Talk:Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Operation Lentil (Caucasus))
Jump to: navigation, search


Hardly a neutral assessment of the events... What is it missing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davydoff (talkcontribs) 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This article implicitly suggests that Chechens were punished by Stalin for an insurgency during WW II. Actually, none of the sources I have seen makes such connection/reasoning. Even a letter by Bogdan Kobulov to Beria does not give this as a reason for repressions (he gave other reasons). This should be fixed.Biophys (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Elimination of any mention of the anti-Soviet insurgency in Chechnya would make this article biased. What does WP:SYN has to do with this? See for example the article"The Soviet War against ‘Fifth Columnists’: The Case of Chechnya, 1942–4" by Jeffrey Burds. The chapter 'The Chechevitsa' (p. 37 of the file) begins as follows:
The author describes these experiences in the preceding chapters.
Here's another quote from p. 40:

Alæxis¿question? 10:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The "protection of communications" version sounds really strange because this region was in a deep rear of Soviet army during this operation, and because that was only one of many other very similar operations by the NKVD. This looks like a personal opinion of an assisstant professor from one of US universities (how did he justify this?). All other sources by notable historians (biography of Stalin by Edvard Radzinsky, Black book of communism, this book by Yakovlev and others) tell something very different.Biophys (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never said this was done to 'protect the communications'. What I wanted to say was that the 1942-1944 insurgency was one of the factors that affected the decision and as such deserves to be mentioned here. But there is no point in further discussion since I agree with the latest revision of yours except for one thing. I'd replace the first sentence of the 'Background' section with something like 'The expulsion of Chechen people was one of the forced population transfers carried out in Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin'. I mean that there was no single program for all the population transfers that were carried out in 1920-1951 and not all of them were 'designed for suppression of potential national liberation movements' - sometimes not ethnic but religious or social groups of people were deported, in some cases there was hardly any potential for national liberation movement (e. g. Greeks in Abkhazia). Alæxis¿question? 15:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


It looks like some part of the sentence is missing.

Also, Burds writes in his article that more than 700 people were killed in Khaibakh. Are the figures above from the book by Yakovlev or from somewhere else? Alæxis¿question? 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is from book by Yakovlev; he probably tells about the number of people who were burned alive in one of the buildings. The number by Burds is possibly total number of victims.Biophys (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actuall number of victims is not known. It could be described as "from 300 up to 700" depends on the author and your own bloodlust.Ias130 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Some things that should be added[edit]

  • How the people were deceived by the massive numbers of NKVD masquarading as R&R soldiers who were installed in the homes of the people, and then by being called for the meetings
  • How at these meetings, after the sentence readings and in some cases resistance, the men and women were separated, and the men were disarmed and locked up while the women (in some cases) sent to quickly collect some baggage; also more about the death marches and shootings/grenadings/burnings
  • How also deported were some "troublesome" Russian/Cossacks as well
  • The fate of the people in the mixed marriages (some Russian and other women were also deported this way as well)
  • More about the transport and exile conditions (including things like the communist leaders and their families being given normal trains)
  • How the Chechens and Ingushes living in other republics were rounded up as well (including 30,000 in Dagestan)
  • The fate of the Ingush and Chechen soldiers, in the rear and at the front lines
  • The post-deportation partisan movement
  • The returns after the death of Stalin (before 1957)

--Niemti (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also it was the religious and distinctively Caucasian so-called Mountain Jews, who were living there for centuries (and even participated in Imam Shamil's army, and the very surname of Khasan Israilov is also curious in this aspect, as Israilov is one of European Jewish surnames). But there were other Jews who were Russified and atheistic Soviets, and they participated in the looting and taking over of the houses. --Niemti (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm busy as of now, and some of these might be hard to get sources for, but here's what I do know... (for usage on the page, sources are preferable).  :
In mixed marriages, women were treated like the ethnicity of their husbands (hence Chechen women married to Russians were spared while Russian women married to Chechens were deported). I think you can find this in Dunlop's book. The application of the rule, though, is unknown to me.
I believe info on the conditions during deportation, the post-deportation partisans and the return in 1957 are elsewhere on wikipedia and can be moved here, though perhaps it could use more detail.
As for Israilov's last name (Chechen: Israilkhant, i.e. Israil-son), there's been speculation about that here before, but we'd need a source if we wanted to add anything about that we'd need a source (hence why I deleted the reference to it).
As for the roles of Jews here in general, the typical Chechen narrative paints the local Jews (and the Meskhetian Turks) as the two righteous ethnic groups in the region who declined to take the property of deported Chechens (unlike, say, Ukrainians and Russians). I suppose it's possible that Jews coming from outside the region may have taken Chechen houses if they moved there, but it would probably be on such a small number that it's totally irrelevant.
... and by the way, do you have a source somewhere for Mountain Jews participating in Imam Shamil's army? That could be useful elsewhere.
The big problem for us, I guess, is a lack of accessible sources in the English language on the matter. Almost all of our sources are actually books about the History of Chechnya as a whole, and thus they don't go into hugely deep detail about this episode. If you have stuff to add to the page(s) though, don't hesitate :). --Yalens (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aardakh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 18:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Pykhalov[edit]

