Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Labrang (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 21 February 2022 (→NPOV in the lede: added indent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Georgian War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

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.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Russo-Georgian War has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result March 4, 2010 WikiProject peer review Reviewed May 20, 2014 WikiProject peer review Reviewed November 21, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2014 Good article nominee Listed February 28, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted July 26, 2015 Good article nominee Listed September 13, 2016 Good article reassessment Kept News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 12, 2008, and October 1, 2009. Current status: Good article

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

Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 13 June 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors 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. Limited recognition Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. 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: History / Military / Politics and law 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. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War 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 Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 7, 2014, August 7, 2016, and August 7, 2018.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

August 1-7 events in the lede

Per WP:LEDE, the lede should introduce and summarise the topic, mentioning only the most important events. Here the events leading to the war are important and they are also controversial, even the facts that everyone agrees on are interpreted differently. In the article we can write about all that in line with WP:NPOV however in the lede there is no space for that. Therefore I believe that in the lede only the basic facts need to be mentioned. These are the basic facts as described in the EU independent fact-finding mission report about this period:

Volume 2, pp 207-208

Volume 1, p. 11

This is not me cherry-picking words from the report, see this Telegraph article for a summary.

In view of all this, I believe that Thucydides411's version is superior as it mentions both SO shelling of Georgian villages and the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali and does not put all the blame for breaking the ceasefire on the SO forces. Alaexis_¿question? 08:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope most here are not gullible enough to describe EU mission as "independent fact-finding mission". EU is a politicized organization, especially in any Russia-related context, and would not pay millions of euro to an "independent" mission find objective truth, it cares about itself and would be very convenient to place some portion of blame on different sides, that way they don't have to do anything about it. Representatives from different member states felt differently, sp the report you reference seems a messy outcome of that, giving everyone a bit of what they want. EU is not some divine force and I see no reason to center this article or it introduction on EU. Besides, author of the report is not without criticism Typical EU bureacrat who look for any excuse to bury her head in the sand.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting fact: François Fillon who was Prime Minister of France when this "independent" EU report was written is accepting a job for Russian state oil company Sure inspires even greater confidence in EU.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

While it's true that no source is perfect, let's look at the sources in the text that you restored:

1. Eyewitness Accounts Confirm Shelling Of Georgian Villages says "The report also claims that South Ossetian separatists were using heavy weapons against the Georgian villages, which was prohibited by a 1992 cease-fire agreement." It's not the same as saying that the SO forces broke the ceasefire agreement. Why do you trust an OSCE report and not trust an EU one? Alaexis_¿question? 11:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

2. Competing Powers: U.S.-Russian Relations, 2006-2016 by certain Håkan Karlsson. He does say that the SO separatists broke the ceasefire in early August. The question is why his opinion is more notable than that of others?

3. LoC legal report says "With the purpose of protecting the population and restoring law and order in South Ossetia, Georgian troops were brought to the territory of this autonomous district on August 7, 2008." But this is not the only way the sources describe the Georgian attack: the same Karlsson says that "Georgia rashly responded to these manifestly aggressive actions by attempting to recapture South Ossetia by force." (p. 50)

As I said, this is a controversial topic and therefore the lede should contain the basic facts about which there is no disagreement: shelling in early August, Georgian attack on Tskhinvali, Russian intervention and occupation of Georgian territory. Alaexis_¿question? 11:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don

Who is talking about moral equivalence? The question whether we should say in lede in wiki-voice that SO broke the ceasefire is fundamentally a question of sources: whether this is the consensus position shared by most reliable sources. You cannot dismiss the EU report because you don't like what is written there. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS it's a reliable source. I have no problem with Karlsson but I'm against privileging his opinion when there are others who do not place the blame for breaking the ceasefire of the SO forces. Alaexis_¿question? 17:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I still believe EU report is a big rabbit hole and if we highlight points we think "important" in introduction, others will come up with other "important" conclusions favorable to them from report, so I think we should stay clear of the report in introduction because it is not without criticism of EU bureaucrats as I explained above. That being said, I don't oppose adjusting the section a little bit like this:

I think it is fair to say "with the declared goal" because they did declare they want restore "constitutional order" and we won't necessarily be commenting on what you and me think about whether that is accurate.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence is not NPOV in my view. First, the statement that the SO forces broke the ceasefire is a very strong one and I don't think that there is a consensus about it. It's not just the EU report, this is a quote from War and Revolution in the Caucasus: Georgia Ablaze, p. 67

Second, the proposed version does not mention the Georgian fire at the SO forces which is well documented by multiple sources (see the Skirmishing and artillery duels section of the article). Alaexis_¿question? 12:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well your last point brings us back to chicken or egg situation: whether Georgia fired after ceasfire was already broken by separatists and that is another rabbit hole that is not going to reach satisfactory conclusion in the introduction without getting out of contrl. I don't think section from "Revolution in the Caucasus" you provide is enough to remove the claim that ceasefire was broken by SO. Sure, your source does not say that ceasefire was broken by either side, but it also does not refute Karlsson claim that SO attacks broke ceasefire. So we have a source that says it was broken, and another source that seem to be avoiding explicitly adressing the question and instead providing more general overview, don't think that counts as "lack of consensus" when it just does not seem address the specific question at hand in the first place.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSLEDE the lede should summarise the article. In other words, it should contain the most important information as determined by the reliable sources writing about it. I've provided two sources which talk about exchange of fire and clashes between the Georgian and SO forces in the first week of August without placing all the blame on the SO side. If you believe that the consensus view is that the SO forces broke the ceasefire AND that it's notable enough to be included in the lede the burden is on you to show that this is what the majority of reliable sources say. Alaexis_¿question? 18:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva: Please stop making personal attacks. Your second revert accused either Alaexis or me of using a typical soviet tactic, and above, you've accused some editors of wanting what follows Kremlin's favorite talking points . Throwing around these accusations just poisons the atmosphere, and violates one of the central pillars of Misplaced Pages policy: WP:CIVIL. I'll also note that reverting the same content multiple times could be seen as edit-warring.

As for the content question, the current text uncritically reproduces the Georgian government's version of events, despite the fact that this version is, to be charitable, heavily disputed:

Artillery attacks by pro-Russian separatists broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement. To put an end to these attacks and restore order, the Georgian Army was sent to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August. Georgians took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, in hours.

