Talk:Ilyas Akhmadov

Old talk

Dear Gene S,

Firstly, you have to prove that the word "separatist" is justified, if you want to use it.

See definition of Separatism. If he is for separation of Chechnya, then he is a separatist. If he is for inclusion of Chechnya in Russia, he is a federalist.

If the term is penned freely in this historic context, then equally the re-born Russian federation in the form of the Yeltsin-established regime, still in-force, is just "separatist", because both these two entities, namely present Russia and the ChRI together, among the many others like the Baltic states etc. etc., separated from the Soviet Union.

Well, I refuse to discuss matters as long as you use loaded language. "Regime" is a loaded term.

No, it's not ! Yesterday, I discussed specially about this word with my English teatcher who's fom Manchester. The regime is just a neutral term. He also said that recently "the international English" develops autonomously apart from the Queen's original Shakespearean form. I presonally like more the original one than its improper variations.

Well, this is only one word, which isn't essential in the ChRI context.--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the one hand, a wikipedia article doesn't necesssarily quarantee anything as a precise footnote, because everybody can attach whatever comment to its articles, as we've seen. Especially, the article on "regime" fails to comprehend H.M. administrative basics. That fells in the part of British cultural sphere. A genuine Brit would say something like Her or His Majesty's government, post office, theatre, ambassadors etc. etc. The Prime minister is the head of H.M government, and therefore it isn't a prime minister's property.--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the second hand, the Great Britain has never had a constitution, but the collection of historic codexes that function like the constitutions everywhere else.--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, there are'nt Blair's government but cabinet. The H.M. government consists of both ministers (including the PM)and the public servants, and finally, H.M. prime ministe's cabinet consists of the other ministers. If the prime minister had a extremely srong position, he/she would have a regime in public speech or later on in history, like Mr Churchill had. If you spoke about Blair's regime, you would possibly underline his political weakness etc. Also in the American variety of English, the regime has a politically strong position loaded with military muscles. Recently, the US Massmedia writes about the new Iraqi regime emphasising the desired power it should have to let the Americans go home alive.--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is one exeption. once in history the British beheaded King Charles II, and practised a republican administrative system under Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell's reign, but restorated the monarchy pretty quickly then. If we speak about his era, we may say regime meaning the administration, way of life, fashion etc. together.--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since you inserted your rant between your orininal statement and my answer to it, I am not going to reply to this. --Gene s 12:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, read this article Regime: in English language it has become a largely pejorative synonym for "government" or "administration", implying moral disapproval and/or political opposition. Do you understand the meaning of the words pejorative, moral disapproval? Your unnamed English teacher is obviously underqualified to pass such blanket judgements. Try using Tony Blair's regime in discussions with him. See how he reacts to that. Wikipedia uses contemporary Engish, not Shakespearean one.

