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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
The result of the move request was: not moved Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
2008 South Ossetia war →
War in Georgia
Georgia War — Title is intended as compromise between current title and previously widely discussed "Russo-Georgian war", about what some editors have raised NPOV concerns.
Per WP:COMMONNAME "War in Georgia" google books=185 google scholar=407 is more commonly used title in reliable sources compared to "South Ossetia war" (without 2008) gb=12 gs=26 or any other title I have seen. May include "2008" if significant number if people think that it is better that way, I support it either way although I don't really consider year necessary.-- Staberinde ( talk) 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Main arguments for move are:
1) Per
WP:COMMONNAME "Georgia War"
google books=41
google scholar=92
amazon books=4 is more commonly used title in reliable sources compared to "South Ossetia war" (without 2008)
gb=12
gs=26
amazon=0.
2) Proposed title is more accurate, as fighting took place not only in South Ossetia, but also in uncontested Georgia, and other seceding republic Abkhazia.
3) Proposed title is more unambiguous, while there is also
1991–1992 South Ossetia War, forcing us to use "2008" in beginning, making current title even more fringe
gb=1
gs=13.
--
Staberinde (
talk)
16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The naming of this article has been under debate for virtually the whole period of its existence, with an almost uninterrupted chain of dozens of debates, polls and move requests, often initiated and dominated by the same small number of contributors, and with arguments that all have been stated hundreds of times. This needs to stop. By now, everybody involved must have realised that there is no consensus about this. In Wikipedia, one thing we all need to learn is that there are situations where one simple has to let a matter rest, be the status quo ever so unsatisfactory. Continuing these debates will not lead anywhere good.
I am therefore, unilaterally, as an uninvolved administrator, imposing a six-months moratorium on all new renaming debates. (That is, I will treat any re-kindling of these debates by the old combatants as disruptive conduct, possibly worth a block.) During this time, I strongly suggest people concentrate on improving the article content instead.
I also see no point in having the title-pov tag on top of the article during this period, as it will only lure people into renewed pointless arguments. I'm going to remove it again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed size of the Georgian Army forces involved in fights within the conflict zone. The official figure is: Three combat brigades, taking part in the entire conflict. That is allmost the maximum of what Georgia could place on field. Stating numbers like 16,000 to 37,000 are visionary. The Georgian Ground Forces back then consisted of roughly 18,000 to 20,000 trained infantry soldiers. This is the main bulk of it's combat force. The cipher 37,000 may refers to the early figure of Georgian military personnel in total, what is also wrong. The number of military personnel in Georgia ( including noncombat personnel ) never exceeded 33,000. Looking at the structure, we have 3,600 to 4,000 men in each brigade, at the maximum. It has been severaly stated that Georgian brigades cosist of less than 2,500 men.
We have three brigades involved in the fighting, where actually only one was directly involved in the street battles of Tskhinvali, while the others were taking positions on the heights surrounding the city and advancing from the flanks, pushing up the number of Georgian troops involved, step by step. One of five infantry brigades was still deployed in Iraq. The fifth Infantry brigade wasn't involved because it was newly formed and not combat ready, placed in the lighty defendable Kodori valley in Abkhazia. So we have only three leff minus a very considerable force.
10,800 to 12,000 is the most realistic figure according to the given data. Georgia practially send it's entire bulk of Infantry into the regional capital and that bulk was everything they had in the entire region, as for regular army units.
Based on the source I use, the figure of reservists deployed in Gori, is 10,000. It was reported that thousands of Georgian reservists were positioned in Gori during the chaotic retreat of the Georgian Forces, so maybe it were not as much as 10,000. But we have a figure.
The other source I found, deals with the subject of forces of the Ministry of Interior involced in the fighting, with figures of strenght and casaulties during the entire conflict and single engagements.
To the casaulty controvery. The source used to state the casaulties of the Georgian army is based on a single unsourced claim. At the most, based on no other source than itself. At best, assumingly based on the very earliest reports which were later rejected or corrected. The date of the articly allready indicated that it can't be true. Besides that, the giant inconsistency between soldiers killed and soldiers wounded is unrealistic and not logical. There are two possibilites: Either, some 162 soldiers died and a few hundreds were wounded, like maybe up to 1,000 at maximum, or the figure of wounded is true and much much more soldiers have died, than the Georgian government want's people to believe. According to the given official figure of fallen soldiers the source I use, citing an offical, is much more realistc than the first article based on actually nothing or nothing reliable.
Inserting the figure of combat troops beeing deployed in Iraq is importent in the sence that it had great weight for the developement of the entire conflict, since it were the most experienced troops of the regular army parts of the Georgian Armed Forces. Thus giving a higher combat cabability no matter if the war would have been lost anyway. It is still an important information.
TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 08:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
These edits by Reenem added a bunch of new material to the article which is not well sourced. The sourced used are:
This does not hold up with the rest of the, very well sourced, article. -- Xeeron ( talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
But these bloggers also made a point of providing physical evidence with their photographs, and sourcing their materials with books. Even if they violate the copyright, we just cite them as sources, we don't actually use those pictures on our pages. And it is obvious that they did fight it off: the APC is shown blasting enemy positions and infantry then counterattack, and the fact that we even have the video proves that the column was not wiped out.-- RM ( Be my friend) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because the map inset was viewed by readers to be an excellent graphic does not make it correct. Specifically, the graphic depicts a Russian "blockade" of the Georgian coast. This assertion is not proven by any authoritative information. Either the author needs to provide proof or the depiction of the "blockade" MUST be removed. This is the second request to correct the graphic. The first request for corroborating proof of the asserted "blockade", a maritime action that has a specific definition in international law with criteria not met in this case, went unheeded. Moryak ( talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"I can say the same of you, what evidence do you have that there was not a blockade?" looks like it's been written by troll; or it;s an object lesson how lack of education could affect an article. Can't believe there is a need to explain such an evident point. If you accuse someone of anything, YOU must prove it. Noone is guilty a priori! Presumption of innocence, have u heard anything about it? Hope yes and we won't discuss it, cause wiki is not the right place for this topic. P.S.sure enough about your marital status, it;s too soon to get married, you'd better finish school at first. Перцев Алексей ( talk) 07:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the contents of Public investigation of the Ossetian War might more appropriately be incorporated into this article. Comments? Richwales ( talk · contribs · review) 04:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:SURNAME, I believe it would be appropriate to change references in this article (after the first reference) to Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili to say simply "Saakashvili" (or, sparingly and where appropriate, "President Saakashvili"). Right now, he is repeatedly (and, I believe, unnecessarily) referred to throughout the article as "Mikheil Saakashvili" or "President Mikheil Saakashvili". Owing to the sensitivity of this article, I thought it wise to bring up this naming issue here on the talk page first, just in case someone might be aware of an important reason to make an exception to the general style guideline on personal naming conventions. I do understand that routinely referring to people by their surnames alone is not customary in Georgia, but we're talking about the English Wikipedia here. Richwales ( talk · contribs · review) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you should watch documentary film "Russian lessons". Atleast half of that info here is wrong.