First, it blames the South Ossetian separatsists for breaking the 1992 ceasefire, though there is considerable dispute over how the escalation occurred, and at the very least, the fact that both sides fired across the de facto border in the days preceding 7 August 2008 is well documented. Second, the text claims that the Georgian army aimed to end these attacks and restore order, taking the Georgian government's official (and again, contested) position at face value. An alternative interpretation is that the Georgian army moved in to conquer the territory. It is best to simply leave these sorts of subjective statements out of the lede, and to simply state what happened:

The Georgian army advanced into separatist-held territory in South Ossetia on 7 August, taking control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, in hours.

Finally, the US government outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which was founded explicitly as an anti-Soviet propaganda station, should not be used a source for contentious statements about geopolitical issues in Eastern Europe - or at least, it should be used sparingly and only with attribution of its statements, as we would do with other opinionated sources. Likewise, I would be wary of using reports produced by the Swedish Defence University.

One more point: the lede claims, Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Russo-Georgian state border and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the Georgian military response. There are five sources given. The first source (from the Swedish Defence University) actually states the opposite: that Russia responded to the Georgian military's offensive into South Ossetia. The second source (the Moscow Times) discusses Georgian claims that they were responding to a Russian incursion, but does not state that these claims are true. The third source (Chifu) does make this claim, but the report was funded by a US government think tank, the German Marshall Fund, and it does not cite any sources for its claims. The report produced by the European Union's fact-finding mission on the war notes the Georgian government's claims that Russian forces entered South Ossetia before the Georgian military began its operation, but the EU report is unable to substantiate nor rule out the Georgian claims (see pp. 220-221). At the very least, the claim that Russian troops entered South Ossetia prior to the conflict, and that the Georgian military operation was a response, is contentious. It should not be stated in Wikivoice, but should rather be described as an allegation made by the Georgian government and denied by Russia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I'm not going to attempt to address all the inaccuracies in what you wrote (because I simply no time), but for sake of giving others a taste of how poorly researched all of this is, let me respond to one particular inaccurate claim you just made: "The first source (from the Swedish Defence University) actually states the opposite: that Russia responded to the Georgian military's offensive into South Ossetia". Here's what that source actually says:

In early August 2008, the South Ossetian separatists, apparently encouraged by Russia, began shelling Georgian villages in breach of a 1992 armistice and Russian military units illegally entered into South Ossetia.

So not only that source support the notion that Russia illicitly crossed into Georgia before the all-out war but in fact it also support another point that I was talking to Alexis about earlier, which is that armistice was breached. I apologize if I said anything to offend you but when I say "soviet tactic", this is exactly what I mean, source say one thing, but you say opposite and blame the victim.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I missed that line in the Swedish Defence University document, but again, this claim is heavily disputed (see the EU fact-finding mission's report), and the Swedish Defence University is not a neutral source. I don't know which victim you're referencing, but the lede contains strongly POV material that states contested Georgian-government claims in Wikivoice, and this is unacceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if Karlsson is reliable, this is not a sufficient condition to include his version of the events in the lede and disregard everything else. To quote from War and Revolution in the Caucasus: Georgia Ablaze again:

This is the first mention of Russian actions in the section The eruption of war. Again, the burden is on you to demonstrate with reliable sources that Karlsson's position is the consensus one. Alaexis_¿question? 18:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And there is never going to be full consensus when you have the likes of EU reports being written by dozens of bureaucrats with conflicting interests of their respective countries in mind. Scanning through it is mind boggling nonsense written by lawyers. We need to be sensible. I realize not all sources will made the exact point that Karlsson made, but that is not same as refuting his point. I have not seen anything above that refutes his point. Lastly, Sweden does not have officials work for Gazprom and Zarubezhneft, so as far as most reasonable persons understand, they are more neutral source than French and German investigators forming part of EU fact finding mission, no reason to cast doubts about their Defence University. Removing out this content is completely unacceptable, but here's another, softer language as different possibility to account for more nuances:

--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is useful any more. Evidently we disagree on the reliability of several sources however the argument "some German politician works for Gazprom, hence the EU report is unreliable" has no basis in the Misplaced Pages policy (unless it is made by scholars and constitutes scholarly consensus, which has not been demonstrated here). Feel free to request third opinion via Misplaced Pages:Third opinion or WP:RFC. Alaexis_¿question? 05:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That is gross simplification of what I wrote. And also, as I said, EU report is not without criticism unrelated to Gazprom. From what I can tell, the content in question has been part of the article without controversy for YEARs but suddenly it became controversial. Here's what I think really happened: The past few years Kremlin-friendly forces have been focused in disparaging Ukraine and blaming the victim, now that they finally catch some breath on Ukraine, there is need to also water down this article to make it also more Kremlin-friendly. That is the truth and you don't have a consensus to whitewash these facts out of the article. Consensus should not be cited only when its aimed at particular angle.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would consider the EU as an institution to be mildly biased in favor of the Georgian government, given the geopolitical relationships between the EU, NATO, Georgia and Russia. Ruling out the EU fact-finding mission as a source because it's supposedly pro-Russian just strikes me as absurd. Regardless of which source you consider most reliable and least biased, however, you have to admit that you're putting contested claims made by the Georgian government into Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The text I propose above is anything but wikipedia voice as far as I understand it. For example, saying "with the declared goal" is not same as just taking their statements.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed text still claims that the separatists broke the ceasefire, and that Russian troops entered South Ossetia before the Georgian offensive. These are contested claims. The text should stick to what is actually known to be true, and should be phrased neutrally. It currently recapitulates the narrative given by the Georgian government, as opposed to, say, that of the EU fact-finding mission. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The EU report clearly states:

"The attacks on Georgian villages (Zemo Nikozi, Kvemo Nikozi, Avnevi, Nuli, Ergneti, Eredvi and Zemo Prisi) by South Ossetian forces can be qualified as equivalent to an “attack by the armed forces of a State on the territory of another State”

Unlike Karlsson they may not explicitly stated that separatists broke a specific ceasefire agreement, but if they engaged in an armed attack, it follows that those agreements were broken. At the very least, report does not run contrary to Karlsson's argument and certainly doesn't refute it, especially since his analysis came after everyone had some time to digest EU report. With this in mind, it is not appropriate to cite EU report to say that Karlsson's claims are "contested".

