This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
The commanders section in the infobox is (and has been for months) almost completely unsourced. It is also listing so many people that it is hard to believe they were all commanding their respective sides. I'll remove all unsourced names soonish. -- Xeeron ( talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In US media http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26georgia.html
In Georgian media http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20026 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.188.120 ( talk) 10:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's be reasonable about this. Here's the WaPost:
Thursday, Aug. 7
On the morning of Aug. 7, after a night of Ossetian artillery fire, GEORGIAN SOURCE said, he traveled to Tskhinvali for a meeting with the separatists that the Russians had convened at a Russian peacekeeping base. "Nobody was in the streets -- no cars, no people," he said in a conference call with reporters Aug. 14. "We met the general of the Russian peacekeepers, and he said that the separatists were not answering the phone." GEORGIAN SOURCE left.
Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to GEORGIAN SOURCE.
The controversy is over whether the material in italics is more GEORGIAN SOURCE material or whether it is original Washington Post on the scene neutral reporting. Well, does anyone contend that Washington Post reporters were on the scene, observing Osettian artillery fire? Let's be serious, this is just a lazy reporter not adding, one more time, 'ACCORDING TO GEORGIAN SOURCE'. We all know this, and writing it up any other way is biased. Haberstr ( talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Georgian media cite the interview published by the Georgian daily, Rezonansi, on November 29.
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20046
"Bitsadze, who resigned from the post of chief of Border Police on October 29, has also claimed that the decision to launch the war was taken by President Saakashvili and his inner circle consisting of small group of influential figures, including Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili; Justice Minister Zurab Adeishvili, Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria; Secretary of the National Security Council Alexandre Lomaia and Tbilisi Mayor Gigi Ugulava."
The standard within Wikipedia was to refer to countries like South Ossetia and Abkhazia as De Facto Independent Republics hence I am changing it to such. Breakaway Republics might be OK as well however they are not simply regions. Regions generally do not have a military and a constitution, South Ossetia and Abkhazia do hence they are republics. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Calling them separatist republics is POV unless you call Georgia separatist as well because these republics separated from Georgia around the same time that Georgia separated from the Soviet Union. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 03:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This source is being repeatedly inserted and the material their is used to contradict known expert David Marshall Lang. I see Dansk as a questionable source in terms of reliability judging by the board. It lists people with Masters degrees none of them caucasusians studies, one PhD in slavic languages and people without any other credentials other than they have "travelled the region". Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
South Ossetian troops had fired on civilian Georgian villages, Orlov said, including an enclave of ethnic Georgians living inside separatist-controlled South Ossetia, north of Tskhinvali. Additionally, South Ossetian troops had opened fire from the Tskhinvali HQ of Russia's peacekeeping force, Orlov added.
"It's important to find out who was the aggressor. But the answer isn't straightforward," said Orlov, who spent two weeks in South Ossetia and Georgia investigating the conflict.
"Of course, Georgia's armed forces started a full-scale military operation. But the previous politics of Russia provoked Georgia to do this."
"This doesn't excuse Mikheil Saakashvili [the Georgian president]. But Russian peacekeepers didn't do their job properly. We know the Russian side gave arms to the Ossetians and that they used them to fire towards Georgia from Russian peacekeeping positions well before August 7."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/russia-georgia-war Grey Fox ( talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose to split the discussion about responsibility as well as all other mutual accusations and allegations. One possibility is to add it to the background article.( Igny ( talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC))
The above unsourced phrase was added in to replace what was taken directly from the source "of world-record-breaking spending on the military". I have added a fact tag, please add a source. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please check out this article and corelate the wiki page with it: The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm 28 October 2008 Peer-LAN ( talk) 05:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's rather unbiased, which is surprising coming from BBC, but I don't argue against facts (which really helps in winning arguments) and the article is grounded in facts. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August.
Eyewitnesses have described how its tanks fired directly into an apartment block, and how civilians were shot at as they tried to escape the fighting.
Research by the international investigative organisation Human Rights Watch also points to indiscriminate use of force by the Georgian military, and the possible deliberate targeting of civilians.
Indiscriminate use of force is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and serious violations are considered to be war crimes.
The allegations are now raising concerns among Georgia's supporters in the West.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has told the BBC the attack on South Ossetia was "reckless".
He said he had raised the issue of possible Georgian war crimes with the government in Tbilisi."
I think that should be correlated with the NY Times Article and our Wiki Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricWarrior007 ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a new article for The Times with important data that should be integrated in the wiki page: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5114401.ece "Georgia fired first shot, say UK monitors" Peer-LAN ( talk) 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The NY Times Article "Georgia Offers Fresh Evidence on War’s Start" is being used in this article to claim that the events during August 7 remain a matter of debate and controversy however this is a fringe theory. Nothing in that NY times article shows any evidence that Russia was planning to attack Georgia. You would have to make a leap that the Russian forces going through the Roki Tunnel weren't simply replacements to the ones already in South Ossetia, then you would have to make another leap that these forces were about to attack Georgia, then you would have to make another leap that Saakashvili and his advisors saw all this and made a pre-emptive strike. All of that is contradicted in the spiegel article.The article needs to clearly reflect that Georgia tried to extend the Georgian constitution into South Ossetia and Russia prevented it from happening. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Whats this about T-80s and T-90s being spotted? Utterly false, no info to support this at all, they must have mistakn T-72B with Kontakt-5 ERA for T-90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.254.140 ( talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Washington post hardly is a 100% accurate source on the matter (In general, Western News sources were miserable in their coverage, especially in the beggining). No T-80s are even deployed in the Kavkaz theater, not to mention T-90s. It would make little sense that a few were shipped to Ossetia (considering the urgency of the deployment units), and it would make even less sense that the Post somehow knew about it. No photographic evidence exists either. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.10.122.225 (
talk)
23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
For the casualty number for South Ossetia, there needs to be some form of citation. Where was this "estimate" found anyway?
