmed fact", and "genocide" is not just a criminals at work (criminals, or even policemen, killed, raped and robbed people also at Moscow, and no one says of "genocide" in Moscow - check out definition of genocide), while exodus of Russians from elsewhere of ex-Soviet Union to Russia was and still is commonplace (and now even encouraged by the Russian governemnt, who counts 20 million ethnic Russians to return to their homeland) - even if they're often treated as an "illegal aliens" with practically no rights.

Exodus of Russians from USSR is irrelevant. Exodus of Russians from Russia, forced exodus is relevant. --Kuban Cossack 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's revelant. From all of the former Soviet Union, actually. Sometimes forced, yes - with few rights and abuse in their own homeland.

Yes it is because exodus of Russians from ex-USSR due to political conditions and exodus of Russian refugees from Chechnya due to ethnic clensing. --Kuban Cossack 23:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also there are still some ethnic Russians in Grozny, with no help from the government (even their church bombed by Russian aircrafat in 1995 was still in ruins when I heard last time). Most of civilians who died in 1994-96 and many of these who died in the second war were ethnic Russians, too poor or old to move elsewhere and with no families in a villages to stay there (like how many of their Chechen neighbors did) and the heaviest devastation was in the ethnic Russian majority downtown. According to some estimates (link below), Russian military killed 35,000 [citation needed] ethnic Russians in Chechnya. Countless others lost their health or property. No, I'm not saying these deaths and destruction (and looting) were "genocide", too

You do realise you are going to have to provide sources for this original research--Kuban Cossack 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First link. Also a lot of others, if you want later.

Well all of this orginal research will have to be referenced with credible sources.--Kuban Cossack 23:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, please don't push anything what is not even a Russian government's official propaganda, thank you. And as we are talking about this, check out situation of Russians in for example "friendly" Turkmenistan.

Off topic is off topic.

Not really OT.

Yes it is OT

In fact, the only episode of real genocide in XXth century Chechnya happened in 1994, when at result of the deportation by NKVD 1/3 to half of the entire Chechen population died during 2-day-only brutal round-up (on one occasion, an entire village of 500 was burned alive, because deemed "difficult to transport" by its isolation), long transport in an Auschwitz-style trains, or a first years in exile in Siberia and Kazakhstan.

No single Chechen was allowed to remain in their homeland, even Communist party dignitaries went on the last train - the only difference a passeneger one. Even their cemeteries, books and other cultural heritage was destroyed (additional practice called cultural genocide). Obviously it was aimed at destroying Chechen nation as a whole (and several others, because it wasn't the only wholesale deportation of '40s - several other nations were also targetted).

Another would be part of the Stalin's war on "kulaks" in case of Terek Cossacks in 1930s (forced famine), but it's usually taken in context of the extended Ukrainian genocide.

Don't use one crime to justify another, please. --Kuban Cossack 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First, learn what genocide is. No, it's not when mobsters or policemen rob or rape people in Moscow (yes, I mean your own "militia" police - according to your government's official statistics, they commited 50% more crimes in 2005 than just a year before - no, not a "genocide", just crimes). Even Dudaev's wife was a Russian woman from Estonia.

What does Moscow militia and your original research as well as Dudaev's wife have anything to do with the anarchial period of 1990-94 for the Russians

Examplary (and recent) article about the true fate of Russians in Grozny, and also refugees in Russia: [1]

Another one, from 2003: [2]

Its good you can provide sources, but so can I. First off census figures.
Census Year Russian Chechen Ingush
1939 201010 368446 83798
1959 348343 243974 48273
1970 366959 508898 113675
1979 336044 611405 134744
1989 293771 734501 163762
2002 5559 + 40645 95403 + 1031647 361057 + 2914

2002 is given for Ingusheita and Chechnia respectively--Kuban Cossack 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So if if the Chechens and Ingushetians managed to multiply their numbers quite strongly between 1989 and 2002, for Russians there seems to be a 250 000 deficiency. So why did they flee, because of the Russian governemnt that is killing them along with Chechens? Or because of scenarios like this [3] in particular [4]. --13:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Compare neighbouring Dagestan for your information with your original research statements.

Census Year Russians
1979 201010
1989 165940
2002 120875

Sorry 1989-2002 and a decrease of 45000 compared to 250000. Work out your percentages. -Kuban Cossack 14:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another article [5]. Finally no need to post Kavkaz center, since you preatty much repeat what they say there anyway. --Kuban Cossack 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't read KC, or anything by Udugov (or Yastrzembsky, for that matter). Any propaganda is just propaganda. I compared "front.ru" to KC because it's obviously nationalist website and as such it's worth nothing.

Also, if you really want to help the refugees, help them - give them job or homes your goventment didn't, or send food or money to these remaining in Chechnya. No need to invent "genocide" on the internet encyclopedia, it's silly.

That term is not invented. Actually the point where I agree with you is that I am wondering why the government is ignoring this problem. --Kuban Cossack 23:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And PLEASE, just read what really genocide is - not every crime, war crime, or even crime aganist humanity constitutes genocidal activity (and in case of former Yugoslavia of the all incidents of ethnic cleansing, massacres, concentration camps etc only the slaughter of Srebrenica was declared genocide by the UN tribunal - the first such verdict since the post-WWII Nurnberg btw, along with the Rwandan genocide in Africa).

Well in that case mass deportation of Chechens in WWII would also not be a genocide now?--Kuban Cossack 23:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The figures quoted above have a 13 year gap between 1989 and 2002. Too imprecise to acknowledge anything. Personally, I have no reason to believe that the figures for the total population and the urban population of Chechnya quoted on this page are wrong: [6]

No census, only estimates, but very telling figures.I mean the table just above the town and village table. This table suggests a decrease in the urban population between 1981 and 1985. Quite exceptional in those days in the Soviet Union. So, indeed it suggests Russians were leaving. 80,000 at least. OK, it may not have been 100% voluntarily (although most who left then are probably very happy about it now), but it is only 17% of the total urban population in four years - so that does not look like ethnic cleansing. The figures from 1992 to 2000 tell a different story. The outflow after 1996 tells it all: except for some non-Islamic ethnic Chechens, there can hardly have been anyone but Russians leaving towns in Chechnya between 1994 and 1999. So, yes, Russians were beyond doubt the victim of ethnic cleansing under Dudaev and Maskhadov. Genocide, however, it was not. That involves killing, or driving away people under circumstances that they could not survive. If that had happened, mass graves would have been found by now.

Interestingly, the same site claims at [7] that the birth rate in Grozny is actually going DOWN (4.3 in 2001 versus 2.1 in 2002), so it is not like Chechens are breeding like rabbits to stop their population declining - which should happen if there was a genocide going on. The claim about a genocide of ethnic Chechens that has been made by Russophobes in the West may have been caused by the temporary population decrease of Chechnya in 2000 - which was probably caused by hundreds of thousands of Chechens fleeing to Ingushetia, or to the mountains, where they could not be counted (see the table again). As these people return, they are again counted and we again see normal figures.

