Talk:Ingush people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issues in Etymology, History, and Religion[edit]

1. Etymology: On the account of the origin of the ethnonym "Ingush" they are more or less justified and correct, but a gross mistake was made on the account of the ethnonym "Ghalghay", this name had a wider meaning than the territorial one, your version of this section is not reliable, and it needs to be corrected, to besides, it is not neutral and unpleasant for persons of Ingush nationality.

2. History: This section is very small and brief, although the history of the Ingush people is very diverse and huge, only false information from the Chechen historian and ethnographer Umalat Laudaev is given here, not only is he not a reliable source that he could be quoted in this article, he also contradicted himself. Let's take his quote: "The Nazranians (Ingush) reluctantly called themselves Nakhchi" (doubtful), after this quote, literally in the same book, Laudaev says the opposite: "The Nazranians (Ingush) mocked the lowland Chechens, because the latter called themselves "nakhchi" means "cheese". This section needs a total correction, it is not neutral, and its text is based on the theories of a Chechen historian, what is written here is condemned by the Ingush, and it is by no means neutral!

3. Religion: Everything is more or less in order, except for the phallic cult, why is it mentioned here at all? These phallic statues were found only in two villages, and are not mentioned in the legends and folklore of the Ingush, this is not the faith of the Ingush, why is it not mentioned in the same article about the Chechens about these phallic statues? After all, there are several sources saying that absolutely all Chechens worshiped them. This section should be changed, the unacceptable photo of the phallic statue should be replaced by the Ingush (Muslim) mosque or the Christian temple of Thaba-Yerdy.

If you have something to say = enter here your nickname Reiner Gavriel =, then let's start a discussion, after the discussion we will call the admins as a last resort. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Extraordinary Writ and Bbb23, take a look at this please. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is nothing wrong with the etymology section since I have listed both, the origin in folklore and the one accurate to history. It could not be more neutral and accurate. Any wild fictional theory about how the term derives from Sumer or another ancient civilization simply does not belong on Wikipedia.
2. Laudaev theorizing that the Nazranians possibly mocked Chechens with the word "cheese" doesn't dissent his earlier claim that "Nazranians reluctantly called themselves Nakhchi" . According to his observation, tehy didn't call themselves so because of hostilities with Chechens. They called themselves "Nakhchi" because they didn't have a unifying term for each other (there was no such term as Vainakh used to determine nation) when they met one of their closest tribes (the Shatoy).
3. The Phallic cult is an important part of pre-Islamic Ingush rituals and was even practiced just two centuries ago, so why should it not be mentioned? Ingush historians such as Buzurtanov still glorifiy the Ingush Phallic cult to this day. As for Chechens worshipping them, I have not found a single source that mentions a specific Chechen cult or village with a past in such rituals. Only a few books also mention the Chechens, but they include the Ingush as part of the Chechens. There is no archaeological study, evidence or anything at all that proves the existence of a Chechen phallic cult. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not conceivable to refer to folklore and draw conclusions about the ethnonym of the whole people, this version of origin can probably be left, but additional information must be added that the ethnonym extended to many other Nakh societies, and that this ethnonym was mentioned in 1 century by the Greek philosopher and geographer Strabo, your version of the Etymology section is not reliable and needs to be completely revised.

2. Laudaev’s theory is, to put it mildly, nonsense, which contradicts itself, it is not reliable and should not be in this section, there are early documents, the delusional nature of this theory is also proved by the fact that in Semenova’s early work of 1823, entitled «Полная географическая и историческая известия о Кавказе (часть вторая)» on page 153 we read that the Ingush call themselves Kisty, Galga, Ingush, and use one name instead of another. So Laudaev's version should be removed from this article, because it is not historical, and also not logical.

3. Nowhere is it said that it was an important pre-Islamic belief of the Ingush, the phallic trace was found only in two Ingush villages, if this cult had been developed among the Ingush, then even more phallic statues would have been found, Christianity and the same Islam were developed among the Ingush, the same Vakhushti wrote that the inhabitants of Angusht, who are called Angushtins, were Sunni Muslims. It is not worth denying the obvious, the Ingush and Chechens have almost the same history, which means the same cult, or rather the Tusholi cult was also a Chechen cult, and it’s not about when the Ingush were mistakenly called Chechens, it’s interesting that the cult was created for women who couldn't get pregnant, but among the Chechens, it served as a worship even for men, which immediately distinguishes it from the Ingush cult. In short, the mention of this phallic cult here is not justified and is not appropriate, if you are going to attribute a cult to a whole people that spread in two villages, then it will be necessary to add this interesting information in the Chechens article:

And note that your Chechen historian Azamat Arzunukaev also said that the Chechens have phallic statues, and that the Chechens have more of them than the Ingush in terms of numbers. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. This version should not be left out just because of your personal preference, since it is a known etymology and has nothing controversial or insulting about it. You claim it's controversial and insulting yet you want to add that the Geli Strabo mentioned are the Ghalghaj. It is well known that the Geli mentioned by Strabo are the Talysh people of Gilan, todays Iran. The connection to the Ghalghaj is purely hypothetical and has no actual evidence backing it up. You have no problem grasping at straws to connect Ghalghaj to ancient people but somehow adding a known theory about "Ghalgha" coming from "K'a-K'al" (3 societies who are known as the founders) is problematic?
2. Laudaev didn't theorize on that, he wrote what he saw. In fact Laudaev himself believed that the term "Nakhchi" was forced upon or spread to Ingush and that it wasn't their native ethnonym since he saw that Ingush (Nazranians) using it reluctantly. How is Semenovas work related to this? There are other sources, like Berger, Uslar, Dalgat and many others, that say the Ingush are also called Nakhchi. How is Laudaev's work not historical? Just because Semenov said Ingush call themselves Kisty, Galga, Ingush doesn't mean the sources contradicting it are wrong.
3. The Phallic cult is found only in Ingushetia. There has not been a single work that has mentioned a Chechen village worshiping phallic stones. You are more than free to bring up evidence proving the existence of such a cult. The sources you use, Brockhaus and Efron, both say that the Ingush are Chechens. Here is the quote in English: "Chechens are a Caucasian people of the East Mountain group, who occupied the territory between the rivers Aksay, Sunzha and the Caucasus Range before the war. Now they live mixed with Russians and Kumyks in the Terek region, east of the Ossetians, between the Terek and the southern border of the region, from the Darial to the source of the Aktash River. The Sunzha River divides the extremely fertile country of the Chechens into two parts: Greater Chechnya (high) and Lesser (lower). In addition to the Chechens themselves (in the Grozny district), divided into several different tribes, they include: Kists (along the gorges of Makaldon and Argun), Ingush (see), Galgai, Karabulaks (along Assa and Sunzha; the most hostile tribe to us, who completely evicted to Turkey) and Ichkerinians (in the Vedeno district)... The name Chechens originates from the name of the village of Bolshoy Chechen (on the Argun), which once served as the central point for all meetings at which military plans against Russia were discussed. The Chechens themselves call themselves Nakhchi (people, people)." It clearly says "Galgai are Chechens and they call themselves Nakhchi (which means people)". As for Azamat Arzanukaev, he is not professional historian and his influence is tiny compared to Buzurtanov. Besides that, if Azamat truly believes Chechnya had phallic cults then he should provide evidence, which he has not. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could you tell me which source says that "based on historical development of the area indicates it might be a composition of the words kha and khal, which directly translated means three cities"? "Ghalgha" is most often associated with the term "Ghala" - tower, fortress, and accordingly, is translated as the builder/inhabitant of the tower/fortress.

2. "The ancestors of the Ingush people have been historically mentioned under many different names, such as Dzurdzuks, Kists or Ghlighvi,[10][11] although none of them was used as an ethnonym", this is also false, they were used as ethnonym for Ingushes, I don't know where this is coming from.

3. Why is so much attention paid to phallic cult that was found only in two villages? It deceives the reader into thinking that it was widespread among the Ingushes, when it wasn't. The phallic statue image should be replaced with a image of Ingush Mosque, Borga-Kash, Tkhabaya-Yerdy or Myatseli which fit better than the phallic statue. This whole article looks like it was written by a person who had alot of hate against the Ingush people. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Just the same, Strabo, speaking of Gela, had in mind exactly Ghalghay, this is evidenced by their location and place of residence. No matter how you deny it, the ethnonym "Ghalghay" is the oldest ethnonym and name that covered many Vainakh societies.

2. Laudaev's works are anti-scientific and do not withstand any criticism, Laudaev contradicts what he himself writes in his work. The crazyness of the situation lies in the fact that the Nazranians, who allegedly "reluctantly called themselves Nakhchi", laughed at the Chechens on the plane who called themselves the same ethnonym, it is obvious that Laudaev is simply lying and giving false information. There are many more authoritative works about the fact that the Ingush called themselves Ghalghay, the same Berger wrote that according to legend, the ancestor of the Chechens "Nakhchi" comes from "Galgaevtsy", such as Gorepkin, or the same Yakovlev.

3. You deny the obvious, I gave you information that the phallic cult of the Chechens differed to a greater extent from the Ingush, in the case of the Chechens, even men worshiped this statue, and I gave evidence of this. Azamat Arzunukaev at some time was a very respectful person among the Chechens, but after his statement, the Chechens immediately rejected him, Buzuratnov is no authority among the Ingush, you should not invent myths.