Secondly, the Russian casualties should be 51 dead:
Here is a link for a list of individuals killed. http://www.army.lv/?s=2550&id=4146
I think casualties should simply be put as "unknown" since casualty numbers provided by either side cannot be confirmed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.62.73.52 (
talk)
11:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I find it amusing how the Russian figures keep going down. Perhaps we should put up the Georgian estimate on the subject, it's probably a closer reflection of reality than whatever lies the Russians are putting out this week. Does anyone here seriously believe the (wildly fluctuating) Russian figures are based in reality? 66.66.154.162 ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The so called "official" statet numbers of casulties is redicilous. The losses amongst the russian army are much higher. I can definitly confirm that. I know what I am talking about. It is insane, that small number of fallen russian stated here, that is insane, what the Kremlin tries to make. Soon or later real numbers will appear, but I have the same opinion. Casulties should be written as "unknown" for the russian army. We lost more. My uncle ,who at least is a lieutenant was ordered in the near of the conflict zone. He said, they fear to have lost more 165 soldiers alone in the outskirts of Tskhinvali after heavy fightings against georgian special forces and it didn't stop until air support. He also added, "those useless guys where qiuckly overwhelmed. We found hundreds of their corpses in the nearby villages". I think he meant Ossetian fighter. Also, the georgians lost more than that few 144 men. Our air force bombed the hell out of them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.46.82 ( talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite everyone to express what they think should be improved in each of the chapters. I think it would be very useful if everyone would express their opinion (concisely) below! Offliner ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with most of the list above, so I'll simply comment on the cases where I don't:
This chapter is still in timeline form, and almost all of it's statements were useful at the time but are obsolete now. I don't think there is that much essential stuff to keep. Offliner ( talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed most of the (in my opinion) obsolete stuff from the chapter, leaving only two statements from HRW and Amnesty. All of the removed stuff can still be found in Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner ( talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should start a separate article about Georgian plan of war itself. Describing timing, goals, giving the information on when did Georgian authorities start planning etc. In light of many speculations that the war itself was started/ provoked by Russians, one should know, for example, for how long did the Clear Field plan existed, and what was the initial scheme of war, as planned by Georgians. FeelSunny ( talk) 09:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the line beginning with "In June 1920..." should somehow mention preceding events covered in another article, " Georgian-Ossetian conflict (1918-1920)". On the whole, the article seems quite good and well-balanced, which is a great improvement since the last few months. 83.149.19.70 ( talk) 15:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the former statement:) FeelSunny ( talk) 01:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So far every effort at making the necessary rename has gotten bogged down in ridiculous disputes, but I think now there's a title which doesn't have much for people to object to finally. There is now only one name being used that gets more than a few hundred current articles and that's August War. Since this makes no reference to russia or Georgia there probably won't be any neutrality issues. Whether this ends up being the title of choice or not "August War" is presently a far more suitable title for the article than the one in use now.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
For christ's sake, Devil's Advocate, will you ever rest in peace?? =) Well, actually i wouldn't have objected to "August war", but... honestly, Advocate, it IS not very descriptive. Do you really see so much of a problem in current title as to warrant this change? :: (pre-doom near-apocalyptic hi-tech robotic calm female voice) Warning! Warning! Article rename attempt detected. Attempt Liquidation Teams - advance to your posts. Everyone else - duck and cover - i repeat - DUCK and COVER! =) :: 212.192.164.14 ( talk) 13:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as the current name is 1) in line with what happened (main conflict zone), 2) ferlects numerous sources (next to noone adresses the "August war") and 3) is easy to find. FeelSunny ( talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
South Ossetia was merely the first attack, as there was also Abkhazia which, frankly, was the more serious loss to Tblisi. Even if it wasn't, S. Ossetia is only half the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.36.175 ( talk) 06:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh my goodness. Another rename thread. What're we on, 100 pages now? Let's recap here: most of the fighting occurred on South Ossetian Soil. The Battle of Tskhinvali eclipsed the other battles. Georgia's unprovoked attack was against South Ossetia. It was Georgia's attack on Tskhinvali, on the Russian Base and on the Roki Tunnel which provoked the response. All three were located in South Ossetia. Furthermore, the Second Chechen War involved Dagestan, but I have yet to see anyone complain about that name not mentioning Dagestan. And Xeeron, you and I had a discussion on how the Black Sea incident didn't occur, and now you shift gears and saying it did occur? Your previous quote was that it may have occurred. You don't get to name wars on what may have occurred. As for Georgia losing Abkhazia, isn't the loss of its entire army more damaging to Georgia then the loss of Abkhazia? Not to mention that Georgia lost the Kodori Valley in this war, it lost Abkhazia a while ago. 68.165.18.113 ( talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Gents, would anybody mind if I take a crack at restructuring the "Discussion about responsibility for the war and starting it" section. Right now it's structured around the type of statement source. I think it would be more useful to structure it by what those statements support (or seem to support): Georgia's fault, Russia's fault, or Ossetians' fault. Speaking fish 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaking fish ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone have at least approximate numbers for irregulars (volunteers, mercenaries, etc) involved on both sides? Like, strengh, casualties, etc.?-- SergeiXXX ( talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The section seems too big now. It takes just as much place as the whole August 7 section. While the latter describes the day of the beginning of the conflict, the former is just about two accounts (I agree, they are important) from OSCE monitors and an argue about one of them being or not wrong going on a self-appointed duty. I propose cutting the section's text leaving only main points:
A misinterpretation. All what we have read about was made public after war. None of us has read the original accounts - we know those only filtered - by Grist and journalists. Ryan Grist has obviously spread single pre-selected (by him) "ground reports" (not released by OSCE) over the whole world to support his personal view of the conflict. First we have known from Grist's activities action was end of August (SPIEGEL / WaPo); the topic was "re-imported" by NYT months later. In Dec. 2008 Grist's acting was disputed (partially by himself) and his reputation was generally compromised. To war article belongs minimum: a correct chronology, Grist in NYT, reaction by Georgian government (citing other inofficial accounts), conflict inside OSCE mission (Hakala vs. Grist), WSJ report in Dec. 2008. - Elysander ( talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Imho, since the last time we had one, the article has (again) come a long way and most of it now looks like something I would be happy with as a final version. So, what is still left to do:
Specific stuff:
General stuff:
The sources are maybe the most important part and this should be done before reviewing the language.-- Xeeron ( talk) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Since it seems inevitable that any new name proposal will receive a flood of opposition from anonymous users giving horrible or biased arguments with little if any quality input sufficient to make the change occur I think it is more appropriate that we focus on whether a rename is needed. As per Wikipedia naming conventions for events if there is not a common name for an event then the title should be descriptive. This is the only reasonable argument being given in favor of the current title, but let's look specifically at what needs to be included:
In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors:
- Where the incident happened.
- What happened.
If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, a third descriptor should be added:
- When the incident happened.
The bolded part here is crucial. Those supporting the current title as being appropriately descriptive argue that most of the fighting occurred in South Ossetia as well as most of the deaths. The problem is that the only reason there was not more fighting and death outside of South Ossetia is because the Georgians fled from all other areas. Gori however saw around a dozen deaths among police forces and the naval battle of Abkhazia probably saw some 30 people killed on the Georgian side. There were also two deaths in the Kodori Valley. So even that argument is flawed. The fact is even though most of the actual fighting took place in South Ossetia there was massive military action outside South Ossetia.
Russia and Abkhazia were bombarding the Georgians for days and finally sent in troops. They then sent thousands of troops into Georgia proper from Abkhazia. Their invasion into these territories included the destruction of military equipment, including much of Georgia's navy, and even the capture of soldiers. Ultimately it wasn't really a battle because the Georgian security forces fled from the Russians, but the fact is there was military action being taken against Georgia in these areas involving several times the number of troops in South Ossetia.
All these factors considered the current title simply isn't descriptive enough. The loss of the Kodori Valley was a highly significant development and yet the current title suggests the only significant developments were in South Ossetia. The actions outside South Ossetia were not minor events like the actions from Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan in the ongoing Gaza conflict, but large military operations targeting Georgian military forces outside South Ossetia.
While some argue that the current title is neutral it's clear if you look at past rename discussions that the current title is supported by some pro-Russian users who argue the conflict was about South Ossetia and not Georgia, despite the Russian government being clear that Georgia in general was the target of Russian operations. I for one do not care what new title is chosen as long as it is descriptive and neutral. As long as a new title acknowledges the substantial developments in Western Georgia I won't have a problem.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The title should be changed to Include the developments in Abkhazia. My proposal:
The August War
This is what Russia calls this war, and this title includes all fronts and sides. -- SergeiXXX ( talk) 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but "August war" sounds like the stupidest name possible. What if this year there is another big war in August, say, between Israel and Iran. Then we would have to call our war "2008 August war" and the latter "2009 August war". Perhaps there will be a "2010 August war" as well, and so on. That would be ridiculous! There is no real reason to change the current title: the war began in South Ossetia, South Ossetia was the main battleground. "2008" is the year this happened. Many sources use this term, many use something else, there is still no consensus in the media. There is plently of time to wait for the consensus to arrive, there is no urgent need to change the title before that happens. As a sidenote, Kosovo war is also called "Kosovo war" (main battleground + "war"), although the americans launched bombing raids to all over Yugoslavia, destroying much of the country's infrastructure in the process. Offliner ( talk) 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
What about moving this to Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Article title? Seems to be the right place, but that subpage has fallen into disuse. Still, we should either have the title discussion there instead of here OR remove the template up here on the talk page. Not sure which page would be better, but I am worried by the fact that some previous outspoken opponents of the move have not responded yet. Eventually one might conclude from the lack of opposition that the move has consensus, but it might also be that these people simply missed the new section. -- Xeeron ( talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as the events in Abkhazia hardly drawn .0001 percent as important to most medias as the events in South Ossetia. In Abkhazia there was no war as such, Gerogian army just fled from Kodori george. In SO there were several days of fighting between the SO, Russian and Georgian armies. FeelSunny ( talk) 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The following chapter has been there for ages without anyone updating it. I strongly suspect that the info in it is obsolete, so I decided to remove it. Not much point in keeping obsolete and thus false information in Wikipedia. Here's the text, in case someone wants to post an updated version: Offliner ( talk) 11:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
{{ update}} Russian cable TV stations and websites with addresses ending in .ru have been inaccessible in Georgia since the outbreak of the fighting on August 8, as reported by Reporters Without Borders on September 10, 2008. [1] The Georgian authorities cut all access to Russian TV station broadcasts. [2] [3] [4] Temur Yakobashvili, the minister for reintegration, publicly claimed responsibility the blocking. [1] Georgia’s leading ISP, Caucasus Online, was filtering the Russian domain name “.ru” thereby blocking access to the main Russian-language news websites [2].