By the way, the Orthodox church in Grozny is indeed being restored: [8](interesting story about Zigulin and Zakaev). Comment by Pan Gerwazy--pgp 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added the information about the church to the article. I am still at a loss about these two troublesome passages (the massacre of Russians in 1944 and the genocide in the 90s. Personally I would change that first one into "asserted" as well (though I understand Stalin never asserted it, and it is probably just a myth) and change genocide into ethnic cleansing. That would not normalize the article, but put it a bit on the way. Anyone who agrees? Pan Gerwazy --pgp 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"ethnic cleansing" question[edit]

No, ethnic cleansing is expelling (or killing) ALL members of the ethnic group. If you see, for example, photos from Vukovar, you can see Serb troops rounding up all Croats from the fallen city, including old women etc, as the city was simply emptied (and some massacred, among them the wounded and hospital workers). Or what happened in 1944 Chechnya (and Ingushetia). Obviously, in Grozny the babushkas stayed (and many others too). The proper term would be rather harrasment and discrimnation (including losing jobs "essentional to state security" and sometimes apartments, and little protection from a criminal attacks - which isn't surprising since then Grozny mayor Bislan Gantamirov himself was a former criminal in Moscow - before he conflicted with Dudayev and defected to the opposition and later federals, so he would become mayor again).

Yes there were, there are documented accounts, videos showing how Dudaev's gunmen intruded into people's apartments and told them to get out. Many left to Russia proper, some had nowhere to go and stayed there (I have seen them myself). --Kuban Cossack 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In the real ethnic cleansing, there's no "I can't go elsewehere, so I'll stay". If one can't move, then is killed. In the very recent history of Caucasus, you can see the example of Georgians in Abkhazia (and I'm talking about Georgian MAJORITY), and Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh. Also North Ossetian border conflict in the very RF, where the Ingush were rounded into a "hostage camps" (one in Beslan school) and expelled in the course of few days ("5-days-war"). It's all happening very quickly, with a prison camps and mass atrocities. You know how much it took the Soviet forces to round up or kill the Chechens - 2 days. Not 2 years, or 16 years. Chechen war is no ethnic conflict Balkan-style, or else every Russian babushka would be simply thrown out from balcony - and even said Orthodox church (only one in the Soviet city, there was only one mosque too) was demolished by the Russian bombs. And stop using silly "NPOV" excuse - It's not that like it's something like "the former Soviet master race saw their tables turned on them in the decolonised nation". ALSO, that's exactly what the Russian soldiers did, too - before demolishing buildings they were evicting people, of course. And not only just after the 2000 battle (inlcuding practically all apartment towers leveled) - for example when the Mi-26 was shot down in 2002, residents of 6 apartment blocks on a street near Khankala were given just 15 mins for evacuation before demolition in reprisals (missile was fired from a roof of one). Not even mentioning widespread looting, or zachistka "cleansing operations" and night dissapearances. Or the "filtration camps", for that matter. Or a discovery of mass grave near Khankala, or in a basement of former OMON post in Grozny. So, I guess, you should shut up now. And my offer on Gantamirov article stays (you know his Moscow gangster background, don't you?).
250000 is not ethnic clensing? That is more than Ingushetians in Ossetia and Azeris in Karabakh combined!--Kuban Cossack 19:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Not if not leaving under a gunpoint, rounded up first then escorted to the destination or killed (I guess you know the deal - if not, 1944 in the same place). I mentioned the church from the article not without an important reason - in the ethnic cleansing, symbolic buildings are the first to go (check out what happened with mosques in most of Bosnia during 1992-95, so the same time period). But no, it stayed, until the Russian army destroyed the city and the church too. And as I said, it's happening fast - days to weeks to "clean" the territory (if the "filth" don't resist that is). Also, how many millions Russians left Russia? Not to mention other post-Soviet republics (to Russia or elsewhere, doesn't matter). Is there a genocide of Russians in Turkmenistan? Yes, it is - even if only a cultural genocide (no right to be a Russian, because Turkmenbasha is insane - but he's also friend of the Russian government, so it appearently doesn't matter - I guess you don't even hear nothing about this in your media, nota bene banned in Turkmenistan). Even here, Buddha examples were mentioned - annihilated, even if there were no Buddhists in Afghanistan (yes, this church again). Also, not only Russians were attacked by the Chechen criminal elements. After the recent infamous case of Vostok Battalion's attack on a Dagestani ethnic village (few killed, 12 dissaepared, mass exodus of about 1,000 remaining on the other of the border), it was revealed the same men used to harras them as the Ichkeria soldiers (now they're Russia's "Specnazovtsy", still under reputed criminal Yamadayev brothers - they used to be called "bandits" once, and in their case quite rightly, but now they're Heroes of Russia somehow). Same thing like with Ganatamirov, because your government loves the Chechen criminals, if only they're opportunistic and not idealistic (like was Nukhayev). Also still, about these who stayed because they couldn't leave for any reason - good work with blowing up and burning down their homes, or crippling or killing them, now their fate is so much better (as if of these who left), isn't it? No, I don't think so... really. Well, lots of words. Try answering in more than one line and regarding my arguments, and keep the discussion HERE.

No, ethnic cleansing does not imply necessarily having to physically leave at gun point. Since you continue to mention Yugoslavia: [9] Was this guy ethnically cleansed in 1995? Of course he was, a European court has decided he was. And the Serbs of Krajina did not leave at gunpoint, they fled out of fear, and yes, a lot of elderly babushkas and dedushkas remained behind. Is this guy being ethnically cleansed today (well, 2004 to be exact)? The local CROAT reporter for the BBC seems to think he is. Being denied medical care, being denied a loan by every bank while he came to reconstruct his parents' business is not simply "discrimination". And yes, the Krajina Serbs all left in six days, a limited number of babushkas were thrown out of windows by heroic Croat soldiers (Gotovina is not at The Hague accused of "discrimination") but this thing is/was still continuing in 2004. Like the Serb and Roma exodus out of Kosovo is still continuing. You cannot simply say something is not ethnic cleansing because it takes a long time to achieve its ultimate goal.

However, I do agree that in armed conflicts it is always difficult to say later who kept their hands clean. The following German guy made a political career out of the votes of "ethnically cleansed" German refugees from eastern Europe after the war: [10] Fascinating reading, if you know German. Bataillon Bergmann who were notorious even to the German SS for their brutality against civilians contained a high number of Chechens (former prisoners of war) and at one time claimed 1,000 infiltrators (they answered partisan war with ... partisan war) in the Vedeno region and 325 (of whom 300 deserters) in Grozny. No, this is not Soviet propaganda, it is what Oberlaender wrote and said himself after the war. The standard book is by Albert Jeloschek, Friedrich Richter, Ehrenfried Schütte, Johannes Semmler: “Freiwillige vom Kaukasus. Georgier, Armenier, Aserbaidschaner, Tschetschenen u. a. auf deutscher Seite. Der “Sonderverband Bergmann” und sein Gründer Theo Oberländer.” Leopold Stocker Verlag, Graz-Stuttgart, ISBN 3-7020-0984-1 When the Germans were thrown out of the Caucasus, the Bataillon Bergmann was sent to the Crimea, to Poland (where it helped in the suppression of the Warsaw uprising) and to France, where they were used against the French Resistance in the Vercors. A source in French for Oberländer and the Bataillon bergmann: [11] Unfortunately, Google does not provide much info in English. But there is some in its cache. The only article in English Wikipedia is the article Reichskommissariat Kaukasus which does not even mention the Chechen presence in the Battalion (but does in another one)--pgp 11:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing should refer to the non-Chechen population, not specifically to Russians, as people of other nationalities were also victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.55.161 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

tram photo[edit]

You could name a street decipted, so I could provide contemplatory post-95 and post-2000 photos.

terminology for a separatist combatants[edit]

Google gives you 60,500 hits for "chechen militants", 119,000 for "chechen fighters", and 271,000 for "chechen rebels" (and only 640 for "chechen bandits", for that matter). Comply.