And by the way, if you still believe that regime is a neutral term, let's refer to ChRI as Maskhadov's regime. You won't object to that, right? You made it quite clear that such reference is neutral. --Gene s 08:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dont think he's un(der)qualified but rather that he's qualified. Anyway, I said "regime" only in my replies, and admit that it's all too early to speak generally about the Yeltsin - Putin regime but perhaps after decades or even later.--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since you insist on using statements with "regime", I assume you answer positively to my question - you have no objections if I use "Maskhadov's regime". This is settled. There was no ChRI, there was only Maskhadov's regime. --Gene s 12:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given that until today, there have been three president of the ChRI, and two pro-Moscow competitors, you may speak about Maskhadov's regime if you mean his regime alone. If you mean the ChRI as a whole, you might still say the ChRI, but otherwise Dudayev's regime, Yandarbiyev's regime and finally Maskhadov's regime.--BIR 13:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course, if having a respect on the pro-Moscow ones, you may say Kadyrov's regime etc.--BIR 13:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, the international mass media uses to refe to Maskadov's regime already when meaning the recent ChRI government as a rival to the pro-Moscow one. --BIR 13:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you replaced all the history of the ChRI by this expression, we'll be equally using "Putin's regime" meaning the post-soviet Russian era. --BIR 13:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But if this suits you, then why not to simplify the complicated events for the comprehension of the ordinary readers of ensyclopedias. --BIR 13:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I don't quite believe that this gambling with words helps much on the spot, nor in the media, but let's take it as an amusement in the midle of the horrific process, because there isn't anything else we could do. --BIR 13:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You finally saw the light of reason! This is amaizing. It took only 8 days of endless talk untill you finally understood that the use of Loaded (language) is not a good idea. So, are we done with "regime", "occupation", "liberation", "conquered" and similar loaded words? Do you promise to never use them in articles? --Gene s 13:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now, I boringly find that you try to exploit my fairness, but further; The ChRI conducted recently by Maskhadov's regime, the Russian federation conducted recently by Putin's regime are quite ok. because both of them have not only continued previous administative practises but developed further their states.--BIR 06:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. When you are done, come back here and tell me what you learned. --Gene s 07:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Putin has implemented new state symbols, emblems, coat of arms etc., and Maskhadov has not established such the government in-exile as, for example, the Poles had historically for a while in and after the WW2, but has established a steady overall resistance agaist occupational structures while staying determinedly within his state boarders. Naturally, the military aspect of his regime is emphasised more than in Putin's one, hopefully.--BIR 06:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you meant that you agreed upon these, then regime is done. I dont really know, if you like to do more words like "separatism" in this Akhmadov's context, I think you agreed that he's a loyal ChRI citizen (apparently bearing a legal ChRI passport abroad ?) and not a separatist. Allegedly, he never gave it up for a recent Russian one, although he may have had a soviet one as everyone in the newly independent states had. Is this agreed, too ?--BIR 06:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I tend to emphasise that accurately, encyclopedically, if you like, the right term to tell what Russia wants from the ChRI is not that separatism ought to be given up, but the unification of the ChRI with Russia (in here, when I say Russia I mean the Russian federation, of course). That fact has been told mutually by the means of words and military deeds.--BIR 06:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't do nothing but wait where these contradictory (independence or unification) terms finally take these mentioned sparring partners to. Is it to ruin Russia from inside ? Is it to extinct Chechens ? Only one thing is obvious, in the end the int'l community will just applaud the winner and cover up its own guilt as always.--BIR 06:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the entities are accepted as "separatists", then we also accept, among other things, that so called Yanayev's junta was legal and all others are just separatist, which should return back to that infamous junta. --BIR 06:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You acceptance is immaterial. Provide links to acceptance by politicians/governments/parlaments. "Liberation" is a non-neutral term. Visit for example World War II page and count how many times "liberation" was used there. And that's a matter of nearly unanymous agreement. --Gene s 06:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, nobody found time to deal with the junta in order to recognise it etc., because the mentioned junta was all too drunken and collapsed quickly by itself. Nevertheless, the junta was the culmination of the SU from where every entiry then "separated" quite tragicomically one by one.

Compared to the cynical attitude, that is, moral weakness, the international community has shown in this Chechen process, the junta no doubt would have gotten a recognition in a half week of more time, if it hadn't been adviced by genuine vodka. The event doesn't show the quality of vodka, but rather that of the international community.--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Provide links which support your claims. --Gene s 12:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are we talking abut junta or about Ilyas Akhmadov?

I talked about how the entities separated from the mentioned junta one by one, including for ex. the ChRI and all her loyal citizens like Akhmadov.--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are wandering off the topic again. --Gene s 12:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could you say clearly and give grounds finally, from where the heck did for. ex. the ChRI separate to be able to call everyone on the ChRI side as a separatist?

Can you rephrase the question? Right now it does not make much sense.

