![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
This subpage of the 2008 South Ossetia war talk page is to be used only to discuss proposed changes to the title of the 2008 South Ossetia war article. General discussions about improvements to the 2008 South Ossetia war article should be made at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war.
The overarching policy on naming is given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions.
Multiple previous discussions have taken place on the article's title. See the following:
This page has been created in order to try and bring discussion together. Feel free to state your position on the renaming by beginning a new line in the sections below with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. Feel free to add new sections for proposals not already covered.
"Georgia and Russia fought a brief war earlier this month over South Ossetia" Reuters -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 13:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC) maybe someone should view the past discussions of 2006 Lebanon War. The exactly same discussion was going on there too.-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. See my justification for title "Russian-Georgian war". Biophys ( talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support The conflict began in South Ossetia, and although it did spread, a majority of the fighting between involved parties (and causalities inflicted by ground warfare) occurred in that territory. Now, if Russia and Georgia fight again over unresolved issues in the region (hopefully not) then it will probably necessitate a name change. An example I would cite is the Vietnam War, which describes the region in conflict, but not the major player (the US); notably this conflict also experienced spillover. Menrunningpast ( talk) 03:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Support The current name reflects the cause, objective, and the primary theater of the war. Neutralizing offensive capabilities of Georgia by Russia within Georgia proper does not change these facts and does not make it a war between Georgia and Russia. Also, South Ossetia War is how it is consistently referred to in neutral international media. Editors of Kosovo War, Bosnian War, Gulf War managed to keep their article titles non-tendentious. At least wiki should have less of double-standard junk. Gleb ( talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Maybe the war begins in Southossetia but its relevance began with the Russian invasion deep into Georgia and Russian occupation of 2 entities of and additional bufferzones inside Georgia. Elysander ( talk) 13:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Support - the cause and main battlefield are present in the title and that renders it acceptable. Bogorm ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Support, since it's more or less neutral (does not define whether the South Ossetia is an independent state or just a region of Georgia) and more or less correct (the conflict began in South Ossetia and SO is where most of military operations took place). -- 81.195.27.19 ( talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Even if it started in South Ossetia it soon grew much bigger than that. Narking ( talk) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. The current title strikes me as the least problematic of all the options. Wars are often named after the casus belli -- no one suggests that the War of Jenkins Ear was actually fought on the hapless captain's earlobe. This war was primarily over the status of the named region. It is a rarity for me to argue good sense against prevalent usage, but I find all the various formulations used by the media to be ungainly in this instance. Robert A.West ( Talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. Per Robert West's arguments.-- Life is like a box of chocolates ( talk) 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The war was not limited to South Ossetia, and even Abkhasia. The name would not be descriptive of the conflict WH Coordinator ( talk) 09:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. per The Devil's Advocate.-- Staberinde ( talk) 08:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If as you say we should name the article with what the greatest number of English speakers would easily recognise then we should definatly go with "Russian Invasion of Georgia - 2008" as that is how the public as well as the media views this war, and also how the general public would refer to it. MattUK ( talk) 20:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"the media made a mistake" hardly, the media are accurate, only a communist who hates NATO and dislikes the West would think that... oh wait, look at your profile, I wonder why you think the worlds free media made a mistake, but the Russian state controled media hasnt? hmmm... I wonder. MattUK ( talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - In the conflict there are four sites - Russian Federation, Republic of Abkhasia, Republic of South Ossetia and Georgia. Disparaging two of them is not impartial. Bogorm ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
weak oppose it has the charictaistics of a civil war (with foreign intervention) and strugle for indepedance (also with foreign intervention)as such the this name can also be sdaid to not sum up the nature of this war.[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]
The media almost exclusivly refers to the Iraq War as the Iraq War, also this is English Speaking Wikipedia, based on the general naming conventions of the of the Anglosphere, I'm sure on the Russian Language Wikipedia (if there is one) it is refered to as the "American/British and coalition forces invasion/liberation of Iraq", or something along those lines. The same as we don't call it the British liberation of the Falklands - 1982, but the Falklands War, in the case of both Iraq and the Falklands we know that we were involved, so our involvement doesnt need to be restated in the title, this being the English Language Wikipedia. On the Russian Wikipedia I'm sure you have already named the the article "The Glorious Russia liberation of the Russian peoples who were enslaved under the evil capitalist democratically elected government of Georgia", or some other drivel along those lines. MattUK ( talk) 13:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia did invade Georgia, that isn't doubted by any of the worlds media, apart from Russias state controlled media, and even they agree that they made "incursions" into Georgian territory, and the 2008 part to differentiate it from when they have attacked Georgia in the past. MattUK ( talk) 08:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if this isn't the best title. __ meco ( talk) 09:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to elaborate and confirm that this is in my opinion the best title. The two breakaway republics are still recognized by the international community to be part of Georgia. However, more importantly has been that Russia went much further than to secure the territory of South Ossetia. They have made substantial incursions into parts of Georgia that have nothing to do with the two disputed regions. __ meco ( talk) 12:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Russian Invasion of Georgia is the central part of the Russian-Georgian War but only part Elysander ( talk) 21:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it on a couple of sites. I like it-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 14:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur. To title the war on time rather than geography seems to eliminate the POV arguement for the most part. I've also heard August War and would like to suggest it as a possible derivation of the Five Day War.
Yes, it seems like the media now use both the "Five-day War" and the "August War". Although the first one is a little strange since it didn't last five days. The second one usually adds in Georgia, so the title could be "August war in Georgia" also. Närking ( talk) 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm .. not a new development. First I did read from a "5-Tage-Krieg" was in German "Neues Deutschland" (former DDR-SED newspaper) end of August or September. It seems a rather artificial description (with a time line construction with a start of war in the night 7 on 8 in August and an official end with Medevedev's order to halt on 12 August). Russian troops raided Poti harbour after Medevedev's order. Elysander ( talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Can the title be improved to describe the matter more accurately than the above-mentioned proposals? There should always be room for improvement. eg 2008 Georgian breakaway conflict, Invasion of South Ossetia, Ossetian genocide ...???-- Tananka ( talk) 02:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but lately the conflict seems to be referred to as "The August War". Since that doesn't seem to break NPOV, should that be a suggested title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.16 ( talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As the war has moved from being a current event to being part of recent history, it might be worth looking at what reliable English-language sources are calling the conflict. Greenshed ( talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Who is the guy? And why is his view that that important to be listed next to the statement by US Secretary of State? Should we also include opinions by individual Georgian researchers? -- Kober Talk 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
For some great fun, go up to this section of the talk page, and search for "PhD" and read what was argued about it. But maybe it is that Ivan Kotlyarov's PhD in economics is worth more than Svante Cornell's in Peace and Conflict Studies when commenting on a war ;-) -- Xeeron ( talk) 15:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand resistance to "Operation 'Clear field'" [4], but what's about "operation to force georgia to peace" [5]? ( Igny ( talk) 15:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
Do you think the article is starting to get too big again, and if yes, what should we do? Especially the "Background" and "Responsibility" sections have grown a lot since the last big trim. Offliner ( talk) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(reindent) What is the good target? Keep the article under 150k? 130k? ( Igny ( talk) 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
Xeeron removed the South Ossetian accusations of Georgian shelling: [7], saying that they were "one-sided." However, on the August 7 section we still have the Georgian accusation of South Ossetian shelling: "Georgian officials claim that on August 7 at around 2 p.m. Ossetian artillery fire that had begun the night before resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia and continuing for several hours" - which is now, after the removal of the other comment, one-sided, because it does not mention the Georgian shellin. How to restore balance? Either remove the Georgian claim as well, or bring the Ossetian claim back. Offliner ( talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose changing this to "according to an interpretation of some materials published in the Russian media..." since these claims are exactly that: based on interpretation of materials such as the Life Goes On (news article). The first version said that the troops were ordered to move on August 7, the second (corrected) version says they were ordered to move on August 8.