Pykhalov cited a comprehensive source on Russian military history. Page 238 shows deaths among Soviet nationalities in the military. There were 20,900 deaths among the Mari оut of a population of about 480,000 and about 2,300 among the Chechen and Ingush out of a population of about 500,000. A proper justification was not provided for removing Pykhalov.Sonofagunner (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Why have you removed sourced info about Pykhalov? The man is actively involved in fighting for the aims of pro-Russian separatists, and has been accused of historical falsification. Yes, the accusing side included some Chechens-- are you implying they are biased solely by their ethnicity? Of course this is relevant if his claims are to be presented on the page. And for the record, the stuff had not been removed entirely before, so the section title is misleading -- rather, qualification about the source was placed. --Yalens (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed the sourced info about Pykhalov because this article is about a historical event rather than an individual. It's a clear attempt to discredit an author who has a certain point of view that some people disapprove of. "Pro-Russian separatists" - it's POV language and opposing the current government Ukraine is a fairly mainstream position in Russia. At the same time, the sources attacking Pykhalov are not clearly attributed in the article. I checked some of those sources and they don't even mention Pykhalov by name. You're accusing Pykhalov of falsifying history, but I checked his Russian military source about deaths in the Soviet Army by nationality and Pykhalov cited the figures as presented in that source. In this instance, Pykhalov is not falsifying history at all, but the attacks him against this article appear false. Sonofagunner (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not accusing Pykhalov of anything personally for your information, but others have made very serious accusations against him-- I forgot to mention the accusation of ethnic bigotry and the one of inciting ethnic hatred, on top of the source falsification. It's not our job to decide whether he source falsified-- but rather to report that others make the accusation. We don't care on this page what Russian society thinks about Ukraine. As for Russian military sources-- awesome, I'm sure you can tell how an actual party to the conflict could not be considered a neutral source by any means and should not be presented as such. Interesting use of jargon like "POV language", very odd for a "new" user, or perhaps you've returned? But of course, what sounds like a duck quacking could be a recording of a duck quack or maybe a very ill Canadian goose, who knows :/.
Also, interesting claim you make that the sources "don't mention Pykhalov". Oh, really? All I have to do is type his name in Cyrillic into the search bar and voila, his name shows up everywhere :). This one mentions him [[1]], as does this one [[2]], [[3]], and this one [[4]]. Okay, the one about Major Pugachev might not have been necessary as he is only mentioned once there (he is called a Stalinist apologist like once or twice there), but still, this is no argument for exclusion as the others hold up (they were moved here from Russian wiki or something like that I believe anyhow). And that, my friend, is all the linked sources that were used-- all five of them. --Yalens (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
All right, the criticisms of Pykhalov are in this version. Jeffrey Burds wrote a scholarly article titled "The Soviet War against ‘Fifth Columnists’: The Case of Chechnya, 1942–4" in the Journal of Contemporary History and he cites Pykhalov nine times in the footnotes! Burds does mention Russian sources on Chechnya contain antagonism towards Chechnya, but that's how historical research works. Our information from the Mongols comes from Armenian, Arabic, Chinese, Franco-Italian, Italian, Korean, Persian, Russian, Syriac, and Tibetan sources - they are all biased but that does not mean we must exclude them from historical research. It is virtually impossible to write about the history of Chechnya without relying on Russian sources. And why are you attacking a source that that is universally cited with regard to Russian military history? I typed Krivosheev + 20th century Russian military in Google books and there are thousands of results. Do