Also, keep in mind that this war was not just in SO, but also extended to Abkhazia. In that case, EU clearly finds violation of ceasefire:

"As the upper Kodori Valley did not belong to the Abkhaz-controlled territory under the provisions of the Moscow Agreement, the attack against it by Abkhaz units supported by Russian forces constituted an illegal use of force as prohibited by the Ceasefire Agreement"

So not only it does not conflict with Karlsson's claim, but in fact we could have another sentence on Abkhaz breaching ceasfire in the course of this conflict. But I'm sure somebody would find excuses to "contest" that as well because it is just not Kremlin-friendly.

--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no problem with mentioning any of that. Your reasoning that it follows from the first statement that the ceasefire was broken by SO is WP:OR. The events in Abkhazia happened a few days later after the war had begun so I don't understand how it is relevant to the discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying put words in EU mouth, my point is that it may not say so directly, but it also does not refute Karlsson's claim, that's all. It is not accurate to portray his claim as "contested" when it just isn't contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeontinaVarlamonva (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a certain basic outline of the events leading up to the war that sources generally agree on. These include the increasing incidents across the de facto border in early August 2008, the Georgian military's advance into rebel-held South Ossetian territory on the night of 7-8 August, and the Russian military's arrival in South Ossetia in force on the afternoon of 8 August. Any claims beyond these (and perhaps a few other uncontroversial facts) should be specifically attributed, and perhaps not even be mentioned in the lede. Rather than portraying events through the lens preferred by the Georgian government (as is now the case) or through the lens preferred by the Russian government, the lede should focus on the facts that are broadly agreed upon by the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in that specific part of Karlsson's assessment that the EU report refutes or contests, in fact areas I identified suggest opposite. Not addressing something or not specifically stating is not same as not agreeing with or contesting.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The EU report notes that claims of Russian forces entering South Ossetia before 8 August 2008 are contested, and discusses the different views on the issue. You're saying that instead of presenting the issue in the way that the EU fact-finding mission presented it, we should rely on the Swedish Defence University as a source. To me, this looks like cherry-picking. Given that you've argued that the EU has a pro-Russian bias (a claim I frankly find incredible), I'm surprised that you think the Swedish Defence University is unbiased. Given the geopolitical relationships at play, one would expect the EU fact-finding mission to be, if anything, somewhat biased against Russia, and the Swedish Defence University even more so.

I'm simply proposing that we focus on uncontroversial facts that are broadly agreed-upon in the lede (such as those I outlined above). Claims that go beyond that should be framed as claims, and should probably not be included in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"The EU report notes that claims of Russian forces entering South Ossetia before 8 August 2008 are contested": I honestly not see what this has to do with anything. The sentence in this article, supported by Karlsson, says that separatists broke a ceasefire agreement through their activities ("Artillery attacks by pro-Russian separatists broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement"). It is not necessary to agree on when Russia entered into area to be able to say separatists broke ceasefire because separatist were there all along, there is no contest on that. In fact, as said early, EU found separatists actions were an armed attack.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As an alternative, we can mention the key disagreements in the lede as I have just done. I like it less because it makes the lede less clear to the reader but that's also an option. Alaexis_¿question? 08:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, there is no "disagreement" between the EU report and what Karlsson said. There is nothing in there that refutes the claim that SO separatists broke the ceasefire. The only disagreement it seems is inside the EU report itself because it say many conflicting things. If you say how they think open hostilitis began, then why not also say that "a violent conflict had already been going on before" and that subsequent response from Abkhazia was also "an illegal use of force as prohibited by the Ceasefire Agreement"? EU report goes for many hundred pages and you are picking only one line that is Kremlin's favorite line. Call me supisicous but look like war anniversary is coming up, and there is effort to whitewash established noncontroversial content on this article to make it more Kremlin-friendly, there is no other explanation for cherry picking multi-hundred page report.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Eka Tsamalashvili; Brian Whitmore (14 November 2008). "Eyewitness Accounts Confirm Shelling Of Georgian Villages". Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. Archived from the original on 23 September 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
2. Håkan Karlsson (12 September 2016). "Competing Powers: U.S.-Russian Relations, 2006–2016" (PDF). Swedish Defence University. p. 50. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 January 2017.
3. Peter Roudik. "Russian Federation: Legal Aspects of War in Georgia". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 10 January 2019. Retrieved 26 April 2019.

RfC: Russo-Georgian War lede contents

Should the lede contain only the basic facts (e.g., "A attacked B and then C bombed D") or also opinions (e.g.,"X broke the ceasefire, Y is responsible for escalation")? For the facts that are disputed, is there a consensus or should we mention disagreements? Alaexis_¿question? 19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

When I say basic facts I mean statements like "Russian army entered South Ossetia", "Georgian villages were ethnically cleansed", "Russia occupied Gori and Poti", "Georgian forces attacked Tskhinvali" etc. (not necessarily in that order). There is no disagreement in reliable sources that all of these events happened. On the other hand, such statements as "open hostilities started with a large-scale Georgian operation against Tskhinvali" or "South Ossetian separatists ... began shelling Georgian villages in breach of a 1992 armistice" express opinions about which there is no widely held consensus. My position is that it's preferable to stick to uncontroversial facts in the lede and mention notable opinions in the body of the article.

