Talk:First Chechen War

The |results= field has become untenable in this article due to continuous IP and red account edits. According to the infobox documentation, if there is no very clear victor it should not be used at all. I have removed it entirely from the infobox and will delete restorations, unless or until there is consensus for its restoration. -- GreenC 00:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that it was "Chechen victory" for years and none of those IPs and red editors produced good arguments as to why it should be changed.

This is not one of those conflicts with unclear results. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The article body and sources are unclear about an unambiguous victory on either side. For example "Yeltsin declares Russian victory over Chechnya" - I realize this might be internal propaganda but still the fact he could even make the statement does not suggest clear unambiguous victory. And it's original research for us to conclude one way or another. The infobox can have a tendency towards outsized influence in culture, such as through AI training, and drive by readers checking basic facts. Everyone knows this, and it takes 5 seconds to flip the switch to weight in one's favor. Thus the continuously disruptive fiddling, hedging, refactoring, etc.. It's a sure sign of a problem when this is occurring. The best way to deal with it is to force editors to engage in editing the article with sources. The infobox should reflect what the article (and by extension the sources) conclude. -- GreenC 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right, we need to add the result to the article body first. I'll check the sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This was dated 26 May 1996, which was before the end of the war. It also predates Chechnya’s “operation jihad” launched in August 1996 which undid a lot of progress by Russia, retaking Argun, gudermes, and much of the Chechen capital Grozny. The Russian declaration of victory in this article is premature The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

what if instead of "x victory" we put "see aftermath" just like in the Iraq war wiki? 5.13.22.146 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The infobox instructions say to exclude it entirely, unless there is a clear victor, and even then it should only say a single word. This rule came about after years of hard won experience how contested this field becomes. -- GreenC 22:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis@GreenC Would the analysis of Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin (Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.) be enough? Here it's an informative article and analysis by him where he quite clearly admits Russia was defeated. There are also articles by Russian journalists such as this where a Russian defeat is admitted. We could also use Western sources such as "FMSO (Foreign Military Studies Office)" which did an analysis on the First war and quite clearly demonstrated that Russia was defeated I have yet to see someone reputable claim a Russian victory in this war or claim it to be some ambiguous ending. The article of Yeltsin claiming a Russian victory is from May 28th 1996 i.e 3 months before Operation Jihad (4th Battle of Grozny) which led to the Khasav-Yurt accords. Goddard2000 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, one can find the Russian defeat sentiment. One can also find other sentiments:

• New York Times: "Like the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the first Chechen war ended in a stalemate. " by Andrew Higgins, 2019.
• Tufts University: "The war reached a stalemate, with neither side fully capable of defeating the other."
• BBC: "But is it fair to say that the stalemate ending in the devastation of the first Chechen war"
• Foreign Policy Research Institute: "After a stalemate and peace agreement"

Many more "stalemate" sources available. Not to say who is right, only there is no clear consensus. Per the Infobox rules, without a clear consensus, there should be no result in the infobox. -- GreenC 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Does a stalemate occurring in a war mean the war had no victors or losers? Quick check on some of your sources show that a stalemate in a war could mean defeat for one side as we see in the "Tufts University" article you linked, Quote: "the humiliating defeat of Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya". While the article does claim "the war reached a stalemate and neither side was fully capable of defeating the other" it still regards the war as a defeat for Russia (which would mean a Chechen victory).

The same goes for the New York Times article, it does indeed claim the first war ended in a stalemate but then again it mentions in the article that Quote: That made the ascent of a strongman like Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. agent who vowed to restore order and avenge Russia’s defeat in Chechnya, and again it refers to a Russian defeat Quote: In August 1996, Gen. Aleksandr Lebed, Mr. Yeltsin’s national security adviser, reached an agreement with the Chechens to stop the fighting. Mr. Yeltsin, increasingly infirm, erratic and under siege politically, initially balked at the deal, which effectively acknowledged Russia’s defeat, but ultimately endorsed it..

