Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Lamberd please, explain your vandal edits against sources--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lamberd still waiting, it's OK to use google translated messages on talk page if you struggle, if you want to bring value to the article--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zandxo. Please explain your last disrupting edits against sources. You're starting an edit war which is forbidden on wikipedia. According to the rules of wikipedia if someone notices that your edits are questionable you have to give arguments on talk page. I also left warning and links to the rules on your talk page --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sala-Uzden are of Chechen origin and therefore Uchar Hadji is a Chechen. I have provided a source and provide more sources. You are the one kumyk-izing Chechens and Chechnya, claiming things left and right as Kumyk. -- Zandxo (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zandxo Although Chechen version is given in the article, I checked the additional source you provided. Firstly, what does "Lyrical poetry philological MYSTERIOUS IS SOUL'S LABOR…" source have to do with Uchar-hadji? Secondly, there is not a word about him in the source (even if it had, philological research on someone's poetry is a terrible source.

Thirdly the quote you provided here has nothing to do with Uchar-hadji. Forthly, You inserted a FALSIFICATION but not a quote here: "He belonged to the Sala-Uzden nobility of Vashindaroy, which are of Chechen origin and are related to the Chechen tribe Aukhovtsy." The source does not say that "he was", in fact there is nothing about him.

Do you think editors here are so stupid not to notice clear distortions?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are mentioning first was not added by me but was already given. The source I have given, which you claim has nothing to do with Uchar-Hadji, has indeed to do with Uchar-Hadji. Uchar-Hadji belonged to the Sala-Uzden, and my source proves that Sala-Uzden are Chechens who lived at the Salasu river, and are related to the Aukhovtsiy, Chechens that live in Aukh (North Dagestan). You are trying to butcher my source and falsly translate it in hope that other editors believe you.--Zandxo (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can read in Russian well and the source doesn't say anything about Uchar-hadji. give quotes here and we'll discuss why you claim there is anything about him. also, you for some reason seem to lie about adding Poetry as a source, you added it — proof. also you continue warring before reaching a consensus which is forbidden. I recommend you to stop.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zandxo also, in case you read it in a wried way not on purpose, the other quote you've given is "Sala, or Salatawians, ancestors of Kumyk sala-uzdens... are considered to be related (like relatives) to Aukh people." It doesn't say Sala-uzdens are Aukh, it doesn't say Sala-uzdens are Vishderoy or whatever. It says that Salatawians are (i.e. were at that time) considered to be related to Aukh people. completely different sense. stop misinterpreting, please--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and yet there is nothing about Uchar-kadji--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mention Uchar Hajji but it mentions the Sala-Uzden which you said "were only Kumyk", this is very false. The source I posted was from the 1800s written by a Kumyk named Shikhaliev and the book is literally called "a story about Kumyks from a Kumyk". There he explains the origin of several important peoples making up the Endirey city. He clearly explains that people like the Gueni and Sala Uzden are of Chechen origin, Sala-Uzden are mentioned as coming from the Vashindaroy which is an old Chechen teip in southcentral Chechnya. You can read book again and check 2. Сала, или салатавцы, предки нынешних кумыкских салаузденей, вышедшие из находящейся за Гумбетовским хребтом деревни Рикони; жили при речке Саласу, впадающей в Акташ; они считаются в родстве с ауховцами и принадлежат к Вашандроевской их фамилии; подобно тюменам и гуенам, сала составляют ныне в Андрееве особый квартал. --Zandxo (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and gave word for word translation, you clearly see there something only you can see. try rereading it a few times without biases and you might see that the quote you gave means something other than your imagination tells you. what you do is original research here, inventing meanings not present in the source Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the quote is about relation of salatawians to aukh people. nothing about relation of aukh to sala-uzden, or that salatawians are chechen. Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly lying and butchering the quote by now. I am a Chechen, I understand what was written in the quote. The quote says that the Sala-Uzden, which you claimed are KUMYKS, are CHECHENS, from the teyp VASHTAROY (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9) and CLOSELY RELATED to the CHECHENS AKHOVTSIY (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B). UCHAR-HADJI was a SALA-UZDEN (according to other sources he was a Chechen from the teyp Gendargoy). --Zandxo (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh, you're from the blindly fanatical, OK then, if you see everything through Chechen prism, we have nothing to discuss here. in that case we'll call for a mediator. and you have to wait and stop edit warring. clearly I'm not alone disagreeing with your bold falsifications Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are using google translator to change Chechens to Kumyks on the english wikipedia and I am somehow the blind and fanatical, Mr arseneKOUMYK? I am fully aware that you are asking others to change my edits. Both IPs are from Russia, to be exact from Dagestan. It's a group of you and other Kumyks claiming Chechens and Chechen lands as Kumyk with no proper sources. Wikipedia should do something against you and the likes, this isn't your nationalistic forum where you can simply claim people and territories as your own, people will read these articles and thanks to you, believe in misinformation and nationalistic lies. --Zandxo (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to stop this nonsense and read wikipedia rules--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This person is clearly biased and removes the sources that don't suit him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivarius Prudentiam (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nice try, using a freshly created accounted for a mass distortion :) Wikipedia admins are not that stupid, you can create hundreds of accounts, edits speak for themselves Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Wikipedia admins can see that I am a different person from Zandxo, due to my ip address and many other things like browser settings. Don't judge others by what you do yourself. You should stick to Russian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivarius Prudentiam (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not saying you are the same, saying you're on the same editing vibe based on you edit history --5.76.35.176 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

