This is the talk page for discussing Ingush people and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Etymology: On the account of the origin of the ethnonym "Ingush" they are more or less justified and correct, but a gross mistake was made on the account of the ethnonym "Ghalghay", this name had a wider meaning than the territorial one, your version of this section is not reliable, and it needs to be corrected, to besides, it is not neutral and unpleasant for persons of Ingush nationality.
2. History: This section is very small and brief, although the history of the Ingush people is very diverse and huge, only false information from the Chechen historian and ethnographer Umalat Laudaev is given here, not only is he not a reliable source that he could be quoted in this article, he also contradicted himself. Let's take his quote: "The Nazranians (Ingush) reluctantly called themselves Nakhchi" (doubtful), after this quote, literally in the same book, Laudaev says the opposite: "The Nazranians (Ingush) mocked the lowland Chechens, because the latter called themselves "nakhchi" means "cheese". This section needs a total correction, it is not neutral, and its text is based on the theories of a Chechen historian, what is written here is condemned by the Ingush, and it is by no means neutral!
3. Religion: Everything is more or less in order, except for the phallic cult, why is it mentioned here at all? These phallic statues were found only in two villages, and are not mentioned in the legends and folklore of the Ingush, this is not the faith of the Ingush, why is it not mentioned in the same article about the Chechens about these phallic statues? After all, there are several sources saying that absolutely all Chechens worshiped them. This section should be changed, the unacceptable photo of the phallic statue should be replaced by the Ingush (Muslim) mosque or the Christian temple of Thaba-Yerdy.
If you have something to say = enter here your nickname Reiner Gavriel =, then let's start a discussion, after the discussion we will call the admins as a last resort. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Extraordinary Writ and Bbb23, take a look at this please. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
1. It is not conceivable to refer to folklore and draw conclusions about the ethnonym of the whole people, this version of origin can probably be left, but additional information must be added that the ethnonym extended to many other Nakh societies, and that this ethnonym was mentioned in 1 century by the Greek philosopher and geographer Strabo, your version of the Etymology section is not reliable and needs to be completely revised.
2. Laudaev’s theory is, to put it mildly, nonsense, which contradicts itself, it is not reliable and should not be in this section, there are early documents, the delusional nature of this theory is also proved by the fact that in Semenova’s early work of 1823, entitled «Полная географическая и историческая известия о Кавказе (часть вторая)» on page 153 we read that the Ingush call themselves Kisty, Galga, Ingush, and use one name instead of another. So Laudaev's version should be removed from this article, because it is not historical, and also not logical.
3. Nowhere is it said that it was an important pre-Islamic belief of the Ingush, the phallic trace was found only in two Ingush villages, if this cult had been developed among the Ingush, then even more phallic statues would have been found, Christianity and the same Islam were developed among the Ingush, the same Vakhushti wrote that the inhabitants of Angusht, who are called Angushtins, were Sunni Muslims. It is not worth denying the obvious, the Ingush and Chechens have almost the same history, which means the same cult, or rather the Tusholi cult was also a Chechen cult, and it’s not about when the Ingush were mistakenly called Chechens, it’s interesting that the cult was created for women who couldn't get pregnant, but among the Chechens, it served as a worship even for men, which immediately distinguishes it from the Ingush cult. In short, the mention of this phallic cult here is not justified and is not appropriate, if you are going to attribute a cult to a whole people that spread in two villages, then it will be necessary to add this interesting information in the Chechens article:
“ | The Chechens have retained many elements of primitive paganism, among other things, and the phallic cult. Often found in the country, small bronze naked priapic figurines are worshiped by men as guardians of the flocks, and by women who embrace them, begging for male children. | ” |
— (Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона, Санкт-Петербург 1903 год стр. 786) |
And note that your Chechen historian Azamat Arzunukaev also said that the Chechens have phallic statues, and that the Chechens have more of them than the Ingush in terms of numbers. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
1. Could you tell me which source says that "based on historical development of the area indicates it might be a composition of the words kha and khal, which directly translated means three cities"? "Ghalgha" is most often associated with the term "Ghala" - tower, fortress, and accordingly, is translated as the builder/inhabitant of the tower/fortress.
