Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

House of Commons report

Is the House of Commons report a separate report from the one presented above? It probably should be looked at as well.(PaC (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

It is indeed a different report. --Xeeron (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And of course the House of Commons "forgets" to mention this article by BBC: "Special ambassador Yuri Popov said Russia would defend its citizens living in the conflict zone, Interfax reports." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7543099.stm I guess old wars die hard. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bravo to those guys from the House of Commons:))) August 7. Georgia sends in its military to Tskhinvali. Russia retaliates with military force. August 8... - it's a very nice depiction of the day. The Emp...- I mean, Russia retaliates, that was the main event of the day, huh?:))) I suppose, Georgians didn't even had a chance to get into Tskhinvali? FeelSunny (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Italics vs Quotes

Due to the complexity of the article, a lot of quotes are summarized. If there's only one or two lines, then quotes have to be used. However sometimes the reader likes to just focus on the sources. Thus, for the reader's convenience, I have placed a block quote in italics. You are more then welcome to place other block quotes in italics as well. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Italics and quotations. We use either quotation marks or block formatting for quotes, not italics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I have confused Wikipedia with something else. However, it should still be a Block Quote, as per Wikipedia Rules, that state: A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the cquote template, used only for pull quotes). Block quotes can be enclosed between a pair of &blockquote&...&/blockquote& HTML tags, or {{quotation}} or {{quote}} can be used. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Block quotes would visually interrupt the structure of the bulleted list too much in this instance. If you are concerned the quotation is too long, then shorten it and replace it with a summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And write a summary of a nicely written summary? I don't think that block quotes would interrupt the bulleted list at all. Is there a Wikipedia rule on it, or is it Original Research? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What does "original research" have to do with editorial commonsense? BTW, why are you so preoccupied about this specific quotation anyway? Need to make it more visually prominent because you happen to like its POV? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I like its credibility, not its POV. And besides, I'm just following Wikipedia's rules on quotations. So it doesn't really hurt your eyes, nor is there a Wikipedia rule against block quoting it, you just don't want the reader to focus on it, because you don't like it's POV, is that it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Hits, and so the changing of the title argument dies

It was funny to watch the evolution. First it was claimed that Russia was the attacker, then that the attacker isn't mentioned first, and now the arguments center around Google Hits. So I aksed a friend of mine, she's got a PhD in online research, to teach me a bit about Googling stuff. Well turns out, the results on Google hits can be taylored to your needs, if you know what you are doing.

For instance, Googling "South Ossetia War" is silly, because some articles might just call it "S. Ossetia War" and that wouldn't fit. I haven't heard of too many Ossetian Wars, so I figured merely googling "Ossetia War" would be more appropriate. And here's the result:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Ossetia+War%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3

In other words, for "Ossetia War" there are a whopping, well I'll qoute Google: "Results 1 - 10 of about 278,000 for "Ossetia War". (0.44 seconds)"

That's 278,000 hits!

But then I realized that most historians also called this the War in Ossetia. So I tried that one out, and here are the results:

Introducing the link! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22War+in+Ossetia%22+&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

And quoting Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 786,000 for "War in Ossetia". (0.49 seconds)

786,000 results! Damn. That's gotta be good.

Now the other side's favorite Google to qoute:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Russia-Georgia+War%22 generating: "Results 1 - 10 of about 185,000 for "Russia-Georgia War". (0.36 seconds)"

So we have 278,000 hits for the current title, 786,000 for the most popular title, and only 185,000 for the proposed change. I do have to admit, it's a blast when you're arguing for the side with the most facts in it. You guys gotta try that sometime. You don't need need Ad Hominems to win.

Also, remember me being a pest, and forcing the addition of the word Tskhinvali? You know, the whole Battle of Tskhinvali, that would be mentioned in the war, considering it was the most important battle and should be mentioned in an encyclopedic article? Well for "War in Ossetia" + Tskhinvali, you get, here I'll qoute:

The link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22War+in+Ossetia%22+tskhinvali&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

And the results: "Results 1 - 10 of about 239,000 for "War in Ossetia" tskhinvali. (0.07 seconds)"

To sum it up, no matter how you spin it, this article isn't going to get renamed. You are running out of arguments, stop embarassing yourselves. Can't we all just get along and edit this article nicely? Like historians? Like encyclopedia editors?

Or is that too much to ask?

And the part that really annoys me, and to extent entertains me, is that the reason you want the title changed is to show how evil Russia was, but at the same time you are arguing that the defender goes first in the title, so I guess the game is called Allies and Axis. Oh wait, no it isn't. You also argue that this article is so hard to find for the average Wikipedia user. Even if the user uses your title, and merely gets the year right, 2008, or types in "wiki" the code for wikipedia research, it's the very first article that pops up. If the reader doesn't even know the year, then all he/she is going to have to do is look at the second page of google hits. This article is not at all hard to find for pretty much anyone. I had a friend conduct this test for first graders, and guess what? Within five minutes, all of them found it. I'm sure that as long as the average Wikipedia user can tell the difference between ground and air, I'm sure they can find it too. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is my impression that Goggle hits don't determine a page's title, and that instead we should make a list of relevant media, NGOs and academic articles/books and evaluate what they do. sephia karta | di mi 09:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Remembering how the last attempts by users of this talk page to teach you how to use googles searches failed, I am very glad you finally found a "PhD in online research" (where the hell do you study that??) to teach you how to use quotation marks while doing google searches. How about trying some really really fancy stuff and using the "advanced search" option? And while we are at it adhere to the wikipedia suggestions as well:

• Get rid of wikipedia pages
• Only use pages younger than a year (since it is unlikely anyone wrote about this war before July 2008)

and we get the following results:

• "South Ossetia War": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&tbs=qdr%3Ay&q=%22South+Ossetia+War%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&oq=&aqi= 4,030 hits
• "Ossetia war": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&tbs=qdr%3Ay&q=%22Ossetia+War%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&oq=&aqi= 6,250 hits
• "Russia-Georgia War": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&tbs=qdr%3Ay&q=%22Russia-Georgia+War%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&oq=&aqi= 18,100 hits

So there is no need to even go into detail about you relaxing one search option, but not the other. Quite obviously your hits are about previous Ossetian wars. --Xeeron (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron you forgot one of them:

"August War" - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=%22August+War%22+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=y&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images - for Results 1 - 10 of about 22,900 for "August War". (0.19 seconds). And that's limited to the past year.

You know what, I find it hilarious that the "August War" beats every one of searches, yet you so badly want Russia to go first, like the attacker does, that you're completely ignoring this fact. But I can only take so much hilarity, so please, stop.

As for a PhD in online research, if you're wondering where to get that, why don't you, uhh geez I don't know, Google it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PhD+in+Online+research&aq=f&oq=&aqi= and get "Results 1 - 10 of about 38,800,000 for PhD in Online research. (0.33 seconds)" Really not hard, but you couldn't just let a potential insult go, could you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

You forgot the -wikipedia option for "August War", but that appart, if August War turns out to be most widely used title, I would support that one. As so, you are assuming things about others that are far of the mark. If fact, you are back to your old self, spreading lies about others. I do not "badly want Russia to go first" and the reason I did not include other titles was, because I was responding to your post, which only compared those two titles and not August War. So look after your own mistakes before blaming others.

Regarding "PhD in Online research", you forgot the quotation marks, which brings the number of hits down to grand total of one (google suggests it is a malware site), which in turn tells me that you are not telling the truth about your friend. Any real course would create plenty of google hits. --Xeeron (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite a foolish discussion it is. There is a kandidat tekhnicheskih nauk degree in Russia, and most likely, hundreds of them would specialize in the internet research field, and optimization of search machines. Both here, in Russia, and in China, in India, and elsewhere. What do you think, all those programmists do not have corresponding PhD degrees, User:Xeeron? Here is an example of such a man, if you read Russian: [1]. FeelSunny (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didnt start it. But I could not help responding, when, months after we initially posted google hits, HistoricWarrior finally managed to use quotation marks in a google search and claims that he had help from a friend with a non-existing PhD in that field to figure out that "Google hits can be taylored to your needs", which most internet users without highschool degree figure out on their own after using google for a few times. Sorry if that bothers you, but till you show me a link, there exists no "PhD in online research" for me. Neither is there any kandidat tekhnicheskih nauk degree of that name, as the article you linked yourself shows (neither is such an degree mentioned on the other page you linked).

Bottom line is: Rely on your own wits while argumenting here and don't make up friends with non-existant PhDs to give more credibility to your arguements, it wont work. --Xeeron (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, it looks like you misunderstand both Historic warrior and me: there is a degree in technical science in Russia. Some of those people with kandidat tekhnicheskih nauk also work on internet search engines, site optimisation, others work on internet lingos (that's a PhD in internet linguistics, of course), etc. There is nothing supranatural in a friend with "PhD in online research" - that just means this friend defended a |kandidatskaya dissertaciya thesis on online research. Basically every other man with a PhD would know that.FeelSunny (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you write your thesis about the evolution of the tibetian language between 1200 and 1550, you do not have a "PhD in tibetian language between 1200 and 1500". The same goes for writing a thesis about online research. --Xeeron (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No Xeeron, you generally can't help to not insult me here. Your pathetic hope that if you insult me enough I will leave is laughable. Also, if you write your research on the Tibetan Language, you do get a PhD in Tibetan Language. It may not be those exact dates, but I'm not the one who dated it. Besides Xeeron, you gave "weak support" to August War, and "support" to your pet-title. That means you are in favor of your pet-title over the most popular title on Google, and yet you're using Google as your strongest argument. That's very hypocritical of you. Don't you know that Wikipedia records everything? Also, I don't know how you do it, but when I look for jobs, I don't use qoutes. Furthermore, if you spent any time actually researching, you would notice that PhD of Online Research is part of PhD of Online Education, but you were too busy bashing me at the moment to notice. Agent Xeeron - you have failed in provoking HistoricWarrior007. By the way, Xeeron, you seem to be caring more about provoking me, then actually improving the article. And it's not the first time. Here's a gem you left on my talkpage:

"Even replying here, you can't stop framing all your replies as personal attacks on me. "why all the pretense, why can't you just say that you want to change the article's title to make Russia look guilty" Why can't you stop pretending to know what I think? I am defending the name that I feel is more descriptive and fits the article better, yet you consistently allege that I do it for POV reasons only. And you did not point anything out about math. You did however for the umphtens time is LIE ABOUT WHAT I DID AND I AM GETTING FUCKING SICK OF IT!!!! The "claim" of Russians outnumbering Georgians 2:1 was not made by me, not based on any math, BUT COPIED FROM A SOURCE WHOSE EDITOR I AM NOT. No math involved at all, just copying a statement from a source into the article. You know that very well and you attempts to protray me as being unable to distinguish 1 and 2 are nothing but an underhand attack to discredit me. And, FYI, I strife to make my edits NPOV (by only including facts that are backed up by sources and giving room to both sides) and not pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. --Xeeron (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)"

I can see that your maturity and professionalism have not improved. I was right about you from the very begining. BTW, if anyone is wondering, the ISDP source that Xeeron so valiantly fought to have kept in the article is none other then the infamous Svante Cornell. Now, are you going to stop attacking me, while pretending that I'm attack you, so that we can move on with the editing? And act like a professional, not an agent provacateur. And if you choose to quote a source for this fine article, that means that you agree that the source is encyclopedic material and should be prepared to defend it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake - that was Xeeron going emotional:) FeelSunny (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not my finest moment on wikipedia, to be sure, I am not surprised you bring it up to distract from you failure to back up your statement that South Ossetia war is more popular with Google. By now I have realised that I do not need to use caps to point out your lies or your lack of knowledge (about PhD names, lets say). --Xeeron (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're being superbly hypocritical. The above is merely an example of all of your posts, in that you excel at taking the discussion off track. My main point was that a Google Search can be tailored to your needs. I may not have been good at explaining it, but that's not an exuse for you to shy away from the argument, as you so enjoy doing, Agent Xeeron, and begin with your Ad Hominems. Nor is this the first you do it. You nitpick minor details, and forget about the major premise. My main point was that Google Searching can be tailored to your needs. I have proven that. And yet you keep going on and on, like the energizer bunny. The above post contains nothing factual, just more Ad Hominems from you. When I talk about The Moscow Defense Brief's statement that this war was about Caucasian Control, you go on a tangent of your interpretation, of MDB's interpretation of Feudal relations between Russia and Ossetia, and then state that you disagree with it, in yet another pathetic attempt to discredit the MDB.

On the other hand you protect Svante Cornell, but then argue that it's not really your claim, you just brought that into the article, but you don't agree with it. Huh? If a claim is poorly stated, then don't bring it in. And yes, I will keep on citing more of your gems if your Ad Hominems continue. Either argue, or leave. This isn't a public forum. This isn't an insult contest. This isn't a popularity show. This is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Start acting like an editor. You claim about my lies, where have I lied? Where exactly did I lie? Or are you just so in love with Ad Hominems. And I'm not responsible for your inability to realize that a PhD about online research can be derived from a PhD about online education, just as a PhD in military history can be derived from a PhD in history. I'm not saying I have one, just using an example.