Photo's of 2006[edit]

Some new photographs of Grozny can be found at mosnews ([12]). Maybye some could be used in this article. --Hardscarf 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1995 body dumps[edit]

[13] [14] [15] [16] Obviously copyrighted and shown only as example. If you want, I can also show you elderly/abandoned Russians leaving the ruined city - on foot, and only with a handful of baggage (in 1995, yes). --HanzoHattori 08:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that does not show anything, first there is no source and nothing to confirm that it is Gorzny or anyplace else, please provide CREDIBLE and ADEQUEATE SOURCES. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 10:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't find the source like that, on demand. These bodies belonged mostly to the abandoned and alienated Russians, because Chechens were either able to shelter at their families in a villages, or had friends and families to properly take care of the bodies in the case of death (and the funerals were taking place even under the bombardment). When the Chechens take care of their bodies they shroud them and store in mosques, and they have to bury them fast according to the religion. Btw, many bodies of a Russians soldiers themselves were without any funeral for years (unidentified ones). The Russians did the similiar thing to the 1995 dumps in 2000 too, for the civilians and combatant Chechens, when they were still giving away enemy bodies without ransom in at least some instances (since 2002 it's the official policy of an unmarked graves). These varied really, from uncovered trenches (including bound-together by wire), to on-ground displays, to only heads sticking off from a temporary grave site. Anyway, the Russian survivors and their "means of transport" (with the landmarks, so you won't say it's not Grozny and not 1995, which was really silly/highly unproper btw): [17] [18] [19] --HanzoHattori 13:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Read what is WP:NOR - NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Thus that little tale hold little value, and actually for someone to have fought in the second Chechen war and participated in the seige of Grozny looks rather BSish. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 11:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, so, what's your problem?[edit]

Is it important "the Russians slowly entered the empty city", but not explaining [citation needed] about PAP-1 is not? Covert air operations were conducted since August 1994 (for example, helicopters attacked Grozny airfields on Sep 29 - first official attacks started only on Nov. 29); 4 helicopters and 1 Su-25 were shot down in November. What else? --HanzoHattori 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

References! Second why did you remove about the Russian flag, why did you insert unrefrenced tombstone claims but removed the massacre bit, let's go through points together and NOT edit anything except "fact" templates. Removing information is just as bad as adding unrefrenced sources. However, in WP:FAITH I urge you to discuss all of the points, for instance feel free to add things about Railway communications and other points which are not going to be disputed one way or another. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That's it? Are you kidding me? Everyone in Chechnya knows and tells visitors about the uprooted tombstones, it's a major source of national trauma. [20] [21] [22] [23] etc etc. In 1992 symbolically some were made into the deportation memorial, and it's till there, only damaged by war. [24] They also dynamited many ancient towers in the mountains, and they burned the books. [25] Ever heard of cultural genocide? The destruction of the past is done to eradicate the memory of those who occupied the land before, much like the revision of history in Orwell's 1984. In Chechnya, the Soviets bulldozed graveyards and used gravestones to pave roads. [26] "Referenced" now? Russia's UN office, maybe? [27] --HanzoHattori 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sports Question[edit]

Under the "Sports" section, there is no mention of the sport being referenced. This should be an easy item to fix.24.253.253.251 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"huge new mosque"[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6414603.stm

I remember Kadyrov saying it will be the biggest in Europe. Is it? --HanzoHattori 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know? Here is the site about it... http://www.mechet-grozny.com/ and a good LJ that I found via google [28]. --Kuban Cossack 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Джохар-ГIала or Соьлж-ГIала (or just both)?[edit]

Wanted to thank you N-true, for neutralising the conflict here. It is best you did this since having a Pro-Russian and Pro-Chechen argue over the true name. I appreciate it very much! Thank you! :) --Ice201 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree heavilly. First of all let's get over the nomenclature. Pro-Russian vs. Pro-Chechen, is an incorrect for one reason. Presently Chechnya is de jure and de facto part of Russia, like it or not. Second of all Chechens using Solzh-Ghaala are by default the majority. Moreover Chechens are also Russian citizens, so what happens to Chechens that are presently living in Russia? Are they going to use Solzh or Djokhar, there are no opinion polls or surveys, but we do know that Chechen children learning Chechen language in Chechen schools are going to be taught Solzh-Ghaala! Official paliament of the Chechen republic will also write Solzh-Ghaala. Thus by default the rest of Chechen residents will use that combination when referring to their capital. Djokhar is used only by a political motivated separatists, which every year are becoming increasingly rare, and hold no legal power anywhere in the world! Hence the name is Solzh-Ghaala. --Kuban Cossack 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I disagree heavilly with you too and your opressive Russian comments. You are Pro Russian and I am Pro Chechen, it is easily seen, so stop your nomenclature bull. Children in Chechen schools? In case you didnt realise, they dont teach Chechen in schools in Chechnya, Chechen has become more of a spoken language rather then written similar to the status of Luxembourgish. Second, the Chechens around Russia also call it Dzhokar Gala. Actually , to your attention, the person who originally wrote the article Dzhokar-Gala is a student in Moscow University now. I also have some friends in Norway and Denmark from Chechnya and they too also refer to Grozny as Dzhokar-Gala, but they said too that sometimes, but not often, it is refered to as Solzh-Gala. Now, I dont know where you get your information from, but I got my information from native Chechens that absolutely hate to have a Russian tell them what they should call their city after I explained to them this conflict. So accept the neutrality of the article and allow both names to be seen! And if you ever feel pro Russian again, remember Chechens are people too! --Ice201 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I also have a Chechen friend whom I could ask, I'm sure she knows some details. Google gives very few results for both city names. Be it usage of rebels or be it an official name — both names are obviously used by people in Chechnya. Citing both names is definitely the best choice. I think one should add a small paragraph that gives a non-biased description of the usage of both Sölzh-Ghala and Dzhoxar-Ghala. Non-biased, that means, non-POV, no accusing of "pro-Russian" and "pro-Chechen". — N-true 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I agree with N-true. Neutrality is the best. Obviously, both names are in use by people, depending on the person. Good job N-true! --Ice201 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've seen someone counted Google hits and deleted one name because he claimed it only had 5 Google-hits. Well... he didn't look properly enough. First, one has to subtract the hits on Wikipedia, then one has to take into account that there are 3 common ways of spelling the palochka character: I, 1 and Ӏ. Counting those together and not counting subpages of the same website, one gets 8 hits for Джохар-ГIала and 10 for Соьлж-ГIала. It also seems that several spellings (Джовхарб ДжовхIар...) are possible, I didn't take those into account, though. All Chechen names of the city are quite rare on Google, both almost equally rare. Thus, both have to stay in. — N-true 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Googling is useless, because of the absense of Chechen internet. So this quote quite rare on Google, both almost equally rare. Thus, both have to stay in. is extreme WP:NOR. Actually this is quite similar to the problem with Belarusian langauge right now, just because some Belarusians, who happened to control be-wiki prefer to write their capital as Менск does not mean that Minsk includes that version in the lead, it does have it later in the text, and so does this article. As for neutrality, again I too happen to know Chechens who use Solzh so if anything I am even further than convinced. Really I see no reason why we have to break WP:POINT. As for both versions being used, in Chechnya no print uses them. Outside Chechnya it is used by political emirges that have no legal recognition anywhere. You want neutrality, fine. We use the de-jure name in the lead and the alternative name is given under the section of name. --Kuban Cossack 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