--Gene s 08:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From where exactly did the ChRI separate from ?--BIR 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's use the term you like so much - regime. So, it's no ChRI, it's Maskadov's regime. Maskhadov's regime is seeking the separation of Chechnya from the Russian Federation. --Gene s 12:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then when did recent "Maskhadov's regime" actually join Russia, if it now seeks a separation? I dont quite remember if it took place either.--BIR 13:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, share light on this item, too.--BIR 06:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will answer your question on one condition: you answer my question first. Here is the question: "Please give a precise date when you stopped beating your wife". --Gene s 07:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is now your own kind of sofism, which I don't however find rude merely but boringly ugly instead. At what academy exactly did they teach you these to know not to attend ever to ?

You don't answer my question, I don't answer yours.

I'll go easy on you. Here is another question: "Please give a precise date when Matti Vanhanen's regime joined Finland". --Gene s 07:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Finland ? Are you a Finn ? Anyway, I dont think such cabinets in any Scandinavian sphere just join that contry. They are appointed by the heads of the state. According to Google, Virtual Finland etc. Vanhanen's cabinet was appointed June 24, 2003. Now happy ? --BIR 13:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that answers my question, thank you. Here is my answer to your question when did recent "Maskhadov's regime" actually join Russia. It joined Russia on January 27, 1997 when he won the election. --Gene s 14:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not quite sure but I think Van Hanen hasn't established a new constitution, emblems etc. ? Hasn't he ? Nor I don't believe the ChRI joined Russia in any alleged regard, but factually, Kadyrov's regime was a try to curb the ChRI down in order to make the ChRI join Russia.--BIR 13:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, it's foremost up to you to prove that the ChRI, led either by Dudayev's regime, or Yandarbiyev's one, or really by recent Maskhadov's one, has ever agreed on an unification with Russia, led either by Yeltsin's regime or by Putin's one.

I don't care to prove anything to you. It's you who want to prove that coal is white and snow is black. Try harder. --Gene s 07:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given that you are in a position to give a binding and proper answer, of course.

Until you do so, I continue to insist that the ChRI and Russia never federated either, and therefore this "separatism" stuff shouldn't be penned in the Wikipedia articles or in any other article elsewhere.--BIR 07:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can insist on whatever you want. If you do not provide links in support of your views, you are just ranting. The link has to be one from the following: (a) This Wikipedia, (b) Mainstrean news media, say from a G7 country (c) Government source from a government in this List of sovereign states. --Gene s 07:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Chechen news short list database among the Yahoo groups tells in the form of updated news quoted from relevant Russian and international sources, that the ChRI never joined Russian federation, but on the contrary, it become militarily occupied in the wake of an undeclared war that was called as an "antiterrorist operation" which didn't stop at the Grozny slaughter but at the rocks of the Caucasus mountains. Did Russia ever ask the ChRI to curb terror etc. down as normally done between esteemed parties ? Please, enlighten me.--BIR 13:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No link in the above paragraph - no discussion. --Gene s 14:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid that if unpleasant facts are shed, they aren't disputed decently but called as "ranting" on your esteemed side. I don't quite agree that this method is proper.

Facts are not the same as your opinions. You constantly mix the two. No links - no talk. End of story. --Gene s 14:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is to blame?

I found these links quite telling, the one above in title and here under: http://www.gateway2russia.com/art/Unrubricated/9%20directors,%20incl%203%20non-executives,%20elected%20to%20OMZ%20Board%20of%20Directors_249966.html --BIR 13:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, you got a link here. You should note that this is not a link from Wiki, G7 mainstream media, or any government, so it does not satify the basic requirement. It's a piece on opinions of various politicians. How do you want to use it in Wiki, beside the fact that you already added it to Chechnya article? Do you plan to add all links to Chechnya article? --Gene s 14:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

( http://www.gateway2russia.com/art/Sources/Expert%20Group/The%20Gateway2Russia%20Project/The%20Gateway2Russia%20Project_40896.html )

This link does not have the quote you gave below. Try to count ':' symbols. 1+1=2, not 3.