Now it's time to end this discussion, you're running around till the end, now let the admins consider the proposal to fully process this article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1.1. The Shahar those teyps belong to is called Khamkhinsky, Galgaevsky and Kkhakkhalinsky. "Ghalgha" coming from tower, fortress is according to folklore, as it is also mentioned in the article. However, the actual term for "tower, fortress" is VӀav/VӀov, similar to the Chechen BӀav/BӀov (see fortress VӀovnushki in Ingushetia).
1.2. Can you provide evidence that Strabo was talking about the ancestors of the Ingush when he spoke about the Gela?
2.1. Those terms were not used as ethnonyms but as endonyms. The ancestors of the Ingush did not call themselves "Dzurdzuks, Kists or Ghlighvi". They called themselves by their teyp and broadly "Nakhchi". I wonder, where do you think the term Vainakh derives from? It literally has "NAKH" in it.
2.2. I have already replied to this several times in my previous answers; see above.
3.1. You are more than welcome to add pictures and information about "Ingush Mosque, Borga-Kash, Tkhabaya-Yerdy or Myatseli", as long as it is historically accurate and not based on rather weak folklore and legends, without removing the Phallic cult of Ingush pagan beliefs.
3.2. You are repeating yourself. I have already replied to that above.
I am running around till the end by debating with you and being neutral? I would appreciate it if you kept it civil. Thank you. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Better study the authentic history, and not the fairy tales of Laudaev, the Khamkha shakhar is the Galgaev shakhar (society), like many other shakhars. Unlike the Chechens, the Ingush have different names, it depended on the tower itself, the Ingush fighting towers are called “V1ov” (Vovnushki), and the residential towers Ghala (Tower) - from which the Ingush self-name comes.

1.1 It is possible that the ethnonym “gargarei” (“gargars”) is associated with the tribes of the Koban culture, which is mentioned by the ancient Greek geographer Strabo in his “Geography” (1st century AD) as a North Caucasian people living next to the Amazons. Some authors, linking it with the Ingush term "gargara". Another ethnonym mentioned by Strabo is “gels” (“gelai”), a number of scientists also identified with the Ingush (Galgai).

2. The Kistins and Dzurdzuks of the Ingush were called by their centuries-old neighbors - the Georgians, but the ethnonym "Gligva" (which the Georgians called the Ingush) is a distortion from the Ingush self-name "Galgay" and this is an indisputable fact. There is nothing to say about “Nakhchi”, this name has nothing to do with the word “Nakh”, even Chechen historians themselves, Suleymanov’s type - they wrote that the word “nakh” (people) has nothing to do with the word “nakhchi”, this name applied only to one flat Chechen society in the area called “nakhchi mokhk”, there is not a single evidence (except for Laudaev’s false information) where the Ingush would call themselves “Nakhchi”, the Ingush were called so only by Russian military leaders and ethnographers who did this for the convenience of conquering and managing the Caucasus, the same is true with the Dagestan peoples, who were united under the name “Lezgin”, like Karachaevtsev and The Balkars were called "Circassians", but all these peoples did not call themselves that, just as the Ingush do not consider themselves Chechens.

3. Even your colleague Tovbalotov writes that exhibiting such a photo of a “phalic statue” is unacceptable, and it should be removed, and the very information about the phallic cult should also be deleted, this article is not appropriate, and this has nothing to do with the entire Ingush people. The Ingush professed Christianity, then Islam, this is what the section about the "religion of the Ingush" should be based on.

