Talk:Orstkhoy

Rework

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

Renaming the article

Perhaps the article should be renamed as Orstkhoy or Orstkhoï, as it's what they are commonly known as? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Muqale what do you think? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposition to change the article

Muqale WikiEditor1234567123 Assalamu Aleykum, this article is all over the place and looks more like a competition between Chechens and Ingush on who can fit in the most sources that will benefit each nation. It looks like a battleground, i propose we recreate this whole article and keep it totally neutral. In my opinion the first section is more than enough (In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition - one of the seven historical Ingush shahars.), i think we should remove the rest and only include neutral topics such as notable people from Orstkhoy, their history, the territory which they live on etc. What do you think? Goddard2000 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wa aleykum assalam. I think the Ethnicity section should remain. I didn't really have time to add in more information about the Orstkhoy history and general information so for now the page only contains information about the ethnical belonging. When I have time I will try to add more information about the Orstkhoy generally so it wouldn't be just a page about "competition between Chechens and Ingush" as you said. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity is already mentioned above, the current ethnicity section is just every source on planet earth crammed into it with 100 quotes. It looks unprofessional. If you want the ethnicity section then it is better we should delete 90% of that text and write something simple like some authors referred to Orstkhoy as Chechens (citing every source) while some referred to them as Ingush (citing every sources) but most agree that Orstkhoy are today integral parts of both nations since they are considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums and one of the seven historical Ingush shahars. Similar to how me and previous Ingush editors agreed on the Durdzuk ethnicity page (it was similar to this one before), all the current article is doing is inviting edit wars and quote/source battles. Like for example why is Ingush ethnicity section above the Chechen one when Chechens are first in alphabetical order and bigger in numbers? things like that alone will invite conflict, better we make it neutral. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I personally think the ethnicity page should remain as it is for exception the Chechen section should be shortened as it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source. The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order as the first authors who studied Caucasus mentioned Orstkhoy as Ingush. As I have already mentioned, when I have time I will try to add more information about the Orstkhoy generally like the settlement, population and composition of Orstkhoy, so the General information section wouldn't be just about the ethical belonging of Orstkhoy. Muqale what do you think? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I personally would actually completely disagree on the account that the Orstkhoy are equally a part of Chechens and Ingush. And more so, the Orstkhoy (Arshtkhoy) were a part of the Ingush nation as mentioned by the vast majority of ethnographers. And the majority of the settlements of these teips are in Ingushetia, and they also speak the Ingush language, though I do not deny that there are Orstkhoy living in Chechnya. But @Goddard2000 seems to always try to put the Chechens first in every article, I guess now we know the reason. Because "there's more of them" is a valid reason apparantly. Muqale (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale@WikiEditor1234567123 Very well we disagree then, i also completely disagree with Orstkhoy being closer to Ingush than Chechens when their DNA descends from Chechen Y-DNA branches, when basically all of their ancestral settlements are in Chechnya (Tsech-Ähk, Merzha, Galai, Yalkhara etc), and ethnic consensus studies from 1891-1925 showed that most of the Orstkhoy in their native territory identified as Chechens.

I also disagree with wikieditor's claim that most Chechen sources are based on 1 source when there are plenty of sources that connect Chechens to Orstkhoy. I think it is best we contact a third party, someone who is neutral in all of this. I'll tag an admin here in a bit.

