![]() | 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 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
The result of the move request was: moved Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
2008 South Ossetia war → Russia-Georgia War – Per WP:COMMONAME based on prevalence in English-language sources. As it stands there is no inaccuracy involved as the war was fundamentally between Russia and Georgia with the unrecognized republics essentially being the casus belli and participants on the Russian side. Neutrality is not really an issue as this name has been used by Russian state-owned news source RIA Novosti for some time and it is still characterized as fundamentally being a war between Russia and Georgia as recently as 2011, while Georgian and Western sources use this name frequently. More importantly, books published last year used the name "Russia-Georgia War" with much greater frequency ( [1] [2] [3] [4]) than titles such as the current one ( all instances of the "south ossetia war" name in 2012 are ripped from Wikipedia), "five-day war", "august war" (even the book that uses "august war" in its title uses "russia-georgia war" as the name for the war), and "war in Georgia", so it has clearly emerged as the most prominent name for the conflict. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Procedural admin comment: Given the huge number of previous renaming attempts and the entrenched opposition between two determined camps of editors on this matter in the past, we will need to take measures against possible disruption of this process. But since the last serious move attempt was quite a while back, I believe this one should be seen as a new chance to get some truly fresh outside eyes on this matter and should be allowed to go ahead. However, at the smallest signs of disruption, filibustering or other attempts to derail the process I will probably impose some narrower procedural rules, along the lines I proposed the last time.
TDA, I strongly recommend you create a brief extra section with a bit more of concrete usage data than you have given in the nomination statement, including clearly comparable Google books counts for the different versions. If anybody wishes to present a case against, it would be a good idea for them to do the same. All article insiders, please do not engage in longish threaded discussion, as that will likely deter outside involvement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This article shows again how Wikipedia is nothing but another propaganda organ for the NWO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 ( talk) 18:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
In a recent interview for RT Putin explained that the war was a preventative strike to liquidate international terrorists who were sent by Georgian forces to penetrate Russian territory. "About six or seven years ago when we had to attack Georgian territories, those were not just strikes on Georgia. We targeted militant groups that came very close to Sochi. … Georgian police vehicles were transporting the militants to the Russian border. So we had to take some pre-emptive measures." [5] Närking ( talk) 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
With all honesty, I think Putin is out of his mind. He became very contradictory recently. Sorry but even I as a Georgian can accept the fact that Saakashvili did a huge mistake and tried to retake South Ossetia by force. It was either out of frustration because his popularity amongst the population was fading away, especialy after the violent crackdown of protests in 2007, so he tried to turn the nation on his side again by claiming it was under attack by Russia. It would also serve to distract from internal problems, which were mounting. He probably concluded that even if he will loose that conflict ( I can't imagine he was thinking about actualy winning it ), he would get the needed international support which he got and wich he used to remain in power. There was a lot of internal heat also after he got re-elected in January 2008. There are plenty of different versions too, but in my eyes this is the most likely one. A personal decision and the nation has to suffer for it. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Could mention that in the 2008 presidential election, John McCain took the Georgian side very strongly, while Obama and W. Bush were more restrained (condemning some of Russia's actions without supporting all of Georgia's actions)... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sweden's National Defence Radio Establishment says that they could predict the Russian invasion: "We could see how the Russians moved military units and how things then became silent. That meant everything was in place and that the final preparations for a strike were underway," [6]. Närking ( talk) 15:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
On the list of belligerents, the US is cited on the side of Georgia as "Supported By:"; if this is the standard by which all Wiki articles on wars is to be held, then we have some MAJOR re-visioning to do on nearly every war since inception. The source cited for this is a BBC article pertaining to medical supply being flown in following the conflict. That by no means warrants status as a belligerent in a conflict. US soldiers, US equipment, and US personnel did not assist the military capabilities of either side. It needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.217.36 ( talk) 05:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The user UA victory has changed the whole article to better fit his point of view of the events leaving out key parts. The objectivity of the article is gone.-- Wrant ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The original:
During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reclaim the territory.
[1] Georgia claimed that it was responding to attacks on its peacekeepers and villages in South Ossetia, and that Russia was moving non-peacekeeping units into the country. However an OSCE monitoring group in Tskhinvali did not record outgoing artillery fire from the South Ossetian side in the hours before the start of Georgian bombardment.
[2]
[3] Two British OSCE observers reported hearing only occasional small-arms fire, but no shelling. According to Der Spiegel, NATO officials attested that minor skirmishes had taken place, but nothing that amounted to a provocation.
[4] The Georgian attack caused casualties among Russian peacekeepers, who resisted the assault along with Ossetian militia. Georgia successfully captured most of Tskhinvali within hours. Russia reacted by deploying units of the
Russian 58th Army and
Russian Airborne Troops into South Ossetia one day later, and launched airstrikes against Georgian forces in South Ossetia and military and logistical targets in Georgia proper. Russia claimed these actions were a necessary
humanitarian intervention and
peace enforcement.
[4]
[5]
[6]
After his edit: Increasing tensions escalated during the summer months of 2008. Shelling by Ossetian separatists against Georgian villages began as early as August 1, drawing a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers and other fighters already in the region. [7] Later when Georgia launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reclaim the territory during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, [8] it stated that it was responding to attacks on its peacekeepers and villages in South Ossetia, and that Russia was moving non-peacekeeping units into the country. Georgia successfully captured most of Tskhinvali within hours. Russia reacted by deploying units of the Russian 58th Army and Russian Airborne Troops into South Ossetia one day later, and launched airstrikes against Georgian forces in South Ossetia and military and logistical targets in Georgia proper. Russia claimed these actions were a necessary humanitarian intervention and peace enforcement. [4] [9] [10]
Just an example.-- Wrant ( talk) 17:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
washingtonpost.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nyt-20081106
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
shelling
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Russia_NYTimes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Great again!!! 143 killed even if the officials said on the third of September 2008 that there are more than 156 http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19384 in the end there were 171 killed. Great propaganda work on this article never expected that it would work out that well! Not even the Georgian article itself states figures like this. http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_II.pdf page -- Wrant ( talk) 14:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The casualty figures of the GAF are wrong. They must be 170 killed. There was even a monument raised with exactly 170 stones according to the number of fallen. This is the official figure of the Ministry of Defence of Georgia. They have a full lsit of the personnel who fell in the war, what unit they served in, the amount of missing personnel and DNA identified personnel etc. http://mod.gov.ge/?page=agvistos-omi&shida=gmirebi&lang=en&lang=ge Why do you change it .... ? TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 18:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed the figure on wounded Georgian servicemen because it doesn't match the one in the source at all http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=597. Human Rights Watch also had an earlier figure from 2008 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/appendix_ru.pdf wich puts the number of wounded to 1198. The newer figure from 2009 is 947, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I don't understand why the numbers in the sources are not being correctly written down here. Such huge unrealistic figures don't even make sense when you put them in relation to the number of killed. Please keep an eye on it. Less POV more facts. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 09:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
PS: I see now where you got the figure from. The section "A SUMMARY OF RUSSIAN ATTACK" is from August 25, 2008 just a few days after the war and is outdated. The newer figures from 5 August, 2009 are right above them in the document "BASIC FACTS: CONSEQUENCES OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN GEORGIA". That's where I looked first when the link got me to the main site http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=GEO&sec_id=597. However the more current one must be used so I've corrected it. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The new york times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=0
Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.
And from the OSCE monitors
it was Georgia that launched the first military strikes against Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital.
“It was clear to me that the [Georgian] attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” he said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town.”
Last month Young gave a similar briefing to visiting military attachés, in which he reportedly supported the monitors’ assessment that there had been little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali in which scores of civilians and Russian peacekeepers died.
The key sentence
little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali
But to me it is clear that people want to angle the article so I will not even attempt to revert the revert, have a nice life Lolanaive12 ( talk) 02:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
How exactly does an assumption such as "Supported with military intel by NATO" fit into the Beligrents section .... ? I think someone's very POV here. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 17:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
After I did fact-checking and improved most of the article, only the last section Combatants is left unattended. After some condensing, the entire article is still too long. I propose splitting this section into entirely separate article "Military analysis of the Russo-Georgian war". What do you think? -- UA Victory ( talk) 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It came to my attention that the user 94.226.14.216 is trying to make unsourced changes to the table. I have reverted his/her edits, but he/she still returns. I warned the user on its talk page and I hope if this is repeated, he/she will be blocked. I also checked the contributions and they mostly appear to be unsourced or OR. I noticed that the user's first edit of this article is in the section Military equipment. It appears that since than the section mostly has been rewritten by the user without citing the sources. -- UA Victory ( talk) 19:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I have finished working on the article and now it's almost ready to be promoted to FA. Maybe some copy-editing is needed. But the table Military equipment in the last section is mostly OR. Out of 32 cells that contain data, only 7 is fully sourced and 7 partially or incorrectly referenced. I did some research but couldn't find the relevant sources.