If the BBC would publish an article which said "Bush ordered the attack on Iraq in 2002," and would later publish a correction, which said the correct date was "2003", not "2002," would I be allowed the use the first version as a source for my claim in Wikipedia, that Bush already ordered the attack on "2002?" Offliner ( talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
From [10]:
"Zwölf Tage nach dem Nato-Gipfel erlässt Putin den Befehl, Russlands Beziehungen zu den Separatisten-Regimen in Abchasien und Südossetien bis hart an die Grenze der Anerkennung aufzuwerten. Am 20. April schießt ein russisches Kampfflugzeug eine georgische Aufklärungsdrohne über Abchasien ab. Daraufhin zieht Saakaschwili, nach Beobachtungen der International Crisis Group, 12 000 georgische Soldaten im hochgerüsteten Militärstützpunkt Senaki zusammen."
Translation: "12 days after the Nato summit, Putin gives the order to strengthen Russia's relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, almost up to the point of recognizing them. On 20 April, a Russian fighter shoots down a Georgian spy plane over Abhkazia. After that, according to International Crisis Group, Saakashvili deploys 12,000 troops into Senaki."
From [11]:
"Dass die Georgier bereits im Juli Truppen an der Grenze zu Südossetien massiert hätten, bestätigt ein anderer Kenner der Lage, der vor Ort in Tiflis war: Wolfgang Richter, Oberst im Generalstab und Leitender Militärberater der deutschen OSZE-Mission."
Translation: "Colonel Wolfgang Richter, a leading military consultant to the German OSCE mission, confirms that the Georgians had amassed troops to the South Ossetian border already in July."
"Westliche Geheimdienste beobachten, wie nach dem 30. Juli, nach Ende des Militärmanövers "Kaukasus 2008", die Melde- und Kommunikationswege auf russischer Seite, anders als üblich, in Betrieb gehalten werden und die 58. Armee in Alarmbereitschaft bleibt. Für die US-Kundschafter mit ihrem Arsenal aus Spionagesatelliten, Aufklärungsflugzeugen und unbemannten Drohnen ist das eigentlich ein Grund zur Besorgnis."
Translation:
"According to Western intelligence agencies, in contrast to what is usually the case, the Russian military communications system was kept in operation even after the Caucasus 2008 military exercise, and the 58th Army was kept in alarm status."
"Denn auch nach dem Ende des Großmanövers auf der anderen, der georgischen Seite, tut sich unter den Augen amerikanischer Militärberater Erstaunliches. Präsident Saakaschwili schickt nach dem 30. Juli Teile seiner Armee nicht zurück in die Kasernen, sondern in Richtung Südossetien. Die Artilleriebrigade etwa, die acht Tage später, am 7. August, mit dem Beschuss der südossetischen Hauptstadt Zchinwali beginnen wird, ist eigentlich auf zwei Standorte verteilt, Senaki und Gori. Nun wird sie in Gori zusammengezogen."
Translation:
"After the end of the Georgian exercise, something amazing also happened, according to American military experts. President Saakashvili does not send a part of his army back to the barracks after July 30, but into the direction of South Ossetia. The artillery brigade, for example, which 8 days later, on August 7, will start the barrage of Tskhinvali, is actually is based in two locations, in Senaki and Gori. Now, however, it was brought together in Gori."
All possible (minor) translation mistakes are mine and not Google's. Offliner ( talk) 16:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please be careful when using translated material. You inserted: "Sources in European governments and secrets services speculate, that the Russian warning concerns Saakashvili's plans for invasion of South Ossetia. According to an early blueprint, the goal is to take over all important positions in 15 hours."
The German original reads: "Am 3. August meldet sich das russische Außenministerium mit einer letzten Warnung zu Wort: Ein "weitreichender Militärkonflikt" stehe bevor. Nur in den europäischen Regierungs- und Geheimdienstzentralen ahnen sie bereits, wovon die Rede ist: Saakaschwilis Pläne für einen Einmarsch sind schon länger fertig - ein erster Entwurf aus dem Jahr 2006, eine Art Blaupause für die spätere Operation, so heißt es, habe vorgesehen, in 15 Stunden alle wichtigen Stellungen zu erobern."
The original does not imply that the Russian warning concerned his plans. It only states that european governments/secret services had a vague idea of what Saakaschwili was planning. Also, the second part is given with a qualifier: "An early blueprint, it is said, ..." indicating that the Spiegel author did not trust the source. -- Xeeron ( talk) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
According to Moscow Defense Brief, "the total number of Russian forces in South Ossetia reached about 10,000 men and 120 tanks." In addition to this, Russia deployed 9,000 men in Abkhazia. So according to this they had 19,000 men in total in Georgia.
ISDP claims that Russian troops in South Ossetia outnumbered the 9,000 Georgian troops two-to-one on August 9. This means that Russia had 18,000 troops in South Ossetia on August 9, and at least 18,000 (South Ossetia) + 9,000 (Abkhazia) = 27,000 in Georgia in total. Our infobox says Russia had 15,000 regulars in Georgia. What is the truth?