I think it makes no sense to continue the dispute, it has already been proven that the article should be revised. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Unfortunately "authentic history" means to you nothing but your own opinion. You can't delete theories that don't fit your narrative and add the ones you prefer. The original text gave all major theories on the origin of the endonym Ghalghaj. A source you frequently use, Yakovlev, himself calls the most original Ingush shakhar the "3 towers/villages" society that united other Ingush and gave them their name. This society was called Ghalghaj. The Ingush shahar system doesn't call other shahars "ghalghaj", there is only 1 shahar with that name and synonymous also called Ka-kxal shahar (3 villages).
1.1. I find it mind boggling how you ignore prominent theories such as above and the hundreds of sources that refer to Ingush as Chechen/Nakhchi but somehow there is zero doubt in you when connecting ancient people such as Gargeri/Geli to the Ghalghaj simply based on an extremely unsteady theory by a handful of authors. Laudaev clearly writes down "Ingush sometimes refer to themselves as Nakhchi", Dalgat (source you always use) clearly says "Ingush can also be called Nakhchi", Berger, Uslar and many others also refer to Ingush as Nakhchi but you ignore all of them and instead use a "theory" that suggested Ingush MIGHT be connected to some ancient nation whose name starts with G.
2. Gligva is without a doubt connected to Ghalghaj (Ingush) so it is strange how you claim the Kists and Durdzuks when Georgians themselves specify that Gligvi are descendants of Durdzuks and not Durdzuks themselves. Suleymanov is a 20th century historian that theorized and hypothesized, Laudaev, Dalgat and Uslar are historians that directly claim Ingush referred to themselves as Nakhchi. Dalgatm who studied in Ingushetia and recorded Ingush folktales literally says "Ingush can also be referred to as Nakhchi". You only focus on Laudaev, but there are many others who claim this.
3. Tovbulatov has his opinion and I have mine. It should stay since it was part of Ingush paganism, which was practised secretly in parts of Ingushetia just 2 decades ago. The religion of the Ingush today is irrelevant. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I’m just writing referring to logic, and you walk around to the end and try to ascribe to the Ingush a name that they never called themselves. You have been proved many times that Laudaev is a dubious source, since he himself contradicts his words, and he himself wrote in his Work that the ethnonym "Nakhchi" spread only on the flat terrain in Ichkeria, even the Mountain Chechens did not want to have anything in common with the flat Nakhchi people, and the Nazrans (Ingush) just simply laughed at those Chechens who called themselves that, and insulted them by calling them "cheese people". Another Chechen historian, Sulemanov, also wrote about this, who proved that the word "Nakhchi" and "Nakh" (people) are not of the same series, and that these are completely different words. Chechen historians themselves refute this theory, and those who try to deny the cheese origin of the ethnonym "Nakhchi" come up with fairy tales about the fact that this name comes from the name of the Prophet Noah, or they say that this name is translated as "people". In addition, many historians whom you cited in your writings wrote that Ghalghay were the founders of many Vainakh societies (Dalgat wrote about this), and Berger in his work (which many Chechen historians refer to) wrote from the word of two authoritative Chechens named Zaur and Magomed , cited a legend about the legendary ancestor of the Chechens "Nakhchi" who was born among the Ghalghay (Ingush) and was considered this very Ghalgha (Ingush), and that the Chechens themselves descended from him.

Source: "Chechnya and Chechens, A.P. Berzhe, Tiflis, 1859, on page 125."

In addition, I have already given you a source where it is written that the Ingush call themselves Ghalghay, this was recorded from the words of the Ingush themselves. By the way, Gorepkin and Yakovlev directly wrote that the Chechens are descended from the Ingush, why do these sources not let into the article about the Chechens, but such an obvious lie about the Ingush passes? They began to call the Ingush Chechens only after Russia came to the Caucasus, just as the Dagestanis were called Lezgins, and the Karachays and Balkars were called Circassians.

2. I am not ignoring anything, I just cited quotes and texts that are not convenient for you from the works of these authors, which you completely ignore. How could the Gligvs come from an ethnonym?) Do you understand what you are writing? The Georgians called the Ingush differently, Dzurdzuks, Gligvs and Kistins were considered one people, then that the Gligvs descended from the Dzurdzuks is only one theory out of thousands of others who claim that the Dzurdzuks and Gligvs were the names by which their ancestors were called, and the Chechens were called "Chachans" who were attributed to Dagestan, read Geography of Georgia by Vakhushti Bagrationi.

3. For that matter, why don't you write about this phallic cult in an article about Chechens? It doesn't work for you, of course. It is confirmed that there were only 2 phallic statues, in two Ingush villages, nowhere else is there a trace of a phallic cult in Ingushetia. What does "today's Ingush faith has nothing in common" mean? It's not for you to decide for sure! According to the religious beliefs of the Ingush, and indeed of any Muslim, it is unacceptable and offensive to post such photographs of a stone male organ in an article about the Muslim people! And it is obvious that you are doing this on purpose, but I am not going to blame anyone.

