Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:03, 9 September 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War at the Reference desk.

NEW ARTICLE TITLE? Following multiple discussions, comments are invited at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Article_title.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abkhazia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbkhaziaWikipedia:WikiProject AbkhaziaTemplate:WikiProject AbkhaziaAbkhazia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Ossetia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (country) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

A news item involving Russo-Georgian War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 August 2008.

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

• Be neutral (scrupulously so)
• Be verifiable.
• Be collaborative

Don't

• Don't be original.
• Don't edit war
• Don't soapbox.
• Don't randomly stick tags everywhere. {{sofixit}}, if you please.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Lie about 'independent sources'

This section lies about 'independent sources' position: 'A lady interviewed on the streets of Tskhinvali had testified to seeing two dead bodies with U.S. flags patched on their fore-arms Dimitry Medoev said “There were blacks among the dead, who were probably either mercenaries or instructors in the Georgian armed forces”. However the independent observers beleive that those statements are pure propaganda product, created for the attention of xenophobic elements of Russian society '. Neither link quoted provides any information about independent sources, at least if you do not see US ambassador to the UN discussing US involvement in Georgia as neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.148.66 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what?

How the hell did a POV of this caliber end up in "Results" section? Ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians in South Ossetia. Remove it. Not only it is doubtful that this could be considered a "result", this is not even close to being NPOV. -- 81.195.15.25 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not "verification needed", just remove it entirely. I do not see why "ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians" should be in the "results" section at all. Should we put "ethnic cleansing of south ossetians" in the results too then? "American media spouting propaganda about Russians being agressors"? After all, this is a "result" too and it's just as biased as the one that's currently in this section. -- 81.195.14.121 (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of south ossetians has not been established by human rights organisations and/or other international observers (in fact it has mostly been debunked), ethnic cleansing of georgians has been. In fact, even the president of South Ossetia has admitted it (see the source). Note that the same info is present in the infobox of War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). Grey Fox (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Has been" is not an argument, that's just your point of view. There are no "has beens" in Misplaced Pages. Everything needs to be proven by reliable sources. In this case, 1. the fact of ethnic cleansing (now we have only a link to a Guardian article, which is obviously not enough), 2. the fact that "ethnic cleansing" is recognized by BOTH sides (or it could not possible be included as a "Result", since "Results" suggests everyone agrees to these claims) and 3. that it's a fact that matters enough to be included as a result of war.
So far, not even one of these three conditions have been met. This is just a biased claim and moreover if we include "ethnic cleansing" as a result, then why not include "american media spouting propaganda about Russians being agressors" as well? There're no differences between these two claims and their suitability for "Results" section.
So I request removing this line from results entirely. -- 83.237.24.209 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can provide you with many more sources, 209. But the most important thing is that the president of South Ossetia has admitted the ethnic cleansing. The president of South Ossetia is what I'd call an exceptional source. So we have the Georgian side and Ossetian side admitting it. And yes of course it's a result of the war, see the infobox of the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993), there's a notion too. Once human rights organisations and/or the president of Georgia admit any "ethnic cleansing of ossetians" we can add that as well. Grey Fox (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(To Grey Fox-9589) Your belittling of the Ossetian genocide (the notion is Putin's, not mine) is appalling: here you can read in pure Russian about 'international delegation of MP from European Parliaments (целых четыре автобуса, four full buses) expressing their consternation, from which I deign to render two in English (in future they could be incorporated in some articles):

1) "К сожалению, я не вижу ни одного из тех депутатов, которые приезжали в Тбилиси, чтобы они увидели южноосетинскую сторону этого ужасного конфликта."

1) "Unfortunately I do not behold anyone from these MPs who arrived in Tiflis to see (here) the South Ossetian side of this horrendous conflict" (Latvian MP)

2) "о, что мы увидели здесь, не идет ни в какое сравнение с человеческой моралью." - "what we have seen here, is incomparable with human moral." (Ukrainian MP)

Denying the murder of 1492 Ossetians is disquieting and non-neutral as is the exaggeration of the Georgiam casualties by calling them "cleansing" - the Russian forces have not targeted and demolished Georgian civil objects unlike the opposite side. Bogorm (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know where I belittled the killings of Ossetians here, Bogorm, and this seems completely off topic. I noticed you took the number "1492 deaths" for granted. Do you do that more often, blatantly assume figures from the Russian government? I advice you to be more critical, because according to human rights watch this number was a completely fabricated propaganda stunt. Grey Fox (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How reliable a source is or isn't doesn't matter in this case. This does not belong in the results section of the infobox, which is used only to describe the military result. Feel free to include ethnic cleansing within the article, but there should be no misuse the infobox by any side to push agendas.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the infobox, it's an important result of the war. It's also placed at the Abkhaz war page. If you're censoring this only then is it to push your agenda. Grey Fox (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a military infobox, so the result is used to show who was militarily victorious and who was defeated. Its scope does not include humanitarian issues and everything else which may have occurred as a result of the war. I could just as easily add "thousands of homes destroyed," "Russian condemnation of Georgia's actions," etc. These are all important results, but they have no place in the infobox. Simply because you can reference something doesn't mean you can indiscriminately add it to the infobox. This issue of misuse has been raised before; read the doc on the template's use and then the talk page. Further, using another article, which happens to also misuse the infobox, is not a legitimate argument on your part.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that page that prohobits the extended usage of the infobox. In fact there's even a seperate subsection "Notes" created to add more important information. Your words also contradict your actions. Why do you delete the information about the ethnic cleansing, but you leave "Russia's recognition" intact, even though that's not related to military info either? This proves that you're simply trying to censor information you don't like. Information about ethnic cleansing has more often been used, for years, in articles such as War in Abkhazia and Russian–Circassian War without any trouble. That is a legitimate argument on my part since you alleged that these actions violate certain unwritten rules. Grey Fox (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a political result, not a humanitarian one. In essence, the war led to the creation of two new countries. Since you insist on using articles, WWI does not include "Armenian Genocide" as a result, even though it was a widely documented event which easily trumps any ethnic cleansing in Ossetia in scale. If you went in an added it, it would be deleted. The infobox is not meant to be exhaustive. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A political result is not a military result though, and you intent on keeping that which proves you're simply trying to censor information. Also it did not lead to the creation of two new countries, the republics are only recognized by two countries. The box of WWI deals with a conflict on far bigger scale. To list all the humanitarian disasters of world war I wouldn't fit, that's also why there's a link which expands the aftermath. Grey Fox (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not censoring anything, as I have said before you can add the information within the article itself, where it belongs. What you are trying to do is make a WP:POINT by bringing undue attention to controversial material, which is only going to lead to more POV arguments. Second of all, this isn't an issue of two unrecognized republics mutually recognizing each other. Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abhkazia is a reality, it doesn't matter how many other countries disagree with Russia on the issue, and so ignoring the fact that Russia treats these two as separate countries is POV. And finally, adding even a fraction of the humanitarian disasters of this war will not fit either, and selectively choosing which is more important than the other is inherently subjective. We do not need to go down that road.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you referred to S. Ossetia and Abkhazia as countries which sounded like you personally recognized them as such, that's what I noted, nothing more. I don't know where your idea comes from that humanitarian disaster has no place in the infobox. The casualty seciton itself is an example of that. As an alternative information about ethnic cleansing can be placed in the Territorial Change, Casualties or Note section too. Grey Fox (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people losing their homes quite qualifies as "territorial change." Lots of sentimental value there, sure, but means nothing in terms of geopolitics. My personal opinion on Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence has no international relevance, but political recognition by other countries does. And people being forced to flee from their homes is already covered by the "refugees" section in the infobox. You are implying that this ethnic cleansing is execution of every Georgian in the area. It isn't. These people leaving their homes are refugees of a war leaving an occupied area, which is exactly what happened with Ossetians being forced to flee Georgia's assault on Ossetia's capital or risk death. There is no difference there except that you insist on using inherently POV phrases like "ethnic cleansing." Do you realize how easy it would be for someone to find articles claiming Georgian ethnic cleansing? Should that be added to prominent places such as the infobox because this is how a journalist chose to describe the situation? We shouldn't set such dangerous precedents. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing a couple of things, chocolates. Ethnic cleansing doesn't mean that the population was murdered. It means that they are chased away from a territory to archive ethnic homogeneity. Yes, there were thousands of Ossetian refugees as well, however they are allowed to return to their homes. The ossetian president has announced that Ossetians are allowed to return to their homes and Georgians not. That IS ethnic cleansing. Further more, and more importantly, it's also acknowledged by human rights groups. When you say that it's easy to find Russian journalists claiming ethnic cleansing of Ossetians you're right. However, this is an exceptional claim, and unless human rights groups acknowledge this, it's not good enough to go in, unlike the ethnic cleansing of Georgians which is now firmly established. Grey Fox (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what ethnic cleansing means: it's an unspecific term which holds inherently negative connotations and, by most people, is used synonymously with genocide. And that is what you and other editors are trying to paint here, an image of Georgians as victims to Russian and Ossetian evil. Are you surprised others are resisting? If you are, perhaps you don't understand why people have serious problems with your POV. So let me explain it. The Ossetian government is giving Georgian citizens a chance to leave, but the Georgian government apparently didn't extend the same courtesy when it commenced with rocket bombing of a sleeping city. That much human rights groups acknowledged as well. When the Ossetians have fled in fear or died, the Georgian military can march right in with no resistance and take it over. That isn't ethnic cleansing under the guise of a legitimate military operation? I can argue it is and use the same descriptive and outrage-inducing articles you choose to reference it in the infobox. The Russian president has called that genocide; in fact, South Ossetia is suing Georgia at the International Criminal Court for genocide. That seems like an important result; let's add that too, no? The point is, just because we can reference something doesn't mean it can be added anywhere to the article, and that's why we strive for a balanced view. Claims of ethnic cleansing have their place in the article, there is no censoring, but selectively choosing to emphasize one side's suffering in a prominent place is not a balanced view, and it's giving undue weight to a controversial subject, both of which are violations of policy. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Etnic cleansing is quite a specific term. It's sometimes accompinied by genocide and/or war crimes, but doesn't have to. I'm not trying to paint an image of "Georgians as victims to Russian and Ossetian evil", I'm after truth my self. I care about human rights no matter which party violates them, including if my own government is responsible (no not russia). Basically you've been arguing that Georgia was about to commit ethnic cleansing. This is complete WP:OR and none of that has been established by human rights organisations, in fact they've debunked it. Yes the Russian government has alleged genocide, and the South Ossetian president can sue the International Criminal Court (which Russia doesn't recognize) as much as they want, but they most likely won't succeed. The fact is that the words of the Russian and Ossetian authorities are primary sources, and as such nothing but allegations. The allegations have been debunked by human rights organisations so so far it's far from established. Unlike the ethnic cleansing of Georgians which has been established by pretty much all parties. You can't just delete those under the disguise of "undue weight" which is completely different. The only reason why it's a controversial subject is because you make it out to be and it doesn't seem like you have a problem with that, but with truth. Grey Fox (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's put this issue into perspective because it's shaping up to be a conflict between two editors. Frankly, old friend, I don't have the time nor the energy to continue to sit here and watch this issue drawl on and on and on. This is relevant to all editors of this article, so we ought to reach some sort of consensus with everyone, not just us. You and I may be the most vocal about it, but other people have either supported or removed the "ethnic cleansing" bit as well. Since you are so passionate about this issue, as a self stated truth-seeker the first thing you're going to need to do to build a legitimate case is find some actual sources, like from the third-party human rights organizations you're talking about. The journalist's blog which was being used before isn't a reputable source, nor will the Moscow Times article pass, considering that it doesn't even use the phrase. After gathering your sources, you can start by announcing it at the top of the talk page to attract editor's comments. If I am completely in the wrong with my opposition and interpretation of policy, you'll be able to gather the support you need to claim some sort of consensus.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is getting long winded and just as you I don't have all the time in the world. I refute that I'm overly passionate about this specific issue, but I know people are already on the move to create a seperate article on the ethnic cleansing of georgians. There's other places where this result of the war can be entered, such as in other parts of the infobox or in the lead. I disagree that we should simply led the majority decide on what to do because wiki is not a democracy, and the number of Russian users here largely outnumber Georgian users. As for the collection of sources, I had posted a small collection them under the section "Ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians in South Ossetia" including the one from human rights organisation memorial. For now I'll let the issue cool down for a while (meaning I won't engage in edit warring). Grey Fox (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

