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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Looking forward to your comments about this section. In addition, I propose moving "Cyberattacks" and "Censorship of the media by Georgia" to the page "Information war during the 2008 South Ossetian war" USchick ( talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Deares USchick, censorship is not part of the Information War. In order to have a war, you need two opposing groups. When a country is censoring war materials, that simply means that the government knows it is lying and has to hide the facts. Notice how there was no censorship in Russia. By Information War, most people understand that as Russian Hackers and Government vs. US and Georgian Hackers and Government going at it, or by certainly Western Media Outlets blasting Russia's Response, and Russian Media firing Western Journalists working for Russian Media or in Russia. Information War is a new concept, and therefore deserves its own article, but censorship is just plain old news, and shows to the reader which side is lying. (By firing a journalist, you are cutting off his salary, but not his rights to publish his views.) 68.164.117.190 ( talk) 03:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war" page redirects to the page "Information war during the 2008 South Ossetian war". Most war articles have a separate article about media response, which is missing in this case. If moving the two sections is not a good idea, maybe they can be combined into a single Media Reaction category where things like censorship and other communication issues can be addressed. What do you think? USchick ( talk) 05:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Information War continued long after the firing stopped. Information war is still going on today, and still flares up here and there. I've been sort of covering the information war, and it's a war on its own. I think that Old School Media tactics, such as censorship, should be left in this article, and New School Media tactics, such as cyber-war, should be in a new article. If in doubt, you can place the information in both places, as I realize that there's going to be some overlap. The other idea is merging it in this article, but the thing is that we don't want this article to be too long. 68.165.233.75 ( talk) 08:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Why does someone keep changing the Russian casualty figure from 48 to 71? The up-to-date figure is 48 killed, 157 wounded, 2 missing, isn't it? Source: [1], [2]. Does someone contest these figures? Offliner ( talk) 14:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The infobox also says: "South Ossetia: 300 killed, 41 captured (Georgian estimate) [1]" - but I cannot find any mention of Ossetian casualties in the source given. I guess this sentence should therefore be removed? Offliner ( talk) 16:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The only figure about Ossetian military casualties I'm aware of is this: "... However, these figures do not include losses to Ossetian forces and various volunteers (probably, up 150 died)." [2] Are there any other numbers available? Offliner ( talk) 17:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the pre-war clashes section could be shortened somewhat. How about replacing the whole section with a short summary such as "In early August, clashes and shelling on the South Ossetian conflict zone resulted in the deaths of x Ossetians, y Georgians and z Russians. Both sides blamed each other of starting the the violence." Then maybe a mention of the JCC talks, Ossetian speculation that Georgians are about to attack, and Defense Brief speculations on how many troops the Georgians had concentrated on the border. Argumentation for this shortening: it is not so important what exactly happened in the clashes, on which day how many people died and how. Important, in regard to the war itself, is only that such clashes happened, not the details. Besides, the pre-war clashes are covered in detail in another article, Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there are reason why we have so few photographs in the article? I think we could use some more. Offliner ( talk) 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As much as I tried to find the word rape in the references provided with regard to Russian/Ossetian actions, I failed. Where did you find the accusations of raping people by Ossetians? ( Igny ( talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC))
The truth table of p AND q (also written as p ∧ q or p & q in logic, p && q in many programming languages, or pq in electronics):
p | q | ∧ |
---|---|---|
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | F |
F | F | F |
The Venn diagram of "A and B" (the red area is true)
Xeeronul iratus ergo nefas. I'm so sorry to think you may be distressed by what I'm going to say... But... The colorful images you've presented us, oh Xeeron, are describing logical conjunction operator "AND" (this very thing - ∧) - but not a word "and", used in the source. Quite possibly your misunderstanding of this fact led you to this inability to understand multiple other sources and examples and this persistent delusion of yours.
I propose we vote then on the verifiability of the claim that basing on the source (the HRW report phrase discussed) SO militias are definitely guilty in rapes and all the other scrimes. FeelSunny ( talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
What I see here, Igny, is yet another word play from another US-based non-profit organization, like Freedom Foundation or something like that, financed by some unknown US-based sources. FeelSunny ( talk) 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the answer I received to my email (I asked if the HRW has found evidence that Ossetian militia commited all of the things mentioned in the sentence, or if some of them were commited by criminal gangs only and not by Ossetians):
Dear Sir,
In our reporting on the Russia/Georgia conflict, wherever we could, Human Rights Watch identified the perpetrator, but distinguishing between different Ossetian militia and criminal gangs was not always possible in every case.
For additional information, please consult our most recent report on the abuses committed by all sides to the conflict, “Up In Flames: Humanitarian Law Violations and Civilian Victims in the Conflict Over South Ossetia,” which is available online at: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/01/22/flames-0 Offliner ( talk) 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand it right the HRW people just used the phrase composition like "American soldiers and criminal gangs raped" in the initial report intentionally, and not by mistake/ misunderstanding? I can beleive to a HRW editor that never came to Ossetia at all distinguishing between different Ossetian militia and criminal gangs was not always possible in every case - so he just decided to speak of them as if they were one?? Do we consider this source reliable? FeelSunny ( talk) 01:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember there was a Russian estimate for Georgian casualties in the info. box and an Independent Estimate. Furthermore, any military historian will laugh and laugh and laugh at the killed to wounded ratios on Georgian casualties, (i.e. 1 to 10), which reminds me of a sniper, shooting at James Bond from a distance of 10 ft, aiming at his forehead and nailing bond in the shoe. I mean really? I think the article could only benefit from the inclusion, or rather re-introduction of those estimates. 68.165.233.75 ( talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Why has this topic in the edit been largely ignored? 68.167.1.235 ( talk) 07:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like everyone but Georgians just forgot the matter. I'll try to find some info on that. FeelSunny ( talk) 08:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought the russians lost 75. BTW, I somewhere read that Kokhoititis life guard was the only unit left of the seperate militia forces after the georgian rush in South Ossetia. Notice, that georgian special forces were allready heading towards the Roki tunnel after captured nearly all villages around the capitol when the regulars were still advacning against Tskhinvali. That means, georgian SF's meat ossetian resistence in every village and slaughtered them or, the ossetian militias left the region before the attack began, what I really doubtfull, because it was a surprise attack. So, anyone with informations about that topic ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.51.146 ( talk) 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The highest reported casualties for Russians were 85, not counting wounded. However highest reported casualties for Georgians were in the thousands. Furthermore the current Georgian army shrank from 40,000 to 2,000. So what happened to 38,000? Also, the only FORWARD unit left was Kokoituy's Guards, and that was also after the merger, i.e. units merged into it, usually when fighting units tend to merge. Also, The Ossetians had reserves, only Saakashvili & company were stupid enough to fail to deploy reserves, the Ossetians and Russians had plenty. Also, the Ossetians were ordered to retreat, to defend Tskhinvali, instead of defending the left flank leading to the Roki Tunnel. At least that's what I read in the military press at the time. No, I don't have the sources, at least cannot remember off the top of my head, which is why we're not putting that in the article, but I figured you might want to know. Also, FeelSunny, thank you for looking for that info, let me know when you find it. 68.167.1.235 ( talk) 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that Russians are still considered to be the attacker in the Casualty Box. The US Ambassador to Russia called waht the Russians did a counter-attack, or in other words response to an attack, thus stating that Georgians attacked first. Furthermore a plethora of claims have been made, including one by Bush's Sec. of State, claiming that Putin provoked Saakashvili into attacking first. Nearly all of Independent Journalists, including Ames of the Nation, (whose paper got kicked out of Russia for reasons unrelated to this article) stated that Georgia attacked first. HRW reported that the first civillian casualties were caused by Georgia. Der Spiegel stated that Georgia attacked first. More and more people are starting to see that it was Georgia that invaded first. Why is then Russia, on Wikipedia, treated as the attacker? The columns should be switched, with Russia being the defender and Georgia being the attacker. It's a miracle that this hasn't been done already! 68.167.1.235 ( talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why not in order of starting the military action? FeelSunny ( talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Georgia started war with SO with the first shell that fell on Tskhinvali. That was August 7, 23:45, according to the OSCE monitors. And that was an act of war, though not declared. So, SO also entered the war.