@Muqale Alphabetical order is a legitimate reason, i have seen your previous edits specifically intended on changing the order making Ingush appear first many times but i didn't comment on it before. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with DNA genealogy so I can't comment on that. Orstkhoy ancestral villages, in particular Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe, are in Chechnya now because of the 2018 agreement which you know yourself wasn't rightful and it was done very unjustly without asking the opinions of Ingush people (I don't think this topic should be discussed more as it's sensitive for both sides). The censuses that you're referring are primary sources and can't be considered reliable here as there's old terms such as Chechens (Chechens was unifing term for all Vainakh in that period) and there's no taïp composition mentioned either, use secondary sources for these censuses instead. I didn't say the Chechen section is based on 1 source, please read my reply carefully before making such claims. I simply said that Chechen section should be shortened as it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source, the dictionary sources for example should be combined into 1 text instead of being all over the place. If you see the Chechen section then you will understand what I mean. The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you wanna make that argument then historically the settlements you listed were mentioned as Ingush settlements long before they were labelled as Chechen (see Güldenshtad and Klaproth). DNA can be heaviliy disputed because many Tsechoy and Merzhoy have shown to be on the same branches as other Ingush representatives. Also if we would determine a nation by DNA-groups, then Chechens are made up of many different peoples. This is not how nations and cultures form. There is no ethnic studies from 1891-1925 that shows that Orstkhoy actually call themselves Chechen. I know this for a fact. You are referring to classifications made by some authors, not the self-designation. As a matter of fact, at least two 19th century reports exist were Ortskhoy actually call themselves Galgai and Ingush. One in 1862 were a Fargiev familiy in Sagopshi named themselves "Galgaevtsi" (mind the F phoneme in the Fargiev surname as well, which Chechens do not have in their language) and another document were Karabulak elders wrote their names and attributed themselves to the "Ingushevski narod" in 1842. If I cannot link them here, I will upload these documents in WikiCommons, if a dispute is initiated. Aslo, a Chechen illi of 1918 mentions how Aslanbek Sheripov called his friend Sulumbek of Sagopshi an Ingush, which means that Chechens considered Orstkhoy Ingush up until then. Only in 20th century Orstkhoy and other Ingush for the most part started settling in Chechnya (Gozny) after the estblishment of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR. Also the alphabetical order point you made is a silly one. Let's say I prefer a geographical order from west to east or chronological order. To me this is not that important, but I did notice this in several articles, which is why I brought it up. I do not mind involving a third party (non Chechen or Ingush), especially one who knows Russian would be preferable. Muqale (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I will answer both Wikieditor and Muqale here.

1. Ancestral villages, Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe being part of Chechnya has been an argument since way before the 2018 agreement because it belonged to Chechen Autonomous Oblast in the 30's before Chechnya and Ingushetia was united into Checheno-Ingushetia. After 1991 when Chechnya sought independence it claimed de jure right on those territories based on 1930's and it never recognized them as Ingush so claiming that land is not Chechen is incorrect, both republics had claims on it, it wasn't until 2018 when Chechen and Ingush heads of republics agreed to recognize it as Chechen (as Chechens did for decades). So no need to claim that "you know yourself" because Chechens have had claims on that land far before 2018. You can say the 2018 deal was unjust sure but you can't say Chechnya had no claims on it. Besides Muqale's comment about "most villages belonging to Ingush" is incorrect since many of the native Orstkhoi villages lie in Chechnya even if we exclude Tsech-Ahk and Merzha.

2. Wikieditor if you don't want someone to misunderstand your quote then don't claim "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source" since it paints the picture of every text being from a single source which it's not.

3. I don't think you understand how Y-DNA research works, it's not an Alphabet where you give a certain letter to a certain nation. It's the way you trace their ancestral lines and see which clans descend from them or which are their ancestor. There is no doubt that some Orstkhoi J2 samples are closer to Ingush ones but many belong to J2 branches that are more common in Chechnya, half of Orstkhoi are made up of L3 and J1 which descend from Äkkhi/Key Chechens (as is even said in Orstkhoi folktales) (L3) and Tumsoy/Ch'anti (J1), these branches are rare in Ingushetia and when they do pop up they are almost always in Ingush Orstkhoi.

3. Guildenstedt and Klaproth are more reliable than Berger and Dubrovin for example? how come Guildenstedt mentioning a part of those villages as "District Ingush" is more legitimate than Berger referring to them as Nakhchi (Chechen) also great you mentioned one family from Sagopshi (Ingushetia) also Aslanbek Sheripov called his friend Sulumbek of Sagopshi an Ingush (an Orstkho from Ingushetia), so Orstkhoi from Ingushetia were often referred to as Ingush, and? Orstkhoi in Chechnya are referred to as Chechens by both Chechens and Ingush, nor did Orstkhoi settle in Chechnya during the 20th century only because they had and still live in regions of Urus-Martan and Achkhoy-Martan since forever. It's not like i disagreed with the fact that there are Ingush Orstkhoi, you however try to claim them more than me. I can also cherrypick sources, lets take the "Oath of allegiance" by 6 major Ingush clans in 1810, do i need to bring up the document? because there Ingush clans promise to fight the Orstkhoi and Chechens. Do i need to throw in cherrypicked sources of Russian authors and military administrators differentiating between Ingush and Orstkhoi? or calling Orstkhoi Chechens or calling them Nakhchi? Do you see the eventual game that will be played out here if you have an attitude of "Orstkhoi belonging more to Ingush" when this is your claim and Chechens disagree completely. There has been enough edit wars on this article.