First, I'd like to point out that the ISDP figure of 9,000 Georgians in South Ossetia comes directly from the Georgian authorities [15]. (This seems to be the case for almost every information in the ISDP paper.) Therefore, I strongly suspect that the claim that Russia had 18,000 troops in South Ossetia also comes from Georgian officials. In any case, I don't personally think the claim is too reliable, as it contradicts other sources. Offliner ( talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is from the WP you quoted above:
Here is what Moscow Defense brief writes:
ISPD:
All those sources point into the same direction: Georgia had an initial advantage, when it was only facing the South Ossetians and those Russian troops already in Tskhinvali. When more and more new Russian troops arrived via the Roki tunnel, the pressure started to mount and finally had to withdraw. Whether the estimate of 2 to 1 is correct is hard to tell, but on the general line, all sources say the same. -- Xeeron ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
(ri) If 5500-10000 moved through the tunnel, then the total number opposing the Georgians has to be 5500-10000 plus the Russians already present beforehand, plus the South Ossetians, plus any possible non-Russian army volunteers present. Additionally, we don't know whether all 12000 Georgians were committed to the battle, a non-negligable number might have been held back in reserve in Georgia. -- Xeeron ( talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeing how the Georgian list of names has been on the net for months now, is there any Russian list forthcoming? It would be quite valuable for the infobox. -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That started on my talk page, but I guess it makes more sense to have all discussion here, instead of split up. -- Xeeron ( talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Again I am going to ask all of you, can we discuss content issues only? I have extended the protection by two more days to facilitate additional discussion on the content. List the issues you have with the content or sources breifly without trying to think into other's motives. Explain why you think said sentence or source should not be there and what your ideal fix is. Discuss those, reach a compromise or two.
Remember that NPOV does not mean presenting just one so called "nuetral" point of view. It is possible and in some cases desired to have multiple points of view listed. I really suggest everyone on this talk page go to Wikipedia:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality and read that section instead of simply saying "Not NPOV", explain why you think it is not NPOV in one or two sentences (no more!). —— nix eagle email me 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
"The meeting on August 7 went ahead, but only the Georgians and Russian peacekeeping commander Marat Kulakhmetov showed up, Russian chief negotiator Yuri Popov and the Ossetian side did not participate.[104] Kulakhmetov advises the Georgians to declare a ceasefire. [122][120][104]"
"Russian chief negotiator over South Ossetia, Yuri Popov, said no agreement has been reach with Tbilisi over format of talks.
Popov told Rustavi 2 TV on 07 August after meeting with Temur Iakobashvili, the Georgian State Minister for Reintegration and chief negotiator: "We have not yet found understanding over the matter."
"An OSCE and JPKF team escorted the team of State Minister Yakobashvili to the JPKF Headquarters in Tskhinvali, where he had a meeting with ambassador Popov and the JPKF Commander General Kulakhmetov."
So Popov did meed with Iakobashvili on August 7 after all? Isn't this a contradiction? Other sources also seem to confirm, that Russia did not reject the talks on August 7, only South Ossetia did. Offliner ( talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
From Financial Times [26]:
"Following a short lull in the clashes, deadly fighting started again on August 7, each side blaming the other for the escalation. Heavier and heavier weapons were used. “One side would use a 60mm mortar, the other side would use a 90mm, then the 122s came out” was how one western observer put it.
Capt Ivanov and Eduard Kokoity, the pro-Moscow president of South Ossetia, say they held a meeting that day between Marat Kulakhmetov, commander of the Russian peacekeeping forces, and Temur Yakobashvili, the Georgian minister for reintegration, whose job is to deal with the breakaway regions. General Kulakhmetov asked Mr Yakobashvili to telephone Mr Saakashvili and tell him to declare a unilateral ceasefire. At 7.30pm Mr Saakashvili announced the ceasefire: "I would like to address those who are now shooting at Georgian policemen. I want to say with full responsibility that several hours ago, I reached a very difficult decision – not to respond with fire.""
So Kokoity claims he took part in the meeting after all? However, the OSCE report cited above also says, that South Ossetia refused to take part.
ISDP's claim, that Popov did not take part, seems questionable. The claim definitely needs another source. If no second source is provided, the claim must be removed. Furhermore, as I have said all along, all ISDP's claims need to be double-checked, and a second source must be provided for each of the claims. The ISDP article itself says that "facts might need to checked when more solid evidence arrives", and it asks readers to send in corrections. If it is true, that Popov did take part after all, then the ISDP article's factual accuracy is called into question even more. If no second source is provided for all ISDP claims soon, I will start removing them from the article. Offliner ( talk) 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, MDB was written much later than ISDP which means MDB had more sources to work with and perform better analysis. Just pure logic, as simple as 2+2=4. Oh wait, that might be a bad analogy here.... HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 05:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This unclear wording in the Spiegel article has annoyed me for a long time. Does this mean the NATO experts confirm that Russians did send troops through the tunnel at the time Saakashvili claims? If yes, then the article seem to contradict itself.
"The intelligence agencies were monitoring the Russian calls for help on the airwaves. The 58th Army, part of which was stationed in North Ossetia, was apparently not ready for combat, at least not during that first night."
"Russian troops from North Ossetia did not begin marching through the Roki Tunnel until roughly 11 a.m. This sequence of events is now seen as evidence that Moscow did not act offensively, but merely reacted. Additional SS-21s were later moved to the south. The Russians deployed 5,500 troops to Gori and 7,000 to the border between Georgia and its second separatist region, Abkhazia."
"The details that Western intelligence agencies extracted from their signal intelligence agree with NATO's assessments."
If NATO experts say Russian troops came through the tunnel at 11:30 pm on August 7, then their assessment certainly does not agree with the ingelligence agencies.
"One thing was already clear to the officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels: They thought that the Georgians had started the conflict and that their actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. In fact, the NATO officers believed that the Georgian attack was a calculated offensive against South Ossetian positions to create the facts on the ground, and they coolly treated the exchanges of fire in the preceding days as minor events. Even more clearly, NATO officials believed, looking back, that by no means could these skirmishes be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations."
So the NATO officials say that there was no provocation that could be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations. But if a massive column Russian troops (150 vehicles according to Saakashvili) entered Georgian territory on August 7, wouldn't that been provocation enough?
From all this material, why do we have to choose the most unclear and dubious sentence ("Nato experts did not question...") into the article? Offliner ( talk) 14:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I would really like to ask you all, people, to consider one thing when you cite an "independent" source:
Who is funding it?
In case money comes authorities, we should not think this is an "independent" source. That simple.
It includes the BBC and, I guess, RT, Radio Free Europe and Deutsche Welle, and dozens of others. However, you would think of some of these as independent, some not. Ask yourself, if you have a bias here.
It also includes some less obvious " NGOs" which turn out to be somewhat "GOs" at a closer look.
Here is an example: The Institute for Security and Development Policy says it's an "independent and non-profit research and policy institute". It was discussed on this page. However, at the same site you see their "independence" is only supported by one "core" source of finance: Utrikesdepartmentet (Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs).
Another example: the Freedom House describes themselves as "independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world". However, [80% of their funding] comes directly from "federal [US] grants". Who would argue they are independent after that? How can one, for example, openly and fiercely criticize government that pays him?