First victims among Russian PK forces were reported an hour later. By that time Tskhinvali has long been shelled. Peacekeepers did not fight back (quite naturally, they did not have any artillery at their base, for they were a peacekeepers, not an invasion army).
By 8 AM Georgian tanks entered the city, firing into basements, where civilians sought shelter from the bombs. Fights on the streets with Ossetian defenders of the city started.
Then Russian President announced Russia will counter Georgian attack. According to different sources, Russian forces enter South Ossetia on August 8, but not earlier that 10 AM (Georgians claim a plane came and fired at them). That was an act of war, though not declared. After that Georgians started to cry for help all over the Western medias. That was way after their attack on Tskhginvali. The timeline is as follows: Georgia attacks city - Ossetian defenders fight with the offenders - Georgian artillery kills Russian peacekeepers - Empire strikes back:)
Anyway, the SO entered the war with the first Georgian attack on it's capital. And Russia entered the war later. That is why Russia should stand second, while SO - come first in the infobox. FeelSunny ( talk) 14:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, your arguments sound too Jesuit these days. They contradict common sence. Of course, when you attack someone's territory with the weapon that may not under any means be used for precise strikes, you are starting a war. Salvo missiles and cluster bombs are not made for wiping off PK bases and not harming the city that lies around. PS. I never told anything about Abkhazia entering a war yet. I have not studied any documents about Abkhazia in this war yet. I am really happy I had no reason to dig into documents on Abkhazia, for there was no such cruel conflict as in SO. FeelSunny ( talk) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems there is a Russian soldier (who defected or was captured by Georgians and brainwashed) who now lives in Georgia and has become another dispute between Georgia and the Russian Federation [4] [5]. Is this worth mentioning in this or another Russian/Georgian article? It is a remarkable story (I think). — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 19:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll make a redirect to make the finding easier and in case it becomes a bigger issue. Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this does not has to do much with war in SO - half a year has passed since the war. The guy told journalists that if his unit was stationed not in Georgia, but near any other border, he would leave to any other place. Definitely not the case of choosing democracy, rather just another desertion b/c of some dumb officer/ senior sergeant. FeelSunny ( talk) 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone understand what this means: [6].
"The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe extended on Thursday a mandate for its unarmed military observers in Georgia, the OSCE press service said."
However: "The mandate of the OSCE Mission to Georgia ended on 31 December 2008 and is not affected by today's decision," the organization said on its website."
What's going on? Offliner ( talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which side of the conflict did not want to extend the mandate. The reason is OSCE mission works in SO and A, and most OSCE members do not see them as independent. However, SO and A do not want the decision about a mission on their land to be made by Tbilisi. This is highly controversial topic. FeelSunny ( talk) 23:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The article extensively uses the Moscow Defense Brief website, a source of questionable credibility, as a reference for military details. This is how that website describes itself:
The principal aim of this publication is to present Russian perspectives on security and defense issues to readers beyond Russia's borders.
Dozens of references to this self-declared POV website rise an issue of neutrality in the article. -- Kober Talk 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Moscow Defense Brief is a reliable source and an excellent publication. If you care to look at some of their past articles you'll see that they've been critical of the Russian government. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
For quite a while, the neutrality of this article wasn't disputed, and then in comes a single user, Kober, and places the "neutrality disputed" tag back into the article. So all it takes is a single user to dispute any article on Wikipedia? We've had pro-Georgian posters here, Xeeron, Narking, but none of them put up a "neutrality disputed" tag. Should we say somewhere in the article that it's disputed by merely one user? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 05:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Right. And neutrality of this article actually is not disputed. Though several sections around the article were discussed for POV at different times, the article as a whole was never (at least what I remember) discussed for general POV. Maybe the user could present his views on why the article is not neutral here, just to make this article disputed before placing the tag. Because placing the tag itself does not make the article disputed. I propose removing the tag, if the editor does not present any such comments. FeelSunny ( talk) 11:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This article had the POV tag for a very long time (check the history). Imho, effort is better directed towards making the article NPOV and better in general, than discussing whether or not it deserves the tag. -- Xeeron ( talk) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not the tag, it's the absence of explanations. FeelSunny ( talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago I added some pictures, but now I feel we have a bit too many. The whole picture issue is of course very subjective, but I feel the current situation isn't esthetically pleasing. Maybe we could remove some pictures or arrange them in a more esthetically pleasing way, maybe grouping them together, for example in horizontal rows after each chapter (is this possible?) Offliner ( talk) 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This war was simply about Georgia trying to take back South Ossetia as describe by Saakashvili himself on the first day of the war. That is what should be describe in this article and not conspiracy theories the Georgian government thought up after their adventure turned into a miserable failure. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ossetian war is not civil war as civil war is conducted for the political reasons the same war between Ossetins and Georgians, between two people. But it is war for independence. Gnomsovet ( talk) 09:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The lead was claiming the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War was a civil war. I have removed the mention to "civil war" as it misrepresents that conflict. Yes, Ossetian South Ossetians were fighting against Georgian South Ossetians, but by dubbing it a civil war, it omits the fact that the Ossetians were also fighting against Georgian Georgians (who were allied of course with the Georgian South Ossetians). Instead of trying to qualify things, it is best simply to state the facts as the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, otherwise it gets messy and makes it harder for people to understand. If I saw "Civil war" and followed that link which says in the lead: "The 1991–1992 South Ossetian War was fought as part of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict from 1991 to 1992 between the Georgian government forces and ethnic Georgian militias on one side and the forces of South Ossetia and their allies on the other." I would be confused as hell. Simplify is the answer. -- Russavia Dialogue 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if you want to ask me about some more wars, please facilitate a list so I wont have to go through them one by one. Btw, here is what the wiki article on civil wars says:
James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, states that "a civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies".
The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term 'civil war'. They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements: [3] [4]
So lets see:
Or so hopes the person whose argument contradict each other. Tell me Xeeron, how can a non de facto government be obliged to recourtse to the regular military forces, except in the case of countering an invasion, and since it is an invasion, it cannot be a Civil War. In the US Civil War, the South declared war on the North by attackin Fort Sumpter, thus justifying calling it a Civil War. In our case, the South Ossetians did not attack the Georgian Peacekeepers, or at least there is no clear proof of them doing so. I hold no grudge against the Georgians, the common people that is, who are stuck with a leader against their will, (see Martial Law Declared 2007), but I do think that this leadership should be shown in all of its "splendor". I don't see why you are trying to support him so vehemently, under the clever guise of "just wanting to get the truth out", I've yet to see your support for South Ossetia on controvercial points. And no one called the First or Second Chechen Wars a Civil War. 68.167.1.235 ( talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, I'm not going to discuss it anymore. The matter is quite obvious. Please go read Georgian Civil War and just stop this useless disruptive edits. The Georgian Civil War is this very the conflict your source describes. 1991–1992 South Ossetia War is another event, and it was not a "civil war". That's why there are two different articles for these two events in Wikipedia. Creating some weird hybrides like "1991–1992 South Ossetia War|civil war" from your part is absolutely wrong. Leave the original name of the article be as it is. FeelSunny ( talk) 14:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Xeeron, but this was a part of a period of a civil war, but the conflict did not make up to a whole civil war, can't you see? The Polish–Soviet War was a part of Russian revolution, but it was not a civil war or a revolution itself. And noone calls Polish–Soviet War a civil war, though prior to the conflict both sides were parts of the same state, just like in Georgia. Why do you continue this stupid argue? FeelSunny ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1991–1992 South Ossetia War ( Georgian-Ossetian conflict) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Georgian Civil War | |||||||||
Location of South Ossetia within Georgia | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
South Ossetian Separatists North Ossetian Volunteers Russian Forces | The National Guard of Georgia | ||||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||||
2000 | 600 |
I though about your note for a bit, but it had to go. How many news sources call it civil war and how many think it was not a civil war is hard to know and the note was total WP:OR. Instead I reworded the lead to describe the situation in more detail, while avoiding the word "civil war". -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, you cannot edit, just because the majority of Google's hits say so. If you want to undo an edit, argue it here. We've been over this so many damn times, with the title, with the casualty box, that quite frankly most editors have gotten it by now. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The article had Russia-Georgia war for a long time now. Then 68.167.1.235 changed it without giving any reasons. After doing a google check I reverted giving a reason. You undid my revert, again not giving any reasons for the change. -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Kober, Saakashvili was educated in the US, and his coup was financed by the US, and he recieved monetary support from the US, once the Rose Revolution took place. Therefore he is US backed, no need to delete that. Furthermore, only in Georgia, are the events still "a matter of controversy" due to Georgia's media censorship, in the rest of the World it's crystal clear. No more POV edits please. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, Roki tunnel was attacked by Georgia, and part of that was in Russia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/01/georgia.russia?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews "Human Rights Watch said it had received a letter from the Georgian defence ministry acknowledging the use of M85 cluster bombs near the Roki tunnel that connects South Ossetia with Russia." Thus fighting took place in the Roki tunnel area. And part of Roki tunnel is in Russia. No Original Research here. And yet went ahead and edited anyway, without discussing. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please get an account? It is pretty confusing seeing you edit from a different IP (from the same provider) all the time: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This user may just have a dynamic IP. Nothing's wrong about it. FeelSunny ( talk) 13:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That nonsense T-62 in Rissian Army only in storage. Russian Army uses only T-72 T-80 T-90. Even, the first modification T-72 leaves with armses. Georgia, Abkhazia, Ossetia T-62 has in service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomsovet ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Was inserted in a completely wrong way:
These are the main reasons I deleted the present image. The way it is, it just hinders adequate understanding of the conflict by the reader. FeelSunny ( talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
So it was you who inserted this BS map in the beginning? I do not have enough time to waste to correct other users mistakes/ lies, I just point them out. The image as it is contradicts the source and is biased. The image includes the text comments too, and they tell of nothing of "Georgian version" FeelSunny ( talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There exist two figures for the casualty box regarding Russian casualties. The fist one is 71 killed, 356 wounded, and 5 captured. You can find this figure at the website of Moscow defense brief. Look for "the august war between Russia and Georgia". Another figure would be 71 dead, 341 wounded, and 6 captured. However, the other figure is 48 killed, 157 wounded, and 6 captured. Since the figure was suddenly lowered, I believe the last one to be strongly inaccurate. However, Offliner keeps telling me that community consensus puts the figure at 48 dead. Can someone tell me if this is true?