Other editors, please respond as I need your opinions: Should I remove this subsection entirely as it seems that nobody will rework it in the foreseeable future? -- UA Victory ( talk) 18:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This article was a real mess before I started to work on it. After two months of hard work there is the current version. I had to condense the long sections Background and Active stage. For instance, the subsection Battle of Tskhinvali filled the length of two pages vertically and now it is one-third of what it used to be. I also did fact-checking of every statement and overall clean-up. I've requested the help from the guild of copy-editors for grammar but nobody has yet taken up the request. I would like to nominate for FAC. Do you agree that FAC nomination would be a good idea? — UA Victory ( talk) 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester How did you find this new map that you've added? — UA Victory ( talk) 16:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester I see that you've corrected the main article image. Can you correct this error in the legend: "Abkazian and South Ossetian territory loyal…". -- UA Victory ( talk) 11:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I temporarily withdrew GA nomination. When this article stabilizes, I'll renominate again for GA review in a week or two. -- UA Victory ( talk) 09:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Two paragraphs removed for the following reasons: 1. In the first paragraph, even if the guy had provided a couple of examples, the statement about western media would still clearly be POV because it is about the general tone of hundreds of media outlets in "the west". (I don't believe it was correct anyway but perhaps that is only my impression.) 2. It comes from a western expert chosen by the state controlled media of one of the parties to the conflict. 3. The second paragraph is an even more irrelevant opinion by "The eXile" - the guy who said "Russian women are 142 million times hotter than all the Western girls combined" 4. If these paragraphs on the so called media war were to be allowed a special place in the main article they should have been most relevant and indisputable. Clearly they are far from that. PussBroad ( talk) 18:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The statements of the author of "The August War between Russia and Georgia" http://www.webcitation.org/5fm4fGQ5j Mikhail Barabanov are very POV and he gives personal estimates about the losses of the GAF without any references or further elaborating what he bases those figures off. It is blindly taken as primary source without any considaration if those claims and statements Mr Barabanov provides might be false and are just POV clearly aiming to mock or ridicule the opposing side. I also wonder how anyone believes claims like "Georgia lost its air and naval forces and air-defense systems entirely" are actualy true. Georgia lost most of it's naval capabilities but not even there it lost it's entire force. What was left of it got transfered into the coast guard. It lost neither all of it's air force ( in fact the losses taken mostly on ground weren't even anything close to decicive or would have prevented the GAF to continue air sorties ) nor did it loose all of it's air defence. That is simply a lie. I Propose to look over it and correct the casaulty segment. Also someone deleted the detailed casaulty list and for some reason refuses to mention Russian casualties too. There are numerous detailed figures mostly in Russian though, about how many tanks, armored vehicles and soft vehicles Russia lost. That has to be taken in consideration as well when having a segment about casualties .... TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 10:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I've spent several days carefully copyediting this article for a GAN. This reliably-sourced section (which seems to have been in the article for a while), albeit a footnote to the war, was deleted by Hilltrot (ostensibly a new editor) with a poorly-reasoned edit summary. The interface wouldn't let me undo the edit because of a link to archive.is elsewhere in the article, so I rolled it back (rollbacks are noted as minor edits). Volunteer Marek promptly deleted the section again with a bad-faith edit summary not addressing the removal of reliably-sourced content. I don't like edit-warring, and I like tag-teaming even less. Mini apolis 20:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that sources are capitalizing the title as a proper name. Cúchullain t/ c 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
* Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry
RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester — ☎ 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that it has been attempted several times to remove from the lead the sentence about pre-war clashes and shelling of the civilians ( [11], [12], [13]). But they didn't remove the subsection in the article about the pre-war clashes. Now I can guess they thought that the majority of the readers don't read past the lead and by removing this sentence, they would distort the facts and imply that Georgia "suddenly" attacked South Ossetia. Fortunately, those vandalisms were always reverted to the last stable version. Today an IP editor from Russia (what a coincidence) again removed it and opened a new case on WP:RSN. It is a bit surprising 6 years later that Russians are still persistent to portray Russia and pro-Russian separatists as the sole "victim" of the war.
I want to emphasize that per WP:LEAD the lead must reflect the main aspects of the article. By deleting this sentence, the lead won't reflect Prelude section and most readers won't know that the situation became most intense one week before the war. Without the proper lead, the article will lose its neutrality.
AFAIK Radio Liberty is a well established news outlet and should be considered reliable source per WP:RS, because "well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". If these editors are disputing the fact that there were pre-war clashes and are implying that Georgia "suddenly" attacked South Ossetia, there are numerous other sources that confirm this pre-war clashes.
The cited source in the lead is not the sole source that talks about the shelling of the civilians. There are numerous other sources, that can't be disputed.
At about 10 p.m. on Aug. 5, teacher Sisino Javakhishvili, after bathing her granddaughter, went into the courtyard of her house in the Georgian village of Nikosi, three kilometers from the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, to fetch water. She had heard gunfire before, but suddenly she sensed that it was serious. "No one here is surprised by individual gunshots or even machine-gun fire, but this time it was truly massive," she says.
If these sources aren't enough, independent Russian sources and analysts can also be cited. They are quite interesting, because they contradict the official Russian version.
Oleg Orlov, the head of Memorial, said that artillery exchanges across the border with South Ossetia began on August 1 - and then "got worse". Civilians on both sides were injured, he said. South Ossetian troops had fired on civilians, Orlov said, including an enclave of ethnic Georgians living inside separatist controlled South Ossetia, north of Tskhinvali. South Ossetian troops had also fired from the Tskhinvali headquarters of Russia's peacekeeping force, Orlov added.
Во-вторых, а зачем, собственно, грузинам перестрелки? Главный фактор победы — внезапность. Армии и разведки тратят миллионы на то, чтобы обмануть противника и скрыть свои военные приготовления. С точки зрения международного права, Южная Осетия — часть Грузии. Чтобы ввести в Цхинвали войска, Грузия не нуждается в предварительной эскалации конфликта. Наоборот, она нуждалась в полной секретности. Другое дело — Южная Осетия. Она нуждается в таких перестрелках по тем же причинам, по которым в них нуждаются «Хезболла» и ХАМАС.
Is there any doubt left that several editors are not interested in the truth and simply try to dismiss the facts that don't fit their POV? I can't even imagine a huge influx of Russian (and pro-Russian) users on sixth anniversary on 8 August 2014, who will likely try to vandalize the article to spread their POV. I doubt if there is any protection against this. -- UA Victory ( talk) 14:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Today the lead section was vandalized again. This is the fifth attempt. I restored the deleted content and added new sources. This source clearly says that,
In July and August 2008 the situation in South Ossetia deteriorated sharply. Georgian positions and settlements in South Ossetia were targeted by Ossetian separatist militias. Serious clashes occurred between the two sides in the week before 8 August.
Anyway, does anyone ever notice such lame attempts to distort the shortened timeline? -- UA Victory ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
there is no problem to use a large number of information sources. who say the opposite. Your sources are not the reason for the change in the causes of war, is not a reason to change the one who attacked first. first attacked Georgia. small fights were between 1989 and 2008, many many many times. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
your personal opinion. this is very small. any war. before 8,8,8. does not change the fact. Georgia used his army to attack on residential areas Ossetian cities. attacked Ossetia from all directions. can be you shall say that it was excessive use of force?. Alas. is Georgia's aggression against Ossetia. this aggression lasted for from 1990. Ossetia is located inside the peacekeepers with a UN mandate for so many years before 8,8,8 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 09:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
One of the sources you cited to support your opinion (The_Tanks_of_August, page 44-45) says:
"The countdown to the war may have started on August 1. A Georgian Рolice pickup truck, a Toyota Hilux, was blown up at 0800 by an improvised explosive device planted on the side of a detour road between Georgia proper and a Georgian enclave to the north of Tskhinvali. Five policemen were injured. The Georgians had no doubt that the South Ossetian separatists were responsible. At 18:17 of the same day, snipers of the Georgian Interior Ministry's special task force retaliated by attacking the border checkpoints of the South Ossetian Interior Ministry. Four Ossetians were killed and seven injured, most of them South Ossetian Interior Ministry servicemen. On the night of August 1-2, heavy
exchanges of fire broke out across the border. The sides used grenade launchers and mortars. The number of Ossetian casualties rose to six, including one solder of the North Ossetian Рeacekeeper Battalion. The number of injured reached 15, including several civilian The period of August 2-5 was relatively quiet, with only a few sporadic exchanges of small arms fire. But on August 6, the exchanges intensified. Mortar and small arms fire continued
from both sides all through the night of August 6-7. Fourteen people were injured in Tskhinvali, most of them peaceful civilians, and another four in the neighboring South Ossetian village." which is quite different from what you claim.--
217.201.195.73 (
talk)
13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
UA Victory, you say that "The fact that you added ("On August 1, a Georgian police pickup truck was blown up at 08:00 by an IED on the road near Tskhinvali, injuring five Georgian policemen....") was already in the article", where? I don't see it. You say that "neither the authors or publishers of the sources are Georgian", but they are all from NATO countries which support Georgia and have a pro-Georgian view of the events. We have to consider, and include in the article, even the point of view of the Russia and South Ossetia. We have to find source from third countries which are not involved to support one or the others of the contenders. The IP editor is disputing that the shelling was started by Ossetians and that the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia was a consequence of this.-- 217.201.195.73 ( talk) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC) I did not deleted the sources because the same sources are cited elsewhere and the article text in the lead suggest that the shelling caused the conflict.-- 217.201.195.73 ( talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Stating (in the lead and in the article) that "the Ossetian separatists started shelling Georgian villages on August 1, drawing sporadic response from the Georgian peacekeepers in the region" de facto means to suggest that the war was initiated by the Ossetians and the Georgian invasion was simply a response to the attack suffered.-- 217.201.195.73 ( talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The Ossetian separatists were provoking a conflict to give the Russian military a pretext for direct intervention. Late in the evening of August 7, a heavy mortar bombardment of Georgian villages near the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali provoked Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to order a major assault.