full support to Arsenekoumyk here, the vandals are madness--5.76.35.176 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit history you got there Arsen. Totally not obvious. Archivarius Prudentiam (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice VPN Ghumki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandxo (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Arsenekoumyk is vandalising this page with the help of several people from Dagestan. I have provided proof for not only that Gerzel-Aul at that time was fully Chechen but also for the Sala-Uzden being Chechens. It's claimed that "while sala-uzden nobility class was inherent only in Kumyk social structure" while in fact, the Sala-Uzden are of Vashindaroy (a Chechen teyp) origin and closely related to the Aukhovtsiy Chechens, which inhabit the areas eastern of the Chechen-Dagestani border. The Gerzel-Aul fortress was a Russian fortress to stop Chechen raids to Kizlyar, there were Kumyks stationed there but NOT 300 elderman. It was a military fortress to fight off Chechen fighters, what would 300 elderman do at such a fortress? QEDK since you have blocked me from editing on this page for 72 hours, I would like to ask you to please read the conversation I had above with Arsenekoumyk and also the edit history of non-registered people, which are mostly from Dagestan. --Zandxo (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nice fantasies, but you should just calm down and prove your point instead of giving bulks of nonsense--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you are still allowed to edit anything here. You constantly put yourself in the victim role, lie and change the translation for your own favor. I have given you my source, I can prove more source. All you did is simply stopped replying to me and reported me despite me being in the right. I demand a mod to read this conversation. --Zandxo (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you should reflect on your edits and start discussing without emotional devotion to your cause--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wasting 2 days on you by now. You are constantly deviating from our conversation and not even bothering discussing this. I have provided sources, translated and even pointed out where and why my sources debunk your claims, yet all you did is pretend to be the victim and report me. Read our conversation above, read through it and tell me that I wasn't discussing properly. --Zandxo (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no, you did not. I gave word for word translations. read carefully. you can also go to dispute resolution page. otherwise we have nothing to talk about. you proved inadequacy in your edits.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You completly ignored half of the text. Here, I will quote it again and translate it for you Arsène de Koumyk, "Sala (...) ancestors of the (Kumyk class) Sala-Uzden (...) lived at the Salasu river, which flows into Aktash (...) are considered to be related to Aukhovites (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B) and are of Vashandiroy family (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9)". Try to claim this is a wrong translation or whatever. --Zandxo (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