One video to think about this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ5eiXn7QJk —Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerEST ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is well beyond the 100kb limit that normally indicates a split is necessary. The military sections are a good candidate for a split, and other sections could be easily split as well. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Found this article about the Ukraine illegally selling Georgia the Buk missile systems that shot down the Russian jets. Would it be notable enough to add into the article, or is it too controversial, or needs 100% to be confirmed? Nath1991 ( talk) 11:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The current title of the article is not the commmon name for the conflict, rather Russia-Georgian War and Russo-Georgian War are used in english scholarly sources for the conflict. The current title fails wikipedias requirements for Verifiability and No original research. Russo-Georgian War would follow currently used conventions such as the various Russo-Swedish Wars and Russo-Turkish Wars. The current title also is pov towards the ossetian view point of the conflict, as the war took place all over the territory claimed by georgia and not entirely in South Ossetia, and was primarily fought between Russian aligned and Georgian belligerents. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Some of the sources of note above include Janes Defense and the Department of the Navy. Janes is one of the highest quality defense issue related sources available. If you want more i can list dozens upon dozens of them if you'd like. XavierGreen ( talk) 20:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The title "Russo-Georgian war" is flawed. It ignores the participation of South Ossetia and its military forces, which was essential. 150 South Ossetian soldiers and fighters were killed. That's more than the 64 Russian casualties and about a third of the war's total military casualties. It was the South Ossetian military who stopped the Georgian initial advance and held them off until Russian help arrived. This was absolutely crucial for the outcome of the war. Had Georgia managed to occupy Tskinhvali and "dig in", things would have been completely different. It would be biased and dishonest to ignore the South Ossetian participation, but the proposed title does just that. "Russo-Georgian war" is full of anglophone and American POV. Fighting between Russian and Georgian forces was just one aspect of the war. Why should the title describe only this aspect? I understand that the American media could hardly care less about places like South Ossetia. They are only interested in Russia and the US ally Georgia. But Wikipedia should, and must, have a global POV. As has been stated over and over again, "2008 South Ossetia war" is a good compromise, since it avoids this problem. Nanobear ( talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"South Ossetia war", besides having other advantages, is neutral: it does not say who was right or wrong, it does not do so even implicitly, by stating whose war that was: Russia vs Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhasia vs Georgia, CIS Peacekeepers vs Georgia, or... do i mention Georgia a lot? Should we, therefore, call our article "War in Georgia", thereby implicitly denying independence of South Ossetia? I don't think so.
— Anonymous editor, On neutrality of the article title, The 19th rename discussion
I can only add, that completely skipping the mention of South Ossetia in the title, will not only deny it's independence, but will imply, that the war was not "about" South Ossetia, like Russia protecting it from Georgia, but rather about something more gruesome like Russia invading Georgia, which is clearly pro-georgian POV. One might turn my argument inside out, and say, that SOW title is clearly pro-russian POV, because it implies the other way, but that means he didn't notice a subtle difference: whether or not Russia was invading Georgia is disputed, whether or not Georgia was invading South Ossetia is not.
— Anonymous editor, On neutrality of omitting South Ossetia, The 19th rename discussion
So, you want to say, that after this war was started in South Ossetia(de-facto not part of Georgia), capital of South Ossetia(not capital of Georgia) was ruined, majority of civilian deaths were in South Ossetia(not in Georgia), and majority of fighting took place in South Ossetia(again, de-facto not part of Georgia), this war can be simply named War in Georgia, and that won't "necessarily implicate" that South Ossetia was de-facto part of Georgia? What's your example of something "necessarily implicating", then?
— Anonymous editor, On neutrality of "War in Georgia" title, The 19th rename discussion
Oppose. As was already noted above, there were just too many wars, which can qualify as "War in Georgia". Proposed title really can't be any more ambiguous, than it is. In the light of that, claims that "2008 South Ossetia war" title is ambiguous or inappropriate are preposterous. It is completely analogous to 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, where, just like in our case, Georgia tried to retake South Ossetia by force and Russia intervened. And finally, it's hard to ignore POV concerns about the "War in Georgia" title. They have been stated too many times before, but looks like I have no choice except repeating them. The title "War in Georgia" supports popular pro-Georgian POV notion that South Ossetia has no independence ("South Ossetia is Georgian territory, and therefore there's no such thing as "War in South Ossetia", it's "War in Georgia""), and that the war was a "wholly internal affair" until "Russia unjustly interfered and invaded/occupied Georgia". Complete omission of South Ossetia from the title places undue weight on Russian involvement (and thus helps to "blame" Russia for the war and represent Georgia as a "victim of Russian aggression"), rather than on Georgian attempt to restore control over the region by force - the main cause of this war. Therefore, it is my opinion, that current title, which simultaneously identifies the region where most of of the fighting took place (current military history convention and Wikipedia policy), reflects the Casus Belli of this war, and carries no POV implications, is the most appropriate one.
— ETST, On reasons not to adopt "War in Georgia" title, The 31st rename discussion
I fail to understand, why it's so hard for you to see the current title as one of the best compromises possible? There are several main properties/criteria that people have applied to judge the article title. Current title suffices all of them to a certain degree.
- South Ossetia war is popular. Granted, not as popular as "War in Georgia" or "Russia-Georgia war". But not as unpopular as "Russian operation to enforce Georgia to peace" or "Georgian-Ossetian war". It's sufficiently popular for this Wikipedia article to pop up first in searches, even if you google for "Russia-Georgia war".
- South Ossetia war is neutral. Granted, not as neutral as "August war". But not as POV-plagued as "Russia-Georgia war" or "Russian operation to Enforce Georgia to peace".
- South Ossetia war is descriptive. Granted, not as descriptive as "South Ossetia and Abkhazia war" (which, imo, fails WP:PRECISION). But not as opaque as "August war" or "Five Day War".
- South Ossetia war is the least ambiguous. There are much fewer wars that qualify as "War in Ossetia", than "War in Georgia".
- 2008 South Ossetia war is consistent with 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, in title, in the underlying reason, and in the actual sequence of events.
— ETST, On the compromise nature of "South Ossetia war" title, The 31st rename discussion
What I've tried to say in my previous post, though, doesn't concern any of the above. I've tried to say, that it's too early to claim that there exists some kind of established title. Therefore, there's no real justification for changing article title. Any title change at this moment is nothing more than a questionable attempt to re-balance between some of the aforementioned features. In this regard, current title is better, or at least as fine, as any other title.
— ETST, On reasons to keep "South Ossetia war" title, The 31st rename discussion
Russia DID invade Georgia!!! South Ossetia WAS and Is an integral, and historical part of Georgia. The title must be changed back to Russia-Georgia War and 'South Ossetia War' can be used a redirect, not the other way around. In August 2008 even Russia recognized that region as a part Georgia. That means that Russia did invade the territory of Georgia, and Georgia acted on its own territory. Also, Russia invaded not only the South Ossetian or Samachablo part of Georgia, but also Abkhazia, and other parts of Georgia. So, naming the article as the South Ossetia Was is simply logically wrong, and an attempt of blatant pro-Russian propaganda. This is part of Russia's attempt to portray itself not as the main part of the war and the conflict in overall, but as a 'peacekeeper' and 'mediator' between Georgians and Ossetians. So, to the admin who watches this article, please change the title, or otherwise I'll do that, and refer your action or inaction to bureaucrat/s. The whole article is ridden with Russian POV, but changing the title back to 'Russia-Georgia War' would be a good start to make it more neutral. Is Wikipedia becoming another 'Russia Today' - a supplement of Putin’s information warfare machine? Vasilvlad ( talk) 03:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The names of wars are not exclusively "Righto-Left war" The Winter war was not fought by the armies of winter. The Opium wars were not fought by drug-users. South Ossetia, Tskhinvali in particular, was the place where all major fighting went; SO was the cause, goal and the stage of war. And there were two more combatants than Russia and Georgia, which would turn it into "Russo-Ossetian-Abkhazian-Georgian war". Garret Beaumain ( talk) 05:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is secondary, frankly, even immaterial. It should be more than enough that scholarly sources use "Russo-Georgian war"—unless someone here is trying to make a POV WP:POINT.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
15:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the illustrations. Some of them make me laugh. Are they illustrations or caricatures?