So as you can see a stalemate doesn't necessarily mean there were no victors, stalemate on the battlefield can lead to negotiations that favor one party over the other which thus can be interpreted as a victory. Did the first Chechen war result in a stalemate on the battlefield? sure one can argue that Chechens besieging Grozny in August 1996 led to a somewhat stalemate since Grozny wasn't fully taken by either side but can one really claim the war wasn't a Chechen victory when the peace treaty led to Russia removing every soldier from Chechnya? I recommend reading the sources i posted if you haven't already, in my opinion their arguments are solid and as i demonstrated above a stalemate does not necessarily mean no victors. Goddard2000 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the Tufts document appears to be contradictory:

1. the humiliating defeat of Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya
2. The war reached a stalemate, with neither side fully capable of defeating the other

When you read the document, the context of #1 is that Russians themselves considered it a "humiliating defeat", internally. While externally, the Tufts University paper says it was a military stalemate. It is a matter of historical perspective.

The same is true for the NYT piece, he is framing it from Russia's perspective at the time.

You may say, if one side admits defeat, is that not good enough? Maybe. But it ignores later opinions that say it was a stalemate, who are not Russians or have any stake in it. Obviously, some Russians who considered it humiliating in the aftermath were attempting embarrass Russia into finishing the business. Poking the bear.

All this should be explained in the body of the article. We can and should document multiple POVs. -- GreenC 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's contradictory at all, the war did reach a stalemate with neither side fully capable of defeating the other but the negotiations did lead to a Russian withdrawal which is why Tufts admits it was a Russian defeat. I also don't think the result of this war is as contentious as you claim. Most see it as a Chechen victory, 2 of your articles accept this version, Philip Wasielewski doesn't emphasize much on the war and Meghna Chakrabarti from what i can tell only mentions Chechnya in 1 article. Are these sources really comparable to the ones i posted that did an in depth analysis?

I can bring more and compare them, for example Maria Esmont who was a reporter that was on the frontlines during the actual war and witnessed the end of the war reports it as a Chechen Victory: Source

Articles from major Russian propaganda channels even today admit Russia lost the war: Source

Several Russian political scientists like Aleksey Malashenko admit it: Source

Is Meghna Chakrabarti's (1 interview about Chechnya) opinion of a stalemate (again stalemate does not necessarily mean no Victors) comparable to Maria Esmont's reports from Chechnya?

Is Philip Wasielewski's (hasn't written even 1 in depth paper on the Chechen wars) mentions of Chechen stalemate comparable to the analysis of Khramchikin and the western FMSO study on the Chechen wars? I haven't even brought up any Chechen sources that all unanimously agree on a Chechen victory. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You are describing a military stalemate resulting in a political defeat. The Template:Infobox military conflict docs advises against non-standard slicing and dicing like this. It says when there is ambiguity, link to the Aftermath section to describe what happened. The outcome can not be effectively understood with the single phrase "Chechnya victory". -- GreenC 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I find the arguments by Goddard2000 more convincing. Yes, there are sources that consider it a stalemate, but it seems that numerically there are many more sources considering it a defeat for Russia. I also think it makes sense: a military stalemate meant that Russia could not bring Chechnya back under control, which was its main goal.

Most of the sources discussed here are newspaper articles (even if written by experts) and think tank pieces. I'd suggest checking scholarly sources, maybe it will be easier to determine the scholarly consensus there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox military conflict: the |results= "should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the immediate result". Since you agree with Goddard2000 it was both a stalemate militarily and a political defeat for Russia, a result of "Chechnya victory" would hide the ambiguity of a military stalemate. The recommend course in cases like this to link to the Aftermath section that fully describes the results. -- GreenC 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really an ambiguity, you are solely relying on 2 articles (none of which includes an authoritative source on the Chechen-Russian wars) that just said it's a stalemate (it does not mean there was no victor as i demonstrated with the other 2 sources). If you want to put an emphasis on the version of a stalemate it is still possible to add an aftermath section where it is mentioned (however it should be mentioned by authoritative sources if there even are any). The "Chechen victory" or "Chechen republic of Ichkeria Victory" should remain in my opinion, i have brought enough sources (experts from both Russian and Western side, journalists that were in place during the war and peace negotiations and Russian propaganda channels) from authoritative sources. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course there is ambiguity. The war was fought to a military standstill, stalemate, whatever you want to call it. Many sources say this, in so many words. You said so yourself. Then there was a treaty, and they withdrew from the country they invaded, under terms, not as an unconditional surrender. This series of complex and nuanced events can not be unambiguously described by a result field that only says "Chechen victory". Have you read the Infobox documentation? Do you understand why we have these rules? -- GreenC 00:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I said one could see the battlefield as a stalemate, not that it was one, the war itself ended diplomatically as a victory (the battle of Grozny where Chechens basically surrounded Russians in Grozny led to diplomacy). The series of complex and nuanced events have been described as a Chechen victory by several authoritative sources on the matter (which i provided), so did 2 of your own sources. You have yet to provide a single authoritative source on the Chechen wars that argued the war wasn't a victory for one side. Does a sentence where "stalemate" is mentioned in an interview by Meghna Chakrabarti really warrant a removal of "Chechen victory" from the infobox when we have other more authoritative sources that speak of a Chechen victory?