2. "The ancestors of the Ingush people have been historically mentioned under many different names, such as Dzurdzuks, Kists or Ghlighvi,[10][11] although none of them was used as an ethnonym", this is also false, they were used as ethnonym for Ingushes, I don't know where this is coming from.
3. Why is so much attention paid to phallic cult that was found only in two villages? It deceives the reader into thinking that it was widespread among the Ingushes, when it wasn't. The phallic statue image should be replaced with a image of Ingush Mosque, Borga-Kash, Tkhabaya-Yerdy or Myatseli which fit better than the phallic statue. This whole article looks like it was written by a person who had alot of hate against the Ingush people. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
1. Just the same, Strabo, speaking of Gela, had in mind exactly Ghalghay, this is evidenced by their location and place of residence. No matter how you deny it, the ethnonym "Ghalghay" is the oldest ethnonym and name that covered many Vainakh societies.
2. Laudaev's works are anti-scientific and do not withstand any criticism, Laudaev contradicts what he himself writes in his work. The crazyness of the situation lies in the fact that the Nazranians, who allegedly "reluctantly called themselves Nakhchi", laughed at the Chechens on the plane who called themselves the same ethnonym, it is obvious that Laudaev is simply lying and giving false information. There are many more authoritative works about the fact that the Ingush called themselves Ghalghay, the same Berger wrote that according to legend, the ancestor of the Chechens "Nakhchi" comes from "Galgaevtsy", such as Gorepkin, or the same Yakovlev.
3. You deny the obvious, I gave you information that the phallic cult of the Chechens differed to a greater extent from the Ingush, in the case of the Chechens, even men worshiped this statue, and I gave evidence of this. Azamat Arzunukaev at some time was a very respectful person among the Chechens, but after his statement, the Chechens immediately rejected him, Buzuratnov is no authority among the Ingush, you should not invent myths.
Now it's time to end this discussion, you're running around till the end, now let the admins consider the proposal to fully process this article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
1. Better study the authentic history, and not the fairy tales of Laudaev, the Khamkha shakhar is the Galgaev shakhar (society), like many other shakhars. Unlike the Chechens, the Ingush have different names, it depended on the tower itself, the Ingush fighting towers are called “V1ov” (Vovnushki), and the residential towers Ghala (Tower) - from which the Ingush self-name comes.
1.1 It is possible that the ethnonym “gargarei” (“gargars”) is associated with the tribes of the Koban culture, which is mentioned by the ancient Greek geographer Strabo in his “Geography” (1st century AD) as a North Caucasian people living next to the Amazons. Some authors, linking it with the Ingush term "gargara". Another ethnonym mentioned by Strabo is “gels” (“gelai”), a number of scientists also identified with the Ingush (Galgai).
2. The Kistins and Dzurdzuks of the Ingush were called by their centuries-old neighbors - the Georgians, but the ethnonym "Gligva" (which the Georgians called the Ingush) is a distortion from the Ingush self-name "Galgay" and this is an indisputable fact. There is nothing to say about “Nakhchi”, this name has nothing to do with the word “Nakh”, even Chechen historians themselves, Suleymanov’s type - they wrote that the word “nakh” (people) has nothing to do with the word “nakhchi”, this name applied only to one flat Chechen society in the area called “nakhchi mokhk”, there is not a single evidence (except for Laudaev’s false information) where the Ingush would call themselves “Nakhchi”, the Ingush were called so only by Russian military leaders and ethnographers who did this for the convenience of conquering and managing the Caucasus, the same is true with the Dagestan peoples, who were united under the name “Lezgin”, like Karachaevtsev and The Balkars were called "Circassians", but all these peoples did not call themselves that, just as the Ingush do not consider themselves Chechens.
3. Even your colleague Tovbalotov writes that exhibiting such a photo of a “phalic statue” is unacceptable, and it should be removed, and the very information about the phallic cult should also be deleted, this article is not appropriate, and this has nothing to do with the entire Ingush people. The Ingush professed Christianity, then Islam, this is what the section about the "religion of the Ingush" should be based on.