A separate issue is how to treat facts about which reliable sources disagree. The main such fact is whether there was a significant presence of Russian forces in South Ossetia before the Georgian attack. The EU fact-finding mission found that Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive could not be substantiated. On the other hand, certain Hakon Karlsson writes "Russian military units illegally entered into South Ossetia. Georgia rashly responded to these manifestly aggressive actions by attempting to recapture South Ossetia by force." . It has not been demonstrated that one view or the other commands overwhelming support, so I believe both should be mentioned in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 19:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

LeontinaVarlamonva, Thucydides411, please be aware of the RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 19:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Question is too vague. What constitutes a "basic" fact is inherently ill-defined. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Adoring nanny, to make it more concrete, please see this diff. The old revision says that the Ossetian forces broke the ceasefire and that the Georgian forces attacked to "restore order" (both statements made in wikivoice). The new revision says that there was shelling by SO and that Georgia attacked Tskhinvali. What is more suitable for the lede? Alaexis_¿question? 05:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that separatist actions constituted an "armed attack" (according to EU) and the fact that these attacks broke the ceasefire agreement (according to Karlsson but not contested by EU), are fairly "basic" facts when describing breakout of any armed conflict. But these points are disliked by the Kremlin, I think that is where the need arises to have only "basic" facts, code word for removing anything potentially making Russia look bad.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva: Please stop insinuating that editors who see POV problems in the article are somehow working for the Kremlin. It's a breach of WP:AGF. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's ill-defined. There are, in fact, various straightforward facts that are widely agreed upon, and there are claims that are clearly disputed. Above, Alaexis gives examples from each of the two categories. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• In principle, the sides’ positions and beliefs can be just as important in explaining events and motivations as the confirmed facts, so I wouldn’t normally advocate a restriction against mentioning them in the lead. Can we not resolve to follow the best secondary sources? By the way, v II of the report is observations and opinions delivered to the commission, but Volume I may be a better indicator of the findings it officially made. —Michael Z. 15:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I agree that it could make sense to mention some of the disputed claims in the lede, but I do think that we should make it clear which claims are disputed. At various times, the lede has included disputed claims in Wikivoice, based on a selective use of sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Mzajac: That's a good point, I didn't notice it at first. This does not materially change my argument. This is what is written in Volume I re the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict (pp. 11,19)

And this is re Russian incursion prior to the Georgian attack (p. 20)

Alaexis_¿question? 15:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite right. But the section (in v II) that describes the Georgian allegations of a buildup, whether true or not, possibly reflected the Georgian leadership’s best intelligence, likely were believed by some, most, or all Georgian decision-makers and the public, and so influenced following events, right? We can leave out an assertion of absolute factuality of the statement, but that doesn’t require us to hide the absolutely factual existence of this motivation for Georgian actions. I’m just saying, in principal, WP:verifiability, not truth. —Michael Z. 16:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we can say something like "attacked with the declared purpose of restoring order and countering purported Russian build-up." I would not include it in the lede but I'm not strongly opposed to it, as long as it's also made clear that there are reliable sources according to which Russian incursion occured after the attack. Alaexis_¿question? 16:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

But careful with MOS:DOUBT words like purported. —Michael Z. 19:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but one also has to avoid expressing certainty about claims that are not certain. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, I am very confused why you even want to clarify all this in introduction. Currently, introduction does not claim that Russia broke cease-fire or that it invaded Georgia before the Georgian move on Tskinvali. It only talks about the separatist actions, and there has never been any doubt separatists were there all along or that there was shelling from them. Sequence of events is already very clear in the introduction: sporadic shelling, Georgian operation, and then "Russia accused Georgia of "aggression against South Ossetia", and launched a large-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia on 8 August with the stated goal of a peace enforcement operation" Nowhere in introduction does it say it was an unprovoked invasion.

Besides, if you really want to explain that Russia was responding to Georgian "attack", then must also mention Georgia was responding to SO separatist attack, which EU qualified as attack. EU report also says this:

"The attacks on Georgian villages (Zemo Nikozi, Kvemo Nikozi, Avnevi, Nuli, Ergneti, Eredvi and Zemo Prisi) by South Ossetian forces can be qualified as equivalent to an “attack by the armed forces of a State on the territory of another State”

and this:

"a violent conflict had already been going on before in South Ossetia,"

But then again I don't think any of this discussion is that necessary because introduction does not say anywhere that Russia attacked first, it only talk about separatist attacks. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Currently the lede does say in Wikivoice that Russian troops entered SO before the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali, without indicating that this is contested. I would be okay with something like this (see this revision for the references)

Alaexis_¿question? 10:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Assuming this dispute is based on this diff, I prefer the status quo ante version. There are two references to the claim that the Separatists broke the 1992 ceasefire. Removing any mention of the ceasefire seems a step backwards. That it may be contested by Russia is obvious, but official state narratives have little weight here. And at any rate, the preponderance of historical evidence would make me trust a Georgian claim over a Russian one. Russia has long had a penchant for disinformation. CaptainEek ⚓ 23:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. I'm not disputing the reliability of these sources, my point is that there were many previous clashes so implying that this was *the* violation of the ceasefire can be misleading. Many non-Russian sources don't say this, e.g., War and Revolution in the Caucasus: Georgia Ablaze in the discussion describes the events of August 2008 as follows "There were increasing clashes between Georgian troops and South Ossetian paramilitaries in and around Tskhinvali for at least a week before 7 August 2008. ... More clashes were reported on 6 August, with numerous wounded on both sides."

  Having said that, so I'd fine with mentioning the breaking of cease-fire by the SO forces in the way I suggested one comment above. Alaexis_¿question? 09:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  Alaexis, I'm not sure what the quote from "War and Revolution in the Caucasus" adds to this discussion. Sure, it does not directly state that somebody broke ceasefire. However, it also does not refute claims made by others that separatists broke ceasefire.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

comment - Question isn't worded properly for RFC, but I would lean towards basic facts for the lede. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we are not going to get any more comments. I'll try to summarise the received feedback

• It may not be possible to distinguish between controversial and confirmed facts (Adoring nanny)
• No consensus emerged concerning the main question of the RfC: whether the lede should contain positions and opinions of the sides. Mzajac said that both confirmed facts and the sides' positions are important and should be mentioned in the lede. So Georgian allegations of Russian build-up prior to the attack on Tskhinvali should be mentioned without asserting them as facts. Deathlibrarian said they "would lean towards basic facts for the lede."
• When using the EU report, it's preferable to use volume I which contains the findings (Mzajac)
• The mentioning of the violation of the cease-fire by the SO forces should not be removed as there are two sources for it (CaptainEek)

I'll try to come up with a version which takes this into account. I'd also be happy if someone else takes the initiative. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again

Not understanding how someone can say there were "no issues" with including that controversial line from EU report when this talk page shows that is exactly what the issue was all along. Huge multi hundred page report say many contradictory things, privileging one line that Russia likes to hear over hundreds others is very undue. Please let not hide behind this RFC, which apparently was not even formulated correctly and also from what I see did not provide grounds for including this undue single liner from the report. The EU report itself implies focusing on this is undue, in their own words:

"This Report shows that any explanation of the origins of the conflict cannot focus solely on the artillery attack on Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August"

Despite this from report writers themselves, it seem we keep going in the direction of making that one line about artillery attack a centerpiece, which seem undue.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

To address concerns about cherrypicking things from the report I'm using quotes from the Telegraph and not the report itself. All the concerns were from you and other users saw no problems with it, apart from using volume 1 instead of volume 2. Alaexis_¿question? 07:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Now the article mentions both South Ossetian shelling and the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali when discussing how the conflict started. Mentioning only the former would fail WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

1.) So if newspapers make a sensationalist claim, base on single line in a very long report, that gives us the right to privilege that secondhand information over the original report, which itself warns not to focus too much on that single line? When original source itself warns not to focus on that one line, it is ok for secondary source to make big deal about it and for us to make it a centerpiece? I see how you are trying circumvent this issue based on technicality (that you are not citing the original report itself, you just citing someone who cited it), but this is just technicality, does not change substance of my concern that this is undue.

2.) Others not commenting on merits of this specific line, partly because some did not seem to understand what you were asking, is not same as "saw no problems" with it. Also I'm bit offended how you say "all concern were from you", as if that make valid claim invalid because they were "just" from unimportant person like me.

3.) Adding this one line is not essential to explain how the conflict started, so don't imply that. Text already make clear Georgia launch offensive after shelling and then Russia responded. If that aspect was omitted entirely then that would be one sided but it isn't, it is explain sufficiently.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Re 1, if the Telegraph is making a sensationalist claim, then RFE/RL saying that the Osstian forces broke the ceasefire is also a sensationalist claim. You can't say it just about the statements you don't like. It's not undue, it's prominent in the report itself and has been covered by reliable sources.

Re 2. and 3. feel free to initiate an RfC with a better-worded question. Alaexis_¿question? 10:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

1) The notion that you can substitute the actual EU report with a newspaper article (especially with the aim of deflecting responsibility for cherry picking) is entirely new and does not seem to been covered in RfC at all, where the only feedback talks about the EU report itself. You are introducing a very novel approach which was not covered in RfC and honestly seem like a trick to me, a technicality

2) RFE/RL is not a fair comparison because that article does not stand on its own and is supported by a non-media source from a research organization. Also it concerns something entirely different and is not same as cherry picking one line out of a hundred page primary source. As stated above EU report not explicitly mentioning break of ceasefire by SO is not same as refuting claims by others who think so, another reason why this comparison does not make sense. Not only all of this was not questioned during RfC when there was opportunity but in fact one of the responses you got was this: "...at any rate, the preponderance of historical evidence would make me trust a Georgian claim over a Russian one", and recent edits are definitely not in spirit of that.

3)The way introduction appeared before this summer was a very stable version that seemed to be like this for many months as far as I can tell. So why should I initiate RfC when you are the one who want to change established status quo and introduce this new controversial information that has been controversial all along judging by past history of this page. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources being discussed is Russian (or Georgian for that matter). The attack on Tskhinvali is the first thing that is said in the report about the course of the war (volume 1, p. 10 The Conflict in Georgia in August 2008). It has been cited by multiple reliable sources like France24, DW and Der Spiegel in addition to the Telegraph article. Alaexis_¿question? 13:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

of courrse it was cited because that one line made the biggest splash but we also consider original report and its context, including the disclaimer authors felt the need to make (probably as attempt at moderating overreaction). But none of this addressed my issue with your unusual approach, which is to cite somebody else's citation as a way of deflecting responsibility of cherry picking. This was outside scope of RfC and not discussed at all and again is a technicality that does not improve anything.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a legitimate way to gauge notability, considering that it's a relatively long document. If something is said in the beginning of the report AND cited by multiple reliable sources chances are it's notable. Alaexis_¿question? 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

you need to cease adding this controversial content before discussion is concluded. whether one newspaper cherry pick that single line or several is not important, what is relevant is that its cherry picking of a single line from a long report and you admitted you want to deflect responsibility for cherry picking by not citing the report directly. And to say one more time, at no point did your RfC ask if including this one line like this was due or undue, so please we need to stop using recent RfC as cover for these changes. Other changes you made were ok, but this one line completely not covered in RfC, which by the way you were told was formulated very poor and confusing way.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's have another RfC. Re cherrypicking, I think you misunderstand how it works. I did not deflect any responsibility and did not admit to it. My point is that I'm not cherrypicking as other reliable sources also find this part of the report noteworthy. WP:NPOV says "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." In this case the view that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali is the beginning of the large-scale hostilities is well represented in reliable sources and therefore should be included, alongside the claims of South Ossetian breaking the ceasefire before that. Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you not content with current version, which includes most of your additions. For example, look at this sentence "Other sources say that there was no armed attack by Russia before the Georgian invasion and that the Georgian claims of large-scale presence of Russian troops in South Ossetia could not be substantiated." The fact that it uses "Georgian invasion" is very strong wording and makes clear different viewpoint, I think you should leave at that because inserting anything more is simply tilting things too much in way that is undue. Considering report itself says that "any explanation of the origins of the conflict cannot focus solely on the artillery attack on Tskhinvali", showcasing that as definitive proof of when "open hostilities" began is questionable and undue. Current version based on your addition seem the most reasonable and sustainable. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the NPOV description of the lead-up to the war should mention all the events: 2004 clashes in SO, re-militarisation of the Kodori Gorge by Georgia in 2006 (a violation of the Moscow ceasefire agreement!), shelling of Georgian villages by SO heavy artillery in the beginning of August 2008 and the attack on Tskhinvali. It doesn't mean that all of these are of equal importance and should be mentioned in the lede, but now the shelling by SO forces in the beginning of August has undue weight. Adding a statement that large-scale hostilities started with the attack on Tskhinvali would make it more balanced. Actually some of the sources use a much stronger language like "Georgia 'triggered' war with Russia, EU investigation finds." Alaexis_¿question? 10:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede changes