I believe Khramchikhin and the FMSO study are enough to put back "Chechen victory" in the infobox, one is a Russian political scientist, the second is a research and analysis center for the United States Army. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Since we are at a dead-lock should we maybe put it up for a vote? Goddard2000 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

An WP:RfC is definitely an option. I still urge you to do a review of scholarly sources that focus on this conflict. This would be the best possible argument. Alaexis_¿question? 11:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It's really clear multiple reliable sources see stalemate. Goddard frames it as a "military stalemate and political victory" situation, and in a perfect world we might say |result=military stalemate and political Chechen victory, but the infobox rules say do not do that, instead leave the result field blank and explain the ambiguities in the article. More sources:

• Bellamy, Alex J.; McLoughlin, Stephen (2018). Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention. Springer Nature. p. 25. Before reaching a negotiated settlement, the parties reached a 'mutually hurting stalemate'.. The First Chechan War ended in a stalemate, when the Russian regime failed to impose its will on Chechnya.. The indecisive nature of the ending helped precipitate a second round of violence which did result in a decisive victory for Russia

Note: indecisive nature of the ending followed by a decisive victory for Russia in the second war.

• George, Julie A. (2009). The Politics of Ethnic Separatism in Russia and George. Palgrave Mcmillian. p. 82. The First Chechen War lasted from 1994 to 1996, ending with the Khasavyurt Accord, which acknowledged the stalemate between the two sides..

Note: the peace accord acknowledged the stalemate between the two sides.

• Cimbala, Stephen J. (2007). Russia and Postmodern Deterrence. Potomac Books. The first Russo–Chechen war fought by post–Cold War Russia ended in political stalemate in 1996 after two years of fighting.

Note: ended in political stalemate

That's three books, I can many more. Again, this concerns the rules for the Infobox. Bigger picture, it looks like the stalemate POV has been almost entirely excluded from this article, probably intentionally over the years, with the results field in the infobox the point of the spear. This is why when there is ambiguity among sources we don't use the results field. -- GreenC 18:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

These books certainly seem more authoritative on the matter than the other two (Wasielewski & Chakrabarti), i can't access them all but i think it's a good start. I would like to point out though that even some of these sources acknowledge a Russian defeat such as Cimbala on the "Conclusions: Lessons on the War" ( i don't know the page, i can only use the previews), Quote: "Shortage of realistic political strategy contributed significantly to the Russian Defeat".

I can't tell how much in depth the George and Bellamy sources go into the Chechen wars but either way they seem to support your claim of a no victor. As I said before we could add a "stalemate" in an aftermath section but i disagree with removing "Chechen Victory". We should in my opinion do a WP:RfC like Alaexis suggested. What do you think? Goddard2000 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This is what {{Infobox military conflict}} says about the |result= field:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Summary by GreenC:

1. The result field is optional not required
2. The result field if kept either needs to say "Chechen victory", "Inconclusive" or link to the #Aftermath section.
3. The result field should not conceal ambiguities
4. Omit the result field vs. speculating

I don't think we can say "Inconclusive" because there are sources that say Russian defeat, and likewise saying "Chechen victory" makes the result of the war look unambiguous despite all these sources saying stalemate. Both "Chechen victory" and "Inconclusive" violate #3, ambiguities ie. the "indecisive nature of the ending" per the cited sourced Springer Nature. That leaves linking to the #Aftermath section which is a good idea anyway to explain what happened in prose with multiple POVs and sources, versus a single word that hides complexity. -- GreenC 01:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the core issue here is that you assume the ending of the conflict is truly ambiguous among scholars while i believe it's not. We have both provided sources that support our claims, however 3 of your sources (Tufts & Higgins & Cimbala) claim a defeat for Russia while still mentioning a stalemate and all of my sources mention an outright Russian defeat. We have already seen that a "stalemate" (even at the end of the war) can lead to a Victory for one side (Tufts & Higgins & Cimbala) so i don't think a mention of a "stalemate" should be grounds to claim ambiguity in the war.