There is nothing more to say here, it is better to process the article under the Russian version of the article about the Ingush, in the Russian article there are about 131 sources, and it has been verified by experienced users. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Laudaev, Dalgat, Berger and many others aren't dubious sources just because you want them to be. If Laudaev was the only person that referred to Ingush as Nakhchi then I wouldn't use him as my source. I have told you already several times before, Laudaev claimed Nakhchi term was not native to Ingush or Highland Chechens. In his opinion (emphasis on opinion) the term Nakhchi spread from there lowlands. During his time he claimed Ingush don't like to call themselves Nakhchi but do it when they meet their Shotoy cousins. Laudaev does not contradict himself in this regard. Other authors claim Ingush refer to themselves as Nakhchi too, with Dalgat being one of the most important, who directly said that Ingush can be classified as Nakhchi.
Why are you even bringing up Suleymanov? hHe was hypothesizing on the etymology of Nakhchi, historians and linguists are allowed to have different opinions on the etymology of a term. Your generalizations as "Chechen historians themselves refute this theory" wont work because most agree with the "people" term. Dalgat says Ghalghay were the founders of many Vainakh societies? So what? They clearly were the founders of the Angusht society, which make up a big part of the Ingush nation today, but how is that related to the conversation? Berger recorded the story of 2 men saying that the ancestor of Chechens was an Arab that married a Ghalghai woman and became famous among the Ghalghai. Does this turn into a valid theory? No, it's fictional, a folk tale. Berger wrote down another folk tale where the hero "Turpal Nakhcho" was the founder of all Chechens and Ingush. We are using such folk tales as sources on Wikipedia. Or else I will have to mention the folk tale about Ingush descending from Armenians and many other fictional stories, as you are doing in most of your articles so far and have rightfully been criticised for it. Wikipedia is neutral and not a random amateurish blog where we cherrypick folk tales that fit our narrative and accept them as the truth. We are talking about historians and their research about etymologies and their spread among the Vainakh
Gorepkin theorized that Chechens came from Ingush but how does he prove it? I am not familiar with Yakovlev saying that, but if he did, where is his proof? Strawman argument, assuming nation X originates from nation Y is not comparable to nation X using the same ethnonym as nation Y, especially when said ethnonym is still used by both nations up to this day, just slightly modified. Did Gorepkin or Yakovlev refer to Chechens as Ghalghak? Did they record an incidence where they referred to themselves as Ghalghaj? No, no they didn't. The opposite happened with Ingush and Nakhchi, we shouldn't ignore it just because it makes you feel uncomfortable and it doesn't fir your narrative
2. How could Gligvs come from an ethnonym? You yourself said that Gligvs is from "Ghalghaj", is Ghalghaj not the ethnonym of Ingush? Why are the Ghalghaj being mentioned as a small tribe within a larger nation (Durdzuks)? I have read Vakhushti's work, nowhere did Vakhushti claim Durdzuk is Ingush or Ghalghaj. In fact, the only time Vakhushti mentioned Ingush was when he said Gligva live near Angusht. What theory are you talking about? You are jumping left and right here. Vakhushti himself said that Gligva (Gligos) is a descendant of Durdzuk, the same Gligva that live in Angusht. He also claimed that the Durdzuks live near the Aragvi river which is Argun river that is the center of Chechen highlands. Clearly he referred to part of Chechens as Durdzuks, so if Gligva aka Ghalghaj (ethnonym of modern Ingush) lived near Angusht (aka the village where the name Ingushetia came from) and were descendants of Durdzuk (a people which he claims lived near Aragvi river which is not in Angusht) then how can you claim Durdzuk or Kist is exclusive for Ingush. As for the term Chachan, in 1600s-1700s Chachan/Chechen was mainly referring to a certain town of Chechens, which only later spread to all Chechens and even Ingush. Vakhushti wasn't all knowing and had mistakes as well, for example he referred to the Tsova-Batsbi as Tush and didn't refer to them as Kist/Durdzuk when they were clearly a Nakh people.
3. I have asked for evidence of a phallic cult in a Chechen village or town. I have asked you that several times already. There is none. The only sources that refer to Chechens having phallic cults are sources where they refer to all Vainakh people as Chechens, that includes the Ingush. When we speak about Ingush phallic cults we can pinpoint locations, time and so on. If you find it offensive to post about ancient Ingush beliefs in a section that mentions pre-Islamic beliefs of the Ingush, then that is on you. You might have a problem with the neutrality of Wikipedia.
At this point I am not sure anymore if you want to have an honest debate to find consensus or are just trying to say something for the sake of saying something. I do not appreciate you removing the discussed content during a dispute like this. Please refrain from doing so. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Maybe it's time for you not to attribute words that do not belong to me? I said that specifically one Laudaev is a non-authoritative source, and I actually proved it, because Laudaev contradicts himself, besides, Laudaev himself is a Chechen by nationality, and it is obvious that it is beneficial for him to write such nonsense about the fact that - "The Ingush called themselves Nakhchi", given the fact that there is no mention of this anywhere else, and the fact that in an earlier work the Ingush themselves said that they call themselves "Ghalghay", casts further doubt on the accuracy of Laudaev's words. These authors whom you cite (Dalgat, Berge) wrote that the Ingush are classified as Chechens (Nakhchi) just to make it easier to study the Caucasus, none of them wrote that it was the INGUSH who called themselves by this name (except for the non-authoritative and dubious Laudaev), like me wrote above, this method of simply studying the Caucasus was also used over other Caucasian peoples, that is, the Dagestanis were called Lezgins, and the Karachays and Balkars were called Circassians. In addition, it is incorrect to use excerpts in articles about the Ingush that unify the ethnic difference between the Ingush and Chechens under the common ethnonym of the latter.

