Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.110.91.23 (talk) at 11:18, 4 January 2023 (→Статья враньё,сделана на заказ,безграмотным писателем: new section). 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.

Here we go again

Due to the invasion of the Eastern European Nation of Ukraine by Russian Federation (a unilateral act of a UN Nation which received widespread world condemnation in 2022), we did go back to Russia and the Nation of Georgia in 2008. Russia legislature (the Duma) used the same "Russian-backed separatist provinces" as does this wikipedia to claim it did not violate Georgia's sovereign borders, called Georgia's regional governments rebel entities of theirs (large Russian country), and continues to claim that Georgia is not an independent Nation similar to their claims to new US ambassadors that Ukraine is not a separate Nation. Regretfully, we also detoured to Russia and Chechyna, and atrocities at the city of Grozny. 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:652E:C1DE:FBC2:3F24 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)JARacino2603:7081:2000:3EF3:652E:C1DE:FBC2:3F24 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Prelude Section - Image Legend

In the Prelude section, April-July 2008, there is an image for "Situation in Georgia before the war." The legend for the image could be improved: a. the green area of the map does not have a legend description, b. the grey legend item does not appear in the map, c. the word "zone" in the legend does not fit within the border of the image, d. the conflict areas circled by thin blue lines, are poorly contrasted with the river blue lines and the sea edge blue lines. SquashEngineer (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

the legend is fine, except a) the green is missing. That might be added to the description as being controlled by breakaways. b) What you call "grey" is not grey. It is simply the blue line. The area in the map within the blue line (RWZ zone) covers the area of three background colours as it overlaps these. That entire area is (was) the RWZ zone. c) I can check into that if that can be improved. d) I think this is an externally sourced image, but I see it is in SVG vector file. Maybe I can change the blue line, but I suspect it is still a flat image. (Can't judge from phone) Labrang (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Goran tek-en, as you explicitly demand in the wikimedia file no one is allowed to edit your upload, please be reminded about this request / feedback, and please respond appropriately.... Thanks! (first time I see this kind of construction, but alas, I guess open source is not that open source anymore..) --Labrang (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Blatant lies in the article and distortion of facts.

In particular, the article contains the assertion that the act of aggression came from the Russian side. And cited as sources only links to articles in biased media, and not a single INDEPENDENT source. In the meantime, as in the very first days of the conflict, an independent commission was created, which unequivocally recognized the guilt of Georgia: the military used cluster munitions to bomb civilians in Tskhinval. Links: http://www.weaponslaw.org/cases/ceu-iiffmcg-report-2009 https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/IIFFMCG_Volume_I2.pdf

Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (September 2009). — Volume I. Архивная копия от 5 марта 2016 на Wayback Machine — The Conflict in Georgia in August 2008. — P. 11. — «The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia, yet it was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents.»

In addition, Russian peacekeeping forces were stationed on the territory of South Ossetia. They were there with the PERMISSION OF BOTH PARTIES (Georgia and South Ossetia) in order to stop and prevent bloodshed. The locations of these units were also subjected to shelling from Georgia. To which Russia was obliged to respond, which was done. Blatant lies in the article and distortion of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reveal lies1 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

“Comrade Georgians, learn military science in a real way. We'll come and check it out!"

RUS Знаменитая надпись - «Товарищи грузины, учитесь военному делу настоящим образом. Приедем - проверим!» 71 гвардейский мотострелковый полк

ENG (Google tranlate) The famous inscription - “Comrade Georgians, learn military science in a real way. We'll come and check it out!" 71st Guards Motor Rifle Regiment

https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B8+%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B+%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C+%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%83&lr=29420

https://www.google.com/search?q=jdfhbob+uhepbys+exbntcm+djttyjve+ltke&source=hp&ei=B3gKY-HbM7-FwPAPqr2gqAo&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYwqGF4k3qXFxnnRg6X1gTGajKnoJkHCv&ved=0ahUKEwih-5bw5-f5AhW_AhAIHaoeCKUQ4dUDCAc&uact=5&oq=jdfhbob+uhepbys+exbntcm+djttyjve+ltke&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgAEA0yBAgAEA0yBggAEB4QFjoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBENEDOgUIABCABDoLCAAQgAQQChABECo6CQguEIAEEAoQAToJCAAQgAQQChABOgUILhCABDoHCAAQgAQQCjoGCC4QChAqOgcILhDUAhAKOgQILhAKOgoILhDHARDRAxAKOgoILhCABBDUAhAKOgYIABAeEAo6CAgAEB4QBRAKOgQILhANOgYIABAeEA06CAgAEB4QDRAFOgwIABAeEA8QDRAFEAo6CAgAEB4QCBANOgcIIRCgARAKUABYwE5gi1FoAHAAeAGAAeoIiAHySZIBDzAuMTEuMTkuNC42LTEuMZgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

Please add to the text of the article.

--2.132.233.198 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Biased information in the fist part of the Article

Hi, I found this in the second pharagraph:

"...On 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area. Intensifying artillery attacks by the South Ossetians broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement. To put an end to these, the Georgian army units were sent in to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August. On the offensive, Georgian took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, in hours. Some Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Russo-Georgian state border through the Roki Tunnel and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the large-scale Georgian military response."

The citations to explain the actions of 1st of august are from september (a month later?) and only from one sided references.

Then, presents the Georgian response to be of "military units dispached on 7th august" that were attacked on 8th of august. Poor military units, send to be doomed, when it was stated that the georgian military executed a prepared offensive over Tskhinvali.

"Russia falsely accused Georgia of committing "genocide" and "aggression against South Ossetia"."

Referenced as false by a jpurnalist article only. Not refuted or compared to any other source. It's documented than georgian military fire indiscriminate artillery over the city.

Can you revise the wording and clean the article? As it is, is biased. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Статья враньё,сделана на заказ,безграмотным писателем,президентом России в 2008-2012 был Дмитрий Медведев

Статья искажает исторические факты призедент России в 2008-2012 году был Дмитрий Медведев,а не В.В.Путин ,как описано в статье,причем неоднократно,искажение многих фактов запутывающие основную мысль.Отсутствие компетентных ссылок и комментариев. 109.110.91.23 (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Статья враньё,сделана на заказ,безграмотным писателем,президентом России в 2008-2012 был Дмитрий Медведев

Статья искажает исторические факты призедент России в 2008-2012 году был Дмитрий Медведев,а не В.В.Путин ,как описано в статье,причем неоднократно,искажение многих фактов запутывающие основную мысль.Отсутствие компетентных ссылок и комментариев. 109.110.91.23 (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Статья враньё,сделана на заказ,безграмотным писателем

Статья искажает исторические факты призедент России в 2008-2012 году был Дмитрий Медведев,а не В.В.Путин ,как описано в статье,причем неоднократно,искажение многих фактов запутывающие основную мысль.Отсутствие компетентных ссылок и комментариев. 109.110.91.23 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2023 (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)