Talk:Ingush Independence Committee

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

Sources[edit]

Hello @Alaexis. You're an experienced user on the whole Caucasus-related topics and have good knowledge of the Russian sources. Do you think Kavkaz.Realii is a RS on this matter? What about the Ingush Fortanga? Overall, do you have an idea, which RS news could contain some information about this committee? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kavkaz.realii is a project of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL). While they are funded by the US government and may be biased, I think that they are reliable for basic facts. I see no problem with the sentence that is based on their article.
Regarding fortanga.org, there is no "About Us", editorial policy or names of editors on their site. Memorial calls them an Ingush opposition news portal, so they are likely to have a political agenda. Another source used in the article, oc-media.org admit they get most of they funding from the National Endowment for Democracy and the like.
In general, I think the problem with the article is that there are very few facts about the Ingush Independence Committee and a lot of claims made by their representatives. To take this article as an example, it consists almost entirely of IIC press secretary's statements. Alaexis¿question? 07:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information with no sources.[edit]

There are no sources for lines like:

"The committee does not claim to be a political party and doesn't have a specific ideology, it seeks to unite all Ingush people who support an independent state."

"Despite that, many of the members have made comments about religion and traditionalism, saying that Ingushetia will stay a Muslim republic that follows traditions, the ILA also uses Shahada as its symbol."

"The Ingush Independence Committee was created due to the constant oppression of the Ingush people by Russia, against which the Ingush are fighting for hundreds of years."

This reads as completely original research unsuitable for Wikipedia. 65.93.59.71 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that the unsourced lines have been removed but the YouTube link in reference 2 of the article should be replaced with a better source. 65.93.59.71 (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]