International reactions

I would like to propose this for inclusion under "international reactions": In August 2008, the international Russian government TV network Russia Today interviewed American dissident Lyndon LaRouche, on the topic of the 2008 South Ossetia war. LaRouche said it was "part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions." LaRouche also mentioned the role of George Soros in the Georgian government. -Polly Hedra (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose that. If the opinions of LaRouche were of wide interest he'd be more widely quoted on the matter. Literally thousands of poepe have written articles or appeared on TV or radios shows giving their opinions. LaRouche's is one of the least significant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had bumped into other users reluctant to include non-governmental figures' statements in this article. I think it could be added here: Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. If governemtnt official, here: International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war Bogorm (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's lots of room for "prominent" people's opinions at Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Fits well together with people like Jean Marie Le Pen and Alexander Dugin. Narking (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, your stance towards Jonas De Geer (promulgated here) being now additionally propagated over Dugin and Jean Marie Le Pen is disquieting, and the hint is perchance caustic - WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR (concerning comparison between LaRouche, Dugin and Le Pen) Bogorm (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even you must admit that the "prominent" people's views at Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence surely don't show the whole spectrum of views about the declarations. It's clearly handpicked views to follow a certain POV. Narking (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep .. as usual :)) Elysander (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Noone restricts you both to expand them (GFDL licence) - provided that the personality is prominent and that there are sources. And they are not handpicked, since the Ingushetian opposition clearly represents the opposite view (the persons having taken a look should have comprehended it). Bogorm (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Kislorod has tried to balance your original POV article with "prominent people's opinions". Närking (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"your original POV article" - the article is not mine, if you do not comprehend that, then you should make yourself familiar with Misplaced Pages rules, stating that all articles are free for modification and are not ownerships of their contributors. That appertains to the first indispensable and important rules here, alas that you ignore it. Bogorm (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New Title consensus

As I said in a previous discussion, which got archived only days after being started the discussion over this article's title has clearly reached a consensus on the title. Of those supporting the current title only two had any significant editing history outside this particular subject. Most of those supporting Russian-Georgian War were long-time editors. At the same time of the seven opposing that two were from editors who hardly any, if any, editing history outside of these talk pages and another two expressed support Russian-Georgian conflict so their disagreement is with whether to call it a war or conflict rather than whether it was a Russian-Georgian situation. So rightly we can say there are 10 supporting Russian-Georgian with two suggesting it be called a conflict and eight suggesting it be called a war against three opposing it. What's clear is the established editors have reached a consensus that the current title is not appropriate and it should be changed to something on the order of Russian-Georgian war. I think the lack of action in this regard is appalling and growing increasingly annoying.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Feel free to change it. For those who opposed to the new title, there's always the possibility to change it again later. But for now, "south ossetia war" is very outdated and Russian-Georgian War is the best way to go. Alternative titles for the war can also be mentioned in the lead. Grey Fox (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's rename is as Russian-Georgian war per arguments provided in discussion. There are more than 200 thousand' Google hits for combination "Russian-Georgian war" (see here), and only 12 thousand for "2008 South Ossetia war". Even many Russian commentators consider this to be Russian-Georgian war. For example, Yulia Latynina tells this (an approximate translation): "I want to emphasize: this is Russian-Georgian war. The strike was conducted from two fronts: the Abkhazian and the South Ossetian fronts; approximately 25,000 Russian Army serviceman have been involved and several hundred tanks; rocket strikes have been conducted, and Russian strategic aviation completed sorties..." see here. Right now we have a disambig. page Russian-Georgian war. It should be renamed as Russian-Georgian wars (plural).Biophys (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved disambig. page, but we can not simply move this page because of the Russian-Georgian war, which is now a redirect. Instead all content of this page can be moved there using copy and paste. Can anyone do that? Biophys (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done per your recommendation and previous discussion of the article title. Now please modify content of the "Russian-Georgian war" accordingly. Some work should be also done with categories.Biophys (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest 2008 War in Georgia as the new title. This follows the pattern of other military articles such as 2006 Lebanon War and War in Somalia (2006–present). Russian-Georgian war is not a good title as it doesn't reflect the involvement of Abkhazia and South Ossetia which are now partially recognized states. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So, right now we have two copies. I did not delete anything from here for a reason. Perhaps we need two articles on this subject: one would be about Georgian-Ossetian conflict (e.g. this article; this is about an Ossetian insurgency within Georgia and suppression of this insurgency by Georgia), and another is about Russian-Georgian war which was a war between two internationally recognized countries.Biophys (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with separating them, I have no problem with two "Battle of Tskhinvali" articles, one for the Georgian offensive and the other for the Russian offensive. There should only be one broader article about the whole war itself. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what others tells. All content is currently here, so there is no any problems.Biophys (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the assesment that there is consensus against the title "2008 South Ossetia war". I also accept the decision of "Russian-Georgian war" as new title. However we might need admin help to move this article, the article should not be separated from it's editing history. The move should be done with the move tab so only an admin can do it now. Hobartimus (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Separating the two articles would be a split, slightly different process from a move. Hobartimus (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right, although we can keep edit history here... What I did only makes sense in a case of split. Maybe one should ask an admin.Biophys (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the Russian-Georgian war article because it was a copy-and-paste version of this article, which is inappropriate. If there is a consensus for a new title then this article should be moved to the new title. Let me or any admin know if help is needed. The two articles should not co-exist if they cover the same topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually both the Ugandan-Tanzanian War and Iran-Iraq War had other combatants but the conflicts are named for the countries involved and at least the latter is the commonly accepted usage. That's because while the countries involved had other parties, sometimes within the opposing country, it was generally recognized that those other combatants were being backed by the other country. In this case Abkhazia and South Ossetia's separatist governments were backed by Russia. If these were groups separate from both it would be different.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the Russian-Georgian war per arguments presented above. It is the most descriptive title for this article. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly popular throughout the net.