Even if we assume that the sources like Bellamy (et al.) & George claim of a stalemate means no victor then should we not compare them to other scholarly sources? does a few sources claiming no victor really mean the conflict end result is ambiguous according to scholarly consensus? if more reputable sources claim Chechen Victory? Perhaps some undue weight is given to certain sources?

I think we should request a comment (WP:RfC) and see what others think because you removed "Chechen Victory" from the infobox and claimed this conflict was ambiguous while using sources like Yeltsin declaring a victory to support this claim when this Yeltsin declaration happened 3 months prior to the end of the war and start of the deciding battle (4th Battle of Grozny). As i already mentioned three of your linked articles that you used to support a claim of ambiguity claimed Russia was defeated. That is why i think we should involve others, some might know much more about this conflict than us. Goddard2000 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This war concluded not by military means but by negotiated settlement. Nowhere in the negotiations or accord did Russia admit defeat. The "immediate result" of the accord was neither side won or lost. After the accord, it became a psychological and PR blow to Russia, who was an imperialist power against a small country, and perceived as a loss by some observers inside and outside Russia. There is a concept in academia called the "Mutually Hurting Stalemate", first proposed by William Zartman in the late 1980s, and applied to many small wars around the world post-WWII, which ended without unconditional surrender. A google search finds many sources about it but here and here are examples. Many sources refer to the First Chechen War as an example of a Mutually Hurting Stalemate. Situations like this are why the Infobox emphasizes to use the immediate result of the war. I'm not suggesting it say "Indeterminate" (although a good case can be made) but there is enough ambiguity how to describe it. Either way, the article should discuss Mutually Hurting Stalemate. -- GreenC 02:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Goddard2000 that an RfC is needed at this stage. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I'm pretty sure the RfC will end with the decision to only have a link to the relevant section of the article in the infobox but you never know. Alaexis_¿question? 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I’m here to revive this discussion. I propose that this article be protected, which will at least lessen the number of people trying to add back the result. We can go from there at our own discretion. TJ Kreen (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean extended protection. TJ Kreen (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It has mostly stopped being a problem. I suspect it was one or two people using socks and IPs. The edit history isn't showing much disruption the past three months.-- GreenC 15:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Does that mean we can add back the result? TJ Kreen (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

No of course not, there is no consensus for it, and it violates the infobox guideline, as explained over and over. The immediate outcome of the conflict was a mutual treaty in which neither side admitted defeat. Only later did some people make the argument that Russia was defeated. This is why it's immediate result, so people don't play games on the time frame: military defeat before the treaty; no winner or looser on day of treaty; Russia lost after X+50 days; Russia won after X+5 years etc.. which one is it? The immediate result rule exists for a reason. The immediate result of the conflict was a treaty in which neither side was winner or looser, they literally signed a document to that effect. -- GreenC 22:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. TJ Kreen (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Russia invaded Chechnya to integrate it after an ultimatum to dissolve and disarm, the war ended after Russia failed to take over Chechnya and after losing the major cities following Chechnya’s August counteroffensive. Russia failed in its goal of taking over Chechnya while Chechnya succeeded in resisting the invasion, retaking its major cities, and continuing to exist after the war, so the first Chechen war should be rightfully described as a Chechen victory, or at the very least, a clear Russian failure The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh sure you can make all sorts of arguments like that and they are not wrong. But the infobox result field is very strict, and very specific, for this reason. Because wars can be interpreted in many ways depending on your POV, time perspective, values, which side you favor, which element you consider more important etc.. and so the results field has been a constant and massive source of dispute for as long as it has existed across thousands of articles. So we have created very tight, restricted and specific rules. Most people have either not read the rules, or don't care about them, or don't understand them. Rather than explaining your position based on a thesis, you should be explaining it based on how it applies to the result field rules. -- GreenC 14:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