Ok, I think we should all calm down. Xeeron, I beg your pardon if I ever offended you and ask you to continue discussion in a normal way. I also will always try to discuss any matter in a calm and sound way. FeelSunny ( talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Compromise solution: let's just mention both numbers, and leave it to the poor reader to decide what is correct and what is not. Offliner ( talk) 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, the IP is not spreading lies about you. The IP makes a valid point. You completely ignore when Georgian military casualties should have been higher then posted, in this very discussion, while instantly jumping on it when the Russian casualties are higher then reported, all the while pretending to act unbiased. There is a pattern of you constantly making edits tipping the article in favor of Georgia, I mean you even managed to find a Russian Column moving in the damn mountains somehow Russian POV. Or a burned tank. While the images you posted, some of them had Georgian actors, posing as "casualties" from a blatantly biased source.
As for Narking the Unbiased, who had this to say: "If you didn't know it Carl Bildt isn't just foreign minister of Sweden but also Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It explains why he went to Tbilisi during the war. So whether you like his opinions or not they are surely relevant here. Narking (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)"
That's from the Archive #11, of this svery article. So Narking believes Bilt's opinions were relevant here, so what did Bilt say: http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5571&Itemid=65
"The justification given by Russia is that it is protecting Russian nationals, but the obligation to protect people - irrespective of their nationality - lies with the state in which those individuals are located. No state has a right to intervene militarily in the territory of another state simply because there are individuals there with a passport issued by that state or who are nationals of that state."
but then Bilt continued:
"...And we have reason to remember how Hitler used this very doctrine little more than half a century ago to undermine and attack substantial parts of central Europe."
Yup, here we have Bilt comparing Russia's actions in the current struggle to that of Nazi Germany, and Narking saying that Bilt's opinions are relevant. When Narking was proven dead wrong, did he apologize? Nope.
So there you have it Ladies and Gents, Narking and Xeeron the two pro-Georgian Editos who call themselves "unbiased", with one trying to include Georgian actors while calling a pro-Russian South Ossetian parade POV, and Narking who wants to compare this action of Russia to Hitler, or at least to promote someone doing so. How very "unbiased" of you two. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
And another statement from Narking the "Unbiased" - near the end of Archive #10: "It's obvious that Putin is behind this war. He went to Vladikavkaz to push the army to attack Georgia. Rumours say that some Russian military didn't want to attack so Putin himself had to go there and push them. Narking (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)"
Any source of these rumors? Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricWarrior007 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I will only answer HistoricWarrior007 and the IP (might be the same editor) once since I'm not going to waste my time on editors who obviously are only here to make personal attacks and with no other serious editing history elsewhere. Of course it's clear for most people when reading your statements above who is the POV-pusher here. First of all, to tell about Bildt's statement doesn't mean one has to agree with that statement. It's relevant because of the person who said it. Secondly, if you are interested, the rumours that you quote above I heard while in Tbilisi during the war from a Russian with contacts within the Russian army. I didn't try to put it in the article since there was no reference to any printed source. That's how serious editors work. And now, Na dobranich! Närking ( talk) 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Why did Reenem just move the 48 casualty figure below into "notes"? The whole idea was to treat both numbers equivalently, so they really do belong in the same place also. Offliner ( talk) 22:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Narking - where am I showing the so-called pro-Russia bias? Also, you were the main person arguing for Bilt's comments to be included, and when Bilt was proven factually incorrect, i.e. unlike Nazi Germany Russia didn't takeover and annex Georgia, you went ahead without apologizing, to continue with your propaganda, and attacks against me. Care to show facts? Also, the "rumors" about the war were so damn numerous, that's its hard to believe their credibility. And you are right, serious editors don't post rumors in discussion pages as their opinions, so again Narking, why did you do so? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Poco Quatro. Just as I was about to undo the "neutrality dispute" title, I found it was removed. It's like you're a mind reader. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Currently we do have the following pictures/maps in the article:
Notice something? There is just one pro Georgian picture/map left (two counting the one FeelSunny is currently trying to remove), compared to ~7 pro Russian (South Ossetian) ones.
This is not restricted to pictures: I am not inherently pro-Georgian and I prefer to have the article neutral, but with most ardent pro-Georgian editors left and pro-Russian ones still present, I need to devote more and more of my time to countering POV edits, so I have less and less to actually improve the article. -- Xeeron ( talk) 14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is a bit crude way to prevent that... — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1 pic of a SO refugee and 1 pic from a Georgian refugee in the article to keep things balanced? — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I did miss people in the photos (machines can't feel pain or anger and thus are nor personally affected by war) so I put some people-pictures in. Personally I can't see the difference in the (pain) photo's of refugees from both sides. Let's not make the war look like a field trip, people where hurt, war is awful, let's not hide that! — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
First off, Russia did enter South Ossetia after Georgia's attack, (minus the Peacekeepers). Those are facts, that only Georgia is disputing, and keep in mind that according to a recent Georgian poll, 22% of Georgians think they won the war. So how in the World is saying the truth Russian POV? Operation Clear Field was not made up by the Russians. It furthermore denotes the damn near exact attacks that Georgians made against South Ossetia. It's not POV if it's true. It may be inserted in the wrong place, but that alone, does not make the image, or the caption, POV. Furthermore the image is inserted in the background section, which seems to be the most proper place to put it and that's where military maps, in military articles, go. Furthermore, Georgian Rocket Launchers, are Georgian Rocket Launchers, there's nothing wrong with calling a Georgian Rocket Launcher, a Georgian Rocket Launcher. It's like you claiming that me calling you Xeeron is POV. It's ridiculous! The caption can be shortened to "Georgian Rocket Launchers that shelled Tskhinvali" and it would still not be POV. Also, how in the World is a burned tank POV? Then again, you're the person claiming that a convoy heading between the mountains can be mildly POV. And your pro-Georgia caption, isn't even that pro-Georgia. Aside from "STOP RUSSIA" all I see is something one can see Downtown of any major "has been" city. Stop trying to see bias everywhere. "On the Outskirts of Tskhinvali" - how is that POV? What makes it POV? You yelling "LOOK AT ME! POV!" doesn't make it POV. University of Tskhinvali shows the damage done by Georgian Grads. Again, truth isn't POV. As for the rally, once again, truth isn't POV. South Ossetians want to be with North Ossetia, which is part of Russia, ergo Russian flags, in one of the MANY demonstrations that took place. You think that a column in the mountains, moving towards Tkshinvali, a fact that has happened, can be even remotely described as Russian POV, and yet you have the gall to claim that you're not pro-Georgian? Wow, just wow.