"Russia-Georgia+war"+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Russia-Georgia war" - 1,500,000

"Russian-Georgian+war"+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Russian-Georgian war" - 152,000

"Georgia-Russia+war"+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Georgia-Russia war" - 367,000--Kober 05:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have already answered you there, consensus has nothing to do with votes or who has which editing history. You have ignored that. You're just trying to push you POV here. Go read the rules of Misplaced Pages and try to understand what consensus is. -- 81.195.12.14 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear ip, tone down, please. We are trying to reach a consensus here per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. --Kober 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree with "Russian-Georgian war": as already stated, after the commencement of the inchote recognition of the two new states contesting that the number of combatants is four is POV and this title infers the non-recognition of South Ossetia and Akhazia, which is again POV. Bogorm (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the renaming to Russian-Georgian war. But maybe adding the year would be needed: Russian-Georgian war (2008) like in the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages. I fear there will be more wars to come. Närking (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Also, there was a war between the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic and the Democratic Republic of Georgia back in 1921. Once the article is renamed, the new title should be disambiguated.--Kober 08:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I urge you not to rename the article, because this would be a flagrant, reckless one-sidedness and POV ignoring the participation of two more countries! User:Narking extolled the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages, and I on my part would recommend the appearance in the Norwegian and in the Danish Misplaced Pages. Renaming it to Russian-Georgian war sounds as inane as renaming the Livonian war Russo-Polish war - complete one-sidedness. Bogorm (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant comparison. The Livonian war involved many European nations while the current conflict is a war between two sovereign UN member states - Georgia and Russia which supports two breakaway entities within Georgia. Note that Abkhazia and SO were unrecognized even by Russia at the moment of the August 2008 hostilities. That the two (ethnic, political, whatever) factions within Georgia fought on the side of Russia, does not change the essence of the conflict. It was/is the war between Georgia and Russia.--Kober 08:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to rename the article to "Russian-Georgian war", otherwise this would be a flagrant, reckless one-sidedness and POV ignoring the participation of only two sovereign countries! ;) Elysander (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• the new title shuld be Ossetian-Georgian war 2008. Becaus Russian is not a conflict site. Russian is only a peacekeepers on the board between two sites. The name Russian-Georgian war used only georgian propaganda.--Jaro.p (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Haha.--Kober 08:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hope Jaro.p is joking. If there hasn't been a war between Russia and Georgia how come they have signed a ceasefire agreement? Närking (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Jaro.p - any mention of "Russian" in the title is a pro-NATO and pro-Tiflis bias! (no joking on my part!) Bogorm (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This war has begun with an attack of the Georgian army on the Russian. So, this is Georgian-Russian war. Магистер (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any Georgian troops in Russia, but lots of Russian troops in Georgia. Närking (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! That's what can be called Misplaced Pages burlesque! Elysander (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a U.S.-Russian or NATO-Russian war. Why? If we think that Ossetian forces were a part of Russian military forces, and the Ossetian side was backed/supported by Russia, by exactly the same way we can think that Georgian side was backed/supported by U.S. and some other countries. Georgian army was armed and trained by America, there were American militaries in some Georgian military objects during the war, U.S. performs military logistics for Georgia during the war. (Pubkjre (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

The cogitation of Pubkjre seems sensible, I would like just to add "US and Israeli" (here clearly stated). Again, the mention of "Russian" in the title either has as a ramification the mention of "US" after the hyphen, or would be deprived of any impartiality. Bogorm (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that. If we include "Russia" in the title, we should include US as well. Since should we use official terms here, Russians troops weren't at war but at peacekeeping mission (nothing incompatible with the ceasefire treaty here). Should we try to ignore official terms and call the things by their names (something Misplaced Pages should not do, by the way), then not only Russia was at war but US too. Therefore I oppose the suggested title and support the suggestion to include "US" in the title. Something like "US, Georgia, Ossetia and Russia war" should be fine. -- 81.195.12.14 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking :) The war was fought between Russia's military and Georgia's. The US military was not involved. Grey Fox (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The transportation of Georgian militaries from Iraq to Georgia by U.S. Air Force planes is not an involvement, is it?.. "The U.S. military began flying 2,000 Georgian troops home from Iraq on Sunday, military officials said, after the Georgians recalled the soldiers following the outbreak of fighting with Russia in the breakaway province of South Ossetia." U.S. flying Georgian troops home from Iraq

Not so much as to call it a beligerent. The Georgian soldiers were allies in Iraq when Russia attacked Georgia. It's only natural that they returned to their country. Helping fellow allies is a duty and not a sin. What matters is that America's army was not involved. Grey Fox (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest either you remove Soviet Union from the Vietnam War box (the North Vietnam soldiers were allies, it is natural to boost them when the opposite power had rearmed the Saigon regime, helping fellow allies is obligation, what matters is that Soviet armz had not been involved) or we open a similar support section here and write under Georgia USA and Israel. I personally support the second solution Bogorm (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Georgians and Americans are allies in Iraq, but not in Ossetia! So, please just study the history... For example, during World War II before year 1945 Soviet Union and United States were allies in war against Germany, but not against Japan (in 1945 they become allied against Japan too). So if an American plane bombed Germany and landed in Soviet territory, Russians were able to refuel the plane and to allow it to go home due to their allied status, but if American plane bombed Japan and landed in Soviet territory, Russians were required to intern the crews of those planes up to the end of the war due to their neutral status. So, crews of American planes in Soviet Union were the friends if they were used against Germany and the prisoners of war if they were used against Japan in the same time! By the same way the usage of U.S. Air Force for the transportation of Georgian soldiers from Iraq to Georgia can imply one of the following: 1) U.S. were involved into the war in Georgian side (due to their alliance, if you like such words), or 2) U.S. did not officially recognize the state of the war between Russia and Georgia. (Pubkjre (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

...or we can change the article to something like "2008 Georgian Civil War", because before the involvement of the Russian Army it was a war between (formally) Georgian citizens,- similar to the American Civil War (1861–1865) (Pubkjre (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

