Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Commanders

The commanders section in the infobox is (and has been for months) almost completely unsourced. It is also listing so many people that it is hard to believe they were all commanding their respective sides. I'll remove all unsourced names soonish. --Xeeron (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. --Xeeron (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Georgian ex-Envoy has said that Georgia started war with Russia

In US media http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26georgia.html

In Georgian media http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20026 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.188.120 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And also in this article since 2 days ago ... --Xeeron (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WaPost and 'Ossetian artillery fire resumed'

Let's be reasonable about this. Here's the WaPost:

Thursday, Aug. 7

On the morning of Aug. 7, after a night of Ossetian artillery fire, GEORGIAN SOURCE said, he traveled to Tskhinvali for a meeting with the separatists that the Russians had convened at a Russian peacekeeping base. "Nobody was in the streets -- no cars, no people," he said in a conference call with reporters Aug. 14. "We met the general of the Russian peacekeepers, and he said that the separatists were not answering the phone." GEORGIAN SOURCE left.

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 SOURCE.

The controversy is over whether the material in italics is more GEORGIAN SOURCE material or whether it is original Washington Post on the scene neutral reporting. Well, does anyone contend that Washington Post reporters were on the scene, observing Osettian artillery fire? Let's be serious, this is just a lazy reporter not adding, one more time, 'ACCORDING TO GEORGIAN SOURCE'. We all know this, and writing it up any other way is biased.Haberstr (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, it is clear that the assertions are according to a Georgian source. However, Elysander's personal interpretation is that they are not. Both your version and the previous "compromise" version (which let the reader decide "who was speaking") are fine to me. Offliner (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the basic misunderstanding by few users seems that Ossetian artillery firing on 2 pm would be anyway disputed - if then by whom? The difference between Georgian timeline and OSCE monitor group's observations: the monitoring group in Tsk. denied Ossetian firing on Georgian villages in the (late) evening hours. Some users seem(ed) to be interested to date back these observations to early afternoon. ;) Who is reading the WAPO timeline will learn where controversies exist both sides or a third side will be mentioned. To avoid any biased writing (stated, claimed) the source itself should speak. Elysander (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually did some Original Research (tm), and e-mailed Peter Finn about the timeline article. When I asked about the source for the "Ossetian artillery fire resumed..." claim, he answered: "That was part of the timeline put forward by the Georgians, the former PM as cited, among others." This encourages me in my opinion that the current version in the article should definitely stay. Offliner (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Badri Bitsadze, former head of the Georgian Border Police has accused Saakashvili of starting war

Georgian media cite the interview published by the Georgian daily, Rezonansi, on November 29.

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20046

"Bitsadze, who resigned from the post of chief of Border Police on October 29, has also claimed that the decision to launch the war was taken by President Saakashvili and his inner circle consisting of small group of influential figures, including Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili; Justice Minister Zurab Adeishvili, Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria; Secretary of the National Security Council Alexandre Lomaia and Tbilisi Mayor Gigi Ugulava."

Added. Just not sure if those two latest statements should go into Discussion...-> Events of 7 August or into -> "Other statements." (Bagapsh's statement is already there.) But if we put it into 7 August, then we'll probably have to move about 50% of "other statements" in there as well. The division into subchapters here is beginning to feel a little ankward. Does anyone have a better solution? Offliner (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just changed the organization a bit. "Other statements" is in chronological order, BTW. Offliner (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Breakaway Regions, Breakaway Republics, or De facto independent republics

The standard within Wikipedia was to refer to countries like South Ossetia and Abkhazia as De Facto Independent Republics hence I am changing it to such. Breakaway Republics might be OK as well however they are not simply regions. Regions generally do not have a military and a constitution, South Ossetia and Abkhazia do hence they are republics. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

De facto independed republic is fine, break-away region too, break-away republic is not. They were regions when they broke away, not republics, thus break-away region. Break-away region should be used when talking about events in the 90s, especially the first war, de facto independent republic is better for events in 2008. --Xeeron (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

excellent analyzis, imho.Dc76\^talk 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Breakaway regions is the best I believe as they were not republics when they broke away. Ijanderson (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia was "republic", while South Ossetia was only "region". Ask Stalin why, because from his time these were the names. Dc76\^talk 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC (Oct 2008) is using breakaway region at war beginning (?) [1]; state-news-agency RiaNovosti (Nov 2008) separatist republic regarding a November news [2]. - Elysander (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Even Georgia called Abkhazia a republic as in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. The manner in which we've referred to countries like South Ossetia and Abkhazia within wikipedia is to refer to them as de facto independent republics but emphasize that they are unrecognize or recently only partially recognized. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Country" is definitevely POV, as only Russia recognizes them as such. But even Russia is careful to actually say much more often "republic", and very rarely "country". Currently they are de-facto independent entities - Abkhazia republic, and South Ossetia region (unless Georgia also calls S.O. republic, which I have NOT seen), or breakaway regions, where the word region this time is used as in plain English, not as a special meaning (an administrative unit, oblast) as it had in the former Soviet space. IMHO. Dc76\^talk 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Separatist Republics?

Calling them separatist republics is POV unless you call Georgia separatist as well because these republics separated from Georgia around the same time that Georgia separated from the Soviet Union. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Georgia was a separatist republic as long as the SU still existed. --Xeeron (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Once the independence is internationally recognized, one is no longer separatist. For example, from the point of view of Russia, A and SO are no longer separatist, but from the point of view of the rest of the international community - they are. While Georgia is not separatist from the POV of no country, not even Russia. What year are you talking about, 1990, 1992, 2008?

Also, this is just a suggestion. I am not insisting. Just want to hear your oppinion. Dc76\^talk 03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dansk is a questionable source in terms of reliability

This source is being repeatedly inserted and the material their is used to contradict known expert David Marshall Lang. I see Dansk as a questionable source in terms of reliability judging by the board. It lists people with Masters degrees none of them caucasusians studies, one PhD in slavic languages and people without any other credentials other than they have "travelled the region". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It has the big advantage of being easily checked by other readers, unlike the book by Lang. Not a big deal on uncontroversial articles, but with the amount of POV material inserted here, it is a concern.

To elaborate on that: I actually did check the book. Turns out, not only is the citation wrong (the relevant page numbers are 228-9, pages 234-6 do not mention South Ossetia), the book is also misleadingly cited (no doubt for POV reasons): The actual passage in the book reads (after describing at lengths the conflict between Menshevik Georgia and Bolshevik Russia): "In the spring of the following year, the Caucasian Bureau of the All-Russian Communist Party formed a special South Ossetian Revolutionary Committee to lead an armed revolt against the Georgian government. A Russian-sponsored Ossete force crossed the border from Vladikavkaz in June 1920 and attacked the Georgian Army and People's Guard. The Georgians reacted with vigour and defeated the insurgents and their supporters in a series of hard-fought battles. Five thousand people perished in the fighting and 20,000 Ossetes fled into Soviet Russia. The Georgian People's Guard displayed a frenzy of chauvinistic zeal during the mopping-up operations, many villages being burnt to the ground and large areas of fertile land ravaged and depopulated."

Note that it was a Russia-sponsored attack by Ossetian forces, not exactly what was mentioned in the article. I will change the section accordingly. --Xeeron (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Soviet involvement was already discussed. Just check the archives of this talk page. While the Soviets did have involvement, the main reason for the dispute was ethnic tensions between Georgians and Ossetians. Also, keep your POV pushing accusations to yourself, the way I had the passage was how it was written in the South Ossetia article and it was the stable version (as Elysander would call it) at that article. I'm not the one here who tried to replace a reliable source with an unreliable source just because he didn't like it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the talk page archive and read that back then, you did not prove that enthnicity was the main reason. Also, David Marshall Lang, whom you called the "known expert", clearly worded the conflict in terms of Menshevik-Bolshevik as well. The version now in the article is very close to his source. Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–1920) has a very similar, slightly longer version btw. --Xeeron (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you need to reread the archive page, especially the Svante Cornell source that Alaexis provided. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-read that and noted that Alaexis failed to report that in the sentences right after his quote, the Bolshevik-Menshevik struggle IS mentioned: "In 1920, a much larger Ossetian uprising took place, which was supported by the Bolshevik Regional Committee, which had gathered a military force in Vladikavkaz, today the capital of North Ossetia. As this Ossetian force moved southward, it expelled the Georgian forces and actually integrated Ossetia with Soviet Russia." Sounds very similar to what D.M.Lang wrote.

Regarding your revert: You inserted falsely quoted material into the article. Your version attributes 3000-7000 deaths to Lang, when the book says it was 5000. Also, the book does not mention the end of world war 1, which you reinserted. It speaks of 20000 and not of "up to 20000". --Xeeron (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Memorial report

South Ossetian troops had fired on civilian Georgian villages, Orlov said, including an enclave of ethnic Georgians living inside separatist-controlled South Ossetia, north of Tskhinvali. Additionally, South Ossetian troops had opened fire from the Tskhinvali HQ of Russia's peacekeeping force, Orlov added.

"It's important to find out who was the aggressor. But the answer isn't straightforward," said Orlov, who spent two weeks in South Ossetia and Georgia investigating the conflict.

"Of course, Georgia's armed forces started a full-scale military operation. But the previous politics of Russia provoked Georgia to do this."

"This doesn't excuse Mikheil Saakashvili [the Georgian president]. But Russian peacekeepers didn't do their job properly. We know the Russian side gave arms to the Ossetians and that they used them to fire towards Georgia from Russian peacekeeping positions well before August 7."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/russia-georgia-war Grey Fox (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So to paraphrase

Orlov, head of Memorial, accused Russia of provoking Georgia, arming South Ossetians, neglecting its peacekeeping mission. However, that can not excuse Saakashivili who started a full-scale military operation.

Does it add a lot to the current discussion? There is still no evidence that Georgia responded to Russia's aggression/invasion. It is really a lot like kicking the dead horse. But you can go ahead and add it, what is an extra 1kb to a 175kb article? (Igny (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

This is the conclusion drawn by Orlov who himself has visited these areas, so yes of course it's relevant. More relevant than the the editorials and opinions of unimportant people which keep piling up. Grey Fox (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that investigating teams still did not sort it out after 4 months passed, Orlov's visit to Ossetia for two weeks does not sound like much.(Igny (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

If that's your personal conclusion then so be it. Grey Fox (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, i would prefer to see no quotes from George Soros-funded "human rights organization" Memorial in the article at all, but of course if you and USA still think that Blame-Russia game is still interesting... Speaking of which - the article continues to be POV-unbalanced, but at least now it becomes really interesting and detailed. Full of facts, i've never knew before. I've read it hundreds of times but the last time was the best one. Good work, guys! 212.192.164.14 writing from 217.8.236.134 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about responsibility

I propose to split the discussion about responsibility as well as all other mutual accusations and allegations. One possibility is to add it to the background article.(Igny (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

"Discussion about responsibility for the war and starting it" is a very unencyclopedic title, everytime I read it, it makes me laugh. Whatever happens that title should go. Some of the notes in the section are important, maybe they should simply be integrated into other section so we can delete this section (per WP:IINFO). Grey Fox (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the title is not a big deal, deleting the section is. The good thing about the section is that it stops the "who did it" question from being discussed at many other places at the same time. I wouldn't want 2 pages full of "A said B, C said D, E,F and G said H, etc, etc, etc" to clutter the background section or any of the sections on the war itself. --Xeeron (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone has a better idea for the chapter title, please implement it. As for deleting the whole chapter, the discussion about responsibility for the war is currently a very important and notable matter on the international political scene. We could move the chapter to its own article, but I personally do not support it. At least not yet when it is still unclear which statements would be important enough to constitute the "summary" which must be left on this article. Integrating the chapter to "background" or into the "active stage of the war" main narrative would make those sections too big and make them lose their focus. However I feel that the chapter is starting to get too big, and some statements could be removed (such as the Spiegel statement, which is obsolete now that we have more exact versions of the same monitors' accounts in the BBC and NYT sources.) Offliner (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

some statements could be removed - Spiegel, WashPost et al. did report already about these ground reports mid and end of August 2008. If we are removing these passages it would be a chronological blunder. It would seem these reports were a new discovery 2,5 months later. Elysander (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so important for the reader to know that some of these informations were released already in August? It is a common practice to remove older statements from the article if there are newer and better ones available providing the same info. We can still leave the Spiegel statement in the separate timeline article. Offliner (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Saakashvili's government pushed a program to strengthen failing state institutions"

The above unsourced phrase was added in to replace what was taken directly from the source "of world-record-breaking spending on the military". I have added a fact tag, please add a source. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC article

Can someone please check out this article and corelate the wiki page with it: The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm 28 October 2008 Peer-LAN (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather unbiased, which is surprising coming from BBC, but I don't argue against facts (which really helps in winning arguments) and the article is grounded in facts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August.

Eyewitnesses have described how its tanks fired directly into an apartment block, and how civilians were shot at as they tried to escape the fighting.

Research by the international investigative organisation Human Rights Watch also points to indiscriminate use of force by the Georgian military, and the possible deliberate targeting of civilians.

Indiscriminate use of force is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and serious violations are considered to be war crimes.

The allegations are now raising concerns among Georgia's supporters in the West.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has told the BBC the attack on South Ossetia was "reckless".

He said he had raised the issue of possible Georgian war crimes with the government in Tbilisi."