Also Narking, I recall having a debate with you earlier about, what was it, when a Swede came out with a book about the war saying that Russia was the agressor, and I stated that the book will be disproven in six months, and I was right? Remember that? Well about the Georgian refugees, you may want to re-read Lokshina about a Georgian Boxer named Misha, who lives in South Ossetia and isn't clensed. South Ossetians are smart, they know that ethnic clensing of Georgians can get them equated to Kosovars and thus forever ban their union with Russia, so I am going to call bullshit on your claim about ethnic clensing of Georgians in South Ossetia, just as I called bullshit on that book. Georgians, although much fewer in number, live in South Ossetia today, under no protection from the Russian Army. On the other hand, in Kosovo Serbs are clamoring for protection against NATO. But please, embarass yourself as you did with the book, show me proof of ethnic clensing, you, o person who said that Russia was clearly the agressor.
Mariah-Yulia - I don't think that this particular war was as devastating as the 1991-1992 war, even remotely so. The Russians got the situation under control rather quickly, and it was Georgian troops who got hit, after they hit South Ossetian civillians. However when we show a picture of Georgian troops, Xeeron calls that Russian POV. 68.167.1.103 ( talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Several winners of the World Press Photo Awards have very very good photos. Unfortunately, I guess non will be available without copyright: [32], [33], [34], [35] -- Xeeron ( talk) 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am quite sure I have seen the last one somewhere on Wiki, most probably with a free license. You may try to find copyleft version at the articles about SO. One of the first three had a large controvercy around it as being staged (with a man holding a head of a dead one on his hands). AFAIK, the dead body changes position on two different photos. Can read the analysis of the pictures here [36]. FeelSunny ( talk) 12:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the current pictures is how it should be, about just as much SO and Georgian pictures (and I'm sure a Georgian funeral looked the same). I just hope that when I came back here in 3 months (Georgia & Russia are not my particular fields of interest) they still will be there... Special thanks to FeelSunny for the denationalisation of the refugee pictures. — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Now Xeeron, you actually aren't allowed to advertise the talent of Georgian actors. Here is a Youtube Expose, of Mr. Grzedzinski. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veswv0y_rJY&ytsession=AZlpXC5UZcoVbRSmiW1_cg0ht_--MQP0jLRgmYFhp_wyoG9i_8B5LnxUDcaypSsMjB6cAcllz1qNBFLy74Zi_sONAKdpb3Dwfu5mVeiklG5n43Rq-pw2Z7lA37f3H_9OgXHpUEtXarj_1ovuJRAfF1USFGFsZJvWQoWsMxWlTTO2WC6u-eyWn78-kktrQf9u8SXBi0oYzVRbQVAfmFUxVghRicR0WjMzavGNhv0umxXWvxjNuIUUVYiw1_Oz0EPlndbPSGYCy3CRuSwn5qp6JV_YCk5J2aSm
Pro-Georgian editors tried to flag that expose as unappropriate, but anyone who wants to know the truth can log in and check it out, it takes 2 minutes to register on Youtube, and the video's only like 1-2 mins long. I'm not averse to putting up photos, but they must be credible, and have actual people, not paid actors. Considering Poland's suggestion to partion Russia, I doubt that mr. Grzedsinski can be considered credible, by any stretch of the imagination. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Some pretty cool maps are around, unfortunately all in spanish. -- Xeeron ( talk) 13:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
At an RFC initiated at 2007 Georgian Demonstrations the recommendation was that to maintain neutrality in these articles, Russian backed should be used to describe South Ossetia and Abkhazia if US backed is used to describe the Rose Revolution. Describing the Rose Revolution as US backed is already done by plenty of neutral or pro-Georgian sources. For example:
Inside Track: Georgia's Path to Authoritarianism
The situation in Georgia today is far from the promise of the U.S.-backed Rose Revolution
Georgia kills two Russian officers in disputed clash
Relations between Moscow and the former Soviet republic have been tense ever since Saakashvili came to power in a U.S.-backed "Rose Revolution" in early 2004.
France Cool On Georgian NATO Membership
Relations between Russia and the former Soviet republic have been tense since Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili came to power in a U.S.-backed “Rose Revolution” in 2004.
The glamour of street protests should not blind us to the reality of US-backed coups in the former USSR
The formulaic repetition of a third "people power" revolution in the former Soviet Union in just over one year - after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003 and in Ukraine last Christmas - means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country's control over the western hemisphere.
To maintain neutrality we either use both or we use neither and this goes for all articles. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Konashenko pulls a green compass out of his shirt pocket and opens it. It's a U.S. military model. "This is a little trophy -- a gift from one of my soldiers," he says. "Everything that the Georgians left behind, I mean everything, was American. All the guns, grenades, uniforms, boots, food rations -- they just left it all. Our boys stuffed themselves on the food," he adds slyly. "It was tasty." The booty, according to Konashenko, also included 65 intact tanks outfitted with the latest NATO and American (as well as Israeli) technology. That Was No Small War in Georgia -- It Was the Beginning of the End of the American Empire by Mark Ames, AlterNet. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Come on, not only does the source not back up the claim, it is squarly contradicting the claim it is supposed to support. -- Xeeron ( talk) 21:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I arge to Offliner and Igny on this. This is now a common knowledge, basically, since Rohrabacher/ Hillary questioning Pentagon officials it became obvious the West wants to have nothing in common with the war and Saakashvili's claims. After that, hundreds of Western sources/ politicians "questioned" the arguments Saakashvili used as an justifications for his attack. FeelSunny ( talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with the compromise version that is currently there. It says "this claim has not gained universal support in the west." The wording seems to imply, that the claim has gained some support, but not universal. However, I am unaware of even a single case where the claim would have gained support. Therefore, the current wording seems a bit wrong. Offliner ( talk) 06:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree. FeelSunny ( talk) 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The unfreezing of the conflicts was removed from the background section. There are plenty of sources that say that Saakashvili vowed to unfreeze the conflicts
Saakashvili has vowed to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity and unfreeze conflicts with breakaway regions. Following popular uprising, Tbilisi managed to gain control over renegade Autonomous Republic of Ajara and ousted strongman Aslan Abashidze in May 2004.
International Crisis Group Conflict history: Georgia Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 01:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both Pocopocopocopoco's actions and Offliner's words. But I think we absolutely must adhere to the source wording with such sensible matters. So - please put the phrase back, but the in words used in the source. Best wishes, FeelSunny ( talk) 20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, and Russia together with separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other. It occurred in August 2008, and involved land, air and sea warfare."
The job of Wikipedia is to avoid POV wherever possible. Russia-Georgia conflict means that the Russians initiated the conflict, and the Georgians responded. That is factually incorrect. The two main arguments for keeping it that way, is that "Google says so" and "well it's been there for a long time". First off, a few months isn't a long time. Secondly Google does not make it the truth. Google also reports that there are WMDs in Iraq and that there were 2,000 civilian casualties in South Ossetia. The Google test should be limited to spelling and uncontrovercial names. It should not be used to promote one bias over another. Otherwise, whatever the mass media says will be true, because it will always accumulate the biggest amount of hits on Google. However as Wikipedians we must be neutral. Hence, I made the following change, that is completely NPOV:
"The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Caucasian conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, and Russia together with separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other. It occurred in August 2008, and involved land, air and sea warfare."