It's Georgian BMP on the road to Tbilisi:
Here the same BMP: [16] http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1267666,00.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.120.49.153 ( talk) 09:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
However, it has been updated now
W have real destroyed Russian armor replacing it. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 09:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, mhm sure. First study about military vehicles and then comply. This is a destroyed BMP-2 and most probably from the Georgian Army. Not a BTR-70 how you claim .... and I strongly advice you to stop that nonsence. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it is a MTLB! 71.58.198.190 ( talk) 02:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
@Kouber's and my note of a while ago, it doesn't matter why a title for a conflict is the most common. Yet once more the observation must be made that the title of this article does not reflect common usage for the name of the conflict. "Russo-Georgian war" is the appropriate title. And since we're > 30 renaming discussions, if we are to discuss again, let us stick to what reputable sources use (now that some time has passed), not what we opine personally.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK
17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see this discussion going farther than any other rename discussion. See the archive. My position remains the same. Outback the koala ( talk) 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait. Before any of you continue debating here, let me make the following procedural clarification:
Brief, civilized and constructive comments on this suggested process please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I take a long break, and, no surprise, this is the latest entry on the talk page when I come back. I'll spare everyone a repeat of the arguements (which can be found in the archives) and will describe the basic situation: Side 1 uses bring something up again and again and again till it succeeds to change the article name. Meanwhile, side 2 reponds with drang on discussions forever with endless repetitions of the same points to prevent anything from happening. Due to the way wikipedia is set up, side 2 is successful so far.
I thoroughly hate this debate by now, but I have not just 1 but 2 new ideas to bring to the table. My preference is option 2.
So idea 1 is for both sides to agree on a vote, to agree on the parameters of the vote and to agree to drop the topic once the vote is over.
Idea 1 is easy, but I doubt that everyone can be won over to implement it. That is why I prefer Idea 2:
Currently the article describes the war on the ossetian front and the abkhasian front. Problem being: There are a ton of differences between the two. They start differently (Ossetia: Georgian attack/Abkhasia: Abkhasian/Russian attack), they evolve differently (Georgia taking Tskinvali vs Abkhasia taking Kodori), one has a sea theater, the other doesn't, in one case Georgia controlled almost half the territory, on the other much less, etc. All in all, the Abkhasian theater is badly underrepresented in the current format, especially where history, buildup and aftermath are concerned.
Splitting up would help on 3 issues: It would make the naming less contentious, it would make it easier to represent the Abkhasian part of the war and it would also serve to shorten the article (which has been too long since almost forever). -- Xeeron ( talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is a list of articles to better illustrate matters:
Additionally, there are the articles about the earlier wars + subarticles.
As you can see, there are a total of 5 articles all going into the background of the situation in South Ossetia in more or less detail ( 2008 South Ossetia war, Background of the 2008 South Ossetia war, Georgian–Ossetian conflict, 2008 Georgia–Russia crisis, Georgia–Russia relations). On the other side, there is only one, smallish article for Abkhazia ( Georgian–Abkhazian conflict). So the problem is really different for the two issues:
For South Ossetia, the main problem is to make all the different articles consistent and find some way of arranging them that makes stuff less confusing. For Abkhazia, the main problem is the opposite, there is hardly overarching connection at all. To mess things up further, Georgia and Russia are involved in both conflicts at the same time, so while being geographically separate, they go through similar stages at the same time.
Imho, all of these need to be tackled at the same time. Some ideas:
All that would leave: 2 "Georgian-XX conflict" articles with the big storyline, this article and subarticles with the fighting, the "background ..." article with all the detail we dont want here and "Georgia-Russia relations" with another big storyline from the Russian perspective. -- Xeeron ( talk) 13:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that some editors have added a lot of unsourced material. For example, in the Battle of Tskhinvali section, the sentence "A little tank battle took place, during which one Russian T-62, one T-72B and one Georgian T-72Sim1" is not found in the given source. The part beginning with "Ossetian militia using handheld anti-tank weaponry proved effective against Georgian armor" is sourced to [17], which doesn't seem to be a reliable source. And the last paragraph of the section (beginning with "During its orderly retreat out of South Ossetia into Gori, the Georgian forces were repeatedly hit...") has no inline cite at all. Can we remove these materials please? Nanobear ( talk) 02:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC) what is the doc about? what's the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.5.135.210 ( talk) 20:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Just perusing this article for no real reason, I notice a bunch of claims that set off little red flags, and start checking them against sources. The claims keep coming up false, and skewed towards official Georgian government positions. (I don't know whether this is a reflection of the claims I chose to examine, or whether the article overall really is skewed pro-Georgian.)
Examples: Saakashvili's government ... created "passably democratic institutions" and implemented what many[quantify] viewed as a pro-US foreign policy.[41]
The source #41 speaks of "creation of passably democratic institutions and the implementation of an unwaveringly pro-U.S. foreign policy." The "passably democratic" part has been passed along without attribution, while the "unwaveringly pro-U.S" part has been diluted, given a vague attribution, and then tagged with a reliability warning. This is, if anything, the opposite of what should have been done, since there is no controversy that Misha pursued a strongly pro-US agenda, but the "passability" of his democratic credentials is in serious dispute (eg [18] [19] [20] [21] etc.)
At 10:30 p.m. of 7 August, Georgian artillery units began firing smoke shells into South Ossetia to draw civilians away from dangerous areas. To give civilians time to evacuate, the Georgians ceased fire and provided an interval before their main artillery attack began.[145]
Half an hour later, Georgian forces began a major artillery bombardment...
Source #145, the international fact-finding report, does not say that warning smoke shells were fired, but rather that the fact-finding commission was told by the Georgians that this was done; it also says that "This seems to fall short of giving effective advance warning under [international humanitarian law]." So what we have is an official Georgian claim cited as if it were an established fact reported by a neutral arbiter. Meanwhile, relevant information the arbiter actually did present, about the apparent inadequacy of the warnings, is elided. #145 also does not say that the Georgians ceased fire and provided an interval; this appears to be made up outright. 145 simply says that the Georgians opened fire with smoke and then fifteen (not thirty) minutes later with explosive.
I'd just fix this stuff, but I really don't have the heart to get into the inevitable fight over it. So consider this a drive-by criticism and do with it what you feel. TiC ( talk) 00:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
http://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/getanklosses Just take a look here and tell me how there are just 5tanks lost by the georgian side... I hate wiki for this, other language other story Bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.92.221 ( talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
While, I have long insisted on a rename I recognize that any discussion with the general body of editors is likely to fail to reach complete agreement. Though the rules of Wikipedia by no means require such agreement it seems the admins are unwilling to take action so long as a few biased users continue to object to a name change. So I am simply going to reiterate why there needs to be a change, preferably to the name Russia-Georgia War. First of all, I have to note that under the rules the name Russia-Georgia War is just as good as Russo-Georgian War, Russian-Georgian War, Georgia-Russia, Georgian-Russian War, and any other variation. The order of countries in the title is an irrelevant point as any order is considered valid, though the most common order is preferred.
Due to this fact the only discussion of relevance is whether the title should only include the countries Russia and Georgia. In this respect one has to consider the nature of the conflict, it's scope, and the involvement of the belligerents. Some editors tried to draw a comparison with the Kosovo War noting the article on that conflict is not called "NATO-Yugoslavia War", but this is invalid mainly for the fact that it refers to a war that was going on long before NATO intervention. Unlike in the Kosovo War, South Ossetia was only at war for a matter of hours before Russia officially intervened and had it not been for Russia's intervention it is likely Georgia would have overrun the territory within the day. So the nature of the conflict merits a focus on Russia and Georgia, as opposed to South Ossetia.