I think it makes no sense to continue the dispute, it has already been proven that the article should be revised. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
1. I’m just writing referring to logic, and you walk around to the end and try to ascribe to the Ingush a name that they never called themselves. You have been proved many times that Laudaev is a dubious source, since he himself contradicts his words, and he himself wrote in his Work that the ethnonym "Nakhchi" spread only on the flat terrain in Ichkeria, even the Mountain Chechens did not want to have anything in common with the flat Nakhchi people, and the Nazrans (Ingush) just simply laughed at those Chechens who called themselves that, and insulted them by calling them "cheese people". Another Chechen historian, Sulemanov, also wrote about this, who proved that the word "Nakhchi" and "Nakh" (people) are not of the same series, and that these are completely different words. Chechen historians themselves refute this theory, and those who try to deny the cheese origin of the ethnonym "Nakhchi" come up with fairy tales about the fact that this name comes from the name of the Prophet Noah, or they say that this name is translated as "people". In addition, many historians whom you cited in your writings wrote that Ghalghay were the founders of many Vainakh societies (Dalgat wrote about this), and Berger in his work (which many Chechen historians refer to) wrote from the word of two authoritative Chechens named Zaur and Magomed , cited a legend about the legendary ancestor of the Chechens "Nakhchi" who was born among the Ghalghay (Ingush) and was considered this very Ghalgha (Ingush), and that the Chechens themselves descended from him.
Source: "Chechnya and Chechens, A.P. Berzhe, Tiflis, 1859, on page 125."
In addition, I have already given you a source where it is written that the Ingush call themselves Ghalghay, this was recorded from the words of the Ingush themselves. By the way, Gorepkin and Yakovlev directly wrote that the Chechens are descended from the Ingush, why do these sources not let into the article about the Chechens, but such an obvious lie about the Ingush passes? They began to call the Ingush Chechens only after Russia came to the Caucasus, just as the Dagestanis were called Lezgins, and the Karachays and Balkars were called Circassians.
2. I am not ignoring anything, I just cited quotes and texts that are not convenient for you from the works of these authors, which you completely ignore. How could the Gligvs come from an ethnonym?) Do you understand what you are writing? The Georgians called the Ingush differently, Dzurdzuks, Gligvs and Kistins were considered one people, then that the Gligvs descended from the Dzurdzuks is only one theory out of thousands of others who claim that the Dzurdzuks and Gligvs were the names by which their ancestors were called, and the Chechens were called "Chachans" who were attributed to Dagestan, read Geography of Georgia by Vakhushti Bagrationi.
3. For that matter, why don't you write about this phallic cult in an article about Chechens? It doesn't work for you, of course. It is confirmed that there were only 2 phallic statues, in two Ingush villages, nowhere else is there a trace of a phallic cult in Ingushetia. What does "today's Ingush faith has nothing in common" mean? It's not for you to decide for sure! According to the religious beliefs of the Ingush, and indeed of any Muslim, it is unacceptable and offensive to post such photographs of a stone male organ in an article about the Muslim people! And it is obvious that you are doing this on purpose, but I am not going to blame anyone.
There is nothing more to say here, it is better to process the article under the Russian version of the article about the Ingush, in the Russian article there are about 131 sources, and it has been verified by experienced users. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
1. Maybe it's time for you not to attribute words that do not belong to me? I said that specifically one Laudaev is a non-authoritative source, and I actually proved it, because Laudaev contradicts himself, besides, Laudaev himself is a Chechen by nationality, and it is obvious that it is beneficial for him to write such nonsense about the fact that - "The Ingush called themselves Nakhchi", given the fact that there is no mention of this anywhere else, and the fact that in an earlier work the Ingush themselves said that they call themselves "Ghalghay", casts further doubt on the accuracy of Laudaev's words. These authors whom you cite (Dalgat, Berge) wrote that the Ingush are classified as Chechens (Nakhchi) just to make it easier to study the Caucasus, none of them wrote that it was the INGUSH who called themselves by this name (except for the non-authoritative and dubious Laudaev), like me wrote above, this method of simply studying the Caucasus was also used over other Caucasian peoples, that is, the Dagestanis were called Lezgins, and the Karachays and Balkars were called Circassians. In addition, it is incorrect to use excerpts in articles about the Ingush that unify the ethnic difference between the Ingush and Chechens under the common ethnonym of the latter.