In this case it is not a POV, as Russia was unable to integrate Chechnya in the 1994-96 war, and the war ended with Chechnya retaking its major cities by force, undoing many critical Russian gains including the capture of its capital Grozny The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither side admitted defeat when they signed the treaty, which was the immediate outcome of the war, per the template guideline. You see, anyone can make up whatever outcome they want as being important (taking territory, retreating etc), but that is the problem, everyone has their own opinion as to what is most important. So we have been through this in thousands of articles for 20 years, and the consensus is the immediate outcome, which was the peace treaty. -- GreenC 00:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The treaty meant de fact recognising Chechnya, meaning a defeat for Russia who invaded to incorporate it into the rest of the federation… The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither side admitted defeat when they signed the treaty, the treaty was the immediate outcome of the war, per the template guideline. You continue to find new and different ways to spin the outcome portraying it as a Russian defeat. This is the problem, both sides might do this. Which is why we have very strict guidelines the immediate outcome. The war ended with the treaty. The immediate outcome of the war was the treaty. Neither side admitted defeat when they signed the treaty. -- GreenC 02:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry for reopening this old wound, I didn’t mean to cause any discontent or confusion. TJ Kreen (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to suggest adding "Signing of Khasavyurt Accord and Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty" into the result field. I think it should be a non-controversial result of this war, and it's totally a fact. Hoben7599 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This violates the guideline for what the result field is for. It either says "Victory", "Inconclusive", or no result field. Have you read the guideline? I suggest create a section in the article titled "Result", and add all the many different POVs that keep coming up on this talk page, with sources, and counter opinions. But I understand this is work, and many editors only want a single POV, and to keep out other POVs. That is the problem. -- GreenC 14:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC Okay i see. Hoben7599 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we just add chechen victory and then footnote the peace treaty? it is accurate for the event (which is also why the second war to finish the mission) PhilovGraves (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules, the immediate outcome is what goes in the infobox. The immediate outcome, the legal cessation of hostilities, was a peace treaty. 'Neither side admitted defeat. It was only after this that people began saying one side or the other lost. For this conflict, an infobox result field is not a good fit. The result field is optional, not required. It is better to explain what happened with multiple POVs over time. This is all explained in the rules for the result field.-- GreenC 17:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC "Neither side admitted defeat." how is that relevant when the defeat is factual ? Brother Nazif (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The treaty didn't explicitly grant Chechnya independence. Russia could legally maintain that Chechnya was still part of the Russian Federation. Russia didn't have to sign a surrender document. Russia still had de jure sovereignty of Chechnya. That is not a clear Russian defeat. Of course facts on the ground were another matter, and that is where some argue Russia lost. So it depends on perspective. For the purpose of a Wikipedia infobox, when there is ambiguity we don't use the result field. It says this in the documentation for the infobox. It is much better to explain the situation in the text of the article, then a simplistic black and white infobox field that is inflexible and does not (and can not) explain the full picture. -- GreenC 05:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC It is clear, the war was initiated by Russia to establish federal authority over Chechnya, and it ended with a military defeat in Grozny, leading to the Khasavyurt Agreement and the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Chechnya. Russia did not achieve its goal as Chechnya continued its de facto independence. Brother Nazif (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Chechnya continued its de facto independence, and Russia continued its in-fact legal control. The result is ambiguous. Anyway the result field doesn't mean what you think. Suggest reading the rules for what it's for. If you are unable to see the ambiguity I don't know what to else can be said other than point to the Wikipedia rules of what the result field is for and when not to use it. The infobox result field has a narrow and specific meaning and purpose. If you want to argue Russia "lost" in the main body of the article, you should do so instead of wasting time in the infobox. I've already deleted the entire infobox before because it is a constant source of disruption. I will delete it again if it continues to be a source of disruption. Infoboxes are optional, and meant to summarize unambiguous black and white factual data from the article itself, not controversial and debated claims that exist outside what the main body of the article says. -- GreenC 18:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC I've already explained how Russia did lose, as for the legal aspect, the case is in reality ambiguous. Brother Nazif (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes and the rules say when it is ambiguous don't use the result field at all. -- GreenC 05:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The infobox says the Russian military data claimed that 3,000+ Chechen militants were killed while the "Casualties and material damage" section of the article says that Russian military data claimed that 17,391 Chechen militants were killed. Both the number in the infobox and the number in the "Casualties and material damage" section also cite the same source (the source in question being Кривошеев, Г. Ф., ed. (2001). Россия и СССР в войнах XX века. Потери вооруженных сил (in Russian). Олма-Пресс. p. 584. ISBN 5-224-01515-4.) This should be corrected so that the infobox and the "Casualties and material damage" section aren't conflicting with each other. Lazarbeem (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Krivosheev does not claim that the Chechens lost 3,000, here is a quote: As for the losses of illegal armed groups fighting in Chechnya, their losses are estimated at 2,500-2,700. I'll clean it up now. Dushnilkin (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