Another important thing is:
Who is writing it?
Can you imagine former Russian army captain, and the second Chechnya war veteran, making an "independent" research for some Russian NGO on the war in Kosovo?
That's just what HRW in for South Ossetia. There only was a former U.S. captain that told aims for U.S. planes during NATO bombardments of Serbia.
Try to check things like this. Look at some of these reports with a critical view before you add them here. FeelSunny ( talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have zero awareness of that part of the world. I just wanted to say that the current title didn't help me finding this article at all. I searched google for russia georgia war and I didn't find this Wikipedia article at all except on result number 20, the end of second page of google. -- Darwish ( talk) 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh and a perfect way to stop any move is by trolling the discussion, drag it down to a personal level, or get the opposite side bogged down by postulating a bunch of unrelated half-truths and straw men that need to be refuted. I remember perfectly well how that works, no need to show me again. -- Xeeron ( talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just start voting and get this over with. I think everyone knows what the arguments for different names are, and everyone has made his position clear. So what is there to discuss? Let's stop wasting our time. Offliner ( talk) 14:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone understand what this means: [28].
"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)
From [29]:
“ | Salvos from multiple rocket launchers rained down on the complex. The peacekeepers' cafeteria was reduced to rubble and all of the buildings went up in flames. Eighteen Russian soldiers died in the attack. Four minutes before midnight, the South Ossetian authorities reported: "The Georgian armed forces' storm on Tskhinvali has begun." | ” |
Yes, it does say that the 18 were killed in the artillery attack. Offliner ( talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the "Dagomys Accords of 1992" (referred to by Sergei Markedonov in the article) are the same as the Sochi agreement? According to the Sochi agreement article, that contract created the JCC. However, Dagomys Accords are also credited for creating the JCC: [30]. Offliner ( talk) 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
From the background section:
In what Sergei Markedonov has described as the culmination of Georgian "unfreezing" policy, the control of the Georgian peacekeeping battallion was transferred from the joint command of the peacekeeping forces to the Georgian Defense Ministry
From the pre-war clashes section:
Tbilisi had withdrawn from the JCC in march, demanding the format include the EU, the OSCE and the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia.
It seems clear that these two sentences describe the same event? I think it would be important to date the first one. Is it OK to append "in March, 2008" to the first sentence? Offliner ( talk) 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this is the famous OSCE August 8 spot report, which has caused so much discussion: [31] (or at least one of them.) Offliner ( talk) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a difference between the verbs "amass", "deploy" and "concentrate" (troops, equipment)? Also, which prepositions should be used with those? Is "they had amassed lots of troops to the border" correct, or should it be on or into the border? Please check if the usage of those terms and prepositions is correct in the article. Offliner ( talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"Russian policy of recognition was supported by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation" - This sentence is only backed up by one, non-working, source. However it is directly contradicted by several other sources (e.g. Global affairs, Guardian, CACI). Unless there is further evidence that those sources are all wrong, I'll delete that statement soon. -- Xeeron ( talk) 14:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly how many Russian peacekeepers where there in Tskhinvali when the Georgians began their attack? The background section says:
“ | In May, 2008, there were about 2,000 Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia, and about 1,000 in South Ossetia. | ” |
[32] says:
“ | According to Western observers, by the morning of Aug. 7 the Georgians had amassed 12,000 troops on the border to South Ossetia. Seventy-five tanks and armored personnel carriers were in position near Gori. In a 15-hour blitzkrieg, the tanks were to advance to the Roki Tunnel to seal it off. At that point, there were only 500 Russian soldiers and another 500 fighters with the South Ossetia militia armed and ready to defend Tskhinvali and the surrounding area. | ” |
Offliner ( talk) 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | The 1990-1992 civil war in South Ossetia was ended with the Dagomys Treaty of 1992 providing for collective peacekeeping forces consisting of three battalions - one Russian, one Georgian and one North-Ossetian), each having 500 troops, which are now involved in the fighting. | ” |
Currently, there are 2 kinds of information mixed up in the military build up section: For the Georgians, we quote numbers of the troops near the South Ossetian border. For South Ossetia only those in Thkinvali, for Russia only those in South Ossetia, but not those near the South Ossetian border. This is further aggravated by using "on the opposing side", despite the fact that not all Georgian troops attacked Tskhinvali and further South Ossetian and Russian troops opposed the Georgians outside of Tskhinvali. What is relevant for the war is the total number of troops that was avaible and used. The number of troops in Tskhinvali itself should be mentioned at the appropriate place - Battle of Tskhinvali. -- Xeeron ( talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | According to Western observers, by the morning of Aug. 7 the Georgians had amassed 12,000 troops on the border to South Ossetia. Seventy-five tanks and armored personnel carriers were in position near Gori. In a 15-hour blitzkrieg, the tanks were to advance to the Roki Tunnel to seal it off. At that point, there were only 500 Russian soldiers and another 500 fighters with the South Ossetia militia armed and ready to defend Tskhinvali and the surrounding area. | ” |
Just in case someone finds some time from all that arguing to make actual improvements on the article, here's a list of what probably should be done (sooner, rather than later:)
If anyone has other suggestions, please add them to the list. Offliner ( talk) 08:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently the "change the title" lobby is playing a fun new game: it's called "bash HistoricWarrior007" aka "bash HystericWanker007". So let's clear some things up:
1. Kober, you claimed that I have posted the notice in Several Articles. I did no such thing. The only mistake that I have made was to make a post in the Russia article, instead of WikiProject Russia. To rectify that error, I will post my message in WikiProject Russia and WikiProject Georgia. That was my only mistake and my only apology. You blew it out of proportion, by resorting to lying, i.e. saying that I have posted in several articles, when I only posted it in one and even that one by mistake. It is also of note how Kober found what he thought was my POV message, but conveniently forgot to post my NPOV message. When I told Kober about this on his talkpage, he deleted my comments and threatened to report me.
2. The only editors I have contacted, are those who have edited this article. Each editor I've contacted has done more for this article then either Gaegea or Biophys. Yet the lobby didn't bother about those editors, the voting didn't go their way and they needed someone to blame.
3. Pocopocopocopoco and I have corresponded with this article as recent as 4 days when I contacted him, yet Kober went ahead and included Pocopocopocopoco anyways. I thought alerting someone who has been talking about the article in the past four days was legitimate, Kober apparently did not.
4. In Wikipedia articles the attacker goes first. This is clearly evident, via the title matching the columns. Georgia attacked a Russian Peacekeeping Base, prior to any actions that Russia took. There is really no way to argue around this. If you can show me a single Wikipedia Article, where the column of numbers and casualties does not correspond with the name in a logical fashion, I will be amazed. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:54, 17 March 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
This subpage of the 2008 South Ossetia war talk page is to be used only to discuss proposed changes to the title of the 2008 South Ossetia war article. General discussions about improvements to the 2008 South Ossetia war article should be made at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war.