No more than you're joking when you're suggesting that Russian have fought in this war. By all means they were fighting on a peacekeeping mission. No matter how much America wants to call this a war, facts are facts, right? One side attacked the other, the work of peacekeepers is to stop that eve through the use of force. Who said anything about war? Did Russian troops take Tbilisi and threw Saakashvili away? I did not hear about it.
On the other hand, how can you call USA not involved? Whose battle ships do you think are now in the Black Sea? What are they doing there? Bringing humanitarian aid, water and toilet paper? On a military cruisers with a nuclear warheads on board! Laughed my ass off. Whose instructors have trained Georgian assasins and whose weapons were supplied to them? Who rearms Georgians now, after they've proven themselves prone to unmotivated agression? And that's even when they have no relations to the conflict at all! They're not even peacekeepers. Georgia isn't a part of NATO. USA has no reasons even to be there.
So I don't get it, why should we take some speculations about Russians being at war (although they were perfectly legal as peacekeepers) and ignore facts about Americans arming and supporting Georgians (although they had no reason and excuse to do so whatsoever). -- 81.195.15.149 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of order if I may. As per WP:DASH, the title should be Georgian–Russian War with "–" not "-". I suggest Georgian–Russian War so that it matches Georgia–Russia relations, that article being decided upon by placing alphabetical first; my reasoning for all Category:Bilateral relations of Russia articles is that by naming by alphabetical first, and consistently across the board, importance of one country over another can't be implied. Additionally, any move would require Category:2008 South Ossetia war to be renamed also. If I may make a suggestion, whilst there seems to be consensus to Georgian–Russian War or Russian–Georgian War (with the – not - of course), the category will be decided by the larger community. Not all editors are interested in this article, so may have missed move discussion, as I did believe it or not, but by placing the category up for discussion a larger cross section of the community can supply input also. Thoughts? --Russavia 12:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep the discussion for the dedicated page please people. For now, this article can be moved to Russian-Georgian War. If the discussion over time gives different results it can always be changed to something else. Grey Fox (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• oppose move. I don't see where's the consensus. 9 vs 7 isn't consensus (Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Article_title) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I said this already two of those seven only differed on whether it was a war or a conflict and were supportive of the characterization if t between Russia and Georgia. Two others were editors who have largely only edited in this article and the talk pages. So you can only really count three of those votes as being opposed. It's very clear that there is a consensus for a name change and the preferred name is clearly Russian-Georgian War. Whether that should be Russia-Georgia War, Russian-Georgian conflict, or whatever is of no consequence because it's a minor dispute. What matters is there is a clear consensus this was between Russia and Georgia and should be named for those two belligerents. In fact, it's downright stupid this article is keeping this title which was only used because at that point it did only involve South Ossetia. There's no way anyone can argue it was simply a war over and in South Ossetia. Maintaining the current title is just a direct attack on the consensus in Misplaced Pages that this title is not suitable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the move. Russian-Georgian War is currently the most-used term in international mass media, mainly in the English-language media.--MaGioZal (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussion whether you agree or disagree with moving the article. Second of all, there will be no moving of the article because there is no consensus on the issue, despite some people here trying to quickly rush the issue to a closure. It is far too close to call and at this point there seems to be no consensus.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. The title is fine since the war was about SO. And the move is premature anyway. --Tone 19:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Only the start of the war was about South Ossetia. Abkhazia is bigger both in terms of population size and territory. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Fox-9589 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia isn't mentioned in the other proposed name, too --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move as per my comments above. Also, this is not a vote. There is significant opposition to move this article to "Russian-Georgian War" so there is no consensus and it should not be done. The opinions of IPs also matter and they do not carry any less weight. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose the move since there's no consesus. Seriously, people, what do you expect when you suggest to move article "for now" even thought there is no consensus and even no majority of votes. -- 81.195.15.149 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose whats the war called? Well a lot of international media call it the South Ossetian war. war.http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2421911.0.3_this_is_no_longer_about_the_future_of_a_tiny_faraway_country_but_about_the_nature_of_the_world_order_in_the_21st_century.php

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0902/1220301234332.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/31/russia.georgia1 http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2008/08/russia-georgia-europe-nato http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/08/25/russia-ossetia-gergiev-oped-cx_jfl_gap_0826georgiaart.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/2985/53/ http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080822/w0822114A.html So until we have a consensus, outside wikipedia, we should not move the article. As this is only about a 'for now' solution then why even move it. Why not leave it where it is, for now, and move it when the dust has settled and there is a common name form the war.]

The dust has already fuckin' settled. I only say "for now" because there's no way of knowing what specific title will become the most popular, but for now simply to acknowledge the broad scope of the conflict the currently most popular title should be used.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous biased editor suggested that vote count is irrelevant and I agree, that editor's vote doesn't count. What matters is how many established or at least reasonably diversified editors voted a certain way and whether their arguments hold any water. Not a single argument for keeping the current title can be justified in any way. The arguments on POV are coming from pro-Russian editors, many of whom have not edited outside these talk pages. It's not biased to suggest this was a war between Russia and Georgia even the Russian media agrees on this point. The fact of the matter is this current title does not even come close to reflecting the broad scope of the war. This article is linked from the conflict box for former soviet union conflicts as the Second South Ossetia War. That's just garbage because this conflict also saw Abkhazia not only seizing the Kodori Gorge, but extending its territory to the Inguri River. This war started in South Ossetia, but only a complete idiot would suggest this title represents the scope of the conflict. This name was put in place before the conflict spread, once the conflict spread this should have been immediately moved to another name and it still should be. There is not a single viable argument for keeping this title and everything is against keeping this title. The failure to act represents the most pitiful form of POV pandering I can imagine.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

biases like "Most refugees in the conflict are ethnic Georgians."

I suggest to the author of this claim to find a neutral, i. e. stemming neither from the combaant sides nor from any NATO member state, confirmation of his assertion, which has been marked as POV, oterwise the cliam would turn out to be rootless and misleading. Bogorm (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"More than 158,000 people were displaced during the recent conflict – 128,000 within Georgia and some 30,000 who fled to the Russian Federation. Prior to the latest crisis UNHCR has been working on behalf of some 220,000 previously displaced people in Georgia." The UN Refugee Agency. --Kober 07:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well. I retract from insisting on the POV - tag. Bogorm (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

However, I do not consider the expression "are ethnic Georgians" consistent with the quoted "were displaced ... within Georgia". Muse thereupon and consider rewording it in an impartial manner, exempli gratia: "most refugees fled to G." Other suggestions? Bogorm (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that current wording is POV. Most refugees within Georgia proper are obviously ethnic Georgians and most refugees in Russia are ethnic Ossetians. --Kober 07:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is far from obvious - in the article about the country the percentage of Georgians is 83% and there are significant other groups as Adjarians, Azaeri, Armenians, Jews and so forth (the last three being ethnically different from Georgins and comprising 17 %). So you cannot know how many of the alleged 128 000 were Georgians and how many from the other ethnicities, do not misrepresent them, please. And according to Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya the percentage of Georgians in Georgia is 66,8% here (I am well aware that this number includes SO and Abkhazia, but anyway it was interesting to quote.) Your usage of most confirms it and I would not concede to calling 2/3 "most". Bogorm (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What has the percentage of Georgians in Georgia to do with the 2008 displacement in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Gori? The persons displaced in 2008 come from the Kodori Gorge, South Ossetia, Gori and the nearby areas, right? The population of the Kodori Gorge and Gori was almost completely Georgian. As for SO, there are no significant segments of Azeri and Armenian population. Ossetians and Georgians form the largest communities. You're trying to eliminate the fact that the ethnic Georgians suffered most in the process of displacement.--Kober 08:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"ethnic Georgians suffered most" - I shall not agree therewith, until some sources for your claim: "the population of the Kodori Gorge and Gori was almost completely Georgian. As for SO, there are no significant segments of Azeri and Armenian population" are provided. Bogorm (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My sources are: the 2002 All-Georgia Census for the pre-war population data and the UNHCR reports for the recent displacement. And can you provide any source proving that there are substantial numbers of Azeris and Armenians in the IDPs from Kodori, Gori and Tskhinvali? --Kober 09:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First, take a look at here - 1000 Armenians in SO. And the results of the 2003 census in Abkhazia are here, with confirming the 1959 census. Claiming that none of these 80 000 Armenians did dwell in Kodori valley is dubitable. Bogorm (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The 2003 Abkhaz census did not include Kodori which was not then controlled by the separatists. On the other hand, according the 2002 Georgia census 1,956 lived in Kodori, including 1,912 Georgians and 1 Armenian. As for SO, the fact of 1,000 Armenians living there does not contradict the statement that most of the displaced persons are either Georgians or Ossetias. Now, I'm waiting for another round of nitpicking.--Kober 09:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I do not know whether you consider this Georgian census neutral and am not inquisitive, I sincerely hope that you do not expect non-Georgians readers to admit either its reliability or neutrality. Consider the diminition of Armenians between 1989 and 2003 - probably just because the 2003 census did not include the Kodori valley. Bogorm (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be quite ready to admit the reliability or neutrality of the Abkhaz census. Why is the Georgia census supposed to be unreliable?--Kober 15:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Caption for Image:Tskhinval after Georgian attack4.jpg

I have expanded the caption of the image Image:Tskhinval after Georgian attack4.jpg to "Damaged buildings in Tskinvali after Georgian artillery bombardment". But the part "Georgian artillery bombardment" is removed by Narking (talk · contribs). Since the image is allowed in this article, I don't think it is a problem to include this part which is mentioned in the image description page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Narking's edit, as descrribed by you, is a clear POV insertion. Eery knowledgeable person knows which troops have destroyed Tskhinvali and demolished dozens of civilian buildings. Bogorm (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem in mentioning this when the image description page explicitly states it is due to Georgian artillery bombardment. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The depiction is copied from the Ossetian propaganda site. Given the extent of the fighting in Tskhinvali, it is impossible to know who caused this particular damage. Bogorm seems to think that Russians retook the city from Georgians by throwing flowers into the city.--Kober 09:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

a small group of our soldiers were able to wipe out an entire Russian military division, thanks to Israeli training ???