Kober I'm for making the lede more concise but these changes have major issues. By moving the information from the EU report to a separate section you left only one position in the lede (that Russian forces moved into SO before the Georgian attack) which violates NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 19:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC) By the way, the changes were discussed at length a few months ago, so now a case must be made for any changes to the current consensus version. Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We can work out a better version, but what you call NPOV violation is backed up by much evidence and accordingly referenced in the article. Now that Crimea had been conquered and the acute phase of Georgia-Russia information war has long dwindled, most Russians I've met would not deny that the Russian troops had been there before the Georgian response. They are even proud of their regime's "preemptive" skills. That said, I am not against rewording the statement provided the so-called Georgian version remains in a prominent place due to its heavy documentary backup and international support. --Kober 07:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, when we had this discussion a few months ago here it wasn't demonstrated that this version has a much greater support. The current sources supporting this version are pretty weak (Bagapsh's interview is a primary source which needs other sources to put it in context, United States Army Special Operations Command is likely biased to needs to be used carefully, Moscow Times simply doesn't say it, Estonian National Defence College and German Marshall Fund-funded Romanian think-tank are not prominent and likely to be biased too). I'm not arguing that they should not be used, rather that there is no overwhelming evidence in favour of one version. I'll add back the information from the EU report to the lede and would be happy to discuss other sources here. Alaexis_¿question? 08:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, the CNN, the Financial Times, the Parliament of Canada, the Library of Congress and the US Army are pretty much mainstream sources. The argument that the United States Army Special Operations Command, Estonian National Defence College and German Marshall Fund-funded Romanian think-tank are biased because they don't support the Russian POV and EU report is reliable due to its pro-Russian bias is pretty weak. The Moscow Times says that Russian-installed president of South Ossetia has confirmed the deployment of the Russian troops before the Georgian counterattack on Tskhinvali.

The pro-Russian view is not mainstream. Misplaced Pages requires that the lede must reflect mainstream views and not place too much importance on the fringe views. The EU report has long been found to be unreliable source and had deliberately omitted certain facts to make Georgia look like the aggressor as evidenced by the sources added by Kober. Alaexis has not presented one shred of evidence that anti-Russian sources are not reliable, just his personal opinion. Therefore it's the EU report that should be deleted from the lede as unreliable.

The language used by Alaexis is not neutral. "Georgian invasion" in the lede is pretty biased wording because it disregards the fact that South Ossetia was recognised as Georgian territory by Russia in early August 2008. Generally, invasion refers to one country's army taking over a piece of land in another country. About half of the territory claimed by South Ossetia was already controlled by Georgia before August 8. "Georgian attack" mentioned by Alaexis in this discussion is not a neutral statement. The war was started by South Ossetia by launching an attack on the Georgian-controlled areas and therefore Georgia's move was a retaliation, not invasion. The current version is not "consensus version" because only two Russian editors were edti-warring the POV changes months ago and one other editor was resisting them with numerous solid arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.116.84 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that invasion generally refers to an armed incursion by one sovereign state into another one's territory. South Ossetia lacked sovereignty and was not recognized by any UN member as independent on August 8, 2008. Russia recognized South Ossetia only on August 26, 2008. Attempted retroactive recognition by some Misplaced Pages's editors is nothing else but historical revisionism. Practically no English-language mainstream source treats South Ossetia as an independent state even now. Majority of Russians and Russian sources may state that South Ossetia is an independent country, but even so, this is not Russian Misplaced Pages. 100.2.23.10 (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that invasion generally refers to an armed incursion by one sovereign state into another one's territory. South Ossetia lacked sovereignty and was not recognized by any UN member as independent on August 8, 2008. Russia recognized South Ossetia only on August 26, 2008. Retroactive application of recognition is nothing else but historical revisionism. Practically no English-language mainstream source treats South Ossetia as an independent state. Perhaps majority of Russian sources state that South Ossetia is an independent country, but even so, this is not Russian Misplaced Pages.100.1.51.214 (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced invasion with operation. Alaexis_¿question? 06:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no issue with Kober's edits. Numerous arguments and academic sources have been presented that the EU report is not an undisputed reliable source. The version preferred by Russian editor violates WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:UNDUE and WP:RSUW policies. The Moscow Times presents the statement of South Ossetia's president as proof that Russian troops indeed crossed the border already on August 7. It is quite amusing that Russian editor does not hesitate to believe the Ossetian POV that Georgia invaded South Ossetia, but chooses not to believe the statement of the Ossetian president imputing Russia. Canome (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

NPOV in the lede

Canome, can you explain why you removed referenced content from the lede? The source for the passage that you removed is The Daily Telegraph. Alaexis_¿question? 11:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which say that there are differing opinions on the responsibility for starting the hostilities.

1. Warning about War: Conflict, Persuasion and Foreign Policy by Christoph O. Meyer, Chiara De Franco, Florian Otto, published in 2019. See p. 215

2. Towards Global Justice: Sovereignty in an Interdependent World by Simona Ţuţuianu, published in 2012, p. 77

3. The Making of Modern Georgia, 1918-2012 by Stephen F. Jones, published in 2014, p. 54

The current version ignores this complexity and presents only one view: that Russia invaded SO and Georgia responded to it. It's a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 12:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Caution is needed when using controversial sources. If the source contains multiple contradictory statements, choosing only one statement that fits one's narrative is not suitable for neutral Misplaced Pages editor. If the source is unreliable, but the author is notable, then attribution is required. If the source is very famous, but other academic sources have questioned the claims or shown them to be untrue, then controversy caused by such publication must also be mentioned. The current version fails to mention in the lede that Tagliavini was subjected to heavy criticism due not finding the evidence of the Russian invasion on August 7. The Daily Telegraph or any newspaper report on the publication of the report in 2009 is not enough evidence that the source is currently widely accepted by academic consensus as reliable. Only the Russian propagandists treat the EU-sponsored report as gospel.