Whoa, remove the template, not the very section, mate:)) FeelSunny ( talk) 11:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. See my edit. Offliner ( talk) 12:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to see, from where moskow will gahter 3000 corpses and identify them as georgian soldiers .... It is so silly, Moscow behaves really unprofessional and like a 12 years old amateur. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.196.43.176 (
talk)
07:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Long live the cavalry attacks!!:)) FeelSunny ( talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I expanded the prelude part a bit to include more military buildup accusations by each country. I think this is an important subject, so that the reader knows the war didn't come out of the blue - both countries seem to have made clear preparations. I also added Russian peacekeeper numbers in May, 2008 to "background." The military buildup subject wasn't discussed extensively enough in the earlier version (also the timeline and background articles seem to be lacking in this respect.) My additions could probably use better summary style, though. Offliner ( talk) 11:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
are just plain wrong and do not correspond to the sources.
E.g. the source [6] claims: "The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has reported the number of people displaced by the conflict had reached 158,600". what we find in the article? "Georgia: At least 158,000 civilians displaced[36]"; then "South Ossetia: Displaced from South Ossetia to Russia: Russian estimate, 30,000. РКЦ estimate: 24 000".
How comes? I mean, that's cool word playing in the article, but we all know that UN High Comissioner did not say "displaced Georgian people", right?
Where are other 87 thousands people? (158 000 affected - 56 000 Georgians from Gori - 15,000 Georgians from South Ossetia) = 87 000. Are they just like ghosts or something? There are more of them than those Georgians who left Gori and SO altogether. How is it everybody just forgot about them? Or are they just Ossetians we do not count as victims? FeelSunny ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have the original article in Nezavisimaya Gazeta? The short summary in RIA claims "the bulk of Russia's spending in South Ossetia, 1.2 billion rubles ($48.8 mln) per day, went on fuel" which is very incredible. Even if every single one of the 15.000 Russian soldiers had used a separate vehicle (unlikely) that amounts to $48.8m/15000=$3253 per vehicle per day. If there is any chance of the numbers being right, they must have included the aircraft and navy that operated outside of South Ossetia, but even then it is hard to believe. -- Xeeron ( talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, this CAST piece is quite valuable in information we are currently lacking. Failures and achievements of individual branches of the Russian/Georgian military are pointed out. It also contains info on the South Ossetian deployment and Russian aircraft losses. -- Xeeron ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In the info. box there is a statement saying that one HRW reporter, Lokshina, stated that the number was fewer then 100. However her report was relatively early and she also said that "it was impossible to determine the precise number of casualties at this point". Later reports disproved Lokshina, so why the heck is she still in the info box? Isn't there some kind of wiki rule where later more accurate reports trump earlier inaccurate ones? Lokshina should be removed from the info. box, considering that even she said that her claim was not backed up by factual evidence. 68.164.237.54 ( talk) 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting how "Western Sources" avoided this piece by Lokshina: "Tskhinvali is coming back to life.
Some ethnic Georgians did choose to stay despite the conflict. Those in Tskhinvali are mostly elderly people who have been living here for years. Misha, 69 years old, used to teach science at South Ossetia's only university. A former boxer, he runs five miles a day and puts many youngsters to shame. During the war in the early nineties, his wife and kids left for Georgia proper and never came back. But Misha could not even imagine moving - Tskhinvali was his home. Until this August, Misha has been visiting his family in Tbilisi several times a year. Now, he has no idea if he will ever get to do this again. Misha's apartment in the city centre is quite spacious, full of books, papers, and rubble. He jumps round like a rubber ball, bringing crackers, pointing at old photographs on the walls. When most Tskhinvali residents fled to North Ossetia, Misha stayed put. His sister Raisa had come to stay from Tbilisi, and the two sat listening to the not-so-far-away sub-machine gunfire and grenade explosions, watching TV, and discussing how utterly unwelcome another war would be."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/18/south-ossetia-aftermath-war
So if Russians are evil, that gets printed, but if it's a positive story, from the same exact damn person, the "Western Media" suddenly forgets all about it. Interesting. 68.164.150.212 ( talk) 08:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Lacks any comment on the Georgian invasion in Russia in 1918, and Georgian attempts to occupy Sochi at the time. Georgian Mensheviks were not saints, they were just nationalists. FeelSunny ( talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think hostilities between the belligerents escalated during the whole year 2008, not just during the summer months. If you read the "Accusations of military buildup" chapter, you'll notice that many of the accusations were expressed in April, which was spring. Of course, it is debatable what the term "hostilities" really means in this context. Does it mean only actual shelling and sniper fire, or does it include saber rattling and "preparing for war"? I'd like to know why Elysander insists on keeping the sentence saying that hostilities increased during the summer only. Offliner ( talk) 11:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry .. to remind you that you did start changes in leader. Watching the timeline before August 7 the difference between spring and summer 2008 (espec. July til war's start) is significant. The escalation in summer was already topic in Russian state media; some observers spoke before war's "official" start of Russian "war orchestrating" in public media. Open escalating hostilities, mutual attacks on officials, civilians' evacuation in S.O. ( never done before) etc. show the extraordinary escalation in summer 2008. - Elysander ( talk) 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
USchick above mentioned reordering some of the sections. In particular, he suggested moving the combatants section up. I would not place it in front of the peace-agreement (since that would break up the flow of prelude->active stage->peace plan), but it could be placed in front of "humanitarian impact". On the plus side, this would bring the military details closer to the sections about fighting, this being the article about the war after all. On the down side, I feel the humanitarian impact is more important from a moral point of view compared to the material used. So I am torn between moving or not moving. Other opinions? -- Xeeron ( talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose creation of such a section. It may include information on peacekeepers/ former peacekeepers actions in South Ossetia. AFAIK, PK kills by Georgia were also used by Russia as casus belli, and Georgian leadership later claimed they "regret" the PKs died. Here is the latest UN document on the status of the PK mission in Georgia: [8]. FeelSunny ( talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No, just added the source without carefully reading it. The mistake is mine, and it was corrected within several hours by me. I may ask several identical questions to you, but I won't look for edit summaries just b/c I'm bored to. Please better answer a question in the "Venn diagram" section FeelSunny ( talk) 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's some more very interesting info on the war from a military standpoint: The August War between Russia and Georgia It has lots of material which our article is still missing. Combine this with what Xeeron found earlier: [10] and we have a lot that we could add to our article from those sources. Offliner ( talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know there was consensus for the lead, and that no-one was allowed to edit it, but I made some changes which make the article read better such as:
The 2008 South Ossetia War (2008 Russia-Georgia conflict) consisted of an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, and Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.
was changed to:
The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.
Seeing as people now have to explain every change on this article, as ridiculous as it is....
A civil war fought after the breakup of the Soviet Union left parts of South Ossetia under the control of an unrecognised separatist government backed by Russia.
was changed to:
The 1991-1992 civil war in South Ossetia left parts of South Ossetia under the control of an unrecognised separatist government backed by Russia.
I also removed several references as per WP:LEADCITE. In fact, it's my own opinion as an editor, that the lead of articles on WP should not require citations, as the lead is supposed to summarise the article, meaning all information in the lead should already be in the article itself. These particular sources have since been superseded by more current information...look back at the moment in time comment. Leave the comment, but the sources should be removed.