--- I am protecting the page from anon IP edits for 72 hours to allow people time to work this out on the talk page. BCorr| Брайен 17:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It is peculiar that in this topic started by UA_Victory the majority of users are in disagreement with his version of the facts (a version that considers Radio Free Europe a reliable source), nevertheless his version is considered NPOV. It is relatively easy to find sources to support one own personal vision of the facts, as UA_Victory did when he edited the article. Here some reliable sources that do not support the statements of UA_Victory:
A report for US Congress: "On July 25, 2008, a bomb blast in Tskhinvali, South Ossetia, killed one person.
On July 30, both sides again exchanged artillery fire, with the South Ossetians allegedly shelling a Georgian-built road on a hill outside Tskhinvali, and the Georgians allegedly shelling two Ossetian villages. Two days later, five Georgian police were injured on this road by a bomb blast. This incident appeared to trigger serious fighting on August 2-4, which resulted in over two dozen killed and wounded. On the evening of August 7, 2008, South Ossetia accused Georgia of launching a “massive” artillery barrage against Tskhinvali that damaged much of the town, while Georgia reported intense bombing of some Georgian villages in the conflict zone."
A georgian source: "Six people were reportedly killed and 22 injured in the worst violence in years in the South Ossetian conflict zone late on August 1 and overnight on August 2. Both sides have accused each other of opening fire first. Authorities in breakaway South Ossetia said that six people were killed and 15 injured after the Georgian side opened fire in the evening on August 1, followed by shelling of the capital Tskhinvali late on August 1 and overnight on August 2... Mamuka Kurashvili, a Georgian Defense Ministry official in charge of overseeing peacekeeping operations, said that the Georgian side had opened fire in response to shelling of Georgian villages. Six civilians and one Georgian policeman were injured as a result of shelling of the Georgian villages of Zemo Nikozi, Kvemo Nikozi, Nuli and Ergneti".
The online version of the German newspaper Der Spiegel: The skirmishes became more frequent in the final days leading up to all-out war. On Friday, Aug. 1, five Georgian police officers were injured in a bomb attack in South Ossetia. A short time later, snipers shot and killed six people, most of them police officers with the pro-Russian separatist government, while they were fishing and swimming... by Aug. 6. In the Georgian-controlled villages of South Ossetia, skirmishes between Georgian army infantry and South Ossetian militias became more intense, erupting into nonstop artillery exchanges during the ensuing night."
And the
"Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia" report of the EU page 207 and 208: "On 1 August, an improvised explosive device that went off on the Georgian Eredvi-Kheiti road by-passing Tskhinvali left five Georgian policemen injured. During the evening and night of 1-2 August, a series of intense and extensive exchanges of fire including sniper fire and mortar shelling occurred in the conflict zone, causing fatalities and casualties. The events on 1-2 August were assessed by the OSCE Mission to Georgia as the most serious outbreak of fire since the 2004 conflict. Exchanges of fire continued in the nights of 2-3 and 3-4 August. Beginning in the afternoon of 6 August fire was exchanged along virtually the whole line of contact between the Georgian and South Ossetian sides, with particular hotspots in the Avnevi-Nuli-Khetagurovo area (west of Tskhinvali) and the Dmenisi-Prisi area (east of Tskhinvali). After a short break in the morning, firing, involving mortars and artillery, continued on 7 August, reportedly causing human casualties and fatalities. The same day, international observers could see significant movements of Georgian troops and equipment towards Gori from the east and west. Other troops and equipment were observed stationary north of Gori, just outside the zone of conflict".--
217.201.140.228 (
talk)
21:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I strongly encourage all involved to discuss the content of the article to find points of agreement rather than discussing and questioning the motives and tactics of other editors. Instead, "suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns" (see Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving_consensus). For example, if there is not consensus among the editors on which side "fired the first shot," propose a version that states that there is disagreement, cite a soure or two for each position, and work for consensus on that.
I also urge you all to review the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars essay.
Thanks, BCorr| Брайен 12:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Alæxis wrote "Surely the skirmishes between 1 and 7 of August have to be mentioned in the lead. However not everyone blames Ossetians for starting the shelling, like Radio Liberty does. Maybe it's better just to write about clashes in the lead and go into the details." which is what I did with my edits but it seems that you do not want to go into the details of skirmishes before the Georgian invasion and just want to say (in the lead and in the article) that "Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region" which di fatto is a lie. The fact that 89.105.158.243 is a Russian IP does not mean that he/she is not entitled to contribute as much as anyone else. Orlov, Felgenhauer, Illarionov and Latynina are politically biased against the current Russian government and some of them work for anti-Russian propaganda organizations (Felgenhauer, Illarionov). You accept as true all positions critical of the Russian government and assume that "Russian officials lied practically about everything". This is not a neutral point of view. Above I mentioned some Western institutional sources (US Congress and EU) which are not blaming the South Ossetians for starting the skirmishes but state that the skirmishes were originated by both parties: this is the right and true NPOV method to address the issue and this is what I tried to do with my edits.
P.S.: to be in "Florence, Rome, Milan, Rome again and Florence again at the same time" is usual if you are in in Italy and have a dynamic IP address.--
217.201.106.131 (
talk)
13:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Rhr5FiwZ8&list=PLD9E45E61856E024B&index=61 if you are interested in footage outside the newspaper headings 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Reading the article it seems that the war started because one day the separatists decided, all of a sudden, to start shelling Georgian villages. It must be explained that the war was the end of a political-military escalation that began with provocations from both sides, continued with bomb attacks and exchanges of fire on both sides, first with light arms and then with heavy arms. As almost always happens, it is quite impossible to determine who fired the first shot (and maybe it is not even important), but there is no doubt that the war began with the Georgian offensive during the night of 7-8 August 2008. Any other reconstruction of the events is pure speculation.-- Antonioptg ( talk) 13:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be a meat puppet (or sock puppet) of the Italian IP-hopping editor that was trying to push his POV exactly one week ago. You also used the same expression "your personal opinion" like Russian IP editor was using. Your first and second edits that were made today, contained multiple copyright violations. Although you reworded the copyvios in your third edit, your edit introduced minor details into the article which caused the problems related to WP:SUMMARY and WP:SIZE. Your edit also messed up the chronology of events. You introduced an outdated information, "However, independent military observers in the area did not confirm the allegations that Georgian villages were attacked with heavy weapons before 7 August." Here are your counter-sources. Terhi Hakala, head of the OSCE mission to Georgia didn't support Grist. Virginie Coulloudon, OSCE Deputy Spokeswoman, said "...However, the OSCE is not in a capacity to say who started the war and what happened before the night of [August] 7-8." Grist himself said "I have never said there was no provocation by the South Ossetians." However, Stephen Young did not comment on his assertions, and OSCE said it "would not be publicly engaged in this disagreement." You don't want to discuss your changes and to reason. You template me while you were the first one to breach the rules. You also reported me on WP:AN/EW while you were the one that reverted my edits without any discussion. -- UA Victory ( talk) 17:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Something foreign to most American English speakers, but native to UK English speakers. That made me wonder what the official Wikipedia policy is on usage of English, is it neutral and avoiding things confusing to each "side" of the language, pro-proper English or US centric, which the latter is dubious in my mind, considering other Wikipedia policies. For a brief moment, I considered changing the term to a more neutral one, but fatigue has sapped my linguistic legerdemain. Hence, my appeal for peer support, as I turn into a toadstool for the "night" (I'm on mid-shift). Wzrd1 ( talk) 07:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not neutral claim, that why I reverted it to previous stable wording. Don't push your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.219.184 ( talk) 10:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There has been a request for a new editor to undertake a new GA-review of this article as the articles editors was unsatisfied with the first one. Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 16:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
During this article's DYK nomination, I found that the article contains copyright infringements, which is a quickfail criterion according to WP:WIAGA. As the problem appears to be extensive, this article needs considerable revision and likely should not be a GA. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the Background section alone, and not comprehensive - the takeaway here is that there's more problematic text than not. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Who's going to check the whole article for close paraphrasing? I think that some editors have the tool that automatically detects such issues. -- UA Victory ( talk) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that nobody has checked the article yet. I propose that Nikkimaria or some other editor who has strict requirements as what counts as close paraphrasing, should check and then create a copy of this article in the sandbox where the problematic text will be highlighted. This will ease the job for everyone. After the article is revised, then the sandbox version will be deleted. I understand that the article is rather large and it will take some time, however I think that one section per day is a reasonable. -- UA Victory ( talk) 13:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I've undertaken the task to check for closely paraphrased text and I've rewritten large parts of text. I hope I've eliminated all the problematic text. -- UA Victory ( talk) 19:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
in the article there are many words of too strong reaction of Russia against Georgia (forgetting that Abkhazia and Ossetia were never fully a part of Georgia even in the USSR just do never came back from the 1991 and even peacekeepers appeared for many years before 2008) so that's what I want ... if Russia against Georgia too much then what is? -> http://www.aif.ru/society/history/42003 2 million civilians have been killed in a war based on politics in such a case Russia was from 2008 to 2018 continue to bomb Georgia and many times to capture the whole country, the whole to undermine and kill At least a million Georgians I think in the article do not need to talk about too much participation of Russia against Georgia, literally no slightest hint. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 19:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The current text states now politically the exact opposite what it said about a year ago (and before that). (Compare with: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Russo-Georgian_War&oldid=579051674)
On top, the current text is far less readable because of its structure.