And for the last time, the main point is that Google Searches can be taylored to your needs. I have already proven that August War is more popular on Google than "Russia-Georgia War". Thus I have in essence taken away your last argument. And Xeeron, if you have a personal grudge against me, as you clearly demonstrate here:

"As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)"

Then I'd recommend you act like a man and take it to my talkpage, rather then spoiling the article's discussion section. Here, you have to be civil and encyclopedic. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... You two seem to find some pleasure in this constant discussions, so I'd just better leave you for yourselves:) Have fun! FeelSunny (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is what I would suggest you and all other editors do, because it is quite obvious that this discussion has little to do with the name of the article (where, still, South Ossetia war is not the most heavily used) anymore.

HistoricWarrior asked for me to quote one of his lies, so I need not go any further than use the post before the one he quoted above, from User talk:HistoricWarrior007#Personalized edits, e.g. "each edit that you made has been anti-Russian" - clearly a lie. Also, HistoricWarrior, can you please explain why you are calling me "Agent Xeeron" of lately, because my own explanation is that you want to mock me personally to drag the discussion down to being about editors not edits. --Xeeron (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Xeeron, first that referred to a specific time period, way to quote out of context. I guess reading Svante Cornell has benefits. Funny thing, you asked Cornell to be qouted, and then when I pressed as to why such a fallacious source should be qouted you began with the Ad Hominems, and then said "I'm not Svante Cornell!" Very high quality counter argument there. Second - I am calling you Agent Xeeron, because, as of lately, all you have been doing is attacking me, which makes you an agent, not a wikipedia editor. Third, I did ask you to take this to my discussion page, and to stop polluting this article's pages with Ad Hominems. This is the third section where you are doing the polluting. Stop. Thank you. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On "Agent Xeeron": maybe he thinks you're a chemical? Like E230?:) FeelSunny (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether I have a "distinctively pleasant smell" would depend on the amount of time since my last shower I guess, but I am pretty sure I don't form colorless crystals. --Xeeron (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:))FeelSunny (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

House of Lords report

A report published by the house of lords. I'll copy the most relevant part here, but the report is much bigger than this part:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/26/26.pdf

"The August 2008 conflict and its complex causes

6. Our witnesses stressed that responsibility for the conflict in Georgia in August 2008 should be shared between all the parties to the conflict. Sir Mark Lyall Grant believed that the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had demonstrated some recklessness. On the other hand, the Russian response had been both disproportionate and unnecessary, in particular by moving their forces into Georgia, attacking installations and bombing towns (Q 33).

7. Witnesses described the complexity of the situation in the Caucasus. Sir Roderic Lyne thought that the Georgians were in large part to blame for what had happened, as well as the Russians. This included, specifically, the way the Georgians had treated Ossetia and Abkhazia over the past 20 years. He had been surprised that the conflict had not taken place earlier. From the outset President Saakashvili had imprudently pursued a policy of provoking the Russians. Sir Roderic thought he had been encouraged to take this line by “Neocon elements” in Washington (Q 11). The Bush administration in the United States had to bear a heavy responsibility, since it had had the greatest external influence on President Saakashvili: “they clearly delivered very mixed messages to him … I think there is a big question as to why the Americans failed to restrain or deter Saakashvili from doing what he did” (Q 4).

8. However, Sir Roderic believed that the Russian military intervention had not been spontaneous but planned well in advance. Over the past three years or so, there had been attempts by Moscow to blockade Georgia. Evidence existed, some, he said, produced by the UK’s Defence Research Establishment before the conflict, of a deliberate Russian military build-up prior to the August war: “I think the Russian military were waiting for this to happen … there was a deliberate intention on their part at some point when the opportunity presented itself to … use force against Georgia”. A combination of the actions of Saakashvili and the Russians had led to the build-up that had ultimately led to a conflict (Q 11).

9. Professor Service thought it was necessary to go back beyond the last 20 years to determine the causes. Georgia was a “patchwork quilt” of national groups. When it became a Soviet republic there had been a very vigorous policy of “Georgianisation”, with a huge transfer of populations, particularly of Georgians into Abkhazia. This had now been reversed and Abkhazia had been “ethnically cleansed” of Georgians when the Abkhazians had driven them out (QQ 3, 11). Abkhazia was in a shocking state: half the buildings were wrecked. The “Georgians [had] bullied the Abkhazians, so that although the Russians have now bullied the Georgians, even in the last 20 years there is a history of terrible international, inter-ethnic violence down there, and of wars” (Q 3). Professor Service explained that this situation had led to a pervasive resentment by the remaining Georgians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia: “This is a very brittle, explosive country we are talking about … and it really did not take very much for the Russians to decide that they could make a lot of mischief down there, especially as Georgia had been designated as some kind of close ally of the US” (Q 11). However, in underlining the complex nature of the history of relations in the Caucasus, Professor Service maintained: “We must not barge into these areas, thinking that simplistic analyses … are at all possible. That is not to say that we should not be assertive” (Q 2).

10. According to Sir Roderic Lyne, commercial interest had also played a part in the conflict, particularly in Abkhazia. “Some of the people who were pushing for recognition of Abkhazia reportedly had very large commercial interests there, including some of the Duma members most vociferous on the subject and some other well-known players in the Moscow political landscape” (Q 11).

11. The precise circumstances surrounding the August 2008 outbreak of the conflict are not yet clear but responsibility for the conflict was shared, in differing measures, by all the parties. There is evidence of a Russian military build-up prior to the August war. In addition, Russia’s use of force was disproportionate in response to provocative statements and military action by President Saakashvili.

12. President Saakashvili seems to have drawn unfounded confidence in confronting Russia as a result of mixed signals from the US Administration.

13. The origins of the conflict lie in both distant and more recent history in the region, involving population transfers, national grievances, commercial, political and military interests. Attempts at resolving the conflict will need to take account of these complex factors." --Xeeron (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

....21. We are seriously concerned that Russia has not complied fully with the ceasefire agreement reached between President Sarkozy and President Medvedev. Full Russian compliance with the ceasefire plan should continue to be used as a measure of Russia’s behaviour, even though such compliance is unlikely in the near future. We endorse the statement by the Europe Minister that the pace and tone of the negotiations on the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement would be informed by Russia’s fulfilment of its obligations under the ceasefire agreements.--Kober^Talk 17:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia has been militarized in the Caucasian Region since the Dagestan War, roughly nine years ago. Russia didn't "build up" in 2008. Also, US Ambassador to Russia stated that Russia's response was necessary. So basically what the House of Lords are saying, is that although Georgia acted recklessly, Russia's response was unnecessary. By that logic, although the IRA acted recklessly, the British response was unnecessary. I'm ok with placing that House of Lords think that Russia's response was disproportionate, but saying that it was unnecessary is a bit hypocritical, considering the British response to Hussein. As for #21, I'd like to know what parts of the ceasefire agreement Russia didn't comply with. And I want to see the statement by the "Europe Minister", because it was negotiated with Sarkozy, who is French, and Britain disagrees on many things of France, the legality of the Iraq War would be one of them. So I wouldn't be surprised if the British "re-interpreted" the actual words of France to suit their needs, they've done that in the Iraq War. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear HW007, the passages were posted here to be used reasonably in the article, not to be assessed by wanna-be Wikipedia experts. Wikipedia is not a political chat-room.--Kober^Talk 03:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kober, when interpreting a source, you use the most qualified interpreter. The most qualified interpreter of Sarkozy, is, now get this, cause it's crucial, it's Sarkozy! It's not the House of Lords. Wikipedians must post the most qualified interpretations, not what the House of Lords thought Sarkozy said. Sarkozy thought Russia complied with the Sarkozy-Medvedev agreement. So did Medvedev. Sarkozy and Medvedev are the best experts to interpret the Sarkozy-Medvedev agreement. The House of Lords is not. Thus, that should be removed from the article. It's Wikipedia, not House of Lordapedia. As a sidenote, knowing how much the British and French love each other, the House of Lords misinterpreting Sarkozy for their own needs, is very likely. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia doesn't comply with the fifth point of the peace plan:

"5. Les forces militaires russes devront se retirer sur les lignes antérieures au déclenchement des hostilités. Dans l'attente d'un mécanisme international, les forces de paix russes mettront en œuvre des mesures additionnelles de sécurité."

Sarkozy made a clarification on the above in a public letter sent to Saakashvili:

"These “additional security measures” will take the form of patrols undertaken solely by Russian peacekeeping forces at a level authorized by existing agreements, with other Russian forces withdrawing to their positions prior to 7 August in conformity with the agreed protocol."

Before the 7th of August Russia had a total of around 4500 peacekeepers stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Today they're exceeding 10000 - not light peacekeepers, but regular troops with heavy armament. Military build-up is still taking place in Ochamchira and other Georgian cities, in violation of the peace-plan. Kouber (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"As defined by previous agreements" - i.e. the CIS agreement where Russia gets to have peacekeeping troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Agreements aren't troops Kouber. You can have an agreement for 10,000 troops, and only use 45 percent of it. In addition, Sarkozy is talking about "immediate proximity of South Ossetia". The agreement deals primarily with South Ossetia, and Ochamchira is in Abkhazia, and it was "defined by previous agreements" that Ochamchira is in Abkhazia. If you read the specific example Sarkozy gives, it shows that Sarkozy is unhappy with Russian troops being placed in Gori. Also, the agreement talks about "Georgian Territory". On August 26th, Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent countries, not part of Georgian Territory. The peace plan also states "while waiting for an International mechanism" and the dual recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia and Nicaragua, most definitely qualifies as an international mechanism. Thus Russia is not in violation of the Six Point Peace Plan. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain what are the Russian troops doing in Akhalgori and how the Russian occupation of that region fits into the first sentence of the fifth point of the peace plan? Kouber (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Which modifications are you suggesting to the article based on that report? Offliner (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For now, I just added it under statements. If the EU report we are waiting on materializes, it will be interesting to compare it to this report. --Xeeron (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Compromise names

Since we don't seem to be able to reach an agreement between the names 2008 South Ossetia war and 2008 Russia-Georgia war, maybe we should try to find a compromise name? How about organizing a vote between all suggestions other than those two? Personally, I'd be willing to accept something like 2008 Georgia War, Five-Day War, 2008 War in Caucasus, 2008 August war, etc. Offliner (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting:)FeelSunny (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Offliner (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean that would be interesting to see a name that could work for us all. FeelSunny (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (for 07:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

We don't really need year in every option. Its in current title only because there are two different South Ossetia Wars in wikipedia. August War would seem best compromise in my opinion.--Staberinde (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My stance, unchanged from the last few times this has come up, is that we should go with the most widely used name, so I'd be ok with switching to August war (or any of the other above named) if it is more widely used. --Xeeron (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Borisov

On 6 June, 2009, major general Vyacheslav Borisov, who commanded Russian 76th Airborne Division in the war, in an interview with Moscow-based radio Ekho Moskvy [257] said that the reason why his division performed well in the South Ossetian war was that "a week before the war they hold military exercises exactly there, in those places".

This doesn't belong in the "Responsibility" chapter, but rather in the military analysis chapter, I think. Felgenhauer & Cornell cover the "Russia was prepared" point in the responsibility chapter already. Offliner (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It fits in the "combatants' positions" section, isn't it? In all cases I believe it shouldn't be removed from the article. I agree that Falgenhauer and Cornell among others are covering that point, but having a Russian major general confirming it in a straightforward way is quite important. Kouber (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Combatants' positions" is a subsection of "responsibility". If the statement does not belong to the superset (and it doesn't, because it's about performance and not about responsibility) then it also does not belong to the subset. I also don't think that Borisov "confirms" what Felgenhauer and Cornell say. Linking statements like this on our own is WP:SYNTH. If Cornell or someone else says that this specific statement by Borisov confirms the theory that Russia is evil and attacked first, then we can put it into "responsibility," but otherwise it should stay out of there, as it discusses military perfomance and thus goes better to the analysis section (where the exact same point is (again) already covered by Heritage's opinion). How many times must we reiterate the same stuff? Offliner (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we can move it in that section instead, just after the Heritage opinion? Kouber (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we should consider dropping one of those statements, as they are very similar. Offliner (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved the part to the military build up section, since it was somewhat redundant at the old position. --Xeeron (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved him next to the earlier mention of exercises for better context. But I still think that saying almost exactly the same thing 3 times in 3 different parts of the article is overkill, especially when we should be looking for ways to shorten the article. Speaking of shortening, any ideas on how we should proceed? I'm very hesitant to cut anything out from the article that is not present in the splitoff articles, because that would mean removing the material from whole WP, and those splitoff articles are in a very messy state so it's hard to simply move stuff over there. Offliner (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I like you rewording, but I hesitate a bit: Is it clear from the sources that the two exercises talked about are the same? To be save, I'd like to replace "the exercises" with "exercises in the area" (or "in the same locations" if we want to be closer to the source). The current version of the article suggests that the two are the same, while the sources are quiet on this. --Xeeron (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just added some clarification on this, although Borisov's statement isn't clear enough whether it was the same exercise or not. Kouber (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I still think Borisov's statement should rather be removed completely. It is unclear which (and what kind of) exercises he means and where exactly they were held. Also, the statement (which is made in passing) is the only one picked from a long interview. Why? If the idea is to give illustrate why Russian troops supposedly performed so well, then this should go nowhere else than into the analysis chapter. However, because it was originally inserted in the "responsibility" chapter, and in the light of Kouber's comments, it seems clear that the purpose of that statement is to say "look, Borisov confirms that Russia planned the invasion in advance and is to blame for the war" and therefore it is in violation of WP:NPOV. Offliner (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Borisov's statement is the most credible source about Russian military exercises in the region right before the war. It should be used to state this fact, with no further amendments. Whether this fact means that Russia planned the war or not is interpretation and as such should be left to the reader (or to secondary sources). However it would be wrong to delete the statement simply because one could interpret it. --Xeeron (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But why do we need 3 different (actually 4, if you count the first mention of exercises) statements for the same thing? It's already clear (from the first, very clear and reliably sourced statement) that they were doing exercises in the region. What does Borisov's statement add to that? The only thing it adds is that says the exercise contributed to good performance. But perfomance should go to the analysis chapter. I strongly object to the suspicious repetition of the same thing all over the article. Offliner (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is mentioning possible location of Russian troops before the 8th of August, which IMHO is quite important. That's why I was thinking the "combatants' positions" section is a good place for it. Furthermore it adds some value to the already existing claims based on Life Goes On (The Article) and Georgian intelligence.