Not only Sulemanov wrote that the ethnonym "Nakhchi" comes from the Vainakh name for cheese, again, the same Laudaev wrote about this:
“ | “Like all primitive peoples in general, the Chechens on the plane were mainly engaged in cattle breeding, as a necessary means of their existence ... They received milk, cheese, and butter in abundance. In their primitiveness, not being familiar with arable farming, they used a huge amount of cheese for not knowing how to bread ... Thus, the Chechens called themselves "cheesy" (in Chechen "nakhchoy") | ” |
. In Chechen, he calls cheese “nakhchi”, the word is in the plural “nakhchi”, this is where the popular name “nakhchoy” comes from, that is, “people abounding in cheese”
Source: «Сборник Сведений о Кавказских горцах. выпуск Vl. Тифлис. 1872 год.»
In favor of Laudaev's version, the Chechens, speaking about this, really called themselves "cheesy" and the fact that they abounded with cheese, the famous Chechen linguist, and part-time historian - I.Yu. Aliroev, spoke out:
"In the 17th century, the Chechens established close trade and military ties with the Kumyks... In exchange for cheese, wool, sheep, the Chechens could get salt, iron, spices, and other goods from the Kumyks..."
Source: «Язык, история, и культура Вайнахов. И.Ю.Алироев».
Also, another Chechen historian, Shavlaeva Tamara Magomedovna, wrote about the cheese origin of the name "Nakhchi":
“Nakhchi” is a curd mass, a product obtained through an internal process in the container where the milk was poured... “Nakhchi” is the same curd mass, but obtained by introducing a stimulant from outside, from the outside.
Source: «Шавлаева Тамара Магомедовна. Из истории развития шерстяного промысла чеченцев в XlX - в начале XX в. Автореферат.»
I have already cited Sulemanov, as you can see, more theories and facts indicate that the ethnonym "Nakhchi" comes from cheese, and is in no way connected with the word "people"
Just the same, Dalgat wrote that many Chechen teips have their origin from Ghalghay, here we are not only talking about Angushta. Berger recorded this story from the words of the CHECHENS in the first place, this at least leads us to the idea that the Chechens do not deny their origin from the Ghalghay (Ingush). Fiction and a fairy tale are the words of Laudaev at the expense of the Nazrans, because Laudaev did not even give a single example or name in his work, not a single Ingush who could call himself "Nakhchi". Gorepkin and Yakovlev did not just assume, and directly stated this, they studied in detail the Caucasian peoples, and in particular the Ingush and Chechens, the words of the same Yakovlev that the Chechens were formed as a people due to mixing with newcomers, were confirmed by many Chechen historians, such as Nataev.
2. Gligva is a distortion from the self-name of the Ingush "Galgay", and "Dzurdzuki" is the Georgian name of the Ingush, like the name "Kists". I am trying to explain to you that in the scientific literature there are authors (authoritative in historical academic science) who localize the ethnonym Dzurdzuki precisely in Ingushetia. Initially, before starting to edit the article, I read the sources. So, here is a group of sources that clearly localize the Dzurdzuks in mountainous Ingushetia and identify them only with the Ingush: Julius von Klaproth, Eremyan, Genko, Volkova, Sotavov, Meyer. Moreover, Volkova herself points to the first two.
Proceedings:
1.Julius Heinrich Klaproth. Reise in den Kaukasus und nach Georgien unter nommen in den Jahren 1807 und 1808. Bd. 1. (нем.). — Halle und Berlin, 1812.
2.Генко А. Н. Из культурного прошлого ингушей // Записки коллегии востоковедов при Азиатском музее АН СССР. — Л., 1930. — Т. V. — С. 681—761.
3.Волкова Н. Г. Этнонимы и племенные названия Северного Кавказа / Ответ. ред. Л. И. Лавров. — АН СССР. Ин-т этнографии им. Н. Н. Миклухо-Маклая. — М.: Наука (ГРВЛ), 1973. — 206 [2] с. — 1600 экз.