The overarching policy on naming is given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions.
Multiple previous discussions have taken place on the article's title. See the following:
This page has been created in order to try and bring discussion together. Feel free to state your position on the renaming by beginning a new line in the sections below with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. Feel free to add new sections for proposals not already covered.
"Georgia and Russia fought a brief war earlier this month over South Ossetia" Reuters -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 13:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC) maybe someone should view the past discussions of 2006 Lebanon War. The exactly same discussion was going on there too.-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. See my justification for title "Russian-Georgian war". Biophys ( talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support The conflict began in South Ossetia, and although it did spread, a majority of the fighting between involved parties (and causalities inflicted by ground warfare) occurred in that territory. Now, if Russia and Georgia fight again over unresolved issues in the region (hopefully not) then it will probably necessitate a name change. An example I would cite is the Vietnam War, which describes the region in conflict, but not the major player (the US); notably this conflict also experienced spillover. Menrunningpast ( talk) 03:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Support The current name reflects the cause, objective, and the primary theater of the war. Neutralizing offensive capabilities of Georgia by Russia within Georgia proper does not change these facts and does not make it a war between Georgia and Russia. Also, South Ossetia War is how it is consistently referred to in neutral international media. Editors of Kosovo War, Bosnian War, Gulf War managed to keep their article titles non-tendentious. At least wiki should have less of double-standard junk. Gleb ( talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Maybe the war begins in Southossetia but its relevance began with the Russian invasion deep into Georgia and Russian occupation of 2 entities of and additional bufferzones inside Georgia. Elysander ( talk) 13:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Support - the cause and main battlefield are present in the title and that renders it acceptable. Bogorm ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Support, since it's more or less neutral (does not define whether the South Ossetia is an independent state or just a region of Georgia) and more or less correct (the conflict began in South Ossetia and SO is where most of military operations took place). -- 81.195.27.19 ( talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Even if it started in South Ossetia it soon grew much bigger than that. Narking ( talk) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. The current title strikes me as the least problematic of all the options. Wars are often named after the casus belli -- no one suggests that the War of Jenkins Ear was actually fought on the hapless captain's earlobe. This war was primarily over the status of the named region. It is a rarity for me to argue good sense against prevalent usage, but I find all the various formulations used by the media to be ungainly in this instance. Robert A.West ( Talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. Per Robert West's arguments.-- Life is like a box of chocolates ( talk) 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The war was not limited to South Ossetia, and even Abkhasia. The name would not be descriptive of the conflict WH Coordinator ( talk) 09:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. per The Devil's Advocate.-- Staberinde ( talk) 08:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If as you say we should name the article with what the greatest number of English speakers would easily recognise then we should definatly go with "Russian Invasion of Georgia - 2008" as that is how the public as well as the media views this war, and also how the general public would refer to it. MattUK ( talk) 20:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"the media made a mistake" hardly, the media are accurate, only a communist who hates NATO and dislikes the West would think that... oh wait, look at your profile, I wonder why you think the worlds free media made a mistake, but the Russian state controled media hasnt? hmmm... I wonder. MattUK ( talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - In the conflict there are four sites - Russian Federation, Republic of Abkhasia, Republic of South Ossetia and Georgia. Disparaging two of them is not impartial. Bogorm ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
weak oppose it has the charictaistics of a civil war (with foreign intervention) and strugle for indepedance (also with foreign intervention)as such the this name can also be sdaid to not sum up the nature of this war.[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]
The media almost exclusivly refers to the Iraq War as the Iraq War, also this is English Speaking Wikipedia, based on the general naming conventions of the of the Anglosphere, I'm sure on the Russian Language Wikipedia (if there is one) it is refered to as the "American/British and coalition forces invasion/liberation of Iraq", or something along those lines. The same as we don't call it the British liberation of the Falklands - 1982, but the Falklands War, in the case of both Iraq and the Falklands we know that we were involved, so our involvement doesnt need to be restated in the title, this being the English Language Wikipedia. On the Russian Wikipedia I'm sure you have already named the the article "The Glorious Russia liberation of the Russian peoples who were enslaved under the evil capitalist democratically elected government of Georgia", or some other drivel along those lines. MattUK ( talk) 13:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia did invade Georgia, that isn't doubted by any of the worlds media, apart from Russias state controlled media, and even they agree that they made "incursions" into Georgian territory, and the 2008 part to differentiate it from when they have attacked Georgia in the past. MattUK ( talk) 08:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if this isn't the best title. __ meco ( talk) 09:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to elaborate and confirm that this is in my opinion the best title. The two breakaway republics are still recognized by the international community to be part of Georgia. However, more importantly has been that Russia went much further than to secure the territory of South Ossetia. They have made substantial incursions into parts of Georgia that have nothing to do with the two disputed regions. __ meco ( talk) 12:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Russian Invasion of Georgia is the central part of the Russian-Georgian War but only part Elysander ( talk) 21:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it on a couple of sites. I like it-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 14:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur. To title the war on time rather than geography seems to eliminate the POV arguement for the most part. I've also heard August War and would like to suggest it as a possible derivation of the Five Day War.
Yes, it seems like the media now use both the "Five-day War" and the "August War". Although the first one is a little strange since it didn't last five days. The second one usually adds in Georgia, so the title could be "August war in Georgia" also. Närking ( talk) 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm .. not a new development. First I did read from a "5-Tage-Krieg" was in German "Neues Deutschland" (former DDR-SED newspaper) end of August or September. It seems a rather artificial description (with a time line construction with a start of war in the night 7 on 8 in August and an official end with Medevedev's order to halt on 12 August). Russian troops raided Poti harbour after Medevedev's order. Elysander ( talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Can the title be improved to describe the matter more accurately than the above-mentioned proposals? There should always be room for improvement. eg 2008 Georgian breakaway conflict, Invasion of South Ossetia, Ossetian genocide ...???-- Tananka ( talk) 02:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but lately the conflict seems to be referred to as "The August War". Since that doesn't seem to break NPOV, should that be a suggested title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.16 ( talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As the war has moved from being a current event to being part of recent history, it might be worth looking at what reliable English-language sources are calling the conflict. Greenshed ( talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Who is the guy? And why is his view that that important to be listed next to the statement by US Secretary of State? Should we also include opinions by individual Georgian researchers? -- Kober Talk 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
For some great fun, go up to this section of the talk page, and search for "PhD" and read what was argued about it. But maybe it is that Ivan Kotlyarov's PhD in economics is worth more than Svante Cornell's in Peace and Conflict Studies when commenting on a war ;-) -- Xeeron ( talk) 15:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand resistance to "Operation 'Clear field'" [4], but what's about "operation to force georgia to peace" [5]? ( Igny ( talk) 15:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
Do you think the article is starting to get too big again, and if yes, what should we do? Especially the "Background" and "Responsibility" sections have grown a lot since the last big trim. Offliner ( talk) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(reindent) What is the good target? Keep the article under 150k? 130k? ( Igny ( talk) 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
Xeeron removed the South Ossetian accusations of Georgian shelling: [7], saying that they were "one-sided." However, on the August 7 section we still have the Georgian accusation of South Ossetian shelling: "Georgian officials claim that on August 7 at around 2 p.m. Ossetian artillery fire that had begun the night before resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia and continuing for several hours" - which is now, after the removal of the other comment, one-sided, because it does not mention the Georgian shellin. How to restore balance? Either remove the Georgian claim as well, or bring the Ossetian claim back. Offliner ( talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose changing this to "according to an interpretation of some materials published in the Russian media..." since these claims are exactly that: based on interpretation of materials such as the Life Goes On (news article). The first version said that the troops were ordered to move on August 7, the second (corrected) version says they were ordered to move on August 8.