I recommend to "merge" large sections back to strike a more logical, balanced and neural note. Also, it would match then again more closely other translations of this page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacy73 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Why any infos about the mission of Lech Kaczynski and leaders of Central Europe has been deleted? As wikilkeaks satates this mission was on of the crucial reasons for saving Tbilisi from Russian direct attack 95.83.249.165 ( talk) 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The Turkish Army neither did fight alongside the Georgians against Russia, nor did supply weapons during armed hostilities. The purchase of weapons does not warrant inclusion of the country of origin as combatant. If WP lists every country from which armament is bought by the warring party as combatant, then Israel, Ukraine and Czech Republic would be listed too. Two of the Turkish-language sources are blogs and therefore not reliable. Not one of them indicates that the armament was provided in 7-12 August period. -- UA Victory ( talk) 08:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The opening section of the article reads a lot like a personal opinion and is barren of relevant citations, notably the citation of the very end, asserting that the current status-quo is a violation of international law should be taken in its appropriate context, one-sided saber-rattling and rhetoric in the heat of the Crimean crisis.
early versions of the article (before UA Victory started making edits) were of neutral disposition and heavily cited, it's nice to have personal opinions, but they should be left at the door when editing articles.
Additionally, there's no good reason to have removed the '1 August – 7 August: "Sniper war"' section other than to bias the article, which in its current form paints an inaccurate picture of the conflict beginning with South Ossetian shelling (un-cited, might I add).
It also mentioned the "retaking of Tskhinvali" which was never occupied to begin with, and reads as though it wasn't Georgian forces who escalated the conflict by effectively invading South Ossetia, and for some reason, the mention of the UN's response to said escalation, http://www.un.org/press/en/2008/sgsm11735.doc.htm has been removed as a citation. It omits any mentions of the Georgian air strikes on humanitarian convoys and of the tank strikes and air strikes on Tskhinvali resulting in civilian casualties.
also removed are then Prime Minister Putin's (at the time attending the Beijing Olympics) reaction to the events, promising retaliation. Also removed are references to the shelling of the Tskhinvali barracks and the resulting death of several Russian peace keepers http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7548715.stm which is generally seen as one of their main factors for Russia's involvement.
The list goes on and on, but I think the idea is made clear. I ask that editors be more aware of what this article has become, and refrain from using wikipedia as a soapbox. Looking at the time frame when these edits begun taking place, it is clear that UA Victory cannot separate his or her bitterness regarding the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian dispute from the unrelated 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.42.241 ( talk) 11:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
As the GA-reviewer I can say If the copyright problems from the heavily discussed GA-reassessment are fixed, the article is off GA-status. I would be happy to re-review if someone decided to fix it. Ping me if my attention is needed in the future please. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 11:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It used to present impartial or otherwise respected sources like the OSCE and UN, and their views of what occurred, and now, it only seems to quote sources from early in the war, when the Georgian PR campaign was at it's height. I looked through the last page of archived edits and it appears to show a single user consistently making edits, with the false claim that they're doing it for the sake of condensing, with other's sporadically coming up and questioning the sheer bias demonstrated. I've met hard-core maidanists, and Georgians who voted for Saakashvili who concede that he screwed up by trying to retake South Ossetia, and yet the article makes it out like he's some heroic defender.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, heavy POV-pushing has happened. No need to dig deep inside article to notice it. 29 August 2014 it was:
Georgia launched a large-scale military operation against South Ossetia during the night of 7-8 August 2008
and
Russia officially deployed units of the Russian 58th Army and airborne troops into South Ossetia on 8 August, launching air strikes against targets in Georgia proper.
In 2015 it is:
The Georgian Army moved to South Ossetia on 7 August to defend civilians and restore order
and
Russia officially launched a large-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia on 8 August
Nicely done. 46.237.19.104 ( talk) 17:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Russo-Georgian War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the articled it is stated that: "After a prolonged lull, relations between Georgia and Russia began to worsen drastically in April 2008. Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region."
But according to the latest official reports from EU fact-finding mission in 2009, the 2008 conflict was caused by Georgia's illegal attack on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali on August 7-8 relative article: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/
Sasiskas ( talk) 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done This is a third-party interpretation of the report, not what the report actually says. Even your source says this: "South Ossetian separatists begin attacking Georgian peacekeepers, ending a ceasefire." --
UA Victory (
talk)
05:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Russo-Georgian War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
94.43.226.251 ( talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC) On 8 Augus 2008 ,The Georgian aircraft's target was only the Gupta bridge, which links the northern part of South Ossetia to its southern part where Tskhinvali is located
/info/en/?search=Battle_of_Tskhinvali
Not done It's unclear what do you want. --
UA Victory (
talk)
05:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just begun to copy-edit this article, and I could not help but noticing that there are two templates/sidebars/navboxes that are titled "Russo-georgian War," and a third that is "Georgian–Ossetian conflict." Now I am new to this topic, but it seems to me that there is some redundancy here, which should be dealt with by somebody who knows the topic better. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther ( talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Will rap this up shortly. Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your price!) 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've protected this on account of edit-warring. Can editors please discuss here first in an attempt to broker some consensus/compromise? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This was primarily a war between Georgia and Southern Ossetian and Abkhazian separatists. No one would call the Kosovo war a war between Serbia-Montenegro and the USA/NATO. The Russian military intervention in this war was like the military intervention of the USA/NATO in the Kosovo war with one difference Russia justified its interventions with the protection of Russian Citizens and the USA and the NATO claimed that they just wanted to secure the Albanians.-- 95.114.29.174 ( talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.222.93 ( talk)
In regard to: "Heritage Foundation researchers praised the preparation of Russian general-staff, saying that the operations were planned and implemented effectively, with a strategic surprise being engineered by the Russians.[264]"
Problem: This violates the following criterion of a good article: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each."
Recommendation: change "praised" to "reported that" or some other NEUTRAL word. Let's try to keep ideological beliefs about various think-tanks away from this Wikipedia article. Thewindblows1 ( talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)thewindblows1
If you still disagree, please read the following:
Obviously, "praised" connotes "support of"--as in "x is good; it's praise-worthy"; however, after reading the source from Heritage Foundation, it's pretty clear the article isn't about praise. It's initially a positive (non-normative) assessment of the Russian military:
"The war appears to reflect comprehensive and systematic planning by the Russian general staff. As a result of this planning, the combined operations were well prepared and well executed, employing combat, support, and logistical forces as well as pre-positioned ships and planes. Most likely employing deception to mask operational preparations, the Russian offensive achieved a strategic surprise."
It's not praise. It's a think-tank's (or rather, a political advocacy group's) positive assessment. It's non-normative. There's no flag-waving about how awesome the Russian military is. The Heritage Foundation's article isn't expressing how 'praise-worthy' the Russian military was during the conflict. If anything, the Heritage Foundation article expresses concern about the efficacy of the Russian military ops and then--becoming normative--recommends that the US do x, y, and z for the US military. Thewindblows1 ( talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)thewindblows1
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thewindblows1 (
talk •
contribs)
16:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
According to the Armenian government the war cost Armenia's economy $ 700 million [30]
Should this information be added (in my opinion, it should be) and to which section should it be added to? -- Երևանցի talk 11:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
"The pipeline circumvents both Russia and Iran. Because it has decreased Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the pipeline has been a major factor in the United States' support for Georgia.[65]"
The presence of the oil line is not in dispute, I presume its strategic significance is substantial, but the article cited says nothing about it and is a tremendously unreliably source ... just a Putin propaganda list.