@ the infobox: change "Territorial changes" into "Result" and "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria becomes an independent state" into "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria secures independence" or similar as it was ALREADY de facto independent by the end of 1991. 88.203.221.138 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Usage of |result= is contested see talk sections above. The |result= field is allowed three possibilities:

1. No |result= field at all
2. |result=X victory
3. |result=Inconclusive

See Template:Infobox military conflict for instructions. I encourage editors to spend time improving the body of the article, rather than focusing on the infobox. The majority of the discussion and edits to this page have been focused on the infobox, rarely attention paid to the article itself. Wikipedia, and history, is not an infobox, which are completely optional anyway. -- GreenC 16:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Then change it to ""Chechen Republic of Ichkeria secures independence" anyway. 88.203.221.138 (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The infobox for this article has been a continual source of disruption. The majority of edits involve the infobox. That includes the |results= field, which editors continually misunderstand the rules about, but also the casualty numbers, and other figures. I am coming to the conclusion this article should have no infobox. This would achieve a number of benefits:

1. Stop the constant drive-by editors fiddling with numbers
2. Stop the constant misunderstanding and disputes over the |results= field
3. Re-focus attention on the body of the article, where editors will be forced to explain not tell ie. to write in prose vs. filling in a box

While MOS:INFOBOX are common, they are not required.

According to MOS:INFOBOXUSE:

• The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

• The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.

The infobox is clearly supplanting the main article, for most editors who almost solely focus on the infobox.

• The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose

The infobox is overloaded with information and sources

The infobox has taken over this article for many editors. They can't get past it. Despite years of disputes over the |results= field not a single editor has changed the body of the article, they only constantly and continually focus entirely and exclusively on the infobox. For these reasons it is harmful, disruptive, and holding back development. -- GreenC 03:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been one month, nobody has commented. I am removing the infobox for the above reasons. This is to encourage editors to focus on improving and expanding the article itself. If there is important information in the infobox, focus on adding/expanding that information in the article in prose format. Remember: "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose" ( MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). This infobox has become so fat few can see beyond it as evidenced by the constant churn-edits to the infobox and very few to the article itself. — GreenC 16:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