at last, it is not full but correct. although you forgot the part that Sala-Uzdens are Kumyk--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's Arsenekoumyk for you, not "de"--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether Salatawians-Sala are related to Aukhs or Vashndiroy, Sala-uzdens are not according to that quote. also contemporary sources state Uchar was Koumyk. I'm sorry for disappointing you.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you should better call admins for dispute. it's not a pleasure discussing with you anything without a neutral judgement--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do know what (...) means, right? It doesn't say Sala-Uzdens are Kumyk, it says it's a Kumyk class, which I mentioned. Arsène de Koumyk, I take this as seeking consensus with you, I will correct this wikipedia page in 3 days, we surely both don't want people to read and believe these misinformations that are currently portrayed on the article, right? And "Sala-Uzdens" are indeed in that quote, right here "салаузденей". Sala-Uzden are Vashindaroy that lived at the river Salasu, they are Chechens. --Zandxo (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zandxo I'm not Arsene de Koumyk for you, I'm Arsenekoumyk. there is not a word about Sala-Uzdens being some kind of Chechens, so stop pretending you're seeking consensus.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arsène de Koumyk, I literally pointed out for you that Sala-Uzden are mentioned there. The quote clarifies that Sala-Uzden is a Kumyk class but the people are Chechens, belonging to the Teyp Vashindaroy and lived at the Salasu river. You're just closing your eyes and playing naive now. Read what the historian Amin Tesaev said about the origins of the Sala-Uzden, he uses Dubrovin and Shikhaliev as a source too https://kavkaznasledie.ru/?p=3719 --Zandxo (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's called WP:OR what you're doing--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See, again. You didn't take the time to read the source. Please take your time and read through it. If not, I won't be able to seek consensus with you and insist on the fact that I am in the right. --Zandxo (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you are simply not right, call dispute and mediation if you want to prove your delusion, and we will see where it leads you.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that long ago if I knew how it works. Go ahead and do it for us. --Zandxo (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead and learn, you're the one who goes against consensus with edit warring and absurd edits.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were legitimate, not absurd. You are going against my consensus as well. Unlike you, I have brought up sources. --Zandxo (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, users should desist from personal attacks. Just a heads up. --Calthinus (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zandxo neutralized the article. are you fine with it? will you stop edit warring and insults, and start constructive collaboration?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than before, but still incomplete, biased and ignoring my sources. I will fix it to something we both might approve once my block is over. --Zandxo (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenekoumyk I didn't give consensus for you to delete your try to neutralize the article! Please seek consensus in talk! --Zandxo (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zandxo pre-war consensus version is returned. if you didn't like the last trial version and think it's biased, it makes obvious you have some agenda of chechenizing Wikipedia. from now on you have to seek for dispute resolution in order to reach consensus with me always, and I do not wish to discuss anything with you directly without a witnessing third party.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to reach consensus with you? I want you to reach connsensus with me first. I am not fine with you potraying Uchar-Hadji as Kumyk. I want it tot be neutralized until we reach consensus on a suitable and right article. You are obviously closing your eyes and acting blind to everything I say. I will dispute resolution, don't worry. --Zandxo (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the page does not provide a second opinion on the origin of Ochar Haji. about Chechens from Gerzel Aul and about sources indicating that Ochar Khadzhi survived that massacre. If colleagues do not mind, I intend to fix it. citing authoritative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavkazaved174017491 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• chechen sources are given already. see the article. 37.150.189.126 (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Goddard2000, you insert texts with sources that do not reflect what you insert. At least I can't find them. Please give exact quotes in the original language as well as translation. And do not make reverts of reverts, it's a provocation of an Edit Warring --KrakDuck (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User KrakDuck, The claim that the Sala-Uzden are Kumyk only is false, they have been known as being Chechen too ever since the start of the Russian administration in the Caucasus. This was also reported by the Kumyk prince Devlet-Mirza Shikhaliev, i already posted the pages (page 155) in the source list before you deleted. But fine i will post the whole thing in here in russian and english.

Russian translation: 2. Сала пли Салатовцы, предки пын ѣ ганнх ъ Кумыкскпх ъ Сала-узденей, вышедшис нзе нахо - дящейс я за Гунбетовскимъ хребюме деревни Рикони ; жили при р ѣ ч к ѣ Саласу, впадающей въ Акташъ ; они считаются въ роиствѣ се Аухоеца - МИИ н нривад.исжатъ ке Вашаиидроевской их ъ ФЭми.иии ; подобно Тюменам е и Гуенамъ, Сала составллют ъ иып ѣ въ Андреевѣ особый кварталъ.