I'm not going to change the article, because we now have to debate, argue, throw accusations and
WP:VOTE, and I hope that I didn't have to gain consensus to post here. (Joking) Signed, Putinista --
Russavia
Dialogue
14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at it further, the 1991-1992 war was not a civil war in South Ossetia, but rather a conflict between South Ossetia and Georgia. If it is a civil war it is a civil war in Georgia. To draw a parallel, it was not a civil war in Chechnya, but a war in Chechnya. So "civil war" should to be changed simply to "war" (the wikilink of the article title should suffice). I have also re-added the redlink - redlinks are important for downline article development, and the redlink is an important link for South Ossetia related articles which should be developed. We then come to "self proclaimed" problem.
Also, I rewrote the lead to:
The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict in August 2008, consisting of land, air and sea warfare, between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.
from
The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other. It occurred in August 2008 and involved land, air and sea warfare.
To me as a native English speaker the version I introduced reads betterer. The version as it stands now, I myself, don't like short sentences like "It occurred in August 2008 and involved land, air and sea warfare." when it can be incorporated into a larger sentence as I did; it's a little too Simple English? -- Russavia Dialogue 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
As User:Xeeron pointed out some time ago, language and style are one of the biggest problems in the article at the moment. There are about a million clumsy wordings which should be fixed. Also, almost every chapter could use better summary style. I would happily go over them myself, but, as a non-native English speaker, I'm having a hard time getting the sentences sound right. Could some native speaker please take a look at the article's language? Where are all the Americans when you need them? Offliner ( talk) 10:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
They are discussing Gaza operations now, I'm afraid. And I can quite understand their reasoning. FeelSunny ( talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
USchick:
1. Georgia moved into South Ossetian territorry, both sides scrimaged, Georgia launched an all out attack on Tskhinvali, Russia responded and checked the attack, then Abkhazia launched an exploitation attack to retake Kodori Valley, following by Russia routing the Georgian Army and making them speedy runners. 2. The month of August in 2008. 3. In South Ossetia primarily, also in Abkhazia [Kodori Valley] and Northernmost Georgia. There was also a naval engagement, but it was rather small, Georgian boat sunk, Russian ship damaged a bit. 4. Georgia used military force to get South Ossetia to give up its UN mandated autonomy, and the Russian military intervened on behalf of South Ossetia, routing the Georgians. 5. Total [Major] Russian Military Victory. Minor Russian Defeat in the Propaganda War, showing that Russian Media is poorly equipped to fight Murdoch, CNN, et al. 6. Stable Status Quo in the Caucasian Region. Georgia losing disputed territorries [Kodori Valley and some lands surrounding South Ossetia] to Abkhazia and South Osseita. Abkhazia will go for independence, South Ossetia will rejoin North Ossetia. Georgian military totally destroyed, other countries are hesitant to buy the same military weapons and training that the Georgian military used. Stable Caucasian Region. Shatterred economy in Georgia (it was already going downhill, but the war was the economy's Katrina, I figure since you're USchick - you'll get the metaphor). 68.164.150.212 ( talk) 09:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
With the benefit of a short historical perspective, the article can use a brief summary with the rest of the facts reorganized to support it. I suggest the following introduction:
In August of 2008, an armed conflict erupted on the territory of Georgia that involved land, air, and sea battles with Georgian military forces fighting against South Ossetian, Russian, and Abkhazian military. Major battles took place in South Ossetia, Northern Georgia, and Abkhazia, with minor battles happening in the surrounding areas as well as in the Black Sea off the coast of Abkhazia. Political negotiations were led by NATO and the European Union with strong international support to end the hostilities. The war officially ended with a peace plan signed by Georgia and Russia and with no border changes taking place. As a result of the war, Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, an action that was rejected by Georgia. The environment in the region continues to be politically charged.
Thee rest of the information can be reorganized into categories that can later be edited for content. Now that we have all the information, let's decide what's important and how much of it needs to stay. Suggested categories:
I will come back later to check on your progress. Feel free to disregard what I'm saying, but I really think this will improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. USchick ( talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
USchick - are you sure you are not at all biased? If you are not, please show me exactly what NATO did to bring the situation to a speedy resolution. Seems to me like you are just giving NATO credit it doesn't deserve, or trying to do so. Last time I checked it was France, the chair of the EU, negotiation with Russia over Georgia, not because France was in NATO, but because France chaired the EU. So if you can show me any NATO acts that improved the situation, that would be greatly appreciative. Otherwise, please stop claiming that NATO did something useful here. 68.166.129.126 ( talk) 08:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Didn't mean to entice. How about: Political negotiations were led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Chair of the European Union with strong international support to end the hostilities.
The article starts out by saying "2008 South Ossetia War, (2008 Russia-Georgia conflict)..." but then it also has a whole mini-section denoted to other names. I think this is very redundant, and the part in parenthesis above should be removed. 68.166.129.126 ( talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Your reverts seem due to the fact that the someone damaged the reference such that it would not display. I restored it so you can easily check that it is not an article, but a collection of maps, which clearly reports the numbers I had in my edit summary. Note that simple math (205+199+166+252 is more than half of 205+199+166+252+99+135) is not original research. -- Xeeron ( talk) 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, I have checked the sources you provided. What's more, I think that was me who originally found and added these sources:)
However, I did not see any mentions of a "clear majority" in the atlases. There are some reasons why I think we should consider the matter before adding an info like this in the article:
That is why I still oppose adding the info the way it is now in the article. FeelSunny ( talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. Some more: why I would not compare them: Georgian villages were burnt by Ossetian militias with torches when Georgians already left them after losing the war. Tskhinvali Ossetians had to hide in collars of their houses, and doctors had to operate in basements waiting for Georgian shelling and offencive to end to get some water. That is not what we may compare with "one equals one" attitude. However, I strongly beleive that both sides must be punished for the crimes they commited, and that no crimes should have caused retaliation from another side, and may not be an exuse for it. FeelSunny ( talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, even in the infrastructure damage section, speaking only about infrastructure (which is not obvious from the article) it seems wrong to compare apartment city houses with private one-storey village houses. FeelSunny ( talk) 05:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, this is not the way the edits are done. If you want to rewrite the whole section, please discuss it before, not unilaterally change them just like that. I have reverted your edits, and for reasons you may first check the previous discussion about the count of buildings and WP:Major_Edits. FeelSunny ( talk) 08:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I also grow tired of this discussion, however I keep answering all your accusations, as they come:
Well, I think I answered all your questions. Maybe now you would start discussing your possible edits before actually making them?
P.S. Please note, that I do not want to revert your recent unilaterally made edits before you comment, but I will have to do this, if I do not see any reaction for my remarks. FeelSunny ( talk) 13:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, could you please insert numbers for questions next time? This makes them much easier to answer one by one.
No, Xeeron, what I want is: "The villages to the north, that belonged to Georgians, got that much damage, while the SO capital, that belonged to Ossetians, got that much damage." [One link, two links, hundred links, but all claim the same].
See yourself: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." So I want sources that explicitly reach the same conclusion, in the case you really want to support your POV by combining material from different sources.
If you post it like "Villages got that much damage [link A]. And they belong to Georgians [Link B]. And the city got that much damage [link A]. And it belongs to Ossetians [link B]," you just make a synthesis of two sources. Please find one source that claims 1) villages got some damage, that is 2) some share of Tskhinvali damage, and 3)Villages belonged to ethnic Georgians. Other than that, you just put the others' words in the UNOSAT mouth (if it has one):).
And that is nothing different from "Government of Ehud Olmert killed more than 1000 Palestinians in Gaza [link to Al-Jazeera]. George Bush called Ehud Olmert his personal friend [link to NYT]." Nothing different from the first example.