I think that should be correlated with the NY Times Article and our Wiki Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricWarrior007 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Times article

Here's a new article for The Times with important data that should be integrated in the wiki page: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5114401.ece "Georgia fired first shot, say UK monitors" Peer-LAN (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"The events during 7 August remain a matter of debates and controversy" based on a fringe theory

The NY Times Article "Georgia Offers Fresh Evidence on War’s Start" is being used in this article to claim that the events during August 7 remain a matter of debate and controversy however this is a fringe theory. Nothing in that NY times article shows any evidence that Russia was planning to attack Georgia. You would have to make a leap that the Russian forces going through the Roki Tunnel weren't simply replacements to the ones already in South Ossetia, then you would have to make another leap that these forces were about to attack Georgia, then you would have to make another leap that Saakashvili and his advisors saw all this and made a pre-emptive strike. All of that is contradicted in the spiegel article.The article needs to clearly reflect that Georgia tried to extend the Georgian constitution into South Ossetia and Russia prevented it from happening. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You just showed why it remains a matter of debate and controversy. (Igny (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

To simply state that it remains a matter of debate and controversy gives equal weight to both sides of the argument. This is unacceptable for this article when one side (Saakashvili's claims) is WP:FRINGE. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To dismiss claims/conclusions by both Georgia, military experts and journalists as a "fringe theory" makes no sense. Grey Fox (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted back to the version including "controversy". When reputable news sources (e.g. NYT) report both sides' version as possible, the georgian one can hardly be qualified as fringe. --Xeeron (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because the NYT reports it doesn't mean its not fringe. I'm not saying that these allegations shouldn't be in the article, they should just be give the appropriate weight and not equal weight. The NYT article also gives no evidence that Russia was planning anything malicious. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not just the article in NY Times, which raises the possibility that Russia pre-planned its invasion of Georgia long in advance. In fact is view is shared by the Government of Georgia, the bulk of Georgian public, and even some observers in Russia believe that it was Russia that invaded Georgia, and their push on Tshinvali was merely a defensive action. This version makes sense to military experts and political pundits who have been following this conflict for years. It is also worth emphasizing that in no way could Russia relocate tens of thousands of troops to South Ossetia withing a few hours, it's just physically impossible considering the poor state of Russian military. This mammoth invasion force must have been prepared in advance. In fact there is plenty of evidence, that Russia had been massing troops on Georgian borders at least since April this year.Keverich1 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the "poor state of Russian military" is old school POV that the current Russian army was at the same competency as the Russian army after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many military pundits describe this as a mistake in western thinking. Secondly, we should lay out all these facts from both sides and give them the appropriate weight and let the reader decide for themselves. We shouldn't make the decision for the reader by making a statement like "the events remain a matter of controversy", let the reader decide if they remain a matter of controversy or if they don't. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing unclear here, Georgia claims one thing, Russia/SO claim something else, that is a controversy, no doubt about it. Note that stating that there is a controversy does not rule out the possibility that one side is strictly right, it is simply stating that 2 sides exist and disagree.

As a side note, that very sentence is the result of LONG edit wars on the lead, so please be sure to get a clear consensus before changing it. --Xeeron (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because you think its controversial and there is "no doubt about it" is irrevent. Let the reader decide if it's controversial. The opening paragraph should be similar to the article on the Invasion of Kuwait. You see it written out what Iraq's allegations against Kuwait were and you don't see any vague statements about controversy. I also don't see any long edit wars other than you reverting the page. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What I think is irrelevant. So is what you think. What the New York Times thinks, however, is not irrelevant and the NYT articles reports that Georgia and Russia disagree about the matter, i.e. there is a controversy.

You need to understand that what is at question here is not what actually happened, but whether everyone agrees on what happened or not. As the NYT source shows, everyone does not agree, therefore we have a controversy (and if it is the word "controversy" you dislike, suggest a better one instead of removing it).

Btw, if you want to see the edit wars on the intro, look about at the history. Full of it, including some where you participated. --Xeeron (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat, NY times or not, you should not come to a conclusion like X is controversial just because a source writes something, the reader should decide if it's controversial or not. It's not about whether I dislike the word controversy and should pick another word, it's a matter of writing facts in the article rather than making conclusions about what a particular source says. Regarding your accusations of edit waring, I'll have to ask you to tone down your rhetoric. Firstly, this is the second time you've made baseless accusations at me, the first time it was POV pushing and now it's edit waring. Secondly, your contributions as of late seem to be confined to reverting my contributions without sufficient reasoning in the talk page. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the word baseless and your accessment of my contributions, but since you also raised this on my talk page and it is more about me than about the article, I replied in more length there. --Xeeron (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the sentence "The events during 7 August remain a matter of debates and controversy" was just a way to defer the full discussion of those events until the "Discussion about..." chapter without having to leave a summary of that chapter in the lead (we probably won't be able to agree about the summary anyway.) As such, I thought the sentence was just fine (although no source explicitly says that the events of 7 august remain a matter of debates and controversy. One BBC source says something like "who actually started the war is unclear") Offliner (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, if the issue is about wording, I have no problem replacing "controversy" with "unclear" or something else closer to a source. --Xeeron (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have wished for someone else to edit this, but the wrong intro has been standing for about more than a week now, so I had to remove one part. While I still feel that doing away with any claims in the intro and relate them to the dispute section further down, the current version was not backed up by the sources, e.g. the Spiegel story says: "The NATO experts did not question the Georgian claim that the Russians had provoked them by sending their troops through the Roki Tunnel. But their evaluation of the facts was dominated by skepticism that these were the true reasons for Saakashvili's actions." A balanced rendering of the articles needs to mention that western leaders clearly believe that Russia provoked Georgia, but also that they feel that Georgia's response was out of proportion to the provocation (and in turn, Russia's response to Georgia's response was out of proportion as well). --Xeeron (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Tank Info

Whats this about T-80s and T-90s being spotted? Utterly false, no info to support this at all, they must have mistakn T-72B with Kontakt-5 ERA for T-90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.254.140 (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to trust the sources used for that info? Offliner (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Washington post hardly is a 100% accurate source on the matter (In general, Western News sources were miserable in their coverage, especially in the beggining). No T-80s are even deployed in the Kavkaz theater, not to mention T-90s. It would make little sense that a few were shipped to Ossetia (considering the urgency of the deployment units), and it would make even less sense that the Post somehow knew about it. No photographic evidence exists either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.122.225 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

For the casualty number for South Ossetia, there needs to be some form of citation. Where was this "estimate" found anyway?

Secondly, the Russian casualties should be 51 dead:

Here is a link for a list of individuals killed. http://www.army.lv/?s=2550&id=4146

I think casualties should simply be put as "unknown" since casualty numbers provided by either side cannot be confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.62.73.52 (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing how the Russian figures keep going down. Perhaps we should put up the Georgian estimate on the subject, it's probably a closer reflection of reality than whatever lies the Russians are putting out this week. Does anyone here seriously believe the (wildly fluctuating) Russian figures are based in reality? 66.66.154.162 (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing how an anonimous IP may just come and start a discussion like this one. It takes a long conversation to get to the facts with matters like this, but how can one talk to an anonimous IP? FeelSunny (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The so called "official" statet numbers of casulties is redicilous. The losses amongst the russian army are much higher. I can definitly confirm that. I know what I am talking about. It is insane, that small number of fallen russian stated here, that is insane, what the Kremlin tries to make. Soon or later real numbers will appear, but I have the same opinion. Casulties should be written as "unknown" for the russian army. We lost more. My uncle ,who at least is a lieutenant was ordered in the near of the conflict zone. He said, they fear to have lost more 165 soldiers alone in the outskirts of Tskhinvali after heavy fightings against georgian special forces and it didn't stop until air support. He also added, "those useless guys where qiuckly overwhelmed. We found hundreds of their corpses in the nearby villages". I think he meant Ossetian fighter. Also, the georgians lost more than that few 144 men. Our air force bombed the hell out of them.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.46.82 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To do

I'd like to invite everyone to express what they think should be improved in each of the chapters. I think it would be very useful if everyone would express their opinion (concisely) below! Offliner (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lead

Perhaps the best part of the article. Should probably be kept stable.

• Background

Perhaps include more information on geopolitics, Georgia's willingness to join NATO, and what Russia thinks of that. We could also expand on the US-Georgian relations a bit.

• Prelude to war

Seems a bit too long. We could drop at least one of the incidents.

• Events of August 7

No complaints. The last 5 sentences provide a summary of the material in "Discussion..." Ensuring that the summary is balanced is not easy.

• Battle of Tskhinvali

Perhaps one or two sentences could be trimmed away.

• Bombing and occupation of Gori

The last sentence ("The occupation lasted until August 22") seems a bit laconic and should be expanded.

I am concerned about the balance here. I think that both this chapter and "Battle of Tskhinvali" should include small summaries about the "humanitarian violations" which occured during those phases. But those summaries should each have equal length to be balanced. Currently, this chapter (bombing of Gori) has much more space devoted to humanitarian violations by Russians/Ossetians than Battle of Tskhinvali has to violations commited by the Georgians. The former has about 6 sentences while the latter has 4 (and the sentences in the former are also much longer.) For example, bombing of Gori has a statement on the Ossetian militias killing civilians, etc., but Battle of Tskhinvali doesn't have a statement on the BBC's findings that the Georgians tanks fired on appartment basements. Does anyone else think this is a problem? Offliner (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you counting? I see 8 sentences in the Tskhinvali part mentioning civilian casualties or civilian buildings and 10 in the part on Gori. In my opinion, there is simply much less of a military story in Gori, so little else can be said. Also, Tskhinvali was never occupied for a period long enough to make allowing/forbidding humanitarian relief an issue, while that was the case for Gori, adding to the number of sentences there. --Xeeron (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. And looks like basement sentence was there already too, I just missed it. But even when taken account that the occupation of Gori was longer like you said, I still feel there is a slight misbalance. "There's not much else to be said" is no excuse to leave the descriptions of Russian/Ossetian atrocities a bit longer; both descriptions should be equally long at this point in my opinion. Offliner (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Abkhazian front

It's very strange that one of the important war actions doesn't still take place in main article: the Russian landing operation on Georgian coast. Elysander (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that an active experienced contributor has some difficulties expanding this section of the article by looking up the references for the missing information. (Igny (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

• Occupation of Poti

The last two could probably be combined (they were part of the same "front" after all?)

• Six-point peace plan

Have the extra 100 OSCE observers been sent yet?

• Russian withdrawal

Could use some work on the wording. Also, exactly how many Russian troops were left in the regions?

• Post-conflict incidents

I guess this is important enough, but I'm worried we are giving too much space to the deaths of those few people.

• Casualties

I think this chapter is probably a good idea. But it definitely needs to be sourced.

• Humanitarian impact

This probably requires most work of all. Could be trimmed by perhaps 50%. Remove obsolete statements and leave only statements made by neutral third parties.

Looks like mainstream medias from NATO countries, or Russia, or Georgia all should be considered non-neutral after the prolonged information war that followed the conflict. NGOs are also biased. We may rely on numbers, that come from several different sources, but no analytics is neutral.FeelSunny (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While noone will ever be perfectly neutral, there are different shades of grey. Russian and Georgian sources should obviously not be trusted on their own, since they are the combatants (and thus have a reason to lie about the casualties). Western media could possibly be biased, but there is much less of an incentive to misstate the numbers. Finally, organisations such as HRW or the UNO can be expected to be almost perfectly neutral. --Xeeron (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the August report from the HRW is far from being neutral. Neither I find the very organization neutral. It is U.S. based. It is U.S. funded. It employs former U.S. military officer (BTW the one that helped to bomb Serbia) for studying Georgian attack. I do not find this neutral, as I do not find US position neutral in this war. I may discuss the discource HRW uses in the report and prove it is a very pro-Georgian document. I think though, international NGOs like Amnesty International or UN agencies are quite neutral.FeelSunny (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So, any ideas on how to proceed with this chapter? The main goal is to summarize the content of the chapter. Offliner (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should give two versions of misbehaviour during the war, one for both side. Then give all refugee numbers provided by the sides, clearly stating who has left (Ossetians or Georgians).FeelSunny (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea. Offliner (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Infrastructure damage

Seems a bit long.

• Discyssion about responsibility for the war and starting it
• International reaction
• Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia
• Judicial reaction
• Cyberattacks
• Censorship of the media

Are those Russian websites still blocked in Georgia?

• NATO ships in the Black Sea

Are those ships still there?

Hard to find information on this, but the source I just added seems to confirm (indirectly) that some US ships are still there. Offliner (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This[3] definitely seems to confirm that NATO ships were still there in November. And because this[4] still talks about US ships in the Black Sea, and doesn't say the ships have been withdrawn, I think we can safely conclude that the ships are still there. Offliner (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A little bit strange perspective! ;) There are always NATO ships in the Black Sea! Bulgaria, Romania & Turkey are NATO members. Turkey alone permits the transit of (Non) Black Sea Countries' warships through the Straits toward Black and Mediterranean Sea under the conditions of the Montreux Convention. Elysander (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you understand already that we are talking about the additional NATO ships deployed there in response to the war. Offliner (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did only read: NATO ships were still there in November. And i say there are always NATO ships in the Black Sea. Warships of NATO Non Black Sea countries were in the Black Sea before the Russo-Georgian War and they will be there after this war inside the limitations given by Montreux Convention. Sometimes they made friendship visits in Russian ports til the war too. But today Russian state media and its fellow travellers talking about a response to the war. ; - Elysander (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that section is that it is basically reporting on 2 different things: 1. US ships being in the black sea 2. That leading to "fears of a military confrontation" (for the lack of better wording) between russian and US navies there. For 1. as well as 2. we have good sources for the time of the war. Regarding present day, the rian article is not really useful for 2., since it is (being an outspoken opinion piece) rather a primary than a secondary source. I found this source which is both more detailed and also a secondary one with respect to 2. --Xeeron (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Military equipment and analysis

Personally I would still expand the analysis part a bit.