Meanwhile I found this, an interview of Ella Polyakova with Russian soldiers: "Ребята мне рассказывали, что в прошлом году их перебросили в Южную Осетию уже 4 августа, а по командировочным удостоверениям они в это время были в Северной Осетии.". The original article was removed, but Google managed to cache it. Kouber (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"it is mentioning possible location of Russian troops before the 8th of August." No, it is not. And it does not confirm what is claimed in Life Goes On (The Article) at all. Your comments are only adding to my suspicion, that this statement has been added to the article in order to push a POV. Offliner (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't me who added it initially, so I am not pushing anything. I just believe Borisov's statement is important enough not to be deleted. As to the location, correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand him, they were constantly holding exercises, related to his future direction - Georgia, South Ossetia and Tskhinvali, in "those exact places":

"'Я возглавлял на южноосетинском и грузинском направлении. Вы понимаете, мы даже в тех районах учения даже постоянно проводим. И наши войска получили полную практику, за неделю до этого проводя учения именно там, в тех же местах... Поэтому марш совершая в сторону Цхинвала, мы его совершили намного лучше...'" Kouber (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he does not say they were holding exercises in Georgia, South Ossetia and Tskhinvali. We should not add text that suggests this interpretation, unless there are good sources which are making the same interpretation as you. Offliner (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It simply applies to more than 1 part of the article. Compare the American-Georgian excercises: They are mentioned in the background, in military buildup, in combatants, and further are alluded to in the responsibilty section. It is simply relevant for more than one part of the article. As long as you stay away from fully chronological articles (time lists), you will always have to mention some facts more than once. --Xeeron (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You ignored my point: "It's already clear (from the first, very clear and reliably sourced statement) that they were doing exercises in the region. What does Borisov's statement add to that?" Offliner (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get what you are talking about: Mentioning it in more than one section or mentioning it more than once in a subsection? Since you talked about 3-4 statements I assumed the former - then see my answer above. If you talked about the latter, please tell me which subsection has 3-4 statements. --Xeeron (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You said: "Borisov's statement is the most credible source about Russian military exercises in the region right before the war." How? And why is the first statement in that section not credible enough? Offliner (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the statement someone who directly took part is alway a better prove it happened than a statement by an outside analyst. --Xeeron (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I put back in the Heritage part: With Borisov now under build-up, heritage was the only analysis pointing out the good organisation of the Russian army and also the most broadly positive one regarding its performance. Deleting it leaves the military analysis part too critical without a single voice of unconditional praise, making it needed for balance. --Xeeron (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Offliner, could you please state why an exact quote would be "suggestive text", while interpreting it as "in the region" is not? --Xeeron (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it's unclear if "exactly in those places" means inside South Ossetia, and the wording used seemed to suggest this. "In the region", in contrast, is confirmed by other sources. Offliner (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, do you really beleive the whole 76th division, 7 thousand paratroopers, was doing exercises in SO prior to the war? How comes nobody mentioned it ever??? Someone used one ambigous phrase to build a propaganda piece on it, why we should do the same? The only thing I can propose is stop interpreting others' words in a way the result defies common sence.FeelSunny (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"И только убыли и шли" I wonder what the word "убыли" means? I'm guessing it means left. In other words, Borisov is saying that they trained there, and then left. I.e. they weren't there on August 7th, when the attack began. I'll get into this more later. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron stop undoing every single one of my non-minor edits

Clearly, you said you won't forget what I did in the Title Debates, but undoing every single damn edit that I make, is going overboard. You hate me, I get that, but you're editing an article, not taking me down. Your actions towards me, as of late, border on WP:Harassment. Your recent undo, under the claim that "it goes in the responsibility section" merely proves my point. Responsibility statements are those given AFTER the war. Not before, but AFTER. On August 5th, Georgia hasn't done anything serious, so assessing responsibility based on the BBC article published on August 5th, whereas the war started on August 7th, is foolish. Stop hounding me like a dog, this is your last warning. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the statement should go into the lead, but it definitely should not go into the responsibility section, because it's from before the war. Let's keep that section focused on official statements on casus belli (the 5 August statement cannot be such, as there was no war yet) and statements which clearly discuss the motives and responsibility. Offliner (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior, if you take someone disagreeing with your POV on wikipedia as harassment, if you think that me disagreeing with your addition to the lead (without any prior discussion) equals "hounding like a dog", if you insist on bringing up age old stuff (especially since I have largely kept out of the last rename debate), and most of all, if you go on telling lies about me once more (I don't hate wikipedia editors, I only disagree with their edits), I suggest that you take a time out from editing. --Xeeron (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, BBC is printing my POV? Damn I didn't know I was that cool. That addition isn't POV at all. It's a statement made by Russia, that told Georgia that Russia was going to intervene. The text is taken from a BBC article. It belongs in the intro, because it is crucial. The statement said, "if Georgia does X, then Russia will view that as a war declaration by Georgia". That's pretty damn crucial. It's published by BBC, whose views on the war are anything but pro-Russian. Kinda funny how you call that POV. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion in the section below this. --Xeeron (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lavelle on Svante Cornell

It seems that HistoricWarrior007 is not alone in his criticism of Svante Cornell: [2]. Offliner (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? What's wrong with criticism? And why should we pay attention to people like Peter Lavelle at all? Let me cite him:

"This week Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution extending the 16-year-old UN mission monitoring Abkhazia. Russia’s veto was correct in every way. The resolution simply did not reflect new realities – Abkhazia and South Ossetia are finally free of the ethnic cleansing maniacs located in Tbilisi."

Wow, I feel like listening to Putin... "new realities", "ethnic cleansing maniacs"... no comment. I thought the Russian lies mentioning ethnic cleansing were in vogue an year ago.

"Last August, Saakashvili launched a pre-emptive attack on South Ossetia which targeted civilians – primarily women and children – and recognized peacekeepers. Later, and because of Tbilisi’s aggression, Russia with great reluctance recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states."

Sorry, but even HistoricWarrior007 isn't making such exceptional and ridiculous claims... Kouber (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen Peter Lavelle's weekly "commentary" show on Russia Today? He's hardly an objective source—being RT truck him out every time the Russian administration needs an attack dog. He's so over the top I wouldn't even know where to start. PētersV       TALK 13:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you both need to check 1991-1993 SO and A wars for the first ethnic cleansing maniacs from Tbilisi? See Mhedrioni also, and check out some of the Gamsakhurdia selected quotes. As to the new realities - do you beleive in a new reality in Kosovo? Did your country recognize Kosovo? Why not SO and A, then? And - about women and children and peacekeepers - yes, women and children constituted the main group of Tskhinvali population on 080808. And, yes, recognized peacekeepers were attacked without prior notice, shelled by artillery, and killed. Any country would see it as a good reason to start the war, and fight until the agressor's capital falls. Then occupy the whole country and build a political system there. As US does in Afghanistan or Iraq - without any reasons, of course, for no american citizens were killed by either Saddam or Taleban governments. FeelSunny (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Probably because of the "maniacs in Tbilisi" half of the population of Abkhazia fled into Georgia and isn't allowed to return? Or because of the "maniacs in Tbilisi" tens of thousands of refugees from South Ossetia aren't authorized to return to their homes, unless by accepting Russian passports? Or probably the "maniacs in Tbilisi" levelled their villages to the ground?... The one leading ethnic cleansing policy in South Ossetia and Abkhazia for years is Russia and its fascist puppets - Kokoity and Bagapsh. Occupying a neighbouring country and then pretending to respect the new realities isn't worth much, unless you admire what Hitler did 70 years ago. Abkhazia and the so called South Ossetia are regions of Georgia, occupied by Russia. Those are the realities. There are no new realities, especially for the English speaking users, which after all constitute the main target of this article.

I'd skip your completely irrelevant Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan comparisons. The thing is that women and children didn't constituted the main group in Tskhinvali on the 8th and certainly the Georgian army didn't target primarily (?!?!?) them, and as far as I know the Georgian army didn't attack Alagir in North Ossetia, for example. It is an extremely exceptional claim. As you know, till the 4th of August the majority of the population was evacuated. The main group that stayed was the so called Ossetian militia. And they fired at the Georgian army from the headquarters of your innocent recognized "peacekeepers". Anatoliy Barankevich confirmed in an interview that he was there, together with his men. And they reportedly fired from these headquarters, making them absolutely legitimate target.

Not to mention the "great reluctance" of Russia. It is clear what were the real goals of Russia and her policy in Georgia for years, and especially after 2003. It is clear who provided these separatists with guns, etc. So, they achieved their goal but somehow they felt great reluctance?! It is ridiculous, isn't it? Kouber (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain what do you think was the aim of artillery shelling Tskhinvali? FeelSunny (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez. I just read LaVelle's criticism, where he states: "After having a look at the list of contributors to this book, I strongly suggest you avoid this tome. There is nothing new in it: just the same old prejudices and ideologically-driven affection for the “Mugabe of the Caucasus.” However, I do suggest you read Cornell’s ‘please buy book’ article “Russia shuts out the international community” printed by the Daily Telegraph. It is a wonderful example of how the neocon agenda never dies and never fades away."

"Russia Shuts Out the International Community" is Cornell's title? Then what the heck is the European Union? Or those Arab States not selling Neocons oil? Most of Latin America? What is Svante Cornell's definition of an international community? "Those who agree with me" - is that it? Cause the peace treaty was signed by Russia and the EU. And the EU and Russia are both part of the International Community last time I checked. So while some of Lavelle's commentary maybe be overly passionate, it's not fiction, unlike Svante Cornell's writings. And Lavelle is correct, Svante Cornell is Saakashvili's "Lipstick Artist". Oh, and to bring it all out, what was that argument that Narking and Kober loved to defend Svante Cornell with, something about a PhD, right? Here ya go: "Lavelle did his doctoral studies in European economic history from the University of California, Davis (1992-1995). He has been living in Eastern Europe and Russia for over 25 years." And here are Mr. Lavelle's credentials: "Before becoming a television commentator, Peter Lavelle wrote and was published extensively. His has worked for or contributed to Asia Times Online, Moscow Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, National Public Radio (NPR), United Press International, In the National Interest, and Current History, to mention only the most notable. Lavelle is also the author of "Untimely Thoughts", an electronic newsletter." Now this should be interesting. I am going to enjoy this. I am going to have fun using Kober/Narking quotes, changing a single name, and have them rebut Kouber/PetersV. Very good find Offliner! And I finish a major project thursday, so I will see how this is going then. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no more arguments? What happened to Kouber and PetersV? Where's the outrage when it comes to the other side? "Russia shuts out the international community" - then what the heck is the European Union? A moonlighting community? If Svante Cornell isn't aware that Sarkozy, President of the European Union, and Medvedev, President of Russia negotiated the peace treaty, then he doesn't deserve to be quoted in this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

@FeelSunny: The Georgian attack on Tskhinvali was aiming to stop Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages, which was reportedly taking place since the beginning of August. That's what I think. I am not telling that this was the right decision to take, or that there weren't civilian casualties, but at the same time watching how somebody's firing at your own citizens on your own territory isn't something easy to handle neither. Honestly speaking, I think there wasn't a right decision at all, Georgia was put into zugzwang - every possible move was wrong. Of course according to Peter Lavelle the goal of Georgia was to kill as many women, children and peacekeepers as possible. While I agree with everybody's right to express their opinion, I don't see how such ridiculous claims can disprove Svante Cornell. It doesn't sound serious at all.