4.Еремян С. Т. Торговые пути Закавказья в эпоху Сасанидов. По Tabula Peutingiriana // ВДИ. № 1. — М., 1939.
5.Сотавов Н. А., Мейер М. С. Северный Кавказ в русско-иранских и русско-турецких отношениях в XVIII в. — М.: Наука, 1991. — 221 с.
Contrary to what you think, I am not trying, as you put it, to nationalize the Dzurdzuks. Even if there was a desire, it would not work, because, according to some authoritative authors, the term dzurdzuki is related to both the Ingush and the Chechens at the same time. Which was what I left in the article in my neutral version. At the same time, if there is evidence in the scientific literature that the Dzurdzuks are localized precisely in Ingushetia, then this can and should be indicated, since this corresponds to the tasks of Wikipedia. But it was Vakhushti who attributed the Dzurdzuks only to the Ingush, and the Chechens to the same "chachans" who were part of Dagestan.
3. Aren't you tired of repeating the same thing over and over? You did not cite a single source for the entire discussion, and did not provide evidence that from the sources where it is indicated about the phallic cult among the Chechens, it is about the fact that the Ingush allegedly descend from the Chechens. The Chechens had a phallic cult, and this is a fact. He even recovered from the phallic cult of the Ingush, because among the Chechens, not only women, but also men worshiped the statues. Yes, writing this in this article is an insult not only for me, but for many Muslims! This version of the article is not neutral and needs to be changed. I will ask the admins to allow me to correct the article, and make it similar to the Russian version of this article, it has been verified by experienced users. You do not appreciate that I remove your falsification? So you yourself canceled the edits of the experienced user "Kavkas", and attributed to him accusations in which he was not implicated. In short, drawing conclusions from the discussion, it seems that you have not given a single proof, and you repeat the same thing all the time.
Hello Bbb23 and TimothyBlue, we have a dispute here so could you take a look at this? Thank you. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Reiner Gavriel I don't know who posted this image. I would remove the photo of an idol in an article on religion, such photos cannot be exhibited. In the period of early Islam, the struggle was primarily with idols.--Товболатов (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
WikiEditor1234567123 According to the figurines, you need to ask these questions to the Scythians and Sarmatians, they date back to this period.--Товболатов (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Goddard2000 could you read the discussion we had and give your opinion on the matter? Thanks! Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Goddard2000 I'm saying that Ingushes never called themselves Nakhchi but even if we don't agree with you on that, it's fine. But Reiner Gavriel putting an image of male organ statue in article about Ingush people? Even his colleague Tovbolatov commented on that and had same opinion like you have. It's very clear to me that he wants to make fun of Ingush people and I think you know that too. That image and the mention of Phallic statues should be removed. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The text about Phallic cult will remain only on the compromise that it will be added to the Chechens page too, otherwise I don't want it here, it's unnecessary. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The Ingush are a people of the Chechen tribe inhabiting the central and southern parts of the Sunzha department (the former Ingush district) of the Terek region. and got its name from the large, now defunct aul Angusht or Ingush in the Tara Valley; I. call themselves lamour. I. break up into Dzherahovtsy, Kistins (Kists), Gal (a) Gaevtsy, Nazranians and Galashevtsy, according to the name of the villages, valleys, mountains or rivers on which they live; the transfer of rural administrations from one aul to another sometimes entailed a change in the name of the society.[1]
References
Hello, @WikiEditor1234567123:. I'd abstain from using that source considering the fact that the author makes a very dubious claim about Ingush being 200,000 individuals in the European union alone, not to mention the 350,000 in ME which I find highly unlikely. This raises questions regarding the reliability of the source. What research is she using and where did she get this demographic? Actual RS estimate that there is around 200,000 Russian-origin muslims in Europe, of which 130,000 are Chechens. The demographic you are citing is an unbelievably high number.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Assalamu aleikum @WikiEditor1234567123, I've removed "Loamaro" from the enthnonym section as it is not longer used today, however I've just noticed that the article does not mention this ethnonym elsewhere, although it is still relevant, I am still unsure if it should stay in the section? What do you think? Muqale (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)