If the BBC would publish an article which said "Bush ordered the attack on Iraq in 2002," and would later publish a correction, which said the correct date was "2003", not "2002," would I be allowed the use the first version as a source for my claim in Wikipedia, that Bush already ordered the attack on "2002?" Offliner ( talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
From [10]:
"Zwölf Tage nach dem Nato-Gipfel erlässt Putin den Befehl, Russlands Beziehungen zu den Separatisten-Regimen in Abchasien und Südossetien bis hart an die Grenze der Anerkennung aufzuwerten. Am 20. April schießt ein russisches Kampfflugzeug eine georgische Aufklärungsdrohne über Abchasien ab. Daraufhin zieht Saakaschwili, nach Beobachtungen der International Crisis Group, 12 000 georgische Soldaten im hochgerüsteten Militärstützpunkt Senaki zusammen."
Translation: "12 days after the Nato summit, Putin gives the order to strengthen Russia's relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, almost up to the point of recognizing them. On 20 April, a Russian fighter shoots down a Georgian spy plane over Abhkazia. After that, according to International Crisis Group, Saakashvili deploys 12,000 troops into Senaki."
From [11]:
"Dass die Georgier bereits im Juli Truppen an der Grenze zu Südossetien massiert hätten, bestätigt ein anderer Kenner der Lage, der vor Ort in Tiflis war: Wolfgang Richter, Oberst im Generalstab und Leitender Militärberater der deutschen OSZE-Mission."
Translation: "Colonel Wolfgang Richter, a leading military consultant to the German OSCE mission, confirms that the Georgians had amassed troops to the South Ossetian border already in July."
"Westliche Geheimdienste beobachten, wie nach dem 30. Juli, nach Ende des Militärmanövers "Kaukasus 2008", die Melde- und Kommunikationswege auf russischer Seite, anders als üblich, in Betrieb gehalten werden und die 58. Armee in Alarmbereitschaft bleibt. Für die US-Kundschafter mit ihrem Arsenal aus Spionagesatelliten, Aufklärungsflugzeugen und unbemannten Drohnen ist das eigentlich ein Grund zur Besorgnis."
Translation:
"According to Western intelligence agencies, in contrast to what is usually the case, the Russian military communications system was kept in operation even after the Caucasus 2008 military exercise, and the 58th Army was kept in alarm status."
"Denn auch nach dem Ende des Großmanövers auf der anderen, der georgischen Seite, tut sich unter den Augen amerikanischer Militärberater Erstaunliches. Präsident Saakaschwili schickt nach dem 30. Juli Teile seiner Armee nicht zurück in die Kasernen, sondern in Richtung Südossetien. Die Artilleriebrigade etwa, die acht Tage später, am 7. August, mit dem Beschuss der südossetischen Hauptstadt Zchinwali beginnen wird, ist eigentlich auf zwei Standorte verteilt, Senaki und Gori. Nun wird sie in Gori zusammengezogen."
Translation:
"After the end of the Georgian exercise, something amazing also happened, according to American military experts. President Saakashvili does not send a part of his army back to the barracks after July 30, but into the direction of South Ossetia. The artillery brigade, for example, which 8 days later, on August 7, will start the barrage of Tskhinvali, is actually is based in two locations, in Senaki and Gori. Now, however, it was brought together in Gori."
All possible (minor) translation mistakes are mine and not Google's. Offliner ( talk) 16:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please be careful when using translated material. You inserted: "Sources in European governments and secrets services speculate, that the Russian warning concerns Saakashvili's plans for invasion of South Ossetia. According to an early blueprint, the goal is to take over all important positions in 15 hours."
The German original reads: "Am 3. August meldet sich das russische Außenministerium mit einer letzten Warnung zu Wort: Ein "weitreichender Militärkonflikt" stehe bevor. Nur in den europäischen Regierungs- und Geheimdienstzentralen ahnen sie bereits, wovon die Rede ist: Saakaschwilis Pläne für einen Einmarsch sind schon länger fertig - ein erster Entwurf aus dem Jahr 2006, eine Art Blaupause für die spätere Operation, so heißt es, habe vorgesehen, in 15 Stunden alle wichtigen Stellungen zu erobern."
The original does not imply that the Russian warning concerned his plans. It only states that european governments/secret services had a vague idea of what Saakaschwili was planning. Also, the second part is given with a qualifier: "An early blueprint, it is said, ..." indicating that the Spiegel author did not trust the source. -- Xeeron ( talk) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
According to Moscow Defense Brief, "the total number of Russian forces in South Ossetia reached about 10,000 men and 120 tanks." In addition to this, Russia deployed 9,000 men in Abkhazia. So according to this they had 19,000 men in total in Georgia.
ISDP claims that Russian troops in South Ossetia outnumbered the 9,000 Georgian troops two-to-one on August 9. This means that Russia had 18,000 troops in South Ossetia on August 9, and at least 18,000 (South Ossetia) + 9,000 (Abkhazia) = 27,000 in Georgia in total. Our infobox says Russia had 15,000 regulars in Georgia. What is the truth?