• Georgian order of battle
• Military instructors and alleged use of foreign mercenaries

Russian prosecutor spoke few weeks ago about a "very small number" but didn't say any figures ... except the usual hoax: " a Latvian female sniper" :))) -

• Russian-South-Ossetian and Russian-Abkhazian order of battle

Considering the lead is arguably neutral unbiased and overall good quality, may be we should remove the tag of neutrality, and possibly tag some sections rather than the whole article. (Igny (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Is a "separatist" the correct term for countries, that breaked away 17 years ago, have army and constitution? How about de-facto independency?--93.80.103.81 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas also has constitution and militia. If it decides to break away from USA, it will be considered a separatist state (not a country). I do not see anything wrong with the term. (Igny (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Unless, say, Mexico recognizes it as an independent country.FeelSunny (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with most of the list above, so I'll simply comment on the cases where I don't:

• Post-conflict incidents, while important, do not fall under the scope of this article, especially since there is another article that fits the bill
• Casualties: Why does this need to be separate from the infobox? Unless there is a good reason to descibe the casualties in detail, I don't see the reason for this section to exist. --Xeeron (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a good idea to have additional information about the casualtes, where they occured, etc. It gives the reader a better picture about the fighting and how it went, expanding on the main narrative about the active stage of the war. One day, I hope we will also have more numbers about equipment losses, and when that happens we can put them in that chapter. About the post-conflict incidents, I guess you're right. We could probably remove that chapter. Offliner (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Casualties ... I am surprised to see this bad joke still in article. This subsection should be removed. What is "official" can be read in the infobox ( with references!!) . What remains is a collection of hearsay, rumours etc. - but without any references too. IMO both sides seemed to make an unofficial "agreement" not to reveal the real extent of losses but these estimations don't belong to article today - as happens now with Reneem's speculations. If we are getting reliable sources which contradict the official figures it's time to reinsert casualities. Elysander (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What recognition means? What changes?

1. I think we should check the international law onrecognition and find what does Russian recognition of SO leaglly changes, what does NATO states recognition of Kosovo legally changes. I mean, not just the Times editorial board thoughts, but the real international conventions on the matter created by international community. Maybe check some international conference, safety, or post WWII conferenses, I don't know.
2. We should check the international law definition of independence and give it in the WP. WP does not give one yet.FeelSunny (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What is "international law" for you? It is not like there is an "world state" that makes laws for everyone, so you got to be more specific. --Xeeron (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I think about when I say "international law": Public international lawFeelSunny (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Humanitarian impact

This chapter is still in timeline form, and almost all of it's statements were useful at the time but are obsolete now. I don't think there is that much essential stuff to keep. Offliner (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of the (in my opinion) obsolete stuff from the chapter, leaving only two statements from HRW and Amnesty. All of the removed stuff can still be found in Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Clear Field

I think we should start a separate article about Georgian plan of war itself. Describing timing, goals, giving the information on when did Georgian authorities start planning etc. In light of many speculations that the war itself was started/ provoked by Russians, one should know, for example, for how long did the Clear Field plan existed, and what was the initial scheme of war, as planned by Georgians. FeelSunny (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, be bold and create the article, be prepared to defend it though. But I think it should not be a problem considering this discussion. (Igny (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Background section

I think that the line beginning with "In June 1920..." should somehow mention preceding events covered in another article, "Georgian-Ossetian conflict (1918-1920)". On the whole, the article seems quite good and well-balanced, which is a great improvement since the last few months. 83.149.19.70 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the former statement:) FeelSunny (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename

So far every effort at making the necessary rename has gotten bogged down in ridiculous disputes, but I think now there's a title which doesn't have much for people to object to finally. There is now only one name being used that gets more than a few hundred current articles and that's August War. Since this makes no reference to russia or Georgia there probably won't be any neutrality issues. Whether this ends up being the title of choice or not "August War" is presently a far more suitable title for the article than the one in use now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"August War" doesn't sound very descriptive. If someone (who has no idea what the war is called) want's to look it up in Wikipedia, it is unlikely that he will type "August War" into the search box. I'd keep the old name for now. Offliner (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As other people pointed out before me, the search box is not an issue, since we would have a redirect for all names that person might sensibly type in. It is about which name is a good title for the article. ::Hmmm, do I have the stamina for this discussion right now??:: --Xeeron (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google News results sound to me more like "the war fought in August" than "The August War," although it's hard to be entirely sure when dealing with the telegraphic style of speech normally used by journalists. I think the conflict is too recent to have acquired a proper name, as opposed to a 'taxonomic' one like that which we're currently using. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For christ's sake, Devil's Advocate, will you ever rest in peace?? =) Well, actually i wouldn't have objected to "August war", but... honestly, Advocate, it IS not very descriptive. Do you really see so much of a problem in current title as to warrant this change? :: (pre-doom near-apocalyptic hi-tech robotic calm female voice) Warning! Warning! Article rename attempt detected. Attempt Liquidation Teams - advance to your posts. Everyone else - duck and cover - i repeat - DUCK and COVER! =) :: 212.192.164.14 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

August war has the advantage of being perfectly POV neutral. However, it is not very descriptive (but the current title fails here as well, not mentioning the fighting in Abkhazia, Georgia proper and the Black Sea). All of that is only a secondary concern for me though: My opinion is still that we should use the most common name for the article. --Xeeron (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"August war has the advantage of being perfectly POV neutral." I agree, Xeeron. What concerns me, though, is that after this rename someone might come, see it, and say "August war is just plain dumb, let's rename to next popular title aka War in Georgia..." and the bottle with evil genie of tedious rename discussion will be uncorked again. I have the stamina, but i'd prefer not reliving this traumatic experience.

But hell with it. I say (WEAK OPPOSE). I still think that this rename is, at least, unnecessary, and i urge everyone else to think twice before agreeing with it. But all i require for saying "agree" is following conditions to be met:

1. Popularity of "August War" must be proven. Google and Google News stats must be provided here along with links, which generated them, and they must show significant advantage over current title.
2. The rename itself must occur not earlier than 4 weeks after all editors express their agreement. If someone else has something against renaming from "South Ossetia war" i want them to have their chance.

What do you think about that, guys? 212.192.164.14 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as the current name is 1) in line with what happened (main conflict zone), 2) ferlects numerous sources (next to noone adresses the "August war") and 3) is easy to find. FeelSunny (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia was merely the first attack, as there was also Abkhazia which, frankly, was the more serious loss to Tblisi. Even if it wasn't, S. Ossetia is only half the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.36.175 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Another rename thread. What're we on, 100 pages now? Let's recap here: most of the fighting occurred on South Ossetian Soil. The Battle of Tskhinvali eclipsed the other battles. Georgia's unprovoked attack was against South Ossetia. It was Georgia's attack on Tskhinvali, on the Russian Base and on the Roki Tunnel which provoked the response. All three were located in South Ossetia. Furthermore, the Second Chechen War involved Dagestan, but I have yet to see anyone complain about that name not mentioning Dagestan. And Xeeron, you and I had a discussion on how the Black Sea incident didn't occur, and now you shift gears and saying it did occur? Your previous quote was that it may have occurred. You don't get to name wars on what may have occurred. As for Georgia losing Abkhazia, isn't the loss of its entire army more damaging to Georgia then the loss of Abkhazia? Not to mention that Georgia lost the Kodori Valley in this war, it lost Abkhazia a while ago. 68.165.18.113 (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about responsibility for the war and starting it: Restructuring

Gents, would anybody mind if I take a crack at restructuring the "Discussion about responsibility for the war and starting it" section. Right now it's structured around the type of statement source. I think it would be more useful to structure it by what those statements support (or seem to support): Georgia's fault, Russia's fault, or Ossetians' fault. Speaking fish 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaking fish (talk • contribs)

If you ask me, I would keep the current form. Structuring into "Georgia's fault"/"Russia's fault" sounds like an oversimplification. Offliner (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Irregulars

Does anyone have at least approximate numbers for irregulars (volunteers, mercenaries, etc) involved on both sides? Like, strengh, casualties, etc.?--SergeiXXX (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OSCE monitors

The section seems too big now. It takes just as much place as the whole August 7 section. While the latter describes the day of the beginning of the conflict, the former is just about two accounts (I agree, they are important) from OSCE monitors and an argue about one of them being or not wrong going on a self-appointed duty. I propose cutting the section's text leaving only main points:

1. One OSCE member testimony abt first days of the war (main points);
2. Another OSCE member position (main points);
3. Allegations again the first one made after the onflict (in bfief, no need to cite the whole interview here, really).FeelSunny (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A misinterpretation. All what we have read about was made public after war. None of us has read the original accounts - we know those only filtered - by Grist and journalists. Ryan Grist has obviously spread single pre-selected (by him) "ground reports" (not released by OSCE) over the whole world to support his personal view of the conflict. First we have known from Grist's activities action was end of August (SPIEGEL / WaPo); the topic was "re-imported" by NYT months later. In Dec. 2008 Grist's acting was disputed (partially by himself) and his reputation was generally compromised. To war article belongs minimum: a correct chronology, Grist in NYT, reaction by Georgian government (citing other inofficial accounts), conflict inside OSCE mission (Hakala vs. Grist), WSJ report in Dec. 2008. - Elysander (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Every time when there is a press release which negatively impacts Georgia's point of view you turn it upside down by alleging that that was a POV rather than an official statement. Were Grist's reports officially denied by the OSCE? All I could find was Georgians accusing Grist of spying. Was this what you referred to when you said "compromised"? (Igny (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Elysander: what is your point? Your list of what should be included doesn't really differ from what FeelSunny is proposing or from what is there currently. That Grist pre-selected reports to support his own personal view is, of course, your personal opinion - why are you telling us that? As for me, I think we could still trim this chapter by about 20% by using better summary style. Offliner (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A new to-do list

Imho, since the last time we had one, the article has (again) come a long way and most of it now looks like something I would be happy with as a final version. So, what is still left to do:

Specific stuff:

• Naming section: This should be expanded from a simple list to include some explanations (e.g. Russia uses this name, Georgia that, western media name no3, the UN no4, etc)
• post conflict incidents: The only section I am still unhappy with, should be moved to the more appropriate Georgian–Ossetian conflict

General stuff:

• Now that the most of the content is (hopefully) stable, it would be a good idea to get some native speakers to do a major revision of the language. Most of the editors here are not native speakers and it painfully shows. No part of the article is written "nicely" and some parts are filled with very basic and ugly English.
• A big revision of sources: During the scramble to add content, tons of sources were added. Now is the time to go and check them all. Is every source still online? Is every source valid according to WP:SOURCE? Are there non-English sources that are redundant or can be replaced with English ones? Is every source correctly cited? Is every sourced statement actually backed up by the source that goes with it?

The sources are maybe the most important part and this should be done before reviewing the language.--Xeeron (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also ask you both, people, to try and go a little further (not as far as WP:OR, of course) and check if the info after either Georgian, Western or Russian sources given is reflecting all versions of actual events, not only one of them. For example, I have seen several Georgian sources claiming Russian forces occupied Gori on August 13, for example, while Georgian Minister of Reintegration argued day later Georgian forces are in control of the city. This was not mentioned in some articles on the matter, even now it is not in some of them. In cases like this we should of course give reference to both versions. I'll try to do what I can, though I can not afford spending too much time editing right now. Regards FeelSunny (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I think bad English really is one of the biggest problems at the moment. Another thing I'm still not satisfied at is the summary I left in the humanitarian impact chapter. The chapter should be about the humanitarian impact, i.e. what happened to civilians, but the three statements left there are only about the "blame game." Perhaps we should at least reiterate the civilian casualty numbers from the infobox in that section. If the chapter stays as it is, we need to change its title to something like "alleged violations of international law", or something like that. Offliner (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this title

Since it seems inevitable that any new name proposal will receive a flood of opposition from anonymous users giving horrible or biased arguments with little if any quality input sufficient to make the change occur I think it is more appropriate that we focus on whether a rename is needed. As per Wikipedia naming conventions for events if there is not a common name for an event then the title should be descriptive. This is the only reasonable argument being given in favor of the current title, but let's look specifically at what needs to be included:

In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors:

• Where the incident happened.
• What happened.

If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, a third descriptor should be added:

• When the incident happened.

The bolded part here is crucial. Those supporting the current title as being appropriately descriptive argue that most of the fighting occurred in South Ossetia as well as most of the deaths. The problem is that the only reason there was not more fighting and death outside of South Ossetia is because the Georgians fled from all other areas. Gori however saw around a dozen deaths among police forces and the naval battle of Abkhazia probably saw some 30 people killed on the Georgian side. There were also two deaths in the Kodori Valley. So even that argument is flawed. The fact is even though most of the actual fighting took place in South Ossetia there was massive military action outside South Ossetia.