FUI, in Russian language it is also spelt "Джохар кала"/ "Джохаркала". `'mikka 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

CAN YOU STOP EDITING AND ACCEPT NEUTRALITY! I agree, and 2 other people do with me here, BOTH NAMES should be used! And what is with you giving me a negative response on my vote for Sysop? That was totall yuncalled for. I am here stating that I WANT BOTH NAMES THERE TO ACCEPT NEUTRALITY . In case you forgot what neutrality means, this is not just one name, or the other, but BOTH! You bashing me on my vote page really has hurt me a lot, becuase I have done nothing but good things for all Wiki projects, and this is the first time I ever had a problem like this with another editor. --Ice201 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am an editor on wiki policy and shall not end it... Thank to my endless effort we have several hundred superb articles on rapid-transit systems in Russia. Stop editing, not until they are FA... NPOV is my policy, as for hurting feelings then let I remind you have a flag for a separatist regime on your userpage! Under that regime more than 300 thousand ethnic Russians, many of them descendants of the Terek Cossacks who by the way built the city we are talking about, were murdered, enslaved and many were forced out of their homes. And not just Russians: Armenians, Ukrainians, Jews and even Chechens themselves. I as a Cossack now hundreds of people who suffered under that atrocious regime WHICH I IN 1999 HELPED TO PURGE FROM MY COUNTRY!!!. That regime failed its people and its people are not going to revert to it ever again. Right now they want to forget the war and rebuild their country and need I remind you how much money Moscow is putting in to all this? Now I know there are of course people outside Chechnya that attempt to bring some sort of sympathy to those murderors of Beslan and Budyonovsk (just like there were Nazis after the Third Reich was conquered in 1945, who gassed people in extermination camps...), yet they are a minority and Chechens do not sympathise with them!
This is a neutral and an international encyclopedia and by making the separatist name in front of the de jure official name, you are violating WP:POINT, sorry I cannot have such people become admins in wikipedia!
First time? Well you were the one who first PURGEDthe de jure name and then reverted the page three times without waiting for consensus! All I can say was that your timing to begin your adminship (or was it to start an edit war, or a propaganda crusade ... all open to interpretation)) was terrible ... my condolences! --Kuban Cossack 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, now look who is acting bias. Did you take in factor 30.000 children that died in your so proud cossack regime in the carpet bombings? I have a Chechen flag because I support Chechnya, but I dont hate Russia. I dont hate anyone, or any nation. Afterall I am from a neutral country. But I support the Chechens becuase I support muslims around the world. Allah will show them the way some day, while you bash Chechens, Allah will show you! I made the first change, your right, not knowing about the name thing, and I left a nice friendly message on your userpage, then you responded violently on my page which started this war. But becuase I dont want an edit war, and your right, this timing was bad because I was planning on applying for sysop this week, I will step down from this and accept whatever decision you want to make. But I really ask you to reconsider your opposing vote for my sysop. Regardless on what you do, I step down. I accept your change, and please understand I am putting aside my personal values and my feelings aside because I dont want to see this effect Wiki in a bad way and I dont want to make enemies on wiki. Afterall, can we agree, you and me boht want to BETTER wikipedia, not make it a warzone? And you are Russian too, and I want to actually talk to you more. I am interested in Russian culture, hell I am even studying Russian language at university now. (Da eta pravda!). So, can you please reconsider your vote, and maybe we can be friends and just end this silly debate over a name? :) Drugi? --Ice201 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Allah? My oh my... I took part in LIBERATING GROZNY in the start of 2000 and yes, it was a nightmare on what these mujahadeens have turned a once beautiful city into. As for Muslims, need I remind you that all muslim organisations in Russia have condemmed the Ichkerian regime, if you really care for the well being of Chechens then perhaps you would consider that only the terrorists are responsible for the suffering they caused their people. I remember the look of children as our BTR rolled through freed stanitsas in the north... it was a look of hope. Now look at this. Yes Grozny (Solzh-Ghaala!!!) many years after. And what do you know? Europe's largest Mosque is now being built there! Sad irony is it? Allah did really show his justice, or was it God almighty answering to the prayers of me ;) particularly for the vermin of Maskhadov and Basayev and thousands of other terrorists that share their fate... I think they are more likely to find themselves in hell.--Kuban Cossack 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Look I appreciate your concern, and your interest in our culture, perhaps maybe you will understand the Russian side of it. I fought, I killed, and in the end we won. Now look at how fast Chechnya is re-building again, it is a thriving republic. Thousands of Chechens have recieved world class education in Russia's universities, many have made very successful careers, and that excludes those criminals on Russia's markets. Moreover there is now PEACE in the Caucasus. Yes there are still a mountain of work left to be done, there are still problems, of the many the Russian refugees from Chechnya, however in due course they will be fixed. Chechens have put down their arms for good and that is the bottom line. And I pride myself in being part of that process. Actually my army conscript service in 96-98 was bridge laying in Engineering forces, and after my volunteer tour in Chechnya and completion of University in 2002 I have numerously been in the northern regions and overseen bridge constructions there. Not only can Cossacks fight we can also build...I think the more you look into Russian history in culture you will find many many more examples. We are not evil people, remember that!
Drugi? (Druz'ya to be more correct) Well if you insist, fair enough, I respect people for their constructive input, not destructive. My version for consensus was that I could agree to leave the two in the lead, but only with the de jure PRECEDING the separatist and that version clearly marked. I accept your offer and will withhold my vote, however let this be a lesson to you. If you do become an admin, DO not stir up ghosts from the past, even if it was unintentionally, this incident shows just how volatile things can get on en-wiki, and this is considered to be not bad... --Kuban Cossack 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And they lived happily ever after! :) Molodets! --Ice201 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I'm happy with Kuban Kozak's newest version that says "also referred to" (I corrected the spelling though, hehe). I'm not happy with how he acted until this solution was reached, though. I'm neither Russian nor Chechen, I am not a sympathisant of Russian nationalists nor Chechen rebels or anything. I'm not even very interested in politics and I'm bad in history. I'm merely someone interested in the Caucasus in general and its languages in particular. Actually, already the existence of your dispute proves that there are definitely people who use both names, and in my opinion it doesn't matter if a terrorist regime uses one of the names. If it's used and widely known (which I am sure both names are), it should be mentioned in the first line of the article. Phew... hope this will stay settled. ;) — N-true 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

to KC (re: 1995 mass graves and the "new Grozny")[edit]