@HistoricWarrior007: What's wrong with the title of Cornell's article? It is indeed what Russia did by vetoing. Furthermore you mentioned the six-point peace plan. It is exactly this document that Russia is violating by this veto (more precisely points 5 and 6). Not to mention previous violations of p.1 and p.2. Kouber (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow - thank you for that article Kouber. Well here's Svante Cornell's claim: "Russia shuts out the international community" And here is Svante Cornell providing facts to back up his claim: "the incoming Obama administration announced its “reset” diplomacy with Russia, and most European states normalized ties with Moscow." Svante Cornell - he's hilarious! So Russia shuts out the international community after US "resets" diplomacy with Russia, (i.e. opens Diplomatic ties), and most European States normalize relations with Russia. Wow! So apparently the US, China, EU, India, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, are all not part of the international community of Svante Cornell. Oh damn. Oh snap - John Bolton, move over! Svante Cornell - comedy central is hiring! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

About the shelling of Tskhinvali - that shelling, erm, you got any proof that it was coming from Tskhinvali? Because see, if I am shelling your country, I would use logic and set up shelling cannons/mortars away from the city, because they're harder to find and they don't bug the civilians on whom I would depend in case of war. In addition, no shelling was bad enough to warrant attacks using Grad, and an all-out strike. Nobody expected the Russian Army to do this well, but I am sure there were a couple of other "surprises" set up to get at Russia, "surprises" that never materialized. Look Kouber, I get it that you're listening to Military Tactics a la Crap. But just use logic. Would you set up your mortars in the city, or in the mountains? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, here's Mark Ames of the Nation on Svante Cornell: "Cornell 's piece argued that Russia attacked Georgia not in response to Georgia's invasion of the breakaway South Ossetian province but rather because Russia was just plain evil--and, in the style of evil villains everywhere, Russia had no motive other than to show "the consequences post-Soviet countries will suffer for standing up to Moscow, conducting democratic reforms and seeking military and economic ties with the West."

Source: The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081103/ames

Make Ames was kicked out of Russia, for his vulgarity towards, well you can figure it out. I hardly think he's pro-Russian. In addition, Svante Cornell's company, was already found guilty of taking bribes, from an oil pipeline, which took major losses in this war. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5908348&page=2 You damn Russkies! Going after corrupt oil companies! How dare you. Svante Cornell is on the way to the rescue! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(Re-Indent)

So can I finally delete Svante Cornell from the paper? His data is incorrect, and we have more upto date sources. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I have to explain that Ground Forces don't equal Air Forces first. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nabucco & South Stream

How are they relevant to the war? This connection needs a source. Also, if the connection is important enough, it should be mentioned in text instead of in "see also." If it's not that important, we shouldn't mention it at all, because we can't just put everything in "see also" that someone thinks may be relevant. Offliner (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From the article (my emphasis): "While Russia has allied itself with the separatist regions, Georgia, on its part, has a close relationship with the United States of America, which has helped to train and arm the Georgian military.[63] Although Georgia has no significant oil or gas reserves of its own, it provides an important transit route that supplies the West.[87] The pipeline has been a key factor for the United States' support for Georgia, allowing the West to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil while bypassing Russia and Iran."

It does not state that explicitly, but of course, Nabucco is a direct competitor to the Russian South Stream. If you need more info, just google nabucco+georgia+russia. --Xeeron (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but we really need a source which makes an explicit connection between those pipeline projects and the war. Offliner (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources making the connection are not that hard to find. How about this source: "The Pipeline War: Russian bear goes for West's jugular" --Martintg (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the article you linked to? It mentions neither Nabucco nor South Stream at all. Offliner (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does not state pipeline is among the reasons for war. It only says oil supplies may be in danger. According to the sources, the pipeline link is more appropriate for Georgia – United States relations article. FeelSunny (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[User:Xeeron], could you please participate in the discussion instead of boldly reinserting the images time and time again?

FeelSunny, please allow me some tips:

1. Use the piped version, sounds better without the user prefix.
2. Use double brackets.
3. Sign your edits. Even though I understand that you might be embarrased to sign these falsehoods, wikipedia has a nice history function that tells us who wrote what, even if you do not sign.
4. Next time count before raving about "reinserting the images time and time again". I inserted the image exactly once and that was when I tried to move it up and got into an edit conflict with Offliner who reverted the edit after I had started my move edit.
5. Try to read the edits above your own, which contain a much longer statement by me than by you. Also try looking at my user talk page where I am also discussion this topic with Offliner who brought it up there. --Xeeron (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Where should I use the piped version? What is a "piped version"? How comes you're so crazy about a mistake with double brackets and an unsigned message? Is it really such a pain? What do you name a "user prefix"? What one of the "above" 50 pages of comments do you speak? Ad - the only relevant thing - would you please explain your edits on the talkpage before reinserting things into the article? FeelSunny (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nabucco is a direct competitor to the Russian South Stream... And what? Borjomi (water) is also a direct competitor to Russian Mineral waters. Let's mention that) Taamu (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...except when it is forbidden in Russia on a flimsy pretext. Do you seriously believe that mineral water has any of the strategic heft of oil and gas? --Xeeron (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be part of the Georgia-Russia crisis article? If the Russian Army wanted to hit Nabucco steam, they would have hit the pipeline, the SpetzNatz could have easily hit it. If the Russians deemed it an insignificant target, why is this even mentioned? This is an article about the war, not about "Oil Politics". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the Borjomi pretext, Xeeron, not only am I a military historian, but also a member of the Green Party: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1069789.html in other words, if Saakashvili didn't pollute the region, the Borjomi water would have been on sale in Russia. Here, I'll qoute for you:

"Manana Kochladze: First of all, the concern is the routing of the pipeline, which goes through a number of sensitive areas, including the Borjomi region in Georgia. And any type of oil spill in those sensitive areas could cause huge environmental results, like pollution of the drinking water, pollution of the rivers, and pollution of the mineral water in the Borjomi region. And due to the fact that the pipeline construction was not implemented according to the best international standards, the risks for the corrosion of the pipeline is very high."

Corrosion of the pipeline, means that it has a potential of turning Borjomi in small doses of poison. That evil Putin, doesn't want his people drinking poison so that oil companies could benefit! What a scumbag! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The SpetzNatz must be more powerful than I thought if they can hit a pipeline that is due to be constructed in 2010. Is timetravel among their abilities?

In case you missed it, the strategic goal with regards to pipelines was not to destroy a non-existant physical installation, but to deter the west from building the pipeline in the first place, by making it run through a "crisis region".

Oh and boy, am I glad that Russia, that paragon of environmentally friendly oil production, is caring enough about a potential oil spill "seven or eight years after the pipeline is in operation.", i.e. well in the future (according to that environmental activist), to forbid the mineral water right now. Have you ever opened a water tap in Moscow? The claim that Georgian mineral water was forbidden on health reasons alone is ridiculous. --Xeeron (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the current pipeline that runs through Georgia. And in 2010, the SpetzNatz can hit that pipeline, stop being a wise guy. This is the pipeline I am talking about: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline and if your talking about a pipeline that's built in 2010, there's really no point to add speculation to the article. Also, I have actually studied Tourism in the city of Nizhniy Novgorod. It passed most environmental standards. Same can be said for Yekaterinburg, Kirov, Kazan, and I could name a dozen other cities. Are you aware that Russia is big, and that Moscow isn't the only city? Also, I don't know about you, but I usually don't drink tap water. It helps if you boil it first, heat all the microbes out of it. Your claim that mineral water was forbidden on health reasons alone is pathetic, and believes that every Russian is a tap drinking Muscovite. You do realize that less then 10 percent of Russians live in Moscow, right? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, one can drink a tap water in Moscow:) Seriously, though it's a city of 14,000,000, the water is ok for your health.FeelSunny (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"that mineral water was forbidden on health reasons alone is pathetic". Funny enough, I fully agree with Historicwarrior about this one. --Xeeron (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So Xeeron, do you qoute out of context everytime you lose a debate due to your silly arguments, or is this a one time occurence? I said that "Your claim that mineral water was forbidden on health reasons alone is pathetic" - thus I am calling your claim pathetic, not Russia's claim. Way to qoute out of context and change the meaning. Also, in the US, the city of Hot Springs has mineral water wells, similar to Georgia's Borjomi. Strangely enough, Hot Springs runs entirely on solar and wind power, i.e. natural sources. Could it be that mineral water cannot be polluted at all? Nah, those silly Americans, actually wanting healthy mineral water, not "Xeeron's Oily Mineral Water" bottles. Case in point: mineral water comes from the ground, and the ground cycle of water cannot be disturb by things such as oil pipelines, which do pollute the water. Also, Borjomi was viewed as a healthy product in Russia, as opposed to tap water, so using the same standards is a bit silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I never claimed it was forbidden on health reasons alone, you must be confusing me with the Russian government. But have fun argueing against something I never claimed. --Xeeron (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I have said that the Russian Government could have forbidden it on health reasons alone. Could there have been other reasons? Sure. However, health was the main reason. Then Xeeron went on to claim "that mineral water was forbidden on health reasons alone is pathetic". And I pointed out that it's not, and an actually a valid claim. Then Xeeron went ahead and quoted me out of context. And, oh look, he's going off-topic again. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Offliner, I think you can remove it now. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Had it been the goal of the war, there would be no BTC now. We all understand this. And we all know there wasn't a single air strike near the pipeline, neither any Russian army movements near it. So what's the point of this discussion? FeelSunny (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Some editors are desperately trying to blame Russia. If one makes it look like the war was over oil, which it wasn't, but if it looks like it was, Russia is just as guilty as Georgia and they're happy. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron Stop it with the White Tights

It is completely irrelevant. You may love White Tights, but they're from another war. Accusations that it shows a Russian pattern of lying is false, because the White Tights were reported in part by soldiers who did not go through the Baptism of Fire before the war, whereas the Russian infantry fighting in this war, went through the Baptism of Fire, prior to the war. What an experienced soldier says, has a lot more relevance than what a green recruit says. Stop the edit-warring, it is irrelevant and you don't get to mention the First Chechen War in this article every chance you get, because the First Chechen War has its own article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You believe in your "baptism" theory, I'll stick with what the sources say. --Xeeron (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not my baptism theory. It's a well known military doctrine, about which you have shown complete ignorance, in favor of your desire to include the First Chechen War here. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Baptism_by_fire Once again, the Russian soldiers who fought in the First Chechen War, are not as experienced as the soldiers who fought in this war. It's a well known fact. Do I have to take this to arbitration? Googling "Baptism by Fire & Soldier" yields 172,000 results. No, it's not Googled in quotes, because Baptism by Fire and be Baptism of Fire as well. It's been a famed military concept since fire was first used in battles, and it made a huge expansion post-WWII. So thank you once again Xeeron, for trying to portray me as biased, in yet another attempt to place your POV in the article. The First Chechen War is irrelevant. Do you see people talking about the Crimean War in the World War II Article? Do you see South Ossetia mentioned in the Second Chechen War article? You know the Second South Ossetian War of 1989-1992? If not, then why do you get special privileges. Why is mentioning the Blonde Sniper even important? The Russians found a passport belonging to an American special forces guy who fought in former Yugoslavia against the Serbs. They thought that he was in Georgia as well. He denied it. So here's a lesson for the Russians, next time you either kill them and have the body there, or not make a claim. But I fail to see how this is relevant to the article. You don't need a paragraph with several add-ons about a single passport being found. One more edit from you on this matter, and I'm taking this to arbitration. And I somehow doubt that they'll think that "Baptism by Fire" is my theory, considering that it received massive media attention during the Vietnam War, and that was before I was born, so it's kinda hard for me to invent that theory. Maybe use Google next time before accusing me of something yet again Xeeron. Looks to me like you just want to frustrate me and edit war me. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are going on a rant about an irrelevant concept to your deletion of the part that made this subsection balanced. Stuff like a "female sniper from Latvia" shows just how dodgy those claims about foreign mercenaries were. How would they have ever been able to tell the woman was from Latvia? The part you keep deleting (which, btw, has been in the article for a long time now) is needed to show that this is a not a one-off but a repetition of unsubstanced claims made before.