First, I'd like to point out that the ISDP figure of 9,000 Georgians in South Ossetia comes directly from the Georgian authorities [15]. (This seems to be the case for almost every information in the ISDP paper.) Therefore, I strongly suspect that the claim that Russia had 18,000 troops in South Ossetia also comes from Georgian officials. In any case, I don't personally think the claim is too reliable, as it contradicts other sources. Offliner ( talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is from the WP you quoted above:
Here is what Moscow Defense brief writes:
ISPD:
All those sources point into the same direction: Georgia had an initial advantage, when it was only facing the South Ossetians and those Russian troops already in Tskhinvali. When more and more new Russian troops arrived via the Roki tunnel, the pressure started to mount and finally had to withdraw. Whether the estimate of 2 to 1 is correct is hard to tell, but on the general line, all sources say the same. -- Xeeron ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
(ri) If 5500-10000 moved through the tunnel, then the total number opposing the Georgians has to be 5500-10000 plus the Russians already present beforehand, plus the South Ossetians, plus any possible non-Russian army volunteers present. Additionally, we don't know whether all 12000 Georgians were committed to the battle, a non-negligable number might have been held back in reserve in Georgia. -- Xeeron ( talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeing how the Georgian list of names has been on the net for months now, is there any Russian list forthcoming? It would be quite valuable for the infobox. -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That started on my talk page, but I guess it makes more sense to have all discussion here, instead of split up. -- Xeeron ( talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Again I am going to ask all of you, can we discuss content issues only? I have extended the protection by two more days to facilitate additional discussion on the content. List the issues you have with the content or sources breifly without trying to think into other's motives. Explain why you think said sentence or source should not be there and what your ideal fix is. Discuss those, reach a compromise or two.
Remember that NPOV does not mean presenting just one so called "nuetral" point of view. It is possible and in some cases desired to have multiple points of view listed. I really suggest everyone on this talk page go to Wikipedia:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality and read that section instead of simply saying "Not NPOV", explain why you think it is not NPOV in one or two sentences (no more!). —— nix eagle email me 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
"The meeting on August 7 went ahead, but only the Georgians and Russian peacekeeping commander Marat Kulakhmetov showed up, Russian chief negotiator Yuri Popov and the Ossetian side did not participate.[104] Kulakhmetov advises the Georgians to declare a ceasefire. [122][120][104]"
"Russian chief negotiator over South Ossetia, Yuri Popov, said no agreement has been reach with Tbilisi over format of talks.
Popov told Rustavi 2 TV on 07 August after meeting with Temur Iakobashvili, the Georgian State Minister for Reintegration and chief negotiator: "We have not yet found understanding over the matter."
"An OSCE and JPKF team escorted the team of State Minister Yakobashvili to the JPKF Headquarters in Tskhinvali, where he had a meeting with ambassador Popov and the JPKF Commander General Kulakhmetov."
So Popov did meed with Iakobashvili on August 7 after all? Isn't this a contradiction? Other sources also seem to confirm, that Russia did not reject the talks on August 7, only South Ossetia did. Offliner ( talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
From Financial Times [26]:
"Following a short lull in the clashes, deadly fighting started again on August 7, each side blaming the other for the escalation. Heavier and heavier weapons were used. “One side would use a 60mm mortar, the other side would use a 90mm, then the 122s came out” was how one western observer put it.
Capt Ivanov and Eduard Kokoity, the pro-Moscow president of South Ossetia, say they held a meeting that day between Marat Kulakhmetov, commander of the Russian peacekeeping forces, and Temur Yakobashvili, the Georgian minister for reintegration, whose job is to deal with the breakaway regions. General Kulakhmetov asked Mr Yakobashvili to telephone Mr Saakashvili and tell him to declare a unilateral ceasefire. At 7.30pm Mr Saakashvili announced the ceasefire: "I would like to address those who are now shooting at Georgian policemen. I want to say with full responsibility that several hours ago, I reached a very difficult decision – not to respond with fire.""
So Kokoity claims he took part in the meeting after all? However, the OSCE report cited above also says, that South Ossetia refused to take part.
ISDP's claim, that Popov did not take part, seems questionable. The claim definitely needs another source. If no second source is provided, the claim must be removed. Furhermore, as I have said all along, all ISDP's claims need to be double-checked, and a second source must be provided for each of the claims. The ISDP article itself says that "facts might need to checked when more solid evidence arrives", and it asks readers to send in corrections. If it is true, that Popov did take part after all, then the ISDP article's factual accuracy is called into question even more. If no second source is provided for all ISDP claims soon, I will start removing them from the article. Offliner ( talk) 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, MDB was written much later than ISDP which means MDB had more sources to work with and perform better analysis. Just pure logic, as simple as 2+2=4. Oh wait, that might be a bad analogy here.... HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 05:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This unclear wording in the Spiegel article has annoyed me for a long time. Does this mean the NATO experts confirm that Russians did send troops through the tunnel at the time Saakashvili claims? If yes, then the article seem to contradict itself.
"The intelligence agencies were monitoring the Russian calls for help on the airwaves. The 58th Army, part of which was stationed in North Ossetia, was apparently not ready for combat, at least not during that first night."
"Russian troops from North Ossetia did not begin marching through the Roki Tunnel until roughly 11 a.m. This sequence of events is now seen as evidence that Moscow did not act offensively, but merely reacted. Additional SS-21s were later moved to the south. The Russians deployed 5,500 troops to Gori and 7,000 to the border between Georgia and its second separatist region, Abkhazia."
"The details that Western intelligence agencies extracted from their signal intelligence agree with NATO's assessments."
If NATO experts say Russian troops came through the tunnel at 11:30 pm on August 7, then their assessment certainly does not agree with the ingelligence agencies.
"One thing was already clear to the officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels: They thought that the Georgians had started the conflict and that their actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. In fact, the NATO officers believed that the Georgian attack was a calculated offensive against South Ossetian positions to create the facts on the ground, and they coolly treated the exchanges of fire in the preceding days as minor events. Even more clearly, NATO officials believed, looking back, that by no means could these skirmishes be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations."
So the NATO officials say that there was no provocation that could be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations. But if a massive column Russian troops (150 vehicles according to Saakashvili) entered Georgian territory on August 7, wouldn't that been provocation enough?
From all this material, why do we have to choose the most unclear and dubious sentence ("Nato experts did not question...") into the article? Offliner ( talk) 14:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I would really like to ask you all, people, to consider one thing when you cite an "independent" source:
Who is funding it?
In case money comes authorities, we should not think this is an "independent" source. That simple.
It includes the BBC and, I guess, RT, Radio Free Europe and Deutsche Welle, and dozens of others. However, you would think of some of these as independent, some not. Ask yourself, if you have a bias here.
It also includes some less obvious " NGOs" which turn out to be somewhat "GOs" at a closer look.
Here is an example: The Institute for Security and Development Policy says it's an "independent and non-profit research and policy institute". It was discussed on this page. However, at the same site you see their "independence" is only supported by one "core" source of finance: Utrikesdepartmentet (Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs).
Another example: the Freedom House describes themselves as "independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world". However, [80% of their funding] comes directly from "federal [US] grants". Who would argue they are independent after that? How can one, for example, openly and fiercely criticize government that pays him?