I would ask that someone link the word division to the wikipedia's page in that sentence, so we can all come to shock. Are you guys crazy? A military division is around 10,000 people in size. How can someone wipe out an entire division with a bunch of people? Well if they are civilians is possible(if you keep the victim in uncertanity as the Third Reich did), but if those 10,000 people fire back at you, i doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.211.99 (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain it to the Minister who figured it - Yakobashvili, Minister of State for Reintegration (even not war minister). It is his quote and is essential to mention it, so that the knowledgeable reader can induce some ratiocinations. Bogorm (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Will someone transfer that statement to the propaganda section, because it makes no sense here, or if not someone to clarify the size of a military division below his statement, or if you think that this is not propaganda, then insert these numbers into the section about Georgian claims about Russian casualties. Aedile (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean as "propaganda section" - this: Disinformation_campaign_during_the_2008_South_Ossetian_war ? If there is one, it forsooth does appertain thereto. Bogorm (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that statement is for there, but i don't see any other agreeing on this Aedile (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought Disinformation_campaign_during_the_2008_South_Ossetian_war concerns only the mass media coverage and their comportement during the war. I do not know whether it should go there... It is clear propaganda (or overestimated presumption), that is obvious, but we have not hitherto an article Propaganda in 2008 South Ossetia war. Probably a subsection? Bogorm (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the internal policy the people editing that page have agreed upon, but this statement is not for a encyclopedia. Never the less, the media already published this piece of "information" to the web, but for the moment it has not reached the western mass media, it only had a local "influence" in Israel(since it was published there), and of course for the needs of the domestic propaganda in Georgia. Will have to wait a day or two to see if these "brilliancy" reaches the media. Aedile (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are informed about the dispositions in Israel - the source is Washington Post, why does it not belong to an encyclopedia? Probably not in this article, but... show-off is not interdicted, as far as I know, provided that the notorioroty of the personality is established. Bogorm (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any supposed Israeli involvement should be well sourced. I wouldn't call Iranian newspapers well sourced at the moment, and the allegations of Israeli involvement should not deserve its own section. Limit it to good sources and one line is enough. Grey Fox (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The references are prudently and circumspectly picked up from different independent reliable news sources. The reader, who is kind of inquisitive about the sources, would have noticed that from 7 sources there is Washington Post(1 time), Press TV(2 times, Press TV is no newspaper), Segodnya (1 t., Ukraine), Den (newspaper)(1 t., Ukraine), one Israeli and Vremya novostei (1 time, Ru). Therefore derogating them seems to me insensible. Removing a section corroborated by 7 independent sources does not in the least sound convincing. Bogorm (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is competely based on 3 dubious sources, bogorm. First an Israeli newspaper, two Iranian newspapers and the statement of a Russian official. These are exceptional claims (Exceptional claims require exceptional sources) and by creating a header called "Israeli involvement" it confirms right away that any type of involvement is fact. The second paragraph is full of Original Research. Two Georgian ministers having an Israeli passport does not confirm that "Israel is involved in this war". Maybe Some of the ministers also have a Belgium passport. That, however, does not prove that Belgium is involved in the war. In my country for example a couple of ministers also have double passports. In fact, so does our queen. Grey Fox (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read more carefully - Saakashvili said that Israelis can be content because key positions of war and peace are in the hands of Hebrew people. And you try to refute Israeli invlvement, when this person says it explicitly?! Derogating every source which does not stem from NATO-member country seems disquieting and again unconvincing. Bogorm (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the sources. One of that is OSinform (Ossetian propaganda website) and the other are two Russian newspapers. Anyway, according to those, Sakaashvili talked about the Jewish community inside Georgia, which is something completely different than Israel. That's not enough to present "Israeli involvement" as fact, let alone dedicate an entire section to it. See WP:REDFLAG and WP:V. Grey Fox (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to underscore that the interview was for M..., a Jewish newspaper while S. was in Israel. Your mistrust of Russian sources is as fervent as mine in NATO-member states sources. That, however, does not entitle us to obliterate everything founded on Russian/NATO news, therefore we should keep this mistrust for ourselves, since nowhere in Misplaced Pages rules is an interdiction of either side to be found and should certes not. You seem to forget the Ukrainian and Israeli source. And disparaging Osinform.ru does not seem productive either. Bogorm (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional allegations require exceptional sources. Russian sources aren't bad per se, but often they are because of the lack of media freedom there, as well as the large amount of government influince. The same goes for Iran, especially concerning Israel. Press TV (the Iranian sources) is funded by the Iranian government (see the wiki page). OSinform is dubious for obvious reasons and completely fails WP:V. Also do you know the difference between a Jew and an Israeli? Grey Fox (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You also should see WP:OR. The claim from the Georgian government official only said that they have had Israeli training _before_ the war. That doesn't mean that Israel is involved in the war. Georgians received training from Americans, and perhaps Israeli's, for battle in Iraq. Grey Fox (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cease disparaging Russian and Iranian sources, this is a blatant US point of view, Luckily I do not cogitate about US sources! There is nothing exceptional in the claim, Saakashvili made the interview, whose content is straightforward about "key decisions in the hands f Hebrew people" and Gen. Anatoliy Nogovitsyn corroborates it by disclosing the training in October 2007, what exceptional is there?! Moreover, consider Ukrainian source, your vicepresident wants it in NATO (said last weekend), so its sources maybe are not so prejudicial? And one of the sources is Israeli, if you have not remarked! Bogorm (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of WP:V bogorm. The Iranian sources from the government can't go, not only is there no media freedom there, Iran is also the number 1 enemy of Israel and doesn't recognize it. You're simply tring to add propaganda sources which is rather disruptive. As for the Sakaashvili quote, again you don't seem to know the difference between a Jew and an Israeli. He spoke about Hebrew people, as in jews in Georgia, who are considered Georgians, not Israeli. Besides you're taking it out of context. Also Anatoliy Nogovitsyn is a member of the Russian government which makes it a Primary Source, which isn't good enough, again please read the sourcing policies. Grey Fox (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not disruptve to add Ukrainian and Israeli source, why on earth are you reticent about the Israeli source you erased yourself?! This interview was given, it is confirmed by 7 sources from 4 different and independent countries and if you expect me to add a link of the original interview in Hebrew, that is not going to happen, because I do not know the language! You probably do not know Russian too, and if so, abstain from removing disruptively Segodnya's and Vremya Novostei's articles, which you indulged to several times! Your effort to intimidate every user quoting Russian language sources other than the Novaya gazeta is simply harassment. Bogorm (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand most Russian with the use of translation devices, if I don't get something I ask my Russian colleagues Bogorm. I've explained to you above, multiple times, that the above sources aren't proper and can't be used. Some of the sources are ok (I've also said this) but then you pull them out of context which is a violation of WP:OR. For example, you don't know the difference between a Jew and an Israeli. Just because Jewish people live in Georgia it doesn't mean Israel is involved in the war. Grey Fox (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose - to write "Jewish involvement" so that you can blame me as conspracy-adherent and antisemit? I am not going to tumble into this pitfall, one of the sources has clearly the title "Involvement of Israel", so neither the adjective, nor the substantive are my figment! I am well aware of the difference of a Jew having an Israeli passport and one who has passport of another country, where he resides. In the case of the two ministers they have Isaeli passports and are Israeli, it is clearly stated! Bogorm (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't propose "Jewish involvment", there's no distinction to be made between a Georgian citizen and a Georgian-Jewish citizen. Sakaashvili only told Israel that to try and get support from them. The source that has "Involvement of Israel" is the Iranian one right? It simply can't go. As WP:V says, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As for 2 Georgian ministers having an Israeli passport, this says absolutely nothing about Israeli involvement and is WP:OR. There's also a minister in Georgia's parliament with a Russian passport. Why don't you start a section called "Russian help to Georgia" based soully on that? Grey Fox (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

West is rearming Georgia under cover of aid supplies

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction, "Medvedev alleges that..". Grey Fox (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Medvedev elucidates/discloses that" ? Bogorm (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Or "Medvedev hallucinates that..."--Kober 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add defamatory content to Misplaced Pages, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. Thank you.Bogorm (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for you when you said "discloses" Bogorm. This is the second time I notice you simply assume that everything Russian officials say is truth. But anyway, as long as it's not confirmed independently or by the west it's nothing but an allegation. Grey Fox (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"hallucinations" and "discloses" are not at an equal distance from the aurea mediocritas. Bogorm (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