The Gateway2Russia Project

The Expert Group’s most recent project, Gateway2Russia.com, started in 2003, is an information portal created and administered by the Expert Group in collaboration with the Financial Times, which supplies the site’s content from the world press. Our goal is to provide the world community with the most up-to-date information about Russia’s society and economy from the international and Russian media, as well as to gather the most important research and databases on Russia’s markets, regions, and corporations in one place.

You are so misguided, it's unbelievable. You really can't comprehend English. Maybe you should attend reading comprehension courses. The article is a translation from a Russian newspaper. Do you understand a difference between a publication in FT and a translation from a Russian newspaper, posted to a web site, maintained by some Expert Group (expert in what?) which has some sort of contract with FT? This is your problem. You constantly try to pass one thing for another. --Gene s 08:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Financial Times is quite much a G7(8) newspaper. If you like you may youself use RF Minister of Defence Ivanov's interview on this site for you highlights. I don't think the gateway is competing to this beloved Wikipedia but rather suplementing.--BIR 08:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link you posted is a citation from Russian newspaper "Nezavisimaya Gazeta". This is not a link to FT web site. It's quite clear that "NG" is not the same as Financial Times. You are misguided. You are constantly trying to twist facts to suit your needs. I said G7 for a purpose. G8 means G7+Russia. Russia is a side in this conflict.

And as usual, you did not answer my questions. You posted something you believe to be an answer to the first one only. You have not touched the other two: "How do you want to use it in Wiki, beside the fact that you already added it to Chechnya article? Do you plan to add all links to Chechnya article?".

--Gene s 08:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relevant sources?

Firstly, in democracies they are just these politicians who make politics, and therefore their argumented opinions have a decisive role. Only in dictatorships, say, in one-leader-states, such politicians' sayings would be meaningless even to publish on a paper.--BIR 10:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. But I don't see you post links to public opinion polls either. Your personal opinion is immaterial. You are not a dictator yet. --Gene s 10:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, even if agreed on what you said on Newspaper gategories and reliabilities, that I however tend to disagree (the state-controlled ones vs. some private ones etc.), for example Mr Ivanov's statements as well as the others' ones are genuine and authentic, even if drawn from the second-hand sources, naturally after a proper verification. I don't quite believe nobody could interview Mr Ivanov and then dare to publish some nonsense (here, I prefer a lingually-correct British word instead of a widely cultivated all American word, bullshit).--BIR 10:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, journalists do sometimes publish bullshit, particularly those involved in a conflict. For one, I find site like Maskhadov's "Ministry of Internal Affairs" full of misleading stetements. Second, the link you posted is about opinions of politicians. I don't see how that article justifies your use of loaded language in the Ilyas Akmadov article. That was the subject of this discussion. --Gene s 10:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thirdly, I am afraid there's nothing wrong in my understanding of English, and beeing still afraid, right now it was your turn, dear disputant, to produce a piece of "ranting".--BIR 10:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well then, if you understand English well, please explain why you tried to pass a translation from a Russian newspaper for an article in Financial Times. --Gene s 10:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say the article was a translation from the FT. The first paragraph was clipped from the gateway to inform its background. I should have put quote marks there. I am sorry ! However, the FT backing ought to be regarded as a quarantor of some higher quality. For sure, this sets some norms in its works not to allow them publish just some "bullshit" (Sorry this word again) domestically or internationally.--BIR 12:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You said "I think Financial Times is quite much a G7(8) newspaper" making it apper like the source is FT. Yes, FT is a G8 newspaper. But the source of the article is a Russian newspaper. Stop making false or misleading statements.

You don't know the nature of the relationship between "The Expert Group" and the FT. There is nothing on the FT web site (http://www.ft.com/) saying they are backing the views of "The Expert Group". Stop making false or misleading statements.