It clearly shows that the conflict was limited to the Caucasian area in terms of fighting, and was primarily a battle in the Big Game for the area. Since this is an NPOV edit, I made it asap. Please disscuss it here if you don't think it's NPOV, prior to making the edit. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As per my edit summary, this was discussed at some length in the talk archives and there was no consensus to add this. No consensus means that it doesn't get added. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Looking forward to your comments about this section. In addition, I propose moving "Cyberattacks" and "Censorship of the media by Georgia" to the page "Information war during the 2008 South Ossetian war" USchick ( talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Deares USchick, censorship is not part of the Information War. In order to have a war, you need two opposing groups. When a country is censoring war materials, that simply means that the government knows it is lying and has to hide the facts. Notice how there was no censorship in Russia. By Information War, most people understand that as Russian Hackers and Government vs. US and Georgian Hackers and Government going at it, or by certainly Western Media Outlets blasting Russia's Response, and Russian Media firing Western Journalists working for Russian Media or in Russia. Information War is a new concept, and therefore deserves its own article, but censorship is just plain old news, and shows to the reader which side is lying. (By firing a journalist, you are cutting off his salary, but not his rights to publish his views.) 68.164.117.190 ( talk) 03:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war" page redirects to the page "Information war during the 2008 South Ossetian war". Most war articles have a separate article about media response, which is missing in this case. If moving the two sections is not a good idea, maybe they can be combined into a single Media Reaction category where things like censorship and other communication issues can be addressed. What do you think? USchick ( talk) 05:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Information War continued long after the firing stopped. Information war is still going on today, and still flares up here and there. I've been sort of covering the information war, and it's a war on its own. I think that Old School Media tactics, such as censorship, should be left in this article, and New School Media tactics, such as cyber-war, should be in a new article. If in doubt, you can place the information in both places, as I realize that there's going to be some overlap. The other idea is merging it in this article, but the thing is that we don't want this article to be too long. 68.165.233.75 ( talk) 08:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Why does someone keep changing the Russian casualty figure from 48 to 71? The up-to-date figure is 48 killed, 157 wounded, 2 missing, isn't it? Source: [1], [2]. Does someone contest these figures? Offliner ( talk) 14:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The infobox also says: "South Ossetia: 300 killed, 41 captured (Georgian estimate) [1]" - but I cannot find any mention of Ossetian casualties in the source given. I guess this sentence should therefore be removed? Offliner ( talk) 16:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The only figure about Ossetian military casualties I'm aware of is this: "... However, these figures do not include losses to Ossetian forces and various volunteers (probably, up 150 died)." [2] Are there any other numbers available? Offliner ( talk) 17:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the pre-war clashes section could be shortened somewhat. How about replacing the whole section with a short summary such as "In early August, clashes and shelling on the South Ossetian conflict zone resulted in the deaths of x Ossetians, y Georgians and z Russians. Both sides blamed each other of starting the the violence." Then maybe a mention of the JCC talks, Ossetian speculation that Georgians are about to attack, and Defense Brief speculations on how many troops the Georgians had concentrated on the border. Argumentation for this shortening: it is not so important what exactly happened in the clashes, on which day how many people died and how. Important, in regard to the war itself, is only that such clashes happened, not the details. Besides, the pre-war clashes are covered in detail in another article, Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there are reason why we have so few photographs in the article? I think we could use some more. Offliner ( talk) 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As much as I tried to find the word rape in the references provided with regard to Russian/Ossetian actions, I failed. Where did you find the accusations of raping people by Ossetians? ( Igny ( talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC))
The truth table of p AND q (also written as p ∧ q or p & q in logic, p && q in many programming languages, or pq in electronics):
p | q | ∧ |
---|---|---|
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | F |
F | F | F |
The Venn diagram of "A and B" (the red area is true)
Xeeronul iratus ergo nefas. I'm so sorry to think you may be distressed by what I'm going to say... But... The colorful images you've presented us, oh Xeeron, are describing logical conjunction operator "AND" (this very thing - ∧) - but not a word "and", used in the source. Quite possibly your misunderstanding of this fact led you to this inability to understand multiple other sources and examples and this persistent delusion of yours.
I propose we vote then on the verifiability of the claim that basing on the source (the HRW report phrase discussed) SO militias are definitely guilty in rapes and all the other scrimes. FeelSunny ( talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
What I see here, Igny, is yet another word play from another US-based non-profit organization, like Freedom Foundation or something like that, financed by some unknown US-based sources. FeelSunny ( talk) 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the answer I received to my email (I asked if the HRW has found evidence that Ossetian militia commited all of the things mentioned in the sentence, or if some of them were commited by criminal gangs only and not by Ossetians):
Dear Sir,
In our reporting on the Russia/Georgia conflict, wherever we could, Human Rights Watch identified the perpetrator, but distinguishing between different Ossetian militia and criminal gangs was not always possible in every case.
For additional information, please consult our most recent report on the abuses committed by all sides to the conflict, “Up In Flames: Humanitarian Law Violations and Civilian Victims in the Conflict Over South Ossetia,” which is available online at: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/01/22/flames-0 Offliner ( talk) 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand it right the HRW people just used the phrase composition like "American soldiers and criminal gangs raped" in the initial report intentionally, and not by mistake/ misunderstanding? I can beleive to a HRW editor that never came to Ossetia at all distinguishing between different Ossetian militia and criminal gangs was not always possible in every case - so he just decided to speak of them as if they were one?? Do we consider this source reliable? FeelSunny ( talk) 01:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember there was a Russian estimate for Georgian casualties in the info. box and an Independent Estimate. Furthermore, any military historian will laugh and laugh and laugh at the killed to wounded ratios on Georgian casualties, (i.e. 1 to 10), which reminds me of a sniper, shooting at James Bond from a distance of 10 ft, aiming at his forehead and nailing bond in the shoe. I mean really? I think the article could only benefit from the inclusion, or rather re-introduction of those estimates. 68.165.233.75 ( talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Why has this topic in the edit been largely ignored? 68.167.1.235 ( talk) 07:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like everyone but Georgians just forgot the matter. I'll try to find some info on that. FeelSunny ( talk) 08:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought the russians lost 75. BTW, I somewhere read that Kokhoititis life guard was the only unit left of the seperate militia forces after the georgian rush in South Ossetia. Notice, that georgian special forces were allready heading towards the Roki tunnel after captured nearly all villages around the capitol when the regulars were still advacning against Tskhinvali. That means, georgian SF's meat ossetian resistence in every village and slaughtered them or, the ossetian militias left the region before the attack began, what I really doubtfull, because it was a surprise attack. So, anyone with informations about that topic ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.51.146 ( talk) 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The highest reported casualties for Russians were 85, not counting wounded. However highest reported casualties for Georgians were in the thousands. Furthermore the current Georgian army shrank from 40,000 to 2,000. So what happened to 38,000? Also, the only FORWARD unit left was Kokoituy's Guards, and that was also after the merger, i.e. units merged into it, usually when fighting units tend to merge. Also, The Ossetians had reserves, only Saakashvili & company were stupid enough to fail to deploy reserves, the Ossetians and Russians had plenty. Also, the Ossetians were ordered to retreat, to defend Tskhinvali, instead of defending the left flank leading to the Roki Tunnel. At least that's what I read in the military press at the time. No, I don't have the sources, at least cannot remember off the top of my head, which is why we're not putting that in the article, but I figured you might want to know. Also, FeelSunny, thank you for looking for that info, let me know when you find it. 68.167.1.235 ( talk) 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that Russians are still considered to be the attacker in the Casualty Box. The US Ambassador to Russia called waht the Russians did a counter-attack, or in other words response to an attack, thus stating that Georgians attacked first. Furthermore a plethora of claims have been made, including one by Bush's Sec. of State, claiming that Putin provoked Saakashvili into attacking first. Nearly all of Independent Journalists, including Ames of the Nation, (whose paper got kicked out of Russia for reasons unrelated to this article) stated that Georgia attacked first. HRW reported that the first civillian casualties were caused by Georgia. Der Spiegel stated that Georgia attacked first. More and more people are starting to see that it was Georgia that invaded first. Why is then Russia, on Wikipedia, treated as the attacker? The columns should be switched, with Russia being the defender and Georgia being the attacker. It's a miracle that this hasn't been done already! 68.167.1.235 ( talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why not in order of starting the military action? FeelSunny ( talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Georgia started war with SO with the first shell that fell on Tskhinvali. That was August 7, 23:45, according to the OSCE monitors. And that was an act of war, though not declared. So, SO also entered the war.