you, Mr. Yalens, have some superpowers? Because you have this remarkable ability to dismiss mainstream, universally cited sources as biased and therefore unreliable. Pykhalov cited that source to discuss casualties among nationalities. Your endorsed sources accuse him of falsifying history, but I checked the source and the data appears exactly as Pykhalov reported. The cited sources insulting Pykhalov include Vakhid Akaev and Nurdi Nukhazhiev, both of whom are Chechen. Nukhazhiev in particular endorses the repression of women in Chechnya: "Several high-level Chechen officials, including the local ombudsman, Nurdi Nukhazhiev, echoed Kadyrov in their assessment of the situation without suggesting that such “traditions” should be changed. “Unfortunately, we have some women who started to forget about the behavioral code of highland women. And their relatives–the men who consider themselves offended [by the behavior of those women]–do lynch them sometimes,”. Why is someone like Nukhaziev who's complicit in human rights violations against women cited in this article? The criticisms of Pykhalov should be clearly attributed as coming from Chechen activists. Also, Yalens, I would appreciate it if you don't misrepresent my edits. On my talk page you said that I posted Stalinist apologist materials but the sources I cited consist of Jeffrey Burds of Northeastern University, Krivosheev with his data on the Russian military, and Leonid Panteleev. Those are hardly Stalinist sources. Sonofagunner (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of misrepresentation when did I ever say I endorsed Nukhazhiev? I don't. Not a fan of him at all. But that a man put in place by a regime (Kadyrov) that is entirely grounded by Putin says these criticisms is telling, especially as the Kadyrov government has often gone against the typical Chechen view of these events (for example dismantling Dudayev's monuments to them).
Furthermore, your continued referencing of the fact that those who are "insulting" Pykhalov happen to be Chechen, as if their ethnicity fundamentally biases them (this is the most favorable reading of what you are saying, there are other much less favorable interpretations too), is discriminatory and disgusting. Please cut it out. I would never even think of saying the same of ethnic Russians. Your off-topic railing about so-called Chechen "traditions" is also disturbing. As for sources on what happens, yes I myself prefer to ignore both Russian and Chechen (notice I have not cited Akhmadov once or even used his book for this) sources-- but instead on the less involved sources of foreign countries, such as Moshe Gammer (Israeli), Derluguian (Armenian), John Dunlop and so on. Yes they exist. And Russian sources are often useful but when they are criticized extensively, accused of falsification, and happen to be from people involved in the Russian military (but see also press freedom in Russia) we cannot simply portray their point of view as the indisputable fact, when there is a dispute about it (indeed, on the alleged draft evasion there is the rival view, found I believe in  Горцы Кавказа в Великой Отечественной войне, that holds that draft numbers were low due to long running anti-Chechen discriminatory policies). Quite frankly, it is not your job to "check" whether Pykhalov falsified, and the accusation of his falsification went beyond just what you're discussing I'm sorry, but that is what NPOV is about. --Yalens (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sonofagunner, if you want to cite Pykhalov then you should at least add that he's a pro-Stalin activist and revisionist. It's alright to quote Jeffrey Burds, but in the article you are citing Burds also writes: "Obviously, there are serious problems relying on Soviet and Russian sources to reconstruct any aspects of Chechen history. Russian depictions of the Chechen question are without exception heavily laden with a deep-seated antagonism towards the Chechens. (...) This elusive pursuit is further hampered by the fact that various Russian–Chechen or Soviet–Chechen wars over the past 200 years have virtually annihilated Chechen archives, libraries, and other resources, making it impossible to write a history of Chechnya without relying heavily on Russian sources." (page 283 footnote 55). Therefore, at least add that his findings are problematically entirely based on Russian sources, something which Burds admits to himself.