It is obvious that you are trying to push pro-Russian POV under the guise of the NPOV. NPOV does not mean conforming with the Russian POV. You are just helping the Russian government to obfuscate the facts regarding the start of the war and selectively use sources not critical of the Russian government. Nothing in your behavior suggests that you are willing to reach consensus with non-Russian editors. The current version edited by your team grossly violates the NPOV as it presents the fact of the Russian incursion on August 7 as having been mainly claimed by the Georgian government. None of the cited sources are published by the Georgian government. It does not present the fact of the Russian claim to have responded to the Georgian attack on August 8 as having been refuted by reputable researchers. Russian media reports support the statement that the Russian troops were already fighting in South Ossetia on August 7. The Russian soldiers themselves admit it. Who are you and what gives you the right to disregard such strong evidence? 100.2.23.10 (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks and casting aspersions. WP:CIVILITY is a policy. I've provided quotes from books published in 2019, 2014 and 2012 to show that there are different opinions about the degree of responsibility of each side. Alaexis_¿question? 14:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Misplaced Pages policies, read WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL. Just because there are differing views from the mainstream view, this does not mean that they should be treated equally. You found some biased/unreliable source making extraordinary claim that "There is substantial evidence, albeit contested by some, that the war was triggered by a surprise attack by Georgian armed forces on Tskhinvali." What kind of substantial evidence? There simply can not be such evidence because there is an evidence that the Ossetians initiated the attacks on the Georgian villages and Georgia was not preparing to attack Tskhinvali in August 2008. The U.S. intel leaked by WikiLeaks is cited in the article. It states: "All evidence available to the country team supports Saakashvili’s statement that this fight was not Georgia’s original intention." It also states: "As late as 22:30 Georgian Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials were still hopeful that the unilateral cease-fire announced by President Saakashvili will hold. Only when the South Ossetians opened up with artillery on Georgian villages, did the offensive to take Tskhinvali begin." If Saakashvili was planning an invasion of South Ossetia in August 2008, surely the Americans would have known it and mentioned it in their cables.

The mainstream view is that the Ossetians provoked the war and Russia had already started an invasion of Georgia or was ready for launching an invasion before the Georgian counterattack on August 8. This is supported by the pro-government Russian sources linked by an IP editor.

1. The report published in 2020 by History (American TV network).

2. The report published in 2020 by The Jerusalem Post.

3. The report published in 2020 by InformNapalm.

4. The report by UCLA's Foreign Affairs Magazine.

5. The report by Agence France-Presse.

6. The report by the Atlantic Council.

The version before your revert reflected the majority mainstream view on the subject and did not give undue weight to a fringe statement by the report not endorsed by scholarly consensus. Therefore that version is the NPOV version. Canome (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The Russian preparations for invasion have been reported in Russian media, and on top of that, somebody told mum he was already in South Ossetia. See «Когда мы поехали выручать разведчиков, командир всем раздал крестики». A typical example of a Russian soldier talking to mummy prior to 8 August, on "exercises" while he can see Tskhinvali. That can only be south of Roki, in South Ossetia. Not a JPKF peacekeeper, but a regular conscript. Secondly, various Russian journalists reported of massive Russian movement on the (Russian) Transkam on 6-7 August to Roki, not a place to just camp out, while Russian "volunteers" poored in.1, 2 No direct proof, but it corroborates what both Georgian officials communicated and others (in the west) observed.

Furthermore, agree with the chronology above, the provocation offensive of the Ossetians on the eve of the 7th, after the Georgians called a unilateral ceasfire. A ceasefire that was, let's be reminded, advised by Russian commander of the JPKF, Marat Kulakhmetov, when Georgian minister Iakobashvili visited Tskhinvali on the 7th 1 to defuse the situation with the Ossetian leadership. The latter ducked away for that meeting, setting demands to postpone for a day.2 With just sheer logic, if they wanted to meet the next day, to maybe work out a ceasefire, the Georgians already call that ceasefire, why start an strong offensive on civil targets? That is because they wanted to provoke a reaction. Nothing POV <whatevah> about it. No need to guess, just reproduce the entirely reported timeline and everybody sensible can make up their mind. My two cents.

--Labrang (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No one is disputing that the SO forces were shelling Georgian villages in the first week of August 2008 (and the Georgians returned the fire). This is already mentioned in the lede so I don't understand how it's relevant to our discussion here.

Regarding the claim that the version you removed is fringe, you can't just say that it's so. You need to prove that it meets the relevant criteria. In particular, you'll need to show that the books I cited (written by respectable Western scholars and published in the West and not in Moscow) do not reflect the mainstream view to the extent that this position should not be included in the lede at all.

Regarding the reports in Russian media that you referenced, it's not some kind of trump card which lets you make an end run around WP:NPOV. The most you can say is that there were reports of the presence of some Russian soldiers in SO. Then it's the job of secondary sources to take these reports along with all other information into account and provide the synthesis. Alaexis_¿question? 11:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This does not prove what you claim is the mainstream view. Some of these sources after all are questionable or unreliable. For example, Euronews states: "Fighting broke out between Georgian troops and separatist forces in early August 2008 but it was the launching of a concerted air and ground campaign by Georgia on South Ossetia's main city, Tskhinvali, that sparked the conflict on the evening of August 7-8." Also it mentions the EU-commissioned report, that it "found Georgia started the conflict with Russia but that Moscow was behind a long history of provocation and reacted disproportionately." Apparently this report is all propaganda but this report is not questioned in the article. Similar thing with CNN. Apparently this is "fringe" and "pro-Russian" POV. Mellk (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

At least The Jerusalem Post and Agence France-Presse mentioned in this discussion are very reputable news outlets and there is no need to discard them as unreliable. History Channel is as reputable as Discovery Channel. These sources support the statement in the lede that the Georgian Army acted in response to the Ossetian shelling and was obliged to stop their illegal attacks.

The article already cites European sources. EUobserver has reported: "The 2008 war began when Russia-controlled fighters in the breakaway South Ossetia region in Georgia escalated skirmishes against Georgian troops." Nobody is disputing that the EU-sponsored report said that Georgia initiated the conflict. But this does not mean that the EU report reflects the current mainstream view on the subject or that Misplaced Pages is obliged to cite only that source. Russo-Georgian_War#The_EU_report has cited the source published by Palgrave Macmillan which disputes the veracity of the claims made by the EU report. The European Council on Foreign Relations has stated: "On 7th August, Russian deployment to South Ossetia began. (...) The very limited Russian information operation were effective in influencing Western (particularly German) public opinion, which soon tilted towards the Russian version of the events. Lines of Russian disinformation even penetrated the EU's own final report, which overplayed the significance of US support and military assistance to Georgia. Russia learned its lessons, however, its information operations were dramatically increased for the 2014 campaign in Ukraine, albeit with much less effectiveness than in 2008." Agence France-Presse, EUobserver, Palgrave Macmillan, European Council on Foreign Relations - that's four European sources versus a single pro-Russian European source. Why should 1 pro-Russian source be picked over 4 NPOV source? So there is no need to cite the compromised EU report prominently in the lede when it already has its own section below in the article, especially without mentioning the controversy it has caused. Mention by The Daily Telegraph does not explicitly make the EU report a reliable source.