In addition to the above, the scope of the conflict was never limited to South Ossetia or its neighboring environs. From the onset of war Abkhaz forces, together with Russian forces in the area of Abkhazia, were taking action against Georgian forces there. It is off the shore of Abkhazia that one of the largest engagements of the war, and the only major naval engagement, took place. Only one thing differentiates the Abkhaz front from the Ossetian front and that is the casualty count in land engagements. However, this is as much because of Georgia's lack of ability or interest to put up strong resistance to moves on the Abkhaz front. One cannot deny that major moves into Georgia were launched from Abkhaz territory and that some of these were on the basis of gaining ground in a territorial dispute between the government of Abkhazia and Georgia. The current title completely disregards this scope and impacts the direction of the entire article as the article's background to the conflict focuses almost entirely on South Ossetia, despite the fact that tension in Abkhazia was the main focus in the lead-up to the conflcit.
Finally there is the actual involvement of the belligerents in the conflict. While South Ossetia was involved, it was mainly within South Ossetia as well as some involvement in Gori, which was itself only really possible due to the considerable involvement of Russia in the conflict. On the other hand, Russia was pushing beyond Gori at times and initiated a large build-up in Abkhazia. Both fronts saw major involvement by Russian forces including on the Abkhaz front the move into Poti where Georgian ships were destroyed and nearly two dozen soldiers taken prisoner. As I already noted the build-up to war was focused more in Abkhazia than South Ossetia. The tensions were primarily due to Russian actions in Abkhazia and Georgian actions in response. Again it is clear that the involvement of Russia and Georgia is of paramount importance in building up towards conflict and in the conflict itself. More importantly, when one considers the conflict appropriately as one between Russia and Georgia, in which South Ossetia and Abkhazia were merely proxies, it allows us to note the deeper geopolitical background of the conflict. Those of us who had kept an eye on this brewing conflict for years before it finally erupted understand that, just as Abkhazia and South Ossetia were proxies of Russia, Georgia was acting as a proxy for the United States. It is in the broader geopolitical context of NATO encirclement of Russia and Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence that we see the real cause of the conflict.
By making this all about South Ossetia I imagine Russian editors hope to downplay the deliberate provocations by Russia, but at the same time the reasons for Russia's provocations are also lost. We are left talking about South Ossetia, which has no relevance to the actual purpose of the conflict except insomuch as it provided a casus belli.
Were the current title the most popular this would be of little relevance, but in fact the title I am suggesting not only fits best with the facts of the conflict it also is used most frequently in one form or another when naming the conflict (see the first paragraph). Not only is it used most often in English sources the usage shows all indications of it being an accepted name on all sides as even state-owned RIA Novosti uses "Russia-Georgia war" regularly to refer to the conflict. "Russia-Georgia War" fits the criteria for a rename far better than any other name presently out there and satisfies the criteria far better than the present title as well. I do not intend to discuss this matter further as I see no reason for further discussion. We have spent three years with the current title and at not point has it shown any sign of gaining currency outside Wikipedia and various mirror sites. There is no reason to believe that trend will reverse and the argument for a rename to "Russia-Georgia War" remains just as strong as it was when the issue was first raised, if it is not stronger. So, in lieu of acquiescence on the part of obstructionist pro-Russian editors, I implore the admins to consider taking action themselves and move this article to its proper place so as to end the stalemate for good.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
President Medvedev said in November 2011 about the war that “For some of our partners, including NATO, it was a signal that they must think about geopolitical stability before making a decision to expand the alliance.” According to the article this is the first time a Russian official has acknowledged that its conflict with Georgia was not only about “protecting compatriots,” but also about the need to forestall strategic changes on Russia’s border. And by the way the war is called the Russian-Georgian war in the headline. Närking ( talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that this article follows British spelling, but it is my understanding that two US-run program(me)s ( Georgia Train and Equip Program and Georgia Sustainment and Stability Operations Program) should retain their original spellings, per exceptions made in Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Consistency_within_articles. Compare using "Oil for Food Program" [instead of "Programme"] in a US spelling article - it would be technically incorrect because the proper name uses the UK/Commonwealth spelling. I did already make the changes, but I just wanted to better explain them than the edit comment allows.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 13:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Didn't Russia have GLONASS?
Or was it not implemented enough then?
71.58.198.190 ( talk) 02:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Many right-hand factboxes of Wikipedia articles on wars (such as October War or Spanish Civil War) list supporters in addition to the belligerents. Because "The Georgian air defence early warning and command control tactical system was connected to a NATO Air Situation Data Exchange (ASDE) through Turkey, allowing Georgia to receive data directly from the unified NATO air-defence system.[383]" and "Two to three days later the U.S. Air Force airlifted it to Georgia, too late to take part in the Battle of Tskhinvali.[398]", the USA and possibly NATO should be listed as supporters of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The amounts listed in the totals do not match the amounts of KIA, WIA, ect listed in the belligerant/unit breakdown. Also I have a problem that the Georgian KIA and WIA are listed as civilians. Even the South Ossetian forces list their "military and civilian" losses together. In the articles current state their is no way to discern how many soldiers were killed on either side, how many civilians were killed, and how many Georgians were wounded (The number varies from 1200 to 250 in the total.) This is either horribly sloppy work or somone really went out of thier way to NOT make the distinction between people who died fighting, and people who died while walking down the street un-armed. 67.165.53.163 ( talk) 20:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The listing of the various units of KIA, WIA, POW soldiers is also irrelevant. Best just to keep the tolls to national army size rather than battalions
This entire article is a mess just like all Military History articles on Wikipedia. I really dislike seeing sensitive history such as this written by punters. Wikipedia shouldn't have a history section, end of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.66.45 ( talk) 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Every Wikipropaganda article has a POV - that of the American NAZI scum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.55.70 ( talk) 21:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Couple of days ago i have made edits on the following link 2008 South Ossetia war since it lacks impartiality(to me), this time i will not bring examples of all the changes i tried to make, i will do for some points with the very important reference. One of the changes i tried to make was this excerpt from the link above Russia reacted by deploying units of the 58th Army and to this i have added long before prepared and after my addits it looked like this: Russia reacted by deploying long before prepared units of the 58th Army which was not accetped. Here below i am giving the link on what Putin had stated on 4th Year of anniversary of the conflict, apart of this link you can see this on ony other offical sources. Just reminding you that Putin was the only one who ordered the assault on Georgia, this information is more clear on the following link as well.
Before going for the link, below the link is excerpts from that link for your quick access.
"In separate comments dedicated to the fourth anniversary of the 2008 Georgia war, Russia'sPresident Vladimir Putin has possibly generated more than one nasty controversy, which the Kremlin leader can ill afford. One remark by Mr. Putin, which has the Georgian Foreign Ministry in full cry, was his unexpected insistence that Russia "had a plan" for war with Georgia even before Georgian forces struck the capital of breakaway South Ossetia on Aug. 8, 2008, triggering the conflict.
"This admission contradicts Russia's earlier assertions that its 2008 military attack was in response to a surprise attack from Georgia and that its invasion was meant to prevent a genocide and protect Russian citizens," the statement said. "It also underscores the premeditated nature of the invasion and highlights Moscow's utter disregard for international law."
"in a terse statement Thursday, Georgia's Foreign Ministry said world public opinion ought to revisit the events of August 2008 and recognize Russia's culpability in fomenting the conflict.
Another changes i tried to make was to highlight Russian peacekeepers as a instigators which is also clear from above, their interest never was a peace in this region, their interest always was a war, this conflict was from the beginning fueled by them in order to weaken Georgian as a punishment for tring to join to the developed west, NATO, etc.
So now i am asking what more information is needed to make changes i was trying to do.