As a compromise, I'll remove the entire part, once the dubious claim is gone, the white tights story is unneeded as well. --Xeeron (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The White Tights story is unneeded period. And the passport was a real passport, no one contested that part. As for the "female sniper from Latvia" - that seems to be more of a one person job, that hasn't been proven, so the article can live without it. However instead of removing that, you used it to promote your White Tights example and I called you out on it. And yeah it was in the article for a long time, but it still doesn't make it relevant. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please stop using arbitration as a threat to push through your POV. --Xeeron (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration wasn't pushing my POV and you knew it. If you thought that it was my POV and you could've proven it, you would've taken it to arbitration. Stop trying to brand me as a POV warrior. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never taken anyone to arbitration over a POV concern and I don't plan to. Those problems should be resolved by discussion on the talk page, not by running to the admins. --Xeeron (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That becomes difficult when the other side fails to use basic logic, and doesn't know what is relevant and what is not. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Shortening

In response to Offliner above: Further shortening will be hard. There is one obvious candidate (the reponsibility section), but for that one I'd wait for the EU report. Another point to consider is the difference between code and actual visible text in the article: The code (as shown by the history) is more then 180kb. When you simply copy the visible text to a txt file, that one clocks in at ~85kb. So more than half of the history number is due to invisible code (mostly reference templates). --Xeeron (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose to remove the Spiegel article concerning EU report, as it was proven suspicious by the head of the commission. Let's just wait for the final official report of that commission. Kouber (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose to remove Svante Cornell, as he was proven not only suspicious, but dead wrong by about everyone else. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose that you stop with the Svante Cornell bashing, your numberous previous attempts failed to convince people, posting a wrong summary here wont either. --Xeeron (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose you spell correctly when commenting, and Svante Cornell is still being debated. New data may just come in and you may be surprised. It's very hard to debate with someone who's arguing that ground forces = air forces. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced additions by Renem

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=303370713&oldid=303368301

Please properly source all of this. I am sure you are trying to help, but half it is unsourced and the other half sourced without links such that it is hard to check the sources. --Xeeron (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"With their support, Abkhaz forces potentially numbering 45,000, including 1,000 regulars, began to dislodge the Georgian forces from the Kodori Gorge." - No, Renem, you do not need to source this one, you need to work on it. For we do not write it here like "Russian army, potentially numbering 1 100 000 servicemen, started an offensive in Georgia". B/c it's a bullshit way of writing, honestly.

Plus, I would propose to all of us rather to consider shortening the article, than expanding with even more less important details:(( FeelSunny (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Imho, if Renem does not provide a source for the additions soon, we should revert the entire edit. He does have a history of not providing sources for his edits. I don't think he is doing it out of bad faith or to push a POV, but none-the-less, it is bad editing. --Xeeron (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrei nacu - map stated to be original work - is it verifiably accurate, should it be allowed inclusion on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia rules explicitly state that entries not contain original work and yet Adnrei nacu's map is prominently featured in this entry. Furthermore, it has received critical acclaim even though it does not comply with Wikipedia rules and is not sourced for accuracy. As one example, the map depicts a Russian naval blockade of Georgia and yet there does not exist any proof that such a blockade ever occurred. Reporting that "opines" or "assumes" such a blockade is not proof and provide no verifiable facts. This is just one example of the many things that are wrong with the entire Wikipedia entry on the 2008 South Ossetia conflict.Fedoroff (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition to the lead

I am removing this addition to the lead for the following reason: It is unneeded for the summary of the lead; It serves the only purpose to portrait Russias intervention as "fair"; the lead lacks the space to properly balance the addition, e.g. It needs to be stated that Russia had been actively handing out passports to South Ossetians who had not been Russian citizens in the years before. It also needs to be stated that "defending your citizens in another country" is not an internationally accepted reason to invade that country. That part is unneeded in the lead and the lead is not the correct place to put this whole story. --Xeeron (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

From invasion of Grenada: as well as the presence of US medical students at St. George's University on Grenada, as reasons for military action. (Igny (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes? Your point? The invasion was criticised by the United Kingdom, Canada and the United Nations General Assembly, which condemned it as "a flagrant violation of international law" (also from invasion of Grenada). --Xeeron (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing for or against the sentence in the lead. I am just citing the precedent to counter your argument. (Igny (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Well, given that 122 states condemed the invasion with only 9 backing it (US, Isreal + a few island states), I feel that the precedent you cite strongly backs my view that the arguement "defending your citizens in another country" is not internationally accepted. --Xeeron (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well while I am actually against adding more unnecessary stuff to the lead (including this sentence), I want to point out that your view is just morally wrong. This kind of thinking, according to historians, stopped some nations to stop many heinous crimes against humanity, such as holocaust and Rwanda genocide. Anyways, accepted internationally or not, "defending your citizens in another country" is just as good justification for going to war as any other. Umm, do you know any better justification? (Igny (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

"My view"? You feel it is morally wrong that my arguement is backed up by your precendent? Or are you confusing "my view" with the view of those 122 countries?

I feel this is one of the biggest problem here on the talk page: The fact that people do not distinguish between reporting what the sources say and stating one's own point of view. In this whole discussion, I haven't said one word yet on whether I feel it makes a valid reason or not. --Xeeron (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view, we should not omit in the lead the peacekeepers were killed. That's also quite important. Meanwhile, I, of course, undid Xeeron's edit until we reach some consensus on this. FeelSunny (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where your "of course" is comming from, but since the onus is on those who want to introduce new text, until we reach consensus on this, the new text needs to stay out, not in. --Xeeron (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, you got a source that 122 countries condemned it? Or was it that 9 countries agreed, and most didn't care? Also, I practically quoted BBC word per word, it's not my POV. Only thing I took out, was a factually inaccurate statement about South Ossetia being a province, which it was not. I didn't think that quoting a BBC article on the Russian side would get me dubbed POV. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, moreover this Russian "excuse" is mentioned further in the article. Kouber (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron doesn't get to decide what's needed or un-needed. If he cannot make a logical argument as to why that's not needed, then it's needed. And Kouber, it's not a mere "excuse". Please, do study International Law. Your embassy/military base in considered your national soil. An attack on it, is an attack on your national soil, so you get to defend it. If someone is shooting at your civilians, while at the same time preventing your civilians from exiting and preventing access to your military base, that's an act of war against your country. If you'd actually bothered to look, the "crimes" that Russia is being tried for are two: going too far, i.e. into Georgia Proper, and inability to control thugs on Russian-occupied soil. However no precedent was established for punishing those going too far on valid casus belli, and no precedent was established for punishing a nation for not controlling thugs on your occupied territory. In other words, the case against Russia is a straw man. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Negative.

- Russians attacked Georgia long before the report of killed peacekeepers, or attack on their base;

- There was firing reported from the peacekeepers headquarters;

- Georgia had the legitimate right to protect its own citizens on its own territory, as they were under fire for several days. The right of Russia to protect own citizens in another country is not internationally accepted, as already pointed out.

Hence, I'm removing again this section from the lead. Kouber (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Got sources Kouber? And the right of any country to protect its own citizens in another country is internationally accepted. All the major powers did it, multiple times. Quoting from my US Passport "The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection". Assuming that Russians get similar rights, and assuming that Russians don't want to be shot, I'd say Georgia violated International Law and Russia had a right to protect it's citizens. You've already argued that troops are air forces Kouber, now are you going to argue that firing rocket launchers at people is giving them lawful aid? You clearly have no idea what International Law is, so please don't make it up. The right of any country to protect its own citizens in any other country is internationally accepted. It's a cultural norm of International Law. Also, got proof of Russians attacking Georgia before August 8th? In 2008? Because shooting down a drone, is not a valid excuse to go to war. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior, fortunately your weird logic (a request for protection in a passport equals a right to invade other countries??? That is a good one...) has as much weight in international law, as you have weight in deciding what is international law, namely zero. Please stop argueing with your misinformed OR and stick to what the sources say. --Xeeron (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, please stop distorting everything I say. A request for protection gives the country a right to use reasonable force to extract their citizens who have committed no crimes and are being bombarded by Grad Missiles. Seriously, stop with the distortions. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not give them a right to invade other countries. In fact it doesn't give them any rights at all. It is simply a sentence in a passport. --Xeeron (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

HW007, troops = armed forces = air + ground + naval + whatever you like forces. Better ask your English teacher and stop wasting our time with your incapability to use dictionaries! As to your logic, whenever some Russian is killed somewhere over the world, Russia should intervene and invade the country!? Right, I guess Russia should have conquered the entire world by now, following your interpretations of the International Law.

Wrong! Troops are part of the armed forces. However troops do not equate to armed forces. Tigers are part of the cat subgroup of mammals. However that does not make tigers equate to house cats. You're using a double synonym argument, that's wrong. You can't do that in the English language. Also, Georgia attacked innocent Russian civilians with missile launchers, Georgia attacked a Russian Peacekeeping base for no reason, and Georgia attempted to collapse the Roki Tunnel, part of which is in Russia. I don't see any other country doing that. I didn't see the US, in the Cold War, killing Soviet Citizens in cold blood, unless they were spies.

As to the chicken and the egg issue with the Russian attack, I mean that by the time Russia attacked Georgia, there were no peacekeepers casualties reported. The first Russian aerial bombardment occurred at 9:45 a.m. on 8 August near the village of Shavshvebi, on the highway between Poti and Tbilisi. Meanwhile Interfax reported for three injured soldiers - at 9:29 a.m. and at 9:35 a.m.. At 10:59 a.m. came the first report for casualties among the peacekeepers. At 17:27 colonel Igor Konashenkov for the first time reported the number of 10 killed. As to the other reason for the Russian invasion, the Russian citizens killed, by 9:45 a.m. (the first bombardment) it was reported for 15 civilians being killed (at 8:56 a.m., before that at 8:12 there were reportedly 2 civilians killed). At 11:45 a.m. the South Ossetian Security Council asked Russia for help, as otherwise "there would be many victims". At 17:38 Inal Pliev for the first time reported for "thousands civilians being killed". At 15:17 Medvedev promised to punish the guilty, and at 15:59 the Russian armored column reportedly entered Tskhinvali. In other words, as you can see, the Russian attack occured before the (official) reasons for it.

By the time Russia attacked Georgia, Georgia had fired upon the Russian Peacekeeping base, where casualties were expected. Usually if you shell something, you get casualties. Maybe you can tell me of a place where it's different. And you may not know about this, but injured people also count as casualties. Are you being serious? Your writing has a lot of emotion to it, but no logic. The Russian attack occurred on August 8th, as a result of Georgian actions on August 7th. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The other point, that there was firing from the Russian peacekeepers headquarters, was revealed by Memorial. Kulakhmetov reportedly confirmed that Ossetian artillery was mainly dislocated in Tskhinvali near positions of the Russian peacekeepers. Anatoly Barankevich confirmed that he and his men were in the peacekeepers headquarters before going into battle, etc.

Yes, peacekeepers were in their HQ, before going into battle. So your argument is that a minor skirmish resulting in full scale invasion is ok? There were skirmishes by both sides, constantly, yet Georgia expanded that to a full scale attack. The next day, came the Russian response. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But all this isn't the point. The point is that your addition to the lead is already mentioned further in the article, and as we previously agreed, the lead isn't the place for responsibility issues. Last, but not least, a consensus should be reached in order to add something, not to remove it. So wait for it, before re-adding this again. Kouber (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a responsibility issue. It occurred before the war, how can it be a responsibility issue. And consensus cannot be reached on this, as you and Xeeron are making this an emotional issue, rather then debating it logically. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

De Jure vs. De Facto

It needs to be explained in the introduction. One of the reasons that the war occurred, was that Ossetians had De Facto control of most of South Ossetia, whereas Georgians had De Jure control of South Ossetia. The difference needs to be stated.

The current paragraph reads:

"The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians had left most of South Ossetia under control of a Russian-backed internationally-unrecognised regional government. Some ethnic Georgian-inhabited parts remained under the control of Georgia. This mirrored the situation in Abkhazia after the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). Already increasing tensions escalated in South Ossetia during the summer months of 2008."

But it is incorrect, because it gives the reader the assumption that Georgia has, for any point in time in history, actually controlled, De-Facto controlled, South Ossetia. For the American crowd, I will state that Georgia had as much control of South Ossetia, as Virginia did of West Virginia in 1862. The history is one of warfare. But under the Russian Empire, Ossetia, (both North and South) as well as Abkhazians, were treated as separate regions of the empire. No De-Facto split between North and South Ossetia has existed, except during the Russian (Bolshevik) Civil War, where for three years Georgia managed to attempt control of South Ossetia, but were forces out in the end by the Red Army. Thus, while Georgia may have exerted De Jure control over South Ossetia, no De Facto control, was ever exerted. Ossetians are one people, North or South. Ask an Ossetian if there's a difference between North and South Ossetia, and he or she will say "no". Ossetians are one people, they deserve to live as such, and have always, except for the Civil War, lived as such, if one takes De Facto history into account. Why isn't any of this mentioned in the introduction? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

HW007, you are either trying to deliberately deceive people, or are simply not familiar with the issue. You should read up about this more. The territory of South Ossetia has always been under de-jure and de-facto control of Georgian kingdoms until Russian annexation in 1801. And even after annexation it was always part of the Tiflis gubernia (i.e. governed from Tbilisi). Even Ossetians don't deny it. Moreover, a quick look on Google Earth (try 3-d terrain) will explain why North and South Ossetia never existed as one unit - the highest mountain range in Europe separates the two regions and until Roki tunnel was built in 80s there was not a road connecting the two. Taking this into account, the fact that there is not much difference between South and North Ossetians actually seems to confirm their recent migration to the south of the Great Caucasian Ridge rather than the story of them being a single entity that you concocted. (PaC (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Under the USSR, Ossetians could freely migrate and speak with one another, be they North Ossetians or South Ossetians. Also, the Roki Tunnel wasn't the only way to migrate, as somehow people got there before the Roki Tunnel was built. During the rule of Vladimir Lenin, Ossetia was De Facto a single and unified state. In addition, during the USSR, the individual SSRs did not have much power. One could easily migrate between them. In fact, Moscow was harder to enter then Tbilisi, for most Ossetians, under the USSR. When the USSR feel apart, Ossetians chose to side with Ossetians. Just as Georgians didn't want to be ruled from Moscow, Ossetians didn't want to rule from Tbilisi. Your whole argument rests on the Roki Tunnel being the only point of entry. That is simply untrue. The tunnel was the only entry point during the war, because Russian Customs shut off all the other points. However prior to 2006, there were at least two roads functioning. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am afraid you didn't understand my main point. My main point was that you should go to the library and read up more on the subject. Instead, you continue discussing completely irrelevant issues that you still don't know much about.(PaC (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Dear Papa, if you read some not pro-Georgian sources, but some like Wikipedia, you will find much of the territory of modern Georgia was once under the control of Alans, or ancient Ossetians under the Alan kings. You may check Alans also to see if, for example, Orleans or Lisbon was once controlled by Alans:)) Before you state there was never a united country where Ossetians could live.