Is this article locked ot something? I couldn't edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.209.96 ( talk) 20:30, 7 October 2015 (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 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
The result of the move request was: moved Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
2008 South Ossetia war → Russia-Georgia War – Per WP:COMMONAME based on prevalence in English-language sources. As it stands there is no inaccuracy involved as the war was fundamentally between Russia and Georgia with the unrecognized republics essentially being the casus belli and participants on the Russian side. Neutrality is not really an issue as this name has been used by Russian state-owned news source RIA Novosti for some time and it is still characterized as fundamentally being a war between Russia and Georgia as recently as 2011, while Georgian and Western sources use this name frequently. More importantly, books published last year used the name "Russia-Georgia War" with much greater frequency ( [1] [2] [3] [4]) than titles such as the current one ( all instances of the "south ossetia war" name in 2012 are ripped from Wikipedia), "five-day war", "august war" (even the book that uses "august war" in its title uses "russia-georgia war" as the name for the war), and "war in Georgia", so it has clearly emerged as the most prominent name for the conflict. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Procedural admin comment: Given the huge number of previous renaming attempts and the entrenched opposition between two determined camps of editors on this matter in the past, we will need to take measures against possible disruption of this process. But since the last serious move attempt was quite a while back, I believe this one should be seen as a new chance to get some truly fresh outside eyes on this matter and should be allowed to go ahead. However, at the smallest signs of disruption, filibustering or other attempts to derail the process I will probably impose some narrower procedural rules, along the lines I proposed the last time.
TDA, I strongly recommend you create a brief extra section with a bit more of concrete usage data than you have given in the nomination statement, including clearly comparable Google books counts for the different versions. If anybody wishes to present a case against, it would be a good idea for them to do the same. All article insiders, please do not engage in longish threaded discussion, as that will likely deter outside involvement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This article shows again how Wikipedia is nothing but another propaganda organ for the NWO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 ( talk) 18:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
In a recent interview for RT Putin explained that the war was a preventative strike to liquidate international terrorists who were sent by Georgian forces to penetrate Russian territory. "About six or seven years ago when we had to attack Georgian territories, those were not just strikes on Georgia. We targeted militant groups that came very close to Sochi. … Georgian police vehicles were transporting the militants to the Russian border. So we had to take some pre-emptive measures." [5] Närking ( talk) 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
With all honesty, I think Putin is out of his mind. He became very contradictory recently. Sorry but even I as a Georgian can accept the fact that Saakashvili did a huge mistake and tried to retake South Ossetia by force. It was either out of frustration because his popularity amongst the population was fading away, especialy after the violent crackdown of protests in 2007, so he tried to turn the nation on his side again by claiming it was under attack by Russia. It would also serve to distract from internal problems, which were mounting. He probably concluded that even if he will loose that conflict ( I can't imagine he was thinking about actualy winning it ), he would get the needed international support which he got and wich he used to remain in power. There was a lot of internal heat also after he got re-elected in January 2008. There are plenty of different versions too, but in my eyes this is the most likely one. A personal decision and the nation has to suffer for it. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Could mention that in the 2008 presidential election, John McCain took the Georgian side very strongly, while Obama and W. Bush were more restrained (condemning some of Russia's actions without supporting all of Georgia's actions)... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sweden's National Defence Radio Establishment says that they could predict the Russian invasion: "We could see how the Russians moved military units and how things then became silent. That meant everything was in place and that the final preparations for a strike were underway," [6]. Närking ( talk) 15:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
On the list of belligerents, the US is cited on the side of Georgia as "Supported By:"; if this is the standard by which all Wiki articles on wars is to be held, then we have some MAJOR re-visioning to do on nearly every war since inception. The source cited for this is a BBC article pertaining to medical supply being flown in following the conflict. That by no means warrants status as a belligerent in a conflict. US soldiers, US equipment, and US personnel did not assist the military capabilities of either side. It needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.217.36 ( talk) 05:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The user UA victory has changed the whole article to better fit his point of view of the events leaving out key parts. The objectivity of the article is gone.-- Wrant ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The original:
During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reclaim the territory.
[1] Georgia claimed that it was responding to attacks on its peacekeepers and villages in South Ossetia, and that Russia was moving non-peacekeeping units into the country. However an OSCE monitoring group in Tskhinvali did not record outgoing artillery fire from the South Ossetian side in the hours before the start of Georgian bombardment.
[2]
[3] Two British OSCE observers reported hearing only occasional small-arms fire, but no shelling. According to Der Spiegel, NATO officials attested that minor skirmishes had taken place, but nothing that amounted to a provocation.
[4] The Georgian attack caused casualties among Russian peacekeepers, who resisted the assault along with Ossetian militia. Georgia successfully captured most of Tskhinvali within hours. Russia reacted by deploying units of the
Russian 58th Army and
Russian Airborne Troops into South Ossetia one day later, and launched airstrikes against Georgian forces in South Ossetia and military and logistical targets in Georgia proper. Russia claimed these actions were a necessary
humanitarian intervention and
peace enforcement.
[4]
[5]
[6]
After his edit: Increasing tensions escalated during the summer months of 2008. Shelling by Ossetian separatists against Georgian villages began as early as August 1, drawing a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers and other fighters already in the region. [7] Later when Georgia launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reclaim the territory during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, [8] it stated that it was responding to attacks on its peacekeepers and villages in South Ossetia, and that Russia was moving non-peacekeeping units into the country. Georgia successfully captured most of Tskhinvali within hours. Russia reacted by deploying units of the Russian 58th Army and Russian Airborne Troops into South Ossetia one day later, and launched airstrikes against Georgian forces in South Ossetia and military and logistical targets in Georgia proper. Russia claimed these actions were a necessary humanitarian intervention and peace enforcement. [4] [9] [10]
Just an example.-- Wrant ( talk) 17:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
washingtonpost.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nyt-20081106
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
shelling
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Russia_NYTimes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Great again!!! 143 killed even if the officials said on the third of September 2008 that there are more than 156 http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19384 in the end there were 171 killed. Great propaganda work on this article never expected that it would work out that well! Not even the Georgian article itself states figures like this. http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_II.pdf page -- Wrant ( talk) 14:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The casualty figures of the GAF are wrong. They must be 170 killed. There was even a monument raised with exactly 170 stones according to the number of fallen. This is the official figure of the Ministry of Defence of Georgia. They have a full lsit of the personnel who fell in the war, what unit they served in, the amount of missing personnel and DNA identified personnel etc. http://mod.gov.ge/?page=agvistos-omi&shida=gmirebi&lang=en&lang=ge Why do you change it .... ? TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 18:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed the figure on wounded Georgian servicemen because it doesn't match the one in the source at all http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=597. Human Rights Watch also had an earlier figure from 2008 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/appendix_ru.pdf wich puts the number of wounded to 1198. The newer figure from 2009 is 947, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I don't understand why the numbers in the sources are not being correctly written down here. Such huge unrealistic figures don't even make sense when you put them in relation to the number of killed. Please keep an eye on it. Less POV more facts. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 09:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
PS: I see now where you got the figure from. The section "A SUMMARY OF RUSSIAN ATTACK" is from August 25, 2008 just a few days after the war and is outdated. The newer figures from 5 August, 2009 are right above them in the document "BASIC FACTS: CONSEQUENCES OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN GEORGIA". That's where I looked first when the link got me to the main site http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=GEO&sec_id=597. However the more current one must be used so I've corrected it. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The new york times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=0
Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.
And from the OSCE monitors
it was Georgia that launched the first military strikes against Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital.
“It was clear to me that the [Georgian] attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” he said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town.”
Last month Young gave a similar briefing to visiting military attachés, in which he reportedly supported the monitors’ assessment that there had been little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali in which scores of civilians and Russian peacekeepers died.
The key sentence
little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali
But to me it is clear that people want to angle the article so I will not even attempt to revert the revert, have a nice life Lolanaive12 ( talk) 02:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
How exactly does an assumption such as "Supported with military intel by NATO" fit into the Beligrents section .... ? I think someone's very POV here. TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 17:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
After I did fact-checking and improved most of the article, only the last section Combatants is left unattended. After some condensing, the entire article is still too long. I propose splitting this section into entirely separate article "Military analysis of the Russo-Georgian war". What do you think? -- UA Victory ( talk) 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It came to my attention that the user 94.226.14.216 is trying to make unsourced changes to the table. I have reverted his/her edits, but he/she still returns. I warned the user on its talk page and I hope if this is repeated, he/she will be blocked. I also checked the contributions and they mostly appear to be unsourced or OR. I noticed that the user's first edit of this article is in the section Military equipment. It appears that since than the section mostly has been rewritten by the user without citing the sources. -- UA Victory ( talk) 19:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I have finished working on the article and now it's almost ready to be promoted to FA. Maybe some copy-editing is needed. But the table Military equipment in the last section is mostly OR. Out of 32 cells that contain data, only 7 is fully sourced and 7 partially or incorrectly referenced. I did some research but couldn't find the relevant sources.