4. Both of you cherrypick sources to claim Ingush belong more to Orstkhoy while downplaying the Chechen sources, you ignore 2 censuses that are 3 decades apart from each other, you ignore Y-DNA studies that actually disagree with your statements. Only thing i proposed was to make this article neutral but both of you disagree and accuse me of trying to put Chechens first in every article. It is clear we need a third party, i will contact an admin later. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Goddard2000 would you be kind enough to show where I cherrypicked sources to claim Ingush belong more to Orstkhoy? Where did I accuse you of trying to put Chechens first in every article? I really don't know what you're talking about, please refrain from these accusations which I have no part in and trying to drag me into a conflict. Thank you! Regarding your 2. Point, If I wrote that "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about the same source" then it would paint the picture of every text being from a single source, however I thought I made it clear with stating "it's unnecessarily too long with every block of text being about a single source". I'm not going to address your other points because I wasn't here to debate about who Orstkhoy belong more so I'm not going to be dragged in this argument. I simply told my opinion that the section of ethnicity should remain and information like the Orstkhoy settlement, population and composition should be added to the General information section which the ethnicity section belongs to so that the section wouldn't be just about the ethnical belonging of Orstkhoy. I also said that the Chechen section of Ethnicity section should be shortened. We can make the section shorter by following way:

• Dictionary sources grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
• Military collections (Военные сборники) grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
• Opinions of Historians like Berzhe and Potto grouped into 1 text in chronological order.

If you want, I can remake the Chechen section myself by grouping the sources and making it in chronological order just like the Ingush section, we can discuss the details of the proposal in my talk page if you want.

WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikieditor you should read the start of my answer again as i said right at the start that this reply was to BOTH you and muqale not you alone. Cherrypicking means when you pick sources that agrees with your side while ignoring the other sources. For example Muqale prefers Guildenstedt's source where he refers to Orstkhoy territory as "Ingush district" over Berger who says that they are Chechens. He thinks because Guildenstedt said it first then Ingush should be above Chechens and it shouldn't be in alphabetical order which he thinks is "silly" even though its a very normal proposition. Reason why it's cherrypicked is because he ignores other 18th century sources that do not call these tribes Ingush but divide them, he posts some old man named Fargiev and uses it as a source for Orstkho being Ingush as if this is an argument that Orstkhoi are more Ingush. As if this source trumps other sources like the censuses that say Orstkhoi villages are full of Chechens.

Now i forgot to answer your previous comment about "census shouldn't be reliable because it uses Chechen which was used for all Nakhs", did you even read the sources before you wrote this? check 1926 census for example, Ingush are MENTIONED, they are mentioned in the Sunzhensky Okrug on page 280, they are also mentioned on page 441 in Chechen okrug in one of the villages. However on page 445 ALL Orstkhoy villages such as Tsech-ehk, Yalkharoy, Gerite, Belkharoy, Meredzhi,Muzhichi,Khaikharoi and others are mentioned as inhabitants being CHECHEN, not Ingush, not Karabulak not anyone else. So don't use the "Chechen was used for everyone" argument when Ingush are clearly mentioned even in Chechen okrug. This is what i mean when i say you are biased, muqale too claims most Orstkhoy are Ingush but "moved to Grozny in 20th century", this is a ridiculous claim and only shows he has no idea about the ethnography of Chechnya. I can give you over 30 surnames from Orstkhoi in Bamut alone where these Orstkhoi from the mountains of tsech-ahk etc that were mentioned in the census (not Karabulak) moved. Orstkhoi did not just settle in Karabulak and other North Ingush territories, they lived everywhere in Achkhoy-Martan and Urus-Martan. Check page 454 of the "Akhchoy-Martan" villages, find me 1 village that has Ingush, there is none, there are just Chechens and 1 village that has both Chechens and Cossacks. That is all i have to say about the sourcing and bias in this article. This is why i think this article should be neutral, especially now when you have 2 editors that claim Ingush are closer to Orstkhoi.