After removal, I found only 3 citations reused in the article. This is a strong indication that most of the content in the infobox was not discussed in the body of the article. According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." -- GreenC 16:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC: I think it's egregious to outright remove the infobox. Despite what I've heard people say before, infoboxes are useful and informal. If people cannot be civil or follow the rules, they should be reported. These arguments could be used to remove many boxes, which I don't like. I believe the best solution here is simply to remove information that is not mentioned in the article (remove results too? replace it with Khasavyurt Accord?) and to simplify the wording to not be a copy of the article text, which I've done below. If anyone wants to readd the other combatants or numbers, they should also include that information in the article's main text. I've been doing this with the Mali War article, though I've yet to outright wipe egregious parts of it, and maybe I'll get to this article once I'm done with that. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree it might seem "shocking" (the meaning of egregious) but the rules say they are optional, which is not shocking given the long history of disputes over infoboxes. You gotta wonder why people are so against infoboxes, and now I see why. In this case it has been a bigger negative than positive. Look through the edit history of the article. It's mostly red accounts or IPs with little experience mostly just tweaking numbers and messing with the results field. The box attracts lazy inaccurate drive-by "fill in the box" editing that never ends. We and readers are better off without. What does it really provide anyway? BTW there is no results field for this conflict, the peace treaty/accord that was the immediate end of the conflict neither side admitted defeat. Only in the non-immediate aftermath were interpretations of who won, and later interpretations are not what the results field is for, only the immediate aftermath, and only if one side had a clear unambiguous victory ie. not a peace treaty in which neither side admitted defeat. -- GreenC 01:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think vandalism or rule-breaking should be justification for the removal of anything. Removing the infobox entirely will also attract "lazy inaccurate drive-by editing" by people who try to add it back, as seen by the edit you reverted. Infoboxes are useful for summarising key facts about the page's subject. Wowzers122 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Wowzers122, possibly you are right it will be more churn no matter what. Do you think a long list of commanders is a key fact? If that was removed or greatly trimmed, the rest looks like basic facts a casual reader would be interested in. The casualty numbers are always a source of fiddling and contention. They probably should be explained in the main article with the cites defined in the article and named refs in the infobox. Previously the infobox had the cites defined in the infobox making it a mess to figure out. — GreenC 04:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The commanders I left are the heads of state and top military leaders. The difference in casualty numbers is already explained in the Casualties and material damage section. The ones mentioned in the opening but not explained there can be added to it. If you're fine when the box eventually being added back in, I can add it with named refs for those figures. Wowzers122 (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for working on this. -- GreenC 20:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts First Chechen War, Date ...

First Chechen War
Part of the Chechen–Russian conflict, the Russo-Caucasian conflict, the Wars in the Caucasus and post-Soviet conflicts
A Russian Mil Mi-8 helicopter brought down by Chechen fighters near the Chechen capital of Grozny in 1994.
Date 11 December 1994 – 31 August 1996 (1 year, 8 months, 2 weeks and 6 days) Location Chechnya and parts of Ingushetia, Stavropol Krai and Dagestan Territorial changes Chechen Republic of Ichkeria becomes an independent state
Belligerents
Chechen Republic of Ichkeria	Russia Loyalist
Commanders and leaders
Dzhokhar Dudayev X Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev Aslan Maskhadov Ruslan Gelayev Shamil Basayev	Boris Yeltsin Pavel Grachev Anatoly Kulikov Anatoly Romanov Konstantin Pulikovsky Viktor Vorobyov [ru] †
Units involved
Various militia forces	Russian Armed Forces
Strength
5,000–6,000 (late 1995)	uh...
Casualties and losses
3,000–10,000 killed	6,000–14,000 killed
20,000–100,000 civilians killed 200,000+ civilians injured 500,000+ civilians displaced 120 civilians killed outside Chechnya

Close

Wowzers122, the infobox continues to be a source of trouble. Special:Diff/1313588943/1320761854 added conflicting/disputed numbers, with nothing that explains the POVs. It appears the infobox is not capable of reporting all POVs about casualties and force strengths. Either the infobox needs to go, or the casualties and strength figures should be moved to a separate section, within the article body, where multiple POVs can be explained, in prose, including discussion of conflicting sources and numbers. None of this is possible in an infobox, which are designed for basic non-controversial black and white information. -- GreenC 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Do what you want. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In one of the captions, it says

"On November 17, 1991, Russian-speaking community leaders in Checnya called for the establishment of a breakaway "Terek Cossack Republic" (flag left) consisting of all territory north of the Terek River (map right)."

It should say "community leaders in Chechenya". 85.131.184.138 (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that it's "impossible for infobox to give meaningful information". The stable version of the infobox included casualties and the section wasn't bloated. @GreenC, could you explain your reasoning? Alaexis_¿question? 10:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Our article states in prose: It is impossible to determine the exact losses of the militants, however, in 2001, Russia reported 17,391 Chechen fighters killed. Yet, the "stable version" you link gave a wide range of "3,000–10,000 killed", giving the false impression that is is possible, but a completely different number. There is ambiguity. Ambiguity should be in the body of the article where multiple POVs can be hashed out with explanation, sourcing, attribution, and context. That range is a factor of 6. It's like saying 1 person, or it was 6 people, we don't know, and we don't know who gave these numbers. Whenever there is this much ambiguity it is much better to direct readers to the body of the article. This principal of moving ambiguous information out of infoboxes is well established. Infoboxes are OK for immutable facts: the sides who fought, the primary leaders, unambiguous results, etc.. but for ambiguous information they are not good. It results in bloat, churn, lack of real understanding, fast assumptions. It also gets picked up by scrapers for AI and other purposes since it's easy to parse, giving the false impression there is a well-known and understood figure, that actually is not. -- GreenC 01:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't see the number 17,391 in the article right now, what is its source?