2. Sala or Salatavians, ancestors of the Kumyk Sala-Uzdens came from Gumbet district in the village of rikvoni, they are related to the Aukh tribes and descend from the Vashindaroy clan

The Russian translation was hard to put in here because its in old Russian but you will see it if you go to page 155 of the 1848 magazine that u can easily find in the source i posted. --Goddard2000 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see what it says? It says Sala are related to Aukhs, not Sala are Chechens. You distorted the facts. Not in the source, alas. KrakDuck (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User KrakDuck, It says Sala are related to Aukhs and that they are from the tribe of Vashindaroy, do u know where Vashindaroy is? its in central Chechnya and is a big Teip. If someone says they are related to Aukhs (Dagestani Chechens) and from the tribe of Vashindaroy (a Chechen teip) then the most logical conclusion would be that Sala are Chechens or at the VERY LEAST descended from Chechens. So your claim that Sala-Uzden are not related to Chechens is very false and my edit very right. Only one distorting facts here is you, i will talk to you on the Aukh page which you have distorted after we have come to a consensus in here. I say its only right to bring back what i edited, your version is extremely biased to Kumyks. --Goddard2000 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read other threads here. Look at "Kumyk vandalism on this page". User used the same source as you a long time ago. And he didn't even realize that the source does not even remotely means what he thought. It's like all population of England are French because some of Englishmen have French relatives. Obvious nonsense, but here again. KrakDuck (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's even more remote! The source word by word: "Salatavians, ancestors of KUMYK Sala-uzdens;...; supposed to be related to Aukhs... from Vishanderoy..."

So! The source says Kumyk Sala-uzdens. Does not contain the word "Chechens" at all. And you still insist that it's a proof for your point? I see it as a perfect source for the point in the article, which says that Sala-uzdens are Kumyk. Well, it even says so directly... KrakDuck (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User KrakDuck English-French can't even be compared to this since the Sala-Uzden or Saloy-Eli in Chechen today consider themselves both. There are Sala-Uzden in Dagestan who say they are Kumyk and there are Saloy-Eli in both Dagestan and Chechnya that say they are Chechen. Shikhaliev considered the Sala-Uzdens to be Kumyk but he also acknowledged their Chechen ancestry so it completely destroys your argument that Sala-Uzden were inherently Kumyk. I put Uchar-Hajji as a "Chechen-Kumyk" because of this reason, not that he is only Chechen or only Kumyk because i looked for a neutral ground which you do not want. You yourself acknowledged that Uchar-Hajji is called Chechen by some scholars and there are sources which directly call Uchar-Hajji a Chechen. Your argument that he isn't Chechen is that he comes from the Sala-Uzden and my counterargument is that the Sala-Uzden are also Chechen + their Chechen ancestry was acknowledged by Kumyks. The source doesn't need to contain "Chechen" for it to be understood, it mentions that Sala-Uzden are related to Aukh and Guenis both of whom Shikhaliev says hails their origins from Chechnya. So my proposition is to let this article be neutral and not Kumyk biased. This is the only fair solution. --Goddard2000 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a lot of your thoughts, but where is it in the source? It says Sala are Kumyk. KrakDuck (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100% of what you wrote is called Original Research, WP:OR. It's not allowed on Wikipedia. KrakDuck (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User KrakDuck, I wrote a lot of arguments for why it should be there, do you want me to talk like a robot? Fine ill bring up the points and sources in detail so we can be done with this.

1. You admit that Uchar-Hajji was also called Chechen directly by many sources but i will post some of the sources anyway so its fair. -(Source: Гапуров Ш. А. Чечня и Ермолов: 1816—1827 гг. — ГУП "Книжное изд-во" *page 322*) -(Source: Магомедов Р. История Дагестана: очерки и документы. — Дагестанское книжное изд-во, 2004. *page 181*) -(Source: Гаммер М. Шамиль: Мусульманское сопротивление царизму: завоевание Чечни и Дагестана. — КРОН-ПРЕСС, 1998. *page 66*)

2. Your argument that Uchar-Hajji can't be Chechen is because he belongs to the Sala-Uzden which you believe are only Kumyk, My arguments against that:

2(1). Sala-Uzden are written down as being of Vashindaroy origin (Chechen clan) and are related to the Aukh people (Chechen tribes) by the Kumyk prince Shikhaliev in 1848. Although he says the Sala-Uzden are Kumyk and this is his right since many Sala-Uzden did and do consider themselves Kumyk however many also dont and still retained their Chechen heritage. -(Source already posted in the edit history)