I would also like to bring to your attention that adding three paragraphs on supposed Chechen-Nazi friendship is beyond the scope of what this article should be about. The article on the Armenian Genocide doesn't dedicate three paragraphs on how the Armenians were fifth collumnists for the Russians either. This is for good reasons: dubbing entire nations as fifth collumnists is the type of racism that has led to genocides in the first place. If you want to write more on Chechen-Nazi collaboration you can do that in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, Case Blue, History of Chechnya, Chechen–Russian conflict or any other relevant page. Machinarium (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tony Wood[edit]

Tony Wood wrote a book calling for the separation of Chechnya from Russia, which is cited in this article. It is a controversial source that has been met with considerable criticism: "His volume is too thin, and suffers too much from oversimplification and one-sidedness and does not give a fair coverage to the problem. the Russians in it are portrayed as barbarians, the author does not even hint at the bitter debates an dilemmas that the war gave rise to. On the other hand, he paints the Chechens as great martyrs, and not as real people with their virtues and vices."Sonofagunner (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Although the critic here seems to have their their own biases, I have removed Tony Wood as sources that haven't attracted large amounts of criticism are preferred. The only place I left Wood was for the name "Chechevitsa" -- I really doubt that that could be controversial. Now, can we stop posting tons of material intending to justify the deportation on a page that is about the deportation, not about the alleged collaboration? --Yalens (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This page should be renamed back to "Operation Lentil" per WP:Common name, as one can see from Google search. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes I tried to move it back but it won't let me. How do you move back to a page that technically exists? --Yalens (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I Think Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush is an even better title (just like Deportation of the Crimean Tatars). Operation Lentil only refers to the initial deportation, not the years of exile. Lentil is also a derogatory phrase; the operation was cynically called 'Chechevitsa' ('Lentil') because this word resembles 'Chechen'. Machinarium (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Maybe Deportation of the Chechen and Ingush peoples? What Yalens thinks? But I also see another problem. The entire peoples were deported by Stalin, officially because some of their members collaborated with Nazi. Yes, this should be noted on the page. But this is not a valid justification of the genocide. Nothing is valid justification for genocide. Therefore, discussion of this in background section seem excessive. We have another page, 1940–44 insurgency in Chechnya. Well, maybe we have to say here that Stalin wanted to punish people for the insurgency, but only if this can be reliably sourced. From what I read, that was not an explanation because many other peoples were deported, even though they were not engaged in any insurgencies.My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Only issue with that is that Balkars, Karachays, and Kalmyks were also targeted. But I suppose the parts of the operation that affected them could be given their own page? I don't see anyone who's likely to make such a page at this moment, sadly, so it seems the logical place for the effects on those three peoples is here, meaning we can't say just "Chechens and Ingush". --Yalens (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Those campaigns took place at a different dates and should be seen as a different campaigns, despite similarities. Yes they also deserve their own articles. Machinarium (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done--Yalens (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The death toll of deportation[edit]

Currently, the article includes the following statements:

Of these links, [4] leads to a page which says that according to Nekrich, net losses of Chechens constituted 22% and net losses of Ingush constituted 9%, and that it's the percent closer to minimal than maximal.

[1] is a book by Nekrich. At page 138 of Nekrich, in Table 2, it's stated that net losses of Chechens between 1939 and 1959 (after allowing for wartime losses) were 131,000 (22%), and of Ingush 12,000 (9%). At the same page Nekrich writes that "[t]hese figures are closer to minimal than maximal estimates".

[2] is a book by Dunlop. At pp. 70-71 Dunlop cites several investigations. One is Bugai's study based on NKVD's figures which says the death toll of Chechens from 1944 to 1948 constituted 101,036. Then, Dunlop cites investigations based on Soviet census figures, such as that by Tishkov group which concluded: "Indirect [kosvennye] losses of growth from the deportation constituted about 200,000 among the Chechens." In the next paragraph, Dunlop cites two other investigations based on Soviet census (Conquest and Nekrich), which lead to smaller figures.

[3] is a book by Gammer I was unable to obtain by now, so cannot comment on it (yet).

Based on my reading so far, I believe that the data on the death toll of Chechens and Ingush, as currently cited in the above fragments of the article, violates WP:Verifiability. In particular, figures concerning "indirect losses of growth" are presented as "estimates for deaths" or are used as sources for the statement that "hundreds of thousands of Chechens and Ingushes died or were killed".

Hope that helps.

