Misplaced Pages

Chechens: Revision history

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
View logs for this page (view filter log)
Filter revisionsshowhide
External tools:

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

2 December 2020

  • curprev 21:1321:13, 2 December 2020 Goddard2000 talk contribs 57,292 bytes −109 →Nakhchiy/Nokhchiy: removed the link to the Russian wiki article. undo Tag: Visual edit
  • curprev 14:5414:54, 2 December 2020 Goddard2000 talk contribs 57,401 bytes −287 Undid revision 991919481 by Akylas7 (talk) Because the territory is still called "chö" by Chechens, and the people there are called "Chöharkho", its geographically sealed within the terek ridge, kachkalyk ridge and argun ridge. The oldest source for Chachana is the one i posted, during Shikh-Murza (late 1500s). Us having other turkic toponyms doesn't prove Chechana is turkic. undo Tag: Undo
  • curprev 14:4614:46, 2 December 2020 Akylas7 talk contribs 57,688 bytes +287 Why do you have against the true origin of the word Chechen? Why is it insulting, when many villages in the Chechen lowland have Turkic names? (Mychikich, Germenchuk, Avturi, Atagi, Mair-Tup, Ichkeria, etc) The oldest form of the word is 'Chachan', and the sources I provided prove it. See also all the 18th century maps. What is this 'Ersanukaev vs everyone else'?)) Also N. Yakovlev wrote that the Ghalghai settled in Nazran in the 18th century (Kartskhal), as did Laudaev. undo Tags: Undo Reverted
  • curprev 14:1614:16, 2 December 2020 Goddard2000 talk contribs 57,401 bytes −287 Undid revision 991910946 by Akylas7 (talk) How about you actually read what Arsanukaev writes, also Ingush not living in Nazran until 1810 is a fact. Shteder said Ingush have outposts near the river of Nazran which Arsanukaev never denied. Chechan coming from Nakh origin makes more sense than turkic. Only thing i edited in the Ingush page was the Serlo magazine picture. But if you want i can edit in more and be more objective there? undo Tags: Undo Reverted
  • curprev 13:4113:41, 2 December 2020 Akylas7 talk contribs 57,688 bytes +287 The Turkic origin of the word Chechan (Chachan) is accepted by the majority of historians. R. Ersanukaev also said that the Ingush were never near Nazran before 1810, wich L. Shteder disproves in 1781, so not the best historian. See provided sources of about the history of the term Chechen. There is nothing wrong with it not being 'not being of Nakh origin'. But your theory about inside theory is not objective. FYI you also edit Ingush pages, I don't see the problem. Honesty is key. undo Tag: Reverted
  • curprev 13:0713:07, 2 December 2020 Goddard2000 talk contribs 57,401 bytes −98 Undid revision 991855236 by Akylas7 (talk) I changed back the text to its original (when i edited in this section) which mentions that Naxchamatyan is a hypothesis that is criticized by many. Malik is the one that deleted it, if you want you can post the Volkova source right next to it. Also whats with you editing Chechen pages only? Especially since you are clearly Ingush. undo
  • curprev 13:0213:02, 2 December 2020 Goddard2000 talk contribs 57,499 bytes −40 →Antiquity: First of all, "Kists" aren't mentioned in the Georgian chronicles (Kartlis Tskhoverba). undo
  • curprev 12:5512:55, 2 December 2020 Goddard2000 talk contribs 57,539 bytes −507 →History: Removed the connection to Minoans and Etruscans because there is no legitimate source. It was only a text with no source in a Caucasian news website. Besides connection to Etruscans and Minoans is a very weak hypothesis. undo
  • curprev 12:3612:36, 2 December 2020 Goddard2000 talk contribs 58,046 bytes −10 Undid revision 991856233 by Akylas7 (talk) There are many different etymologies for the region of Chechan, Bakaev, Nataev and others talk about all of the theories and dont come to one conclusion that its Turkic. Ruslan Arsanukaev (which is my source) is one of the most respected Chechen historians that has also done a lot of field work in Chechnya. So stop vandalizing the page before you are reported. undo Tag: Undo
  • curprev 10:3410:34, 2 December 2020 Akylas7 talk contribs m 58,056 bytes +11 Ingush are also called Dzurdzuks. undo
  • curprev 10:3310:33, 2 December 2020 Akylas7 talk contribs 58,045 bytes −194 Another lie, Leonti Mroveli never mentions any Nakhchamatyans, nor does he exclude Ingush from the Dzurdzuks. (See also Vakhushti). And Vakhtang VI uses the termns Glighvi and Dzurdzuks as synonyms. (See Volkova's work "Ethnonyms and tribal names of North Caucasus") undo
  • curprev 04:1404:14, 2 December 2020 Akylas7 talk contribs 58,239 bytes +10 Chechen/Chachan is proven in the "Chechen Archive Sbornik", by all chechen historians, such as Bakaev, Nataev, Umkhaev and others - to be of Turkic origin. Come to the talk page, if you want, because you guys are false information. Be honest. This is a well known fact. Dagestani historians also verified this. undo Tag: Reverted
  • curprev 04:0604:06, 2 December 2020 Akylas7 talk contribs 58,229 bytes +152 Very biased article. OK - The origin of the term naxchiy can be disputed, AS FOR the theory of 'naxchimatyan', is it already proven they are mistaken for Ptolemy's Yaksamatae, who were located north pf the Black Sea, and this would automatically mean that you have no connection to the territory of the Kists who were mentioned in the same 7th century source, as they were located in moderen day Ingushetia and Chechnya. undo

1 December 2020

30 November 2020

29 November 2020

28 November 2020

(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)