And then we'll continue this discussion with the help of the logic the Western Democracies used in Kosovo example. For the international law is to a very much degree a law of precedence.

On your "always", and your "you should go to the library" - these are strong arguments, aha. FeelSunny (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior to this war, Ossetians had De Facto control of South Ossetia, whereas Georgia had De Jure control of South Ossetia. I want this mentioned in the introduction, because I believe it is important. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Dear Papa, if you read some not pro-Georgian sources, but some like Wikipedia," just a reminder, WP is not a reliable source. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But one will find lots of reliable sources in the links section of the articles I mentioned in the previous post.

Seriously, in VI century AD, when modern Georgian territory was split between Byzantine Empire and Iran, Alan kings were considering their alliances with both sides. That clearly shows that before any Georgian state came into being, there was a strong and united Alan state in the Caucasus. FeelSunny (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Georgian kingdoms existed long before VI century AD. As I suggested to HW007 you should go to the library and familiarize yourself with the subject before blurting things out on Wikipedia. As for Alan kingdom - did you try looking for sources that place any part of it in South Ossetia? You won't find a single one. But keep reading. It's good for you. (PaC (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

For your viewing please Papa Carlo, enjoy: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Alania_10_12.png (That map shows Dzava, and possibly Tskhinvali, as clear parts of South Ossetia, under control of the Ossetians. The Roman Empire existed long before VI century AD, but that doesn't mean that Southern France should just be turned over to Italy. What I want stated in the article, in the introduction, is that De Facto - South Ossetia was Ossetian, whereas De Jure it was Georgian. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha-ha. I meant real sources and not a map that you drew yourself. That map has as much in reality as Cheburashka.(PaC (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Drew yourself? Do you mean the User:PANONIAN is a WP:sock puppet of HistoricWarrior007? Or do you just use words when you have nothing to say? The map was there years before this stupid argument started. And, just for your information, after the X-XII centuries Alans moved south, under pressure from Mongol invaders. Check history, man. There's much more in this world than just Davit IV. And Georgians were never the rulers of Caucasus.

P.S. Check Master Cherry (Mastro Ciliegia) for real origins of Papa Carlo character, other than Tolstoy's book:)FeelSunny (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you can't read very well either. The map was added on June 6, 2009. Maybe you think it's been years but it's just over a month actually. And, yes, Panonian drew the map himself, as it says there, apparently from some fantasy world of his.

It is good that you admit your defeat - you see now that no reliable source places any part of "Alan kingdom" in South Ossetia. Good for you! Admitting mistakes is what makes you stronger. Now if only we can get you to start reading books. (PaC (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Dear Sunny, don't you think it's too ridiculous on your part to call upon PaC to "check history" after displaying so much ignorance in the Caucasus history? "And, just for your information, after the X-XII centuries Alans moved south, under pressure from Mongol invaders"? Mongols had nothing to do in the Caucasus either in the 10th or 12th centuries. --Kober^Talk 20:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the word "after", Kober? Do you understand after XII century means starting from the XIII century? Why should you start cursing even before you unedrstand what I mean? FeelSunny (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a map drawn by Encyclopedia Brittanica, showing that the Mongols have no influence in the Caucasian Region, they're just occupied the entire, but no influence. US also has no influence on California by that logic. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.eb.com/eb/image%3Fid%3D64889%26rendTypeId%3D4&imgrefurl=http://student.britannica.com/comptons/art-54601/Mongol-empire&h=309&w=552&sz=96&tbnid=tRpixS0Uh7B8eM:&tbnh=74&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmongol%2Bempire&hl=en&usg=__ZexvtZPvej17nOZWrO4D9K49Db4=&ei=tBxZSoyzDoPMsgOWw-TWBg&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=5&ct=image Now let's use logic. The map says that Alans were there in the 10th to 12th centuries, and Brittanica says that the Mongols came and removed the Alans in the 13th century. Seems quite logic so far. Kober, he meant that the Mongols removed the Alans, AFTER the 12th century, which they did. Papa Carlo, my main argument, the one that you have so dutifully ignored, is to state this: De Facto - Ossetians controlled most of South Ossetia, whereas De Jure it was under Georgian control, prior to this war. It's a fact and it's true. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a fact and it's true. Says who? If you are discussing the pre-war situation in South Ossetia then WTF has the Mongol period to do with all of these? Let's start with the Bronze Age then when the Sarmatians are supposed to have appeared in the Caucasus. I'm not going to engage in historical discussion because the oppenents seem to have a very superficial knowledge of history. As for De facto/De jure dispute, after the 1992 ceasefire, Georgia exercised both de facto and de jure control of the third of the former South Ossetia Autonomous Oblast, while the separatists and Russian piecekeepers de facto controlled the rest of the former Oblast. This seems to be adequately reflected in the text. So, I'm afraid I don't quite understand your logic.--Kober^Talk 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You get rebuked on one of your arguments, then you quickly jump to positions. Papa Carlo told us North and South Ossetia never existed as one unit and that The territory of South Ossetia has always been under de-jure and de-facto control of Georgian kingdoms. We proved him wrong in both his "nevers" and "always". As to the de-jure, tell me, de-jure, for how many centuries Georgia itself existed independently? Or maybe years? And tell me, for a nation with a history like theirs, why do Georgians so desperately want to do with Ossetia and Abkhazia just the same that Ottomans and Persians did with them? FeelSunny (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Aww, you still think you proved me wrong? I asked you to show me a single reliable source that shows North and South Ossetia as one one unit and all you and your warrior buddy presented was a fantasy map self-drawn by an anti-Georgian nationalist? Seriously, do you not have a library around where you live? Then try looking on Google Scholar and Google Books. Do you want me to explain you how they operate? (PaC (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

"In fact, away from high politics, ethnic relations were never bad. For a decade after South Ossetia's de facto secession from Georgia in 1991, it was a shady backwater and a smugglers' haven. The region was outside Tbilisi's control, but Ossetians and Georgians went back and forth and traded vigorously with one another at an untaxed market in the village of Ergneti." Now what rabid South Ossetian Nationalist wrote this? Oh yeah, it's Open Democracy: http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/south-ossetia-the-avoidable-tragedy And umm, De Facto they were one unit. De Jure, they were not one unit. That's the whole point! I mean clearly, the Ossetians have captured and are holding Chomsky hostage. What else could have led to this? "Then Mikheil Saakashvili came to power in the "rose revolution" of 2003-04, with heady promises to restore his country's lost territories. He closed the Ergneti market in June 2004 and tried to cut South Ossetia off, triggering a summer of violence." Shall I e-mail Thomas de Waal, it's such an Ossetian name, and tell him to go read a book? Does he know what a library is? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And here we have yet another pro-Russian sources, Reuters: "Georgia's interior ministry troops patrol a road near South Ossetia's de-facto border some 80 km (50 miles) north-west of Tbilisi July 10, 2009 REUTERS/David Mdzinarishvili (GEORGIA MILITARY POLITICS CONFLICT)" And yet again a Russian surname. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/pictures/TBL07.htm And here's the Putin-run Global Voices online: http://globalvoices.org/specialcoverage/south-ossetia-crisis-2008/ "The de facto independent republic governed by the secessionist government held a second independence referendum on November 12, 2006, after its first referendum in 1992 was not recognized by the international community as valid." And I could find more sources. Perhaps someone can make an argument that "ground is air" again. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(Re-Indent) I don't feel it's reflected in the article at all. Therefore, I propose to state in the introduction that Ossetians exercised De Facto control of 2/3rds of South Ossetia's territory, whereas Georgia exercised De Jure control over all of South Ossetia. It is important for the reader to understand that it wasn't a Georgian civil war, or Georgian internal matter, anymore then the First Chechen War was a Russian internal matter. The Second Chechen War was, because it was triggered by Chechnya's unprovoked attack on Dagestan, which was part of Russia, thus the war was justified. It is important for the reader to know how South Ossetia looked liked, before the war began, both De Facto and De Jure. And it's not so simple that it can just be discarded. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with mentioning de-facto control in the introduction and added the word in this sentence: "The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians had left most of South Ossetia under de-facto control of a Russian-backed internationally-unrecognised regional government." --Xeeron (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: may I see any sources that claim Yeltsin government supported South Ossetians in 1992? FeelSunny (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I would have to delete the statement if it goes unsourced further. The reason is, AFAIK, Yeltsin did not care too much about Georgia. Russia was a mediator. By the way, in 1991, the Georgian army was fighting with the rifles Russians left in Georgia, when leaving the country. FeelSunny (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I put in an additional reference. --Xeeron (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Casus Belli Rules

Now I don't know about you, but usually the reason for declaring a war goes into the introduction. So if Country A tells Country B that "If you, Country B, invade Region C, then we, country A, view this as an act of war against us". In short it is a reverse Casus Belli. It is a country saying to another country, that if you do X, we will be at war with you. It's crucial! It's more then important enough to be mentioned in the intro. We talk about the situation in Abkhazia in the introduction, something much less important, then Russia's flat out statement, that a war will take place if Georgia invades South Ossetia. Why don't certain editors want this in the article?

Because it makes Russia look good. That's their only real reason. Initially they wanted it under "responsibility" because we all known Xeeron's uniqueness in taking responsibility before the event occurs. Now Elysander calls it a mere warning. A mere warning is saying something like "caution, hot!" Saying "if you aim that gun at my kid, I will shoot your arm off" is not a mere warning, no matter how you spin it.

However every edit made by Xeeron and Elysander has been anti-Russian. In addition Xeeron painstakingly tries to undo every single one of my non-minor edits on this article. And it's fine, as long as it's backed up by facts, or something concrete. But the pathetic attempt to keep Svante Cornell in the article, to re-vote on the title constantly, to threaten other editors after losing the title vote, and now stating that a reverse Casus Belli is not important enough to be stated in the introduction, based on bullshit reasons, that's crossing the line. Do you boys want to take this to Arbitration? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for any "boys", but me personally, I want you to stop spreading lies. --Xeeron (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to do anything except adding Ad Hominem tallies to your score? Maybe rebut what I was saying? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

O-M-G! Sorry to say you have once again confirmed your status as article shatterbox and .....! ;) And you shouldn't be surprised that not many editors want to waste their time on your "outpourings". I have never read such a nonsense in the last weeks. If people would follow your special "CB Rules" then: France (A) must declare war on Luxembourg (B) if Luxembourg would like to regain control over a French-friendly separated region (C) in the Southwest of Luxembourg. Ridiculous - Elysander (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you get that from what I said? I'm not following you, can you be clearer please? A Reverse Casus Belli is not a requirement, it only works if the country carries it out. Thank you once again for distorting my statement. And where did I even talk about the Southwest? Or Luxembourg? Or "must declare war on"? Or anything in your statement really. "Will be viewed as a declaration of war" is not the same as "must declare war on". I apologize for being too logical, but can you please try to make some sense of what you said? Your weird rule only works if Luxembourg has been Taliban's route into France, and if Luxembourg tried to attack France, or French citizens. Elysander, have you ever tried actually quoting what others said, not reinterpreting it in a non-sober state? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I just took a random article as an example. This is the war of Falklands: "The conflict was the result of a protracted diplomatic confrontation regarding the sovereignty of the islands. Neither state officially declared war and the fighting was largely limited to the territories under dispute and the South Atlantic. The initial invasion was characterised by Argentina as the re-occupation of its own territory, and by the UK as an invasion of a British overseas territory". Not going into much details, it gives a clear vision of why both nations decided to go into war.

Regarding SO war article: I thinks we should cut it by approximately 35-40%, generalizing similar statements into one phrase. However, I beleive we really should add the reasons section in the lead.FeelSunny (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre-war clashes

I undid Koubers edit to the section because:

• Popov did, in fact, show up. But the Ossetian side didn't
• We don't mention individual Ossetian deaths in this section, so we shouldn't mention Georgian ones either. The general statement is enough.
• Your edit was heavily using the Georgian chronology of events[3] and quoting this as the truth. Previously, the section tried to concentrate on third party (neither Russian nor Georgian) sources such as the OSCE, and we should continue doing that. Offliner (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Popov met with Yakobashvili? I didn't manage to find such information, but you're welcome to provide sources to correct me. The Governmental document denies this:

16:00 Georgian Special Envoy Temur Yakobashvili visits the conflict zone on August 7 to meet with representatives of the separatists. The Special Envoy of Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Yuri Popov fails to arrive to Tskinvali, as previously agreed together with Minister Yakobashvili, citing a flat tire and a flat spare tire. When he finally reaches Tskhinvali, Popov meets Kokoity, and afterwards concedes that he cannot convince the separatists to hold urgent talks with Minister Yakobashvili.