PS. And yes, I want this to stop. But both you and me should have enough good will to stop this. For now, though, I refrain from posting information that one may call POV for several days, but you keep on doing this quite frequently. FeelSunny ( talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
If you may confirm your version by one reliable source, stating that "In the villages to the north of Tskhinvali, controlled by Georgia previous to the war, between 5.4% and 51.9% of the total buildings were either destroyed or severly damaged, while in Tskhinvali, controlled by Ossetians, 5.5% of buildings were affected.", that's fine with me. FeelSunny ( talk) 06:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
nyt-20081106
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBC_HeavyFighting
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
The commanders section in the infobox is (and has been for months) almost completely unsourced. It is also listing so many people that it is hard to believe they were all commanding their respective sides. I'll remove all unsourced names soonish. -- Xeeron ( talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In US media http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26georgia.html
In Georgian media http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20026 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.188.120 ( talk) 10:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's be reasonable about this. Here's the WaPost:
Thursday, Aug. 7
On the morning of Aug. 7, after a night of Ossetian artillery fire, GEORGIAN SOURCE said, he traveled to Tskhinvali for a meeting with the separatists that the Russians had convened at a Russian peacekeeping base. "Nobody was in the streets -- no cars, no people," he said in a conference call with reporters Aug. 14. "We met the general of the Russian peacekeepers, and he said that the separatists were not answering the phone." GEORGIAN SOURCE left.
Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to GEORGIAN SOURCE.
The controversy is over whether the material in italics is more GEORGIAN SOURCE material or whether it is original Washington Post on the scene neutral reporting. Well, does anyone contend that Washington Post reporters were on the scene, observing Osettian artillery fire? Let's be serious, this is just a lazy reporter not adding, one more time, 'ACCORDING TO GEORGIAN SOURCE'. We all know this, and writing it up any other way is biased. Haberstr ( talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Georgian media cite the interview published by the Georgian daily, Rezonansi, on November 29.
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20046
"Bitsadze, who resigned from the post of chief of Border Police on October 29, has also claimed that the decision to launch the war was taken by President Saakashvili and his inner circle consisting of small group of influential figures, including Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili; Justice Minister Zurab Adeishvili, Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria; Secretary of the National Security Council Alexandre Lomaia and Tbilisi Mayor Gigi Ugulava."
The standard within Wikipedia was to refer to countries like South Ossetia and Abkhazia as De Facto Independent Republics hence I am changing it to such. Breakaway Republics might be OK as well however they are not simply regions. Regions generally do not have a military and a constitution, South Ossetia and Abkhazia do hence they are republics. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Calling them separatist republics is POV unless you call Georgia separatist as well because these republics separated from Georgia around the same time that Georgia separated from the Soviet Union. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 03:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This source is being repeatedly inserted and the material their is used to contradict known expert David Marshall Lang. I see Dansk as a questionable source in terms of reliability judging by the board. It lists people with Masters degrees none of them caucasusians studies, one PhD in slavic languages and people without any other credentials other than they have "travelled the region". Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
South Ossetian troops had fired on civilian Georgian villages, Orlov said, including an enclave of ethnic Georgians living inside separatist-controlled South Ossetia, north of Tskhinvali. Additionally, South Ossetian troops had opened fire from the Tskhinvali HQ of Russia's peacekeeping force, Orlov added.
"It's important to find out who was the aggressor. But the answer isn't straightforward," said Orlov, who spent two weeks in South Ossetia and Georgia investigating the conflict.
"Of course, Georgia's armed forces started a full-scale military operation. But the previous politics of Russia provoked Georgia to do this."
"This doesn't excuse Mikheil Saakashvili [the Georgian president]. But Russian peacekeepers didn't do their job properly. We know the Russian side gave arms to the Ossetians and that they used them to fire towards Georgia from Russian peacekeeping positions well before August 7."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/russia-georgia-war Grey Fox ( talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose to split the discussion about responsibility as well as all other mutual accusations and allegations. One possibility is to add it to the background article.( Igny ( talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC))
The above unsourced phrase was added in to replace what was taken directly from the source "of world-record-breaking spending on the military". I have added a fact tag, please add a source. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please check out this article and corelate the wiki page with it: The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm 28 October 2008 Peer-LAN ( talk) 05:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's rather unbiased, which is surprising coming from BBC, but I don't argue against facts (which really helps in winning arguments) and the article is grounded in facts. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August.
Eyewitnesses have described how its tanks fired directly into an apartment block, and how civilians were shot at as they tried to escape the fighting.
Research by the international investigative organisation Human Rights Watch also points to indiscriminate use of force by the Georgian military, and the possible deliberate targeting of civilians.
Indiscriminate use of force is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and serious violations are considered to be war crimes.
The allegations are now raising concerns among Georgia's supporters in the West.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has told the BBC the attack on South Ossetia was "reckless".
He said he had raised the issue of possible Georgian war crimes with the government in Tbilisi."
I think that should be correlated with the NY Times Article and our Wiki Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricWarrior007 ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a new article for The Times with important data that should be integrated in the wiki page: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5114401.ece "Georgia fired first shot, say UK monitors" Peer-LAN ( talk) 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The NY Times Article "Georgia Offers Fresh Evidence on War’s Start" is being used in this article to claim that the events during August 7 remain a matter of debate and controversy however this is a fringe theory. Nothing in that NY times article shows any evidence that Russia was planning to attack Georgia. You would have to make a leap that the Russian forces going through the Roki Tunnel weren't simply replacements to the ones already in South Ossetia, then you would have to make another leap that these forces were about to attack Georgia, then you would have to make another leap that Saakashvili and his advisors saw all this and made a pre-emptive strike. All of that is contradicted in the spiegel article.The article needs to clearly reflect that Georgia tried to extend the Georgian constitution into South Ossetia and Russia prevented it from happening. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Whats this about T-80s and T-90s being spotted? Utterly false, no info to support this at all, they must have mistakn T-72B with Kontakt-5 ERA for T-90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.254.140 ( talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Washington post hardly is a 100% accurate source on the matter (In general, Western News sources were miserable in their coverage, especially in the beggining). No T-80s are even deployed in the Kavkaz theater, not to mention T-90s. It would make little sense that a few were shipped to Ossetia (considering the urgency of the deployment units), and it would make even less sense that the Post somehow knew about it. No photographic evidence exists either. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.10.122.225 (
talk)
23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
For the casualty number for South Ossetia, there needs to be some form of citation. Where was this "estimate" found anyway?