Kuban, remember our old discussion about the large numbers of dead civilians just packed en masse into dug-up holes? Here is a video (a heaps of bodies, dumped into these pits like a rubbish). "Enjoy." --HanzoHattori 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also as for "your" (Kadyrov) gallery... http://www.mechet-grozny.com/photo/chechnya/42b.jpg - yeah, absolutely nothing staged here. Better take a look through the Google sat map. The level of devastation is still breath-taking, especially as you see where the now "cleared" buildings were (whole streets, factories, etc, wiped-out almost on the ground level but still visible from the air). And one can't even see any minor damage wall, not to mention bullet holes etc., it's all just damaged roofs, lack of roofs (and often floors too), or totally destroyed buildings with about nothing left (and yes, there are still heaps of rubble almost everywhere you look). For the ground level now, see http://kunstkamera.livejournal.com/156555.html - some restored (built again practically), but just next to it destruction and extreme poverty, and people living in a half-destroyed blocks with zero external renovation but the windows put-in (even shell holes still there in the walls). --HanzoHattori 22:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also while looking through the Google, take a look at the nearby (former) enormous refinery - exactly nothing changed since it was bombed out and completely burned whole. (I'm pretty sure seven years after Saddam set fire to Kuwait's installations there was no trace left of the damage. Heck, I don't even think there was somewhere like this anywhere in Iraq during the current war.) There are no trucks there visible at all. There is nothing having been or being done. Guess it will continue to stand like a monument/warning for the future generations. Interesting enough, I've never seen any picture of it - I only remember reading in Lieven's book how it was practically not bombed in the first war (and was huge enough for them to get lost there in 1994). --HanzoHattori 23:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And no, this "nightmare" was what you turned this "once beautiful city into". Especially if you was an artilleryman, a tankist, or a pilot during the "liberating" (more like "obliterating"). --HanzoHattori 23:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, can we stop being personal? By the way, if the buildings are still visible from the air, I suspect that they were not destroyed by bombardments from the air. So, they were destroyed in urban guerilla fighting - and both sides should be blamed for that. It is like the Paris Commune: depending on whether you choose the side of the Communards or the counter insurgence force, you can blame bloody Thiers or bloody commies/anarchists/French nationalists for the destruction of the Paris centre (and the fact that you now have these splendidly wide streets there, of course). HanzoHattori, your refinery is a particularly silly example - why rebuild a refinery when a) if reconstructed it would be a splendid terrorist target anyway b) there is precious little oil to refine in Chechnya, particularly since Azerbaidzhan now exports her oil to Georgia. --Pan Gerwazy 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Personal - KC can't stop talking about how he was (supposedly, it's Internet) "liberating". Now we only need someone to say he's a former Chechen fighter ("terrorist") who was "liberating" too, but from the Russians, and they two would do the Chechen War on the Internet. First of all, KC should SHUT UP about his alleged biography and personal views, because it just shows he's not at all NPOV (bonus point for being sincere, though). Rafinery - see the rafineries in Iraq, how "silly" was to NOT make them all blackened ruins during the invasion, just to stay there until the Second Coming most probably? How the heck this suddenly became a target even, as it was in the whole of the first war? Really, see Grozny through the Google Maps - by "wiped out by still visible" I meant "erased ground-up, but the fundaments still visible" not the "buildings still visible", and the iconic Minutka Square didn't change much since Feb. 2000 (a sea of ruins, now mostly dynamited rubble where the destroyed blocks were). Are you always blaming aggressors and defenders for the destruction inflicted? You say Paris - why not an example of Sarajevo, or Warsaw in 1939? (much less destruction in both cases, btw - I guess it's comparable to Breslau, except much of destruction there was actually did by the Germans even before the Soviets came, and the defenders there WERE to blame as they razed or even leveled whole city streets and districts as they prepared) --HanzoHattori 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The ruins: if there is one iconic image of Grozny which is present in everybody's mind it is all those buildings where the only thing undamaged is the roof and practically all the walls are missing. Oh, and I know a Belgian army officer who served as a peace keeper in Yugoslavia (Vukovar) and whose comments on one of these notorious photographs was: "that is not bombing from the air, that is the result of ethnic cleansing" (=defending an area in such a way that every living quarter occupied by the wrong ethnic group gets reduced to rubble). The refinery: of course, it was a legal target as soon as Chechen forces crossed into Dagestan. There was a short period before the Russian army entered Chechnya, when the Russian air force bombed strategic targets in Chechnya, in order to get its government to rein in Basayev. Of course, sharia law having been introduced in Chechnya/Ichkeria, it did not work, and one may call Putin a hypocrite for following this approach, knowing it would not work, but he was on legal ground as secure as the Israeli government bombing Palestine terrorist hideouts outside Palestine. And as for the Americans not bombing Iraqi refineries, I fail to see what else that proves than that Alan Greenspan was right. And as for the personal attacks, two wrongs do not make a right; as I said "can WE stop being personal?" --Pan Gerwazy 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the roof is quite easy to cave in (and the floors) - surely didn't you mean the other way around, only walls standing? Also without walls there would be no roof too. Sharia does not destroy cities (at least unless it's the Mogadishu courts militia, but even their conqest was nothing in comparison with the Ethiopian firepower unleashed later on the insurgent districts). Israeli airstrikes are very, very precise - targeting militia or security, not civilian instalations, and specific vehicles. If Russia hit Basayev's UAZ with a drone-launched missile or whatever, I wouldn't complain. Instead, they hit his Grozny base... along with the adjoining WHOLE marketplace crowded with civilians (even from outside Chechnya) with several ballistic missiles (cluster munitions). Not an isolated incident but the strategy. If the Chechens blew up a marketplace in Moscow to kill few soldiers who were there too, this would be "terrorism", right? --HanzoHattori 14:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I give up on the apartments, because you seem not to want to understand me. As for sharia(h), i want to make it clear that I meant (what I expected you to know!) that Basayev and his associates after Shariah introduction claimed that there was no president Maskhadov anymore, because an islamic country does not have "lay" (=non-religious) leaders, so basically there was nothing Maskhadov (who was meant to be pressurized by the bombings) could do against Basayev invading Dagestan. Not that Maskhadov had done much against kidnappings, enslavements and simple racketeering before.--Pan Gerwazy 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
How kind of you Hanzo - a personal response to me. Which has nothing to do with the article, just an attempt to let of steam? For the record google maps are, as often the case, rarely updated with the exception of capitals. Some are up to five years old. Five years, given the scale at which the construction works are taking place is a very long time. It takes less than a month to turn a dirt track into a nice boulevard and given that all residents of Grozny want their city to look clean and beautiful again, it is hardly surprising this will not happen (or shall I say has not yet happened). There you go april 2007. The only thing that will slow this process is that the population of Grozny is still half of its 1989 level, thanks to the fact that the whole Russian majority was expelled during the "freedom-loving" regimes of the "holy" Dudaev and Makhadov. As for myself - Motorized Infantry in a joint Cossack volunteer regiment. I can go into details but is it really necessary? --Kuban Cossack 11:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys remember when the west 'liberated' Dresden? - PietervHuis (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Images by RIAN[edit]

...with watermarks, to the boot.

I think should be removed and deleted from Wikipedia. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a pic from Flickr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grozny_-_Bazaar_%282006%29.jpg, surely there may be more there. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be an illustration for the CW2, because the devastation was simply breathtaking (take this, shock and awe). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The computer image makes me laugh.
Also wasn't the city largely destroyed during the first war? - PietervHuis (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It was, but it was just nothing to compare what happened later.