Archil Maisuradze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archil Maisuradze ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 August 2012 (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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
The result of the move request was: not moved Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
2008 South Ossetia war →
War in Georgia
Georgia War — Title is intended as compromise between current title and previously widely discussed "Russo-Georgian war", about what some editors have raised NPOV concerns.
Per WP:COMMONNAME "War in Georgia" google books=185 google scholar=407 is more commonly used title in reliable sources compared to "South Ossetia war" (without 2008) gb=12 gs=26 or any other title I have seen. May include "2008" if significant number if people think that it is better that way, I support it either way although I don't really consider year necessary.-- Staberinde ( talk) 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Main arguments for move are:
1) Per
WP:COMMONNAME "Georgia War"
google books=41
google scholar=92
amazon books=4 is more commonly used title in reliable sources compared to "South Ossetia war" (without 2008)
gb=12
gs=26
amazon=0.
2) Proposed title is more accurate, as fighting took place not only in South Ossetia, but also in uncontested Georgia, and other seceding republic Abkhazia.
3) Proposed title is more unambiguous, while there is also
1991–1992 South Ossetia War, forcing us to use "2008" in beginning, making current title even more fringe
gb=1
gs=13.
--
Staberinde (
talk)
16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The naming of this article has been under debate for virtually the whole period of its existence, with an almost uninterrupted chain of dozens of debates, polls and move requests, often initiated and dominated by the same small number of contributors, and with arguments that all have been stated hundreds of times. This needs to stop. By now, everybody involved must have realised that there is no consensus about this. In Wikipedia, one thing we all need to learn is that there are situations where one simple has to let a matter rest, be the status quo ever so unsatisfactory. Continuing these debates will not lead anywhere good.
I am therefore, unilaterally, as an uninvolved administrator, imposing a six-months moratorium on all new renaming debates. (That is, I will treat any re-kindling of these debates by the old combatants as disruptive conduct, possibly worth a block.) During this time, I strongly suggest people concentrate on improving the article content instead.
I also see no point in having the title-pov tag on top of the article during this period, as it will only lure people into renewed pointless arguments. I'm going to remove it again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed size of the Georgian Army forces involved in fights within the conflict zone. The official figure is: Three combat brigades, taking part in the entire conflict. That is allmost the maximum of what Georgia could place on field. Stating numbers like 16,000 to 37,000 are visionary. The Georgian Ground Forces back then consisted of roughly 18,000 to 20,000 trained infantry soldiers. This is the main bulk of it's combat force. The cipher 37,000 may refers to the early figure of Georgian military personnel in total, what is also wrong. The number of military personnel in Georgia ( including noncombat personnel ) never exceeded 33,000. Looking at the structure, we have 3,600 to 4,000 men in each brigade, at the maximum. It has been severaly stated that Georgian brigades cosist of less than 2,500 men.
We have three brigades involved in the fighting, where actually only one was directly involved in the street battles of Tskhinvali, while the others were taking positions on the heights surrounding the city and advancing from the flanks, pushing up the number of Georgian troops involved, step by step. One of five infantry brigades was still deployed in Iraq. The fifth Infantry brigade wasn't involved because it was newly formed and not combat ready, placed in the lighty defendable Kodori valley in Abkhazia. So we have only three leff minus a very considerable force.
10,800 to 12,000 is the most realistic figure according to the given data. Georgia practially send it's entire bulk of Infantry into the regional capital and that bulk was everything they had in the entire region, as for regular army units.
Based on the source I use, the figure of reservists deployed in Gori, is 10,000. It was reported that thousands of Georgian reservists were positioned in Gori during the chaotic retreat of the Georgian Forces, so maybe it were not as much as 10,000. But we have a figure.
The other source I found, deals with the subject of forces of the Ministry of Interior involced in the fighting, with figures of strenght and casaulties during the entire conflict and single engagements.
To the casaulty controvery. The source used to state the casaulties of the Georgian army is based on a single unsourced claim. At the most, based on no other source than itself. At best, assumingly based on the very earliest reports which were later rejected or corrected. The date of the articly allready indicated that it can't be true. Besides that, the giant inconsistency between soldiers killed and soldiers wounded is unrealistic and not logical. There are two possibilites: Either, some 162 soldiers died and a few hundreds were wounded, like maybe up to 1,000 at maximum, or the figure of wounded is true and much much more soldiers have died, than the Georgian government want's people to believe. According to the given official figure of fallen soldiers the source I use, citing an offical, is much more realistc than the first article based on actually nothing or nothing reliable.
Inserting the figure of combat troops beeing deployed in Iraq is importent in the sence that it had great weight for the developement of the entire conflict, since it were the most experienced troops of the regular army parts of the Georgian Armed Forces. Thus giving a higher combat cabability no matter if the war would have been lost anyway. It is still an important information.
TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 08:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
These edits by Reenem added a bunch of new material to the article which is not well sourced. The sourced used are:
This does not hold up with the rest of the, very well sourced, article. -- Xeeron ( talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
But these bloggers also made a point of providing physical evidence with their photographs, and sourcing their materials with books. Even if they violate the copyright, we just cite them as sources, we don't actually use those pictures on our pages. And it is obvious that they did fight it off: the APC is shown blasting enemy positions and infantry then counterattack, and the fact that we even have the video proves that the column was not wiped out.-- RM ( Be my friend) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because the map inset was viewed by readers to be an excellent graphic does not make it correct. Specifically, the graphic depicts a Russian "blockade" of the Georgian coast. This assertion is not proven by any authoritative information. Either the author needs to provide proof or the depiction of the "blockade" MUST be removed. This is the second request to correct the graphic. The first request for corroborating proof of the asserted "blockade", a maritime action that has a specific definition in international law with criteria not met in this case, went unheeded. Moryak ( talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"I can say the same of you, what evidence do you have that there was not a blockade?" looks like it's been written by troll; or it;s an object lesson how lack of education could affect an article. Can't believe there is a need to explain such an evident point. If you accuse someone of anything, YOU must prove it. Noone is guilty a priori! Presumption of innocence, have u heard anything about it? Hope yes and we won't discuss it, cause wiki is not the right place for this topic. P.S.sure enough about your marital status, it;s too soon to get married, you'd better finish school at first. Перцев Алексей ( talk) 07:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the contents of Public investigation of the Ossetian War might more appropriately be incorporated into this article. Comments? Richwales ( talk · contribs · review) 04:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:SURNAME, I believe it would be appropriate to change references in this article (after the first reference) to Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili to say simply "Saakashvili" (or, sparingly and where appropriate, "President Saakashvili"). Right now, he is repeatedly (and, I believe, unnecessarily) referred to throughout the article as "Mikheil Saakashvili" or "President Mikheil Saakashvili". Owing to the sensitivity of this article, I thought it wise to bring up this naming issue here on the talk page first, just in case someone might be aware of an important reason to make an exception to the general style guideline on personal naming conventions. I do understand that routinely referring to people by their surnames alone is not customary in Georgia, but we're talking about the English Wikipedia here. Richwales ( talk · contribs · review) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you should watch documentary film "Russian lessons". Atleast half of that info here is wrong.