Russia and Abkhazia were bombarding the Georgians for days and finally sent in troops. They then sent thousands of troops into Georgia proper from Abkhazia. Their invasion into these territories included the destruction of military equipment, including much of Georgia's navy, and even the capture of soldiers. Ultimately it wasn't really a battle because the Georgian security forces fled from the Russians, but the fact is there was military action being taken against Georgia in these areas involving several times the number of troops in South Ossetia.

All these factors considered the current title simply isn't descriptive enough. The loss of the Kodori Valley was a highly significant development and yet the current title suggests the only significant developments were in South Ossetia. The actions outside South Ossetia were not minor events like the actions from Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan in the ongoing Gaza conflict, but large military operations targeting Georgian military forces outside South Ossetia.

While some argue that the current title is neutral it's clear if you look at past rename discussions that the current title is supported by some pro-Russian users who argue the conflict was about South Ossetia and not Georgia, despite the Russian government being clear that Georgia in general was the target of Russian operations. I for one do not care what new title is chosen as long as it is descriptive and neutral. As long as a new title acknowledges the substantial developments in Western Georgia I won't have a problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The title should be changed to Include the developments in Abkhazia. My proposal:

The August War 

This is what Russia calls this war, and this title includes all fronts and sides. --SergeiXXX (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• "South Ossetia war" -Wikipedia in Google: 40,700 hits
• "August war" -Wikipedia in Google: 71,700 hits --Xeeron (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

August war 497 000 pages in Google in Russian, War in Ossetia - 2 260 000, 5,5 times more.FeelSunny (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but "August war" sounds like the stupidest name possible. What if this year there is another big war in August, say, between Israel and Iran. Then we would have to call our war "2008 August war" and the latter "2009 August war". Perhaps there will be a "2010 August war" as well, and so on. That would be ridiculous! There is no real reason to change the current title: the war began in South Ossetia, South Ossetia was the main battleground. "2008" is the year this happened. Many sources use this term, many use something else, there is still no consensus in the media. There is plently of time to wait for the consensus to arrive, there is no urgent need to change the title before that happens. As a sidenote, Kosovo war is also called "Kosovo war" (main battleground + "war"), although the americans launched bombing raids to all over Yugoslavia, destroying much of the country's infrastructure in the process. Offliner (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

<South Ossetia was the main battleground> Not really, it wasn't. There was a lot of fighting going on in Abkhazia at the same time, as well as naval battles on Black Sea as well. Also, cities of Poti and Gori were taken by storm and briefly occupied by Russian forces. None of this is even mentioned in the current title. --SergeiXXX (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about giving an argument that hasn't been repeated dozens of times before? This war did not merely have airstrikes in other territories, but battles and ground operations. The two simply aren't comparable. If the U.S. had also sought to liberate Vojvodina and sent troops there and even into parts of Central Serbia do you think it would be called the Kosovo War? As it stands South Ossetia War is the least common title which has been proposed and is not sufficiently descriptive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, like Iraq and Syria war, for example? Here is an example of the US invasion in Syria during the war in Iraq: [5] this includes an airborne, special forces and airforce attacks on Syria. Or should it better be about the main field of operations, just 2003 invasion of Iraq? Or, maybe, you would also prefer the naming War in Afghanistan and Pakistan (2001–present) instead of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). The same source I provided (Telegraph.co.uk) claims the war in Afghanistan has spead to the Pakistan now. Same forces included.FeelSunny (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So which province of Syria and Pakistan has been recognized as independent by the US now? How many Syrian and Pakistani cities got temporarily occupied by the US? How many Pakistani navy units sunk? There is a clear difference. --Xeeron (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, "occupied provinces" is your own invention or did some Georgian president gave you an idea? Please let me see a UN resolution claiming these lands are "occupied" as with Gaza, for example. And, Xeeron, stop playing words: noone told that Abkhazia was equal to Syria, as Iraq, of course, does not equal to Georgia. But the analogy is there: US fought in Iraq and Syria (taken as geographical regions) against Iraq government actions, Russia fought in Abkhazia and south Ossetia (taken as geographical regions) against Georgian gov-t. One of the areas of conflict was by far the primary, much more important one. Iraq in one case, Abkhazia in another. This one gives the name to the corresponding article. FeelSunny (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you questioning yourself or me? And whoever spoke of "occupied provinces"? I feel the one who invented them was neither me, nor an Georgian president, but you yourself.

This war did have real and substantial events outside South Ossetia. The change of control of the Kodori valley, the sinking of good parts of the Georgian Navy, the temporary occupation of Poti and Gori. Nothing in Syria or Pakistan compares to that, which is also why the above naming comparison is flawed. --Xeeron (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

What about moving this to Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Article title? Seems to be the right place, but that subpage has fallen into disuse. Still, we should either have the title discussion there instead of here OR remove the template up here on the talk page. Not sure which page would be better, but I am worried by the fact that some previous outspoken opponents of the move have not responded yet. Eventually one might conclude from the lack of opposition that the move has consensus, but it might also be that these people simply missed the new section. --Xeeron (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The subpage is for discussing what title should be used, not whether there should be a rename.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Naval Battles in the Black Sea? Last time I checked battles meant plural. There was a single engagement in the Black Sea. Also, according to the Georgian ORBAT found by Russian forces, the Georgians had 75% (roughly) of their army deployed in South Ossetia. I'd say that's exactly where the fighting was. 68.164.237.54 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as the events in Abkhazia hardly drawn .0001 percent as important to most medias as the events in South Ossetia. In Abkhazia there was no war as such, Gerogian army just fled from Kodori george. In SO there were several days of fighting between the SO, Russian and Georgian armies. FeelSunny (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed obsolete chapter

The following chapter has been there for ages without anyone updating it. I strongly suspect that the info in it is obsolete, so I decided to remove it. Not much point in keeping obsolete and thus false information in Wikipedia. Here's the text, in case someone wants to post an updated version: Offliner (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of the media

{{update}} Russian cable TV stations and websites with addresses ending in .ru have been inaccessible in Georgia since the outbreak of the fighting on August 8, as reported by Reporters Without Borders on September 10, 2008. The Georgian authorities cut all access to Russian TV station broadcasts. Temur Yakobashvili, the minister for reintegration, publicly claimed responsibility the blocking. Georgia’s leading ISP, Caucasus Online, was filtering the Russian domain name “.ru” thereby blocking access to the main Russian-language news websites .

Whoa, remove the template, not the very section, mate:)) FeelSunny (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. See my edit. Offliner (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to see, from where moskow will gahter 3000 corpses and identify them as georgian soldiers .... It is so silly, Moscow behaves really unprofessional and like a 12 years old amateur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.43.176 (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Long live the cavalry attacks!!:))FeelSunny (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Military buildup accusations

I expanded the prelude part a bit to include more military buildup accusations by each country. I think this is an important subject, so that the reader knows the war didn't come out of the blue - both countries seem to have made clear preparations. I also added Russian peacekeeper numbers in May, 2008 to "background." The military buildup subject wasn't discussed extensively enough in the earlier version (also the timeline and background articles seem to be lacking in this respect.) My additions could probably use better summary style, though. Offliner (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

refugees numbers

are just plain wrong and do not correspond to the sources.

E.g. the source [6] claims: "The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has reported the number of people displaced by the conflict had reached 158,600". what we find in the article? "Georgia: At least 158,000 civilians displaced[36]"; then "South Ossetia: Displaced from South Ossetia to Russia: Russian estimate, 30,000. РКЦ estimate: 24 000".

How comes? I mean, that's cool word playing in the article, but we all know that UN High Comissioner did not say "displaced Georgian people", right?

Where are other 87 thousands people? (158 000 affected - 56 000 Georgians from Gori - 15,000 Georgians from South Ossetia) = 87 000. Are they just like ghosts or something? There are more of them than those Georgians who left Gori and SO altogether. How is it everybody just forgot about them? Or are they just Ossetians we do not count as victims? FeelSunny (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cost of fuel

Do you have the original article in Nezavisimaya Gazeta? The short summary in RIA claims "the bulk of Russia's spending in South Ossetia, 1.2 billion rubles ($48.8 mln) per day, went on fuel" which is very incredible. Even if every single one of the 15.000 Russian soldiers had used a separate vehicle (unlikely) that amounts to $48.8m/15000=$3253 per vehicle per day. If there is any chance of the numbers being right, they must have included the aircraft and navy that operated outside of South Ossetia, but even then it is hard to believe. --Xeeron (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the original, but here is some more info: [7]. About the positioning of the new chapter: I've would still prefer placing it after "infrastructure damage", since damage to the Georgian military was one of the major "damages" of the war, and destroying Georgia's military capability was one of Russia's main goals all along. Also, "occupation of gori", etc. describes the destruction of Georgian military infrastructure, so we shouldn't the let the reader wait until the end of the article to know what was the result of this action. Offliner (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that link is a forum entry, so not all that valuable, but it still reports that (an unnamed) Russian MoD expert called the data incorrect.

For the placement, all "military stuff" like weapons used, units, etc is at the end of the article so it fits there better. In my mind, the exact amount of money spent by Russia, while nice to have in the article, is not all that important (and the counting of individual planes downed is totally unimportant). The only sentence out of the whole section that has relevance for the article as a whole is the first one. --Xeeron (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the aircraft losses not being important. They are the most expensive equipment in the theatre. Probably all of the downings resulted in casualties and/or prisoners of war. Also, listing the aircraft losses informs the reader on how the air war went. Aviation being arguably the most important part in modern war. As a proof of their their importance, take a look at the many news analysis pieces discussing them. Of course, in a perfect world, we would be able to list all equipment losses (tanks, apcs, etc.) in this article, but unfortunately there are no numbers for those. In my view, dropping aircraft losses out of this article would be totally foolish. About the positioning: I still thing "military damage" is a kind of infrastructural damage and thus goes best right below "infrastructure damage." Offliner (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting dropping it. For those interested it is good information. However, it is far from essential. As to why I feel it fits better with the military topics: Military losses are different from infrastructure losses. They allow a comparison of the military power and ability of the opposing forces. For that they should be combined with information about the equipment of both sides, e.g. losing 10 airplanes while having superior numbers and material is different from losing 10 airplanes while being outnumbered and outgunned. Lastely, there is a big moral difference in infrastructure and military losses: In a war, it is at least morally neutral to shoot down opposing military forces and could be interpreted as being morally good, since soldiers are supposed to do so. Damaging infrastructure is the opposite: The less damage an army causes to infrastructure (while achieving the same result), the higher my regard for that army would be. --Xeeron (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Any news on this? I tried to find the data mentioned ("The estimate, based on figures from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies...") on the CAST homepage, but could not find them. --Xeeron (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, this CAST piece is quite valuable in information we are currently lacking. Failures and achievements of individual branches of the Russian/Georgian military are pointed out. It also contains info on the South Ossetian deployment and Russian aircraft losses. --Xeeron (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like one of the most interesting articles on the war I've seen. Let's see how we can integrate the information to our article. Offliner (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lokshina

In the info. box there is a statement saying that one HRW reporter, Lokshina, stated that the number was fewer then 100. However her report was relatively early and she also said that "it was impossible to determine the precise number of casualties at this point". Later reports disproved Lokshina, so why the heck is she still in the info box? Isn't there some kind of wiki rule where later more accurate reports trump earlier inaccurate ones? Lokshina should be removed from the info. box, considering that even she said that her claim was not backed up by factual evidence. 68.164.237.54 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Estimates by uninvolved parties are preferable to those of involved parties. Obviously, if HRW does release new numbers, the new HRW numbers should replace the old ones (UN or similar would also do). Newer Russian or Georgian figures should not, since both sides have an incentive to bias their numbers upwards for own civilian and downwards for own military casualties. --Xeeron (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed this statement in particular due to undue weight to the early unsubstantiated reports. (Igny (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Interesting how "Western Sources" avoided this piece by Lokshina: "Tskhinvali is coming back to life.

Some ethnic Georgians did choose to stay despite the conflict. Those in Tskhinvali are mostly elderly people who have been living here for years. Misha, 69 years old, used to teach science at South Ossetia's only university. A former boxer, he runs five miles a day and puts many youngsters to shame. During the war in the early nineties, his wife and kids left for Georgia proper and never came back. But Misha could not even imagine moving - Tskhinvali was his home. Until this August, Misha has been visiting his family in Tbilisi several times a year. Now, he has no idea if he will ever get to do this again. Misha's apartment in the city centre is quite spacious, full of books, papers, and rubble. He jumps round like a rubber ball, bringing crackers, pointing at old photographs on the walls. When most Tskhinvali residents fled to North Ossetia, Misha stayed put. His sister Raisa had come to stay from Tbilisi, and the two sat listening to the not-so-far-away sub-machine gunfire and grenade explosions, watching TV, and discussing how utterly unwelcome another war would be."