2(2). Sala-Uzden or "Saloy/Saloy-Eli" as they are called in Chechen are considered to be Chechens in their folklore. Sources for this is the Ingush folklore collector Malsagov who collected tales from 1970 some of whom mention Saloy as a teip. Another source is a Vashindaroy elder who's folktale is recorded in the Vashindaroy clan website. -(Source: А. О. Мальсагов. Нарт-орстхойский эпос вайнахов *page 178*) -(Source: http://vashandaro.com/news/2018-12-20-322)

2(3). Argvanian manuscript from Dagestan that has been studied by professional historians shows the origin of the Sala-Uzden and how they got to Dagestan. This study of the manuscript coincides with both the description of the Kumyk prince Shikhaliev and Russian historian Dubrovin. -(Source: https://kavkaznasledie.ru/?p=3719)

2(4). Collection of Chechen Saloy-Eli DNA tests which shows you many Sala-Uzden still consider themselves Chechen. (Source: https://oramash.ru/load/gaplogruppa/j2/saloj/9-1-0-137)

2(5). Toponyms of the Sala-Uzden all over Chechnya such as Sala-Irzu, Salay and others from the book written by a descendant of the Sala-Uzden noble Bashirov (from the Adzhi Sala-Uzden line) (Source: Этническая история Терско-Сулакского междуречья (на примере семьи Башир-шейха Аксайского)" - Баширов М. С.-Э., Хасмагомадов Э.Х. *page 13*)

So here i have first shown source which call Uchar-Hajji a Chechen and refuted your claim that the Sala-Uzden are Kumyk only. These sources are all in front of you and you can check them. I will admit that i only added just 1 source and should have added these in the first place. The only logical next step is to make the article less Kumyk-biased and bring the Chechen version too. This is the only fair solution, we aren't talking about some fringe-theory, the ethnic background of Uchar-Hajji has been reported by many as being Chechen. --Goddard2000 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Gammer is half-fiction novel-like. But I suppose we may add it into Descent section, where Chechen version is already given, although it's a modern source without any reference to another primary source, very doubtful.

2.1) Not agreed. It's pure original research

2.2) Original research

2.3-2.4) I'm sure it's original research, but they are newspaper articles, don't wanna waste my time.

2.5 From what I briefly saw in this book, this Bashir is Kumyk, but anyway it's not an argument, original research again.

3. There are sources in the article illuminating Chechen descent version.

Only thing I might agree to is adding a sentence in the header, something like - "some modern sources call Uchar a Chechen."

And please, stop running in circles and giving original thoughts (read research). KrakDuck (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User KrakDuck,

1) If you dont like Gammer and dont want modern sources then we can take Friedrich von Bodenstedt source from 1840's where he calls Uchar-Hajji a Chechen and also a Russian source from 1915.

-Source: Friedrich von Bodenstedt "Die Völker des Kaukasus und ihre Freiheitskämpf gegen die Russen" 1848, *page 339-345*

-Source: Спутник пассажира по Владикавказской железной дороге и прилегающей к ней части Северного Кавказа. Ростов - Владикавказ. - Пг., 1915. *page 228 "Chechen Mullah"* and *page 267 "Chechen Mullah Uchar-Hajji" *

2.1) What is original research? Sala-Uzden are related to a Chechen tribe (Aukh) and descend from a Chechen clan (Vashindaroy), If you want we can write "Although Sala-Uzdens are descended from the Chechen clan Vashindaroy and related to the Chechen tribe Aukh according to Kumyk Prince Shikhaliev" unless you deny that Vashindaroy and Aukh are Chechens in the first place.

2.2) Yes original research by the reporters of Chechen folklore which clearly considers Saloy or Sala-Uzden Chechen. Hence your claim that Sala-Uzdens are ONLY Kumyk holds no weight according to Chechen AND Kumyk sources.

2.3-4) They are not newspapers, its a paper by professional historians that was uploaded on this website. Sources and names are given there. Dont be shy check it out.

2.5) Bashir was not Kumyk, this is even proven by genetic tests done by his descendants (yet another proof that Sala-Uzden were Chechens too)

3. Your Chechen sources are crammed up with Kumyk biases on both sides, had you been considerate of Chechen sources you would have mentioned Uchar-Hajji as Chechen.