In February when I entered Grozny, it was as if I was hit by an apocalyptic vision. In 20 years of covering wars I never had the occasion to feel like a astronaut landing on another planet. I had visited Grozny four times in the last war, but this time I couldn't even be sure where I was. Where Minutka Square -- with it imposing buildings that lead to Lenin Avenue -- once was nothing remained, just a huge, imposing void.[29]

I remember reading about a survivor (an ethnic Russian librarian) who, when she emerged from her basement, couldn't navigate in the ruins because all the landmark buildings were gone.[30] --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also interesting story from 1994:

It is not clear why the Russian artillery and bombers have so far spared the presidential palace. The entire block surrounding the building has been hit repeatedly, and it is difficult to believe that it is simply bad luck. Several soldiers said today that the Russians were preserving the nine-story building so they could install their designated President, Salambek Khadzhiyze, when they seize the city.[31]

Actually spelled Salambek Khadjiev (has no article).

"War is war," says Salambek Khadjiev, the Russian-anointed Chechen prime minister, with an apologetic smile, as he peers through curtains at the guns, rubble and mud. "Today we live in Stalingrad," says an aide.[32]

This was pretty comon, in 1995 Kovalyov too "likened the destruction of Grozny to that of Stalingrad in World War II."[33] So in 2000 it was like if already destroyed Stalingrad was destroyed again before t was restored (with bigger weapons). After this people were talking rather about "Hiroshima". With less radiation. (There WAS quite a lot radiation actually, from destroyed factories and dumps.) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry anon, what are your issues? I was in Grozny in 2000 and it did look like Stalingrad, however nine years have now passed, and it certainly does not look like that anymore, have a look at dozens of images in the links i gave above: [34], [35], [36]. --Kuban Cossack 22:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no issues. But the pics miyokan uploaded were pretty bad, very low reso and a huge watermark. I'll add some nice ones soon. Also I'm pretty sure only part of the city is recongstructed. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, what's not been reconstructed has been built anew and in some cases looks better and more modern. --Kuban Cossack 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Computer generated images" LOL no, RIAN is a did not say that they were computer generated. Naturally I can understand why Pietervhuis said this and his "I'm pretty sure only part of the city is reconstructed" comment, he does not have any information to base this assumption on nor does his information on Chechnya extend beyond reading english language press on the internet so naturally he went into denial when he saw the pictures of reconstructed Grozny because he keeps progagating the view that this view "war" will go on forever and no progress has been made, there is no order in Chechnya, etc, so of course it was a shock for him to see virtually all of Grozny entirely rebuilt with life going on peacefully.--Miyokan (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, that wasn't me who said they were computer generated. And yes I'm sure only part is reconstructed and I have more than "english language press" to base that on. You're pretty paranoid man. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not just look at private photo galleries for example, and your assurances will be disproved. I have been there last summer, and I tell you the scars of war are as rare now as was the case 8 years ago when you wanted to find a building that did not bear them. The only building that was not reconstructed was Dudayev's palace, but that has been replaced with Grozny Mosque that is almost complete. --Kuban Cossack 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes there's galleries that single out the beautiful parts. This was last year I think[37], shortly before your fantasy trip? I don't think it's physically possible to build an entire city in such a short amount of time. Maybe rebuild some apartments, but all the houses and buildings which have simply completely vanished are still gone. It's not that I hope the city will never be as it was before Russia destroyed it; I hope all Chechens can finally rebuild their houses. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well if anything look in the background and you will see that the high rise there is at the same angle at different photos, which means the photographer stayed in the same block (a former Tram depot if I am not mistaken) the whole time. Sure there are slums in every city, and Grozny is no exception, and like wise there are galleries which single out the slums for any other city. Also if only Chechens rebuild their houses then half of Grozny would still be in ruins, as more than half of the pre-war population was ethnically Russian. As for time contraints... well eight years is by no means a short time. Have a look at flashearth.com and compare Beijing's google image with that of yahoo. You will see districts the size of Grozny coming into existance and the age difference of the images is no more than 5 years. --Kuban Cossack 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not eight years but five. But so you claim that the entire city is back. I can't just assume you're right though. In August 2007 a proud Chechen uploaded himself driving through the beautiful parts of Grozny. Then someone alleged he was only showing the good part as the rest was in rubble. He replied with "you're absolutely right!! i just loaded the films that show the re-built parts of grozny.. the rest of the videos are so sad(heart breaking)!! I just wanted to show people the bright side of our homeland!"[38] So I remain skeptical for now. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Russia freed Grozny from the Ichkerian filth in early 2000, and life has slowly returned to the city since, of course the pace did gain momentum later, however the video, which is really good one, shows one thing, that is clearly evident, no police anywhere, no men holding weapons, just normal city life, and that's the key point here. I agree that there are still a long way to go, but the progress made is amazing, and like it or not, it is no longer some, it is no longer most, it is now a case of all but a few bits of the city are free from war scars. I mean in some cases, its new look makes it better than other Russian cities, I mean who would have guessed that it possible to make a Khrushchyovka look so good? So if anything any visitor is so impressed with the reconstruction that images of buildings walled off, and surrounded by construction/restoration material just disappear from his memory. Honestly why don't you visit Grozny and see it all for yourself instead of trying to push your fantasy views here and there. --Kuban Cossack 14:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop violating WP:CIVILITY WP:ETIQUETTE, you've been asked about this before (Concerning your "filth" comment). Yes I'd like to visit the state myself (just like many others), but life is far from normal. Maybe it's heaven compared to a few years ago, but it's not exactly pleasant to live under the Kadyrovtsy (to put it softly). There's 700 men patrolling Grozny every day, and many more "anti-terrorist" organs who love to detain random people. Yesterday one officer was shot in the head actually. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well perhaps I ask you to view the video again, and see for yourself that there are no more police on the streets than in any other Russian city. Of course for a westener going into another district of their home city would already be not pleasent, let alone another country and any particular city in that country. In any case what are we discussing? How much has Grozny got to go to become fully free from its scars of war, or the incredible progress it made on that path? FYI in most cases it is impossible to be fully free from the history one's city had. Hey after WWII many cities were instead of being restored, were built anew with more modern general plans. Stalinist Architecture really took off, and became a part of cities like Kiev, Minsk and many others. If you compare the 1980s shots, to those of present Grozny, you will see that architecture had not been conserved, so correct terminology is that Grozny has not been restored but built anew, and visually very impressive. BTW when I was there, I saw those Kadyrovtsy, we had an excellent chat , along with a few cigarettes about the diffrences in Chechen Lezginka to that of the Kuban Cossack one, and about why an UAZik engine has such a distinct purr. Normal people doing their job, for which they get paid to feed their children. --Kuban Cossack 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it's a nice video, I like Stalinist Architecture. You don't have to explain me that cities transform after destruction since I'm from Rotterdam ;) Here it changed a lot too since we got bombed by Nazi's, but unfortunately not for the better (many cheap houses/structures, huge surge of immigrants), though it's becoming better again the last couple of years. As for the Kadyrovtsy, of course they're not all bad, but they are generally feared throughout the republic as pretty much all human rights groups state; they are alleged to be responsible for most of the abductions and forced disappearances, many have a criminal past. If you want a glimpse of their brutality, there's a video online where they enjoy playing with the head of a beheaded POW. Life today is still very hard for Chechens (as well as Ingush), there's a short documentary about the life of villagers from last year[39] you might find it interesting. In my opinion the war is pretty senseless, nine years of war and conflict resulted in what? Maskhadov (who wasn't perfect but at least democratic) being replaced by Kadyrov (who reminds me of Idi Amin Dada)? Was that worth the tens of thousands of deaths, including russian servicemen? - PietervHuis (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Photos from last week: April 2008 views of Grozny