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/18/south-ossetia-aftermath-war

So if Russians are evil, that gets printed, but if it's a positive story, from the same exact damn person, the "Western Media" suddenly forgets all about it. Interesting. 68.164.150.212 (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Background" section

Lacks any comment on the Georgian invasion in Russia in 1918, and Georgian attempts to occupy Sochi at the time. Georgian Mensheviks were not saints, they were just nationalists.FeelSunny (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole background section should be trimmed down a bit. Do we really have to start the explanation from so far back in time? I'd say we can start from the line "Amidst rising ethnic tensions, a military conflict broke out in January 1991", and move everything that comes before that to the separate background article. What do you say? Offliner (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

An alternative would be to go back to medieval times. What's about the relationship between the Ossetians and Kartli-Kakheti? I think it is as relevant as the 1918-1920 conflict. (Igny (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Instead of waiting forever for a consensus, I just went ahead and removed the part. The removed text can still be found here: User:Offliner/SO war background. Offliner (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal done by Offliner. However, the material should be added to Georgian–Ossetian conflict (unless it is already present there). --Xeeron (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also support, the content removed was irrelevant.FeelSunny (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hostilities escalated in 2008"

I think hostilities between the belligerents escalated during the whole year 2008, not just during the summer months. If you read the "Accusations of military buildup" chapter, you'll notice that many of the accusations were expressed in April, which was spring. Of course, it is debatable what the term "hostilities" really means in this context. Does it mean only actual shelling and sniper fire, or does it include saber rattling and "preparing for war"? I'd like to know why Elysander insists on keeping the sentence saying that hostilities increased during the summer only. Offliner (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry .. to remind you that you did start changes in leader. Watching the timeline before August 7 the difference between spring and summer 2008 (espec. July til war's start) is significant. The escalation in summer was already topic in Russian state media; some observers spoke before war's "official" start of Russian "war orchestrating" in public media. Open escalating hostilities, mutual attacks on officials, civilians' evacuation in S.O. ( never done before) etc. show the extraordinary escalation in summer 2008. - Elysander (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's content, I'd suggest keeping the sentence "Tensions increased during 2008" since the "accusations of military buildup" chapter definitely documents "rising tensions." To say "hostilities increased during the summer" would mean that the lead ignores the content of that chapter. Offliner (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to bring both ideas (that tensions increased even before summer 2008 and that the increase got worse in summer 2008) into one sentence with "Already increasing tensions escalated in summer 2008", but I am not perfectly happy with the wording. If anyone can say the same in better words, please step forward. --Xeeron (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving combatants?

USchick above mentioned reordering some of the sections. In particular, he suggested moving the combatants section up. I would not place it in front of the peace-agreement (since that would break up the flow of prelude->active stage->peace plan), but it could be placed in front of "humanitarian impact". On the plus side, this would bring the military details closer to the sections about fighting, this being the article about the war after all. On the down side, I feel the humanitarian impact is more important from a moral point of view compared to the material used. So I am torn between moving or not moving. Other opinions? --Xeeron (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Peacekeepers

I propose creation of such a section. It may include information on peacekeepers/ former peacekeepers actions in South Ossetia. AFAIK, PK kills by Georgia were also used by Russia as casus belli, and Georgian leadership later claimed they "regret" the PKs died. Here is the latest UN document on the status of the PK mission in Georgia: [8].FeelSunny (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The peacekeepers are already mentioned in the background section, in the prelude section in the active stage section and in the humanitarian impact section, so there is no need for a new section. If someone wants to add something about UNOMIG to any of these, they are welcome, though I prefer if someone who knows the difference between UNOMIG and those Russian peacekeepers that were stationed in South Ossetia does the editing. --Xeeron (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you claim this is not the UN document about the status of three-party PK forces in Georgia?FeelSunny (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Instead I claim that you have no idea that there were two groups of peacekeepers in Georgia, UN mandate ones and JCC mandate ones, leading to you inserting a wrong fact in the lead. You could have easily found out about the later by reading the article here and following the link, or consult one of the sources mentioning them. I suggest you read up on the subject matter before you edit it into the article. --Xeeron (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To hell with it, Xeeron, I know what are UNOMIG and what are CIS PKF. The sentence present in the lead of the article perfectly reflects who mandates who and who supports who. Go and edit this if you think otherwise, but find some sources supporting you at last.FeelSunny (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You knew? So you deliberately inserted a wrong statement into the lead, together with an irrelevant source. --Xeeron (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, just added the source without carefully reading it. The mistake is mine, and it was corrected within several hours by me. I may ask several identical questions to you, but I won't look for edit summaries just b/c I'm bored to. Please better answer a question in the "Venn diagram" sectionFeelSunny (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FeelSunny, before you insert that line to the intro again, please:

1. Respond to my edit summary (especially this part: "It is furthermore questionable, since it unbalanced the POV of the lead")
2. Read UNOMIG
3. Read all your sources
4. Explain here why you think that quoting sources that deal with peacekeepers at the Abkhazian-Georgian border is in any way a justification for your sentence about peacekeepers in South Ossetia being mandated by either UN or CIS.

I want to point out that I am wasting a good amount of time trying to get you to understand the difference here, time which I could well use bettering other parts of the article. --Xeeron (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, you are not trying to understand the difference. Abkhazia and South Ossetia BOTH declared their independence from Georgia, after Georgia declared its independence from the RFSSR. Both have acted in unison against Georgia, vying for independence from Georgia. It's really not that complicated, for anyone wanting to understand it, that what applies to South Ossetia, applies to Abkhazia. Furthermore, after the 1990's war, CIS and UN mandated BOTH peacekeepers to be in the region, otherwise Georgia would have wiped South Ossetia off the map in the mid 1990's, when Russia lost the First Chechen War. You are not trying to understand Xeeron, you are simply trying to bait FeelSunny. 68.164.150.212 (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised that FeelSunny did revert first instead of answering my questions. Dear anon, can you please offer a source to back up the claim that "CIS and UN mandated BOTH peacekeepers to be in the region, otherwise Georgia would have wiped South Ossetia off the map"? The UN mandated UNOMIG, which was not the unit that was involved in Tskhinvali.

To put this bold and italic: I am trying very hard to understand how peacekeepers mandated by UN or CIS could be killed in Tskhinvali, when those units are only stationed at the border of Abkhazia, miles and miles away from the fighting, but I can't really. --Xeeron (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So I propose we just name them "10 Russian cervicemen of the Joint Peacekeepers Force in Ossetia", describe them being killed, and then add a footnote that will explain the mandate was officially given to this force, that included Georgian, Russian and South Ossetian servicemen, by bilateral Georgia-Russia Sochi accords of 1992, and that actions of this force were officially supported by UN resolutions, and UN recommended both Georgian and SO authorities to render assistance to their mission. Will this be an acceptable edit for you? Or do you beleive this contradicts the facts? If you think so, please state what namely is wrong about my proposal. Please see [9] - that's yet another source on their mandate.

Right now the article insludes not any "CIS mandate wording" and it will not until I'll go and find a source explicitly stating they had it. But let me tell you, that back in 2006-07 Georgian authorities claimed they will fight for depriving the Russian PK force of the CIS mandate.FeelSunny (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the current lead is to include no "blame game" at all, but simply state what happened. Since it's kind of hard to agree on what makes a neutral and balanced lead, I'd say we leave it as it is. Probably anyone who is interested enough in knowing what the war was about will have the patience to read the whole article and not just the lead. Offliner (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron you might wish to check out the Sochi Agreement: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sochi_agreement and from the agreement we get that: "The Agreement also created a Joint Control Commission and a peacekeeping body, the Joint Peacekeeping Forces group (JPKF). The JPKF was put under Russian command and was composed of peacekeepers from Georgia, Russia, and North Ossetia..." Now Xeeron, do you see the error of your ways? 68.166.129.126 (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You kept adding that they were mandated by the UN (wrong), by CIS (wrong), used a source about UNOMIG (irrelevant). I told you it was mandated by the JCC and a force different from UNOMIG all along. --Xeeron (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually that agreement was ratified by the UN, and thus mandated by the UN. You may wish to take lessons in International Law Xeeron, before making statements that you are clearly unqualified to make. Any agreement ratified by the UN, recieves a UN mandate to enforce. Furthermore, since Russia and Georgia were both CIS at the time of the 1992 treaty of Sochi, it was also, via default, mandated by the CIS. Xeeron, please take a class in International Law. 68.166.129.126 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Both being members of CIS meaning "via default, mandated by the CIS"? Nope. --Xeeron (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Xeeron, I will clarify. The treaty was ratified by the UN, and both countries ratifying were CIS. Thus, Russia can argue that since the mandate of the CIS, is similar to that of the UN, that a treaty willingly entered into, and mandated by the UN, is also mandated by CIS, because the mandate of the CIS, works to improve relations via these kinds of treaties. Thank you for quoting me out of context. 68.164.117.190 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If by "Furthermore, since Russia and Georgia were both CIS at the time of the 1992 treaty of Sochi, it was also, via default, mandated by the CIS." you did not mean "Both being members of CIS meaning "via default, mandated by the CIS"", what DID you mean? Your clarifying reply did not clarify anything for me. --Xeeron (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant that when two countries, that are both UN members and CIS members, sign a multilateral treaty, then it is considered, by customary international law, that both, the UN and CIS have ratified the agreements. Furthermore, as can be seen via International Case Law, once a decision is made and not challenged, it becomes customary international law. Legalese aside, the Russian base, obtained via the treaty by open consent of both Georgia and Russia, and without objections for a period of X years from either country, the base was considered Russian soil and Georgians firing upon Russian soil, via the embassy & border international law, meant that Georgia has de facto declared war on Russia, and Russia could legally respond. The question in international law at right now, is not whether Russia could respond or could not respond, but how far the Russians could go. The fact that Russians went into Georgia proper is a negative factor, that is balanced out by a positive factor, HRW's statement on Russians taking care of Georgian Civillians, and while it is still a debated question, most international lawyers believe that Russia has met her international obligations and has acted legally correct. In addition, Russia's conduct throughout the war, puts it at no question that Russia was morally correct. Just to top it off, Russia had reasonable concerns to defend her borders, as has been seen by the Georgian attack against the Roki Tunnel. Does that clarify it Xeeron, or would you like a full legal brief on the issue? 68.164.117.190 (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies your position for me. However I would like to see some sources for your claims, since they are questionable to me (especially the 1st, 3rd to last & 2nd to last sentences). --Xeeron (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Subsection OSCE Monitors

1) According to Mr. Grist, it was Georgia that launched the first military strikes against Tskhinvali. - Can the editor who was inserting this sentence explain the sense? Who else should have attacked Tsk. at this time? Georgian side says its attack on Tsk. was the response to strikes against Georgian villages and Russian crossing Roki tunnel, Russian side says it was an unprovoked act of war. But who says Georgia didn't start the first strikes against Tsk.?

2) These briefings were confirmed by three Western diplomats and a Russian, and were not disputed by the OSCE's mission in Tbilisi.[225] - Which briefings? Please distinguish between single ground reports and Grist's briefings for diplomats in Tblis. What shall the diplomats confirm? What Grist responsible for the briefings did tell them? The source Hindu.Times seems strange to me, it's only a copy of the known and already in the subsection used NYT article. - Elysander (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1) "who says Georgia didn't start the first strikes against Tsk.?" One great war hero for instance: "During a news broadcast that began at 11 p.m., Mikheil Saakashvili announced that Georgian villages were being shelled, and vowed to restore Tbilisi's control by force over what he called the "criminal regime" in South Ossetia to "reinforce order". At 11:30 p.m. on August 7, Georgian forces began a major artillery assault on Tskhinvali"

2) I don't see your point. Offliner (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess what you really meant was "who says Georgia wasn't the first to attack Tskhinvali?" No one obviously. But what Grist's sentences means is "it was Georgia that launched the first strikes, when they attacked Tskhinvali." Offliner (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ad 1) Why not on first thought? The sentence is simply mistakable. Did you quote a source or is it your invention/misinterpretation of anything? If you know grist's exact claim, why didn't you formulate such a clear statement (with source)? - Elysander (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ad 2) I did change your selected sentence which was not linked to anything ( these? ) on the basis of the NYT article.

Do you realize that you're repeating the same thing a million times? "urged caution in interpreting too broadly..." = "monitoring activities in certain areas cannot provide comprehensive account" = "what 3 monitors heard from certain locations is 'a bit irrelevant'", etc.. All the sentences make the exact same point. How about leaving only one of them there? Or 2 at maximum. Offliner (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my interpretation of the "same thing" ia another than yours. After your edits (incl. your team) this section is anyway a mix of fragments, selected quotes, misinterpretations instead of paraphrasing as in nearly all subsections where you were editing. - Elysander (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Elysander, Russian moving troops within the Roki Tunnel, in no way, shape or form provokes an attack on a peaceful city. Furthermore South Ossetians lacked the weaponry to be shelling the Georgian positions, and considering that South Ossetians evacuated first, and Georgians evacuated only after Russians went in, it's pretty clear who launched the first strike. So if American troops move around the US-Mexico tunnels, do Mexicans get to war the US? Heck no, that's stupid, why does Georgia get to do it to Russia? 68.166.129.126 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite clear that Saakashvili is lying. And most international observers now seem to agree. If the Russian troops crossing the border through the tunnel was the reason for Saakashvili's massive attack, how come he had basically his whole army standing ready at the border when that happened? Also, what is the point of launching an artillery onslaught on Tskhinvali before the arrival of the Russians? Also, note the following. According to the Georgians, at 11:30 pm. (23:30) they received intelligence information that the Russians had came through the tunnel. Immediately thereafter, the Georgians launch their artillery assault. (At this point, it is clear that the Russians could not have reached Tskhinvali from the tunnel entrance in just a few minutes.) However, OSCE monitors on patrol saw the Georgians contentrating a huge number of Grad rocket launchers on the border at 03:00 pm (15:00) - over 8 hours before the Georgians claim Russian troops came through the tunnel! So either Saakashvili has a magical ability to see into the future, or - a more likely conclusion - the Georgians had decided to prepare and launch a massive attack long before any alleged "provocation."