If Russian propaganda managed to influence the European Union officials, then it is not surprising to surmise that Russian propaganda has also managed to influence a limited number of sources published in the West. Searching for pro-Russian sources instead of accepting mainstream sources already cited in the article is not a valid approach towards building a factual encyclopedia. Russian media reports on the presence of the Russian troops in South Ossetia on August 7 can be counted as significant evidence because they are published testimonies. There have been instances where the court rulings have found the suspects as innocent due to lack of evidence. But later the suspects have admitted their guilt. You will agree that it would be very wrong or biased to cite only the court's initial ruling without referencing the suspect's later testimony.

There is absolutely nothing non-neutral about dating the start of the Russian invasion on August 7 because this statement is supported by evidence and solid academic sources, such as Palgrave Macmillan. The only non-neutral thing I see here are some editors attempting to disturb a consensus, WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and force the vast majority of neutral editors into accepting their pro-Russian version. 98.6.61.195 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of sources say that the Georgian attack preceded the Russian invasion (see the list in the beginning of this section). Therefore per WP:NPOV this position should be mentioned in the lede. Now it's not, so considering that the discussion is stuck now, we'll need an RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 08:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The NPOV as of now does not cast a doubt on "a section" but on the whole article, which is not correct. It was better as Labrang (talk · contribs) put it: it has to address its specific section, not the whole article if the article as a whole is not considered POV. I find this whole NPOV thing to be very, very, forced (and as the anonymous user above implied, a bit too much "politically interested") almost totally lacking of standing. This article has not a problem with POV. Lone Internaut (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I must add that it seems to me that, among the opinions expressed above, there is some kind of consensus towards this NPOV thing lacking of standing and being based on fresh air, hence why I removed the tag. This article also went under scrutiny being a Good article. Lone Internaut (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been quite surprised by the POV complaint on top since new year effectively disputing the entire article, but since I have no appetite to get engaged in potential edit wars or long (semantic) discussions I let it be. It is very easy to make the actual disputed line worded just so it reflects a need for both-sideism and find common ground. But maybe that is not in the interest of some. I don't know. --Labrang (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, I think it's a bit stupid to argue about NPOV tags. I put it in the beginning as the dispute is about the lede. If you really want to remove it feel free to do it, I won't restore it again. I'll open an RfC and hopefully we'll get some external feedback. Alaexis_¿question? 13:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not stupid cause a NPOV tag like that looks like a dispute to the whole article, not only the lead as the lead does not have proper section(s) like the rest of the article body. I think it's fine with how Lebrang reworked the lead. Do as you wish, but this could be ended right here, right now. Lone Internaut (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The first source provided in this discussion is erroneous since it makes an extraordinary claim that "There is substantial evidence, albeit contested by some, that the war was triggered by a surprise attack by Georgian armed forces on Tskhinvali." Where this evidence can be seen? The evidence that Russian troops invaded Tskhinvali first is available to the public and is pretty damning. More than 13 years have passed since the 2008 conflict and no Georgian soldier has admitted so far that the Georgian Army was preparing to start a war in South Ossetia in August 2008 so how can such evidence imputing Georgia really exist? The only available source containing the testimonies of the Georgian soldiers is this article.

The following source provides the evidence that Georgia was not planning to start a war in August 2008:

American sources agree that the presence of the Georgian government and the best troops out of the country is evidence that Georgia did not intend to start the war in August 2008.

The Russian propaganda is real and aims to blame Georgia for the war and obfuscate the crimes committed by Russia. The following source gives a detailed explanation how the Russian propaganda works.

One can easily see how some Misplaced Pages editors dismiss the fact that Russia invaded Georgia on August 7 without any provocation just like the Russian propaganda does. Neutral observers will of course connect the dots. The argument that "Plenty of sources say that the Georgian attack preceded the Russian invasion" is not a compelling one to push the Russian POV. Plenty of sources can be found that state that Euromaidan was a coup d'état by Ukrainian fascists and local Russian-speaking patriots of Donbass foiled a genocide attempt by illegitimate Kiev junta with their bare hands. But WP policies such as WP:Gevаl are in place to prevent pushing of such revisionist propaganda sources. If some editors continue to argue for the pro-Russian POV under the guise of the NPOV just like they have been doing for years, they will benefit from a quick trip to WP:ANI or WP:AE and topic ban from Russian topic area.

Labrang's version added a mention of the ceasefire on late August 7 which was violated by the Ossetians. Such excessive details are not suitable for the lede, since the lede had already determined that Georgians responded to the Ossetian attacks which began on August 1. The lede currently also describes the start of the Russian invasion on August 7 as being insisted by Georgia. But the cited sources do not date the start of the invasion on August 7 because Georgia said so. They specifically refer to the testimonies of the Russian troops as evidence. The infamous EU report is not a reliable source as the discussion here has already determined it was written under the influence of the Russian propaganda, so it is not suitable for the inclusion in the lede. The previous version was more neutral and succinct and to the point. 68.237.83.40 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Like said, my last contribution to the lede was basically intended to get things moving forward, away from the "disputed content" tag. It may certainly have been a bit too detailed for the lede, but alas, a call for everyone to improve it then. While this page will see an increased interest w developments in Ukraine, it is both bad and a disgrace the tag on top of the page is still effectively discrediting the entire page, whereas it is about *one* sentence. It is not in the interest of the community to let it be, except for some who I have seen selectively nitpicking over the past months. Labrang (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Warfare good articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• GA-Class Abkhazia articles
• Top-importance Abkhazia articles
• WikiProject Abkhazia articles
• GA-Class Limited recognition articles
• Mid-importance Limited recognition articles
• WikiProject Limited recognition articles
• GA-Class Georgia (country) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (country) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
• GA-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance GA-Class Russia articles
• GA-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• GA-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
• Politics and law of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• GA-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2014)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2016)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2018)