Other editors, please respond as I need your opinions: Should I remove this subsection entirely as it seems that nobody will rework it in the foreseeable future? -- UA Victory ( talk) 18:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This article was a real mess before I started to work on it. After two months of hard work there is the current version. I had to condense the long sections Background and Active stage. For instance, the subsection Battle of Tskhinvali filled the length of two pages vertically and now it is one-third of what it used to be. I also did fact-checking of every statement and overall clean-up. I've requested the help from the guild of copy-editors for grammar but nobody has yet taken up the request. I would like to nominate for FAC. Do you agree that FAC nomination would be a good idea? — UA Victory ( talk) 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester How did you find this new map that you've added? — UA Victory ( talk) 16:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester I see that you've corrected the main article image. Can you correct this error in the legend: "Abkazian and South Ossetian territory loyal…". -- UA Victory ( talk) 11:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I temporarily withdrew GA nomination. When this article stabilizes, I'll renominate again for GA review in a week or two. -- UA Victory ( talk) 09:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Two paragraphs removed for the following reasons: 1. In the first paragraph, even if the guy had provided a couple of examples, the statement about western media would still clearly be POV because it is about the general tone of hundreds of media outlets in "the west". (I don't believe it was correct anyway but perhaps that is only my impression.) 2. It comes from a western expert chosen by the state controlled media of one of the parties to the conflict. 3. The second paragraph is an even more irrelevant opinion by "The eXile" - the guy who said "Russian women are 142 million times hotter than all the Western girls combined" 4. If these paragraphs on the so called media war were to be allowed a special place in the main article they should have been most relevant and indisputable. Clearly they are far from that. PussBroad ( talk) 18:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The statements of the author of "The August War between Russia and Georgia" http://www.webcitation.org/5fm4fGQ5j Mikhail Barabanov are very POV and he gives personal estimates about the losses of the GAF without any references or further elaborating what he bases those figures off. It is blindly taken as primary source without any considaration if those claims and statements Mr Barabanov provides might be false and are just POV clearly aiming to mock or ridicule the opposing side. I also wonder how anyone believes claims like "Georgia lost its air and naval forces and air-defense systems entirely" are actualy true. Georgia lost most of it's naval capabilities but not even there it lost it's entire force. What was left of it got transfered into the coast guard. It lost neither all of it's air force ( in fact the losses taken mostly on ground weren't even anything close to decicive or would have prevented the GAF to continue air sorties ) nor did it loose all of it's air defence. That is simply a lie. I Propose to look over it and correct the casaulty segment. Also someone deleted the detailed casaulty list and for some reason refuses to mention Russian casualties too. There are numerous detailed figures mostly in Russian though, about how many tanks, armored vehicles and soft vehicles Russia lost. That has to be taken in consideration as well when having a segment about casualties .... TheMightyGeneral ( talk) 10:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I've spent several days carefully copyediting this article for a GAN. This reliably-sourced section (which seems to have been in the article for a while), albeit a footnote to the war, was deleted by Hilltrot (ostensibly a new editor) with a poorly-reasoned edit summary. The interface wouldn't let me undo the edit because of a link to archive.is elsewhere in the article, so I rolled it back (rollbacks are noted as minor edits). Volunteer Marek promptly deleted the section again with a bad-faith edit summary not addressing the removal of reliably-sourced content. I don't like edit-warring, and I like tag-teaming even less. Mini apolis 20:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that sources are capitalizing the title as a proper name. Cúchullain t/ c 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
* Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry
RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester — ☎ 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that it has been attempted several times to remove from the lead the sentence about pre-war clashes and shelling of the civilians ( [11], [12], [13]). But they didn't remove the subsection in the article about the pre-war clashes. Now I can guess they thought that the majority of the readers don't read past the lead and by removing this sentence, they would distort the facts and imply that Georgia "suddenly" attacked South Ossetia. Fortunately, those vandalisms were always reverted to the last stable version. Today an IP editor from Russia (what a coincidence) again removed it and opened a new case on WP:RSN. It is a bit surprising 6 years later that Russians are still persistent to portray Russia and pro-Russian separatists as the sole "victim" of the war.
I want to emphasize that per WP:LEAD the lead must reflect the main aspects of the article. By deleting this sentence, the lead won't reflect Prelude section and most readers won't know that the situation became most intense one week before the war. Without the proper lead, the article will lose its neutrality.
AFAIK Radio Liberty is a well established news outlet and should be considered reliable source per WP:RS, because "well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". If these editors are disputing the fact that there were pre-war clashes and are implying that Georgia "suddenly" attacked South Ossetia, there are numerous other sources that confirm this pre-war clashes.
The cited source in the lead is not the sole source that talks about the shelling of the civilians. There are numerous other sources, that can't be disputed.
At about 10 p.m. on Aug. 5, teacher Sisino Javakhishvili, after bathing her granddaughter, went into the courtyard of her house in the Georgian village of Nikosi, three kilometers from the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, to fetch water. She had heard gunfire before, but suddenly she sensed that it was serious. "No one here is surprised by individual gunshots or even machine-gun fire, but this time it was truly massive," she says.
If these sources aren't enough, independent Russian sources and analysts can also be cited. They are quite interesting, because they contradict the official Russian version.
Oleg Orlov, the head of Memorial, said that artillery exchanges across the border with South Ossetia began on August 1 - and then "got worse". Civilians on both sides were injured, he said. South Ossetian troops had fired on civilians, Orlov said, including an enclave of ethnic Georgians living inside separatist controlled South Ossetia, north of Tskhinvali. South Ossetian troops had also fired from the Tskhinvali headquarters of Russia's peacekeeping force, Orlov added.
Во-вторых, а зачем, собственно, грузинам перестрелки? Главный фактор победы — внезапность. Армии и разведки тратят миллионы на то, чтобы обмануть противника и скрыть свои военные приготовления. С точки зрения международного права, Южная Осетия — часть Грузии. Чтобы ввести в Цхинвали войска, Грузия не нуждается в предварительной эскалации конфликта. Наоборот, она нуждалась в полной секретности. Другое дело — Южная Осетия. Она нуждается в таких перестрелках по тем же причинам, по которым в них нуждаются «Хезболла» и ХАМАС.
Is there any doubt left that several editors are not interested in the truth and simply try to dismiss the facts that don't fit their POV? I can't even imagine a huge influx of Russian (and pro-Russian) users on sixth anniversary on 8 August 2014, who will likely try to vandalize the article to spread their POV. I doubt if there is any protection against this. -- UA Victory ( talk) 14:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Today the lead section was vandalized again. This is the fifth attempt. I restored the deleted content and added new sources. This source clearly says that,
In July and August 2008 the situation in South Ossetia deteriorated sharply. Georgian positions and settlements in South Ossetia were targeted by Ossetian separatist militias. Serious clashes occurred between the two sides in the week before 8 August.
Anyway, does anyone ever notice such lame attempts to distort the shortened timeline? -- UA Victory ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
there is no problem to use a large number of information sources. who say the opposite. Your sources are not the reason for the change in the causes of war, is not a reason to change the one who attacked first. first attacked Georgia. small fights were between 1989 and 2008, many many many times. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
your personal opinion. this is very small. any war. before 8,8,8. does not change the fact. Georgia used his army to attack on residential areas Ossetian cities. attacked Ossetia from all directions. can be you shall say that it was excessive use of force?. Alas. is Georgia's aggression against Ossetia. this aggression lasted for from 1990. Ossetia is located inside the peacekeepers with a UN mandate for so many years before 8,8,8 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 09:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
One of the sources you cited to support your opinion (The_Tanks_of_August, page 44-45) says:
"The countdown to the war may have started on August 1. A Georgian Рolice pickup truck, a Toyota Hilux, was blown up at 0800 by an improvised explosive device planted on the side of a detour road between Georgia proper and a Georgian enclave to the north of Tskhinvali. Five policemen were injured. The Georgians had no doubt that the South Ossetian separatists were responsible. At 18:17 of the same day, snipers of the Georgian Interior Ministry's special task force retaliated by attacking the border checkpoints of the South Ossetian Interior Ministry. Four Ossetians were killed and seven injured, most of them South Ossetian Interior Ministry servicemen. On the night of August 1-2, heavy
exchanges of fire broke out across the border. The sides used grenade launchers and mortars. The number of Ossetian casualties rose to six, including one solder of the North Ossetian Рeacekeeper Battalion. The number of injured reached 15, including several civilian The period of August 2-5 was relatively quiet, with only a few sporadic exchanges of small arms fire. But on August 6, the exchanges intensified. Mortar and small arms fire continued
from both sides all through the night of August 6-7. Fourteen people were injured in Tskhinvali, most of them peaceful civilians, and another four in the neighboring South Ossetian village." which is quite different from what you claim.--
217.201.195.73 (
talk)
13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
UA Victory, you say that "The fact that you added ("On August 1, a Georgian police pickup truck was blown up at 08:00 by an IED on the road near Tskhinvali, injuring five Georgian policemen....") was already in the article", where? I don't see it. You say that "neither the authors or publishers of the sources are Georgian", but they are all from NATO countries which support Georgia and have a pro-Georgian view of the events. We have to consider, and include in the article, even the point of view of the Russia and South Ossetia. We have to find source from third countries which are not involved to support one or the others of the contenders. The IP editor is disputing that the shelling was started by Ossetians and that the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia was a consequence of this.-- 217.201.195.73 ( talk) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC) I did not deleted the sources because the same sources are cited elsewhere and the article text in the lead suggest that the shelling caused the conflict.-- 217.201.195.73 ( talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Stating (in the lead and in the article) that "the Ossetian separatists started shelling Georgian villages on August 1, drawing sporadic response from the Georgian peacekeepers in the region" de facto means to suggest that the war was initiated by the Ossetians and the Georgian invasion was simply a response to the attack suffered.-- 217.201.195.73 ( talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The Ossetian separatists were provoking a conflict to give the Russian military a pretext for direct intervention. Late in the evening of August 7, a heavy mortar bombardment of Georgian villages near the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali provoked Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to order a major assault.