Moreover, the source we already use there states that "neither the Russian chief negotiator Yuri Popov, nor the South Ossetian side, shows up."

My edit was primarily a periphrase, i.e. putting events in their chronological order. I changed only three things:

- The one you mentioned, concerning Popov, which is a minor issue and which we can further try to clarify;

- Citation of Yakobashvili concerning empty streets;

- Killed Georgian peacekeepers, which is a major issue, and is mentioned on many places, including in one of our main sources, we're already using.:

"Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, who spoke in a telephone briefing Aug. 14."

Of course, it is according to the Georgian Government, but so is the death of Russian peacekeepers - it is reported by Russian authorities. There're normally no independent sources located on those places.

Also, I disagree that we don't show individual deaths. We mention Russian peacekeepers casualties on many places, so it is fair to show Georgian peacekeepers deaths too, as the mobilization of Georgian military came minutes after this incident, as well as the withdrawal of Georgian personnel from the JPFK Headquarters, etc. It was a key event, and the way I edited the article showed the logical flow of actions. Kouber (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I found some more information concerning the issue with Yuri Popov:

"Before going to Tskhinvali (on August 7), I proposed to Yuri Popov – who at that time was in Tbilisi - to go to Tskhinvali for talks together; he refused and told me that he would go to Tskhinvali later. When I arrived in Tskhinvali I called him and asked about his plans. He responded that he was close to Gori but could not continue because of a flat tire. Popov arrived in Tskhinvali only after I left."

So, Popov was in Tbilisi, but indeed didn't show up on the scheduled meeting in Tskhinvali. Kouber (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Acc. to the third party sources: in Russian: Когда посол по особым поручениям РФ прибыл в начале седьмого в Цхинвали, осетины уже готовились оборонять свою столицу. В подвале одного из правительственных зданий Попов встретился с президентом непризнанной Южной Осетии Эдуардом Кокойты. На нем была военная форма. После непростых переговоров Кокойты дал согласие на встречу в формате русские-грузины-представители Южной Осетии, без участия Северной Осетии.

Южноосетинские представители заявили о своей готовности пойти навстречу грузинам. Попов объявил об успешном окончании переговоров перед прессой и проинформировал Якобашвили. Тот пообещал сразу же сообщить обо всем Саакашвили, который со своей стороны также заявил о верности условиям перемирия. Теперь все говорило о разрядке напряженности.

Попов на скорую руку пьет чай с командующим российским миротворческим контингентом Ринатом Кулахметовым. Последний пригласил его остаться на ночь, поскольку важные переговоры должны были начаться уже с утра. "Но у меня не было зубной щетки и пижамы, кроме того, утром я должен был появиться в российском посольстве в Тбилиси", – рассказывает Попов. И с этого момента его мучает вопрос: "Началось бы наступление и в том случае, если бы Саакашвили знал, что я, главный российский переговорщик, нахожусь в Цхинвали?"

In German: [4]. This is Der Spiegel.FeelSunny (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And the paragraph before it: "В 0:40, в ночь на 7 августа, менее чем за 24 часа до начала войны, Попов на самолете "Аэрофлота" экстренно вылетает в Тбилиси. Он встречается за ланчем в отеле "Мариотт" со своим партнером Якобашвили, и они договариваются о встрече между грузинами, русскими и представителями Южной Осетии. Этой встречи не состоялось. По дороге из Тбилиси в Цхинвали, рассказывает посол по особым поручениям, лопнула шина на заднем колесе бронированного Chevrolet Suburban, в котором ехал Попов, в 70 км от грузинской и в 40 км от южноосетинской столицы. Попов задержался на 2 часа – и в Цхинвали Якобашвили напрасно дожидался Попова с представителями Южной Осетии".

So, according to both Yakobashvili and Popov, the latter arrived in Tbilisi in the morning of 7 August, and they agreed to meet together with the South Ossetian side in Tskhinvali later that day. But indeed that meeting never occurred. Kouber (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"An OSCE and JPKF team escorted the team of State Minister Yakobashvili to the JPFK Headquarters in Tshkinvali, where he had a meeting with Ambassador Popov and the JPKF COmmander General Kulakhmetov."[5] Offliner (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems very credible, although it is in contradiction to what both Popov and Yakobashvili said. So, I guess we must correct that exact part. Kouber (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So, OSCE tells the meeting had place. Yakobashvili, I have no doubt, tells Ossetians and Russians didn't come. Spiegel tells Popov came 2 hours late when Yakobashvili decided to get back to Tbilisi, and whithin several hours the shelling started. We need a source on what Popov tells, and then we should work out the best phrase to sum it all up - all sources are quite credible. Though, obviously, some of them are not right on this matter. FeelSunny (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bagapsh's comments in the buildup section

I don't think we need this: On July 10 during a meeting with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, Abkhaz leader Sergei Bagapsh announced that he feared Georgian military intervention, saying, "We do not rule out anything, as Georgia has taken the path of terrorism, and terrorism is a path that inevitably leads to clashes." No Georgian attack on Abkhazia occurred, but during the war Abkhazia attacked the Georgian held Kodori Gorge.

The buildup section is already too big, and I don't think this says anything new or important. Offliner (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Xeeron (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Racism strikes again!

"Ethnic Russians"? Ok, I know there's been a passport controversy, but that's no reason to resort to racism. This isn't Jim Crow. Recently, I have removed the implication that Russia is only for "Ethnic Russians". Indeed, the argument went something like this: "even though Ethnic Russians account for only 5% of South Ossetia, 7/8ths of the citizens of South Ossetia got Russian passports. Now last time I checked, United Russia (the ruling party in Russia) wasn't racist. According to the Russian passport rules, if you are a Russian speaking person, (anyone can learn to speak Russian) and you have held Soviet Citizenship, you are most likely going to get Russian Citizenship. I haven't seen a single argument in favor of "Ethnic Russians". And that leads me to ask - what the heck is an "Ethnic Russian"? What's the hair color? Oh wait, that varies. The eye color? Oh wait, that also varies. Skin color? And if I go with white, is Hitler an "Ethnic Russian"? Hell no! Facial features? Nope - those vary too. Nationality of parents? Ahh - that's true. But what about the people whose parents had different nationalities? Or the orphans? According to the Plessy Rule, (Plessy v. Ferguson) Pushkin would not qualify as an "Ethnic Russian".

The beauty of Russian Culture, is that it's not limited to ethnicity. It's primarily based on culture. And that opens up interesting ideas, about Russia's potential to serve as the Euro-Asian bridge, because Russia is Euro-Asian. One of the greatest Soviet Operations was Operation Bagration, it's not a Russian name. When Russia defended Dagestan, no one talked about "Ethnic Russians", even though there were less than 5% "Ethnic Russians" in Dagestan.

Russia is giving out passports to all ex-Soviet, Russian-speaking citizens. It's not limited to Georgia. It's happening in all over the World. But in civilized places, or places where the government doesn't rely on racism, i.e. like California, no one cares. In places where government does rely on racism and brute force, like the Baltic States, most notably Estonia, it's another story. But I don't see Lukashenko complaining about it. Nor the president of Kazakstan. The people complaining are those who specialized in using racism to split the public. The US isn't freaking out about it. Nor are most NATO countries. Nor Armenia. And since Russia hands out passports to all Soviet Citizens, because Russia inherited the debts of the USSR, and USSR's UN seat, it makes sense.

So of course in comes the racist crowd. Funny thing, I've asked these racists in California, while debating, if they can tell me what an "Ethnic American" looks like. They couldn't. Legally it's someone born in the US, or naturalized in the US. So why is Russia getting different treatment? Why are we, honorable Wikipedia editors, resorting to petty racism, and articles quoting petty racism, to get our point across? POV needs? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

An ethnic Russian is an East Slav who was born in or is a citizen of Russia, and indeed few of those have ever lived in South Ossetia. There is a difference between an ethnic Russian, and just a Russian (which could refer to an ethnic Russian or a Russian citizen who is not an East Slav, ie. a Tatar, Chechen, Ossetian etc..) However, the fact that few ethnic Russians have lived in South Ossetia is completely irrelevant since ethnicity has nothing to do with obtaining a Russian citizenship in this case or in any other case, so I agree with your removal of that sentence. LokiiT (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well ok, I guess if you define it like that, and point out that not all Russians are Ethnic Russians, it makes sense. But I still don't see what this has to do with the article, as in general, not many Ethnic Russians live in the Caucasian Region, except for the coastal cities, such as Sochi, so I think that in this article it's still a moot point, and I'm glad we agree on that. And I still think it's racist to imply that only Ethnic Russians deserve Russian passports, as the sentence did. I can't wait to hear the rebuttals for this one though. Meanwhile I'm going to equip my ground troops with jetpacks (see Svante Cornell debate). HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that pointing out any difference between ethnic Russians, citizens of Russia, and ethnic Ossetians, citizens of Russia, in this article makes any sence. There was clearly no difference in attitude towards Russian citizens of different ethnicity from Georgian army or Russian army, or Ossetian military. Pointing out this difference is only used to prove very doubtful points that Russia forcefully imposed its citizenship on people that did not want that, on people that had no right to become citizens of Russia, on people that were not close to Russia and Russian society. Frankly, every one of these three points is a lie. That's why I think we do not have to further enlarge the heavy article with that. FeelSunny (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But how will oil companies funding Svante Cornell extract oil from Russia and make a profit, if you, damn Russians, won't practice racism! Clearly you didn't major in oil politics, or else you'd understand! Or I could just say that the reason for said racism is that if a war can be ignited within Russia, using racism, certain people will benefit greatly because of it. Hence the claim that "Russians didn't give passports to Ethnic Russians" despite at least 50 million non-ethnic Russians having Russian passports. Despite over 500,000 Ossetians having Russian passports. But if 70,000 more Ossetians get Russian passports - "the SKY IS FALLING!!!" Watch the movie called "The International" for further elaboration. And yeah, I'm also making fun of those "majoring" in oil politics. Seriously you need a major to understand what an MA history student learns in a week? I mean take a class on it, but to major in it? That's like someone "majoring" in Microsoft Office. Syllabus: How to steal oil from other countries; how to promote yourself as noble and just while stealing said oil; how to demonize those you're stealing the oil from; how to not pay taxes and get away with it; how to get taxpayers to fund your wars.... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Free academic source

Russia's war in Georgia: lessons and consequences. Small Wars & Insurgencies, Volume 20, Issue 2 June 2009

There isn't terribly much in here that we didn't know already (it's interesting that even this Western scholarly source relies heavily on Mikhail Barabanov's piece in Moscow Defense Brief, thus confirming my opinion that MDB is a very reliable and respected source.) Still, I can think of many ways in which this can be used to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems a pretty good summary of many other pieces. It might be useful the bring the military analysis section into a more coherent form. Unfortunately, it is entirely concentrated on the Russian forces, with very litte analysis of the Georgian side. --Xeeron (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. There are other very interesting articles in that journal as well[6] (it seems to be a special issue about the war). They are not free, but maybe someone has access to this in a library or has some extra cash. Also, don't forget this new article by MDB:[7]. Offliner (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I also advise checking the substancial bibliography in the Small Wars & Insurgencies article you linked above. E.g. I found Vladimir Socor's dead on prediction of a higher intensity conflict in South Ossetia on August 4 quite amazing: [8]. I am sure there are other worthwhile articles listed there. --Xeeron (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed "truly amazing". Knowing that Georgia will try something on August 7th, and predicting that Russia might do something to counter that as early as August 4th, requires a vision beyond that of a visionary /end sarcasm. For crying out loud, it wasn't that hard to predict. I'm not saying the source sucks, it doesn't, but portraying it as a super-source seems a bit silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also found a relatively detailed timeline here: [9].
• Here's some more analysis of Russian military performance: [10].

It seems there are a lot more good sources now than when I last looked in first half of 2009. Offliner (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of SO and A

This section seems to have some redundant parts. I suggest the following:

• Drop the first sentence. It's Medvedev's decision that matters here, I think.
• Replace the part about Belarus with simply "As of 2009, Belarus is still considering recognition, but so far has been reluctant to do so."
• Remove the part about Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, because nothing appears to have come out of it. Offliner (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the first two points, but I would keep the SCO part in (maybe shortened). --Xeeron (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the boxes

There is an infobox, 3 campaignboxes, one navbox on the right, in Template:2008 South Ossetia War, one navbox at the bottom. Do we really need them all? (Igny (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, this is rather a wiki-wide experience. Someone decides that an infobox with all "military conflicts by Russia (including USSR and russian empire)" is needed ... and wooo, all article get yet another infobox. There are arguements to be had in favor (those who read about one Russian war might be interested in another) and against (it clutters the articles) those infoboxes, but the proper place for that would be the infobox talk page or some RFC page. --Xeeron (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the campaignboxes. Most of those links are very easy to find from the main text, and the other post-soviet conflicts box seems unnecessary and irrelevant. Offliner (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. From browsing other parts of the wiki, I remember using those boxes very frequently. The only box that might warrant removal is the "Georgian–Ossetian conflict" one, since it is partly redundant with the "Conflicts in the Former Soviet Union" one. --Xeeron (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many boxes, I agree.FeelSunny (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Judicial reaction

That section is too long, and possibly wrong. While the ICJ case is well documented, I could not find a single trace of the ICC cases on the ICC homepage. Then, while checking the current source, I was also surprised that it say the cases were sent "seeking to bring Georgian authorities to justice for genocide", while our wiki page about the ICC states that its purpose is to "prosecute individuals".