One video to think about this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ5eiXn7QJk —Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerEST ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is well beyond the 100kb limit that normally indicates a split is necessary. The military sections are a good candidate for a split, and other sections could be easily split as well. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Found this article about the Ukraine illegally selling Georgia the Buk missile systems that shot down the Russian jets. Would it be notable enough to add into the article, or is it too controversial, or needs 100% to be confirmed? Nath1991 ( talk) 11:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The current title of the article is not the commmon name for the conflict, rather Russia-Georgian War and Russo-Georgian War are used in english scholarly sources for the conflict. The current title fails wikipedias requirements for Verifiability and No original research. Russo-Georgian War would follow currently used conventions such as the various Russo-Swedish Wars and Russo-Turkish Wars. The current title also is pov towards the ossetian view point of the conflict, as the war took place all over the territory claimed by georgia and not entirely in South Ossetia, and was primarily fought between Russian aligned and Georgian belligerents. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Some of the sources of note above include Janes Defense and the Department of the Navy. Janes is one of the highest quality defense issue related sources available. If you want more i can list dozens upon dozens of them if you'd like. XavierGreen ( talk) 20:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The title "Russo-Georgian war" is flawed. It ignores the participation of South Ossetia and its military forces, which was essential. 150 South Ossetian soldiers and fighters were killed. That's more than the 64 Russian casualties and about a third of the war's total military casualties. It was the South Ossetian military who stopped the Georgian initial advance and held them off until Russian help arrived. This was absolutely crucial for the outcome of the war. Had Georgia managed to occupy Tskinhvali and "dig in", things would have been completely different. It would be biased and dishonest to ignore the South Ossetian participation, but the proposed title does just that. "Russo-Georgian war" is full of anglophone and American POV. Fighting between Russian and Georgian forces was just one aspect of the war. Why should the title describe only this aspect? I understand that the American media could hardly care less about places like South Ossetia. They are only interested in Russia and the US ally Georgia. But Wikipedia should, and must, have a global POV. As has been stated over and over again, "2008 South Ossetia war" is a good compromise, since it avoids this problem. Nanobear ( talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"South Ossetia war", besides having other advantages, is neutral: it does not say who was right or wrong, it does not do so even implicitly, by stating whose war that was: Russia vs Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhasia vs Georgia, CIS Peacekeepers vs Georgia, or... do i mention Georgia a lot? Should we, therefore, call our article "War in Georgia", thereby implicitly denying independence of South Ossetia? I don't think so.
— Anonymous editor, On neutrality of the article title, The 19th rename discussion
I can only add, that completely skipping the mention of South Ossetia in the title, will not only deny it's independence, but will imply, that the war was not "about" South Ossetia, like Russia protecting it from Georgia, but rather about something more gruesome like Russia invading Georgia, which is clearly pro-georgian POV. One might turn my argument inside out, and say, that SOW title is clearly pro-russian POV, because it implies the other way, but that means he didn't notice a subtle difference: whether or not Russia was invading Georgia is disputed, whether or not Georgia was invading South Ossetia is not.
— Anonymous editor, On neutrality of omitting South Ossetia, The 19th rename discussion
So, you want to say, that after this war was started in South Ossetia(de-facto not part of Georgia), capital of South Ossetia(not capital of Georgia) was ruined, majority of civilian deaths were in South Ossetia(not in Georgia), and majority of fighting took place in South Ossetia(again, de-facto not part of Georgia), this war can be simply named War in Georgia, and that won't "necessarily implicate" that South Ossetia was de-facto part of Georgia? What's your example of something "necessarily implicating", then?
— Anonymous editor, On neutrality of "War in Georgia" title, The 19th rename discussion
Oppose. As was already noted above, there were just too many wars, which can qualify as "War in Georgia". Proposed title really can't be any more ambiguous, than it is. In the light of that, claims that "2008 South Ossetia war" title is ambiguous or inappropriate are preposterous. It is completely analogous to 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, where, just like in our case, Georgia tried to retake South Ossetia by force and Russia intervened. And finally, it's hard to ignore POV concerns about the "War in Georgia" title. They have been stated too many times before, but looks like I have no choice except repeating them. The title "War in Georgia" supports popular pro-Georgian POV notion that South Ossetia has no independence ("South Ossetia is Georgian territory, and therefore there's no such thing as "War in South Ossetia", it's "War in Georgia""), and that the war was a "wholly internal affair" until "Russia unjustly interfered and invaded/occupied Georgia". Complete omission of South Ossetia from the title places undue weight on Russian involvement (and thus helps to "blame" Russia for the war and represent Georgia as a "victim of Russian aggression"), rather than on Georgian attempt to restore control over the region by force - the main cause of this war. Therefore, it is my opinion, that current title, which simultaneously identifies the region where most of of the fighting took place (current military history convention and Wikipedia policy), reflects the Casus Belli of this war, and carries no POV implications, is the most appropriate one.
— ETST, On reasons not to adopt "War in Georgia" title, The 31st rename discussion
I fail to understand, why it's so hard for you to see the current title as one of the best compromises possible? There are several main properties/criteria that people have applied to judge the article title. Current title suffices all of them to a certain degree.
- South Ossetia war is popular. Granted, not as popular as "War in Georgia" or "Russia-Georgia war". But not as unpopular as "Russian operation to enforce Georgia to peace" or "Georgian-Ossetian war". It's sufficiently popular for this Wikipedia article to pop up first in searches, even if you google for "Russia-Georgia war".
- South Ossetia war is neutral. Granted, not as neutral as "August war". But not as POV-plagued as "Russia-Georgia war" or "Russian operation to Enforce Georgia to peace".
- South Ossetia war is descriptive. Granted, not as descriptive as "South Ossetia and Abkhazia war" (which, imo, fails WP:PRECISION). But not as opaque as "August war" or "Five Day War".
- South Ossetia war is the least ambiguous. There are much fewer wars that qualify as "War in Ossetia", than "War in Georgia".
- 2008 South Ossetia war is consistent with 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, in title, in the underlying reason, and in the actual sequence of events.
— ETST, On the compromise nature of "South Ossetia war" title, The 31st rename discussion
What I've tried to say in my previous post, though, doesn't concern any of the above. I've tried to say, that it's too early to claim that there exists some kind of established title. Therefore, there's no real justification for changing article title. Any title change at this moment is nothing more than a questionable attempt to re-balance between some of the aforementioned features. In this regard, current title is better, or at least as fine, as any other title.
— ETST, On reasons to keep "South Ossetia war" title, The 31st rename discussion
Russia DID invade Georgia!!! South Ossetia WAS and Is an integral, and historical part of Georgia. The title must be changed back to Russia-Georgia War and 'South Ossetia War' can be used a redirect, not the other way around. In August 2008 even Russia recognized that region as a part Georgia. That means that Russia did invade the territory of Georgia, and Georgia acted on its own territory. Also, Russia invaded not only the South Ossetian or Samachablo part of Georgia, but also Abkhazia, and other parts of Georgia. So, naming the article as the South Ossetia Was is simply logically wrong, and an attempt of blatant pro-Russian propaganda. This is part of Russia's attempt to portray itself not as the main part of the war and the conflict in overall, but as a 'peacekeeper' and 'mediator' between Georgians and Ossetians. So, to the admin who watches this article, please change the title, or otherwise I'll do that, and refer your action or inaction to bureaucrat/s. The whole article is ridden with Russian POV, but changing the title back to 'Russia-Georgia War' would be a good start to make it more neutral. Is Wikipedia becoming another 'Russia Today' - a supplement of Putin’s information warfare machine? Vasilvlad ( talk) 03:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The names of wars are not exclusively "Righto-Left war" The Winter war was not fought by the armies of winter. The Opium wars were not fought by drug-users. South Ossetia, Tskhinvali in particular, was the place where all major fighting went; SO was the cause, goal and the stage of war. And there were two more combatants than Russia and Georgia, which would turn it into "Russo-Ossetian-Abkhazian-Georgian war". Garret Beaumain ( talk) 05:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is secondary, frankly, even immaterial. It should be more than enough that scholarly sources use "Russo-Georgian war"—unless someone here is trying to make a POV WP:POINT.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
15:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the illustrations. Some of them make me laugh. Are they illustrations or caricatures?