There is no need to remake any section now, it is better we await for a third neutral party but i stand by my words that both of you show extreme bias as i showed above and therefore this article should be completely neutral like i proposed. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Goddard2000 you clearly referred also to me by saying "you both". I didn't cherrypick sources to prove that Ingush are closer to Chechens. I didn't accuse you either of anything and I wasn't biased, so as been mentioned, please refrain from these accusations which I have no part in. I don't understand why you are dragging the discussion into this direction when the original topic was about Ethnicity section being removed. Regarding census, when I said Chechen ethnonym was used for everyone, I was referring to the late 19th century census of 1891 (if I'm not wrong) and did you purposely ignore the "and there's no taïp composition mentioned either"? The census of 1926 doesn't mention of taïp or surnames so they can't be proven that the Chechens who lived in Tsecha-Ahke and Merzhe in 1926 were Orstkhoy. Let's not continue on this topic because this is not what I came to discuss about in the first place and let's not get dragged in this direction. I simply was discussing about the Ethnicity section and you suddenly started saying that I accused you of something, that I'm biased and so on. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I said you cherrypicked 18th century sources that mentioned Orstkhoi as Ingush while ignoring other sources that clearly divided the 2 but i'll admit that my cherrypicking comment was more directed towards Muqale and some of the wording got mixed up. There are a lot of 18th century authors that connected Karabulaki to Chechens and divided Nakhs between Karabulaki, Ingush and Chechens.

I haven't checked the 1891 source yet but i assume its the same there, i'm sorry but you're attempt at downplaying the 1926 census makes me doubt your intentions of creating an article that is fair to everyone. Are you now claiming that Tseche-Ahke and the 28 other Orstkhoi villages whos inhabitants were named as Chechens in 1926 are not ethnic Chechens?? this is an insane claim and this is what i'm talking about when i say bias. All of these villages were inhabited by Orstkhoi, or are you saying there were NO Orstkhoi living in Chechnya at all during this period?? Goddard2000 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible, just maybe, that the traditions of this group diverge from both the Chechen and Ingush peoples? AKA Chechen language but Ingush garb? I would refrain from saying "insane claim" as I believe Wikieditor isn't acting in bad faith. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian Not really, the problem here is that the Karabulak or Orstkhoi have taken part in the ethnogenesis of both nations, the ones living in Chechnya have no difference than Chechens, their dialect is part of the Galanchozh dialect similar to their neighboring clans, their Y-DNA descends from Chechen highlands etc. The 1926 consensus i talked about pretty much seals the deal that the Orstkhoi living in Chechnya are ethnic Chechens, otherwise they would identify as Ingush or something else. Muqale doesn't seem to understand this and brings up Orstkhoi that identify as Ingush as sources and claims "90% are Ingush" when he has no evidence of this. Sorry if i'm tagging you a lot i just want you to know every detail and fact of our discussion. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The amount of text in both sections needs to be trimmed as it gives the sense of WP:UNDUE to the article, when the article be better expanded in talking about the history, culture, notable tribe members etc. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, in my opinion there shouldn't even be an "ethnicity" section because this topic is controversial and both sides claim this tribe. If we have an ethnicity section would it not make sense just to write what i proposed? this:

"some authors refer to Orstkhoy as Chechen (references), while some authors refer to them as Ingush (references) but most agree that the tribe belongs to both nations as Orstkhoy are one of the 9 historical Chechen Tukkhums and one of the 7 historical Ingush Shahars"

There would be less edit wars as is seen in this article, i mean even the last source in "modern times" section, a newspaper by Ingush Orstkhoi claiming Orstkhoi are just Ingush, really? there are many sources of Chechens Orstkhoi saying the opposite. Things like this only invite counter sources and quoting. It clogs up the article and makes it look unprofessional. Goddard2000 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fine to note the disputed origins and go into SOME detail regarding the difference of sources, but each section needs to be significantly trimmed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

LegalSmeagolian I will see what I can do with the Ingush section, for me it looks as short as possible but I will try to shorten it. I proposed to Goddard2000 for the Chechen section to be shortened by following way but he declined:

• Dictionary sources grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
• Military collections (Военные сборники) grouped into 1 text in chronological order.
• Opinions of Historians like Berzhe and Potto grouped into 1 text in chronological order.