--- I am protecting the page from anon IP edits for 72 hours to allow people time to work this out on the talk page. BCorr| Брайен 17:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It is peculiar that in this topic started by UA_Victory the majority of users are in disagreement with his version of the facts (a version that considers Radio Free Europe a reliable source), nevertheless his version is considered NPOV. It is relatively easy to find sources to support one own personal vision of the facts, as UA_Victory did when he edited the article. Here some reliable sources that do not support the statements of UA_Victory:
A report for US Congress: "On July 25, 2008, a bomb blast in Tskhinvali, South Ossetia, killed one person.
On July 30, both sides again exchanged artillery fire, with the South Ossetians allegedly shelling a Georgian-built road on a hill outside Tskhinvali, and the Georgians allegedly shelling two Ossetian villages. Two days later, five Georgian police were injured on this road by a bomb blast. This incident appeared to trigger serious fighting on August 2-4, which resulted in over two dozen killed and wounded. On the evening of August 7, 2008, South Ossetia accused Georgia of launching a “massive” artillery barrage against Tskhinvali that damaged much of the town, while Georgia reported intense bombing of some Georgian villages in the conflict zone."
A georgian source: "Six people were reportedly killed and 22 injured in the worst violence in years in the South Ossetian conflict zone late on August 1 and overnight on August 2. Both sides have accused each other of opening fire first. Authorities in breakaway South Ossetia said that six people were killed and 15 injured after the Georgian side opened fire in the evening on August 1, followed by shelling of the capital Tskhinvali late on August 1 and overnight on August 2... Mamuka Kurashvili, a Georgian Defense Ministry official in charge of overseeing peacekeeping operations, said that the Georgian side had opened fire in response to shelling of Georgian villages. Six civilians and one Georgian policeman were injured as a result of shelling of the Georgian villages of Zemo Nikozi, Kvemo Nikozi, Nuli and Ergneti".
The online version of the German newspaper Der Spiegel: The skirmishes became more frequent in the final days leading up to all-out war. On Friday, Aug. 1, five Georgian police officers were injured in a bomb attack in South Ossetia. A short time later, snipers shot and killed six people, most of them police officers with the pro-Russian separatist government, while they were fishing and swimming... by Aug. 6. In the Georgian-controlled villages of South Ossetia, skirmishes between Georgian army infantry and South Ossetian militias became more intense, erupting into nonstop artillery exchanges during the ensuing night."
And the
"Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia" report of the EU page 207 and 208: "On 1 August, an improvised explosive device that went off on the Georgian Eredvi-Kheiti road by-passing Tskhinvali left five Georgian policemen injured. During the evening and night of 1-2 August, a series of intense and extensive exchanges of fire including sniper fire and mortar shelling occurred in the conflict zone, causing fatalities and casualties. The events on 1-2 August were assessed by the OSCE Mission to Georgia as the most serious outbreak of fire since the 2004 conflict. Exchanges of fire continued in the nights of 2-3 and 3-4 August. Beginning in the afternoon of 6 August fire was exchanged along virtually the whole line of contact between the Georgian and South Ossetian sides, with particular hotspots in the Avnevi-Nuli-Khetagurovo area (west of Tskhinvali) and the Dmenisi-Prisi area (east of Tskhinvali). After a short break in the morning, firing, involving mortars and artillery, continued on 7 August, reportedly causing human casualties and fatalities. The same day, international observers could see significant movements of Georgian troops and equipment towards Gori from the east and west. Other troops and equipment were observed stationary north of Gori, just outside the zone of conflict".--
217.201.140.228 (
talk)
21:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I strongly encourage all involved to discuss the content of the article to find points of agreement rather than discussing and questioning the motives and tactics of other editors. Instead, "suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns" (see Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving_consensus). For example, if there is not consensus among the editors on which side "fired the first shot," propose a version that states that there is disagreement, cite a soure or two for each position, and work for consensus on that.
I also urge you all to review the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars essay.
Thanks, BCorr| Брайен 12:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Alæxis wrote "Surely the skirmishes between 1 and 7 of August have to be mentioned in the lead. However not everyone blames Ossetians for starting the shelling, like Radio Liberty does. Maybe it's better just to write about clashes in the lead and go into the details." which is what I did with my edits but it seems that you do not want to go into the details of skirmishes before the Georgian invasion and just want to say (in the lead and in the article) that "Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region" which di fatto is a lie. The fact that 89.105.158.243 is a Russian IP does not mean that he/she is not entitled to contribute as much as anyone else. Orlov, Felgenhauer, Illarionov and Latynina are politically biased against the current Russian government and some of them work for anti-Russian propaganda organizations (Felgenhauer, Illarionov). You accept as true all positions critical of the Russian government and assume that "Russian officials lied practically about everything". This is not a neutral point of view. Above I mentioned some Western institutional sources (US Congress and EU) which are not blaming the South Ossetians for starting the skirmishes but state that the skirmishes were originated by both parties: this is the right and true NPOV method to address the issue and this is what I tried to do with my edits.
P.S.: to be in "Florence, Rome, Milan, Rome again and Florence again at the same time" is usual if you are in in Italy and have a dynamic IP address.--
217.201.106.131 (
talk)
13:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Rhr5FiwZ8&list=PLD9E45E61856E024B&index=61 if you are interested in footage outside the newspaper headings 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Reading the article it seems that the war started because one day the separatists decided, all of a sudden, to start shelling Georgian villages. It must be explained that the war was the end of a political-military escalation that began with provocations from both sides, continued with bomb attacks and exchanges of fire on both sides, first with light arms and then with heavy arms. As almost always happens, it is quite impossible to determine who fired the first shot (and maybe it is not even important), but there is no doubt that the war began with the Georgian offensive during the night of 7-8 August 2008. Any other reconstruction of the events is pure speculation.-- Antonioptg ( talk) 13:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be a meat puppet (or sock puppet) of the Italian IP-hopping editor that was trying to push his POV exactly one week ago. You also used the same expression "your personal opinion" like Russian IP editor was using. Your first and second edits that were made today, contained multiple copyright violations. Although you reworded the copyvios in your third edit, your edit introduced minor details into the article which caused the problems related to WP:SUMMARY and WP:SIZE. Your edit also messed up the chronology of events. You introduced an outdated information, "However, independent military observers in the area did not confirm the allegations that Georgian villages were attacked with heavy weapons before 7 August." Here are your counter-sources. Terhi Hakala, head of the OSCE mission to Georgia didn't support Grist. Virginie Coulloudon, OSCE Deputy Spokeswoman, said "...However, the OSCE is not in a capacity to say who started the war and what happened before the night of [August] 7-8." Grist himself said "I have never said there was no provocation by the South Ossetians." However, Stephen Young did not comment on his assertions, and OSCE said it "would not be publicly engaged in this disagreement." You don't want to discuss your changes and to reason. You template me while you were the first one to breach the rules. You also reported me on WP:AN/EW while you were the one that reverted my edits without any discussion. -- UA Victory ( talk) 17:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Something foreign to most American English speakers, but native to UK English speakers. That made me wonder what the official Wikipedia policy is on usage of English, is it neutral and avoiding things confusing to each "side" of the language, pro-proper English or US centric, which the latter is dubious in my mind, considering other Wikipedia policies. For a brief moment, I considered changing the term to a more neutral one, but fatigue has sapped my linguistic legerdemain. Hence, my appeal for peer support, as I turn into a toadstool for the "night" (I'm on mid-shift). Wzrd1 ( talk) 07:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not neutral claim, that why I reverted it to previous stable wording. Don't push your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.219.184 ( talk) 10:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There has been a request for a new editor to undertake a new GA-review of this article as the articles editors was unsatisfied with the first one. Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 16:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
During this article's DYK nomination, I found that the article contains copyright infringements, which is a quickfail criterion according to WP:WIAGA. As the problem appears to be extensive, this article needs considerable revision and likely should not be a GA. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the Background section alone, and not comprehensive - the takeaway here is that there's more problematic text than not. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Who's going to check the whole article for close paraphrasing? I think that some editors have the tool that automatically detects such issues. -- UA Victory ( talk) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that nobody has checked the article yet. I propose that Nikkimaria or some other editor who has strict requirements as what counts as close paraphrasing, should check and then create a copy of this article in the sandbox where the problematic text will be highlighted. This will ease the job for everyone. After the article is revised, then the sandbox version will be deleted. I understand that the article is rather large and it will take some time, however I think that one section per day is a reasonable. -- UA Victory ( talk) 13:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I've undertaken the task to check for closely paraphrased text and I've rewritten large parts of text. I hope I've eliminated all the problematic text. -- UA Victory ( talk) 19:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
in the article there are many words of too strong reaction of Russia against Georgia (forgetting that Abkhazia and Ossetia were never fully a part of Georgia even in the USSR just do never came back from the 1991 and even peacekeepers appeared for many years before 2008) so that's what I want ... if Russia against Georgia too much then what is? -> http://www.aif.ru/society/history/42003 2 million civilians have been killed in a war based on politics in such a case Russia was from 2008 to 2018 continue to bomb Georgia and many times to capture the whole country, the whole to undermine and kill At least a million Georgians I think in the article do not need to talk about too much participation of Russia against Georgia, literally no slightest hint. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 19:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The current text states now politically the exact opposite what it said about a year ago (and before that). (Compare with: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Russo-Georgian_War&oldid=579051674)
On top, the current text is far less readable because of its structure.