Another important thing is:
Who is writing it?
Can you imagine former Russian army captain, and the second Chechnya war veteran, making an "independent" research for some Russian NGO on the war in Kosovo?
That's just what HRW in for South Ossetia. There only was a former U.S. captain that told aims for U.S. planes during NATO bombardments of Serbia.
Try to check things like this. Look at some of these reports with a critical view before you add them here. FeelSunny ( talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have zero awareness of that part of the world. I just wanted to say that the current title didn't help me finding this article at all. I searched google for russia georgia war and I didn't find this Wikipedia article at all except on result number 20, the end of second page of google. -- Darwish ( talk) 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh and a perfect way to stop any move is by trolling the discussion, drag it down to a personal level, or get the opposite side bogged down by postulating a bunch of unrelated half-truths and straw men that need to be refuted. I remember perfectly well how that works, no need to show me again. -- Xeeron ( talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just start voting and get this over with. I think everyone knows what the arguments for different names are, and everyone has made his position clear. So what is there to discuss? Let's stop wasting our time. Offliner ( talk) 14:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone understand what this means: [28].
"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)
From [29]:
“ | Salvos from multiple rocket launchers rained down on the complex. The peacekeepers' cafeteria was reduced to rubble and all of the buildings went up in flames. Eighteen Russian soldiers died in the attack. Four minutes before midnight, the South Ossetian authorities reported: "The Georgian armed forces' storm on Tskhinvali has begun." | ” |
Yes, it does say that the 18 were killed in the artillery attack. Offliner ( talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the "Dagomys Accords of 1992" (referred to by Sergei Markedonov in the article) are the same as the Sochi agreement? According to the Sochi agreement article, that contract created the JCC. However, Dagomys Accords are also credited for creating the JCC: [30]. Offliner ( talk) 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
From the background section:
In what Sergei Markedonov has described as the culmination of Georgian "unfreezing" policy, the control of the Georgian peacekeeping battallion was transferred from the joint command of the peacekeeping forces to the Georgian Defense Ministry
From the pre-war clashes section:
Tbilisi had withdrawn from the JCC in march, demanding the format include the EU, the OSCE and the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia.
It seems clear that these two sentences describe the same event? I think it would be important to date the first one. Is it OK to append "in March, 2008" to the first sentence? Offliner ( talk) 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this is the famous OSCE August 8 spot report, which has caused so much discussion: [31] (or at least one of them.) Offliner ( talk) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a difference between the verbs "amass", "deploy" and "concentrate" (troops, equipment)? Also, which prepositions should be used with those? Is "they had amassed lots of troops to the border" correct, or should it be on or into the border? Please check if the usage of those terms and prepositions is correct in the article. Offliner ( talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"Russian policy of recognition was supported by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation" - This sentence is only backed up by one, non-working, source. However it is directly contradicted by several other sources (e.g. Global affairs, Guardian, CACI). Unless there is further evidence that those sources are all wrong, I'll delete that statement soon. -- Xeeron ( talk) 14:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly how many Russian peacekeepers where there in Tskhinvali when the Georgians began their attack? The background section says:
“ | In May, 2008, there were about 2,000 Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia, and about 1,000 in South Ossetia. | ” |
[32] says:
“ | According to Western observers, by the morning of Aug. 7 the Georgians had amassed 12,000 troops on the border to South Ossetia. Seventy-five tanks and armored personnel carriers were in position near Gori. In a 15-hour blitzkrieg, the tanks were to advance to the Roki Tunnel to seal it off. At that point, there were only 500 Russian soldiers and another 500 fighters with the South Ossetia militia armed and ready to defend Tskhinvali and the surrounding area. | ” |
Offliner ( talk) 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | The 1990-1992 civil war in South Ossetia was ended with the Dagomys Treaty of 1992 providing for collective peacekeeping forces consisting of three battalions - one Russian, one Georgian and one North-Ossetian), each having 500 troops, which are now involved in the fighting. | ” |
Currently, there are 2 kinds of information mixed up in the military build up section: For the Georgians, we quote numbers of the troops near the South Ossetian border. For South Ossetia only those in Thkinvali, for Russia only those in South Ossetia, but not those near the South Ossetian border. This is further aggravated by using "on the opposing side", despite the fact that not all Georgian troops attacked Tskhinvali and further South Ossetian and Russian troops opposed the Georgians outside of Tskhinvali. What is relevant for the war is the total number of troops that was avaible and used. The number of troops in Tskhinvali itself should be mentioned at the appropriate place - Battle of Tskhinvali. -- Xeeron ( talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | According to Western observers, by the morning of Aug. 7 the Georgians had amassed 12,000 troops on the border to South Ossetia. Seventy-five tanks and armored personnel carriers were in position near Gori. In a 15-hour blitzkrieg, the tanks were to advance to the Roki Tunnel to seal it off. At that point, there were only 500 Russian soldiers and another 500 fighters with the South Ossetia militia armed and ready to defend Tskhinvali and the surrounding area. | ” |
Just in case someone finds some time from all that arguing to make actual improvements on the article, here's a list of what probably should be done (sooner, rather than later:)
If anyone has other suggestions, please add them to the list. Offliner ( talk) 08:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently the "change the title" lobby is playing a fun new game: it's called "bash HistoricWarrior007" aka "bash HystericWanker007". So let's clear some things up:
1. Kober, you claimed that I have posted the notice in Several Articles. I did no such thing. The only mistake that I have made was to make a post in the Russia article, instead of WikiProject Russia. To rectify that error, I will post my message in WikiProject Russia and WikiProject Georgia. That was my only mistake and my only apology. You blew it out of proportion, by resorting to lying, i.e. saying that I have posted in several articles, when I only posted it in one and even that one by mistake. It is also of note how Kober found what he thought was my POV message, but conveniently forgot to post my NPOV message. When I told Kober about this on his talkpage, he deleted my comments and threatened to report me.
2. The only editors I have contacted, are those who have edited this article. Each editor I've contacted has done more for this article then either Gaegea or Biophys. Yet the lobby didn't bother about those editors, the voting didn't go their way and they needed someone to blame.
3. Pocopocopocopoco and I have corresponded with this article as recent as 4 days when I contacted him, yet Kober went ahead and included Pocopocopocopoco anyways. I thought alerting someone who has been talking about the article in the past four days was legitimate, Kober apparently did not.
4. In Wikipedia articles the attacker goes first. This is clearly evident, via the title matching the columns. Georgia attacked a Russian Peacekeeping Base, prior to any actions that Russia took. There is really no way to argue around this. If you can show me a single Wikipedia Article, where the column of numbers and casualties does not correspond with the name in a logical fashion, I will be amazed. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)