What do you think about this? I'm willing to discuss about the Chechen section with Goddard2000 on my talk page if he sees any issues with my proposed design. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The text i proposed does note that there are disputed origins and it would provide all the references needed for people who are interested in the origins. My problem with the Ethnicity section was that it mentions Ingush before Chechens and provides a quote + sources above Chechen sources and quotes. Even if they are both trimmed this ethnicity sections shouldn't be divided into 2, i for one believe if there are sections then it should be alphabetical order but the other two editors disagree. Many Chechens would disagree with them, therefore i propose we combine these 2 sections into a text similar to how its written in the intro of the article:

"In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition as one of the seven historical Ingush shahars."

Like this but with the ethnicity section shortened and combined into this text with references like i proposed. In my opinion this would solve the edit war race to put one nation's quotes and text above each others in a tactic to catch the readers eye. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you really want the Chechen mention first in the current ethnicity section. That possibility is already mentioned first in the lead, and I would say that it makes more sense for the rest of the article to follow the lead, but I am concerned that you might not be approaching this with a NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with trimming some quotes, however user Goddard2000 mentions that he has a problem with Ingush being mentioned first in the article and insists using an alphabetical order (Chechen before Ingush) for some reason, instead of a chronological order of the sources which makes more sense, since initially the Orstkhoy villages were linked with the Ingush. I have issues with his preposed phrase "In the tradition of the Chechen ethno-hierarchy, it is considered one of the nine historical Chechen tukkhums, in the Ingush tradition as one of the seven historical Ingush shahars." - Since some authors like Dalgat (late 19th century) mentioned that the Chechens only had 6 tukkhums, this gradually became 8 (Mamakaev), and at the end of the 20th century Chechen authors added another one (the Orstkhoy), who were 90% of the time classified as an Ingush society. Muqale (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I have shortened the Ingush section enough, it is fine as is. I don't mind your groupings for the Chechen section - I would say it WOULD make sense however to have the Chechen section first, as that is the first group mentioned in the lead. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree also to put Chechens first but again this in my opinion would cause edit wars because each nation think their nation should be above. If we accept the current state of shortened text then Chechens should be first alphabetically as it is in the intro of this article. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Ingush section is first because it's in chronological order as the first authors mentioned the Orstkhoy as Ingush so it would make sense. After the end of Caucasian War, authors like Berzhe and others started to mention Orstkhoy as Chechen. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I will say the following claim in the article is compelling that the two competing ethnic origins were contemporary theories: According to Jacob Reineggs (1780), the Ingush language differs from the language of the Karabulaks. He notes that, "Having taken the language into consideration, we can fairly conclude that these peoples had different origins, because what the Ingush says is his neighbor, a Kist, sharing with him only one small river, does not understand, and both of them cannot answer Karabulak in his language." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There hasn't been any wars with this page so far. The last source in "modern times" section, a newspaper by Orstkhoy doesn't claiming Orstkhoy are just Ingush, where do you see such text? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All of this got tangled together because we answered too fast, i'm gonna answer both WikiEditor1234567123 @LegalSmeagolian

Reason why i mentioned this in the noticeboard was to make it neutral i.e to not have 1 nation above each other, this is what i proposed first in here. If there is to be an ethnicity section as is now with shortened text then in my opinion Chechens should be first like in the intro section and because of alphabetical order. But again i preferred my proposition that i proposed in the noticeboard.