I accused you of "trying to pass a translation from a Russian newspaper for an article in Financial Times", and you replied with "I didn't say the article was a translation from the FT". Correct, you did not say so, but neither I accused you of it. I accused you of "trying to pass a translation from a Russian newspaper for an article in Financial Times". Do you understand the difference? Stop making false or misleading statements. --Gene s 12:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fourthly, as you put "How do you want..." out. I just put it there on the external links, and I hope it stays there, and "do you plan.." Nop. Just the topically relevant ones in the most impartial way, if possible, please.--BIR 10:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's hope you don't add all the links you can find on the Net with the word "Chechnya" to Chechnya article as "topically relevant ones in the most impartial way". --Gene s 10:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my view, the cause of this longer-than-I-intended dispute has been just the views of neutrality, and I've considered that you aimed to block the facts pouring through the Russian censorship of war by the method " admit what's already known/can't be denied while embedding crusial disinformation for further use" like "separatism" instead of unification, "Mashadov was unable to control..." while he wasn't allowed due to the invasion, etc.--BIR 10:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are making assumptions again. You are very presumptuous, aren't you? Separatism is a neutral word. If you believe it's pejorative, go and change the article Separatism. Regime is pejorative. If you believe it's not, go and change the article Regime. "Mashadov was unable to control..." is factually true. Exactly why he was unable to control is a matter of opinion. If you want to write about opinions, then find reputable sources and use them as references. Your personal opinion is immaterial. --Gene s 10:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here, I don't quite agree that presumptuous was a right word to determine my stand, although I confess that I tend to have some prejudiced feelings about your neutrality in this Chechen issue until proven otherwise.--BIR 12:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is funny. Really.

Isn't it. Just tell how funny. --BIR 13:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He was a retiring Russian officer, whoses name I don't remember anymore, who said that Chechnya is ungovernable, but from here based on news, it just looked that since 1999 Mashadov have controlled the flow of events more than anyone else in spite of seriously aimed attempts on his regime.--BIR 12:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is relevant to the content of the current article.

Factually, Mashadov controlls more than anyone else the ChRI. He was Putin who has said for years that "there is noboby to talk in the ChRI to","nobody is in control to agree on anything in the ChRI" whenever he was asked to seek a political settlement by the west, and then he boldly installed Kadyrov's regime, but got stucked in long-term cricis. So, if you advocate by the same wordings, it just makes me to think where they are originated from.--BIR 13:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, in your knowledge, what is the extent of control that makes ones's regime immaterial or actual? In my knowledge, the invasion unabled him to control Basayev's gang exacly as well as the Chechen campaign did unable Putin and the whole governement to run the state properly. These aren't just opinions but far-reaching facts.--BIR 12:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph above contains no relevant links, thus there is nothing to discuss. --Gene s 12:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No links here, but a lot of unanswered questions that are loaded and linked there in the yahoo groups Checnen list chains of messages between August-November, 1999, which you may be able to shed light on.--BIR 13:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Third Lieutenant?

Is it an actual Soviet rank? --HanzoHattori 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. 24.218.221.252 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think regardless of one's views, describing events of 1996 as an unquestionable victory of Chechens, is not neutral. That is definitely not the Russian point of view, and not even all sympathizers of Chechen rebels would claim a "victory". Also, the article fails to mention that Ilyasov at one point was an assistant to Shamil Basayev, a job deemed, shall we say, somewhat controversial by many. 24.218.221.252 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a "grand" total of 1 sentence devoted to the 1994-6 war : "In 1996, when the Chechens defeated the poorly organised Russian army, he retired to private life."... the words Chechen victory are not even in the sentence. And would you care to site that? (it's not really relevant, though, considering the habitual post changing in Ichkeria's gov't at the time). --Yalens (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414080538/http://www.rferl.org/specials/chechnya/akhmadov.asp to http://www.rferl.org/specials/chechnya/akhmadov.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)