Not only Sulemanov wrote that the ethnonym "Nakhchi" comes from the Vainakh name for cheese, again, the same Laudaev wrote about this:

. In Chechen, he calls cheese “nakhchi”, the word is in the plural “nakhchi”, this is where the popular name “nakhchoy” comes from, that is, “people abounding in cheese”

Source: «Сборник Сведений о Кавказских горцах. выпуск Vl. Тифлис. 1872 год.»

In favor of Laudaev's version, the Chechens, speaking about this, really called themselves "cheesy" and the fact that they abounded with cheese, the famous Chechen linguist, and part-time historian - I.Yu. Aliroev, spoke out:

"In the 17th century, the Chechens established close trade and military ties with the Kumyks... In exchange for cheese, wool, sheep, the Chechens could get salt, iron, spices, and other goods from the Kumyks..."

Source: «Язык, история, и культура Вайнахов. И.Ю.Алироев».

Also, another Chechen historian, Shavlaeva Tamara Magomedovna, wrote about the cheese origin of the name "Nakhchi":

“Nakhchi” is a curd mass, a product obtained through an internal process in the container where the milk was poured... “Nakhchi” is the same curd mass, but obtained by introducing a stimulant from outside, from the outside.

Source: «Шавлаева Тамара Магомедовна. Из истории развития шерстяного промысла чеченцев в XlX - в начале XX в. Автореферат.»

I have already cited Sulemanov, as you can see, more theories and facts indicate that the ethnonym "Nakhchi" comes from cheese, and is in no way connected with the word "people"

Just the same, Dalgat wrote that many Chechen teips have their origin from Ghalghay, here we are not only talking about Angushta. Berger recorded this story from the words of the CHECHENS in the first place, this at least leads us to the idea that the Chechens do not deny their origin from the Ghalghay (Ingush). Fiction and a fairy tale are the words of Laudaev at the expense of the Nazrans, because Laudaev did not even give a single example or name in his work, not a single Ingush who could call himself "Nakhchi". Gorepkin and Yakovlev did not just assume, and directly stated this, they studied in detail the Caucasian peoples, and in particular the Ingush and Chechens, the words of the same Yakovlev that the Chechens were formed as a people due to mixing with newcomers, were confirmed by many Chechen historians, such as Nataev.

2. Gligva is a distortion from the self-name of the Ingush "Galgay", and "Dzurdzuki" is the Georgian name of the Ingush, like the name "Kists". I am trying to explain to you that in the scientific literature there are authors (authoritative in historical academic science) who localize the ethnonym Dzurdzuki precisely in Ingushetia. Initially, before starting to edit the article, I read the sources. So, here is a group of sources that clearly localize the Dzurdzuks in mountainous Ingushetia and identify them only with the Ingush: Julius von Klaproth, Eremyan, Genko, Volkova, Sotavov, Meyer. Moreover, Volkova herself points to the first two.

Proceedings:

1.Julius Heinrich Klaproth. Reise in den Kaukasus und nach Georgien unter nommen in den Jahren 1807 und 1808. Bd. 1. (нем.). — Halle und Berlin, 1812.

2.Генко А. Н. Из культурного прошлого ингушей // Записки коллегии востоковедов при Азиатском музее АН СССР. — Л., 1930. — Т. V. — С. 681—761.

3.Волкова Н. Г. Этнонимы и племенные названия Северного Кавказа / Ответ. ред. Л. И. Лавров. — АН СССР. Ин-т этнографии им. Н. Н. Миклухо-Маклая. — М.: Наука (ГРВЛ), 1973. — 206 [2] с. — 1600 экз.

4.Еремян С. Т. Торговые пути Закавказья в эпоху Сасанидов. По Tabula Peutingiriana // ВДИ. № 1. — М., 1939.

5.Сотавов Н. А., Мейер М. С. Северный Кавказ в русско-иранских и русско-турецких отношениях в XVIII в. — М.: Наука, 1991. — 221 с.

Contrary to what you think, I am not trying, as you put it, to nationalize the Dzurdzuks. Even if there was a desire, it would not work, because, according to some authoritative authors, the term dzurdzuki is related to both the Ingush and the Chechens at the same time. Which was what I left in the article in my neutral version. At the same time, if there is evidence in the scientific literature that the Dzurdzuks are localized precisely in Ingushetia, then this can and should be indicated, since this corresponds to the tasks of Wikipedia. But it was Vakhushti who attributed the Dzurdzuks only to the Ingush, and the Chechens to the same "chachans" who were part of Dagestan.