It is false to claim that Karabulaks were not connected to Chechens, in fact there are a lot of sources that connect all 3 Ingush, Karabulak and Chechens but also divide like for example:

Yan pototsky: "“Chechens, Ingush and Karabulaks are branches of the same people;”

“At the end of the day, I arrived in Kalugai, and could only sketch a chain of glaciers, which is located behind another chain, where the Karabulak people of the Misjegsky live”"

Guildenstedt: " The land of the Karabulaks lies near the Martan, or Fartan, which flows into the Sunzha on the right, below the Shemilgora stream. They have no princes, but only elders. They speak Kist, Chechen or Mitsdshegin dialects. "

Shteder: “I followed the banks of the Sunzha through the fertile valleys and fields of the Ingush to the mountains. On the other side, 4 versts to the east, in the wooded foothills, there are 34 villages of Akhgurts, which are a mixture of Karabulaks and Ingush.

As you can see, 18th century wasn't all authors assuming Karabulaks were Ingush, the theory that all 3 were same but also separate was very prominent during this time.

Goddard2000 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course there were some authors who mentioned Karabulaks (Orstkhoy) as separate from both Ingush and Chechens. I will try to add this in the same section when I have time, I will also add population, settlement and composition of Orstkhoy. However before Authors like Berzhe started to indicate Orstkhoy as Chechen, there were authors who mentioned Orstkhoy as Ingush before him, so chronological order would be the best here and would be more appealing to a person reading the article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also the modern times article, do you honestly believe there was an Orstkhoy paper for all Orstkhoy that claimed Orstkhoy were not Chechens? Korigov, Belkharoev are Ingush, i'm not sure by Merzhoev but i assume he's Ingush too. I mean this newspaper lost all credibility if it says something controversial like that, they ignore censuses and hundreds of thousands of Chechen Orstkhoi? it is pretty ironic that 1 year after the publication of this article the Chechen nationalist state of Ichkeria was founded by an Orstkho who was a vehement Chechen nationalist. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian@Muqale@WikiEditor1234567123

I don't understand the chronological argument when the very first sources in the 18th century divide the 3 or connect them all and for some like Guildenstedt terms like Chechen language and Midzheg (name for Chechens by Kumyks) is used for all 3. Even the first quote in the Ingush section from 1851 makes no sense as the editor assumes Berger was the first one that referred to Karabulaks as Chechens when this was a common term used for Karabulaks by Russian commanders who fought in Chechnya. For example General Rozen writes in 1830 that Karabulaks are a part of the Chechens: https://drevlit.ru/docs/kavkaz/XIX/1820-1840/Rosen_R_F/text.php

Chronolgical events are also mentioned in the "History" section why should 1-2 source that connect Ingush to Karabulaks from 18th century be the reason for Ingush being above Chechens when the first text in this article mentions Chechens first because of alphabetical order. I would also like to point out the bias of the editors in here since we have written a lot in here and it can be tiring to read all of it again. Muqale has again revealed his bias when he says "this gradually became 8 (Mamakaev), and at the end of the 20th century Chechen authors added another one (the Orstkhoy), who were 90% of the time classified as an Ingush society."

This is incorrect as i have proven time and time again, there are even 2 censuses by Russia from 1890-1926, the 1926 specifically shows that all Karabulak/Orstkhoi native villages in the highlands regarded themselves as Chechens. I provided the source above, this source is downplayed and thrown away by Wikieditor who claims they were probably not Orstkhoi when he has no evidence for that.