Furthermore, the ICJ case is described in too much detail (who is interested in the court issueing a statement that basically amounts to common sense?). I suggest removing the entire section and placing two sentences about the judicial situation elsewhere in the article (humanitarian impact seems the best place). --Xeeron (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Support removing the whole section. We should add it back if the courts actually decide something. Describing these cases in detail doesn't bring much to the article, because the article already makes it clear that there is strong suspicion that war crimes took place, so it's only natural that there is something going on in courts. I think a very short sentence such as "Georgia has launched proceedings in court X, while South Ossetia has started a case in court Y" in the "humanitarian impact" section should be enough. Offliner (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Let's say something like: "Both sides have accused each other, and filed suits in international courts, but after hearings no court has made any decisions condemning the one or the other side". One sentence in umanitarian impact. FeelSunny (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

The anniversary of the war is almost here, and I suspect the article is going to get a lot of hits soon, so I'd like it to look as good as possible. Are there any easy improvements that could be made? I mean ones that we don't have to argue too much about.

• The first thing that comes to mind, is of course the pics. Many of them got deleted from commons[11], but I think it may be possible to reupload them in regular Wikipedia under another license. (I've asked the deletor and other people if they think it's OK.) Of course, everyone should be on the look for free pics.
• Second thing would be small readability improvements. For example, I think the background dives into the history a bit too fast. We could first use an introductory sentence there, such as "The 2008 South Ossetia war has it's roots in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict..." I'm also thinking that it might be a good idea to divide the chapter into subchapters, for example "Origins of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict", "Frozen conflict", "Unfreezing", etc. Offliner (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The pics in question were deleted against the vote, and against the statement they were intended for a free use. I beleive their deletion decision is wrong and should be discussed further. FeelSunny (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

too long + double article -problem

This article has two big problems. It is too long navigate and read. The other problem is that there are rightly named subarticle, but still the main article has same information. I suggest lot of deletion in main article (or moving some parts to existing subarticles) Peltimikko (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"The other problem is that there are rightly named subarticle, but still the main article has same information" - what do you mean? The main article is supposed to be a summary of all the subarticles, so the contents will naturally overlap. Offliner (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Shorter summaries should be enough. I do not want to guide what parts should be shorten (as I am not an expert of the issue). In current condition, the article is not readable. Peltimikko (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the article. It has a lot of Kilobytes, but without the sources, the maps and stuff, it's under 12,000 words. Considering that the article has already turned into a summary, I think it's ok. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one should just reduce the images to real thumbs with the size fitting for this exact article? That would make a great difference in load time compared to cutting the text. FeelSunny (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fork

Somebody forked off some content: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2008_genocide_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia. Please participate in the AfD. Offliner (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn. Ok, I demand that there should be a test for editing Wikipedia. On it should be basic stuff, such as: Genocide is: A. Where 90% of the population are brutally killed or B. Where less than one percent of the population is hit by airstrikes. Genocide is against: A. People or B. Property. Interestingly enough User:Biophys wants to keep that article, where, here, I'll quote the article, I find it rather hilarious:

"2008 genocide of Georgians in South Ossetia [1], [2] started during and after [3] the 2008 South Ossetia war genocide of Georgian people was conducted in South Ossetia and other teritories occupied by Russian and South Ossetian forces [4].

South Ossetia's persident Eduard Kokoity has publicly acknowledgmed in his words that he and the forces under his command or with whom he is working are engaging in what can only be called ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide [5]. of Georgian people in South Ossetia. As the war of 2009 in South Ossetia came to a close, there were reports of massacres in Georgian villages inside the conflict zone ­Ossetian militias checking the ethnicity of residents and treating all Georgians to a bullet in the head [6]."

If you guys want to, see my talkpage, for funny stuff. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder, if the whole SO war should be classified as the attempt of ethnic cleansing of Ossetians in Georgia? At least, it was systematic measure, that was supported by Georgian government and army. The question is: was it aimed at Ossetian ethnos, or South Ossetian leaders? Georgia says the latter is true, while Ossetians both in SO and in Russia think otherwise. The war had also many examples of destruction of Ossetian culture objects, cemeteries, churches, the only Ossetian language university, etc. - which is clearly an example of warfare aimed at ethnic group. FeelSunny (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no genocide, there was no ethnic cleansing on either side. Civilian casualties in this war are remarkably low, which is another reason I like this war. There could have been genocide or ethnic cleansing, had the Russians not intervened. However attempted murder, isn't murder. Attempted genocide or ethnic cleansing, is not the same as genocide or ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, using that article's logic, this entire war can be reclassified as Ossetian genocide, which is yet another reason why that article is dead wrong. As for Georgian Government claims, please, wouldn't be the first time they lied. I'm still waiting for those WMDs in Iraq, or those Russians outside of the Roki Tunnel on the South Ossetian side on August 7th. The more they lie, the more credibility they lose. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Get real. You must not like wars, rather like peace. This war was disastrous for Russian foreign policy, it costed our country too much. Even if you omit casualties from both sides. Plus, this war taught nobody nothing - not Russia, neither West, nor Georgia. This was a sad and shameful war. FeelSunny (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I like wars. I don't like civilians dying in wars. However, in the long run, this war was great for Russia's Foreign Policy, because once the truth came out, it showed the NATO leaders that they don't have the backing of their people. And next time NATO's media tries bullshit as they did in August 2008, they won't be so easily trusted. The hostility against McPalin (how we call McCain and Palin ticket) about this war was enormous. Did you think Milliband revised his statement, because he cared for Russia? Milliband revised his statement, due to criticism from the British people. This war proved, that unless Russia is the attacker, the citizens of NATO's countries won't fight Russia.

In addition, during the war, 99% of Russians in Russia and 90% of Russians living elsewhere, rallied to defend Russia once the truth was out. That's massive support by any definition. Also, the West learned that Russia's Army can kick ass. Russia will hopefully learn the value of coordination between Air Force and Rocket Forces, the Soviets did that brilliantly at the Battle of Moscow. The war also stabilized the Caucasian Region. There are sparks of violence here and there, but because of this war, it will never go back to what it was in the 1990's.

Finally, and this gives me personal pleasure, a lot of moronic historians were discredited by this war. How many copies did Cornell's book sell? He actually took a loss on the sale. As for Georgia, Saakashvili may have learned nothing, but the people in the West, don't support him one bit. His censorship of Russian Media is grotesque. His heavy handed tactics, denying a democratic vote to the people, arrests, etc, are not popular here. Most Californians don't see the point of censoring the Russian Media. I get involved in politics occasionally. I've yet to here, after the truth came out, accusations against Russia. People here either praise Russia's actions, or ignore them. The most infamous comment here was done by a "Jessica B" asking "If the Russians are invading Georgia - why are they not in Atlanta, should I be worried?" There were more criticisms of that comment, after the truth came out, than of the entire war. Also, it will be a while before Americans reverse their policy on Georgia. Iraq reversal took 5-6 years. But Saakashvili sure isn't getting more support. Maybe we'll send Joe "don't fly cause of the swine flu" Biden to Georgia again.

Here's how Biden got the nickname: "I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to Mexico. It's you're in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft." –Joe Biden, freaking us out about swine flu, "Today Show" interview, April 30, 2009 And this is the guy whose comments Russia was up in arms about. In America, the Vice President's job is to keep the president alive, by being so shitty, that no one would be want assassinate the president for fear of the vice president stepping up. Here's more quotes: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/a/bidenisms.htm

So FeelSunny, knowing all this, do you still call the war sad and shameful? I mean I agree with what Saakashvili did being sad and shameful, but the entire war? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I answered on your TP. FeelSunny (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortening 2

Once again, here a some suggestions about shortening. In general, I don't think it's possible to considerably shorten the article without dropping essential information. I think the following sentence from WP:SIZE definitely applies here: "sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage."

Background

It seems difficult to compress this any further. Almost every sentence seems essential to understanding the war's background. But still here are a couple of suggestions:

• Start with "Before the break-up of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia was an autonomous republic within the Georgian SSR. A military conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia broke out in January 1991 when Georgia sent troops to crush the South Ossetian separatist movement. The sepratists were helped by former Soviet military units, who by now had come under Russian command." Dropping these two sentences: "In its turn, Georgia's Supreme Council revoked the decision and abolished South Ossetian autonomy.[54] The government in Tbilisi also established Georgian as the country's principal language, whereas the Ossetians' first two languages were Russian and Ossetian.[55]" I think these two details are a bit unnecessary.

• Drop the following accusation sentences:
  • "Georgia accused Russia of the annexation of its internationally recognised territory and of installing a puppet government led by Eduard Kokoity and by several officials who had previously served in the Russian FSB and Army"
  • "In 2006, the Georgian government set up what Russians claimed was a puppet government led by the former South Ossetian prime minister Dmitry Sanakoyev and granted to it a status of a provisional administration, alarming Tskhinvali and Moscow."
  • Reasons: it's clear to everyone anyway that Georgia and Russia are accusing each for everything, so these don't bring anything new to the article. Sanakoyev's govenrment also played no role in the war, so it's a bit irrelevant.

Casualties

I suggest dropping the whole section. Most of this info is already present in the infobox.

More ideas maybe later. Offliner (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree on dropping the casualties section. While each individual death is horrible, the article does not gain anything from listing many different numbers for casualties/missing/wounded. --Xeeron (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the casualties section, but I realize it must go. Maybe make another article on it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Media

I propose to make one section out of the three: Media reaction/Censorship of Russian media in Georgia during the war/Cyberattacks. All 3 smallish subsections deal with the broad field of media. It should also be possible to condense the section while merging it. --Xeeron (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was something I spotted as well. There's no need for a section heading for each paragraph. Shimgray | talk | 10:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that the high-profile article Gaza War is over 200 kB long, while our article is just 179 kB. I see no "toolong"-tag on Gaza War, nor does there seem to be any discussion about shortening on the article talk page. This raises the question, if the article really is too long after all. Offliner (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should try to achieve a specific kb number (also see my comment, someone earlier here, about the difference between code length and displayed text length). Gaza war might be longer, Falklands War, a very comparable operation is shorter by the about same amount that Gaza war is longer. We should shorten the article when there is superfluous, repetitive material in it that could be adequately summarized. --Xeeron (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On that note, some thoughts on what might be shortened, from an uninvolved perspective -

• There's a lot of citations, and many points are cited three or four times, even when they're not particularly disputed - for example, the paragraph about the Georgian military having US training has three footnotes where one would be fine. It'd be worth seeing how many of the 350 footnotes are effectively duplicates.
• The Battle of Tskhinvali / Gori sections are a bit odd; parts of them have exactly the same text as the main articles, and they actually seem to go into more detail than the specific articles do. These could presumably be summarised and the detail in them moved out to the relevant pages - that's the point of having them, after all!
• The section on "Responsibility for the war and motives" is enormous, and my gut instinct is that this can be shortened significantly. A lot of the individual quotes could be moved to the relevant article, and replaced here with a more general summary. The "International reaction" section is a decent example of this; the big table of who-said-what has been moved out, and instead there's a quick summary of what some major parties think.

Hope this is of some help... Shimgray | talk | 10:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, let me add something to each of your points:

• There are indeed many citations. I am not sure whether there are duplicates, but it is worth checking how many of those links are broken, my guess is that quite a lot wont work by now.
• The individual articles are so short because most editors concentrated on this article. Several of this articles' sub-articles are in a horrible state.
• I think everyone agrees on your point about the responsibity section. We are currently waiting on a major EU commission's report into the issue that is due in september. Once that is out, the section is due to be considerably shortened. --Xeeron (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations - I agree, and we should use the most credible ones. However I think on critical cases, having two citations is ok, definitely never more than three, and usually not more than one or two. Duplicate citations on basic issues, are bad.

I agree with the Battle of Tskhinvali/Gori. I'll do a summary of the Battle of Tskhinvali.

That should be an article in itself, and some stuff, such as the House of Lords report, we just don't need. It should be made into its own article and summarized, no point in waiting for a report on it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do about Battle of Tskhinvali? I was going to try rewriting it myself in the near future. Offliner (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well now that the tag is gone, I probably wont be shortening it. All yours. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduce-reduce-reduce the imageees:))FeelSunny (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)