Today Section[edit]

This page is in serious need of an update. Groznys' reconstruction has progressed considerably in recent years, so it is only fair to update the status of the city as of 2009. I suggest that these changes occur ASAP for the sake of this articles' credence.Meteorico (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This article must have some pictures of how the city looks today! A lot of it has been re-built, and its not a balanced article without any fresh pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.4.108 (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

First, there's the WP:NPOV rule which requires to represent all notable views fairly and without bias. Right now, one view is being attributed to "Russian and pro-Russian" sources, whereas the other is being stated as fact (as opposed to being attributed as "pro-Chechen", which, for instance Tony Wood's book clearly is by its name) and provided with 80% section space. Second, phrases like "even ethnic Russians" exhibits obvious anti-Russian bias by presuming that all Russians are somehow alike. Third, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox and it thus should describe events in an encyclopedic manner, as opposed to using words and phrases like "horrible", "even [smb]", "ethnic kin" and so on. Fourth, the paragraph "The sense of mass crimes..." is pure original research, as neither of the two sources mention anything about the depopulation of the city of its Russian inhabitants, much less try to justify the crimes committed against them. The choice of the second source (Lyoma Usmanov, huh?) is curious as well. Finally, a detailed description of the 1944 deportations is out of place in an article about the city (as opposed to a description of deportations that happened within the city itself). --Illythr (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to use other sources besides Woods' book, and I've largely been replacing it with Dunlop, Nekrich, etc. I will remove phrases like that... etc. I see what you mean about hte description of the deportations, I will cut down on stuff not related to the city. --Yalens (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, go for it. Also, don't forget about attribution. --Illythr (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, pretty much, I felt like that paragraph, and the talk of the deportation are pretty important for understanding the nature of Russo-Chechen relations (and indeed, ethnic relations throughout the city) and the flight of Russians from Chechnya. Sources often paint this (the flight) in overly simplistic terms, usually using the stereotype of the Chechen bandit-mobster character harassing poor defenseless Russians into leaving. In reality, its quite important (at least I think) to understand that the Russian flight from Chechnya began right after the Russians lost their control of the republic. The causes include the following, and are not just stereotypical Chechen mobsters harassing Russians (as I felt hte article made it seem like):
1. Before 1989, and then 1990 when Dudayev first got control, Russians had a clearly advantageous position in the Republic, reminiscent of colonial Algeria, as Derluguyan was able to write a considerable part of his book about. Job discrimination favored Russians first and then Ukrainians and Armenians, and then finally the Chechens, Ingush, Meshketian Turks and Jews; whereas in gov't jobs Chechens were systematically excluded. After 1989, naturally these Russians who had jobs that would be given to perhaps more deserving non-Russians would become jobless. And then, of course, there are those non-Russians who were bitter about all those years before, and would simply remove Russians for the sake of it. As a result, Russians would leave Chechnya to be employed (oddly enough, this was also common in Kosovo in the 1980s, and was likewise used by the Serb nationalists as "ethnic cleansing").
2. Chechnya is poor. Very poor. During the Soviet era, migration was not so acceptable, but afterwards, well, it is natural Russians would want to leave.
3. It may be legitimate that Russians were disproportionately victims of crime, especially theft. Many non-Russians viewed them as oppressors, colonizers, interlopers, etc. Thus, stealing from them if one needed money (and there are plenty of people who needed money in impoverished Chechnya) would be less stigmatized.
4. Russian emigration out of ethnic republics occured elsewhere, sometimes at even greater rates, as our Russian economists noted.
5. In the First Chechen War, Grozny, the center of Russians in Chechnya, was bombed extensively. Russians- like their non-Russians counterparts- fled the war.
6. Russians feared for their future in a non-Russian majority state (something definitely not unique to the Russians in Chechnya among Russians in the post-USSR).
7. Chechnya, poor to begin with, became even poorer during this period, and the oil economy plummeted due to Russia's economic barricade paired with mismanagement by a government led by men not trained in economics.
Perhaps there were a couple instances of the Russian view of the causes of the flight, especially after the First Chechen War, as Russians are a natural scapegoat for the destruction wrought by the state of their people (which they were widely suspected of collaborating with as well). But in general, the gangster Chechen stereotype is vastly overexaggerated, not to mention that Chechen gangsters, where they do exist, tend to actually be outside Chechnya. And then there's Dudayev's wife. She was Russian, but she was completely accepted as an "Ichkerian" (because her loyalty to the state was not in doubt) and there weren't really any major difficulties about this- because she made it very clear that she was not a collaborator. That there was a mutual dislike between the Russians and Chechens in the republic (dating back centuries) is not disputed, but I dont' think "Chechen militants" were the main reason for Russians leaving. --Yalens (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
That being said, I'm done for now. If I missed any words like "horrible" (etc.) anywhere, you can leave me a note...? --Yalens (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Once again, sources provide two different views on the situation. Your edits discredit one view in favor of the other, which, according to the proponents of this view, is in the minority. This violates the NPOV policy. The description of the clan system lacks a source that binds it together with the Russian emigration. Thus it must be removed as original research. In short, I feel that the compact form of

This view is disputed by authors, such as economists Boris Lvin and Andrei Illarionov, who argue that Russian emigration from the area was no more intense than in other regions of Russia at the time[1]. According to this view of the ethnic situation in Ichkeria, the primary cause of Russian emigration was the extensive bombing of Grozny (where 4 out of 5, or nearly 200,000 Russians in Chechnya lived before the war) by the Russian military during the First Chechen War.[2]