Dalgat mentioned 6 tukkhums, Mamakaev mentioned 9, Chechen manuscripts from 1828 mentioned 13 tribes, Russian authors often divided Chechens by over 20 divisions. I'll also remind you that Dalgat proposed that both Chechens and Ingush (also naturally Karabulaks) can be referred to as Nakhchi (the self name of Chechens). So i don't see why we should change that section. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Dalgat's original work was published in 1934 and I will have you know that the original phrase was 'the Ingush use the term Nakh and Vainakh to refer to themselves as well" (page 6 of the 1934 edition) This phrase was conviently changed to 'the Ingush often refer to themselves as Nakhchoy' along with several others parapgrahs in 2008 published by the fund of an ethnic Chechen Aslanbek Aslakhanov, which makes Dalgat 2008 edition a distortion of the original. And you made the claim traditionally one of the 9 Chechen tukkhums how is it traditional when you yourself just mentioned that there is no real number apparantly. I just pointed out that you refer to tukkhums and the first mention of Chechen tukkhums was made by Dalgat and he listed 6 Chechen tukhums. Which later turned to 8 by Chechen author Mamakaev, and now it seems to be 9. Inconsistent if you ask me. Muqale (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Dalgat's original work was heavily edited by Zaurbek Malsagov (Ingush who came up with the term Nakh and Vainakh) and he cut the entire preface of Dalgat's original work where Dalgat mentioned the Nakhchuy in a letter to his daughter. Nice conspiracy theory though, but regarding Tukkhums what does it matter if the number changes according to some authors? the same can be said about Ingush Shahars where suddenly the "Ghalghay shahar" becomes "Tsori Shahar" and "Khamkhi shahar" or when Fyappi Shahar changes names to Metskhal Shahar? even in Chechen society change happens within the nation, one clan sometimes becomes a tukkhum similar to how Melhi are regarded as the historical 9 Tukkhum. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Gyuldenshtad (1770-1773) mentions Galai, Yalkharoy, Arshti, Hai, and other settlements as part of the settlements of the Bolshie and Malie Ingushi (also written by Klaproth).
• Pallas (1793-1794) states that the Karabulaks (Orstkhoy) stem from the Ingush or Galgai.
• Bronevsky (1823) divides the Kist nation into 2 groups: the nearby Kisti-Angushi-Karabulaki and second group are the Chechens and states that among their dialects the Chechen dialect differs from the root language.
• Danilevski (1846) wrote that the Chechen dialect differed from the root language of the Ingush and Karabulaks.
• Actual 19th century reports and document exist where Orstkhoy families name themselves Galgai or Ingush.
• The Orstkhoy in their native tongue are completely similar to the Ingush, in the mountains they live near the river Fortanga, just like Ingush say it, Chechens say Martan. Orstkhoy familiy Fargiev would not exist in Chechnya, since the phoneme F is absent in the Chechen language. Famous Chechen revolutionary Aslansbek Sheripov in 1918 calls an Orstkhoy abrek (Sulumbek of Sagopshi) an Ingush. This are not just surface-level classifications, but actual ethnography. The sources you provide where Orstkhoy are called Chechen, are often those were even the Ingush are labeled Chechen. This statement has long been debunked by linguists and researchers. Like I said, Orskthoy are also represented among Chechens nowadays and this deserves to be mentioned, but you have no basis to claim that the Chechen should be put first, since the Orstkhoy only secundarily can be attributed to Chechens. Alphabetical order is not a vaild argument in my opinion, especially since you emphasize the importance of putting Chechens first.

Muqale (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the Act of 1810. This was between two lowland communities, not the entire nation. In that case, there are also many documents (AKAK) showing the hostilities between Karabulaks and Chechens, in the notes of Ermolov, Evdokimov and others. Even Städer said that Karabulaks and Chechens became enemies. Best to leave aside politics for this one, since it does not contribute to the article, and gives more cause to edit war. Muqale (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Guildenstedt puts Orstkhoi settlements in the "district of Ingush" but also says they speak a Kist/Chechen/Midzheg language
• Pallas indeed says so
• Bronevsky divides Kist nation into 4, he divides them by Kist, Ingush/Lamur, Karabulak, Chechen/Sheshen/Michkiz

"Of these, the Chechens, as the most populous tribe, occupy more than half of the Kist lands and, in the reasoning of the difference noted among them with other Kist [179] tribes in customs and dialect, constitute a special department, due only to the similarity of the language to the Kists; consequently, it would be possible to divide the Kistinsky region into two parts: that is, into the inhabited by the Kists in the closest sense, by whose name we mean the Ingush, Karabulaks and other tribes, and into the Chechen region; but this should provide a better knowledge of the Caucasian topography."

Then Bronevsky goes on to write:

"Gildenshtet mentions the following districts of the Kist province: Ingush; Ahkingurt; Ardakhli; Vapi, Oset, Makarl; Angush (Big); Shapkha, or Small Angush.

Chechen, divided into districts: Arakhi, Kulga or Dganti, Galgai, or Galga, Dzhanti, Chabrilo, Shabet, Chiskhrikaker, Karabulak, Messeti, Mereji, Galashka, Dubai."

