Talk:Russia ends "counter terrorism operation" in Chechnya

NPOV
A "counter terrorism operation" is what Russia calls it. There are certainly more views on the operations in Chechnya. While we can use "counter terrorism operation" we should also say what Chechnya called it. --SVTCobra 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions? It seems hard to find a "general" Chechen expression for it, because there are lots of "official statements" of the local president (and probably somewhere not so obvious inofficial ones by (some) Chechen inhabitants). --Angela H. (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia calls it the Second Chechen War and also mentions it as the War in the North Caucasus. --SVTCobra 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe, it's because of the more or less strict rule in de.wn that I thought one should not "quote" Wikipedia. I can, of course, use Wikipedia as a source for background information. --Angela H. (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Using a term from Wikipedia such as "Second Chechen War" is not quoting Wikipedia. The reason for the ban on copying from Wikipedia on both en.wn and de.wn is because of incompatible licenses. --SVTCobra 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, as a regular contributor to de.wn I know the reason on de.wn is not only the incompatible licenses, but also that articles in de.wp do not require to be fully sourced. At least this has been used in thousands of discussions over there.
 * Well, one could also write "second Chechen war", but I have not found that term it anywhere else in the news headlines. --Angela H. (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think that it is better, maybe you can move it again. --Angela H. (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW: The "Second Chechen War" is mentioned also in the last paragraph (although not exactly with this wording, since the word "war" occurs already in the sentence before it), where the last sentence indicates that there the Russian operation in Chechnya can also be seen as such. --Angela H. (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another question: What's the exact "status" of the article now? Nobody has filled in the form concerning the review, and it is not clear to me what will happen to the article. --Angela H. (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)