If you consider the US-Mexico example, this would mean that: 1) immediately after "noticing" that the Americans are about to attack, the Mexicans mobilize their whole army in just a few minutes, concentrate everything to the border, and then 2) launch a massive attack on a village on the mexican side of the border before the Americans reach it. Not very realistic, and not very intelligent either. Why not just wait a few hours, so that it is clear to everyone that the Americans attacked first, since then you can scream to the whole world: "the evil Americans are trying to invade our peaceful, innocent free country!" and everyone would believe you. The tactical advantage of just a few hours cannot be worth that much. Especially since you're going to lose anyway if outside world isn't going to send you military help. Offliner (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

More interesting info

Here's some more very interesting info on the war from a military standpoint: The August War between Russia and Georgia It has lots of material which our article is still missing. Combine this with what Xeeron found earlier: [10] and we have a lot that we could add to our article from those sources. Offliner (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There first link I gave contradicts quite a lot of what we have in the Battle of Tskhinvali section:

"Meanwhile, Georgian forces were engaged in positional battles in Tskhinvali and its environs, but with the entry of Russian forces they stood no chance of success. Nonetheless, the slow passage of Russian forces toward Tskhinvali through the narrow Roki tunnel and along the narrow mountain roads, as well as the difficulties of quickly concentrating a significant quantity of Russian troops from various regions of the North Caucasus, created the impression of slow Russian deployment and the clumsiness of the Russian command. The fact is that they were compelled by circumstances to introduce their forces into battle batallion by batallion. For this reason, on Saturday, August 9, a fierce battle took place in the region of Tskhinvali, and the Georgians were able to mount several counterattacks, including some with tanks. They even resorted to ambush and partisan tactics, which succeeded in wounding the commander of the 58th Army Lieutenant General A. Khrulyov.

By the morning of August 10, the Georgians had captured almost the whole of Tskhinvali, forcing the Ossetian forces and Russian peacekeeping battalion to retreat to the northern reaches of the city. However, on this very day the accumulation of Russian forces in the region finally bore fruit, and the fighting in South Ossetia reached a turning point. Toward the evening of August 10, Tskhinvali was completely cleared of Georgian forces, which retreated to the south of the city. Georgian forces were also repelled from the key Prisi heights. The bulk of Georgia’s artillery was defeated. Meanwhile, Ossetian forces, with the support of Russian divisions, took Tamarasheni, Kekhvi, Kurta, and Achabeti on the approach to Tskhinvali from the north. Georgian forces in several of Georgian enclaves were eliminated."

Perhaps that section should be rewritten using this info. Offliner (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've integrated what I think are the most essential pieces into the Battle of Tskhinvali article. Any comments? Offliner (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Worked a bit more on that. What is surprising me is the lack of non-russian independant military analysis. Sure, you would not expect it from Georgia (I guess the country is not big enough to support independant military research), but what about the US? You'd think that someone there should be interested in analysis of Russian military actions. Is it simply a matter of us not finding it? --Xeeron (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Article was already released in Oct/Nov. 2008. Barabanov's general arguments on war reflect primarly Russian government's interpretations but nevertheless article's detailed informations are very useful ( obviously evaluating Russian military sources, time line for western front, units etc., military judgements). In Georgia military and governmental officials' testimonials took place before a parliamentary commission (summaries at civil.ge) in autumn presenting some useful informations: deficits in intelligence, errors & mistakes - but generally inside the usual governmental interpetation of war). Only exceptions from this rule can be found in this wiki article. ;) Perhaps it's too early to expect a true in-depth-analysis in print. End of July 2008 a final report of an investigation commission (financed by EU)on war led by a Swiss diplomat will be released. - Elysander (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The US has cut its budget and is fighting too many wars of its own. There's a financial crisis that limits how involved we can get in other people's affairs, for a change. It's a brand new day. ;-) USchick (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Satellite images of damage before and after August 10 in Tskhinvali [[11]] Actual satellite images from a UN source [[12]] USchick (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The lack of decent American military analysis really is surprising. Maybe its because they haven't got access to Russian military sources, or maybe it's simply because American journalists have the worst foreign language skills in the world. Or maybe all of their analysis is in subscription-only publications, such as Jane's or Stratfor. Offliner (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Most mainstream media articles seem to be interested only in high-flying geopolitics, and not care about what is actually happening on the ground militarily. Offliner (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead is factually wrong and other cosmetic changes

I didn't know there was consensus for the lead, and that no-one was allowed to edit it, but I made some changes which make the article read better such as:

The 2008 South Ossetia War (2008 Russia-Georgia conflict) consisted of an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, and Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.

was changed to:

The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.

Seeing as people now have to explain every change on this article, as ridiculous as it is....

• The first change ", also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, reads better and advises the reader that Wikipedia's name for the war is also known as.....
• "consisted of" changed to "was" because one would hope that there is "armed conflict" in a "war". It's pretty obvious there is, and there is no need to state the bleedingly obvious to the readers.
• "and Russia" changed to "with Russia" as a native English speaker can recognise it reads much betterer.
• Abkhazia is not a self-proclaimed republic, even Georgia recognises Abkhazia as a republic (an autonomous republic).
• Even if both South Ossetia and Abkhazia were self-proclaimed they are not "self-proclaimed" now. WP should not be a snapshot of a moment in time, otherwise I would expect Earth to describe a flat planet where ships fall off the edge if they venture too far.

A civil war fought after the breakup of the Soviet Union left parts of South Ossetia under the control of an unrecognised separatist government backed by Russia.

was changed to:

The 1991-1992 civil war in South Ossetia left parts of South Ossetia under the control of an unrecognised separatist government backed by Russia.

• The civil war started on 5 January 1991, the USSR did not officially breakup until 25 December 1991, so if this sentence as it was written is the result of consensus, consensus is factually wrong (this is an example of the problem of mob rule on WP).

I also removed several references as per WP:LEADCITE. In fact, it's my own opinion as an editor, that the lead of articles on WP should not require citations, as the lead is supposed to summarise the article, meaning all information in the lead should already be in the article itself. These particular sources have since been superseded by more current information...look back at the moment in time comment. Leave the comment, but the sources should be removed.

I'm not going to change the article, because we now have to debate, argue, throw accusations and WP:VOTE, and I hope that I didn't have to gain consensus to post here. (Joking) Signed, Putinista --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits there seem fine to me. The current lead is not sacred and everyone should be allowed to improve it, even without "consensus", as long as they don't add any blame game material, since leaving that out is the central idea of the lead at the moment. Offliner (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus! We should discuss the deletions and not the cosmetics! Shall we reopen the discussion about the status of S.O. and Abkh. at war's start in leader? Shall we delete the mention of SU or perhaps change the formulation? Fact seems to me civil war starts when SU was already a failing state and and ends when SU didn't exist. Such actions as above by russavia's 24-hours-account provoke only edit wars. And offliner seems to change his opinions about leader at his leisure. :)) - Elysander (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Elysander, could you please tell us exactly why you oppose Russavia's edit? Don't just revert due to "no consensus". "Changing the lead will provoke edit wars" is not a good argument either, since this edit was mostly about improving the language and being more exact. If you want discussion, participate in it yourself too. Offliner (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it was a WP:TEDIOUS edit because he can't assume good faith (I'm just a Putinista in his eyes). He doesn't WP:OWN the article, and consensus or not, WP:BOLD allows us to improve articles, and complete reverts are quite disruptive, even when a proportion of edits are clearly helpful to the average reader. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added after "after the breakup of the Soviet Union". They are adding in factually incorrect information into the article, even though they are well aware this discussion is here. Additionally, the "civil war" in South Ossetia needs to be changed to simply 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, as it was not a civil war in South Ossetia, it was Georgia who went to war with South Ossetia; or it needs to change to civil war in Georgia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I restored some of Russavia's wording changes, which I can't see as affecting POV in any way.
2. Please do not remove references from the lead. While uncontroversial topics might skimp on them due to aesthetics, in an article this controversial, thorough referencing is important, even in the lead.
3. I restored "civil war". The fact that it was a civil war had important consequences which influenced this war, therefore this needs to be established.
4. I removed "a then". The current formulation speaks in the past tense, so no further that word indicating the past is needed. "a then" might imply to most readers that it is recognised now, which is wrong, since it is only partially recognised.
5. On the topic of break-up of SU: If we include a reference to the previous & concurrent break-up of the SU, it needs to be factually correct. --Xeeron (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it further, the 1991-1992 war was not a civil war in South Ossetia, but rather a conflict between South Ossetia and Georgia. If it is a civil war it is a civil war in Georgia. To draw a parallel, it was not a civil war in Chechnya, but a war in Chechnya. So "civil war" should to be changed simply to "war" (the wikilink of the article title should suffice). I have also re-added the redlink - redlinks are important for downline article development, and the redlink is an important link for South Ossetia related articles which should be developed. We then come to "self proclaimed" problem.

Also, I rewrote the lead to:

The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict in August 2008, consisting of land, air and sea warfare, between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.

from

The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, was an armed conflict between Georgia on the one side, with Russia and the separatist self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other. It occurred in August 2008 and involved land, air and sea warfare.

To me as a native English speaker the version I introduced reads betterer. The version as it stands now, I myself, don't like short sentences like "It occurred in August 2008 and involved land, air and sea warfare." when it can be incorporated into a larger sentence as I did; it's a little too Simple English? --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The first conflict can be seen from 3 sides:

1. As a civil war in Georgia (with the Ossetians (in Georgia) fighting Georgians (in Georgia)
2. As a normal war (with Ossetia fighting Georgia)
3. As a civil war in South Ossetia (with South Ossetian Ossetians fighting South Ossetian Georgians)

While especially the first two are heavily loaded with POV concerns (Georgia would argue it was 1., Ossetians 2.), the one which is most important really is 3. If not for the sizable Georgian minority inside South Ossetia, both before, during and after the first war, the situation would have developed very differently. I dare even say we would not be discussing here, because the war would not have happened. If the "civil" is taken out of the lead, this point is entirely missing (note how the Georgian minority is not mentioned either). --Xeeron (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Language

As User:Xeeron pointed out some time ago, language and style are one of the biggest problems in the article at the moment. There are about a million clumsy wordings which should be fixed. Also, almost every chapter could use better summary style. I would happily go over them myself, but, as a non-native English speaker, I'm having a hard time getting the sentences sound right. Could some native speaker please take a look at the article's language? Where are all the Americans when you need them? Offliner (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

They are discussing Gaza operations now, I'm afraid. And I can quite understand their reasoning.FeelSunny (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am qualified to edit the language of the article. However, I'm having trouble understanding the nature of this article the same way I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of this war.

In order to make it useful for future generations, it may be helpful to take the existing information and reconfigure it to answer the following questions:

1. What happened?

2. When?

3. Where?

4. Who did what to whom?

5. What was the result?

6. What are the long-term ramifications?

The wording is not as confusing as the structure itself. That means rewriting almost the entire article. Any volunteers? USchick (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

5. and 6. are a bit hard to answer, since the war is pretty recent, so long-term results are not clear yet. However, points 1-3 are answered in the lead (and detailed in the following sections). If by 4. you mean "who is responsible", the answer differs depending on whom you ask. --Xeeron (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, while of course everyone is welcome to better the article, I feel that a native English speaker is needed most for the wording issues. --Xeeron (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

USchick:

1. Georgia moved into South Ossetian territorry, both sides scrimaged, Georgia launched an all out attack on Tskhinvali, Russia responded and checked the attack, then Abkhazia launched an exploitation attack to retake Kodori Valley, following by Russia routing the Georgian Army and making them speedy runners. 2. The month of August in 2008. 3. In South Ossetia primarily, also in Abkhazia [Kodori Valley] and Northernmost Georgia. There was also a naval engagement, but it was rather small, Georgian boat sunk, Russian ship damaged a bit. 4. Georgia used military force to get South Ossetia to give up its UN mandated autonomy, and the Russian military intervened on behalf of South Ossetia, routing the Georgians. 5. Total [Major] Russian Military Victory. Minor Russian Defeat in the Propaganda War, showing that Russian Media is poorly equipped to fight Murdoch, CNN, et al. 6. Stable Status Quo in the Caucasian Region. Georgia losing disputed territorries [Kodori Valley and some lands surrounding South Ossetia] to Abkhazia and South Osseita. Abkhazia will go for independence, South Ossetia will rejoin North Ossetia. Georgian military totally destroyed, other countries are hesitant to buy the same military weapons and training that the Georgian military used. Stable Caucasian Region. Shatterred economy in Georgia (it was already going downhill, but the war was the economy's Katrina, I figure since you're USchick - you'll get the metaphor). 68.164.150.212 (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I would like to make a suggestion and then let you discuss it among yourselves, as I have no interest in getting involved in heated debates on discussion pages. USchick (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

With the benefit of a short historical perspective, the article can use a brief summary with the rest of the facts reorganized to support it. I suggest the following introduction:

In August of 2008, an armed conflict erupted on the territory of Georgia that involved land, air, and sea battles with Georgian military forces fighting against South Ossetian, Russian, and Abkhazian military. Major battles took place in South Ossetia, Northern Georgia, and Abkhazia, with minor battles happening in the surrounding areas as well as in the Black Sea off the coast of Abkhazia. Political negotiations were led by NATO and the European Union with strong international support to end the hostilities. The war officially ended with a peace plan signed by Georgia and Russia and with no border changes taking place. As a result of the war, Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, an action that was rejected by Georgia. The environment in the region continues to be politically charged.