3. Aren't you tired of repeating the same thing over and over? You did not cite a single source for the entire discussion, and did not provide evidence that from the sources where it is indicated about the phallic cult among the Chechens, it is about the fact that the Ingush allegedly descend from the Chechens. The Chechens had a phallic cult, and this is a fact. He even recovered from the phallic cult of the Ingush, because among the Chechens, not only women, but also men worshiped the statues. Yes, writing this in this article is an insult not only for me, but for many Muslims! This version of the article is not neutral and needs to be changed. I will ask the admins to allow me to correct the article, and make it similar to the Russian version of this article, it has been verified by experienced users. You do not appreciate that I remove your falsification? So you yourself canceled the edits of the experienced user "Kavkas", and attributed to him accusations in which he was not implicated. In short, drawing conclusions from the discussion, it seems that you have not given a single proof, and you repeat the same thing all the time.

Hello Bbb23 and TimothyBlue, we have a dispute here so could you take a look at this? Thank you. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. If it was beneficial for Laudaev to write down his observation, why would he mention that he himself believes that the term was not native to the Ingush and highland Chechens and was spread there from the lowland Chechens? He wrote down what he saw and added his own theory on the origin of it. "given the fact that there is no mention of this anywhere else" is simply wrong, or are you going to completely disregard the countless of other documents mentioning this? You are aware, that the Ingush could call themselves Ghalghaj and Nakhchi, right? It does not contradict each other. Ingush and Chechens call themselves Vainakh and Ghalghaj/Nokhchi today as well. Now where is the contradiction? So you are telling me researchers such as Dalgat and Berger, who either lived among the Ingush and/or published detailed work on the Nakh people, who were able to distinguish the several subgroups of the Ingush and Chechens, referred to the Chechens and Ingush as "Nakhche" solely to simplify their detailed work they dedicated countless of years for? Besides that, Dalgat does indeed say that the term "is very often applied to themselves by the Ingush themselves" in his work "Родовой быт и обычное право чеченцев и ингушей".
I have already addressed Laudaevs theory regarding "Nakhchi" coming from cheese above:
Laudaev theorizing that the Nazranians possibly mocked Chechens with the word "cheese" doesn't dissent his earlier claim that "Nazranians reluctantly called themselves Nakhchi" . According to his observation, tehy didn't call themselves so because of hostilities with Chechens. They called themselves "Nakhchi" because they didn't have a unifying term for each other (there was no such term as Vainakh used to determine nation) when they met one of their closest tribes (the Shatoy).
A handful of researchers theorizing that Nakhchi possibly might have it's root in the word cheese doesn't make it a valid theory. In fact, the absolute majority of them agree on that the term comes from Nakh and chi, Nakh meaning people and chi turning it into plural form, proving that the theory about cheese makes linguistically absolutely no sense.
Dalgat claiming that some Chechen teips originate from the Ghalghaj, is completely unrelated to the discussion, all of this is means nothing when Dalgat literally said that Ingush can be classified as Nakhchi and that they applied the name to themselves. This is a historian who studied Ingushetia and its teips, he's not some random guy. Yakovlev and Gorepkin disagreeing with Ingush being Nakhchi doesn't mean that many, if not most historians from this period, didn't refer to the Ingush as Nakhchi, it simply means that they thought otherwise. Berger recorded a folk tale. There are thousands of folk tales that speak of a Kalmyk origin, Arab origin and so on. These exist even among Ingush historians, such as Dakhkilgov talk of the Ingush founder being Armenian. Yakovlev talks about a folk tale where the founder is an Arab. Do you not understand why I'm not putting much weight on these folk tales? Berger also mentions a story where Turpal Nakhcho is the founder of all Vainakhs. Berger mentioning one story of 2 guys who talk about their founder being Arab who married an Ingush woman and became part of the society doesn't mean that you can cast aside Bergers claim that all Ingush are referred to as Nakhchi. Please lets refrain from starting the "intermixed newcomers" stories, there are plenty that refer to Ingush as a mixed tribe, many Ingush such as the aforementioned Dakhkilgov also claims this. Akhriev also wrote down teip histories where you have Persian origins of teips, Chechen and others. We can start a contest on who has more of these silly tales but it has nothing to do with our argument.
2. I agree, Gligva is a distortion of "Ghalghaj", while the origin of Dzurdzuki is uncertain.
  1. Klaproth does not mention the Dzurdzuks at all. He talks on page 643 and 644 about Strabo and his localisation of the Amazonian tribe and actually disagrees with Strabo, saying how the similarity of the names does not prove anything and that the reek of the river he observed is only a few centuries old and can't be the river Strabo was talking about.
  2. Genko claims in his work, that the selfname Ghalgha is of Arabic origin and derived to the Ingush through the Ossetians. He also claims, that the Ingush language is a dialect of the Chechen language. Then he theorizes on the location of the gate of Dzurdzuketi mentioned in the chronicle Conversion of Kartli, which he believes was located on the Assinskoe gorge. He does not localize the ethnonym Dzurdzuki precisely in Ingushetia.
  3. Volkova lists "Kist" and "Dzurdzuk" as a name for both Chechens and Ingush in that book, see page 135 and 179.
  4. I sadly can't find Eremyans book. Can you provide me with the content of said book?
  5. Page 221 and page 207 (the page given on the Russian Wikipedia article about Dzurdzuks, which is where you copied these 5 sources from) are both notes.
I wonder why you didn't bring up the other 10 sources given in the Russian article on Dzurdzuks, must be because they support my side in this.
3. You never directly asked for sources and seemingly you were familiar with everything I have said, including the theses of countless of respectable researchers. Nowhere in the article it is claimed that the "Ingush allegedly descend from the Chechens". Please remain neutral. The state of this article in the Russian Wikipedia is not a good example. Fictional theories about Ghalghaj being connected to Sumer and so on are given. Kavkas was a vandaliser and the admins should definetaly look into your connection to him. You yourself enjoy promoting such dubious tales, several articles of yours were rightfully deleted because you used sources way below the standard of Wikipedia. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Gavriel I don't know who posted this image. I would remove the photo of an idol in an article on religion, such photos cannot be exhibited. In the period of early Islam, the struggle was primarily with idols.--Товболатов (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEditor1234567123 According to the figurines, you need to ask these questions to the Scythians and Sarmatians, they date back to this period.--Товболатов (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goddard2000 could you read the discussion we had and give your opinion on the matter? Thanks! Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why wikieditor has an issue with the term "Nakhchi" being mentioned, it was a prominent term used for Ingush. He could post the sources which claim Ingush never called themselves Nakhchi in the article too so its fair. I don't want to get into another discussion so i'll just end it with that i don't support the pagan picture in here, it's unnecessary. If you want to mention the cult so badly then mention it in the Pagan section in a line of text but in my opinion it's unnecessary. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard2000 I'm saying that Ingushes never called themselves Nakhchi but even if we don't agree with you on that, it's fine. But Reiner Gavriel putting an image of male organ statue in article about Ingush people? Even his colleague Tovbolatov commented on that and had same opinion like you have. It's very clear to me that he wants to make fun of Ingush people and I think you know that too. That image and the mention of Phallic statues should be removed. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way you describe it makes it look so soiled. Maybe we can find a middleground. I like @Goddard2000s proposal, removing the picture but keeping the information in the text about pagan beliefs of the Ingush before the conversion to Islam. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text about Phallic cult will remain only on the compromise that it will be added to the Chechens page too, otherwise I don't want it here, it's unnecessary. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ingush are a people of the Chechen tribe inhabiting the central and southern parts of the Sunzha department (the former Ingush district) of the Terek region. and got its name from the large, now defunct aul Angusht or Ingush in the Tara Valley; I. call themselves lamour. I. break up into Dzherahovtsy, Kistins (Kists), Gal (a) Gaevtsy, Nazranians and Galashevtsy, according to the name of the villages, valleys, mountains or rivers on which they live; the transfer of rural administrations from one aul to another sometimes entailed a change in the name of the society.[1]