It's Georgian BMP on the road to Tbilisi:
Here the same BMP: [16] http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1267666,00.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.120.49.153 ( talk) 09:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
However, it has been updated now
W have real destroyed Russian armor replacing it. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 09:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, mhm sure. First study about military vehicles and then comply. This is a destroyed BMP-2 and most probably from the Georgian Army. Not a BTR-70 how you claim .... and I strongly advice you to stop that nonsence. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it is a MTLB! 71.58.198.190 ( talk) 02:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
@Kouber's and my note of a while ago, it doesn't matter why a title for a conflict is the most common. Yet once more the observation must be made that the title of this article does not reflect common usage for the name of the conflict. "Russo-Georgian war" is the appropriate title. And since we're > 30 renaming discussions, if we are to discuss again, let us stick to what reputable sources use (now that some time has passed), not what we opine personally.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK
17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see this discussion going farther than any other rename discussion. See the archive. My position remains the same. Outback the koala ( talk) 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait. Before any of you continue debating here, let me make the following procedural clarification:
Brief, civilized and constructive comments on this suggested process please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I take a long break, and, no surprise, this is the latest entry on the talk page when I come back. I'll spare everyone a repeat of the arguements (which can be found in the archives) and will describe the basic situation: Side 1 uses bring something up again and again and again till it succeeds to change the article name. Meanwhile, side 2 reponds with drang on discussions forever with endless repetitions of the same points to prevent anything from happening. Due to the way wikipedia is set up, side 2 is successful so far.
I thoroughly hate this debate by now, but I have not just 1 but 2 new ideas to bring to the table. My preference is option 2.
So idea 1 is for both sides to agree on a vote, to agree on the parameters of the vote and to agree to drop the topic once the vote is over.
Idea 1 is easy, but I doubt that everyone can be won over to implement it. That is why I prefer Idea 2:
Currently the article describes the war on the ossetian front and the abkhasian front. Problem being: There are a ton of differences between the two. They start differently (Ossetia: Georgian attack/Abkhasia: Abkhasian/Russian attack), they evolve differently (Georgia taking Tskinvali vs Abkhasia taking Kodori), one has a sea theater, the other doesn't, in one case Georgia controlled almost half the territory, on the other much less, etc. All in all, the Abkhasian theater is badly underrepresented in the current format, especially where history, buildup and aftermath are concerned.
Splitting up would help on 3 issues: It would make the naming less contentious, it would make it easier to represent the Abkhasian part of the war and it would also serve to shorten the article (which has been too long since almost forever). -- Xeeron ( talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is a list of articles to better illustrate matters:
Additionally, there are the articles about the earlier wars + subarticles.
As you can see, there are a total of 5 articles all going into the background of the situation in South Ossetia in more or less detail ( 2008 South Ossetia war, Background of the 2008 South Ossetia war, Georgian–Ossetian conflict, 2008 Georgia–Russia crisis, Georgia–Russia relations). On the other side, there is only one, smallish article for Abkhazia ( Georgian–Abkhazian conflict). So the problem is really different for the two issues:
For South Ossetia, the main problem is to make all the different articles consistent and find some way of arranging them that makes stuff less confusing. For Abkhazia, the main problem is the opposite, there is hardly overarching connection at all. To mess things up further, Georgia and Russia are involved in both conflicts at the same time, so while being geographically separate, they go through similar stages at the same time.
Imho, all of these need to be tackled at the same time. Some ideas:
All that would leave: 2 "Georgian-XX conflict" articles with the big storyline, this article and subarticles with the fighting, the "background ..." article with all the detail we dont want here and "Georgia-Russia relations" with another big storyline from the Russian perspective. -- Xeeron ( talk) 13:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that some editors have added a lot of unsourced material. For example, in the Battle of Tskhinvali section, the sentence "A little tank battle took place, during which one Russian T-62, one T-72B and one Georgian T-72Sim1" is not found in the given source. The part beginning with "Ossetian militia using handheld anti-tank weaponry proved effective against Georgian armor" is sourced to [17], which doesn't seem to be a reliable source. And the last paragraph of the section (beginning with "During its orderly retreat out of South Ossetia into Gori, the Georgian forces were repeatedly hit...") has no inline cite at all. Can we remove these materials please? Nanobear ( talk) 02:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC) what is the doc about? what's the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.5.135.210 ( talk) 20:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Just perusing this article for no real reason, I notice a bunch of claims that set off little red flags, and start checking them against sources. The claims keep coming up false, and skewed towards official Georgian government positions. (I don't know whether this is a reflection of the claims I chose to examine, or whether the article overall really is skewed pro-Georgian.)
Examples: Saakashvili's government ... created "passably democratic institutions" and implemented what many[quantify] viewed as a pro-US foreign policy.[41]
The source #41 speaks of "creation of passably democratic institutions and the implementation of an unwaveringly pro-U.S. foreign policy." The "passably democratic" part has been passed along without attribution, while the "unwaveringly pro-U.S" part has been diluted, given a vague attribution, and then tagged with a reliability warning. This is, if anything, the opposite of what should have been done, since there is no controversy that Misha pursued a strongly pro-US agenda, but the "passability" of his democratic credentials is in serious dispute (eg [18] [19] [20] [21] etc.)
At 10:30 p.m. of 7 August, Georgian artillery units began firing smoke shells into South Ossetia to draw civilians away from dangerous areas. To give civilians time to evacuate, the Georgians ceased fire and provided an interval before their main artillery attack began.[145]
Half an hour later, Georgian forces began a major artillery bombardment...
Source #145, the international fact-finding report, does not say that warning smoke shells were fired, but rather that the fact-finding commission was told by the Georgians that this was done; it also says that "This seems to fall short of giving effective advance warning under [international humanitarian law]." So what we have is an official Georgian claim cited as if it were an established fact reported by a neutral arbiter. Meanwhile, relevant information the arbiter actually did present, about the apparent inadequacy of the warnings, is elided. #145 also does not say that the Georgians ceased fire and provided an interval; this appears to be made up outright. 145 simply says that the Georgians opened fire with smoke and then fifteen (not thirty) minutes later with explosive.
I'd just fix this stuff, but I really don't have the heart to get into the inevitable fight over it. So consider this a drive-by criticism and do with it what you feel. TiC ( talk) 00:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
http://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/getanklosses Just take a look here and tell me how there are just 5tanks lost by the georgian side... I hate wiki for this, other language other story Bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.92.221 ( talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
While, I have long insisted on a rename I recognize that any discussion with the general body of editors is likely to fail to reach complete agreement. Though the rules of Wikipedia by no means require such agreement it seems the admins are unwilling to take action so long as a few biased users continue to object to a name change. So I am simply going to reiterate why there needs to be a change, preferably to the name Russia-Georgia War. First of all, I have to note that under the rules the name Russia-Georgia War is just as good as Russo-Georgian War, Russian-Georgian War, Georgia-Russia, Georgian-Russian War, and any other variation. The order of countries in the title is an irrelevant point as any order is considered valid, though the most common order is preferred.
Due to this fact the only discussion of relevance is whether the title should only include the countries Russia and Georgia. In this respect one has to consider the nature of the conflict, it's scope, and the involvement of the belligerents. Some editors tried to draw a comparison with the Kosovo War noting the article on that conflict is not called "NATO-Yugoslavia War", but this is invalid mainly for the fact that it refers to a war that was going on long before NATO intervention. Unlike in the Kosovo War, South Ossetia was only at war for a matter of hours before Russia officially intervened and had it not been for Russia's intervention it is likely Georgia would have overrun the territory within the day. So the nature of the conflict merits a focus on Russia and Georgia, as opposed to South Ossetia.