First victims among Russian PK forces were reported an hour later. By that time Tskhinvali has long been shelled. Peacekeepers did not fight back (quite naturally, they did not have any artillery at their base, for they were a peacekeepers, not an invasion army).
By 8 AM Georgian tanks entered the city, firing into basements, where civilians sought shelter from the bombs. Fights on the streets with Ossetian defenders of the city started.
Then Russian President announced Russia will counter Georgian attack. According to different sources, Russian forces enter South Ossetia on August 8, but not earlier that 10 AM (Georgians claim a plane came and fired at them). That was an act of war, though not declared. After that Georgians started to cry for help all over the Western medias. That was way after their attack on Tskhginvali. The timeline is as follows: Georgia attacks city - Ossetian defenders fight with the offenders - Georgian artillery kills Russian peacekeepers - Empire strikes back:)
Anyway, the SO entered the war with the first Georgian attack on it's capital. And Russia entered the war later. That is why Russia should stand second, while SO - come first in the infobox. FeelSunny ( talk) 14:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, your arguments sound too Jesuit these days. They contradict common sence. Of course, when you attack someone's territory with the weapon that may not under any means be used for precise strikes, you are starting a war. Salvo missiles and cluster bombs are not made for wiping off PK bases and not harming the city that lies around. PS. I never told anything about Abkhazia entering a war yet. I have not studied any documents about Abkhazia in this war yet. I am really happy I had no reason to dig into documents on Abkhazia, for there was no such cruel conflict as in SO. FeelSunny ( talk) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems there is a Russian soldier (who defected or was captured by Georgians and brainwashed) who now lives in Georgia and has become another dispute between Georgia and the Russian Federation [4] [5]. Is this worth mentioning in this or another Russian/Georgian article? It is a remarkable story (I think). — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 19:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll make a redirect to make the finding easier and in case it becomes a bigger issue. Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this does not has to do much with war in SO - half a year has passed since the war. The guy told journalists that if his unit was stationed not in Georgia, but near any other border, he would leave to any other place. Definitely not the case of choosing democracy, rather just another desertion b/c of some dumb officer/ senior sergeant. FeelSunny ( talk) 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone understand what this means: [6].
"The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe extended on Thursday a mandate for its unarmed military observers in Georgia, the OSCE press service said."
However: "The mandate of the OSCE Mission to Georgia ended on 31 December 2008 and is not affected by today's decision," the organization said on its website."
What's going on? Offliner ( talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which side of the conflict did not want to extend the mandate. The reason is OSCE mission works in SO and A, and most OSCE members do not see them as independent. However, SO and A do not want the decision about a mission on their land to be made by Tbilisi. This is highly controversial topic. FeelSunny ( talk) 23:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The article extensively uses the Moscow Defense Brief website, a source of questionable credibility, as a reference for military details. This is how that website describes itself:
The principal aim of this publication is to present Russian perspectives on security and defense issues to readers beyond Russia's borders.
Dozens of references to this self-declared POV website rise an issue of neutrality in the article. -- Kober Talk 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Moscow Defense Brief is a reliable source and an excellent publication. If you care to look at some of their past articles you'll see that they've been critical of the Russian government. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
For quite a while, the neutrality of this article wasn't disputed, and then in comes a single user, Kober, and places the "neutrality disputed" tag back into the article. So all it takes is a single user to dispute any article on Wikipedia? We've had pro-Georgian posters here, Xeeron, Narking, but none of them put up a "neutrality disputed" tag. Should we say somewhere in the article that it's disputed by merely one user? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 05:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Right. And neutrality of this article actually is not disputed. Though several sections around the article were discussed for POV at different times, the article as a whole was never (at least what I remember) discussed for general POV. Maybe the user could present his views on why the article is not neutral here, just to make this article disputed before placing the tag. Because placing the tag itself does not make the article disputed. I propose removing the tag, if the editor does not present any such comments. FeelSunny ( talk) 11:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This article had the POV tag for a very long time (check the history). Imho, effort is better directed towards making the article NPOV and better in general, than discussing whether or not it deserves the tag. -- Xeeron ( talk) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not the tag, it's the absence of explanations. FeelSunny ( talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago I added some pictures, but now I feel we have a bit too many. The whole picture issue is of course very subjective, but I feel the current situation isn't esthetically pleasing. Maybe we could remove some pictures or arrange them in a more esthetically pleasing way, maybe grouping them together, for example in horizontal rows after each chapter (is this possible?) Offliner ( talk) 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This war was simply about Georgia trying to take back South Ossetia as describe by Saakashvili himself on the first day of the war. That is what should be describe in this article and not conspiracy theories the Georgian government thought up after their adventure turned into a miserable failure. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ossetian war is not civil war as civil war is conducted for the political reasons the same war between Ossetins and Georgians, between two people. But it is war for independence. Gnomsovet ( talk) 09:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The lead was claiming the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War was a civil war. I have removed the mention to "civil war" as it misrepresents that conflict. Yes, Ossetian South Ossetians were fighting against Georgian South Ossetians, but by dubbing it a civil war, it omits the fact that the Ossetians were also fighting against Georgian Georgians (who were allied of course with the Georgian South Ossetians). Instead of trying to qualify things, it is best simply to state the facts as the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, otherwise it gets messy and makes it harder for people to understand. If I saw "Civil war" and followed that link which says in the lead: "The 1991–1992 South Ossetian War was fought as part of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict from 1991 to 1992 between the Georgian government forces and ethnic Georgian militias on one side and the forces of South Ossetia and their allies on the other." I would be confused as hell. Simplify is the answer. -- Russavia Dialogue 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if you want to ask me about some more wars, please facilitate a list so I wont have to go through them one by one. Btw, here is what the wiki article on civil wars says:
James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, states that "a civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies".
The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term 'civil war'. They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements: [3] [4]
So lets see:
Or so hopes the person whose argument contradict each other. Tell me Xeeron, how can a non de facto government be obliged to recourtse to the regular military forces, except in the case of countering an invasion, and since it is an invasion, it cannot be a Civil War. In the US Civil War, the South declared war on the North by attackin Fort Sumpter, thus justifying calling it a Civil War. In our case, the South Ossetians did not attack the Georgian Peacekeepers, or at least there is no clear proof of them doing so. I hold no grudge against the Georgians, the common people that is, who are stuck with a leader against their will, (see Martial Law Declared 2007), but I do think that this leadership should be shown in all of its "splendor". I don't see why you are trying to support him so vehemently, under the clever guise of "just wanting to get the truth out", I've yet to see your support for South Ossetia on controvercial points. And no one called the First or Second Chechen Wars a Civil War. 68.167.1.235 ( talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, I'm not going to discuss it anymore. The matter is quite obvious. Please go read Georgian Civil War and just stop this useless disruptive edits. The Georgian Civil War is this very the conflict your source describes. 1991–1992 South Ossetia War is another event, and it was not a "civil war". That's why there are two different articles for these two events in Wikipedia. Creating some weird hybrides like "1991–1992 South Ossetia War|civil war" from your part is absolutely wrong. Leave the original name of the article be as it is. FeelSunny ( talk) 14:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Xeeron, but this was a part of a period of a civil war, but the conflict did not make up to a whole civil war, can't you see? The Polish–Soviet War was a part of Russian revolution, but it was not a civil war or a revolution itself. And noone calls Polish–Soviet War a civil war, though prior to the conflict both sides were parts of the same state, just like in Georgia. Why do you continue this stupid argue? FeelSunny ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1991–1992 South Ossetia War ( Georgian-Ossetian conflict) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Georgian Civil War | |||||||||
Location of South Ossetia within Georgia | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
South Ossetian Separatists North Ossetian Volunteers Russian Forces | The National Guard of Georgia | ||||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||||
2000 | 600 |
I though about your note for a bit, but it had to go. How many news sources call it civil war and how many think it was not a civil war is hard to know and the note was total WP:OR. Instead I reworded the lead to describe the situation in more detail, while avoiding the word "civil war". -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, you cannot edit, just because the majority of Google's hits say so. If you want to undo an edit, argue it here. We've been over this so many damn times, with the title, with the casualty box, that quite frankly most editors have gotten it by now. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The article had Russia-Georgia war for a long time now. Then 68.167.1.235 changed it without giving any reasons. After doing a google check I reverted giving a reason. You undid my revert, again not giving any reasons for the change. -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Kober, Saakashvili was educated in the US, and his coup was financed by the US, and he recieved monetary support from the US, once the Rose Revolution took place. Therefore he is US backed, no need to delete that. Furthermore, only in Georgia, are the events still "a matter of controversy" due to Georgia's media censorship, in the rest of the World it's crystal clear. No more POV edits please. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, Roki tunnel was attacked by Georgia, and part of that was in Russia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/01/georgia.russia?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews "Human Rights Watch said it had received a letter from the Georgian defence ministry acknowledging the use of M85 cluster bombs near the Roki tunnel that connects South Ossetia with Russia." Thus fighting took place in the Roki tunnel area. And part of Roki tunnel is in Russia. No Original Research here. And yet went ahead and edited anyway, without discussing. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please get an account? It is pretty confusing seeing you edit from a different IP (from the same provider) all the time: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This user may just have a dynamic IP. Nothing's wrong about it. FeelSunny ( talk) 13:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That nonsense T-62 in Rissian Army only in storage. Russian Army uses only T-72 T-80 T-90. Even, the first modification T-72 leaves with armses. Georgia, Abkhazia, Ossetia T-62 has in service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomsovet ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Was inserted in a completely wrong way:
These are the main reasons I deleted the present image. The way it is, it just hinders adequate understanding of the conflict by the reader. FeelSunny ( talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
So it was you who inserted this BS map in the beginning? I do not have enough time to waste to correct other users mistakes/ lies, I just point them out. The image as it is contradicts the source and is biased. The image includes the text comments too, and they tell of nothing of "Georgian version" FeelSunny ( talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There exist two figures for the casualty box regarding Russian casualties. The fist one is 71 killed, 356 wounded, and 5 captured. You can find this figure at the website of Moscow defense brief. Look for "the august war between Russia and Georgia". Another figure would be 71 dead, 341 wounded, and 6 captured. However, the other figure is 48 killed, 157 wounded, and 6 captured. Since the figure was suddenly lowered, I believe the last one to be strongly inaccurate. However, Offliner keeps telling me that community consensus puts the figure at 48 dead. Can someone tell me if this is true?
