Talk:Battle of the Valerik River

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Valerik River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713064326/http://www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=119&n=7 to http://www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=119&n=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Таллархо why do you keep on vandalising the page and removing references information? I have cited a source about Ingush societies participating in uprising of Ahberdila Muhammad. Your personal grievances against Ingushes don't give you the right to remove the referenced information. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Result

Hello @Goddard2000 I would like to discuss the result with you as you changed it to "both sides claim victory". I cited Dalkhan Khozhaev as a source for the battle being Imamate Victory, and yes, he's Chechen which would make him not a neutral source for this result section, however, he showed Russian sources (which indicate that it wasn't a Russian victory) to make up for his claim (i. e. the result being Imamate Victory). What do you think, should the result still be "both sides claim victory"? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, i haven't checked the Dalhan Khozhaev source but it is well known that Russia also claimed victory and this is stated on Russian Wikipedia as well. I changed it to "Both sides claim victory" because of that. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, one thing to look at in situations like this is the actual truth. In real life, the Russians achieved their objective -- cross the river -- and Imanate forces didn't (which was to stop them). As to casualties, nobody knows, but I'd be pretty surprised if the Imamate didn't have lots more. They didn't have artillery, or much, or cavalry, or the kind of training and military knowledge that the Russians had. After all, the Imamate forces were a militia of local men and the Russians were professional officers and soldiers. Doesn't mean the Imamte wasn't the good guys. They were! So it's kind of sad that they lost. But they did. Andybody can claim anything, and so. At least the Russian have an after-action report, and those are awfully reliable.

So, since the Imamate did lose, at the end of the day we should probably say that, n'est-ce pas? I wouldn't overly worry about that source. Who cares what people who are wrong say? Don't edit war over this pleas. Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The result section might be debatable but why did you remove Chapelle's estimation of Russian casualties? they should be included in the casualties report and Russian sources are hardly "reliable" when it comes to their casualties. Goddard2000 (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the Russians did not suffer 1,400 casualties

Alright so an editor added the claim that 1,400 Russians died. Couple things about that:

• The claim is ridiculous on its face
• The source is not even remotely reliable.

I've removed it and let's keep it removed.

1,400 Russians dead -- that is almost 50% dead, Presumably the rest would have been wounded (wounded generally outnumber dead) and would be hard pressed to escape the victorious Imaamate, Even if somehow all the casualties were deaths (really only possible if the Imamate won the battlef ield and slaughtered the wounded), so that about 2,000 Russians escaped (hard to see how considering that the Imamate won the battlefield, but whatever) that unit would be considered pretty much wiped out for the moment, unable to further fight, and the battle would universally considered a Russian disaster. I mean, that's a higher death rate than Custer's Last Stand, for instance, if you include Reno's detachment.

And, the source is a Georgian entity, which is extremely partisan (see for instance here, which starts "We, the people of Georgia, strongly oppose the bill initiated by the members of the Parliamentary Majority, also endorsed by the Speaker of Parliament and other MPs. We declare that the attempts to adopt this Russian bill attack not only the independent civil society organizations and the critical media, but the people of Georgia themselves.". All righty-roo then. And the claim is based on a contemporary source, the French ambassador, who wasn't there and presumably had no direct agents there (no mention of a Frenchman with the Imamate forces, which anyway would be quite odd and provoking), and not with the Russians as far as I know, altho that is possible I guess. That's if the French ambassador's wasn't just made up, which I have no confidence the source wouldn't. Herostratus (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)