I recommend to "merge" large sections back to strike a more logical, balanced and neural note. Also, it would match then again more closely other translations of this page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacy73 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Why any infos about the mission of Lech Kaczynski and leaders of Central Europe has been deleted? As wikilkeaks satates this mission was on of the crucial reasons for saving Tbilisi from Russian direct attack 95.83.249.165 ( talk) 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The Turkish Army neither did fight alongside the Georgians against Russia, nor did supply weapons during armed hostilities. The purchase of weapons does not warrant inclusion of the country of origin as combatant. If WP lists every country from which armament is bought by the warring party as combatant, then Israel, Ukraine and Czech Republic would be listed too. Two of the Turkish-language sources are blogs and therefore not reliable. Not one of them indicates that the armament was provided in 7-12 August period. -- UA Victory ( talk) 08:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The opening section of the article reads a lot like a personal opinion and is barren of relevant citations, notably the citation of the very end, asserting that the current status-quo is a violation of international law should be taken in its appropriate context, one-sided saber-rattling and rhetoric in the heat of the Crimean crisis.
early versions of the article (before UA Victory started making edits) were of neutral disposition and heavily cited, it's nice to have personal opinions, but they should be left at the door when editing articles.
Additionally, there's no good reason to have removed the '1 August – 7 August: "Sniper war"' section other than to bias the article, which in its current form paints an inaccurate picture of the conflict beginning with South Ossetian shelling (un-cited, might I add).
It also mentioned the "retaking of Tskhinvali" which was never occupied to begin with, and reads as though it wasn't Georgian forces who escalated the conflict by effectively invading South Ossetia, and for some reason, the mention of the UN's response to said escalation, http://www.un.org/press/en/2008/sgsm11735.doc.htm has been removed as a citation. It omits any mentions of the Georgian air strikes on humanitarian convoys and of the tank strikes and air strikes on Tskhinvali resulting in civilian casualties.
also removed are then Prime Minister Putin's (at the time attending the Beijing Olympics) reaction to the events, promising retaliation. Also removed are references to the shelling of the Tskhinvali barracks and the resulting death of several Russian peace keepers http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7548715.stm which is generally seen as one of their main factors for Russia's involvement.
The list goes on and on, but I think the idea is made clear. I ask that editors be more aware of what this article has become, and refrain from using wikipedia as a soapbox. Looking at the time frame when these edits begun taking place, it is clear that UA Victory cannot separate his or her bitterness regarding the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian dispute from the unrelated 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.42.241 ( talk) 11:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
As the GA-reviewer I can say If the copyright problems from the heavily discussed GA-reassessment are fixed, the article is off GA-status. I would be happy to re-review if someone decided to fix it. Ping me if my attention is needed in the future please. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 11:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It used to present impartial or otherwise respected sources like the OSCE and UN, and their views of what occurred, and now, it only seems to quote sources from early in the war, when the Georgian PR campaign was at it's height. I looked through the last page of archived edits and it appears to show a single user consistently making edits, with the false claim that they're doing it for the sake of condensing, with other's sporadically coming up and questioning the sheer bias demonstrated. I've met hard-core maidanists, and Georgians who voted for Saakashvili who concede that he screwed up by trying to retake South Ossetia, and yet the article makes it out like he's some heroic defender.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, heavy POV-pushing has happened. No need to dig deep inside article to notice it. 29 August 2014 it was:
Georgia launched a large-scale military operation against South Ossetia during the night of 7-8 August 2008
and
Russia officially deployed units of the Russian 58th Army and airborne troops into South Ossetia on 8 August, launching air strikes against targets in Georgia proper.
In 2015 it is:
The Georgian Army moved to South Ossetia on 7 August to defend civilians and restore order
and
Russia officially launched a large-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia on 8 August
Nicely done. 46.237.19.104 ( talk) 17:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Russo-Georgian War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the articled it is stated that: "After a prolonged lull, relations between Georgia and Russia began to worsen drastically in April 2008. Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region."
But according to the latest official reports from EU fact-finding mission in 2009, the 2008 conflict was caused by Georgia's illegal attack on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali on August 7-8 relative article: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/
Sasiskas ( talk) 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done This is a third-party interpretation of the report, not what the report actually says. Even your source says this: "South Ossetian separatists begin attacking Georgian peacekeepers, ending a ceasefire." --
UA Victory (
talk)
05:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Russo-Georgian War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
94.43.226.251 ( talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC) On 8 Augus 2008 ,The Georgian aircraft's target was only the Gupta bridge, which links the northern part of South Ossetia to its southern part where Tskhinvali is located
/info/en/?search=Battle_of_Tskhinvali
Not done It's unclear what do you want. --
UA Victory (
talk)
05:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just begun to copy-edit this article, and I could not help but noticing that there are two templates/sidebars/navboxes that are titled "Russo-georgian War," and a third that is "Georgian–Ossetian conflict." Now I am new to this topic, but it seems to me that there is some redundancy here, which should be dealt with by somebody who knows the topic better. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther ( talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Will rap this up shortly. Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your price!) 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've protected this on account of edit-warring. Can editors please discuss here first in an attempt to broker some consensus/compromise? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This was primarily a war between Georgia and Southern Ossetian and Abkhazian separatists. No one would call the Kosovo war a war between Serbia-Montenegro and the USA/NATO. The Russian military intervention in this war was like the military intervention of the USA/NATO in the Kosovo war with one difference Russia justified its interventions with the protection of Russian Citizens and the USA and the NATO claimed that they just wanted to secure the Albanians.-- 95.114.29.174 ( talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.222.93 ( talk)
In regard to: "Heritage Foundation researchers praised the preparation of Russian general-staff, saying that the operations were planned and implemented effectively, with a strategic surprise being engineered by the Russians.[264]"
Problem: This violates the following criterion of a good article: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each."
Recommendation: change "praised" to "reported that" or some other NEUTRAL word. Let's try to keep ideological beliefs about various think-tanks away from this Wikipedia article. Thewindblows1 ( talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)thewindblows1
If you still disagree, please read the following:
Obviously, "praised" connotes "support of"--as in "x is good; it's praise-worthy"; however, after reading the source from Heritage Foundation, it's pretty clear the article isn't about praise. It's initially a positive (non-normative) assessment of the Russian military:
"The war appears to reflect comprehensive and systematic planning by the Russian general staff. As a result of this planning, the combined operations were well prepared and well executed, employing combat, support, and logistical forces as well as pre-positioned ships and planes. Most likely employing deception to mask operational preparations, the Russian offensive achieved a strategic surprise."
It's not praise. It's a think-tank's (or rather, a political advocacy group's) positive assessment. It's non-normative. There's no flag-waving about how awesome the Russian military is. The Heritage Foundation's article isn't expressing how 'praise-worthy' the Russian military was during the conflict. If anything, the Heritage Foundation article expresses concern about the efficacy of the Russian military ops and then--becoming normative--recommends that the US do x, y, and z for the US military. Thewindblows1 ( talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)thewindblows1
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thewindblows1 (
talk •
contribs)
16:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
According to the Armenian government the war cost Armenia's economy $ 700 million [30]
Should this information be added (in my opinion, it should be) and to which section should it be added to? -- Երևանցի talk 11:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
"The pipeline circumvents both Russia and Iran. Because it has decreased Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the pipeline has been a major factor in the United States' support for Georgia.[65]"
The presence of the oil line is not in dispute, I presume its strategic significance is substantial, but the article cited says nothing about it and is a tremendously unreliably source ... just a Putin propaganda list.
Is this article locked ot something? I couldn't edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.209.96 ( talk) 20:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)