Secondly, the Russian casualties should be 51 dead:
Here is a link for a list of individuals killed. http://www.army.lv/?s=2550&id=4146
I think casualties should simply be put as "unknown" since casualty numbers provided by either side cannot be confirmed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.62.73.52 (
talk)
11:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I find it amusing how the Russian figures keep going down. Perhaps we should put up the Georgian estimate on the subject, it's probably a closer reflection of reality than whatever lies the Russians are putting out this week. Does anyone here seriously believe the (wildly fluctuating) Russian figures are based in reality? 66.66.154.162 ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The so called "official" statet numbers of casulties is redicilous. The losses amongst the russian army are much higher. I can definitly confirm that. I know what I am talking about. It is insane, that small number of fallen russian stated here, that is insane, what the Kremlin tries to make. Soon or later real numbers will appear, but I have the same opinion. Casulties should be written as "unknown" for the russian army. We lost more. My uncle ,who at least is a lieutenant was ordered in the near of the conflict zone. He said, they fear to have lost more 165 soldiers alone in the outskirts of Tskhinvali after heavy fightings against georgian special forces and it didn't stop until air support. He also added, "those useless guys where qiuckly overwhelmed. We found hundreds of their corpses in the nearby villages". I think he meant Ossetian fighter. Also, the georgians lost more than that few 144 men. Our air force bombed the hell out of them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.46.82 ( talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite everyone to express what they think should be improved in each of the chapters. I think it would be very useful if everyone would express their opinion (concisely) below! Offliner ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with most of the list above, so I'll simply comment on the cases where I don't:
This chapter is still in timeline form, and almost all of it's statements were useful at the time but are obsolete now. I don't think there is that much essential stuff to keep. Offliner ( talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed most of the (in my opinion) obsolete stuff from the chapter, leaving only two statements from HRW and Amnesty. All of the removed stuff can still be found in Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner ( talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should start a separate article about Georgian plan of war itself. Describing timing, goals, giving the information on when did Georgian authorities start planning etc. In light of many speculations that the war itself was started/ provoked by Russians, one should know, for example, for how long did the Clear Field plan existed, and what was the initial scheme of war, as planned by Georgians. FeelSunny ( talk) 09:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the line beginning with "In June 1920..." should somehow mention preceding events covered in another article, " Georgian-Ossetian conflict (1918-1920)". On the whole, the article seems quite good and well-balanced, which is a great improvement since the last few months. 83.149.19.70 ( talk) 15:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the former statement:) FeelSunny ( talk) 01:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So far every effort at making the necessary rename has gotten bogged down in ridiculous disputes, but I think now there's a title which doesn't have much for people to object to finally. There is now only one name being used that gets more than a few hundred current articles and that's August War. Since this makes no reference to russia or Georgia there probably won't be any neutrality issues. Whether this ends up being the title of choice or not "August War" is presently a far more suitable title for the article than the one in use now.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
For christ's sake, Devil's Advocate, will you ever rest in peace?? =) Well, actually i wouldn't have objected to "August war", but... honestly, Advocate, it IS not very descriptive. Do you really see so much of a problem in current title as to warrant this change? :: (pre-doom near-apocalyptic hi-tech robotic calm female voice) Warning! Warning! Article rename attempt detected. Attempt Liquidation Teams - advance to your posts. Everyone else - duck and cover - i repeat - DUCK and COVER! =) :: 212.192.164.14 ( talk) 13:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as the current name is 1) in line with what happened (main conflict zone), 2) ferlects numerous sources (next to noone adresses the "August war") and 3) is easy to find. FeelSunny ( talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
South Ossetia was merely the first attack, as there was also Abkhazia which, frankly, was the more serious loss to Tblisi. Even if it wasn't, S. Ossetia is only half the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.36.175 ( talk) 06:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh my goodness. Another rename thread. What're we on, 100 pages now? Let's recap here: most of the fighting occurred on South Ossetian Soil. The Battle of Tskhinvali eclipsed the other battles. Georgia's unprovoked attack was against South Ossetia. It was Georgia's attack on Tskhinvali, on the Russian Base and on the Roki Tunnel which provoked the response. All three were located in South Ossetia. Furthermore, the Second Chechen War involved Dagestan, but I have yet to see anyone complain about that name not mentioning Dagestan. And Xeeron, you and I had a discussion on how the Black Sea incident didn't occur, and now you shift gears and saying it did occur? Your previous quote was that it may have occurred. You don't get to name wars on what may have occurred. As for Georgia losing Abkhazia, isn't the loss of its entire army more damaging to Georgia then the loss of Abkhazia? Not to mention that Georgia lost the Kodori Valley in this war, it lost Abkhazia a while ago. 68.165.18.113 ( talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Gents, would anybody mind if I take a crack at restructuring the "Discussion about responsibility for the war and starting it" section. Right now it's structured around the type of statement source. I think it would be more useful to structure it by what those statements support (or seem to support): Georgia's fault, Russia's fault, or Ossetians' fault. Speaking fish 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaking fish ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone have at least approximate numbers for irregulars (volunteers, mercenaries, etc) involved on both sides? Like, strengh, casualties, etc.?-- SergeiXXX ( talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The section seems too big now. It takes just as much place as the whole August 7 section. While the latter describes the day of the beginning of the conflict, the former is just about two accounts (I agree, they are important) from OSCE monitors and an argue about one of them being or not wrong going on a self-appointed duty. I propose cutting the section's text leaving only main points:
A misinterpretation. All what we have read about was made public after war. None of us has read the original accounts - we know those only filtered - by Grist and journalists. Ryan Grist has obviously spread single pre-selected (by him) "ground reports" (not released by OSCE) over the whole world to support his personal view of the conflict. First we have known from Grist's activities action was end of August (SPIEGEL / WaPo); the topic was "re-imported" by NYT months later. In Dec. 2008 Grist's acting was disputed (partially by himself) and his reputation was generally compromised. To war article belongs minimum: a correct chronology, Grist in NYT, reaction by Georgian government (citing other inofficial accounts), conflict inside OSCE mission (Hakala vs. Grist), WSJ report in Dec. 2008. - Elysander ( talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Imho, since the last time we had one, the article has (again) come a long way and most of it now looks like something I would be happy with as a final version. So, what is still left to do:
Specific stuff:
General stuff:
The sources are maybe the most important part and this should be done before reviewing the language.-- Xeeron ( talk) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Since it seems inevitable that any new name proposal will receive a flood of opposition from anonymous users giving horrible or biased arguments with little if any quality input sufficient to make the change occur I think it is more appropriate that we focus on whether a rename is needed. As per Wikipedia naming conventions for events if there is not a common name for an event then the title should be descriptive. This is the only reasonable argument being given in favor of the current title, but let's look specifically at what needs to be included:
In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors:
- Where the incident happened.
- What happened.
If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, a third descriptor should be added:
- When the incident happened.
The bolded part here is crucial. Those supporting the current title as being appropriately descriptive argue that most of the fighting occurred in South Ossetia as well as most of the deaths. The problem is that the only reason there was not more fighting and death outside of South Ossetia is because the Georgians fled from all other areas. Gori however saw around a dozen deaths among police forces and the naval battle of Abkhazia probably saw some 30 people killed on the Georgian side. There were also two deaths in the Kodori Valley. So even that argument is flawed. The fact is even though most of the actual fighting took place in South Ossetia there was massive military action outside South Ossetia.
Russia and Abkhazia were bombarding the Georgians for days and finally sent in troops. They then sent thousands of troops into Georgia proper from Abkhazia. Their invasion into these territories included the destruction of military equipment, including much of Georgia's navy, and even the capture of soldiers. Ultimately it wasn't really a battle because the Georgian security forces fled from the Russians, but the fact is there was military action being taken against Georgia in these areas involving several times the number of troops in South Ossetia.
All these factors considered the current title simply isn't descriptive enough. The loss of the Kodori Valley was a highly significant development and yet the current title suggests the only significant developments were in South Ossetia. The actions outside South Ossetia were not minor events like the actions from Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan in the ongoing Gaza conflict, but large military operations targeting Georgian military forces outside South Ossetia.
While some argue that the current title is neutral it's clear if you look at past rename discussions that the current title is supported by some pro-Russian users who argue the conflict was about South Ossetia and not Georgia, despite the Russian government being clear that Georgia in general was the target of Russian operations. I for one do not care what new title is chosen as long as it is descriptive and neutral. As long as a new title acknowledges the substantial developments in Western Georgia I won't have a problem.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The title should be changed to Include the developments in Abkhazia. My proposal:
The August War
This is what Russia calls this war, and this title includes all fronts and sides. -- SergeiXXX ( talk) 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but "August war" sounds like the stupidest name possible. What if this year there is another big war in August, say, between Israel and Iran. Then we would have to call our war "2008 August war" and the latter "2009 August war". Perhaps there will be a "2010 August war" as well, and so on. That would be ridiculous! There is no real reason to change the current title: the war began in South Ossetia, South Ossetia was the main battleground. "2008" is the year this happened. Many sources use this term, many use something else, there is still no consensus in the media. There is plently of time to wait for the consensus to arrive, there is no urgent need to change the title before that happens. As a sidenote, Kosovo war is also called "Kosovo war" (main battleground + "war"), although the americans launched bombing raids to all over Yugoslavia, destroying much of the country's infrastructure in the process. Offliner ( talk) 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
What about moving this to Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Article title? Seems to be the right place, but that subpage has fallen into disuse. Still, we should either have the title discussion there instead of here OR remove the template up here on the talk page. Not sure which page would be better, but I am worried by the fact that some previous outspoken opponents of the move have not responded yet. Eventually one might conclude from the lack of opposition that the move has consensus, but it might also be that these people simply missed the new section. -- Xeeron ( talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as the events in Abkhazia hardly drawn .0001 percent as important to most medias as the events in South Ossetia. In Abkhazia there was no war as such, Gerogian army just fled from Kodori george. In SO there were several days of fighting between the SO, Russian and Georgian armies. FeelSunny ( talk) 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The following chapter has been there for ages without anyone updating it. I strongly suspect that the info in it is obsolete, so I decided to remove it. Not much point in keeping obsolete and thus false information in Wikipedia. Here's the text, in case someone wants to post an updated version: Offliner ( talk) 11:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
{{ update}} Russian cable TV stations and websites with addresses ending in .ru have been inaccessible in Georgia since the outbreak of the fighting on August 8, as reported by Reporters Without Borders on September 10, 2008. [1] The Georgian authorities cut all access to Russian TV station broadcasts. [2] [3] [4] Temur Yakobashvili, the minister for reintegration, publicly claimed responsibility the blocking. [1] Georgia’s leading ISP, Caucasus Online, was filtering the Russian domain name “.ru” thereby blocking access to the main Russian-language news websites [2].