4. I see you posted a source from 1837 of someone calling Uchar-Hajji's son a "Komkoy"(Kumyk), there are sources from 1836 claiming that he is a Chechen which was discovered by another Kumyk, although he attributes this as a mistake by the Russian general ofc))

"The Chechen Khadzhi-Mehmed, known to you from my previous reports, returned to Chechnya at the end of last year, under the guise of loyalty to our government, intending to strengthen between his fellow tribesmen, entered in connection with Tashev-Khadzhi and uses all his influence to spread the harmful Sharia" ..."

Source: http://kumukia.ru/article-86.html

Come to a consensus now or i will report you for being Kumyk-biased and vandalizing pages. I suspect you are the sock-puppet of Arsenekoumyk who's banned. --Goddard2000 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please report. No consensus. Let's see about WP:Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. No sources, original research and bias are not welcome. KrakDuck (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"No sources" he says right after i posted over 7 of them, some of them even primary such as the Bodenstedt one. Lets see what the admins say. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even one new source from you, only your personal guesswork and originality KrakDuck (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User CaucasusDot,I have looked for nothing but a neutral stance for both Kumyks and Chechens on this article, since Duck refuses to come to a consensus ill talk to you instead. The introduction you changed is fine and fair but it is still biased towards the Kumyks in the "Descent" section.

1. If we decided to change "Some modern scholarship" into "Some scholarships/Some old and modern scholarships" it would give a more fair view of the situation. Since it is not only modern scholarship that says he is Chechen, one example is the German Bodenstedt source i posted from 1848. Since his source is in Old German and hard for some to find ill post the translated English text that proves this:

""Soon a fearless Chechen appears in the house where both generals and their entourage have gathered. “Why is your people,” Grekov begins his speech, “having violated the agreement, started the war again?” “Because you were the first to break the treaties and because my people hate you as their executioner,” the mullah replied.

“Shut up, traitor! - the angry general interrupted him, - can't you see that your comrades have left you and you are in my hands?"

^this is a small excerpt and referred to Uchar-Hajji on page 355-357.

2. The Sala-Uzden part which Arsene designed as a bomb-shell evidence to remove any doubt of Uchar-Hajjis Kumyk ancestry is also full of mistakes. Uchar-Hajji's ancestry is not 100% confirmed as being Sala-Uzden, there are other theories too but it is fair to let the Sala-Uzden part stay if you remove the "Inherently" Kumyk part. I have posted several sources of Sala-Uzden and their Chechen ancestry + how they were never Kumyk only. They are called Saloy-Eli in Chechen (Literally a translation of Sala-Saloy + Eli (Noble in Nakh) - Uzden (Noble in Turkic-Persian) and are mentioned several times in our folklore and history. It would be only fair to add that Sala-Uzden were Chechens too. Most of Chechen-Kumyk issues with historical characters come from great leaders of the Sala-Uzden class like Tasha-Hajji, Uchar-Hajji, Bashir-Sheikh and others. People have to realize that these men felt a connection to both of our nations for the previous mentioned reasons. --Goddard2000 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop warring please with false representation of sources. Source on "sala" says it's a Kumyk class, stop inserting false texts. KrakDuck (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As user Goddard2000 flooded the previous topic of this talk page, I'd like to point out that he has a problem explaining how the he** these:

"Сала пли Салатовцы, предки пын ѣ ганнх ъ Кумыкскпх ъ Сала-узденей, вышедшис нзе нахо -дящейс я за Гунбетовскимъ хребюме деревни Рикони ; жили при р ѣ ч к ѣ Саласу, впадающей въ Акташъ ; они считаются въ роиствѣ се Аухоеца - МИИ н нривад.исжатъ ке Вашаиидроевской их ъ ФЭми.иии ; подобно Тюменам е и Гуенамъ, Сала составллют ъ иып ѣ въ Андреевѣ особый кварталъ."