President Medvedev (without verb, see above) about NATO naval vessels trespassing the Bosphorus:

(bold - mine)

Where does this fit best: here or International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war or somewhere else. The statement is crucial. Bogorm (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement is potentially significant and should be in both, the US section of International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war, and in 2008_South_Ossetia_war#Military_situation_in_the_Black_Sea in the main article, at least for the time being. "Said" already implies "alleged" in most other quotations and is good enough. Billyblind (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am adding it here, in the section you proposed. Bogorm (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians in South Ossetia

While it is a tragic incident and should be covered in detail in the article if enough reliable sources are available, I am not sure if this should be mentioned in the "result" section of the infobox. It is certainly something which is not official and conducted unofficially by a certain group of people who do not represent the official position. I am not sure if this can be labeled as result of 2008 South Ossetia war. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can, and should. It's also covered in the infobox of War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). Besides the South Ossetian president has already announced that Georgian civilians are not allowed to return to their (destroyed) settlements, so it's conducted officially. Eduard Kokoity: "We do not intend to allow their return." Grey Fox (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• We burned to the ground all Georgian towns and villages in South Ossetia

“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...

• 'Putin has given us an order that everyone must leave or be shot'

• Survivors in Georgia Tell of Ethnic Killings
• Georgia: Satellite Images Show Destruction, Ethnic Attacks
• HRW on ethnic cleansing in Georgia
• Russia's buffer zone creates ghost villages in Georgia
• 'Ossetia Is for Ossetians, Let the Georgians Suffer'
• Bukovsky: Brezhnev was better than Putin

Grey Fox (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then should we also mention that the "atrocities against the South Ossetian population by Georgian troops is prevented as a result of this war"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Atrocities that didn't happen? What makes you think they would have happened? You're just guessing. No we should not write about what "would have happened" but what happened. Grey Fox (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Atrocities without further explanation is POV statement. Bogorm (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree "atrocity" has vague definition. I am not saying to insert the exact wording in the article. I am saying what Putin called "genocide". Georgia committed genocide, Russians say. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Once genocide is acknowledged by international observers and human rights groups then sure. But so far, it's just an allegation from Russian autorities. According to human rights groups these figures are highly exaggerated and no genocide took place. Grey Fox (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But ethnic cleansing is also just an allegation from the Georgian authorities. Regarding the Kokoita statement, the Russian officials played that down, saying that Kokoita was just too emotional and did not mean what he said. Later Kokoita himself apologized for the statement. (Igny (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

It's not just an allegation from Georgians. It's been confirmed by independent sources, as well as, more importantly, human rights groups. If that's really true about Kokoity then show some sources, but for now his words confirm the policy of ethnic cleansing. The same happened in Abkhazia 15 years ago (albeit accompanied with thousands of murders) and Georgians still aren't allowed to return to their homes there, so I doubt the Kremlin cares either. Grey Fox (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

'Putin has given us an order that everyone must leave or be shot' ? Vladimir Bukovsky compares Putin and Hitler? Can we not make better use of common sense and not turn wiki into a tabloid? Billyblind (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the article neutral - avoid Russian bias

There's huge pro-Russian bias in the article an we should avoid any kind of bias.

First the description of the war is wrong. It was a war between Russia and Georgia over the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abhazia, second the war started when the Russian forces invaded Georgia crossing the Roki tunnel, if there were any hostilities before Russian invavion of Georgian territory they should be described as a civil war in a separate article.

So, deliberate georgian attack on russian peacekeeping battallion is still a "civil war" to you?! Do tell about bias! 195.218.210.138 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday it seamed prette biased the other way, but it seams better today.--Ezzex (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any facts that would substantiate your claims? Everything you wrote above is clearly pro-Georgian POV. You simply want to express official POV of the Georgian government. This article is definitely a wrong place to so. Would you like this article to represent the POV of Russian government? Maybe we should even name it "Russian peacekeeping operation in South Ossetia" or present as such in text? Try to be neutral and stick to facts, please. Also cite your sources when you make such claims. 89.113.128.63 (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Third the belligerents are not stated correctly. Either we show the two main forces Russia and Georgia, or all 6 parties involved

• Russia
• pro Russian South Ossetian authorities
• pro Russian Abkhazaian authories

vs.

• Georgia
• Pro Georgian Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia
• Pro Georgian Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.196 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean Ossetian and Abkhazian loyalists. I'd support that if they participated in the fighting, but have they? Grey Fox (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia and the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia didn't have a military. In fact the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia had very little mandate at all to do anything. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Belligerency implies a sovereign power. Georgian loyalists hardly qualify. "Pro-Russian" this or that is a POV. Billyblind (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is just an obvious POV. It's your personal opinion that the war start when "whatever". Go blog about it or something, since Misplaced Pages, surprise, is not all about publishing your personal opinions on topics in question. -- 81.195.15.149 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling "South Ossetia" sovereign or independent is clearly a POV - this is a position of one side of the war. ^— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.196 (talk • contribs)

Technically he is right,

civil war –noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

South Ossetia and Abkhazaian are considered Georgian territory and is under definition a civil war. Jade Rat (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

That would make the Chechen Wars civil war as well, meaning that there's an ongoing civil war in Russia for 15 years now. Grey Fox (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically Algeria was part of France - so, algerian war for independence was "civil war in France" as well? :) 195.218.210.174 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as there were hostilities between Georgian government forces and separatist (or whatever we call them) forces it *was* a civil war, as soon as the Russians came in, it became an international war - this should be clearly stated if we want to keep everything in one article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.196 (talk • contribs)

Ethnic Cleansing in Infobox

I do not think the Infobox "Results" section is a correct place to put "Ethnic Cleansing" data. I have looked into the different Yugoslav Wars there ethnic cleansing was a usual result of a particular conflict and see none done this way. Besides we have the "Casualty and Losses" section for the information on displaced people Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been used for years though in articles such as War in Abkhazia and the Russian–Circassian War. Maybe it should be transfered to "territorial changes", "casualties" or the "notes" sections Grey Fox (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there either and it was placed there by the same users without consensus. If it's not in World war 1 and World war 2 infoboxes then it doesn't belong here either. Also, the term was created during the Yugoslav wars according to the article on Ethnic cleansing so if it's not in the Yugoslav infoboxes it doesn't belong here.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

agree, or create new section in infobox template.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But it has not been used in the article Kosovo War... Amnesty International says that "An estimated total of some 235,000 people - of whom Serbs were estimated to number some 180,000 and the remaining from other minorities - had fled Kosovo by the end of August 1999 fearing retribution from members of the KLA and others minority returns have not occurred ." It isn't an ethnic cleansing, eh? (Pubkjre (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

As tragic as that is, the amnesty source also says there have been "repeated initiatives from the Kosovo authorities" for minorities to return. That's why it's not flat out ethnic cleansing. In this case, the president of South Ossetia has already announced that minorities (the georgians) won't be allowed to return. Grey Fox (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We're getting off topic but just because there are "initiatives" to bring the people back doesn't mean that ethnic cleansing hasn't occurred. As to the infobox, the only other places we've got ethnic cleansing in the infobox is War_in_Abkhazia_(1992–1993) and this was added without consensus. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC

Is it just me, or does anyone think that parts of this article from the BBC sounds strangely familiar to this one? For example, compare from the article:

The Ossetians are a distinct ethnic group originally from the Russian plains just south of the Don river. In the 13th Century, they were pushed southwards by Mongol invasions into the Caucasus mountains, settling along the border with Georgia.

to this one:

The Ossetians are a distinct Iranian ethnic group whose origin lies along the Don River. They came to the Caucasus after they were driven out of their homeland by Mongol invasions in the 13th century. Some of them settled in the territory now known as North Ossetia-Alania (currently part of Russia), and South Ossetia (currently part of Georgia).