References

  1. ^ ""Ingush - Encyclopedia, Brockhaus-Efron"". gatchina3000.ru. Retrieved 2023-02-16.

Population[edit]

Hello, @WikiEditor1234567123:. I'd abstain from using that source considering the fact that the author makes a very dubious claim about Ingush being 200,000 individuals in the European union alone, not to mention the 350,000 in ME which I find highly unlikely. This raises questions regarding the reliability of the source. What research is she using and where did she get this demographic? Actual RS estimate that there is around 200,000 Russian-origin muslims in Europe, of which 130,000 are Chechens. The demographic you are citing is an unbelievably high number.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albogachieva is an authoritative scientist, other scientists refer to her, she has many scientific publications in reputable publications. The work "Islam in Ingushetia" came out under the patronage of a serious well-known (in the World) scientific institution "Russian Academy of Sciences". The source is reliable and there's no debate about that, if you have reliable sources that mention other estimates of Ingush population, then we can add them alongside Albogachieva source. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnonym "Loamaro"[edit]

Assalamu aleikum @WikiEditor1234567123, I've removed "Loamaro" from the enthnonym section as it is not longer used today, however I've just noticed that the article does not mention this ethnonym elsewhere, although it is still relevant, I am still unsure if it should stay in the section? What do you think? Muqale (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wa alaikum assalam. Even if the ethnonym isn't used anymore, we can mention that it was an historical ethnonym. It deserves a place in the section, but I will try to make it happen later. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then perhaps, it is sifgnificant to have it. My first tought was to not make this section unnecessarily long, because it should give first time readers more clear information about the Ingush people, too many ethnonyms can be confusing. Muqale (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ingush_people&oldid=1207716784"