Ok, I think we should all calm down. Xeeron, I beg your pardon if I ever offended you and ask you to continue discussion in a normal way. I also will always try to discuss any matter in a calm and sound way. FeelSunny ( talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Compromise solution: let's just mention both numbers, and leave it to the poor reader to decide what is correct and what is not. Offliner ( talk) 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, the IP is not spreading lies about you. The IP makes a valid point. You completely ignore when Georgian military casualties should have been higher then posted, in this very discussion, while instantly jumping on it when the Russian casualties are higher then reported, all the while pretending to act unbiased. There is a pattern of you constantly making edits tipping the article in favor of Georgia, I mean you even managed to find a Russian Column moving in the damn mountains somehow Russian POV. Or a burned tank. While the images you posted, some of them had Georgian actors, posing as "casualties" from a blatantly biased source.
As for Narking the Unbiased, who had this to say: "If you didn't know it Carl Bildt isn't just foreign minister of Sweden but also Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It explains why he went to Tbilisi during the war. So whether you like his opinions or not they are surely relevant here. Narking (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)"
That's from the Archive #11, of this svery article. So Narking believes Bilt's opinions were relevant here, so what did Bilt say: http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5571&Itemid=65
"The justification given by Russia is that it is protecting Russian nationals, but the obligation to protect people - irrespective of their nationality - lies with the state in which those individuals are located. No state has a right to intervene militarily in the territory of another state simply because there are individuals there with a passport issued by that state or who are nationals of that state."
but then Bilt continued:
"...And we have reason to remember how Hitler used this very doctrine little more than half a century ago to undermine and attack substantial parts of central Europe."
Yup, here we have Bilt comparing Russia's actions in the current struggle to that of Nazi Germany, and Narking saying that Bilt's opinions are relevant. When Narking was proven dead wrong, did he apologize? Nope.
So there you have it Ladies and Gents, Narking and Xeeron the two pro-Georgian Editos who call themselves "unbiased", with one trying to include Georgian actors while calling a pro-Russian South Ossetian parade POV, and Narking who wants to compare this action of Russia to Hitler, or at least to promote someone doing so. How very "unbiased" of you two. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
And another statement from Narking the "Unbiased" - near the end of Archive #10: "It's obvious that Putin is behind this war. He went to Vladikavkaz to push the army to attack Georgia. Rumours say that some Russian military didn't want to attack so Putin himself had to go there and push them. Narking (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)"
Any source of these rumors? Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricWarrior007 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I will only answer HistoricWarrior007 and the IP (might be the same editor) once since I'm not going to waste my time on editors who obviously are only here to make personal attacks and with no other serious editing history elsewhere. Of course it's clear for most people when reading your statements above who is the POV-pusher here. First of all, to tell about Bildt's statement doesn't mean one has to agree with that statement. It's relevant because of the person who said it. Secondly, if you are interested, the rumours that you quote above I heard while in Tbilisi during the war from a Russian with contacts within the Russian army. I didn't try to put it in the article since there was no reference to any printed source. That's how serious editors work. And now, Na dobranich! Närking ( talk) 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Why did Reenem just move the 48 casualty figure below into "notes"? The whole idea was to treat both numbers equivalently, so they really do belong in the same place also. Offliner ( talk) 22:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Narking - where am I showing the so-called pro-Russia bias? Also, you were the main person arguing for Bilt's comments to be included, and when Bilt was proven factually incorrect, i.e. unlike Nazi Germany Russia didn't takeover and annex Georgia, you went ahead without apologizing, to continue with your propaganda, and attacks against me. Care to show facts? Also, the "rumors" about the war were so damn numerous, that's its hard to believe their credibility. And you are right, serious editors don't post rumors in discussion pages as their opinions, so again Narking, why did you do so? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Poco Quatro. Just as I was about to undo the "neutrality dispute" title, I found it was removed. It's like you're a mind reader. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Currently we do have the following pictures/maps in the article:
Notice something? There is just one pro Georgian picture/map left (two counting the one FeelSunny is currently trying to remove), compared to ~7 pro Russian (South Ossetian) ones.
This is not restricted to pictures: I am not inherently pro-Georgian and I prefer to have the article neutral, but with most ardent pro-Georgian editors left and pro-Russian ones still present, I need to devote more and more of my time to countering POV edits, so I have less and less to actually improve the article. -- Xeeron ( talk) 14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is a bit crude way to prevent that... — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1 pic of a SO refugee and 1 pic from a Georgian refugee in the article to keep things balanced? — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I did miss people in the photos (machines can't feel pain or anger and thus are nor personally affected by war) so I put some people-pictures in. Personally I can't see the difference in the (pain) photo's of refugees from both sides. Let's not make the war look like a field trip, people where hurt, war is awful, let's not hide that! — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
First off, Russia did enter South Ossetia after Georgia's attack, (minus the Peacekeepers). Those are facts, that only Georgia is disputing, and keep in mind that according to a recent Georgian poll, 22% of Georgians think they won the war. So how in the World is saying the truth Russian POV? Operation Clear Field was not made up by the Russians. It furthermore denotes the damn near exact attacks that Georgians made against South Ossetia. It's not POV if it's true. It may be inserted in the wrong place, but that alone, does not make the image, or the caption, POV. Furthermore the image is inserted in the background section, which seems to be the most proper place to put it and that's where military maps, in military articles, go. Furthermore, Georgian Rocket Launchers, are Georgian Rocket Launchers, there's nothing wrong with calling a Georgian Rocket Launcher, a Georgian Rocket Launcher. It's like you claiming that me calling you Xeeron is POV. It's ridiculous! The caption can be shortened to "Georgian Rocket Launchers that shelled Tskhinvali" and it would still not be POV. Also, how in the World is a burned tank POV? Then again, you're the person claiming that a convoy heading between the mountains can be mildly POV. And your pro-Georgia caption, isn't even that pro-Georgia. Aside from "STOP RUSSIA" all I see is something one can see Downtown of any major "has been" city. Stop trying to see bias everywhere. "On the Outskirts of Tskhinvali" - how is that POV? What makes it POV? You yelling "LOOK AT ME! POV!" doesn't make it POV. University of Tskhinvali shows the damage done by Georgian Grads. Again, truth isn't POV. As for the rally, once again, truth isn't POV. South Ossetians want to be with North Ossetia, which is part of Russia, ergo Russian flags, in one of the MANY demonstrations that took place. You think that a column in the mountains, moving towards Tkshinvali, a fact that has happened, can be even remotely described as Russian POV, and yet you have the gall to claim that you're not pro-Georgian? Wow, just wow.