• The rest i have already talked about, Aslanbek Sheirpov calls an Ingush Orstkho living in Ingushetia an Orstkho, an Ingush Orstkho living in Ingushetia identifies as Orstkho etc. Meanwhile the earliest censuses in Chechen-Orstkho villages all identify as ethnic Chechens

I only mentioned act of 1810 to show that Ingush and Karabulaks were divided even in many military reports but sure, we don't need to go into that. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also @LegalSmeagolian , i would like to point out that this whole thing of changing names etc was started by one of the editors @WikiEditor1234567123 , before his first edit this whole article had almost for 10 years been the same and had the version of text which i proposed we add, namely:

"Differentiation from Chechens and Ingush"

Below this section there was an explanation (although Ingush weren't mentioned in the text itself) which could've been fixed if what i proposed was done then. @WikiEditor1234567123 removed that whole section and only added Ingush while removing Chechen. Yet i am accused by them of trying to put Chechens first? when only thing i have done here is propose to return to the original edit. Later on Tovbulatov got involved and so started an edit war with Wikieditor. Would not this whole thing be solved if we went back to the original version and fixed up the text that had been there years before these edit wars? Goddard2000 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you just find a source that is pre 1770 referring to them as Chechen or not Ingush? That solves this whole chronology debacle. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the sources that connect them to Chechens or Ingush are after-1780-90, before that they are always referred to as an independent political entity by Russians. Here is a letter from 1763 for example that mentions Karabulak as independent from Chechens and Ingush and Michiks: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/XVIII/1700-1720/Rus_dag_otn/101-120/119.htm

The chronological order is a weak excuse after edit warring over this article and removing an already established section of this article, like i showed above, Pallas theorized that Karabulaki could've come from Ingush, Guildenstedt said they spoke Chechen etc etc, are we supposed to count the months between these two sources and order them that way when alphabetical order was established long time ago. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There wasn't a edit war in this page. Could you please show me where there was edit war? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide special diff which shows that I "removed that whole section and only added Ingush while removing Chechen"? Could you provide special diff which shows that I had war with Tovbolatov in this page? You really like to accuse me of alot of things that I didn't do, please refrain from doing that. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How does one upload diffs? and i misspoke, you didn't start it, someone else with an IP removed the whole text and added Ingush text, Tovbulatov because of that added Chechens above that one and it stayed that way until you and him started edit warring and you moved Ingush above Chechen. This is what i meant by Edit war. I would gladly provide diffs but here it is:

11:13, 21 February 2023‎ WikiEditor1234567123 talk contribs‎  28,151 bytes +21‎  →‎General information: Reordered in chronological order Goddard2000 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ip user and tovbolatov didn't even edit war, one added to the Ingush section and the other added to the Chechen section, don't see any edit war. Where do you see supposed edit war in that diff showing me? I reordered according to the chronological order just like in the Russian Wikipedia, that's all. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagreeing and deleting some of Tovbulatov's edit can't be considered edit warring? Tovbulatov added a quote about Ingush being a Chechen tribe which you deleted (i disagree with Tovbulatovs action here), Tovbulatov adds Chechen above Ingush after the person with IP acc deletes an already established chunk of text and headline while putting Ingush only, you one up Tovbulatov by putting Ingush above Chechens. Who decided it was supposed to be in chronological order? It was alphabetically before everyone started editing and that IP removed the text. If you don't see the edit history as edit warring and 2 sides trying to throw in their version of the article then i don't know what to tell you. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian Please have a look at this source: http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/14951-ch-2-o-narodah-tatarskogo-plemeni-i-drugih-ne-reshennogo-esche-proishozhdeniya-severnyh-sibirskih-1799#mode/inspect/page/82/zoom/4

German Professor Johann Gottlieb Georgi, in his" Description of all the peoples" in 1799 wrote the following about Karabulaks or Orskthoy, "before anything they were called Yugush (Ingush), but they refer to themselves as Arshtas (Orstkhoy)."

On the previous page you will see the mentioned Yugush are the Ingush. Muqale (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to post a different translation of that text that includes more information:

"Karabulaki. They used to be called Yugush, but they call themselves Arshts, they make up a not very crowded crowd of people. Their language consists of Kistin and Chechen dialects. Previously, they were subject to the Aksai princelings." Goddard2000 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you agree that the sources calls them Ingush. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)