Khoikhoi 03:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki article predates the BBC FAQ. The reporter probably used wiki in his research and neglected to reference it. What is your point? Billyblind (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC often condescends to uttering complete bosh - here their rootless essay to misrepresent Rudaki as Tajik has been rebuked. I urge you to proceed very circumspectly with this media when it reports on Iran or Russia - some users said above that Press TV is not reliable with regard to Israel, the same is true for BBC and Iranian people or Zimbabwe(they are banned from Zimbabwe, muse a bit upon the motive) or Russia (a swarm of plutocratic villains searched by Russian prosectors for commercial crimes put up there). Be prudent! Bogorm (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment made very little sense. Sorry (88.110.128.126 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Infrastructure damage and Humanitarian impact

Are not the Infrastructure damage and Humanitarian impact sections quite overlapping? Should these two sections be merged? The images of the destroyed buildings in the Humanitarian impact section are actually infrastructure damage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing in Infobox-2

Why is "ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia" removed from the infobox's Results section? It is a direct and one of the main results of this war. I understand that Russian editors do not want to see it there, but it is a well acknowledged fact, is it not?(PaC (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

You need to seek consensus before adding it back. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgian_civilians_in_South_Ossetia

Deleting this fact afterwards was already a not consensual act. Elysander (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You need consensus to add this to the infobox. It doesn't matter whether there is a section on it, there doesn't seem to be consensus that it belongs in the infobox. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And likewise there is no consensus to remove it from there either. Närking (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to racall that wikipedia putrs the onous on the insertion not delition of items in an article.]

Look at the first topic at the top, its called "Wait, What?". Read the entire discussion held by me and Grey Fox-9589 (talk · contribs) and you'll know why it was deleted. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As well as why it keeps getting re-inserted. Grey Fox (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, talking about the infobox, there are other strange things in it, such as the war ended on the 12th and that 2000 Georgian soldiers from Iraq are mentioned in the Georgian strength. If the war ended on the 12th (which I don't think – Gori and Poti was taken after that), how can those 2000 soldiers from Iraq be mentioned since all of them hadn't arrived there yet. Närking (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When did the war end? Many people believe it ended on the 12th, when the last of Georgian troops were pushed out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia; in fact, some in the media have called it a "five-day war." Some might argue the occupation of Gori and Poti wasn't war, Russian troops came right in with no opposition from Georgian forces who all retreated to the capital. As for the 2000 troops, let's get realistic: would their presence have guaranteed Georgia's victory, honestly? However, for the sake of accuracy if we use the 12th as a date then we should make a note about the troops within the infobox.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now the date finally has been changed to the 16th which is the date used in most other Wikipedias (except for the Russian one). But of course those 2000 soldiers wouldn't have made much difference. But if the infobox should be correct, they shouldn't be there if they never made it there before the war was over. Närking (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, it can simply be dealt with in the article.

Here's a direct quote from General David Petraeus: US aircraft have started to fly some of Georgia’s 2,000 troops in Iraq back home to join the fight in the breakaway province of South Ossetia, General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq said today. The flights are ongoing to redeploy the elements of the Georgian contingent so that they can deal with the security issues in their country General Petraeus told The Times in an interview at his office inside Baghdad’s Green Zone. Grey Fox (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I still do not see any real arguments as to why "Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia" should not be in the infobox. Yet it keeps getting removed. I think the fact of ethnic cleansing of Georgians is not denied by anybody here. It is well documented. It is a direct and one of the main results of this war. So what are the arguments for not putting this in the infobox, besides the desire to whitewash Russian actions by some pro-Russian editors?(PaC (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't think the pro-Russian editors are whitewashing Ossetian actions, considering these aren't Russian actions. At best, there is disagreement with assertions of "ethnic cleansing" of Georgians by the Ossetian government, but as South Ossetia is now an independent country (according to some countries) its leadership has the sovereignty to make its own decisions; Russia shouldn't have to go and police them. Although, yes, there is something to be said about Russia not vocally condemning such actions, if indeed it is ethnic cleansing. In any case, I've ask Grey Fox to start an appropriate discussion where all editors can state their view under a single headline so we can reach a consensus and decide what to do. If you have something to say, you can get it out of your system there. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I still did not find any arguments for not putting this info in the infobox. The "disagreement with assertions" is really irrelevant, it is a well documented, well sourced fact and it is already present in the article. The question is only why is it not in the infobox.(PaC (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

That wasn't actually an argument for or against inclusion, just me saying that blaming this on pro-Russian users trying to cover "Russian actions" doesn't actually make any sense considering the Russian state isn't cleansing any Georgians. As for why it shouldn't be included, my own views are that its inclusion is a violation of WP:POVPUSH and WP:DUE, which is exactly the reason controversial issues like this are not usually included in an infobox. Further, even if ethnic cleansing has occured, why exactly does it need to be included in the infobox? The article itself is not enough room? It seems people want to bring extra attention to the suffering of one side over the other, and the result is, and will continue to be, constant edit warring. Further, if we don't find a consensus here and someone goes and creates another article on the matter, which I suspect may happen, that would be an obvious violation of WP:CFORK. Anyway, if my interpretation of rules is wrong, there should be obvious support in favor of inclusion, which is why I'm pushing for the opinions of other editors for dispute resolution, especially a third party. I've seen a few admins editing the article, I'd like to have their take on the matter. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the only "argument" I saw here is "why exactly does it need to be included in the infobox?" Let me explain. The infobox contains main information about the war. Since ethnic cleansing of Georgians in SO is one of the main results of the war it should be included in the infobox. Does this answer your question? And sure, it would be nice to hear other editors' take on the matter. Especially a well argued one and not just "it shouldn't be there".(PaC (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Having legitimate reservations as to whether its inclusion violates several policies is the foremost issue in need of consideration. A clever argument isn't going to get you far; you cannot circumvent policy. As for the "it should go there just because it happened" argument, let's consider it: choosing what goes in and what stays out is an inherently subjective practice. You are arguing that it is important enough to stay, the burden of successfully arguing why it is important enough for exceptional prominence, such as in the infobox, and why it is important enough to risk future edit wars, falls on you. We need some common denominators, apparently. What will it be? What has caused the most news? Sure, let's add "worsening of relations between Russia and NATO," that's caused the most headlines. What has the most international relevance? How about "Russian hegemonic control of Caucasus tightens," I've seen plenty of this sensationalism in Western meda. What will cause the most moral outrage and help influence someone's negative view of one side before they've had a chance to read the article? If that's the case, you might have a point. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally some arguments. Let's get to the heart of it. So your point is basically that ethnic cleansing of Georgians in SO is not an important enough result of this war to be included in the infobox. Well, here's my justification: it is important enough to be included because it is the most unprecedented change in the demographics of this region since Mongol invasion, and it will largely determine the future fate of this region. Now please explain why this is not prominent enough for you.(PaC (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Hey PaC, aren't you a known sockpuppet? After an exhaustive review of evidence an admin determined that "Papa Carlo's primary purpose is to continue edit warring..." Wow, now there's a revelation. I guess I'm not surprised to find you here. Remind us again why anyone should take you seriously considering that you are an established troll who has absolutely no credibility? --71.112.145.102 (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha. I recognize the KGB-style intimidation techniques! No tavarish'. The admins admitted that this accusation was false. And do you have any actual point? (PaC (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

No one said the accusation was false, the admin who unbanned you did so in good faith after a heartfelt unblock request, with a suggestion that you spent some of your time editing articles "that pertain to non-controversial non-nationalistic topics," which would allow "fellow editors to see you are not here solely to pursue an agenda related to your nationalistic persuasions." You come back and the first thing you do is come and engage in another controversial anti-Ossetian issue? My point: you're a nationalist with a clear mission. Quit wasting everyone's time. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing my friend is called a personal attack. It is against wikipedia policy: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point." I will not sit here and argue with you on how and why I was blocked or unblocked. I will simply report you if you continue personal attacks. Consider yourself warned.(PaC (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

You don't need to argue with me about any of that, it's all archived on your talk page for everyone to see. I'm simply reminding you to follow some of the advice of the admins and try to contribute to Misplaced Pages outside of anti-Abhkaz-Ossetian scene you usually follow. After all, the was suggested by the admins to help repair your reputation, otherwise, as the admins rightly said, people become suspicious of your purpose here.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you continue with personal attacks. Do you have anything to say about the issue being discussed, or do you just hope to bury it in your silly ramblings? (PaC (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Btw compare to the "Kosovo war" or "Operation Storm" infoboxes for example. Why "ethnic cleansing of Serbs" isn't there but "ethnic cleansing of Georgians" should be here? Especially considering the fact that most georgian refugees in SO were displaced/evacuated by georgian government before Saaka's sneak attack! 195.218.210.174 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem full of dubious claims. Grey Fox (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No more dubious than opposite claims 195.218.210.174 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Any reputable sources for you argument, can of course, be discussed here. Grey Fox (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

About biased sources... Do people know that representative of HRW in Georgia was (still is?)... Sandra Roelofs, better knows as the dutch first lady of Georgia? 80.82.54.32 (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of that. Can you source that? Grey Fox (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few sources in Dutch alleging that (e.g. ]). Maybe the grandparent has a more definitive source. Billyblind (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not alleged in the article BillyBlind, just by a user who commented on it. Grey Fox (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 71.112.145.102's indignation against the light-minded inclusions of some deputable ethnic cleansing of Georgians. Here is the source, attention, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, commissary for Foreign affairs of the EU in Avignon:

Template:Lang-ru

I urge the adherents of the ethnic cleansing to present neutral evidence for their claims (neutral does not mean Bildt's inspirations, but some non-Russian, non-Georgian and non-NATO source (and non-Bildt, if possible)). Bogorm (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This quote of Ferrero-Waldner has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. And please do not quote Russian TV. Remember Bulgakov's "не читайте до обеда советских газет" (PaC (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

The sources have been presented here multiple times, Bogorm. Please read the previous discussions. Heck, Kokoity himself admits it:

• We burned to the ground all Georgian towns and villages in South Ossetia

“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...