Document hippo (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So, on should probably tell something like that: "According to estimates, between 100,000 and 200,000 of Chechens and Ingushes died or were killed during the round-ups and transportation, and during their early years in exile"? My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid, that wouldn't help. According to Dunlop, the figure 200,000 refers to "indirect losses of growth". He uses the words "In similar fashion" and "similar conclusions" to discuss other studies based on census figures. I don't think that "indirect losses of growth" mean that all these people were killed or died. I think it includes the unborn babies, which results in a higher figure. Document hippo (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The statement "Estimates for deaths of the Chechens alone (excluding the NKVD statistic), range from about 170.000 to 200.000, thus ranging from over a third of the total Chechen population to nearly half being killed in those 4 years alone (rates for other groups for those four years hover around 20%)." was introduced to this article in 2010 when an editor copy-pasted info from another Wikipedia article, History of Chechnya, to which the same claim was introduced in 2009, by the same editor.

Document hippo (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you suggest to modify this text? I made my suggestion above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't thought of how the text could be modified. Yes, I've seen your suggestion. Thanks for participating. Document hippo (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Please suggest your version. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, it was not my intention to do so. Document hippo (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the book on me right now; if I remember properly, part of the "loss in growth" explanation was (a) to account for large numbers of infants (and old people) who died of exposure and (b) because, distrusting the NKVD data, that is what authors used as the next best proxy to estimate losses. I agree that it should be reworded so not as to give the impression that say, 200000 were slaughtered on spot or died in transport, as that is not what the authors were saying. My very best wishes' suggestion was a good start, at least. --Yalens (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
If that helps, please, have a look: [5]. That's all I've got. I used to talk to some Chechens and I know deportation is a sensitive topic. Document hippo (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is still raw and quite sensitive. I'm quite busy at the moment but I intend to get back to this in time.--Yalens (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Russian demographer Dalkhat Ediev did a large study on casualty figures of the 'punished peoples'. According to him, 30.4% of the Chechen deportees (125,477 people) and 21.1% of the Ingush deportees (20,284 people) perished due to the deportations. The short-term demographic losses are estimated at 51.1% for the Chechens and 47.9% for the Ingush. Ediev provided the following death rates for the other totally deported peoples: 16.3% of the Koreans, 17.9% of the Ingrian Finns, 17.9% of the Russian Germans, 18.3% of the Karachays, 12.1% of the Kalmyks, 19.3% of the Balkars, 17.1% of the Crimean Tatars, and 12.6% of the Meskhetian Turks: D.M. Ediev, Demograficheskie poteri deportirovannykh narodov SSSR (Stavropol 2003) 275, 302. Machinarium (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

All good points. I have edited the article in the meantime, and hope it is better now. I intend to improve the section even further. The 200,000 figure refers to demographic losses, which includes unborn children and low birth rates, not the total figure of the dead. In order to clarify, I have added several sources which all give different estimates of the death rates.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
3E1I5S8B9RF7 Thank you very much for your assistance, much appreciated. --Yalens (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 11:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this. Seraphim System (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ready when you are, Seraphim System.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok let's start with images:

  • Are you sure about the licensing on this one? It is PD-old, but the author is stated as unknown? Is this maybe the wrong license?
If you want, I can remove the first two images in the "Historical background" section to spare us the time. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • How can we verify the CC license for this image?
I cannot verify it because no source was given by the uploader. I presumed that any image on the Wikimedia Commons is automatically free to use until deleted. Again, if it is really such an issue, the image can be removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the source for the map?
If you want, I can remove the first two images in the "Historical background" section to spare us the time. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a routine map that depicts the location of Chechnya. Hardly any reason can be argued against this specific example.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It is a general depiction of the wave of transfer of the Vainakhs, from Chechnya to Central Asia. No specific locations of their settlements are depicted, and thus no clear argument can be given against the map.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Another PD-old with unknown author - also the source given for it does not appear reliable, can you say more about it (I don't read Russian, btw)

Seraphim System (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not read Russian either. At any rate, if it is really such an issue, it can be removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments on 1a:

  • "Some place its origins as early as 1785" -- some historians? Corrected.
  • "into their lands on the Caucasus." -- shouldn't it in in the Caucasus Mountains? On the Caucasus makes it sound like it's a pensinsula. Corrected.
  • "The Chechens and the Ingush speak languages that are closely related and have a degree of passive intelligibility, both being Vainakh languages." -- not clear how this relates to the paragraph. Moved to the beginning of the text.
  • "The Caucasus War was fought between 1817 and 1864. In it, the Russian Empire succeeded to annex and subjugate the people of the area," -- In it? Corrected.
  • "The Soviet Air Force even had to bombard the Chechen-Ingush republic in the spring of 1942 to suppress the rebellion." -- could it be changed to "bombarded the Chechen-Ingush republic" ? Done.
  • "However, they managed to only recruit 13 people in the area." -- clipped sentence, can it be merged into the preceding sentence Done.
  • "when the German troops approached Ingushetia" -- 'when German troops' Done.
  • "with the Soviet counter-offensive that drove the Wehrmacht from the North Caucasus" -- if there is a main article for this can it be wikilinked? Done.
  • "the Wehrmacht entered the Northern Caucasus," -- North Caucasus Done.
  • "encouraging anti-Sovietism" -- needs to be reworded, the seizure of the territories encouraged anti-Sovietism? Rephrasing to be more clear.
  • "However, the Nazis never reached Grozny." - clipped sentence, could be merged into the next sentence. Grozny should be wikilinked. Done.
  • "Various authors question the Chechens' ties with the Germans, some pointing out that the Nazis stopped at the northwest outskirts of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR, near Mozdok, in Northern Ossetia, and that a majority of the Vainakh never even came with a direct contact with the German army." - needs to be rewritten. Various and some together is too much vague language, and it needs to be stated more clearly. Done.
  • "As such, the Nazis never even reached their territory." - starting to sound like it is making at argument ... Corrected.
  • "While there were secret negotiations with the Germans near this border, the Chechen rebels pointed out that they did not favor a rule neither from Berlin nor from Moscow." -- rm neither Done
  • In October 1942, Chechens assisted other volunteers to help erect a defensive barrier around Grozny. -- Grozny should be wikilinked the first time. Done.

For example there is a long paragraph about possible ties between the Chechens and Germans - what does that have to do with the deportations? There are several sentences that argue that the Chechens fought with the Soviets and very few fought with the Axis powers and the next paragraph resumes discussing the deportations. In the middle of that paragraph it says Beria complained to Stalin about the "low level of labour discipline" among Chechens, the "prevalence of banditry and terrorism", the "failure of Chechens to join the communist party" and the "confession of a German agent that he found a lot of support among the local Ingush" but it needs some revision for clarity (per "clear and concise" prose) and clear topic sentences would help with this. Done. I've moved that paragraph into the next section, "Deportation".--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think for an article like this the review may take some time. I am willing to keep it open for a while, if you want to continue working on it during the review but it is not ready to pass without some more work. Seraphim System (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't strikethrough my comments, or insert your responses in the middle of my comment, just add a done in order after my comment. Please fix this.Seraphim System (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I looked over the changes and this isn't going to be enough to pass GA. Simply reordering the content isn't going to be enough - someone familiar with the sources is going to have to go over it and do substantial rewriting. Right now it reads more like a selection of facts but its not clear how those facts connect to the topic of the article. The article, especially the background section, needs to be written clearly and concisely so that someone without background knowledge of the article can understand it. It's still not clear why the languages are mentioned. The last round of edits you changed it to make it the topic sentence, but the rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with languages. The Circassian Genocide is mentioned, but it's not mentioned if scholars include Chechens as part of the Circassian Genocide. There is a lot that is left vague, and its left up to the reader to guess how it connects to the topic - I think the work needed to bring this up to GA standard is going to be more then what can reasonably be done in the course of a GA review. Seraphim System (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System, you didn't put any effort into this review. You hastly got rid of it, actually, and took it away from someone who would have done a proper review, instead. I was just starting to address your comments, and already you close the review with a negative outcome, in less than 24 hours from my reply? Based on only one section? This is simply dishonest and astounding. The reasons you give above are confusing and blurry (it's kind of late brining up new questions now, when you closed the review, isn't it?) or undue (strikethrough is routinely used when getting rid of an issue in the review process: [6]), but since this is a done deal, I'm not going to get into this anymore. Goodbye.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The issues with the image licenses was enough for a quick fail, btw. The prose issues are extensive and substantial, and you don't seem to understand what I have said about topic sentences - you are still saying I raised the issue without giving you a chance to respond so it does not seem like you read my first comments carefully when I asked you to review the use of topic sentences in the article. Instead of blaming the reviewer for not putting as much effort into a review as you would like, I encourage you to Google "topic sentences" if you don't already know what those are and consider making the effort of at least checking the image licenses before nominating articles in the future. Seraphim System (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments by Lingzhi[edit]

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

  • First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
  • On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
  • Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)