Btw the source for the 10k number is pretty weak (an unattributed "could have reached" estimate in a newspaper article) so I'd suggest removing it from the infobox which leaves us with a 3,000-4,500 range. Alaexis_¿question? 21:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone added the 17,391 figure recently Special:Diff/1320787389/1320788748. And the 10,000 number has a source in the main text. Anyway the point is you can see how much churn is going on, how variable it is depending on POV. And POV also applies to which sources or numbers are reliable. So the infobox continues to churn away, every person with their own sources and numbers and opinions. These numbers are ultimately just opinions. This is why everything needs to be fully explained in the body, where multiple POVs can be explained ie. Write an entire paragraph about that number from that source. Then another entire paragraph about a different number from a different source. Take as much time and space as you need to explain it. It's much easier and more accurate to use the body of the article for ambiguous information - it has unlimited space, this is the wiki way. Trying to come up with an absolute "true number" for the infobox is a problem because everyone has opinions and there are multiple POVs. -- GreenC 23:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I went down a rabbit hole trying to find the source for the 17,391 number and didn't succeed. RIA indeed reported it in 2011 attributing it to Alexander Cherkasov's Книга чисел. Книга утрат. Книга страшного суда. This article exists and is often cited by other RS but unfortunately this number doesn't appear there. @Lone_Ranger1999, since you've added this number, perhaps you can help us?

Note that the number likely refers to total casualties (killed&wounded) judging by the previous sentence in which the same word is used for the total Russian casualties, which are then broken down by type. Therefore, it's consistent with 3-4.5k killed fighters.

Regarding the 10k number, my point is that the evidence for it is weaker - it's taken from a newspaper article by a political scientist (ru:Храмчихин, Александр Анатольевич) who says that it "could have reached 10k" and doesn't provide any sources. Alaexis_¿question? 14:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't come across the specific number myself, and only recently learned that the figure of 17,391 was in effect on August 16, 1996, meaning there were still two weeks left. Also, the number 17,391 represents irrecoverable losses, meaning those killed and captured. But that's just my opinion, and it's unlikely the number of captured fighters exceeds 1,000.And these figures are the most logical. Yes, I understand that Russian troops waged the war horribly ineptly, but the Chechens, armed only with RPGs and Kalashnikovs, can't possibly suffer an absurd 3,000 killed against an army with helicopters and tanks. I propose that the loss infographic include casualty figures for Russia: 5,000-14,000 killed, and for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria: 3,000-17,000.But then again, that's what Wikipedia is famous for: trying to provide objective information. We'll provide the "Russian" and "Chechen" points of view, and users will decide for themselves who to believe. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that the 17,391 figure isn't really supported by reliable sources and we should dismiss it.. Alaexis_¿question? 09:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

GreenC (talk · contribs), I understand that the topic has been contentious, but this seems like an undesirable resolution. I haven't seen it used anywhere else on the Wiki, despite plenty of wars being contentious with regards to their outcomes. Typically, when the result is controversial, the value might be "Disputed - see [section]", or a war's closing treaty is simply linked, e.g. here the Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty. Then users who quickly want to read about the result of the war can choose to visit that article for more direct information. I already changed the value of the casualty parameter because it unnecessarily mentioned things like "POVs". Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a guideline for usage of the |result= field. It clearly states to do exactly what is being done here. What it says:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

If you want to say "See the <whatever> section" that is fine. The idea is not to conceal the ambiguity of the result, when the standard terms "X victory" or "Inconclusive" are not a sufficient explanation. Also the |result= is optional, it's not required at all, particularly when editors are engaging in speculation about who won or by how much. -- GreenC 19:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)