Thee rest of the information can be reorganized into categories that can later be edited for content. Now that we have all the information, let's decide what's important and how much of it needs to stay. Suggested categories:

History in the region

Timeline of military events

Major battles

Minor battles

Military combatants

Negotiation to end the conflict

Six Point Peace Plan

Local and regional impact

Humanitarian impact

International reaction

Political opinion

I will come back later to check on your progress. Feel free to disregard what I'm saying, but I really think this will improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. USchick (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

USchick - are you sure you are not at all biased? If you are not, please show me exactly what NATO did to bring the situation to a speedy resolution. Seems to me like you are just giving NATO credit it doesn't deserve, or trying to do so. Last time I checked it was France, the chair of the EU, negotiation with Russia over Georgia, not because France was in NATO, but because France chaired the EU. So if you can show me any NATO acts that improved the situation, that would be greatly appreciative. Otherwise, please stop claiming that NATO did something useful here. 68.166.129.126 (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to entice. How about: Political negotiations were led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Chair of the European Union with strong international support to end the hostilities.

What I'm suggesting is that the summary of the article is too involved in the step-by-step operations of the war and does not reflect a comprehensive explanation of how this event fits into world history. I'm not trying to trivialize what happened, and maybe it's too soon, but at some point this article will take its place in history as yet another unfortunate act of violence with massive losses and very few benefits. If you read the discussion pages in other languages, the other editors seem to be watching this page for leadership and adjusting their pages accordingly. I propose that at some point the editors on this page will take the leadership role and focus on the big picture. The petty fight has already taken place on the ground and we all lost. :-( (Unfortunately, some more than others.) USchick (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is precisely about the war that occured step by step, ergo the title, 2008 South Ossetia War. It is important for the reader to understand exactly what happened, step by step. If you want to, we can have a new article, about the big picture, and call it "The Effect of the 2008 South Ossetia War on the World" or something like that. For instance in the Serbian case, there is a "Kosovo Unilateral Independence" article, and one about "International Response to Kosovo's Unilateral Proclamation". Alternatively, we can devote a section of this article to the "Big Picture". But this article is primarily about the war, just as WWII article focuses more on the war, then the after-effects. Also, it is too early to talk about how the event fits into World History. Aside from the Caucasian Region, and a few men yelling, it hasn't had much of a ripple effect, which is not surprising, considering that it was primarily a Caucasian Region event. US and Russia just signed an anti-bin Laden Pact, or something like that, so I doubt this war has been too much of a strain on the Russo-American relationship. Also, I wouldn't say that the Russians lost, they've showed what happens to those that attack Russia, (Georgians did attack Roki Tunnel and a Russian Base, which is considered Russian Soil, just like an embassy) and have stabilized the region. This war could be a huge win for all of the Caucasian Countries, even Georgia, if the region is stabilized. Thus we don't know for sure. But we do know the fact by fact basics, and those are directly relevant to the article. However the Caucasian Region isn't the Mecca of Free Journalism, so it will take a while for news to disseminate from that region, in order for them to be integrated into this article. So let's keep it simple, and work with what we have. And if you don't want to trivialize USchick, don't call it petty. Your proposition is an interesting one, but I believe that it deserves its own article, and that this article should continue to focus on what has always been its focus. Just my two dollars/rubles/lari/ (Yeah I know it was cents, but consider that adjusted for inflation). 68.164.117.190 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That sure was a lot of devastation for it not to have a significant impact on the rest of the world! I understand what you're saying though about the importance of each step. If you're a student in school, skimming for information to write a report, and you run across this article, it seems like a lot of in-depth reading that can be summarized better so you can at least know what this war was about without reading the entire text. And after reading all that you still would never know that after all the bloodshed and destruction, no border changes took place and no power changed hands. Is that not significant? Only to me? USchick (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

De facto control of some land changed (Georgia lost control of parts of SO and the Kodori valley) and South Ossetia and Abk. status changed from being unrecognised to being partially recognised (by Russia and Nicaragua). I guess your basic point is, this article needs an "Aftermath" section. I very much agree with that, but it is really hard to come up with sources to base that section on. For example, we have just now found sources that describe the military action in more detail and even those are only from one side. Sources describing the political implications will take even longer to materialise. --Xeeron (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeeron's idea, that it should be a section and no more. However, creating such a section, right now is going to create a potential fight amonst the editors. One alternative is to create the section with different viewpoints describing the aftermath, namely Russia's, Georgia's and EU's. However the latter two would cause disagreement, as there is an anti-Saakashvili movenment in Georgia, and the EU has differing views, which can be remedied by saying that France's is the majority view (which it is) and there are two alternate views, one more pro-Russian and one radically anti-Russian, such as Poland's suggestion to partion nuclear Russia, but it should be noted that Poland's opinion, was as always, rather unique. 68.167.1.100 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming Redundancy

The article starts out by saying "2008 South Ossetia War, (2008 Russia-Georgia conflict)..." but then it also has a whole mini-section denoted to other names. I think this is very redundant, and the part in parenthesis above should be removed. 68.166.129.126 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Other articles keep it at both places. --Xeeron (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so if other articles are redundant, this one should be too? So if countries are invading other countries, it's ok to invade countries randomly? Is this your counter-argument? If so, I shall get rid of this redundancy. 68.164.117.190 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that if virtually every other article is doing it, they have good reasons for that. Of course we can go over these reasons here once more, if you demand. --Xeeron (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dearest Xeeron, a redundancy is when you restate your point, twice, in a row or nearly in a row, in the same article. The examples you have shown, don't have the redundancy. Our article lists two names in the begining, AND has a naming section. That's the redundancy. The WWII Article has no naming section. WWI Article moved the naming section to the title, it doesn't have the naming section twice. Russia is shortform for the Russian Federation. There is no shortform for our article, nor does Russia have a naming section. The Soviet War in Afghanistan Article, also LACKS A NAMING SECTION. Thus in our article, with the naming section, which is necessary for this unique article's purposes, restating the name 12 lines or so, prior to the naming section is redundant. Ergo I have removed it. 68.164.117.190 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I should have linked more articles with both a multiple lead naming and a naming section, not simply ones with a multiple lead naming. Looking at other articles again, the vietnam war is actually the only one (that I can find in a reasonable short search) with a naming section. All others list all names in the first sentence of the lead, so that seems to be the convention. We were both partially right: Vietnam war apart, the other articles do not have redundancies, but they also have the name in the first line. Conclusion: Remove the naming section and put those names in the first line instead. --Xeeron (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the first line works only if there are two names, whereas in our case there are at least four different names. Thus the first line needs to go and the naming section stays. 68.167.1.100 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned this earlier already: The naming section currently is nothing more than a list of names. To justify being a full section, it should really be more than that, detailing who used which name and why (e.g. check the vietnam war article). If such detailes are not provided, it should be put in the first line (check, among my examples WW1 and Soviet-Afghan war for more than 2 names in the first line). --Xeeron (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

infrastructure damage

Your reverts seem due to the fact that the someone damaged the reference such that it would not display. I restored it so you can easily check that it is not an article, but a collection of maps, which clearly reports the numbers I had in my edit summary. Note that simple math (205+199+166+252 is more than half of 205+199+166+252+99+135) is not original research. --Xeeron (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, I have checked the sources you provided. What's more, I think that was me who originally found and added these sources:)

However, I did not see any mentions of a "clear majority" in the atlases. There are some reasons why I think we should consider the matter before adding an info like this in the article:

1. The map areas do not interlap, but the borders of the settlements do, and Tskhinvali area may fall within villages maps of the atlas. UNOSAT guys notify of that (written in small letters in the bottom of the page);
2. Tskhinvali is a city, and buildings razed/ destroyed there are high-storey apartment houses. Villages buildings are common private houses, for one family. That may be one of the reasons why UNOSAT does not say explicitly the "majority" or "minority" things.
3. You are welcome to insert the numbers in the article. However, a "clear majority", "absolute majority", "somewhat more extencive damage" are not the right terms to use for matters like this. Especially when you compare something uncomparable, like village house and city apartment building.

That is why I still oppose adding the info the way it is now in the article. FeelSunny (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Borders of settlements overlapping? Either it is a house in Tskhinvali or it is not. But no matter how you define the borders of Tskhinvali, there are more destroyed buildings in the north of the region than in the south.
2. Information about the number of apartments destroyed would be good, but the map only reports destroyed buildings, not the size of buildings. --Xeeron (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. Some more: why I would not compare them: Georgian villages were burnt by Ossetian militias with torches when Georgians already left them after losing the war. Tskhinvali Ossetians had to hide in collars of their houses, and doctors had to operate in basements waiting for Georgian shelling and offencive to end to get some water. That is not what we may compare with "one equals one" attitude. However, I strongly beleive that both sides must be punished for the crimes they commited, and that no crimes should have caused retaliation from another side, and may not be an exuse for it. FeelSunny (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely report about the inpact of the destruction on the humans, but that should be done (and imho is done) in the humanitarian impact section, not the one on infrastucture damage. --Xeeron (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, even in the infrastructure damage section, speaking only about infrastructure (which is not obvious from the article) it seems wrong to compare apartment city houses with private one-storey village houses. FeelSunny (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, this is not the way the edits are done. If you want to rewrite the whole section, please discuss it before, not unilaterally change them just like that. I have reverted your edits, and for reasons you may first check the previous discussion about the count of buildings and WP:Major_Edits. FeelSunny (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I really grow tired of your edits in that section really:

1. You remove facts that are well documented in a neutral, respectable source (the damage percentage numbers of UNOSAT)
2. You wrongly assume I did not check sources I remove (Google translation of the source makes it look like the source says 7000 is 10%, just like the part I removed in the article did, so I had no reason to suspect otherwise).
3. You revert back to a spelling mistake that was just corrected.
4. You revert to a version that is clearly inferior in terms of linking (e.g. UNOSAT linked twice) instead of working with the better version.
5. You use your above "city houses" vs "one-storey village houses" argument, which is BLATANT WP:OR (you brought no source whatsoever argueing that buildings in Tskhinvali are on average bigger that houses in the other settlements) to remove sourced facts.
6. You reintroduce WP:WEASEL words right after they got removed.

Please stop reverting good edits simply because they don't fit your POV. --Xeeron (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also grow tired of this discussion, however I keep answering all your accusations, as they come:

1. You are wrong. I never removed facts that are given in UNOSAT sources, only your speculations on the information presented there, including weasel words like "clear majority".
2. You are wrong. I did not assume you do not check sources before you add them. However, in in all cases, you just should not use Google translation as a reason for deleting a source. Try finding a Russian-speaker instead, there are many of them in English WP, and most will surely help. So, back to our citation: The phrase in Russian is :"Как заявил замминистра регионального развития Владимир Бланк, в столице Южной Осетии более 7 тыс. зданий, примерно десятая часть восстановлению не подлежит." The phrase translated by Google is: "As stated by the Deputy Minister of Regional Development Vladimir Blank, the capital of South Ossetia, more than 7 thousands of buildings, about one tenth of the recovery is not." The correct human translation is "Vladimir Blank, deputy minister for Regional Development, reported that there are more than 7 000 buildings in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, approximately 10% is beyound repair." Please ask any other Russian-speaker for translation, if you need to check my translation is grammatically correct and conveys the same meaning as the original phrase.
3. You are formally right, the revert included a typo. But you are surely lawyering, as inserting the typo it was not the reason of an edit. Due to the big number of your small edits on January, 14: [13] [14] [15] (added without any discussion on a talk page, and which I find disruptive), I had to revert some of them, proposing you to discuss them first. There was a big mess after your multiple edits in the article. Quite possibely I just inserted this text from some other edit that included the link which you previously translated through Google and then deleted. I guess I just did not see there was a "c" instead of "s" there. However, I am absolutely sure you understand quite well that the reason of a revert was not adding a mistake but reinserting a source you deleted after you used Google to translate it.
4. You are wrong - see 2) and 3). I think I do not have to repeat about Google for the third time, right? Reinserting the link was the reason of the revert.
5. [16] is a source for you, made by CNews, highly reliable and respected portal oriented at tech and IT professionals in Russia: . You may well use Google unless you then decide to post a translated quote:)
6. You are wrong. You are trying to use WP:Weasel to prove I used weasel wording in this case, but you miss one point: the link is given after the sentence you are talking about clearly states "who" says that, gives the clear source of information. In billions cases all over WP we do not give the name of a source if it's clearly seen in the link, using words like "reported", "Western medias", "commentators" etc. Here are examples for you from this very page: "Between eight and eleven Russian jets reportedly hit container tanks and a shipbuilding plant at the port (sources as numbers)," "Commentators have applied various names to the 2008 South Ossetia war (names of the war and sources as numbers)," "The news of the shelling was extensively covered by Russian media prior to the military reaction that followed (sources as numbers a bit later)," "Ukraine had supplied Georgia with weapons, reportedly including Tor and Buk AA missile systems (source as number)", "the regrouped Georgian forces reportedly launched a new offensive against Russian and South Ossetian defenders of Tskhinvali, using heavy tube and rocket artillery (sources as numbers)". These examples do not give explicite naming of sources, only number links to the source list. However, I did not find any users claiming these examples use weasel words.