Also Narking, I recall having a debate with you earlier about, what was it, when a Swede came out with a book about the war saying that Russia was the agressor, and I stated that the book will be disproven in six months, and I was right? Remember that? Well about the Georgian refugees, you may want to re-read Lokshina about a Georgian Boxer named Misha, who lives in South Ossetia and isn't clensed. South Ossetians are smart, they know that ethnic clensing of Georgians can get them equated to Kosovars and thus forever ban their union with Russia, so I am going to call bullshit on your claim about ethnic clensing of Georgians in South Ossetia, just as I called bullshit on that book. Georgians, although much fewer in number, live in South Ossetia today, under no protection from the Russian Army. On the other hand, in Kosovo Serbs are clamoring for protection against NATO. But please, embarass yourself as you did with the book, show me proof of ethnic clensing, you, o person who said that Russia was clearly the agressor.
Mariah-Yulia - I don't think that this particular war was as devastating as the 1991-1992 war, even remotely so. The Russians got the situation under control rather quickly, and it was Georgian troops who got hit, after they hit South Ossetian civillians. However when we show a picture of Georgian troops, Xeeron calls that Russian POV. 68.167.1.103 ( talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Several winners of the World Press Photo Awards have very very good photos. Unfortunately, I guess non will be available without copyright: [32], [33], [34], [35] -- Xeeron ( talk) 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am quite sure I have seen the last one somewhere on Wiki, most probably with a free license. You may try to find copyleft version at the articles about SO. One of the first three had a large controvercy around it as being staged (with a man holding a head of a dead one on his hands). AFAIK, the dead body changes position on two different photos. Can read the analysis of the pictures here [36]. FeelSunny ( talk) 12:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the current pictures is how it should be, about just as much SO and Georgian pictures (and I'm sure a Georgian funeral looked the same). I just hope that when I came back here in 3 months (Georgia & Russia are not my particular fields of interest) they still will be there... Special thanks to FeelSunny for the denationalisation of the refugee pictures. — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Now Xeeron, you actually aren't allowed to advertise the talent of Georgian actors. Here is a Youtube Expose, of Mr. Grzedzinski. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veswv0y_rJY&ytsession=AZlpXC5UZcoVbRSmiW1_cg0ht_--MQP0jLRgmYFhp_wyoG9i_8B5LnxUDcaypSsMjB6cAcllz1qNBFLy74Zi_sONAKdpb3Dwfu5mVeiklG5n43Rq-pw2Z7lA37f3H_9OgXHpUEtXarj_1ovuJRAfF1USFGFsZJvWQoWsMxWlTTO2WC6u-eyWn78-kktrQf9u8SXBi0oYzVRbQVAfmFUxVghRicR0WjMzavGNhv0umxXWvxjNuIUUVYiw1_Oz0EPlndbPSGYCy3CRuSwn5qp6JV_YCk5J2aSm
Pro-Georgian editors tried to flag that expose as unappropriate, but anyone who wants to know the truth can log in and check it out, it takes 2 minutes to register on Youtube, and the video's only like 1-2 mins long. I'm not averse to putting up photos, but they must be credible, and have actual people, not paid actors. Considering Poland's suggestion to partion Russia, I doubt that mr. Grzedsinski can be considered credible, by any stretch of the imagination. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Some pretty cool maps are around, unfortunately all in spanish. -- Xeeron ( talk) 13:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
At an RFC initiated at 2007 Georgian Demonstrations the recommendation was that to maintain neutrality in these articles, Russian backed should be used to describe South Ossetia and Abkhazia if US backed is used to describe the Rose Revolution. Describing the Rose Revolution as US backed is already done by plenty of neutral or pro-Georgian sources. For example:
Inside Track: Georgia's Path to Authoritarianism
The situation in Georgia today is far from the promise of the U.S.-backed Rose Revolution
Georgia kills two Russian officers in disputed clash
Relations between Moscow and the former Soviet republic have been tense ever since Saakashvili came to power in a U.S.-backed "Rose Revolution" in early 2004.
France Cool On Georgian NATO Membership
Relations between Russia and the former Soviet republic have been tense since Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili came to power in a U.S.-backed “Rose Revolution” in 2004.
The glamour of street protests should not blind us to the reality of US-backed coups in the former USSR
The formulaic repetition of a third "people power" revolution in the former Soviet Union in just over one year - after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003 and in Ukraine last Christmas - means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country's control over the western hemisphere.
To maintain neutrality we either use both or we use neither and this goes for all articles. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Konashenko pulls a green compass out of his shirt pocket and opens it. It's a U.S. military model. "This is a little trophy -- a gift from one of my soldiers," he says. "Everything that the Georgians left behind, I mean everything, was American. All the guns, grenades, uniforms, boots, food rations -- they just left it all. Our boys stuffed themselves on the food," he adds slyly. "It was tasty." The booty, according to Konashenko, also included 65 intact tanks outfitted with the latest NATO and American (as well as Israeli) technology. That Was No Small War in Georgia -- It Was the Beginning of the End of the American Empire by Mark Ames, AlterNet. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Come on, not only does the source not back up the claim, it is squarly contradicting the claim it is supposed to support. -- Xeeron ( talk) 21:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I arge to Offliner and Igny on this. This is now a common knowledge, basically, since Rohrabacher/ Hillary questioning Pentagon officials it became obvious the West wants to have nothing in common with the war and Saakashvili's claims. After that, hundreds of Western sources/ politicians "questioned" the arguments Saakashvili used as an justifications for his attack. FeelSunny ( talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with the compromise version that is currently there. It says "this claim has not gained universal support in the west." The wording seems to imply, that the claim has gained some support, but not universal. However, I am unaware of even a single case where the claim would have gained support. Therefore, the current wording seems a bit wrong. Offliner ( talk) 06:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree. FeelSunny ( talk) 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The unfreezing of the conflicts was removed from the background section. There are plenty of sources that say that Saakashvili vowed to unfreeze the conflicts
Saakashvili has vowed to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity and unfreeze conflicts with breakaway regions. Following popular uprising, Tbilisi managed to gain control over renegade Autonomous Republic of Ajara and ousted strongman Aslan Abashidze in May 2004.
International Crisis Group Conflict history: Georgia Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 01:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both Pocopocopocopoco's actions and Offliner's words. But I think we absolutely must adhere to the source wording with such sensible matters. So - please put the phrase back, but the in words used in the source. Best wishes, FeelSunny ( talk) 20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, and Russia together with separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other. It occurred in August 2008, and involved land, air and sea warfare."
The job of Wikipedia is to avoid POV wherever possible. Russia-Georgia conflict means that the Russians initiated the conflict, and the Georgians responded. That is factually incorrect. The two main arguments for keeping it that way, is that "Google says so" and "well it's been there for a long time". First off, a few months isn't a long time. Secondly Google does not make it the truth. Google also reports that there are WMDs in Iraq and that there were 2,000 civilian casualties in South Ossetia. The Google test should be limited to spelling and uncontrovercial names. It should not be used to promote one bias over another. Otherwise, whatever the mass media says will be true, because it will always accumulate the biggest amount of hits on Google. However as Wikipedians we must be neutral. Hence, I made the following change, that is completely NPOV:
"The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Caucasian conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, and Russia together with separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other. It occurred in August 2008, and involved land, air and sea warfare."
It clearly shows that the conflict was limited to the Caucasian area in terms of fighting, and was primarily a battle in the Big Game for the area. Since this is an NPOV edit, I made it asap. Please disscuss it here if you don't think it's NPOV, prior to making the edit. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As per my edit summary, this was discussed at some length in the talk archives and there was no consensus to add this. No consensus means that it doesn't get added. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)