Whoa, remove the template, not the very section, mate:)) FeelSunny ( talk) 11:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. See my edit. Offliner ( talk) 12:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to see, from where moskow will gahter 3000 corpses and identify them as georgian soldiers .... It is so silly, Moscow behaves really unprofessional and like a 12 years old amateur. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.196.43.176 (
talk)
07:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Long live the cavalry attacks!!:)) FeelSunny ( talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I expanded the prelude part a bit to include more military buildup accusations by each country. I think this is an important subject, so that the reader knows the war didn't come out of the blue - both countries seem to have made clear preparations. I also added Russian peacekeeper numbers in May, 2008 to "background." The military buildup subject wasn't discussed extensively enough in the earlier version (also the timeline and background articles seem to be lacking in this respect.) My additions could probably use better summary style, though. Offliner ( talk) 11:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
are just plain wrong and do not correspond to the sources.
E.g. the source [6] claims: "The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has reported the number of people displaced by the conflict had reached 158,600". what we find in the article? "Georgia: At least 158,000 civilians displaced[36]"; then "South Ossetia: Displaced from South Ossetia to Russia: Russian estimate, 30,000. РКЦ estimate: 24 000".
How comes? I mean, that's cool word playing in the article, but we all know that UN High Comissioner did not say "displaced Georgian people", right?
Where are other 87 thousands people? (158 000 affected - 56 000 Georgians from Gori - 15,000 Georgians from South Ossetia) = 87 000. Are they just like ghosts or something? There are more of them than those Georgians who left Gori and SO altogether. How is it everybody just forgot about them? Or are they just Ossetians we do not count as victims? FeelSunny ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have the original article in Nezavisimaya Gazeta? The short summary in RIA claims "the bulk of Russia's spending in South Ossetia, 1.2 billion rubles ($48.8 mln) per day, went on fuel" which is very incredible. Even if every single one of the 15.000 Russian soldiers had used a separate vehicle (unlikely) that amounts to $48.8m/15000=$3253 per vehicle per day. If there is any chance of the numbers being right, they must have included the aircraft and navy that operated outside of South Ossetia, but even then it is hard to believe. -- Xeeron ( talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, this CAST piece is quite valuable in information we are currently lacking. Failures and achievements of individual branches of the Russian/Georgian military are pointed out. It also contains info on the South Ossetian deployment and Russian aircraft losses. -- Xeeron ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In the info. box there is a statement saying that one HRW reporter, Lokshina, stated that the number was fewer then 100. However her report was relatively early and she also said that "it was impossible to determine the precise number of casualties at this point". Later reports disproved Lokshina, so why the heck is she still in the info box? Isn't there some kind of wiki rule where later more accurate reports trump earlier inaccurate ones? Lokshina should be removed from the info. box, considering that even she said that her claim was not backed up by factual evidence. 68.164.237.54 ( talk) 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting how "Western Sources" avoided this piece by Lokshina: "Tskhinvali is coming back to life.
Some ethnic Georgians did choose to stay despite the conflict. Those in Tskhinvali are mostly elderly people who have been living here for years. Misha, 69 years old, used to teach science at South Ossetia's only university. A former boxer, he runs five miles a day and puts many youngsters to shame. During the war in the early nineties, his wife and kids left for Georgia proper and never came back. But Misha could not even imagine moving - Tskhinvali was his home. Until this August, Misha has been visiting his family in Tbilisi several times a year. Now, he has no idea if he will ever get to do this again. Misha's apartment in the city centre is quite spacious, full of books, papers, and rubble. He jumps round like a rubber ball, bringing crackers, pointing at old photographs on the walls. When most Tskhinvali residents fled to North Ossetia, Misha stayed put. His sister Raisa had come to stay from Tbilisi, and the two sat listening to the not-so-far-away sub-machine gunfire and grenade explosions, watching TV, and discussing how utterly unwelcome another war would be."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/18/south-ossetia-aftermath-war
So if Russians are evil, that gets printed, but if it's a positive story, from the same exact damn person, the "Western Media" suddenly forgets all about it. Interesting. 68.164.150.212 ( talk) 08:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Lacks any comment on the Georgian invasion in Russia in 1918, and Georgian attempts to occupy Sochi at the time. Georgian Mensheviks were not saints, they were just nationalists. FeelSunny ( talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think hostilities between the belligerents escalated during the whole year 2008, not just during the summer months. If you read the "Accusations of military buildup" chapter, you'll notice that many of the accusations were expressed in April, which was spring. Of course, it is debatable what the term "hostilities" really means in this context. Does it mean only actual shelling and sniper fire, or does it include saber rattling and "preparing for war"? I'd like to know why Elysander insists on keeping the sentence saying that hostilities increased during the summer only. Offliner ( talk) 11:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry .. to remind you that you did start changes in leader. Watching the timeline before August 7 the difference between spring and summer 2008 (espec. July til war's start) is significant. The escalation in summer was already topic in Russian state media; some observers spoke before war's "official" start of Russian "war orchestrating" in public media. Open escalating hostilities, mutual attacks on officials, civilians' evacuation in S.O. ( never done before) etc. show the extraordinary escalation in summer 2008. - Elysander ( talk) 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
USchick above mentioned reordering some of the sections. In particular, he suggested moving the combatants section up. I would not place it in front of the peace-agreement (since that would break up the flow of prelude->active stage->peace plan), but it could be placed in front of "humanitarian impact". On the plus side, this would bring the military details closer to the sections about fighting, this being the article about the war after all. On the down side, I feel the humanitarian impact is more important from a moral point of view compared to the material used. So I am torn between moving or not moving. Other opinions? -- Xeeron ( talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose creation of such a section. It may include information on peacekeepers/ former peacekeepers actions in South Ossetia. AFAIK, PK kills by Georgia were also used by Russia as casus belli, and Georgian leadership later claimed they "regret" the PKs died. Here is the latest UN document on the status of the PK mission in Georgia: [8]. FeelSunny ( talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No, just added the source without carefully reading it. The mistake is mine, and it was corrected within several hours by me. I may ask several identical questions to you, but I won't look for edit summaries just b/c I'm bored to. Please better answer a question in the "Venn diagram" section FeelSunny ( talk) 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's some more very interesting info on the war from a military standpoint: The August War between Russia and Georgia It has lots of material which our article is still missing. Combine this with what Xeeron found earlier: [10] and we have a lot that we could add to our article from those sources. Offliner ( talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know there was consensus for the lead, and that no-one was allowed to edit it, but I made some changes which make the article read better such as:
The 2008 South Ossetia War (2008 Russia-Georgia conflict) consisted of an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, and Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.
was changed to:
The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.
Seeing as people now have to explain every change on this article, as ridiculous as it is....
A civil war fought after the breakup of the Soviet Union left parts of South Ossetia under the control of an unrecognised separatist government backed by Russia.
was changed to:
The 1991-1992 civil war in South Ossetia left parts of South Ossetia under the control of an unrecognised separatist government backed by Russia.
I also removed several references as per WP:LEADCITE. In fact, it's my own opinion as an editor, that the lead of articles on WP should not require citations, as the lead is supposed to summarise the article, meaning all information in the lead should already be in the article itself. These particular sources have since been superseded by more current information...look back at the moment in time comment. Leave the comment, but the sources should be removed.
I'm not going to change the article, because we now have to debate, argue, throw accusations and
WP:VOTE, and I hope that I didn't have to gain consensus to post here. (Joking) Signed, Putinista --
Russavia
Dialogue
14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at it further, the 1991-1992 war was not a civil war in South Ossetia, but rather a conflict between South Ossetia and Georgia. If it is a civil war it is a civil war in Georgia. To draw a parallel, it was not a civil war in Chechnya, but a war in Chechnya. So "civil war" should to be changed simply to "war" (the wikilink of the article title should suffice). I have also re-added the redlink - redlinks are important for downline article development, and the redlink is an important link for South Ossetia related articles which should be developed. We then come to "self proclaimed" problem.
Also, I rewrote the lead to:
The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict in August 2008, consisting of land, air and sea warfare, between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.
from
The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other. It occurred in August 2008 and involved land, air and sea warfare.
To me as a native English speaker the version I introduced reads betterer. The version as it stands now, I myself, don't like short sentences like "It occurred in August 2008 and involved land, air and sea warfare." when it can be incorporated into a larger sentence as I did; it's a little too Simple English? -- Russavia Dialogue 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
As User:Xeeron pointed out some time ago, language and style are one of the biggest problems in the article at the moment. There are about a million clumsy wordings which should be fixed. Also, almost every chapter could use better summary style. I would happily go over them myself, but, as a non-native English speaker, I'm having a hard time getting the sentences sound right. Could some native speaker please take a look at the article's language? Where are all the Americans when you need them? Offliner ( talk) 10:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
They are discussing Gaza operations now, I'm afraid. And I can quite understand their reasoning. FeelSunny ( talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
USchick:
1. Georgia moved into South Ossetian territorry, both sides scrimaged, Georgia launched an all out attack on Tskhinvali, Russia responded and checked the attack, then Abkhazia launched an exploitation attack to retake Kodori Valley, following by Russia routing the Georgian Army and making them speedy runners. 2. The month of August in 2008. 3. In South Ossetia primarily, also in Abkhazia [Kodori Valley] and Northernmost Georgia. There was also a naval engagement, but it was rather small, Georgian boat sunk, Russian ship damaged a bit. 4. Georgia used military force to get South Ossetia to give up its UN mandated autonomy, and the Russian military intervened on behalf of South Ossetia, routing the Georgians. 5. Total [Major] Russian Military Victory. Minor Russian Defeat in the Propaganda War, showing that Russian Media is poorly equipped to fight Murdoch, CNN, et al. 6. Stable Status Quo in the Caucasian Region. Georgia losing disputed territorries [Kodori Valley and some lands surrounding South Ossetia] to Abkhazia and South Osseita. Abkhazia will go for independence, South Ossetia will rejoin North Ossetia. Georgian military totally destroyed, other countries are hesitant to buy the same military weapons and training that the Georgian military used. Stable Caucasian Region. Shatterred economy in Georgia (it was already going downhill, but the war was the economy's Katrina, I figure since you're USchick - you'll get the metaphor). 68.164.150.212 ( talk) 09:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
With the benefit of a short historical perspective, the article can use a brief summary with the rest of the facts reorganized to support it. I suggest the following introduction:
In August of 2008, an armed conflict erupted on the territory of Georgia that involved land, air, and sea battles with Georgian military forces fighting against South Ossetian, Russian, and Abkhazian military. Major battles took place in South Ossetia, Northern Georgia, and Abkhazia, with minor battles happening in the surrounding areas as well as in the Black Sea off the coast of Abkhazia. Political negotiations were led by NATO and the European Union with strong international support to end the hostilities. The war officially ended with a peace plan signed by Georgia and Russia and with no border changes taking place. As a result of the war, Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, an action that was rejected by Georgia. The environment in the region continues to be politically charged.
Thee rest of the information can be reorganized into categories that can later be edited for content. Now that we have all the information, let's decide what's important and how much of it needs to stay. Suggested categories:
I will come back later to check on your progress. Feel free to disregard what I'm saying, but I really think this will improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. USchick ( talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
USchick - are you sure you are not at all biased? If you are not, please show me exactly what NATO did to bring the situation to a speedy resolution. Seems to me like you are just giving NATO credit it doesn't deserve, or trying to do so. Last time I checked it was France, the chair of the EU, negotiation with Russia over Georgia, not because France was in NATO, but because France chaired the EU. So if you can show me any NATO acts that improved the situation, that would be greatly appreciative. Otherwise, please stop claiming that NATO did something useful here. 68.166.129.126 ( talk) 08:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Didn't mean to entice. How about: Political negotiations were led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Chair of the European Union with strong international support to end the hostilities.
The article starts out by saying "2008 South Ossetia War, (2008 Russia-Georgia conflict)..." but then it also has a whole mini-section denoted to other names. I think this is very redundant, and the part in parenthesis above should be removed. 68.166.129.126 ( talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Your reverts seem due to the fact that the someone damaged the reference such that it would not display. I restored it so you can easily check that it is not an article, but a collection of maps, which clearly reports the numbers I had in my edit summary. Note that simple math (205+199+166+252 is more than half of 205+199+166+252+99+135) is not original research. -- Xeeron ( talk) 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, I have checked the sources you provided. What's more, I think that was me who originally found and added these sources:)
However, I did not see any mentions of a "clear majority" in the atlases. There are some reasons why I think we should consider the matter before adding an info like this in the article:
That is why I still oppose adding the info the way it is now in the article. FeelSunny ( talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. Some more: why I would not compare them: Georgian villages were burnt by Ossetian militias with torches when Georgians already left them after losing the war. Tskhinvali Ossetians had to hide in collars of their houses, and doctors had to operate in basements waiting for Georgian shelling and offencive to end to get some water. That is not what we may compare with "one equals one" attitude. However, I strongly beleive that both sides must be punished for the crimes they commited, and that no crimes should have caused retaliation from another side, and may not be an exuse for it. FeelSunny ( talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, even in the infrastructure damage section, speaking only about infrastructure (which is not obvious from the article) it seems wrong to compare apartment city houses with private one-storey village houses. FeelSunny ( talk) 05:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, this is not the way the edits are done. If you want to rewrite the whole section, please discuss it before, not unilaterally change them just like that. I have reverted your edits, and for reasons you may first check the previous discussion about the count of buildings and WP:Major_Edits. FeelSunny ( talk) 08:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I also grow tired of this discussion, however I keep answering all your accusations, as they come:
Well, I think I answered all your questions. Maybe now you would start discussing your possible edits before actually making them?
P.S. Please note, that I do not want to revert your recent unilaterally made edits before you comment, but I will have to do this, if I do not see any reaction for my remarks. FeelSunny ( talk) 13:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, could you please insert numbers for questions next time? This makes them much easier to answer one by one.
No, Xeeron, what I want is: "The villages to the north, that belonged to Georgians, got that much damage, while the SO capital, that belonged to Ossetians, got that much damage." [One link, two links, hundred links, but all claim the same].
See yourself: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." So I want sources that explicitly reach the same conclusion, in the case you really want to support your POV by combining material from different sources.
If you post it like "Villages got that much damage [link A]. And they belong to Georgians [Link B]. And the city got that much damage [link A]. And it belongs to Ossetians [link B]," you just make a synthesis of two sources. Please find one source that claims 1) villages got some damage, that is 2) some share of Tskhinvali damage, and 3)Villages belonged to ethnic Georgians. Other than that, you just put the others' words in the UNOSAT mouth (if it has one):).
And that is nothing different from "Government of Ehud Olmert killed more than 1000 Palestinians in Gaza [link to Al-Jazeera]. George Bush called Ehud Olmert his personal friend [link to NYT]." Nothing different from the first example.
PS. And yes, I want this to stop. But both you and me should have enough good will to stop this. For now, though, I refrain from posting information that one may call POV for several days, but you keep on doing this quite frequently. FeelSunny ( talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
If you may confirm your version by one reliable source, stating that "In the villages to the north of Tskhinvali, controlled by Georgia previous to the war, between 5.4% and 51.9% of the total buildings were either destroyed or severly damaged, while in Tskhinvali, controlled by Ossetians, 5.5% of buildings were affected.", that's fine with me. FeelSunny ( talk) 06:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
nyt-20081106
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBC_HeavyFighting
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).