..where it says "Kumyk Sala-Uzden", means that there is some "Chechenity". I see plenty of flood and WP:OR. This article seemingly might be used for promoting some marginal ideas. Some rhetorics of Goddard above, example, "Kumyks claim Chechen lands", "Kumyks claim Chechen identity", instead of giving the explanation to his WP:OR, are very concerning and unacceptable here on Wikipedia.--IrelandCork (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, it's another user making statements about lands, but the rest is still in place.--IrelandCork (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User, IrelandCork spare me the attempts at trying to make me into a Kumyk-hating Nazi. I have many Kumyk friends and have never insulted this nation. I have explained the text 100 times to your previous accounts (that got banned). Shihkhaliev is describing the foundations of the Kumyk nation which part of it is the "Gueni" which he says comes from Nashkha (Chechnya) implying that they have Chechen origin which they do and then he mentions the Sala-Uzden which he says have Vashindaroy (Chechen clan) origin and are related to the Aukh and Gueni. I didn't write that Shikhaliev literally wrote that they are Chechen, he implied that they have Chechen origins. I added more sources(which you didn't check) which explain how the Sala-Uzden came to Dagestan and how they are of Chechen origin. All of this destroys your argument that Sala-Uzden are inherently Kumyk. Get any of the Wikipedia admins in here and ill explain in detail. --Goddard2000 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI No_original_research. Quote: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Your edits do not comply with that, apart from problems with flooding and WP:Ethics.--IrelandCork (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even on about, how is changing "modern scholarship" into "Scholarship" original research? explain this? how can it be "modern scholarship" when Uchar-Hajji has been called and considered a Chechen from sources going back all the way to the 1800s when he lived? Your weak attempts at nit-picking are pathetic and they didn't work in the Aukh article and they won't work here. Further more my sources about Sala-Uzden being of Chechen origin are not "original research", YOU were the one that made original research and decided that the Sala-Uzden are only Kumyk and posted some Dagestani paper as a source. Well i posted 3-4 sources that confirmed Sala-Uzden (Saloy-Eli) are also Chechen, to deny this means you are heavily biased and anti-Chechen. I accept that Sala-Uzden are both Chechen and Kumyk but you dont.

Calthinus Could you please change it back to my edit to make it more neutral? none of us want to "fight" over an article that barely gets 50 views a day but as of now this article is very biased and in favor of Kumyks. All of my sources you can find in the talk page, i wrote down the pages and where you can find the books, one of them is in German i could translate it if you want but i assure you that it's legitimate.

--Goddard2000 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard2000 could you list all the relevant sources here? That would make it easier. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus No problem, Although i would want to make a suggestion to how the page should look like first.

The "Events in Gerzel aul in 1825" is very one-sided and biased. It calls the inhabitants of Aksay Kumyks and ignores its Chechen inhabitants which did live there (source can be found in Descent part where Ermolov mentions that half of its inhabitants are Chechens). In my opinion it would be fair to just write "Aksay inhabitants" and not mention any nation in this part.

This is weird. Sources say "Kumyks from Aksay were gathered for assisting Chechen insurgance". Do you understand that it's WP:OR what you're claiming? Just a few sources describing gathered people as Kumyk and Tatar, all "biased" it seems..:

• Кавказская война, Ермоловский времени, Потто, 1994
• В лесах и аулах Чечни, В.А. Потто
• Кавказ, Ковалевский, 1914
• Полное собрание сочинений, Том 46 Лев Толстой Гос. изд-во худож. лит-ры, 1934

" Yermolov's intention was also to force the people of Aksay to terminate any relations with Chechens." Could be changed to "terminate any relations with the rebels from other parts of Chechnya". This would make the article more neutral to both sides since Aksay has been written down many times as Chechen village and previously according to some sources was named "Bilit" which is the name of the Bilto clan in Turkic. Good source on the history and Chechen side of the story about Aksay is this study: https://kavkaznasledie.ru/?p=3753

This website https://proza.ru/2012/04/28/745 says Anglo-Saxons are related to Chechen teips and the name is related to Chechen clan Engenoy, and Avraam talked "Vainakh". Shall we bring it to Wikipedia also? You can always write "I assure you it's a solid source", can't you?--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In retribution, Aksay was destroyed by Russian forces and it was forbidden for the Kumyks to ever resettle on their lands again." < this has no source and i have a hard time imagining Kumyks were not allowed to settle there again since Aksay is to this day majority Kumyk. Also this text implies that only Kumyks were purged from the town while the Chechens weren't touched?

Quote: "В 1858 г. царской администрацией было издано распоряжение «О недозволении поселить аулы на прежнем жительстве». Так было воспрещено... а всем без исключения аксаевским князьям и узденям селиться на месте Старого Яхсая." Source, Очерки истории северных кумыков [Текст] / Ю. М. Идрисов, Махачкала, 1998.

Now then the "Descent" part, the "some modern scholarship" text is implying that it was only recently that Uchar-Hajji was called Chechen. This is false.

Source 1: Friedrich von Bodenstedt "Die Völker des Kaukasus und ihre Freiheitskämpf gegen die Russen" 1848, *page 355-357*

http://apsnyteka.org/455-Bodenstedt_Die_Volker_des_Kaukasus_und-ihre_Freiheitskampf_gegen_die_Russen.html

The text is in German so ill translate it for you: "Soon a fearless Chechen appears in the house where both generals and their entourage have gathered. “Why is your people,” Grekov begins his speech, “having violated the agreement, started the war again?” “Because you were the first to break the treaties and because my people hate you as their executioner,” the mullah replied.

“Shut up, traitor! - the angry general interrupted him, - can't you see that your comrades have left you and you are in my hands? I will order you to be tied up and your lying tongue to be pulled out ... "

And then it goes to him stabbing the generals etc etc, this source is from 1848 just 24 years after it happened, hardly anything "modern" about this.

Source 2: Спутник пассажира по Владикавказской железной дороге и прилегающей к ней части Северного Кавказа. Ростов - Владикавказ. - Пг., 1915. *page 228 and 267*

http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/20683-sputnik-passazhira-po-vladikavkazskoy-zheleznoy-doroge-i-prilegayuschey-k-ney-chasti-severnogo-kavkaza-rostov-vladikavkaz-pg-1915

Yet again Uchar-Hajji is called a Chechen Mullah and the source is from 1915 so again, nothing modern about this.

Basically you say that those participants of the events who were ordering to destroy Aksay didn't know the difference between Chechen and Kumyk while interacting every day with them, and that some later compilers knew it better.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now about the "contradicting" part, first of all there are many sources on Uchar-Hajji's origin. It's not 100% known if he is Sala-Uzden (Saloy-Eli) but i dont mind this text since the most convincing theory is that he was indeed a Sala-Uzden. This does not mean he couldn't be Chechen though since Sala-uzden are known as the Saloy-Eli in Chechnya and today are called Saloy. Many consider themselves Chechen and their Chechen origin has been implied by the Shikhaliev source i posted.

Source 3: Шихалиев Девлет-Мирза Махмудович (Магометович). Рассказ кумыка о кумыках 1848

A hundred times it was quoted above. Will you stop playing this game please? Read WP:OR, please.. It's not funny anymore.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://e-libra.su/read/532280-rasskaz-kumyka-o-kumykah.html

You can ctrl + f and search for "Вашандроевской" this is a Chechen clan and according to Shikhaliev are related to the Gueni and Aukh peoples (both Chechens). This source does not outright say they are Chechens but its implied but neither does it deny that they can be Chechens. To support this i posted more sources on how the Saloy-Eli are mentioned in our folklore, how they still exist among us today and their origin story from a manuscript.

Source 4: http://vashandaro.com/news/2018-12-20-322

Exactly, and it also says "Kymyk Sala-Uzdens" no anything about Chechens.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded folktale about Saloy-Eli from an elder, the tale is in the official Vashindaroy clan website.

Source 5: https://kavkaznasledie.ru/?p=3719

Do you think Kumyks wouldn't have folklore and tales and family histories and trees? How is that Saloy-Eli an argument. WP:OR.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscript from Argvani, Dagestan which tells the story of how the Saloy-Eli (Sala-Uzden) came to Dagestan.

Another source which i dont know how to post a link of in here is "Этническая история Терско-Сулакского междуречья (на примере семьи Башир-шейха Аксайского)" - Баширов М. С.-Э., Хасмагомадов Э.Х" It talks about the Sala-Uzden and noblemen such as Uchar-Hajji, Tashu-Hajji and Bashir-Sheikh.

Quote please.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Goddard2000 (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IrelandCork Stop trying to disrupt, if you want to address these sources then do it below my post.

Doesn't matter if Kumyks have tales about Sala-Uzden being Kumyk because thats the point. That both Chechens and Kumyks consider them theirs and that u can't just say they are ONLY one thing like your source does. So be a man and stop acting like a baby, you are embarrassing yourself. Also i have a hard time believing an Irish man would be so emotionally invested into this, especially conveniently right after 2-3 similar accounts were banned recently and had the same opinions as you. Maybe i should report this account for sockpuppeting too? just like you reported me.

--Goddard2000 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]