In addition to the above, the scope of the conflict was never limited to South Ossetia or its neighboring environs. From the onset of war Abkhaz forces, together with Russian forces in the area of Abkhazia, were taking action against Georgian forces there. It is off the shore of Abkhazia that one of the largest engagements of the war, and the only major naval engagement, took place. Only one thing differentiates the Abkhaz front from the Ossetian front and that is the casualty count in land engagements. However, this is as much because of Georgia's lack of ability or interest to put up strong resistance to moves on the Abkhaz front. One cannot deny that major moves into Georgia were launched from Abkhaz territory and that some of these were on the basis of gaining ground in a territorial dispute between the government of Abkhazia and Georgia. The current title completely disregards this scope and impacts the direction of the entire article as the article's background to the conflict focuses almost entirely on South Ossetia, despite the fact that tension in Abkhazia was the main focus in the lead-up to the conflcit.
Finally there is the actual involvement of the belligerents in the conflict. While South Ossetia was involved, it was mainly within South Ossetia as well as some involvement in Gori, which was itself only really possible due to the considerable involvement of Russia in the conflict. On the other hand, Russia was pushing beyond Gori at times and initiated a large build-up in Abkhazia. Both fronts saw major involvement by Russian forces including on the Abkhaz front the move into Poti where Georgian ships were destroyed and nearly two dozen soldiers taken prisoner. As I already noted the build-up to war was focused more in Abkhazia than South Ossetia. The tensions were primarily due to Russian actions in Abkhazia and Georgian actions in response. Again it is clear that the involvement of Russia and Georgia is of paramount importance in building up towards conflict and in the conflict itself. More importantly, when one considers the conflict appropriately as one between Russia and Georgia, in which South Ossetia and Abkhazia were merely proxies, it allows us to note the deeper geopolitical background of the conflict. Those of us who had kept an eye on this brewing conflict for years before it finally erupted understand that, just as Abkhazia and South Ossetia were proxies of Russia, Georgia was acting as a proxy for the United States. It is in the broader geopolitical context of NATO encirclement of Russia and Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence that we see the real cause of the conflict.
By making this all about South Ossetia I imagine Russian editors hope to downplay the deliberate provocations by Russia, but at the same time the reasons for Russia's provocations are also lost. We are left talking about South Ossetia, which has no relevance to the actual purpose of the conflict except insomuch as it provided a casus belli.
Were the current title the most popular this would be of little relevance, but in fact the title I am suggesting not only fits best with the facts of the conflict it also is used most frequently in one form or another when naming the conflict (see the first paragraph). Not only is it used most often in English sources the usage shows all indications of it being an accepted name on all sides as even state-owned RIA Novosti uses "Russia-Georgia war" regularly to refer to the conflict. "Russia-Georgia War" fits the criteria for a rename far better than any other name presently out there and satisfies the criteria far better than the present title as well. I do not intend to discuss this matter further as I see no reason for further discussion. We have spent three years with the current title and at not point has it shown any sign of gaining currency outside Wikipedia and various mirror sites. There is no reason to believe that trend will reverse and the argument for a rename to "Russia-Georgia War" remains just as strong as it was when the issue was first raised, if it is not stronger. So, in lieu of acquiescence on the part of obstructionist pro-Russian editors, I implore the admins to consider taking action themselves and move this article to its proper place so as to end the stalemate for good.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
President Medvedev said in November 2011 about the war that “For some of our partners, including NATO, it was a signal that they must think about geopolitical stability before making a decision to expand the alliance.” According to the article this is the first time a Russian official has acknowledged that its conflict with Georgia was not only about “protecting compatriots,” but also about the need to forestall strategic changes on Russia’s border. And by the way the war is called the Russian-Georgian war in the headline. Närking ( talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that this article follows British spelling, but it is my understanding that two US-run program(me)s ( Georgia Train and Equip Program and Georgia Sustainment and Stability Operations Program) should retain their original spellings, per exceptions made in Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Consistency_within_articles. Compare using "Oil for Food Program" [instead of "Programme"] in a US spelling article - it would be technically incorrect because the proper name uses the UK/Commonwealth spelling. I did already make the changes, but I just wanted to better explain them than the edit comment allows.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 13:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Didn't Russia have GLONASS?
Or was it not implemented enough then?
71.58.198.190 ( talk) 02:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Many right-hand factboxes of Wikipedia articles on wars (such as October War or Spanish Civil War) list supporters in addition to the belligerents. Because "The Georgian air defence early warning and command control tactical system was connected to a NATO Air Situation Data Exchange (ASDE) through Turkey, allowing Georgia to receive data directly from the unified NATO air-defence system.[383]" and "Two to three days later the U.S. Air Force airlifted it to Georgia, too late to take part in the Battle of Tskhinvali.[398]", the USA and possibly NATO should be listed as supporters of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The amounts listed in the totals do not match the amounts of KIA, WIA, ect listed in the belligerant/unit breakdown. Also I have a problem that the Georgian KIA and WIA are listed as civilians. Even the South Ossetian forces list their "military and civilian" losses together. In the articles current state their is no way to discern how many soldiers were killed on either side, how many civilians were killed, and how many Georgians were wounded (The number varies from 1200 to 250 in the total.) This is either horribly sloppy work or somone really went out of thier way to NOT make the distinction between people who died fighting, and people who died while walking down the street un-armed. 67.165.53.163 ( talk) 20:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The listing of the various units of KIA, WIA, POW soldiers is also irrelevant. Best just to keep the tolls to national army size rather than battalions
This entire article is a mess just like all Military History articles on Wikipedia. I really dislike seeing sensitive history such as this written by punters. Wikipedia shouldn't have a history section, end of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.66.45 ( talk) 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Every Wikipropaganda article has a POV - that of the American NAZI scum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.55.70 ( talk) 21:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Couple of days ago i have made edits on the following link 2008 South Ossetia war since it lacks impartiality(to me), this time i will not bring examples of all the changes i tried to make, i will do for some points with the very important reference. One of the changes i tried to make was this excerpt from the link above Russia reacted by deploying units of the 58th Army and to this i have added long before prepared and after my addits it looked like this: Russia reacted by deploying long before prepared units of the 58th Army which was not accetped. Here below i am giving the link on what Putin had stated on 4th Year of anniversary of the conflict, apart of this link you can see this on ony other offical sources. Just reminding you that Putin was the only one who ordered the assault on Georgia, this information is more clear on the following link as well.
Before going for the link, below the link is excerpts from that link for your quick access.
"In separate comments dedicated to the fourth anniversary of the 2008 Georgia war, Russia'sPresident Vladimir Putin has possibly generated more than one nasty controversy, which the Kremlin leader can ill afford. One remark by Mr. Putin, which has the Georgian Foreign Ministry in full cry, was his unexpected insistence that Russia "had a plan" for war with Georgia even before Georgian forces struck the capital of breakaway South Ossetia on Aug. 8, 2008, triggering the conflict.
"This admission contradicts Russia's earlier assertions that its 2008 military attack was in response to a surprise attack from Georgia and that its invasion was meant to prevent a genocide and protect Russian citizens," the statement said. "It also underscores the premeditated nature of the invasion and highlights Moscow's utter disregard for international law."
"in a terse statement Thursday, Georgia's Foreign Ministry said world public opinion ought to revisit the events of August 2008 and recognize Russia's culpability in fomenting the conflict.
Another changes i tried to make was to highlight Russian peacekeepers as a instigators which is also clear from above, their interest never was a peace in this region, their interest always was a war, this conflict was from the beginning fueled by them in order to weaken Georgian as a punishment for tring to join to the developed west, NATO, etc.
So now i am asking what more information is needed to make changes i was trying to do.
Archil Maisuradze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archil Maisuradze ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)