summarizes this view adequately for an article about a geographic location, as opposed to a dedicated article about ethnic tensions in the region. --Illythr (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't intend to add any of the stuff I noted here. I'm pretty sure the reader could infer any of that. --Yalens (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with reducing it to just that. First, it is not an adequate representation of the quote, as emigration from Chechnya was actually LESS, not equal, to other regions in Russia. Second, the proponents of the view- Russian economists- never said in their argument that it was a minority view. It is a minority view in Russia. But with regards to the world as a whole, the view of the victimization of Russians in Chechnya is also a small minority. So why does it get so much space then? (the clan system may be too indepth, I suppose I'll delete that).--Yalens (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the article text there.
Ok, I corrected the above to be more in accordance with the quote ("no more intense").
Tony Wood bemoans in the introduction of his book that the views his book endorses are against the "groundless" consensus in the West. Besides, I don't see how emigration from other regions of Russia can mitigate their mass exodus from Chechnya, which sources describe as "catastrophic". --Illythr (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Just because Wood happens to feel like his viewpoint is not held by the amount of people it should be (hence his reason for writing the book) is not an adequate source to say that it is a small minority viewpoint. It is not uncommon for people- especially journalists-turned-intellectuals like Wood- to think that the cruel world does not see what they view as simple justice like they do. Furthermore, the encouragement of the view that not enough people who are liberal and sympathetic for Chechnya are speaking up is not surprising, as one of the central goals of his book is to rise the amount of pro-Chechen rhetoric among Western liberals. That being said, Tony Wood's views on how many people feel the way he does are NOT a citation for it being a consensus.
As for Hughes, I have not read his book, so I don't want to get too deep into bias. For now, I will leave it at the note that in general people who use the highly charged word "jihad" to describe what's actually separatism with Islamist rhetoric but with the primary goal of separatism and not Islamism tend (in the very least) to view the Russian side as more legitimate (not to mention that this is the viewpoint Russia encourages). On a second (and perhaps more important note), he is far less familiar with the topic matter, and therefore more prone to oversimplification- he is not a journalist, nor a regional specialist, nor a historian, but rather a sociologist. To leave it at the least, the West tends (especially since the death of Politkovskaya and the end of free reporting in Chechnya) to get its info from the Russian side of the conflict, and its articles on it even cite Russian media. In general, the reason why I opted not to take the time to read his book the first time I heard of it was because he was a sociologist with little background on the region.
Finally, as for this "catastrophic" migration, yes, it does mitigate it. Is it not, in the very least, at least suspicious that while Russian politicians will never even bring up the de-Russification of neighboring regions, they harp endlessly on the supposed "massacre", "ethnic cleansing", even "genocide" of Russians in Chechnya. It is rather interesting also that such an occurance never seemed to grab world media attention at the time it supposedly occured, while somehow the ethnic cleansing occuring in neighboring (and somewhat less reported on!) regions such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia WAS reported at the time.--Yalens (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
A group of people leaving one area for another because they think the grass is greener there has no influence on the fact that another, comparably-sized group of people was forced to leave yet another area due to harassment and discrimination. Anyhow, judging by your evaluation of Wood's book, we'll just have to agree to disagree there and move on to the main point: do you see any more problems in the current version of replacement text suggested above? --Illythr (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The point is that the group "forced to leave" may not have even occurred at all(it certainly wasn't reported AT THE TIME IT SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED on for some reason!). Russian politicians will cite the decline in Russians in Chechnya for "proof", but as we have seen with the reasons above and with what has occured in other ethnic autonomous republics, they may not have declined for the reason claimed by Russia. In short, there is doubt of the verifiability that this actually occurred, and that the spreading of the notion that there was "ethnic cleansing" serves a certain government located in Moscow's interests.
As for your replacement, yes I have problems with it. The thing is simplified enough as it is already...I have already removed the clan thing, and compromised considerably. If anything, I want to add now that the peak of the exodus according to the Russian (and not only that, unlike our economists, one that believes Russia was right in attacking Chechnya) Mikhailov was in fact 1990- which implies that during Dudayev's rule, supposedly racist against Russians despite the fact that he is married to one, the rate of Russians leaving actually declined (but I won't add this, because it will frustrate the discussion here which hinges on length). I suggest removing one sentence (In general...rejected) and trimming others down a little (things like "First of all", "second of all", they can go). But it feels like oversimplification to reduce it to just that. A lot of the stuff in this section is just info, not necessarily aiding one side or the other; such as the number of Russians in Grozny; the 4/5 Russians in Grozny out of Russians in Chechnya; the 26 to 1 peak; the peak being in 1990; that it is lower than those 4 other regions; etc. --Yalens (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following rewrite (rewriting the current version, thus in addition to the changes that I've already made)

However, regarding this exodus, there are opposing views. The mass depopulation of Russians in ethnic republics occurred throughout the whole Soviet Union, and is not distinct for Chechnya/Ichkeria. Second, while the departure of Russians from Chechnya was swift (26 left per 1 entrance in 1990, for example, the peak of the exodus [3]), this was relatively low in fact, if anything showing a more hospitable environment. As noted by ethnic Russian economists Boris Lvin and Andrei Iliaronov:

The Chechen authorities are regularly accused of crimes against the population, especially the Russian-speaking people. However, before the current war the emigration of the Russian-speaking population from Chechnya was no more intense than that from Kalmykia, Tuva and Sakha-Yakutia. In Grozny itself there remained a 200,000 strong Russian-speaking population which did not hasten to leave it.[4]

According to this view, the real end of the presence of Russians occurred during the First Chechen War, where Grozny (where 4 out of 5, or nearly 200000, Russians, mainly oil workers in Chechnya lived before the war) was bombed extensively by Russia.[5]

Would that be good enough?--Yalens (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this is different from the current version (other than introducing that spelling error back into Illarionov's name). The point is that this opposing view needs to be summarized in the article. Instead the article argues for its veracity, which violates NPOV. Please specify how the text presented above ("This view is disputed by...") is not an adequate summary of this view. --Illythr (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I believe I cut out 1-2 sentences. No, I guess it is not that different. There are problems with cutting it down like that, as I believe I've stated before. But having reviewed them... none of them is that significant, really. I will put your version in momentarily.--Yalens (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh, I guess I have to apologise for the unspoken assumption of bad faith there. I wonder is this is a significant enough topic to have its own article... --Illythr (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
...wait, what are we talking about now? I believe we are done are we not? I gave you exactly what you wanted. As for your question, I'm not sure I understand (I have two basic guesses at what you mean)... Yes, I believe Grozny is a significant topic. As for supposed ethnic cleansing (if that's what you are talking about), no I don't think so, as it is covered in various other pages, and (more importantly), that it even ever happened is in debate. In any case, whether it was actually "ethnic cleansing" or simply Russians migrating (as they did throughout the former Soviet Union), any page made will certainly be a subject of mass edit wars, controversy and all that stuff. Wikipedia is raucous as it is... we don't need that sort of controversy bomb. And as I said before, its covered on other pages. If it wasn't Grozny or that... what is it now? Are you saying that we should have a page for the whole "History of Grozny"? And in any case, isn't the page now how you claimed you wanted it before your last comment? --Yalens (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the Russian exodus - it appears to be a well-defined notable topic for a separate article. I won't be the one creating it, though, due to the concerns you have just pointed out. --Illythr (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Grozny-city center.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Grozny-city center.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Grozny-city center.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Grozny1..png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Grozny1..png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Grozny1..png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Panorama grozny.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Panorama grozny.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Panorama grozny.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Hey, I am a new editor. I also may or may not be using talk pages incorrectly. Basically, I saw the "citation needed" on the statement that Grozny is the capital of Chechnya, and wanted to find a source. However, all I could find were encyclopedias (which the article on proper citations vaguely discouraged). Could I use Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source? Also, please critique my usage of the talk page, this is my first time and I could use some tips. Daniel.minkovsky

Hi, Daniel! Welcome. Apart from placing your comment at the top of the talk page instead of at the bottom (which is not that big of a deal), you are using this page as intended. No worries there.
That Grozny is the capital of the republic is stated in the Constitution (which is already used as a source elsewhere in the article), so I just cited the appropriate article to get rid of the "citation needed" tag. The Constitution, of course, is a primary source, and using those, just like tertiary sources, is not encouraged. However, since here we are dealing with the statement of fact and not of opinion, using either a primary or a tertiary source is fine. Hope this helps! If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me directly on my talk page. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 15, 2014; 14:45 (UTC)

Refs from another section[edit]

  1. ^ Boris Lvin and Andrei Illarionov. Moscow News. February 24- March 2, 1995
  2. ^ Carlotta Gall and Thomas de Waal. Pages 197, 227
  3. ^ Sakwa, Richard. See Mikhailov's chapter "Chechnya and Tatarstan"
  4. ^ Written by economists Boris Lvin and Andrei Iliaronov. Moscow News. February 24- March 2, 1995
  5. ^ Carlotta Gall and Thomas de Waal. Pages 197, 227