Well, I think I answered all your questions. Maybe now you would start discussing your possible edits before actually making them?

P.S. Please note, that I do not want to revert your recent unilaterally made edits before you comment, but I will have to do this, if I do not see any reaction for my remarks. FeelSunny (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "Majority" is not a weasel word, but a very clearly defined mathematical concept, you failed to say that I removed clearly myself.
2. In this article, we often distinguish between russian and pro-georgian sources, because the two report very differently. What was your reason for removing the fact that the source that accused Georgia of mining civilian buildings was russian?
3. I did not only use the google translation. I used both the google translation and the translation by the editor who put that line into the article (you, if I am not mistaken). Your translation (wrongly) backed up the google translation of 7000 being 10%. So you telling me to ask you to ask for your help in translating, when your wrong translation was what got it all started is a bit ridiculous. My only mistake was assuming that you had correctly translated in the first place.
4. In my google translation, all that Alexei Kucheiko does is arguing that UNOSAT is biased. I don't see any comparison of average house sizes. But maybe that was lost in translation again??
5. Last and most importantly: If you disagree with edits, try to improve that part by building on the latest edit and putting your point in again. In your reverts, your often revert not only the point you disagree with, but also re-introduce other errors that have been solved. The dual linking of UNOSAT and the reintroduction of the spelling mistake are only 2 examples where you make the article worse off by being lazy and reverting to your error-prone version; Undoing work other editors put into bettering the article, because you revert instead of reformulating your point and inserting it manually. --Xeeron (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, could you please insert numbers for questions next time? This makes them much easier to answer one by one.

1. Sure it is. However, I think that a link I provided in 1) in previous post clearly shows that was me who deleted the word "clearly" you used. After that I gave an extencive explanation on the talk page. That deletion had other reasons named on the talk page.
2. Well, actually, after some thought I think I can agree with you on inserting source here. However, please check the source and see yourself this was Russian military, gen. Nagovitsyn, spokesman of Russian Defence Ministry, who said that Russian servicemen find multiple mines left by retreating Georgian army in civilian areas. Including mines aimed at basements where people were hiding during Georgian offencive.
3. Noo, don't cheat with facts:) I clearly stated that was a typo and corrected it long before you deleted the link after translating it in Google.
4. I don't have much time to look for another link, but i will in the near future.
5. Thank you for calling me lazy, and my edits error-prone. Next time please spare comments like that. Why don't you just consider instead discussing your edits before making them? Because "undoing your work" perfectly describes my inentions when making this edit that irritates you so much. FeelSunny (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1. shows that you deleted the whole sentence, with "clear" and "majority", whereas my link shows I took out "clearly", not the whole sentence.
2. The good thing on wikipedia: Facts about edits can always be checked. Check who was first yourself:
   • Me removing the incredible source on 21:47, 14 January 2009
   • You admitting it was a typo on 15 January 2009
3. The fact that your intentions are "undoing your [my] work" instead of e.g. "bettering the article" is what irritates me. --Xeeron (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, I'm really bored and tired of your constant quibbling. I presume, we are both quite well-educated and may have enough good will to stop playing words.

1. My link only proves I deleted the whole phrase, right. But my comment on the talk page, in this very section perfectly explains the reason (I quote my words):

"...I did not see any mentions of a "clear majority" in the atlases."

"You are welcome to insert the numbers in the article. However, a "clear majority", "absolute majority", "somewhat more extencive damage" are not the right terms to use for matters like this."

So why do you continue to argue that it were you who was the initiator of the removal of the weasel word used by you?

Again, you should discuss edits before making them, as at least some of your edits seem highly controversial.

2. As to the source about storeys: here are your words: "In my google translation, all that Alexei Kucheiko does is arguing that UNOSAT is biased. I don't see any comparison of average house sizes. But maybe that was lost in translation again??"

Well, you know, maybe it was.

Here is an example of what Alexei Kucheiko writes in Russian: "По мнению экспертов UNOSAT, разрушалась полностью и исключительно лишь малоэтажная застройка — это противоречит и логике военных действий в городе, и данным телерепортажей. Отмечены как совершенно целые многоэтажные здания в южной части города, вероятно, одной из первых подвергшейся нападению грузинских войск. По мнению экспертов портала Исследования и разработки – R&D.CNews, это может быть связано с трудностями в определении масштабов разрушений в многоэтажных зданиях по панхроматическим космическим снимкам до тех пор, пока не происходит обвал крыши."

My translation (it's about time WP start paying me for this): "According to the UNOSAT experts, only and exculively the low-rise buildings were destroyed, which contradicts to the logics of a city warfare, and TV coverage. Multy-storey buildings in the southern part of the city, which was, possibly, the first attacked by Georgian military, are marked as completely intact. According to the CNews R&D experts, this may be connected with the difficulties of estimating the scale of disruption of the multy-storey building over panchromatic pictures until the roof has not collapsed".

Another example from the same article:

"За скобки исследований выведены такие важнейшие параметры как этажность зданий (число квартир, что пропорционально числу оставшимся без крова), динамика изменений и, самое главное, оценочное число жертв."

"Among the most important parameters left beyond the scope of the research are the quantity of storeys in the buildings (number of flats, which is in proportion to the total number of those left without home), the dynamics of the changes and, most important, estimate number of victims."

Which means CNews speak just about the same things I stated in the beginning of this discussion: "Tskhinvali is a city, and buildings razed/ destroyed there are high-storey apartment houses. Villages buildings are common private houses, for one family. That may be one of the reasons why UNOSAT does not say explicitly the "majority" or "minority" things."

So again: why do you compare numbers of different nature that UNOSAT does not compare in the source? FeelSunny (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because you assertion is untrue, see the table comparing damage percentages in the source. For all other points, reread what I said above. --Xeeron (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Even a simple math accompanied with following comparison of results (which you obviously did) is a measure, see Measure (mathematics). Measure is a kind of a Mathematical analysis. Which is a kind of Analysis. And "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" is a WP:OR and your "simple math" exuses do not change that.FeelSunny (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC).

Hehe, I give you that, this comment had me smiling. I even checked whether measure theory is a subfield of Mathematical analysis: It is! However, there is no need for "simple math" on my side anymore, since UNOSAT did that for me in their later pictures, thus taking the "analysis" upon themself. Only copying of numbers on my side now, no analysis :-) --Xeeron (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit included an example of synthesis of information from two sources, which is a WP:OR and an example of comparison not given in the source of numbers given in the source, which is a WP:OR too. These were cut from your text. Please refrain from inserting them again.FeelSunny (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No synthesis in the edit. --Xeeron (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Subject X ... (definition of subject X [Source for definition B]) ... predicate Y object Z) [Source for X,Y,Z] is a synthesis. in your edit

- "For Tskhinvali, UNOSAT reports 230 (5.5% of the total) of buildings either destroyed or severly damaged. In the villages to the north of Tskhinvali (controlled by Georgia previous to the war) between 5.4% and 51.9% of the total buildings was affected. -

(controlled by Georgia previous to the war ) part is a clear synthesis of the information. You are using Crisis Group source to expand UNOSAT massage to where the UNOSAT does not expand it. It is using another source to define a noun given in the base source, which is a synthesis, and it promotes a position. It is thus a WP:OR.

Overall, it takes so much time to explain elementary things to you that I start asking yourself if you understand any basic rules of common sense and elementary logics.FeelSunny (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no synthesis. 2 informations about the villages north of Tskhinvali are given. A synthesis would be: The villages were controlled by Georgia (fact A) and destroyed (fact B) because of that reason (OR synthesis). No such thing happens here. --Xeeron (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, I'm tired of this. Re-read WP:OR about synthesis of sources. Everything is explained very clear there.

However, I will explain. Here is WP:OR: Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research.

You take 2 sources, on seaking abt. number of houses, another about settlements belonging to some ethnic group, and make a syntesis: most houses destroyed in ethnic Georgian settlements. That constitutes WP:OR as synthesis of sources. I delete the phrase.FeelSunny (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not make that synthesis. The sentence merely presents two facts. Any reader can chose on how to interpret them on their own, e.g. you concluded "most houses destroyed in ethnic Georgian settlements", but that conclusion is not in the sentence. --Xeeron (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Again an example. The way you think is: "George Bush called Ehud Olmert his personal friend [link to NYT] + Ehud Olmert's government killed more than 1000 Palestinians in Gaza [Link to al-Jazeera] => George Bush called Ehud Olmert, government of which killed more than 1000 Palestinians in Gaza [link to Al-Jazeera], his personal friend [link to NYT]. This is a WP:OR, as NYT tells nothing about killing Palestinians. This is just what synthesis is.

I mean, seriously, I do not feel all these small edits are that important, and I do not intend to discuss them here with you all the time, of which you seem to have so much.

I would just propose you to consider enetering a colledge before editing WP, just in case you need to understand another analogy. Mistakes in language are obvious and are easy to correct, mistakes in your logical conclusions take days and multiple posts to explain them to you and thus are much more difficult to correct. FeelSunny (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So all you want is a full stop? Like: The villages to the north of Tskhinvali between 5.4% and 51.9% of the total buildings was affected(link1). The villages to the north of Tskhinvali were controlled by Georgia previous to the war(link2), instead of the present In the villages to the north of Tskhinvali (controlled by Georgia previous to the war[210]) between 5.4% and 51.9% of the total buildings was affected.?

PS: Lovely "colledge" comment. --Xeeron (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Xeeron, what I want is: "The villages to the north, that belonged to Georgians, got that much damage, while the SO capital, that belonged to Ossetians, got that much damage." [One link, two links, hundred links, but all claim the same].

See yourself: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." So I want sources that explicitly reach the same conclusion, in the case you really want to support your POV by combining material from different sources.

If you post it like "Villages got that much damage [link A]. And they belong to Georgians [Link B]. And the city got that much damage [link A]. And it belongs to Ossetians [link B]," you just make a synthesis of two sources. Please find one source that claims 1) villages got some damage, that is 2) some share of Tskhinvali damage, and 3)Villages belonged to ethnic Georgians. Other than that, you just put the others' words in the UNOSAT mouth (if it has one):).

And that is nothing different from "Government of Ehud Olmert killed more than 1000 Palestinians in Gaza [link to Al-Jazeera]. George Bush called Ehud Olmert his personal friend [link to NYT]." Nothing different from the first example.

PS. And yes, I want this to stop. But both you and me should have enough good will to stop this. For now, though, I refrain from posting information that one may call POV for several days, but you keep on doing this quite frequently.FeelSunny (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really follow your synthesis story (and I am confident any admin would back me up on that), but if it is possible that we somehow resolve it otherwise, all the better. So I am trying to figure out what would be ok for you. Taken from your latest post: "No, Xeeron, what I want is: "The villages to the north, that belonged to Georgians, got that much damage, while the SO capital, that belonged to Ossetians, got that much damage.""

In the article, that would be: "In the villages to the north of Tskhinvali, controlled by Georgia previous to the war, between 5.4% and 51.9% of the total buildings were either destroyed or severly damaged, while in Tskhinvali, controlled by Ossetians, 5.5% of buildings were affected." Is that fine with you? --Xeeron (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you may confirm your version by one reliable source, stating that "In the villages to the north of Tskhinvali, controlled by Georgia previous to the war, between 5.4% and 51.9% of the total buildings were either destroyed or severly damaged, while in Tskhinvali, controlled by Ossetians, 5.5% of buildings were affected.", that's fine with me.FeelSunny (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A source with that exact quote will obviously be impossible to find. Neither is it demanded by WP:SOURCE. --Xeeron (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I demand you to find such a source. However, it's necessary if you want to insert such a phrase and avoid synthesis, don't you see?

How would you react to a phrase "Micheil Saakashvili, who announced a peacefire with South Ossetians at 7 PM on August 7 [BBC], 4 hours later, at 11 PM, ordered to shell a peaceful city [Spiegel] with Grad multiple missile launchers (a weapon that may cause mass casualties among civilians [HRW], killing dozen of Russian peacekeepers [Reuters], and numerous civilians [HRW], which led to a Russia-Georgia conflict [NYT]? All sources named are perfectly reliable, and they give this info. However, I presume you feel something is wrong with the way the citations are connected? Why don't you consider your own phrase in the same way?FeelSunny (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from some minor details, I don't see anything wrong with the way they are connected. It is our job to bring together facts from different sources and order it in a way that makes sense to the reader. If the above facts were true and the only facts known, that sentence would be the one that should go in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my "job" by no means, just a hobby, rather. I am not ready to discuss this matter with you all my spare time, as I've yet got a life to live. The last variant you proposed (with no "majority" or "clear majority" wording) looks like to be not a WP:OR to me, however, it seems you still do not understand why your initial wording cinstituted the WP:OR.FeelSunny (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)