And here are some more (already listed before by Grey Fox)

• 'Putin has given us an order that everyone must leave or be shot'

• Survivors in Georgia Tell of Ethnic Killings
• Georgia: Satellite Images Show Destruction, Ethnic Attacks
• HRW on ethnic cleansing in Georgia
• Russia's buffer zone creates ghost villages in Georgia
• 'Ossetia Is for Ossetians, Let the Georgians Suffer'
• Bukovsky: Brezhnev was better than Putin

The question here is not whether the ethnic cleansing took place but whether to include this info in the infobox. (PaC (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Cease quoting Georgian propaganda and NATO-medias beyond the ocean, if you are to launch an assault on people quoting Russian sources, their (US) citizens were found with the passports in Poti, USA has been combatting for Georgia! Instead look at this film, showing how peaceful Ossetian inhabitants of Tskhinval faced the incursion of the 12 000 Georgian army and what has been inflicted to them. I suggest adding in the box "Ossetian genocide" with it as a source, any (stringent, not-POV) objections? Bogorm (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any non-Russian, non-Ossetian, non-propaganda sources supporting the prejudicious claims about "Ossetian genocide"? From what I can see, you uncritically accept the Russian news as the truth and denounce anything that contradicts your own POV as Georgian propaganda and "NATO media" (this latter thing is my favorite of your vocubulary).--Kober 13:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here is the source that the number of slain Ossetians is 1692 and it originates in a neutral state in the Caucasus conflict. As you see, I rely not only on Russian news ;) Bogorm (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But your source does. :) ""We have information of 1,692 dead and 1,500 injured as a result of the Georgian aggression," Russian Interfax news agency quoted Teimuraz Khugayev as saying." As you can see your source quotes a Russian state news agency quoting an Ossetian separatist officials. --Kober 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But in the NATO states such expositions are hardly to come across - as you see, Press TV represents the current officials of this country with their conclusions after counting the murdered, whereas these conclusions are being concealed by Western medias (there is a whole article about Western disinformation). Fortunately, the source is English-language and accessible for the most people of the Occident to make themselves familiar with these results. Bogorm (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Press TV is a newspaper funded by the Iranian government Bogorm, we can't use that. Grey Fox (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Press TV is no newspaper. Secondly, it is a prominent and reverend media which has acquired its article here. Thirdly, it may swerve to and fro from the neutrality, when discussiong the Middle East, but this here is not the case. Please, do not derogate it. I am not commenting the funding of the medias you rely on. Pervy Kanal is too government funded, but is the greatest media in the greatest country on Earth, its significance and reliability are indisputable. Bogorm (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha! No more questions for you, tavarish'.(PaC (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Ha-ha! That's real humour! Närking (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL ... thanks for not surprising plea in favour of state-controlled and synchronized medias against press freedom. ;) Elysander (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Bogorm seems to have quite a unique understanding of reliable sources. Grey Fox (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am rara avis, and proud of this. I must make a template for such people... Do not force me to be redundant - I stated clearly why Pervy Kanal is reliable source. Please, deign to remark, that whereas you are launching assaults on Russian and Iranian medias, I have not made any derogatory comments on any popular media with established article here (besides one, and quoted why it distorts other peoples' culture) and shall not! Bogorm (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

" According to a recent government publication, the Russian government controls 51% of its shares". So much for the reliability of Pervy Kanal Bogorm. I'm glad you're proud of yourself for being a "rara avis" but wikipedia is not a forum, this is not the place to express your opinions on political issues. We are after creating a well balanced encelopedia article. Grey Fox (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Report from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

For your information the Commissioner for Human Rights has just returned from Georgia and has today published his report for everyone to read at or . Närking (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Betreaying both countries mothers

It is just silly and rubbish that the russian officials state a number of death russian servicemen that can`t be more lower. Eyewitnesses report that Vladicavcas hospitals are full with uniformed corpses. How can it be that only 75 russians were killed, when the 2nd georgian brigade confirmed the knock out of at least 150 enemy soldiers in their war sector. The Gori Artillery Brigade brought devastating losses upon the russian 58th army first armored columns. 100-160 vehicles were confirmed as destroyed and at least 100-250 soldiers killed. It is the devastating effect of BM-21 Grad MLRS batteries and 2S7 Pion heavy howitzers. Nato soources and military experts estimate 1000 dead russians alone during the breakless artillery fire. Not to talk about the casulties of the illegals abkhazian and ossetian militia band formations. The Georgian army itself stated 113 killed servicemen ( 12 special forces members ) and at least 850 wounded. Of course this statement is also not true. local sources report 200 killed servicemen and 100 reservists.

So please respect the unknown number of dead soldiers and write down true imformations. Nobody counts military sources as the really true ones. So real numbers will appear in several month's or year's. Till then please write down "unknown number" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for those claims? LokiiT (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Or a photograph... Ottre (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

also, when NATO experts talk about 100s of killed Taliban, it comes out all are civilians..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, he can't prove anything, now i remember him - he's the same delirious kid who not so long ago wrote hilarious fantasies like "georgians repel russian attack, destroyng 8 T-72 tanks ( crew: 32 dead )", not even knowing that T-72 has crew of only 3 men! You can check his other fairy tales in archive12 for a good laugh :))) 195.218.210.176 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Update needed

Sarkozy convinced Putin: EU ESDP mission from 1 October onwards, Russian withdrawal from buffer zones within two weeks from that, conference on the future of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on 15 October in Geneva. Should be in the article, but isn't yet, AFAICS. —Nightstallion 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The stress is rather on the deployment of EU monitors, which was the initial pullout condition: European monitors to deploy to Georgia. Billyblind (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Furthermore, the article should state that Russia explicitly refused to EU requests to rescind the official recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. —Nightstallion 23:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep - and: Russia to close the 5 checkpoints between Poti and Senaki within a week from now ( Sept 15) ... 1st litmus test - Elysander (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all contingent on Georgia signing a non-aggression treaty with regard to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Israeli involvement in Georgia

Without having gone back thru history, I do recall some information on Israeli involvement in Georgia being placed in the article, only to be removed. Stratfor has published detailed analysis on Israeli involvement in the lead up to the Georgian attacks. This information needs to be mentioned within the article. --Russavia 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Felgenhauer's POV in the background revisited

When I tried to determine what analysts FT meant when saying " some analysts believe that... " I found out that FT just referred to the same Felgenhauer's claim. A complete quote is

So swift was the Russian reaction that some analysts believe that, while it did not appear to precede the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali, as Mr Saakashvili claims, it may have been planned in advance, with Mr Saakashvili simply falling into a well prepared Russian trap. “It is now perfectly clear to me that the Russian incursion into Georgia was planned in advance, and a definitive political decision to complete the preparation and start a war in August was apparently made back in April,” wrote Pavel Felgengauer, a defence analyst and Kremlin critic, in Novaya Gazeta on August 14. “If a war has been planned, a pretext can always be found.”

No more "analysts" supported thia claim in FT's article. As this wiki-page gets huge, I insist on removing such redundant statements. Needless to say, I actually object having this POV in the article at all, unless there is an independent verification of Felgenhauer's claims. (Igny (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Felgenhauer, Novaya Gazeta, Jamestown Foundation. Only one person could be behind that, and I suggest watching his edits closely for overtly pro-Georgian anti-Russian sentiment, placing much emphasis on such POV at the behest of providing alternative POV. --Russavia 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Abkhazia articles
• Top-importance Abkhazia articles
• WikiProject Abkhazia articles
• B-Class Georgia (country) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (country) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Top-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles