Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Radio Bergen

Someone recently added this to the external links of Battle of Tskhinvali: [1]. It looks interesting, but do you think it is a reliable source? If it really is published by a Norwegian radio station, then I guess it probably would. Can we use it as a source in the article? Offliner (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of date and author, not to mention poor English, IMHO it's not a good idea. Reading the first few sentences, giving geographical details full of errors, was enough for me. Kouber (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a real radio station but a Norwegian fringe group that's working against "state feminists and other power hungry psychopats and anti-racists". Doesn't seem to be a reliable source to me. Närking (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about their reputation, but if what you say is true then it really isn't a reliable source. Offliner (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just check their Norwegian language page and you will see. Närking (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fun:) FeelSunny (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think that Svante Cornell is more ridiculous and he's cited here several times, all times remarkably by editors heavily leaning towards one side. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Box

I cannot help but notice a ridiculous ratio in the casualty box for Georgian military killed to Georgian military wounded. That is the only number that I am disputing. At least we finally got the civillian casualties straightened out, so that's good! The Georgian ratio of killed:wounded is 169:1964, or 1:11.6. That is a ridiculously high ratio. The Russian ratio, by contrast is 64:283, or 1:4.4 - which seems reasonable. In the Persian Gulf War the US-coalition suffered 190 killed and 719 wounded. That's 190:719 or 1:3.8 The Iraqis, using the minimum killed, give a ratio of 1:3.75 The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show similar results. Nowhere, in an active war, have I found a killed:wounded ratio of 1:10. That is impossible. I propose we do here, as was done in this fine article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol - where the Russian claim is stated. In addition, there was an independent estimate stating that 400 were killed. Naturally the Russian estimate will overstate it, and the independent estimate may or may not understate it, but at least this article won't display the ridiculous ratio of 1:11.6 and be a running joke amongst historians. This way the reader gets the whole picture, not Saakashvili's propaganda, that every military historian worth his salt will laugh at. Don't believe me? Find a war with a killed:wounded ratio at or above 1:10 HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The ratio really is unusually high. What exactly is the source for the "1,964 wounded" figure anyway? I couldn't find it in the sources given. Since we've had so much vandalism on casualty figures, I'm removing the number until someone can point out exactly where it comes from. Offliner (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the wrong number. I've glanced over the links, and one shows the Georgian military killed. Out of all the killed ones, there is 1 private. It's like Russian bullets flew past Georgian privates and hit Georgian corporals. The killed number is the wrong one, not the wounded number. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link: http://www.mod.gov.ge/2008/list/sia-E.html and here is the data (re-indented):

By the Condition of April 27, 2009

Total: 170

Officers: 23

Corporal/Sergeant: 136 <<<<

Private: 1 <<<<

Reservist: 9

Civilian: 1

Those are the problematic figures. Didn't anyone explain how to properly fake numbers to Saakashvili? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you have any sources about the number of privates in the Georgian army? Or better, the number of privates during the fighting. Else this is just waving hands in the air. For all we know Georgia might have 90% Sergeants in their army. --Xeeron (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also don't know why only 1 private being among the killed would be surprising in any way. Maybe they just promoted everyone after a big exercise before the war? About the "1,964 wounded" number: I've been unable to find it anywhere in the web, so I'm strongly suspecting vandalism at this point. It's quite disturbing that the number has been allowed to be there for so many months without anyone checking its validity. Offliner (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They promoted everyone after a big exercize? But not the one guy? Really? The 1964 source was initially validly linked, but now the link no longer works. Most armies on Earth, maybe the Georgian army is an exception, but in most armies at least half of the men are privates. I doubt a number that's been there for so long, and it was properly sourced for a while, would be called "vandalism". But then again, maybe they just felt like having a promotion day, where everyone gets a rank. Nevermind, I shouldn't have pointed this out. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys do realize that now there's no wounded number at all in the article for the Georgian side, right? Damn, the bullets must really hate those Georgians. Anyways, I gotta go to a party, my friend's division is celebrating a promotion, every soldier is being promoted to a major general. The 1964 number came from this link: http://www.civil.ge/eng/category.php?id=/files/files/Russian%20Invasion%20fact&figures.pdf - which is stellary cited two other times. The link was working, until someone messed with it. There's your vadalism, not the 1964 figure, which was correct. But I guess if someone vandalizes the link, we can alter data in a Wikipedia Article. And here's a link in August 25th with the 1964 casualty report. "The numbers of dead and wounded are based exclusively on bodies received by Georgian morgues, and does not include those kept, buried, burned or otherwise disposed of within the area of Russian control." I'm assuming he also meant Georgian morgues and hospitals, otherwise Georgia is indeed a strange country. Can I re-insert the 1964 number back in now? But it's blogspot you say. Ok well, how about this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/23/ex-monitor-faults-georgia-for-august-war/ - "Russia has reported 159 civillian and 64 combatant deaths including South Ossetian forces. Georgia said 220 civilians and 185 soldiers died and 2,234 were wounded, of whom 1,964 were combatants. And there are tons of sources out there, just use Google cache and "1964 + georgia + war + Russia" without quotes and VIOLA! Someone worked really hard to make that number dissapear, but you cannot erase Google cache. If there are no objections, I'd like to place that number back in, because the two sources above are better then what we have, which is nil. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

^ a b c Russian Invasion of Georgia: Facts & Figures, Civil Georgia, 8 September 2008 http://www.civil.ge/files/files/Russian%20Invasion%20fact&figures.pdf is a dead source. PDF doesn't exist and ref.#[25] will be deleted unless someone can find what figures were in there.About the ranks in question I suspect those are posthumous promotions with all due respect to the fallen. --XChile (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's available here: [2]. However, I couldn't find the number "1964 wounded" in it. But since HistoricWarrior found a Washington Times link[3] with the same info, we can put the wounded number back again. Offliner (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting up Total wounded 2,234 we should probably separate between military of civilians maybe in the future, Thanks for saving the information refs offliner :)--XChile (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with XChile. Also, TY for being the cool head again Offliner. I'm sorry if I got a bit heated, but I'm not a huge fan of removing actual data from articles. So that's 1964 military and 270 civilian. The rule of proportionality requires a higher ratio then 1:1 for it to be trigged. Since civillian casualties for Georgia are much lower then military casualties, then according to the UN Rule on Proportionality, Russia's response was in no way, shape or form disproportionate. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

I'm getting a bit tired of unexplained edits like this: [4]. They seem to be happening all the time, and are not always immediately reverted, although they should, as the sources do not support them. Please don't make edits of this kind without explaining or providing sources. Offliner (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link ref 319

a little insignificant 15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Background chapter

I think the Background chapter has gotten too fat. But I'm a bit hesistant to remove anything from there because 1) I added most of the new material myself, 2) the splitoff article Background of the 2008 South Ossetia war is (in my opinion) in a very messy state and I don't have the time to rewrite it - thus, it's not easy to simply move material in there. I think the background chapter is an important one if the reader wants to understand what the war was about, so I support giving it a relatively large proportion of space. But the article is 170 kB, so we have to remove something. Any opinions or suggestions? Offliner (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of the responsibility chapter

The responsibility chapter needs to rewritten in better prose and shortened. It is my understanding that Xeeron and FeelSunny were working on this. How is it coming along? Maybe a discussion would attract more editors who want to try rewriting it. The main problem is that the chapter is too long and parts of it (analysts & politicians) is still written in the archaic timeline format. Offliner (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not fast - I got married in the end of April and now I have really limited time to work on WP articles. When I finish rewriting this, I will post it on my talkpage, and place an annoucement here. FeelSunny (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar story for me. This is on my mental todo list, but whether I get around to do it tomorrow or in 2 months, I can not say. --Xeeron (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You also got married?:) FeelSunny (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but there is other stuff that can distract you from editing here ;-) --Xeeron (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Beijing Games

Should there be mention that this war began on the same day as the opening ceremony for the Beijing Games? I think many people seem to have forgotten this, but it's an important, if at least interesting, fact. There's no mention of the Olympics anywhere in the article. I don't think anyone seriously considers the timing of the operation to have merely been a coincidence. It's been stated before by analysts that Georgia believed a quick and harsh response from Russia would be unlikely following an attack on Ossetia, with the inexperienced Medvedev at Russia's helm and Putin attending the Games. The situation was brewing for a while, so it wasn't a "surprise attack" pre se, but with the entire world watching what would unfold next, Russia was definitely under pressure. Goerge Bush walk up to Putin in the stands and said "nobody wants war," but that's exactly what they got. In any case, both countries were heavily criticized by the entire world for destroying "Olympic peace," as silly a notion as it may be. --98.232.98.144 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

True, I guess it deserves a mention somewhere. Perhaps the "Responsibility & motives" chapter would be the right place? Offliner (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just Wanted to Say

HAPPY VICTORY DAY!!! Everyone in this article probably had a family member or 2 or 3 or more fight against the Nazis. Just want to say CONGRATULATIONS!!! to both side. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualty change

I believe that the number of Russian and Georgian casualties is incorrect. While I agree with the South Ossetian loss of 150 killed and 41 captured, and the Abkhazian loss of 1 killed and 2 wounded, some reference state differently, saying that Russian losses are 71 dead, 341 wounded, and 6 captured, while Georgian losses are 215 dead. I would like to change this.

Unless you can prove that 71 dead is the most recent number, please don't change anything. [5] Offliner (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In Arkady Babchenko's new book "Pictures of a small war" he gives these Russian figures: 74 dead, 171 wounded and 19 missing. He gives Anatoly Nogovitsyn as the source of the figures. Babchenko who was there during the war concludes that these figures are probably close to the real ones. Närking (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When was the book published? Offliner (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was published last month in Sweden [6]. I don't think it's been published in any other language yet. Närking (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Books aren't usually up-to-date; it takes a few months from when the writing is completed to publication. Therefore, I suspect that this 21 February number from Reuters is more recent: [7]. But this is, of course, just guesswork. Interesting book, for sure. Do you think there is something else in it that could be used in our article? Offliner (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, there still is the Georgian claim of 256 victims who died during Russian air raids and artillery barages against plenty of Georgian villages of which some were practically irradicated ( there are dozens of reports about that from every kind of news agancies and eye-reports, not including russian news-agancies ) But after UN and NATO confirms, I have no doubt about the cruelty of Ossetian Militias and some of Dimitri Medvedev allias Vladimir Putins orders.

Considering that you also treated Svante Cornell as a scholarly source, and that this book is only in Swedish, I am extremely sceptical. Furthermore, Russia won a total victory in this war, losing less men then they lose per year in training. There is absolutely no reason for Russia to lie about the amount of men killed. I'd understand if Russia reported 64 killed and in reality that number was 640. However 64 and 74? That's a 10 people difference. In all likelyhood these seven could have been initially been reported as killed and then ended up as wounded. Likewise, the wounded could have been reported wounded, but have light wounds, such as ricochet shots in the arm. If the difference was 64 and 640, certainly something wierd would be going on, but 64 and 74 sounds a bit, similar. Also let's not forget that the initial report of casualties by Russia Today on South Ossetian civilians was 2,000 - and yet no one is questioning that it was too high. However 64 and 74 is somehow too different for it to be a mistake? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this book is originally written in Russian and by a well-known Russian journalist and former Russian soldier [8]. He entered South Ossetia together with Russian volunteers (Vostok) and took also part in fightings. In other words he can give first hand information and as a former soldier he also knows what he is talking about. Närking (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It says that he fought in Chechnya. This article is about Ossetia. If you want a journalist's story about Ossetia, here you go: http://artofwar.ru/w/wiktorow_a_w/text_0010.shtml HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article about him that I linked to is about his book about Chechnya, where he fought as a Russian soldier. If you cared to research a little further you would know that Arkady Babchenko now is a journalist and went with Russian soldiers into South Ossetia during the war. He didn't use arms in this war but he was in direct contact with it together with the soldiers. Närking (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He also took a great series of pictures from the war: [9]. He even gave me permission per email to use the pics in this article. Offliner (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he sure took many interesting pictures that also can be seen in his book. Of course his text is very interesting also. And hopefully it will be printed in Russia also, if it hasn't been already. Närking (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the dating of the prologue, looks like he finished the book in January: [10]. So the Reuters figure from February is ore recent. Offliner (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, there still is the Georgian claim of 256 victims who died during Russian air raids and artillery barages against plenty of Georgian villages of which some were practically irradicated ( there are dozens of reports about that from every kind of news agancies and eye-reports, not including russian news-agancies ) But after UN and NATO confirms, I have no doubt about the cruelty of Ossetian Militias and some of Dimitri Medvedev allias Vladimir Putins orders. So what about those 256 killed civilians alongside with the 170 killed soldiers.

First: There were reports about nearly 2000 Russian instructors, peacekeepers, Specnaz officers and regular army stationed in Tskhinvali and the local MC base, right before the Georgian Army began to take the city under massive artillery fire and air raids. The "few" russian forces then were forced to leave the area togheter with most of the Ossetian Militias, because they took heavy casulties ( Ossetian Militia eye reports of at least 160 uniformed dead russians after strikes against the MC garrison, proof the desinformation about the casulties ). Second: The Main MC headquarters in South-Ossetia does not exist anymore. Should I believe that only 16 peacekeepers died ? You come to a different conclusion after seeing fotos of the base, or what is left of it. Remember, the Russian soldiers were hit by BM21-Grad's when they slept in the barracks. Third: The famous georgian raid against the convoys of the 58th Russian Army, leaving, if you believe georgian army claims, dozens of tanks, armored vehicles and personal carriers burned out and at least a few dozens of soldiers dead, you will finally come to the conclusion that the Russian Army suffered losses of at least 300 men. There were no massive confrontations between both countries ground forces.

Got sources?FeelSunny (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Georgia did have an initial claim of 256. Russia had an initial claim of 1,492. When the dust settled it turned out that the real civilian casualties were 69 and 365. We go by the most accurate casualty list, not by what people initially thought. The reports you are reading are inaccurate initial assumptions. We have much better upto date data. Furthermore, neither Saakashvili, nor Medvedev have any reason to lie about civilian casualties at this point. Also, the peacekeepers didn't sleep in the barracks, they knew the attack was coming. You can't sleep if you know you'll be attacked, that's just military psychology. The rest of the statements are just as innacurate. You are relying on initial data. We have much better, post fog of war data. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced changes to military equipment table

The numbers provided by the anonymous editor are interesting, but they need a source. Offliner (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm not too happy with many of the recent edits. For example:

However, no conclusive evidence has been presented by Georgia or its Western allies that Russia was invading the country before the Georgian attack (the Russians claim the it was simply a routine logistics train or troop rotation) or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary.

Was changed to:

This point is still disputed (the Russians claim the it was simply a routine logistics train or troop rotation). Georgian leaders claimed that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary.

But this is not what the sources say. They do not say "Georgian leaders claimed that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary."

Just another example:

On the opposite side, there were just 1,000 Russian peacekeepers and 500 South Ossetian fighters ready to defend Tskhinvali, according to an estimate quoted by Der Spiegel.

Was changed to:

On the opposite side, there were said to be 1,000 Russian "peacekeepers" and 500 South Ossetian fighters holding Tskhinvali, according to an estimate quoted by Der Spiegel.

Why the quotation marks in "peacekeepers?" Spiegel does not use them. Why change "to defend Tskhinvali" to "holding Tskhinvali?" The former wording is used by the source. Why add "there were said to be?" It is unnecessary as the claim is properly attributed anyway. Offliner (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

About Peacekeepers. Stop placing that word in quotes. The difference between peacekeepers and regular units is that peacekeepers are lightly armed and don't have too much training. The fact that 10 people were killed by Georgian artillery fire and there was no response, proves that they were peacekeepers. Special forces could not be hit that badly, and everyone reported that their equiptment was too light to be part of the regular army. In addition, Der Speigel reported that word without quotes. I'm not as nice as offliner, next person to do that, will be reported for vandalism. Also, do not re-word the source. Next person to re-word the source will be reported for vandalism. I've seen editors be nice to you about it. This has gone on long enough. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Another difference is peacekeepers have right to be there. JKPF forces had every right to be there, and they were accepted and greeted by both Georgia and South Ossetia, the OSCE and the UN. Calling them "peacekeepers" is just pushing nationalistic Georgian POV. And we all know that, and discussed this many times. FeelSunny (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really nationalistic Georgian POV. It's more of a moronic adherence to Saakashvili and Friends' brainwashing techniques. Just like Svante Cornell, Saakashvili said so, thus it must be right. If I was a Georgian nationalist, I'd certainly defend my country on wikipedia, but I wouldn't defend the idiot that tried to win against Russia, while Russians were defending, considering that the Russian Army is famed for being great defenders. And this war was basically Georgian Attack, Russian Defense, Russian Counter-Attack, Georgian Rout, Russian Mopping Up, bunch of people whining about mean Russia exposing all their military tactics and propaganda tactics. Maybe think before attacking? I just wish that this whole thing doesn't turn into a Georgia vs. Russia conflict over the web, or at least doesn't escalate. It's the only reason I stopped my feud with Kober, despite having the better hand. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone also changed "Medvedev (commander-in-chief)" to "Medvedev (commander-in-chief: Vladimir Putin)" ... What can I say. It is WP:OR and not supported by the source given. This is vandalism, pure and simple. Offliner (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish the editor who made those edits (User:Vancraft) would explain himself. Offliner (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing to mention is, the fast retreat of the 2000 russian "peacekeepers" and the 800 Ossetian Militiamen, to the north. The Georgian Army meat much weaker resistance and was streightly directed into the russian trap, the heart of the city, where the ground forces were easy to pick by Russian SU-25's gound attack aircrafts and artillery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.56.25 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Bullshitting in an article, when a military historian is editing it, will get you caught. First off they were peacekeepers. No qoutes necessary. Secondly there is a difference between a retreat and a tactical withdrawal. A retreat usually leaves behind a lot of weapons and ammunition, as soldiers drop them; see Georgian retreat, in this war. During your so-called retreat, no weapons were picked up by the Georgian army, unless they were stored in lockers. In addition, a "fast retreat" doesn't exist as a military term. It's called a hasty retreat, or a rout, during which there is at best sporadic fire. On August 8, the fire was fierce, and therefore not sporadic. Thus no "fast retreat" took place. In addition the Russians didn't have air superiority until the heat of the Battle of Tskhinvali was over. Also, no army would drop bombs so close to their own soldiers, for fear of casualties, not to mention civilians in Tskhinvali. Perhaps you can show proof of Russians bombing Tskhinvali, the heart of the city as you claimed. Finally, your spelling is atrocious. Meat isn't the same as met, and the reader shouldn't be making guesses. Lastly, that note is definetely nowhere near the most important thing to mention. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is 92.196.56.25 (User:Vancraft)? FeelSunny (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Most likely. Same edits. We can assume so until they/he/she says otherwise. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's beleive it's not sockpuppeting, and he just forgot to log in. FeelSunny (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

I am really getting tired of looking at this article and seeing this title is still being used. People should be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and just because a title gets the most votes doesn't mean the title is appropriate according to the rules of Wikipedia. This title by no means reflects the scope of the conflict. It ignores the front in Abkhazia and the whole invasion of the coastline by Russian forces. However in some deference to public support I think Russia-Georgia War is a fine alternative. Since it received considerable support, is widely used by numerous news articles and organizations, and better reflects the scope of the conflict I think we should change the title to Russia-Georgia War.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to start another discussion now, as the vote was conducted precisely in order get rid of the endless discussions. Let's concentrate on other things now, such as improving the article itself. The are a lot of things to do: for example,

• 1) summarizing the "responsibility" chapter
• 2) shortening the military equipment chapter (a lot of the prose is redundant now when we have the table)
• 3) coming up with suggestions of what could be left out from other chapters
• 4) improving readability and language throughout the article. Offliner (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can convince enough neutral people to edit here to outnumber those canvassed from Talk:Russia or the Russia portal, you wont change the title. My bet is you can't, so don't waste our time discussing this. --Xeeron (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the title has nothing to do with what a bunch of biased users want, at this point the only reason I can't do this myself is that moving the article has been blocked. This means only certain editors can change this title. This is more of an appeal to them. No public vote overrides Wikipedia's rules and this title flagrantly violates them. I'm only suggesting we go with the second most popular since it happens to be the one that complies best with the rules, including neutrality. I saw the official declaration by Medvedev and in it he said the "aggressor", meaning Georgia, had been sufficiently punished as part of the reason for ending the operation. So the President of Russia wasn't even denying that it was about taking Georgia down a notch. There is no real basis for calling it a biased title and it doesn't need to include South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the title. Titles aren't chosen based on majority vote but on how well the title fits the subject and what is the established title. No one is calling the war by the current title, in Georgia they often call it the August War.

The point here is all opposition to Russia-Georgia was illegitimately-backed because the title doesn't need to mention South Ossetia or Abkhazia as they would be seen as proxies or allies of Russia fighting on the Russian side and it is not even slightly biased to call it a war between Russia and Georgia because both sides acknowledge that it was. Order of the names is completely irrelevant to who started the conflict. In other words all objections where a reason was given can be thrown out while there are many legitimate reasons given to change the title to Russia-Georgia War. Going by a majority vote is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The current title stays. See how easy it is? No need to drag us all to another pointless debate. (Igny (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

The fact it is not a democracy but run by rules is exactly why it shouldn't stay. The rules say a title must reflect the scope of the conflict and be commonly used. This title is neither, while Russia Georgia War is both incredibly common and reflects the scope of the conflict. The fact more people support keeping the current title is no argument for keeping it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To attract enough neutral people here, a page move needs to be formally requested. This had never been done before. --Kober^Talk 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF, people? WP is not a democracy, you say? What is it then - a HIM Academy of Science? With Kober and Xeeron as revered academics, and all others are apprentices? Why do you regard your reasons to be more convincing than arguments of the others - in denial of the consensus of the majority of editors? Because you do not like the results? There has been a vote, and the article needs no further discussions on title, no matter how much Kober dislikes it.FeelSunny (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

North Ossetia not mentioned in the background

North Ossetians and South Ossetians view themselves as one entity. They are all Ossetians. Why isn't this mentioned in the background section? While nearly all of South Ossetia's trade is with Russia, over 80% of all South Ossetia's trade with Russia involves North Ossetia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a valid point. According to this article, this was one of the reasons why Russia had to go to war and why it could not afford to lose.

External observers frequently miss the point that Russia’s stake in the conflict over the unrecognized republics is much higher that that of Georgia’s entry into NATO or the destabilization of energy transit routes that bypass Russia. Russia simply could not afford to lose: in view of the harsh nature of the conflict in Abkhazia and Georgia in the early 1990s, Georgia’s seizure of these territories would mean ethnic cleansing, and the flight to Russian territory of many tens of thousands of embittered and armed refugees. The loyalty of the North Caucasus republics of North Ossetia and Adygeya, tied by blood relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, would be undermined. North Ossetia, moreover, is the largest and most loyal autonomous republic in the region. Russia would have been shown to be weak before the entire North Caucasus, and this would have marked a return to the situation of the 1990s.[11] Offliner (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Offliner. I'll find a place to put it in. Do you have anymore sources on North Ossetia - South Ossetia relations? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We had to do it, because otherwise, we "would have been shown to be weak". Awesome kind of arguement. Reminds me of drug gang members being interviewed. Can I suggest this wording: Russias hold on the strategic North Caucasus region is based on intimidation and strength. In this rule based on fear, a sign of weakness by the ruler will immediately be seen as a chance to revolt by the surpressed subjects. To keep regions such as Chechenia subjugated, Russia had to prove its military superiority.

The worst thing about it: I am sure Vasily Kashin actually means what he says.

PS: For some stuff about North-South Ossetia relations, check the sources in Ossetian–Ingush conflict. There was a really good article detailing the interaction between that and the south ossetian conflict as well, I cant find it right now. I am sure it is linked somewhere. --Xeeron (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, what Kashin is saying is: "If Russia had not reacted to the Georgian attack, the Ossetians would have thought that Russia isn't capable of protecting their interests, or doesn't want to. In that case, it would have been better for the Ossetians to take matters in their own hands and establish their own state that is willing to protect their people." Offliner (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Russia would have been shown to be weak before the entire North Caucasus, and this would have marked a return to the situation of the 1990s

You should have a look at those sources I pointed out to HistoricWarrior above. A quote: "For all these reasons, it was almost inevitable that most Russian leaders would favor the "always loyal Ossetians" over the "permanently discontented Ingushetians," especially at a time when even the democrats among them had shed their romantic illusions about the unqualified benefits of national self-determination."

That both sources use the word "loyal" with regard to a whole group is especially striking, since that is a concept very much at the heart of classic feudalism: The subjects are loyal to their lord and the lord in turn protects his subjects. --Xeeron (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So the US and USSR were UK's loyal subjects in World War II? You're not getting it Xeeron. In the Caucasian region, people are tired of war and will side with whichever power will lead them to peace. With NATO provoking hostilities through Georgia, and Russia brining back peace, guess which side most Caucasians will take? This has nothing to do with feudalism, stop it with the silly insults already. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed not getting what makes you talk about the US being the UKs loyal subject. Whether that is due to my inferior intelligence or you not making any sense is up for debate though. --Xeeron (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea of an alliance is to ally with those who promote the growth of your region, your country and your people. You went in on a wacko tangent of Feudalism. If country "A" can protect my land and help my people grow, I would be smart to ally my region/country to country "A". Feudalism is where the Lords tortured the peasants and paid the King to protect them from other Lords. Feudalism is not a mutuallistically symbiotic relationship for the peasant. The North Ossetia - Russia relationship is a massive mutualistically symbiotic relationship. North Ossetians aren't "subjects" in the classical Feudal sense, and Putin is most definetely not a Lord. I pointed out that North Ossetia is as much a "subject" of Russia, (in the classical feudal sense) as US and USSR were loyal "subjects" of UK during WWII. That too was a mutualistically symbiotic relationship. Frankly I don't even see how you putting Feudalism in the article or on the discussion page, has any merit, unless you're just trying to anger me and then bash my response. Isn't that against Wikipedia rules Xeeron? And after your colorful dialogue on my talkpage, rest assured Xeeron, next time you pull something like this, I will report you. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't threaten me with reports, either do it or leave it. With your history of lies about me (one more example: I never put Feudalism into the article), I am not worried in the least. Regarding your theories of "mutuallistically symbiotic relationship" and whether Feudalism is one, or whether the US and USSR were "subjects" of the UK in WW2, I'll leave that to you and will stick with more mainstream views. --Xeeron (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You damn well knew what I meant when I said you put Feudalism here. It's in this very discussion. You have no right to make up lies and insult a valid source and a whole group of people, the Ossetians, for your POV needs. You implied that the Moscow Defense Brief said that the Ossetians are "feudal subjects" of Russia. In case you forgot, here's you qoute:

"That both sources use the word "loyal" with regard to a whole group is especially striking, since that is a concept very much at the heart of classic feudalism: The subjects are loyal to their lord and the lord in turn protects his subjects. --Xeeron (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)"

Next time you unjustly insult a whole group of people, you will be reported. I wasn't threatening you, I was putting you on notice. I don't see how the above quote has any relations to the article, or why you view Ossetian loyalty to Russia as feudalism. It doesn't belong here, it was an unnecessary and provacative comment on your part, and instead of correcting yourself, you keep trying to provoke me. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry if your reading comprehension mislead you here, but me saying that MDB puts Ossetians close to being feudal subjects is not the same as me saying they are. Had you read my above statement "The worst thing about it: I am sure Vasily Kashin actually means what he says.", you would have noticed that I disagree with Kashin's view. So keep your high talk to yourself and finally stop making up stuff about other people's comments, it is definitely not the first time I have asked you to. --Xeeron (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(Re-Indent) That is your interpretation of the Moscow Defense Brief. What you are trying to do is to discredit the Moscow Defense Brief by painting them in a negative light. If you want to discredit the Moscow Defense Brief, use actual facts, not your interpretation of how they view Ossetians. Loyalty almost never means feudalism. Kashin wouldn't insult a whole group of people for his needs. And your comments on your interpretation of Kashin's view of Feudalism have absolutely no place in this article or on this discussion page. For the last time, Ossetians aren't peasants and Russians aren't Lords, and there is no way could Kashin have meant that. Why is apologizing and moving on so complicated for you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving on from this discussion is indeed what I'll do now, no point in repeating myself, simply check my above posts if you want an answer. --Xeeron (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Internationally unrecognized government?

The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians had left most of South Ossetia under control of a Russian-backed internationally-unrecognised regional government.

It appears that rather then discussing my edits here, someone decided to provoke an edit war. I won't bite. The very link that is provided, disproves the editors who inserted it point. Internationally unrecognized means not recognized by any state. Prior to this war, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transdnistria recognized each other. These are international bodies that aren't UN members, but still exist as international bodies. Taiwan is an international body that's not a UN member. How can they be internationally-unrecognized is they are recognized by international bodies? 22 UN members that recognize Taiwan show that one doesn't have to be a UN member to be an international body. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. The appropriate description is "minimally recognised state". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "minimally recognised" seems to be your personal invention. It is not a widely used term. "Partially recognized" is the right one. Offliner (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, are you just making up terms now Diwurgen? No such thing as a minimally recognized state. Also, I've removed everything until we come to a concensus. Actually come to think of it, I think just calling it a regional government is better, that way you don't get into what's what and let the reader decide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A google search for that exact phrase "minimally recognized state" brings up one single result, which is an archived page of the South Ossetia 2009 election. And looky here, it was you who edited that in. Why would you just make something up like that and pretend it's "official" or what not?LokiiT (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We could also simply stay with what New York Times, Encyclopedia Britannica, Amnesty International, Pravda and just about the rest of the world call it: Internationally unrecognized. --Xeeron (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be internationally unrecognized if it's recognized by at least one international body. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, they're talking about the Internationally unrecognized government not the country. You can recognize the country but not the government. For instance the US recognizes the country of Iran, but doesn't deal with Ahmanedjad's government, or at least that was the case during some point in time. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that NYT, Amnesty, Pravda, Encyclopedia Britannica and all the others have only waited for the reknown expert Historicwarrior to point out their faulty writing. Guess, what, I'll ignore that the personal opinion by a wiki editor and go with the sources use anyway since, you know, their definition of "internationally unrecognized" trumps yours. --Xeeron (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhhm...The NYT and Pravda articles you cited were written before Russia/Nicaragua recognized South Ossetia, the Britannica article says nothing about its current state of recognition, only that the 1996 election and 2006 referendum were unrecognized, and the amnesty international page was written in 2006. I really don't know what to say to that without sounding insulting so I'll hold my tongue. LokiiT (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article part under discussion here before commenting. It concerns the time before the war, therefore also before Russia/Nicaragua recognized South Ossetia and therefore exactly the time when those sources were written. --Xeeron (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for getting caught up in that specific phrase and missing the bigger picture, I need to work on not responding to fragments of arguments. But then what is this talk about "minimally-recognized"? Whatever the sources say is what should go into the article. There's no such thing as minimally-recognized as far as I know and as far as google knows, and if it was partially recognized because other international bodies like Abkhazia recognized it, there needs to be some good sources to back that view. It seems like a trivial matter really. LokiiT (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Np. What happened was just Historicwarrior deleting a well sourced statement, without backing up that deletion with sources. Then digwuren used the opportunity to promote his personal favorite, again without giving any sources. Going back to sources usually resolves these issues. I could be wrong, but this seems like a discussion from Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia without belonging here. --Xeeron (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the link that was given, pointed out that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, were recognized. Prior to the war, South Ossetia and Abkhazia had the same status as Trasnistria, and the link shows that Transnistria is recognized. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Transnistria isn't recognized either. PetersV       TALK 23:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what I said. The link is this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition. It lists Transnistria under "Recognized by non-UN members only". If the link you provide states that the country is recognized, then it's kind of hard to argue the other side. You cannot be unrecognized if you are recognized. The sources that Xeeron had referred to UN recognition only; the article linked referred to UN and non-UN as well. I'm not going to change anything in the article, I'm just explaining that source of the confusion. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) Are we saying that unrecognized A recognizing unrecognized B and unrecognized B recognizing unrecognized A means A and B are now recognized (by "someone")? This is wishful thinking. PetersV       TALK 04:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Two drunks sit on a bench together after finishing another bottle. "Do you respect me, Vasya?" - "You have my utmost respect, Petya!" - "And I respect you as well." - "Then we are respected people!" Anyhow, these unrecognized states have recognized each other only in 2006, so the quoted sentence is correct regardless of how you define "international recognition." --Illythr (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your example. Technically speaking, you only need to be respected by one person to be a respected person. So your example proves my point, even though you used drunks. That's why it's called respected, instead of globally respected, well-respected or internationally respected.

Vecrumbra - it's not wishful thinking. If they recognize each other and support each other militarily, that's more then just wishful thinking. That's actual weapons, medical supplies, volunteers for military and civilian sectors, etc. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no internationally recognized government in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, or Transnistria. The only two nations that recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia are Russia and Nicaragua. Thus they can be considered to be partially recognized states. See the article List of states with limited recognition. It is well source and has been established for many years with states arriving when their governments form and leaving the list when they are disolved or internationally recognized. This precedent is followed in all of the articles concerning unrecognized states and i suggest that it is wise that it be continued.

67.84.178.0 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

67.84.178.0, have you noticed that we talk about a time when SO was not recognized by Russia or Niceragua? --Xeeron (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia and Abkhazia war

I would propose the title of this section 2008 South Ossetia and Abkhazia war as the name of the article. The current name is not sufficient since it ignores one of the territories where the conflict happened. While I have no formed oppinion on the other proposed name now I guess consensus has previously rejected it. I also don't know whether this name has been proposed in the past.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a good proposition but it was already discussed earlier and rejected. The main reason being is that most of the fighting, well over 70%, occurred in South Ossetia. No one is denying that Abkhazia made a brilliant contribution to the war, but that doesn't belong in the title. It belongs in the article. The introduction paragraph says little about Abkhazia, and we'd be thrilled to have someone with knowledge about Abkhazia help us edit. I believe that Abkhazia should play a bigger role in the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice figure you keep citing but it's irrelevant. The Kosovo War was an insurgency primarily in Kosovo which came to involve a bombing campaign against Serbia. If Russia had merely launched a bombing campaign against Georgia in support of South Ossetia without any involvement of Abkhazia I wouldn't object to the current title, but the fact Russia sent troops into large swathes of undisputed Georgian territory and coordinated an offensive against Georgian troops in Abkhazia means this title is insufficient according to Wikipedia naming conventions and no source will call it by this name unless they rip it from this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you at least knew Serbian military history. Serbia was bombed into submission. That's more then just a mere bombing campaign. Bombing a nation into submission is more then simply invading that nation. Bombing a nation into submission is illegal under international law. Also, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, thus Abkhazia, as a South Ossetian ally, had a right to go to war with Georgia. It wasn't a great secret that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were allies, or that Russia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia were allies. Also, if you want to defeat my arguments, you have to actually defeat them. You cannot just call them irrelevant and be like Bush. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is irrelevant because it runs counter to Wikipedia naming conventions. You can't argue the title is of sufficient scope because it isn't. Saying that Abkhazia and Russia were allies of South Ossetia isn't an argument against that. Russia went to war for Serbia in 1914, but no one had the absurd idea to call it the Serbian War. The current title doesn't represent the scope of this conflict. Despite your argument the mere fact several wars are named with aggressors second is reason enough to throw out any NPOV objections.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

70% of WWI didn't occur in Serbia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, your proposal absolutely doesn't qualify because nobody uses it. Wikipedia needs to use widespread title not start to inventing its own.--Staberinde (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So Wikipedia needs to invent a new precedence of naming wars after google searches, but at the same time not start inventing its own? I'm so confused! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to use a discussed and agreed upon a title. And least of all we need constant tries to defy the consensus, and POV pushing through voluntarily renaming the title. FeelSunny (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As no consensus exist so far, it can't be defied.--Staberinde (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As no consensus exists so far, the move should be rejected as per Wikipedia move policy. You need concensus to move it, no consensus exists here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Canvassing by Laurinavicius

With regard to this edit, made by Laurinavicius on WikiProject Abkhazia, and the user's expressed strong disapproval of Canvassing, I would like to hear Laurinavicius position on the following:

1. Why, presenting the discussion on the WikiProject Abkhazia, does he give his own evaluation of the present discussion, undermining discussion credibility, in his message: "This discussion seems to be spending literally more space on Russia's war guilt, or absence thereof, than what English-speakers actually call this war!" In other words, why does the user starts with claims the discussion is going in the wrong way?
2. Why, presenting the vote (March-April, 2009), does he give his own evaluation regarding the existing consensus: "an extraordinarily slim majority of users (the final tally was 24-23 [...]) defeated the proposed renaming" (note the emotional "defeated")? The neutral, non-estimating way of depicting the vote is easily imaginable: (my wording) "Majority of users (24 for the current title against 23 for the second most popular title), opposed the proposed renaming."
3. Why does he provide false information regarding other users' vote: "the deciding vote was cast after the survey had been concluded for several hours"? Is the "deciding vote" really made after the conclusion of the vote? See for yourself: Vote #23, Russia-Georgia war, in favor of the move, Elysander (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC). Vote #24, 2008 South Ossetia war, opposing the move - Pattont/c 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC). The last vote was in favor of the move, thus he can not be "deciding", as the decision was not to move. Basing on the archive of the discussion, there was no "deciding vote", as there was no 23-23 situation in this vote. If we see for one month after the voting started, it gives us April, 7th. After this, there were two votes in favor of the move, and one against (making "clear" results of 23-21 against the move). Obviously, the move was not rejected by any "deciding vote". At the same time, Laurinavicius claims there was a "deciding vote" (which should be the 24th opposing the move, according to the common sense), and that it was cast in violation of the rules of the vote. In other words, he tells the interested group the current name of the article was set during the vote which had no force, as the decision was taken breaking the rules. What is the cause of this statement? Is it a mistake or an intended stating of a false information?
4. Why does he explain the point of view of one side only: "However, the renaming proposal was brought back up, as some individuals feel that a new consensus has appeared." The neutral way of presenting this is easily imaginable again: (my wording) "Some users beleive a new consensus has appeared, and other users beleive the consensus has not changed since the last vote".
5. Why does he expresses his own wish to defy the result of a consensus: "I hope that the input from this project will help get the discussion back on track, so that the improvement of this article, which your project considers to be of Top Importance, will swiftly continue."? "Improvement", in cited message, can only regard renaming (as it describes voting for renaming the article). So the main message is "I hope, with your help we would be able to restart the discussion, and ultimately rename the article". I would like to know, why does the user informs of the discussion in such a way. Again, the neutral way of informing is easy to imagine: (my wording) "I hope that the input from this project will help us to work on the article, which your project considers to be of Top Importance".

For information on Inappropriate canvassing and [Campaigning] any interested user may visit corresponding pages of the WP. Please let us discuss the facts, and not make this discussion a forum once again. I will wait for the Laurinavicius' position on every of these five points. FeelSunny (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just suggest changes what you think are appropriate and let Lurinavicius edit the post. No big deal (Igny (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I did suggest them. But taking into account user's position towards canvassing, I'm more interested to see his own reaction on this. FeelSunny (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

With [[12]] edit, I let everyone involved in this discussion know that I would be leaving messages on all of the WikiProjects associated with this article telling the members of those WikiProjects about the article renaming in a manner that I viewed as NPOV, just so that a situation similar to this would not arise. However, FeelSunny, as you feel that my posts were POV, please suggest "whatever changes you think are appropriate" (as Igny put it), and I will fix them immediatly. However, as you wish that I respond to these five points, I shall:

1. Technically, yes, it is of an evaluation of this discussion. However, if you just read over the pages and pages of discussion on this topic, you'll notice that a substantial portion of it does mainly discuss "Russia's war guilt, or abscence thereof" (as I put it earlier), so this does have basis in fact also. However, your analysis of this sentence ("In other words, why does the user starts with claims the discussion is going in the wrong way?") is incorrect. I have never claimed that this discussion is going in the wrong way (meaning that there has been no re-naming as of yet). My intention with this sentence was to show that too much time is being wasted badgering and defending Russia and Georgia's actions during the war then discussion how to improve the article's title and the article itself.
2. On your second point, I have three points of my own to make. First off, the sentence in question was not an evaluation on my part, but just a restatement of the facts (at least in my opinion), as the previous voting results was 24-23 (which, as most people would say, is "extremely slim"). Second, I'm just wondering, but how is the uasge of "defeated" emotional? I don't really understand what you mean by "note the emotional defeated", as I'm not being emotional over anything; that's the terminology that I used. Third, I must point out that your "NPOV" suggestion to replace this sentence is also POV, mainly the phrase "second most popular title", as it insinuates that there are more popular and better title choices than the one suggested.
3. This is completely my error with an accidental addition of wrong information. I'm still looking for the exact edit, but I could have sworn that someone mentioned that the final vote to the original polling was given several hours after the voting had closed, but I had obviously failed to check up on that fact, which is entirely my fault. This certainly needs to be removed and thank you for pointing this error of mine out, FeelSunny.
4. After looking back on it, this sentence could go either way, meaning that it could be construed as NPOV or POV, although I had intended it to be the former. However, I now think it is best to use FeelSunny's wording, as it is more NPOV than mine.
5. On your fifth and final point, all I have to say is that this is a bit ridiculous. In my opinion, all that you're really doing with this point is just putting words into my mouth, especially the "improving" portion of it. This has no code to it; by "improvement of this article...will swiftly continue", I mean just exactly that, that work on the article itself will continue as soon as possible. What I certainly don't mean by this sentence is how you put it: "I hope, with your help we would be able to restart the discussion, and ultimately rename the article".

So, there are my responses to your five points. To conclude, I feel that your points 3 and 4 must be fixed within my edits, a compromise must be reached on ow to word the sentence in question in point 2, and that the sentences points 1 and 5 are fine as they are. Once we reach a compromise on how to word the sentence in point 2, I shall make all of the necessary edits to my previous messages. Thank you for pointing out my errors, and happy editing! My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, I'm quite happy with your balansed responce. Please correct the message in question in the points where we agree then. As to the points 1 and 5 - I would propose (not insist) to change them to more neutral, but that's up to you. As they are, they do not alter perception of the discussion seriously, I think.FeelSunny (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good. I've just corrected the messages in question on the points where we agree. Thanks for bringing up my POV phrasing and error to me and helping resolve the situation in a quick and professional manner. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Title Per Google Search Results

I took the liberty of discovering what the rest of the world is calling this thing, although i like the name Russo-Georgian War best as if fits well established naming conventions within the historical community, it would probably be best to title the article what most of the world calls it so as to make it convient for users of wikipedia to find the article. So per google search the hit numbers for various differnt names are as follows.

Georgian War 7,020,000
Russian Georgian War 5,890,000
South Ossetian War 1,210,000
Russo Georgian War 691,000
Ossetian War 584,000

Note how there are more than five times as many hits in google for Russian Georgian War than there are for South Ossetian war. Georgian War has more hits, but upon looking at the actual webpages most tend to refer to articles that are titled russian georgian war. Logically all hits from russian georgian war would also be included in georgian war so i assume that georgian war in actuallity only has a mere 1,500,000 hits. Therefore i suggest that the article be titled Russian-Georgian War or some dirivitive with a date. I hope this helps. XavierGreen (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this many times before. Google results is not the argument by which we decide the name of the war. Usage in reliable sources is. And there the results are clear: there is no generally accepted name for the war yet. Thus, we should use the name of the main battleground as usual in WP. Offliner (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Then how can you explain the Russo-Japanese War, the Russo-Swedish Wars, and countless others on wikipedia which have names that dont correspond to their battle fields. Indeed in the Russo-Japanese War not a single battle was fought in either russia or japan. Further more the entire conflict of this 2008 war took place in Georgia. Russia herself didnot recognize South Ossetia as a political entity until several days after the war. This means that Russia during the war considered South Ossetia to be georgian territory under rebel control, and that the war took place in georgia. Thus by your own tauted logic the war should be considered to be the Georgian War, and not the South Ossetian War.XavierGreen (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Russia actually declared on Japan, and on Sweden. When nations declare wars, the wars are much easier to name. However post-WWII fewer nations declared wars, (for instance last US declared was WWII,) so a new system was devised, where wars are named after location. Google has never been used to name wars. You cannot establish a new methodology without violating Wikipedia's Orginal Research clause. So either cite a single war that's been named as a result of Google, or drop that argument. As I said earlier, 130 out off 155 wars since WWII have been named after location. You cannot overthrow precedence to fit your POV needs. Name me a single war that was named on the basis of Google or Google Scholar? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The other wars you mentioned already have generally accepted names. This war doesn't yet. Offliner (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you reach that conclusion? Ostap 03:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the use of starting this all over again?FeelSunny (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a generally accepted name, but the 2008 South Ossetia War is not one of the names being thrown around as a possibility and it doesn't sufficiently define the scope of the conflict. Therefore it shouldn't even be an option. Since the current title is unacceptable then an alternative must be proposed and presently this appears to be the best alternative.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's exactly like the Kosovo War, the Dagestan War, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the First and Second Chechen Wars as well. It's named after a place where most of the fighting occurs. The current title is the right one, as for accepting it or rejecting you, that call is yours; you're welcome to reject submission bombing too, it won't change the facts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're completely distorting the subject. Every war involves some activity outside the main zone of conflict, but is the nature of that activity which matters. In the Kosovo War all actions outside the area of Kosovo were strictly in support of operations in Kosovo. The NATO bombing campaign was meant to force Serbia to withdraw from Kosovo. The Chechen War actually doesn't really support your argument because regardless of where the conflict was fought it was fought against Chechen forces or Chechen-led forces. So in reality it names one of the belligerents rather than the location. The Dagestan War was actually a part of that war and so probably shouldn't even be treated as a separate conflict. The Iraq War and Afghanistan War have only been fought outside those countries when it was done in direct connection to the fight there meaning cases of hot pursuit or retaliation against staging areas. Border conflicts are quite common in any war and shouldn't be an argument for changing the title. We're not talking about some battles along the borders here, but a whole other front in claimed defense of a whole other separatist state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's calling this war a border war? You claim that I'm distorting the subject, and then don't follow up on that claim. You name wars after location, not after who fought. Over 80% of wars since WWII were named after locations. Over 88% since the USSR collapsed. Wars are named after location. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Outside of the Roki Tunnel, the war wasn't fought on Russian soil. The Chechen War was named to describe Chechnya. It wasn't fought against just the Chechens. There were quite a lot of mercenaries and non-Chechen people fighting in that war. You have shown your knowledge of military history by claiming that Prussia started the Franco-Prussia War, (the one where France attacked Prussia) and now you are showing your ignorance of the Caucasian Region by claiming that the Chechen Wars were only fought against Chechens, which wasn't the case. Other nationalities besides Chechens live in Chechnya and Chechens fought on both sides of the war. Also the Mujahadeen forces were not Chechen led. Please, before you post something else, study the damn subject. As for the Iraq and Afghanistan War, they're not called the US-Iraq War or the US-Afghanistan war now, are they? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anyone was calling it a border war. I was saying precisely that it wasn't a border war. As for your continued insults, I was only wrong about the Franco-Prussian War primarily because I didn't notice the initial engagement but the much larger battle that followed after France pulled out of German territory, I was not suggesting Chechens only fought on one side or that only Chechens fought on that side. I am well aware of the involvement of foreign fighters in the Chechen wars, but they were fighting generally under Chechen forces or in conjunction with them. When I said you were distorting the subject I meant your assertion that those conflicts are exactly the same as this one because most of the conflict occurred in a certain area. Of course, in the Second Chechen War this was not the case. That conflict began in Dagestan and is considered part of the Chechen War. That's because it was Chechen-led forces which invaded Dagestan. However, the point is that in those cases conflict outside of those areas was in support of operations in those areas meaning it was either to chase forces fleeing across the border or to retaliate against force staging across the border. That is not what the conflict outside of South Ossetia was about. The Russians said very clearly their offensive operations in Abkhazia and Western Georgia were meant to stop an alleged Georgian plan to invade Abkhazia. That is not even remotely similar to what happened in those other conflicts.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not insulting you. I'm simply pointing out where you are wrong. And here again you are incorrect when you said that Chechens were in control of the Mujaheedin fighting the Russians. They weren't. The Mujaheedin had their own leadership structure, and Chechens weren't in charge of their units. As for fighting in conjunction with Chechen forces, well yeah. Russians also fought in conjunction of Chechen forces that were supportive of Russia. And Ossitians, Abkhazians and Russians fought in conjunction in this war. Same could be said of Axis and Allies in WWII. Wars are named after locations, not after the people who fought. The Iraq War isn't named the Sunni-Shia-Kurd War now, is it?

As for the Georgian alleged plan to invade Abkhazia, it wasn't merely alleged. Saakashvili invaded Adjaria. Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia. Saakashvili vowed to re-unite Georgia via miltiary force. Under all these facts, how you can argue that Saakashvili's plan for invading Abkhazia was alledged? That's like certain people thinking, "well Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, Hitler provoked Kristallnacht, Hitler stated that Jews are the World's biggest problem, but he definetely won't gas the Jews". If a person performs agressive acts repeatedly, he will keep on performing them until he is stopped. The plan to invade Abkhazia wasn't merely alledged.

Also, this conflict is classic attack-counterattack tactics. Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia, Putin, Bagapsh and Kokoituy responded. How is it any different from the Second Chechen War which started with an unprovoked Chechen attack into Dagestan? Now that war is called the Second Chechen War. So via that logic, this one should be called the Third South Ossetian War. Or 2008 South Ossetia War. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I said was incorrect, the group that invaded Dagestan was headed by a Chechen militant leader and included Chechens along with other groups which fought in support of Chechen forces. Chechen is not shorthand for Chechnya, it's the name of the ethnic group which is dominant in Chechnya. Hence Chechen War is naming the belligerent not the location. I'm not suggesting that is some standard, but merely that it is not an example of a war being named for its location.

In the case of my point Russia's alleging a plan to invade Abkhazia it really doesn't matter whether Georgia was planning to invade or not, I certainly don't think it was as imminent as Russia made it seem, because either way it separates their actions in Abkhazia from those in South Ossetia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's irrespective whether an invasion is going to happen today or a year from now. If you know it's going to happen, you stop it from happening. There was a crystal clear pattern of agression originating from Saakashvili. He had to be stopped. Also, Chechen is how you would name the land of Chechenya. For instance you say Chechen Territorry, not Chechnya territorry. So once again, you sir are factually incorrect. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What you just said doesn't even make sense. Chechen is an ethnic group residing primarily in Chechnya. It is not in any way the name of a location. Also my point still stands, whether Georgia was planning to invade or not is irrelevant as it clearly establishes a separate reason for the conflict in Abkhazia and is thus not about South Ossetia. Truth is the order of the names doesn't matter and arguing over this trivial issue is ridiculous. Someone has to go first and the more common arrangement is Russia then Georgia. It's that simple and your absurd attempts at arguing this is some hidden POV-pushing isn't helping anything.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally if you're going to compare this to the Second Chechen War, say Chechen stands for Chechnya, and that the Georgians are playing the part of the Chechens here then logically you should be arguing in favor of calling this the 2008 Georgian War not South Ossetia War.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC):

Wrong again! You call it after a region where most of the fighting occured. It's called the Second Chechen War, not the Second Russian War. Likewise this one should be called the 2008 South Ossetia War, not the 2008 Georgia War. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The Devil's Advocate here. As both Chechen Wars, which HistoricWarrior007 often cites as being named after their location (Chechnya) rather than a major belligerent in the war (the Chechens), are named after the belligerent not the location, then his logic would have the article's title being the "2008 Georgian War" (with one belligerent in the title) or the "2008 Russian-Georgian War"/"2008 Georgian-Russian War" (with two major belligerents) or even "2008 Ossetian-Russian-Georgian War" (with three major belligerents; or any of the variants of this title by rearranging the belligerents' names). And just to point out, a large majority of the wars that you, HistoricWarrior, previously cited as having been named after their location can be construed as having been named after at least one of the belligerents. Some examples are: the Korean War (North and South Korea were belligerents), the Vietnam War (North and South Vietnam were belligerents), the Kosovo War (the Kosovo Liberation Army and Yugoslavia (which ruled Kosovo at the time) were belligerents), the Invasion of Dagestan (Dagestan was a belligerent), the Afghan War (Afghanistan was a belligerent), the Iraq War (Iraq was a belligerent), and so on and so forth. If you want me to give you some more examples, please do not hesitate to ask. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually post WWII wars are named after the location, not the belligerent in most cases. For instance the Cesamance Conflict, the War of Transnistria, the ethnic conflict in Nagaland, the Cenepa War, the Hanish Islands Crisis, the Insrugency in Ogaden, the Kosovo War, the Cargil War, the Insurgency in Presovo Valley, the Ituri Conflict, the War in Afhanistan, the Insurgency in the Maghreb, the War in Darfur, the Iraq War, the War on terrorism in Waziristan, the Sa'Dah Insurgency, the Conflict in the Niger Delta, the Mount Elgon Insurgency, the 2006 Lebanon War. All of these wars started between 1990-2007. All of them are missing at least one major belligerent in the name. Also, the Kosovo War is called the Kosovo War, not the Kosovo Liberation Army War, but I encourage you to go to a military history meeting and argue that the Kosovo War was named after the Kosovo Liberation Army. If it was, it'd be named the KLA War.

Also, in the Vietnam War, the US was a major belligerent, and yet not listed. Vietnam War as named after the location of Vietnam, not the forces of North and South Vietnam. In the Iraq War, you're missing US as the belligerent. Also, according to your logic, since we only need to name one major belligerent, hey, South Ossetia is a belligerent, you said so yourself. So the current title, according to your logic, works.

Perhaps I should have explained this earlier, but the reason that most military historians decided to name wars after locations, is that propaganda became more powerful, and war titles began to be used as propaganda, see for instance the Yom Kippur War, where the title shows "damn those bastards attacked during a holiday" or the Six Day War "Woot! We kicked their asses in six days!" - so in order to have an accurate non-POV war record, wars were named after locations, and there was a rewrite and renaming of some of the wars post WWII on the basis of location. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that you do have a point there: a substantial number of post-WWII conflicts have been named after their locations or could be construed as being named after their location or after one or more belligerents (which was the point of my last edit on this subtopic). However, us Wikipedia editors are not the ones who decide the naming of a war; that belongs to the world's leading professors and scholars on the topic. And, in this case, a substantial majority of scholarly works that have been produced so far this year call the war the "Russian-Georgian War". Just look at the Google Scholar results, or visit a bookstore, especially one that specializes in historical works, and you'll noticed that the majority of the works published in 2009 use the term "Russian-Georgian War". As this title is the most common and well-known term, not just amongst the general populace, but with the world's leading scholars, should it not be the title of this article? And one last point: According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." As most English-speaking readers recognize and use the name "Russian-Georgian War" for this war, in accordance with WP:Naming conventions, "Russian-Georgian War" should be the title of this article. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(reindent and response) I gotta say, this is by far the best argument I've heard. However the problem lies in that you don't address the inherent bias present in the "Russian-Georgian War" title. It automatically assumes that Russia is the attacker. Just as you used Wikipedia rules, I too remind you that Wikipedia states that titles of articles and wars shouldn't be biased. Also, we didn't name this war. A numerous amount of unbiased scholarly articles, such as Mark Ames' piece for The Nation, call this war "War in South Ossetia" or "South Ossetia War". The only thing that the editors on Wikipedia did to the title, is added the year, 2008. This is based on naming previous wars between Georgia on one side and Ossetia with Russia on the other.

Also, most Americans know this war as the War Between Georgia and Russia or Russia-Georgia War or Georgia-Russia War. Since the other side has been repeatedly arguing that the first person isn't the attacker, why are they so against naming this war the "Georgia-Russia War"? Their response is "Google says so", but no wars have been named after Google Scholar. I would agree with your argument Lauri, if it were not for the fact that we are biased, inherently biased of the attacker going first, I'm going to remain in favor of the current title. The title must not merely appease the widest spectrum of the readership in terms of recognition, but it must also be unbiased. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) Oh come on. Why should you, Laurinavicius, of all people come here and start making sensible and polite arguments? Why couldn't you be like Kober or Elysander whose arguments can be so easily rebuked? (Igny (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

I'll take that as a compliment from a worthy adversary. Thank you very much! :D Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I gotta say, this is by far the best argument I've heard. However the problem lies in that you don't address the inherent bias present in the "Russian-Georgian War" title. It automatically assumes that Russia is the attacker.
Source for that claim(bolded part) please? And no, your personal opinion does not count. I have been waiting for someone to back up this claim since last discussion but only thing I got as reply were few historical examples that fit the claim, as I am well capable for finding counterexamples, that is not enough.

Since the other side has been repeatedly arguing that the first person isn't the attacker, why are they so against naming this war the "Georgia-Russia War"?
Because its less used by reliable sources, duh.
Their response is "Google says so", but no wars have been named after Google Scholar.
Lolwut. Nobody is officially naming wars, generally various historians use various names, some names become mainstream while others remain trivial. As wikipedia isn't relaible or competent enough to invent new names it needs to stick to some mainstream title which is used by large number of reliable sources. Google Scholar is simply easiest way to make statistics about usage of titles by reliable sources for relatively fresh conflict. Obviously it isn't 100% perfect but if one title is used 7 times more than another one, the picture gets clear enough. With older wars booksearch is as good or even better metric.

I would agree with your argument Lauri, if it were not for the fact that we are biased, inherently biased of the attacker going first, I'm going to remain in favor of the current title.
Well, I already mentioned that your personal opinion of "attacker goes first" is pretty damn irrelevant unless you can back it up with something more reliable.--Staberinde (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde pretty much said it all for me. The only thing that I have to add is that this title suggestion is not "inherently biased" as it names Russia first. By no means does is the nation that is named first in a war's name the belligerent agressor. Nowhere have I seen any credible source be a propnent of or even support this idea. The only reason why "Russia-Georgian War" is being suggested rather than "Georgia-Russian War" is that the former is far more common amongst English speakers. However, if you can find and bring up credbile and scholarly sources which do show that the nation named first is the agressor, we will gladly alter the proposed article title so as to remove any possible bias. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion. You will find that the extreme majority of wars have the attacker going first. Very few wars are named with the defender going first. Since you like the 1 to 7 ratio so much, for every war taht you name where the defender goes first, I will name seven, which are either named after location, or where the attacker goes first. I'm sorry, but military history trumps Google in military history articles.

And who is to decide what is mainstream? The critics didn't give the movie Star Wars any Oscars, but that movie is clearly mainstream. There are over one million Google Hits when I type South Ossetia War into Google. I'd say that mainstream. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,450,000 for south ossetia war. (0.11 seconds) Are are you going to tell me that mainstream users do their research with quotes around the title? As for Russia-Georgia War, it's not really 1 to 7. Here you go: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,830,000 for russia georgia war. (0.41 seconds). They both are mainstream to me. One is biased, the other isn't. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both Laurinavicius and Staberinde. The title "Russian-Georgian war", while not perfect, would be much better than the current one. Unlike the previous war, the 2008 war was fought outside South Ossetia and the actions didn't concern only South Ossetia - military operations in Abkhazia had nothing to do with South Ossetia, nor the ones held by the Russian navy. The result of the war is also not affecting only South Ossetia, thus the current title is misleading. What happened in South Ossetia was just a motive, but the important thing is what happened next. For example nobody's calling the World War I the Sarajevo war, etc. So, I believe we should choose between "Russian-Georgian war" or "Georgian-Russian war", but since the first is the one used most frequently, IMHO we should stick to it. Kouber (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, is HistoricWarrior007 trolling me or what? Your claims about POVness of putting defender first are essentially WP:original research, which makes it absolutely irrelevant. There are plenty of wars with defender going first, nobody thinks that those are all with POV title. Actually if you look a bit deeper, more standard pattern(total original research by me on the spot btw), seems to be putting more well known country first, so that we have lots of Anglo-X wars, Franco-X wars and Russo-X wars, with X marking less major/notable/famous countries (Sweden, Japan, Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Thai, Syria, Zulu, Zansibar etc.).

Also, only very tiny number of wars are named after duration, still we have Six-Day War, only very tiny number of wars are named after holiday, still we have Yom Kippur War, only very tiny number of wars are named after season, still we have Winter War. Why is it like that? Answer is simple. Because reliable sources use such titles for those wars most widely.--Staberinde (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, an Ad Hominem from Staberinde! I guess when your logic fails you follow the pack. Naming a war in a similar fashion to how 80% of wars are named is orginal research?! You dress like 4 out of 5 people, you are guilty of being original! "There are plenty of wars with the defender going first?" Oh really? Could you list the "plenty" please? And against your "plenty" I'll list seven times as much. Also, there seem to have been "plenty of wars" so "plenty" that instead of naming the "plenty" of wars with the defender going first, you name the Six-Day War and the Winter War. "There are so many WMDs in Iraq, that we cannot show you any of them". By trying to rename this war into the Russian-Georgian War - YOU are the ones guilty of original research. As for wars named after the more well known countries, maybe it happened in the Middle Ages, or before maps existed in large numbers. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Original Research is laughable. It states that US is less well know then Korea (Korean War), Vietnam (Vietnam War), Afghansitan (Afghanistan War) and Iraq (Iraq War). The difference between original research and historical research, is that your original research is instantly discredited and proven laughable, see previous sentence. My historical research isn't. It's interesting how in every single war where the defender goes first, the press that makes the defender go first is clearly biased towards the attacker's side. And you won't be able to name a single war that states otherwise. But thanks, I never knew that Afghanistan was important then the US. I learn something new everyday. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, you, guys make too far-reaching conclusions... Every other Israeli-Arab war could not just be called "first", "second", "twenty-fifth" etc. So they invented names for each. Of course, if the history of those nations saw only one war, it would be called Israeli-Arab war. BTW, how comes everybody forgot about the redirect in action? Anyone can find the article with absolutely no difficulty. FeelSunny (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007 failed to comprehend my point again, but it does not surprize me anymore. Anyway his claim about POVness of "Russian-Georgian war" on grounds that "agressor goes first" is obvious case of WP:Original research, making it worthless. If he can provide WP:Reliable source about international standard for putting agressor first in title of war, then we can return to this point. But until he continues with nonsense proposals of having some sort of competition in finding war names, I dont see any point in discussing it further with him.--Staberinde (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When I say that 2 + 2 = 4, and give no sources, that is not original research. When I say that 2 * 2 = 4, that's not original research. When I say that 2 + 2 = 2 * 2, because 4 = 4, that is also not original research. It's stating the facts and analyzing these facts. Take a look at how the wars are named. Over 80% of wars are named after either the agressor going first, or the location. There are some exceptions to the rule. Extremely few wars are named where the defender goes first. Here is the data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars#Wars_by_date. Furthermore, in all wars where the defender goes first, the English speaking country that was/is a major power at the time, supported the other side, providing inherent bias. Wikipedia admits to a similar bias here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Systemic_bias_of_Wikipedia. That is not original research. Those are facts. You can call a fact original research all you want, but a fact is a fact. Out of all conflicts since the end of the Cold War, all 69 of them, NO WARS are named with the defender going first. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Nil. This isn't "some sort of competition". These are cold, hard facts. But you have already shown your unwillingness to accept facts. When Google Scholar gave "August War" as the top result, not "Russia-Georgia War" as you wanted, you simply limited the dates. You want to change the article's title based on what you type into Google in quotes, and you are accusing me of original research?! When I am providing cold, hard fact?! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

EU commission findings

Spiegel

Honestly most of this is beating a dead horse with a stick, but now it's "official" I guess. Here are some key parts of the article:

• Unpublished documents produced by the European Union commission that investigated the conflict between Georgia and Moscow assign much of the blame to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. But the Kremlin and Ossetian militias are also partly responsible.

• The facts assembled on Tagliavini's desk refute Saakashvili's claim that his country became the innocent victim of "Russian aggression" on that day

• The experts found no evidence to support claims by the Georgian president, which he also mentioned in an interview with SPIEGEL, that a Russian column of 150 tanks had advanced into South Ossetia on the evening of Aug. 7. According to the commission's findings, the Russian army didn't enter South Ossetia until August 8.

Please, cite the Spiegel article, in that Saakashvili speaks about 150 tanks... There was no such interview, the 150 "armored vehicles" (which is not the same as tanks) is mentioned in some statemens of the Georgian government--78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Commission members note, on the other hand, that Saakashvili had already amassed 12,000 troops and 75 tanks on the border with South Ossetia on the morning of Aug. 7. In their research, they uncovered remarks by the Georgian president that demonstrate that he had long flirted with a military solution to the South Ossetian problem. "If you ask any Georgian soldier why he is serving in the armed forces, each of them will respond: 'To reestablish Georgia's territorial integrity,'" Saakashvili said in a television address on May 25, 2004.

• Another commission member, Bruno Coppieter, a political scientist from Brussels, even speculates whether the Georgian government may have had outside help in its endeavor. "The support of Saakashvili by the West, especially military support," Coppieter writes, "inadvertently promoted Georgia's collision course."

• The commission members generally agree, however, that the Georgians and Russians alike violated the provision in the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Both armies, for example, used cluster bombs, which distribute explosives over a wide area, killing several civilians and wounding many more. Georgia admits to having used the weapons, while Russia denies the charge

• The commission also cited many serious attacks on Georgian civilians by South Ossetia militias. According to a report for the commission by Swiss legal expert Théo Boutruche, militia members, most of them young men, looted and burned down several villages inhabited by Georgians, beat civilians and murdered more than a dozen Georgians. According to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, the Russian occupying force was obligated to reestablish public order. But it did almost nothing to prevent the atrocities, which a commission dossier classifies as "war crimes."

• Another question will likely remain unanswered: What role did the United States, the sole remaining superpower, play in the Georgian conflict? (...) One question they would like to ask is why no one at the US State Department took a call from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin when the war broke out in the early morning hours of August 8 -- when it was afternoon in Washington. (...) But Tagliavini's team won't be questioning any Americans. According to one member of the commission, "our director and the EU apparently lack the courage" to take that step.

I'm not sure if you guys want to incorporate this into the article now or wait for the final draft of the report. It's up to the active editors I guess. LokiiT (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting point is the opinion of the international law expert Otto Luchterhandt:

• The Russian troops were stationed in South Ossetia as a result of a 1992 agreement, binding under international law, between Russia and Georgia. Georgia's attack, Luchterhandt argues, constitutes a breach of this agreement, thereby giving Russia the right to intervene. Nevertheless, he writes, the Kremlin, with its overwhelming intervention in western Georgia, can be accused of "violating the principle of proportionality."

This is also interesting, although I'm not sure if this should be added:

• One question they would like to ask is why no one at the US State Department took a call from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin when the war broke out in the early morning hours of August 8 -- when it was afternoon in Washington.

The same point was noted in a Moscow Defense Brief article earlier:

• Clearly, the US President consciously lied to the Russian Prime Minister, trying to disorient the Russian party and forcing it to waste time making additional clarifications through diplomatic channels. On the night before the Georgian attack, US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried behaved in a similar manner. During his initial calls, Fried assured Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Grigoriy Krasin that the United States was working on a resolution to the conflict. Then, according to an interview Krasin gave to Der Spiegel, “at a certain point Washington stopped answering the phone, although the working day there had not yet finished.”[13]

In general, Spiegel doesn't tell us much that would be completely new. A lot of the material is already in the article. What I think we should add is this:

• According to the commission's findings, the Russian army didn't enter South Ossetia until August 8.

This opinion is already in the article (Western intelligence agencies, quoted by Der Spiegel, believed that Russian troops from North Ossetia did not begin marching through the Roki Tunnel until roughly 11 am on 8 August. The Russian army also did not begin firing until 7:30 am on 8 August.) But now it isn't only Western intelligence agencies who claim this, but the investigation commission too.

Other than that, I guess it would be best to wait 1.5 months for the final results. But I'll have to think more about this. Offliner (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We should wait for the final report. However, if the final report backs up the SPIEGEL report, it will be time to drastically cut down that part of the article here, I doubt that there will be a more unbiased report comming after that. --Xeeron (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly we could make a timeline based on the EU info, as graphics are always more comprehensible than text.FeelSunny (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to the head of the commission Heidi Tagliavini, this Spiegel article is "largely speculative" and "fictitious": (from Georgian MFA site). Which brings up another question: How reliable are all Uwe Klussmann's articles? Just look at the titles of his latest works: "Georgia's murky motives", "Did Saakashvili lie?", etc. Putin could not have provided the better titles.(PaC (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm more inclined to believe that the Georgian government is continuing on with its tradition of complete fabrications, rather than a reputable, neutral source like Spiegel risking its credibility to essentially tell us what we already know. LokiiT (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that this is published on the official Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs site, we should soon see Tagliavini's denouncement of this "complete fabrication", don't you think? (After all this is presented as signed by her personally and I can't imagine her not refuting this if it wasn't indeed written by her.) If this does not happen, however, would you agree to start questioning the credibility and neutrality of Uwe Klussmann? (PaC (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I will question his neutrality if once the official documents are released they do not support the claims in his article. As it stands, the Georgian government holds zero credibility in my eyes. Silence on her part is not an acknowledgement of anything and even if she did write that there may be other factors at play. All that matters is what the report itself says, and in the mean time, what a reputable source such as Spiegel says (which just repeats information that we already knew from other reputable sources). LokiiT (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What other reputable sources? Other articles by Spiegel? Any neutral observer can immediately see Klussmann's bias and lack of neutrality just from his language. Like this one: "In their research, they uncovered ... that he had long flirted with a military solution to the South Ossetian problem." Ha-ha. "Uncovered"! Based on Saakashvili's television address. Ha-ha. If Klussmann is still not on Putin's payroll he should be. Reputable source indeed. (PaC (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

FYI, Loki, Spiegel has already risked "its credibility".[14] Unless Tagliavini rejects her comment on the Georgia MFA website, it should be taken seriously. "the Georgian government holds zero credibility in my eyes" is a very weak argument.--Kober^Talk 04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Every newspaper risks its credibility. Mr. Cornell has lost his, by lying. I don't see you opposing him Kober, could it be because you're biased? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Papa Carlo: You haven't been following this conflict for very long, have you? Otherwise you'd have already known about the various NYTimes and Washington post articles that said precisely the same thing. Kober: No, it's not a weak argument at all. We can't pretend the Georgian government is incapable of lying when they've been caught red handed already so many times. Though I take it you still believe Tiblisi was bombed because Saakashvili said so? LokiiT (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Columbia university encyclopedia about M.Saakashvili: His Aug., 2008, decision to invade South Ossetia to reestablish Georgian control there led to the Russian defeat of Georgia and Russia's recognition of the Georgian breakway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent. Actually, even in US they don't beleive The Torch of Democracy was invaded by the Big Bad Bear. And accusation made by another highly disrespected and untrustworthy source, BBC, as commented by Bloomberg, was denied by The Freedom Fighter: "The BBC said witnesses described how Georgian tanks fired directly into an apartment block in South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, and troops shot at civilians as they tried to flee. Human Rights Watch has said Georgia used ``indiscriminate and disproportionate force during the attack. ", "President Mikheil Saakashvili denied Georgia committed war crimes when its security forces attacked the breakaway region of South Ossetia", "We strongly deny any of this, any accusation of war crimes, Saakashvili said in a video clip on the BBC's Web site, adding Georgia is ``very open for any kind of investigation.". U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband called Georgia's assault on South Ossetia ``reckless. He said he raised the issue of ``war crimes and other military actions by Georgia during a visit to Tbilisi. - Just to show it's not about Spiegel. FeelSunny (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, nice statement by Tagliavini: she does not say an6ything against Spiegel's claims that majority of experts included in the commision finds Georgia an agressor, she tells that it's not important, b/c the final decision will be taken by her solely. No use of providing her statement as opposing the Spiegel article.FeelSunny (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the only claim of Spiegel which was debunked by Tangliavini on the MFA site was regarding an unimportant issue of responsibility for the report, as well as the US involvement in the conflict:

Contrary to the allegations referred to in the article, there is not and has never been any reluctance or unwillingness on behalf of IIFFMCG to interview senior U.S. diplomats such as former Assistant Secretary for Europe Daniel Fried on America's role in the conflict.

So ok we shall not include allegations of US involvement into this article. However it seems that the other allegations, most notably blaming Georgia for the conflict are not rejected by Tangliviani yet. (Igny (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Hm, that's not the only thing Tangliavini says. She also says that "The Spiegel's article is not based on information provided by the Head of IIFFMCG, Ambassador Tagliavini, or any other authorized sources." Which means that to present these "allegations" as findings of the commission (which is precisely what Klussmann is trying to do) is a blatant lie.

After this and previous "mistakes" I say Uwe Klussmann coverage of the topic is no more neutral than Putin's speeches (PaC (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, but the wording "The Spiegel's article is not based on information provided by the Head of IIFFMCG, Ambassador Tagliavini, or any other authorized sources" means just what it means: she personally did not give that information and not authorised other members to do so. So what? These are obviously unauthorised leaks, and it's quite clear from the article. Again, she never told a word against the content of the article, never disagreed with it, only evaluated the source of the data as "not authorised". So - blatant lies are your accusations, it seems. PS. In case you just do not know: officials, unauthorised to do so, frequently leak or just sell information to the press. In Russia, in Georgia, Mexico, US, UK, China - everywhere. Publishing such leaks does not change anything in the high credibility of the Spiegel.FeelSunny (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your impressive argument notwithstanding, "high credibility" of Uwe Klussmann's reporting is a fairy tale. As I argued before it is already clear from looking at the titles of his articles and the tendentiousness of his presentation. Moreover, he was caught lying before as Kober points out above. I suppose you just want to ignore this fact. As for Tagliavini's remarks, she obviously cannot support or deny any direct allegations before the report is published. But she did say that the article "...reflects on the work of IIFFMCG in a largely speculative and unsubstantiated way." And she also says: "The article's contents on the findings of the Mission are entirely fictious as regards the so-called majority views among Mission's members relating to the alleged responsibility for the outbreak of hostilities or the alleged violation by either side of the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians." How do you interpret these statements?(PaC (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

They are quite clear to not interpret them, just read. She says completely nothing against a single point of the article. Sure she's not happy about the unauthorized leaks, but that happens. Maybe you just read the point "fictious... as regards the so-called majority views" as "false"? Then you're mistaken.

I'm not going to speculate on Spiegel articles' headings, but just to show this argument is totally flawed: there are some examples of POVed headings from a well respected sources: RFE, Bloomberg, Guardian, Forbes, Times, etc. Noone demands from these all sources to be completely free of estimations. they are journalists, it's quite normal. But how comes when their POV is not what Saakashvili would like, they are accused of being paid by "The Gazprom empire" right away? FeelSunny (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fictious" means "made up". Tagliavini says Klussmann simply made up the whole thing. Journalists who make stuff up are neither "reliable" nor "reputable".(PaC (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I will explain in an example. #On man from some political party high officials said to some journalist there is a consensus among the party top politicians that a reform is needed. #A journalist makes an article, stating this is a non-official source from this party, who claimed the consensus on the reform exists. He also adds the source criticized the head of the party for not being brave enough in her communication with the government. #A head of this party makes a statement and says the journalist's article entirely fictious as regards the so-called majority views. #Which means the head denies there exists such thing as "majority views" in this party (i.e. she makes decisions herself), or this party just does not make any discussions on the reform. #Which in no way contradicts a) the possibility of existance of the majority views on the reform, and b) that these majority views are just like they are depicted in the article and by the source within a party.

Do you understand my logic?FeelSunny (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand Wikipedia's rules regarding sources:

• Reliability is determined on the level of individual sources, not on the level of authors. This source is reliable because it has been published by Der Spiegel, which has an editorial board etc. Likewise the website of the government of Georgia is a reliable source, so we can include Tagliavini's response.

Actually WP:V states: "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability", which seems to be in direct contradiction with what you are saying.(PaC (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

• Reliability and bias are two seperate issues. Every source is biased to some extend, but the essential thing is that that in itself does not affect its reliability. If a source is biased, this should be pointed out in the article, but whether a source is biased has to be established itself by independent reliable sources.
• The source Kober links to does not prove that that previous article by Klussmann in Der Spiegel was false, it merely reports that the OSCE claims so, but the OSCE was obviously an interested party in that matter. It would have been highly surprising for them not to issue an official denial, regardless of whether the story is true.
• In general any controversial statement should be attributed in the running text, in this case that would be to Der Spiegel.

Perhaps you should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. sephia karta | di mi 10:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sephia karta. WP:RS states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." It seems perhaps that we shouldn't really ignore the trustworthiness of the authors, and Klussmann's is highly suspicious. I do agree that controversial statements should be attributed to the source (as in "Der Spiegel's journalist claims that...") but if the statements are apparently fictitious may be they should not be included at all. Otherwise we are simply bringing propaganda wars on Wikipedia pages. (PaC (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps we should simply wait for Tagliavini's report. That should clarify this issue (PaC (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Accoring to your logic, we should blank the article until the Tagliani report. For if you call Spiegel not reliable, there are no reliable sources at all, beleive me. Then we should just post the opinions of the sides, and delete any info from any other source. FeelSunny (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we certainly can not simply put "According to the commission's preliminary findings, the Russian army did not enter South Ossetia until August 8", when the commission head officially denies that any such preliminary findings exist. It should at least be rephrased as "According to "Der Spegel" the commission's preliminary findings....blah-blah... while the head of the commission calls Der Spiegel's article "largely speculative and unsubstantiated"". Or something to that effect. The resulting statement is by far more factual. However since it only reflects a part of propaganda war and does not shed any real light on what is going on I think it shouldn't be included at all.(PaC (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree per WP:Patience. (Igny (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Apparently Wikipedia lacks patience. (Igny (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Kouber (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The title and the lead

Think about this. The current lead is focused on the tensions between SO and Georgia which ultimately led to the armed conflict. Now imagine the title changes to Russia-Georgia war or whatever. The focus of the lead naturally has to shift to the tensions between Russia and Georgia, right? Now how did the war start? Did Russia attack Georgia? Did Georgia attack Russia? Georgia attacked Tskhinvali, and got kicked out of SO by the Russians, so the SO War seems like a natural title. If the title does change to the R-G war, the lead has to change accordingly to explain why this is indeed called the R-G war. In the timeline of the events, Georgia attacked SO, killed Russian peacekeepers, provoked Russia into the retaliation strike, got kicked by Russia, and lost. In the current version we somehow kept the issue of killed Russian peacekeepers away from the lead as not so relevant. However, if the title changes, the issue of the peacekeepers suddenly becomes relevant and extremely important to explain why Russia decided to support SO in the conflict. Otherwise not only the title but also the lead will portray Russia as the aggressor.

In short, if the title changes to R-G war, I will insist that the lead describes in NPOV manner the issue of killed Russian peacekeepers (as relevant to the title) to properly explain the Russian actions. (Igny (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree and I also think that in the lead it's important to note the fine distinction that while South Ossetia was De Jure part of Georgia, De Facto it was administered by a regional gov't. that was backed by Russia, because North Ossetia has close ties with South Ossetia, and destabilizing the Ossetias will destabilize the Caucasian Region. However Xeeron or Kober, one of them don't remember which one, thinks it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said. Those in doubt should ask an Ossetian whether they feel that South Ossetians are somehow different from North Ossetians and see what answer you get. Also, neither Moscow nor Tbilisi were major targets in the war. Although Tbilisi was bombed, no infantry assualts were launched against Tbilisi. Tskhinvali was the biggest target. This was a war for the control of the Caucasian Region, and whomever captured Tskhinvali, be it Medvedev or Saakashvili, would gain the share of control of the Caucasian Region. Tskhinvali was at the heart of this war. Tskhinvali is the capital of South Ossetia. Tskhinvali is where half of the population of South Ossetia lives. To not call this war South Ossetian, or to say that South Ossetia or Abkhazia weren't major players, is nothing short of an insult. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Whatever else it was, militarily it was a conflict between Russia and Georgia. South Ossetia was armed by Russia, so still Russia. If and when we settle on a title which names the article based on the antagonists, we can propose adjustments to the lead. PetersV       TALK 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If by proposing adjustments you mean making the adjustments, you are right. (Igny (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Basing on your arguments, PetersV, that was a conflict of NATO vs. Russia. For if Ossetia was armed by Russia, Georgia was armed by NATO. Then we definitely should rename the Korean War into USA-USSR war. Why don't you start that discussion with Kober on the corresponding talk page? To make my point clear: I beleive Georgia had neither money nor wish to start the highest military spending/ GDP ratio boost in the world - in 2003, before US, and NATO started to rearm the country. What was the aim of it? For 15 years independent Georgia and independent Russia lived in peace, and had much less problems, than now - both states did. FeelSunny (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia was not just armed by Russia, it was manned by Russia. Some Wikipedians, even, have gone to this war from Russia. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 09:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Manned? Do you mean Saakashvili? Or his wife? Or, maybe, Latvia's former prezident? Or Estonia's incumbent president? Or Lithuania's incumbent president? Or Yuschenko's wife? Don't you feel your argument is somewhat more than rediculous? How comes that in a country where 60% received education inside the country a president is taught and worked half a life outside the country? Do you know one example from the US? From France? From the UK? From Germany? From Japan? FeelSunny (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding your incomprehensible rant, it is fairly common that leaders arise from among those who have seen the world more than the average people. As for presidents of USA, John Quincy Adams graduated from University of Leiden. In Russian history, the first Imperator, Peter I, has been noted for studying overseas. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 18:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I will dare to remind you "it's not XIX century". BTW, disregarding your lack of comprehension abilities, how comes you think that living in Russia for some time may not embroaden your horizons?:) (C)Condoleezza Rice. FeelSunny (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let him shout his envious remarks! ;) Obviously he is not able to recognize what nearly all persons above mentioned have in common. Superficial remarks about "foreign" wifes could be interpreted as pronounced xenophobic. But did we already forget, how dozens of Russian security personell (KGB/FSB) manned South Ossetia and Abkhazia before the war in 2008? The Minister of Defense in S.O. was a former Russian Army Major General, the head of the so called S.O. National Security Council a Russian colonel from Stavropol, the S.O. Minister of Interior a notorious police officer ("Alpha" commander at Beslan school siege). S.O. and Abkh. were systematically armed and manned by Russian government before August 2008. - Elysander (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So it seems like a brilliant operation flawlessly executed by the Russians. Who is envious now? (Igny (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks that you did confirm that Russian government planned its invasion into Georgia over a long period. :)) - Elysander (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. With no small help from a top secret Russian spy, Misha Saakashvili, it was a stunning success. (Igny (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Ingy - Russia is evil. They have brought peace to a region, and as a result, oil profits fell. They have followed Geneva Convention rules in the war. They have shown tactics of certain corporations to be defeatable. Clearly, Russia is evil. If you majored in oil politics, like Mr. Svante Cornell - you too would understand that everything is based on oil profits and that every other view has an anti-Western bias. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! Alpha commander at Beslan school siege? are you seriously using this argument Elysander? Any sane country would respond to a school siege like Russian responded to Beslan. Also, Georgian Forces received training from the US instructors, and Georgia had over 1,000 military US instructors during a short time period. Wow! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you need medical help?  ;) Beslan was an operational debacle - and the above mentioned police colonel was highly responsible for this catastrophe. - Elysander (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Elysander, possibly you're a seasoned special forces commander, to give such evaluations? I beleive you have participated - or designed, maybe - such operations before? Or do you read some wonder newspaper, which had journalists inside the school? How comes you know spec teams did not do everything possible there? Latynina whispers in your ear on a nightly basis?(:< FeelSunny (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Digwuren: disregarding lack of comprehension abilities, please try to embrace the following quotes:

• "[T]he NGO’s which gravitate around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution. However, one cannot end one’s analysis with the [Rose] revolution and one clearly sees that, afterwards, the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power".
• "I am very proud of having built the foundations on which countries like Georgia and Ukraine did insist on democratic principles".
• "You are an arm of the US government" - talking to the US-based NGOs.

I left the quotes unsigned - for Googling stimulates work of mind((: FeelSunny (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same person who also said "ties are delicious!" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One more from a - yet - unnamed source: "A lot of people in the U.S. government have responsibility for the aggressiveness of Georgia last summer and the mistaken belief there that the U.S. was going to come to their support". FeelSunny (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

T-90 tanks

During this war there wasn't any T-90 tank. Russians have used only T-72 with ERA, some T-80BV and T-62. The T-72BM is very similar than the T-90, due its ERA layout. Although the sources indicate that there were T-90 tanks, it is not. They were T-72s.

• This is a T-90 tank.[15]

• This is a T-72BM.[16]

In this picture the first three tanks are T-72s with ERA, the fourth is a T-72BM, not a T-90.[17]

--62.10.159.87 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove T-90 from the table. I'm also sceptical as to whether they really used them in the war. Offliner (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone should to remove that sentences. --62.10.159.87 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What about T-80 then? Offliner (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any picture, but I remember having seen a T-80BV. 62.10.156.252 (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Some information here per Russian sources, according to Anatoliy Tsyganok, “The Lessons Learned of the 5-Day War in the Transcaucasus,” Nezavisimaya Voyennoye Obozreniye, August 29, 2008, 60-75 percent of 58th Army tanks deployed in the theater of operations were in fact the older T-62, T-72m and T-72BM. It might be of interest to note the specific T-72 models since there are quite a number of variants. PētersV       TALK 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

An Argument that's yet to be defeated by all the "let's change the war's name, yes, again, we really, really want to" people

I've looking at a list of Wars since WWII. From the 1945-1949 period, out of 10 wars, there isn't a single war that's not named after location. From 1950-1959 there are only 2 wars, (out of 10) that aren't named after location. From 1960-1969, there are 13 wars not named after location, out of 31. From 1970 to 1979 there are only 3 out of 22 wars not named after location. From 1980 to 1989 there are 2 out of 24 wars not named after location. From 1990-2002 there are 4 out of 41 wars not named after location. For 2003 till today, there are 3 out of 27 wars not named after location. So totaling up all the numbers, we get 130 out of 155 wars named after the location, in all wars listed on wikipedia since WWII. No other claims will get anywhere near that number, no other ways of naming this war will. Also, the people that are suggesting to change this title and claiming to be unbiased, most of them haven't asked to have the Kosovo War changed, the First and Second Chechen Wars changed, the Afhganistan War, the Iraq War, the 2006 Lebanon War - none of those have been changed. Yet these "unbiased" editors want this one changed.

Now here is why Google Scholar is a poor source for choosing a title. Let's say someone, an expert working for an oil company, calls this war the Russia-Georgia War in his article. Then another completely unbiased scholar, who has Georgian, Ossetian, Russian and American girlfriends whom he all loves equally, comes in and brilliant discredits the first expert's war title. However as he is discrediting the title, he will need to mention it; thus his article will have the discredited Russia-Georgia War title and the expert-accepted 2008 South Ossetia War title.

Thus Google Scholar will give 2 hits for the first title that has been discredited, but only 1 hit for the second title that is now accepted by experts Worldwide. Hence Google Scholar is a poor source for choosing a title. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant statistics, seriously, how many times it needs to be repeated? Wikipedia needs to use title which is used most widely by reliable sources, that how previous wars have been named doesn't matter at all. Not to mention that current title doesn't cover location properly anyway. Also your criticism against Google Scholar doesn't hold water because score is 43-6, even if all cases were exactly like you described, "Russian-Georgian war" still clearly outperforms "South Ossetia war". But as we have manageable amount here, I actually checked over both lists, and I didn't spot any which are under both titles (theoretically I may have missed 1-2, but I consider it unlikely).--Staberinde (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, most sources that are on Google Scholar have shut up about the war, and have a vast amount of inaccuracies. For instance, one of these source, Mr. Svante Cornell went ahead and said something about Russian Army committing war crimes, except no war crimes committed by the Russian Army were found. Whoopsie. Also, most of these so-called Google scholars are chickening out of debates, in regards to their writings on the war, and have imposed a "shut up" policy. Mob rule, when benefiting your POV Staberinde is still mob rule. A journalist, Mark Ames, who has a grudge against Russia, (his paper got kicked out of Russia for various reasons, none of which I support - but that's beside the point), Mark Ames - covering this war for The Nation - a magazine much more respectable then the scandal-clogged "Silk Road Studies" - calls it War in South Ossetia. So basically Straberinde, when you cannot counter a valid point, you deem it irrelevant. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, famous Caucasus specialist and war historian, wikipedian User:HistoricWarrior007, releaving to us how all those sources doesn't qualify. Google Scholar is obviously now dominated by simple mob while wikipedians here are all well known and respected specialists. Absolutely hilarious. But seriously, even if we assumed that 75% of cases using "Russian-Georgian War" were garbage, and assumed there are no garbage among those who use "South Ossetia War" (although one seems to be in chinese and atleast 1 other uses it only about 1991-1992 war), "Russian-Georgian War" would still have practically 2-1 advangate. Obviously Google Scholar indeed isn't answer for everything, but it is definitely far better than simple Google search or wikipedians. As nobody here hasn't proposed any better way to measure used names of war by reliable source we have to stick best what we have. Although google booksearch also backs my point. All results for "South Ossetia War" are from 2007 and earlier which means that they are purely about previous war, on other hand 3 results for "Russian-Georgian War" are about current conflict.--Staberinde (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's even more irrelevant when you look at all of the wars mentioned. Most naming a location are wars of independence or civil wars. The rest take place entirely within the location mentioned. Ones which don't mention a location are conflicts between nations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave you very specific examples of Kosovo War, 2006 Lebanon War, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, (and in both Chechen Wars, the Mujaheedin, who aren't natives to Chechnya or Russia, took part) Iraq War, Afghanistan War. Your argument can be summed up as "well corporate media says so, therefore it's right!" Corporate media also said that Kosovo's independent, are you also willing to accept that, The Devil's Advocate? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, my argument can be summed up as "Dmitry Medvedev said the operation was about punishing Georgia and therefore it wasn't simply about South Ossetia".--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What was Medvedev punishing Georgia for? Oh yeah, that's right, the invasion of South Ossetia! So Medvedev punshing Georgia for the invasion of South Ossetia isn't simply about South Ossetia? Thing is, your side will never win in an honest wikipedia debate, which is why your only hope is to hold contant votes and hope the editors on the other side get tired of them. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes actually, when Russia decided to punish Georgia it was no longer simply about South Ossetia. Russia made it about them and Georgia. The fact they removed Georgian forces from the Kodori Valley and invaded undisputed Georgian territory is further proof that it ceased being about South Ossetia. In fact, their justification for that was that Georgia was planning to invade Abkhazia next. In the prelude to the conflict most of the escalation was in Abkhazia. Anyone tracking this situation during the year could tell you the war was not really about South Ossetia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually when you attack a Russian Base, Russia punishes you. Also, Russia attacked Georgia Proper from South Ossetian Territorry, so I would say that it's still about South Ossetia. Abkhazia is allied to South Ossetia, so once again, that too is about South Ossetia. Saying this war isn't about South Ossetia is like saying Serbia's War with US isn't about Kosovo. I mean US attacked Serbia proper with depleted uranium bombs - and it's still called the Kosovo War. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What ordnance were used in the Kosovo War has no bearing on its title and nothing you said invalidates my point about Abkhazia. They were not attacking Georgia from Abkhazia and claiming it was in support of South Ossetia. They were claiming Georgia was planning to attack Abkhazia as well. Being allies with South Ossetia doesn't somehow render their involvement irrelevant for naming the article, especially when their proclaimed reason for involvement did not include South Ossetia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On: Russia decided to punish Georgia, ceased being about South Ossetia, the war was not really about South Ossetia. WTF, The Devil's Advocate, since the very start everybody knows it was about small Torch of Democracy of Caucasus protecting itself from those dirty barbaric Eastern Hunns. Everybody but those drunkasses living under constant influence of The Putinism Propaganda, and those badasses from The Kremlin Web Brigades. So, keep on doing The Right Thing, thou Fair Knight! FeelSunny (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this are very unhelpful. Ostap 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Buy yourself some sense of humour then.FeelSunny (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If Georgia and Saakashvili are torches of democracy in the Caucasus then perhaps you would like to explain what happened to Irakli Okruashvili. What happened to Imedi? Why do so many of Saakashvili's domestic opponents get hauled up on charges of spying for Russia? Shotlandiya (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

While I have little doubt regarding our Russian colleagues' genuine interest in the media problems in their southern brotherly neighbor, I have to remind them that Wikipedia is not a forum. Perhaps it would be better if they could check if anyone is missing here. --Kober^Talk 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kober - the bastion of hyprocrical comments returns. Previously Kober has sparked an edit war with a move whose legality is still being debated, and then stated "leave me alone". Now Kober states that Wikipedia is not a forum, and then gives a link to an article completely unrelated to the war. Dear Kober, when stating Wikipedia is not a forum, and then turning it into your forum, don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(RE-Indent) I've yet to see the argument being defeated. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Given your preponderance to flaming, irrelevant chit-chatting, and politically-charged ranting, it is really hyprocrical to accuse me of hypocrisy. Plus I don't expect or need to be taken seriously from the users like yourself. --Kober^Talk 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember Kober, don't feed the trolls. Ostap 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, are you going to counter-argue, or bash me and start a canvassing campaign? I thought Wikipedia was about scholarly debate. "If you cannot destroy the argument, destroy the person presenting it." Good Ad Hominems, good job! Now can we get back to the argument please? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, it's the way the West works: hypocricy. No talk, fight, fight. It's the way all those people behave who try to get in line with Bush-Rice hypocricy school. Don't expect any arguments. No inquiry. No information - that's the West worst enemy. Information brings consciousness, informed population lets you not start Iraq, create Taleban and Mujahheddin movement, support fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, create reservations for indegineous population. It lets you not start wars for oil, kill government officials from democratic countries, rob half of the world of their resources. It wants democracy, not cleptocracy. That is why the ultimate goal is to suppress any free and influental flow of information. That's why there are no independent mainstream media in the West. No influental newspapers, TV channels, where the chief editor is the owner, and money come not from the outside. That's why all those people on the other side of the wall see you as an enemy - because you speak data, facts, that are completely out of their information field - they are hostile to the Western elites, to their world. These facts are not false, but noone is interested to hear Musharraf or Misha or Abdul Aziz are dictators. As long as the oil flows, everything works. So - do not expect to be argued with in a civilized way. When the wallet talks, mind is silent. FeelSunny (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You aren't correct about the West. Not entirely. Fox News and/or CNN don't speak for the West. The American Voters aren't that stupid, we knew that voting for McPalin is warring Russia, whereas voting for Biden/Obama is peace with Russia and rebuilding the US economy. McPalin got routed in the biggest embarassment ever, losing by 10 million votes. Neocons are now essentially defenseless. All they can hope to do, is to make Americans look like douchebags, and then hope that others get angry at Americans, and then tell Americans that "look, those Russkis, so mistrusting of the West". That's their only hope. Empires collapse from within. The Russians could have taken over Tbilisi and removed Saakashvili by force, and even then there would be no massive uproar amongst Americans. Or Europeans. At least as soon as most Americans understood the difference between Atlanta, Georgia and Tbilisi, Georgia, which for the non-Fox News and non-CNN viewers was a timespan of under five minutes, they voted overwhelmingly against the war. Obama was more concerned about being called a "pussy" then about anything Russia-related. Hence his speeches. Just to show how far Neocons have fallen, read this article by Dana Milbank, a respected columnist: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021903332.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&sid=ST2009022001111 The Neocons were never liked to begin with, but through lack of morals they formed alliances with other similar-minded groups and became extremely powerful. In 2002, no one could successfully speak out against them. But today things are different, and their coalition is no more. For instance AIPAC, a powerful lobby group, withdrew. The Bankers left it to side with Obama's coalition. The Conservative Wings of the party fell apart. Obama is trying to pull out of Iraq, taunting the Neocon line of "100 years or more". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Obama perfect? Not at all. But he's not a Neocon and his is the ruling coalition. In addition the US economy is crumbling. I think Svante Cornell will find a way to blame this on Putin too. Most of the elites in the US understand that one must focus on the economy, prior to going on "overseas ventures". As for the Neocon media, it will be destroyed within a few years. More and more people are speaking out against it. And their best defense is "ignore the past". Kinda hilarious. As for the Caucasian Debacle, it's clear that Russia won that one to, well pretty much everyone. The Neocons are so unpopular in California that the governor is taking slack for taking pictures with Neocons on a massive scale. http://www.hollywood.com/news/Arnold_Schwarzeneggers_Approval_Rating_Dips_to_AllTime_Low/2444387 and http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208183825AA6bTCf (read Answer 2) So I'm not exactly sure if the Neocons can keep even one promise they made to Saakashvili. But expect them to bombard us with useless crap. And someone has to stand up to that crap. On this Wikipage it just happens to be us. And if you notice, most Americans are watching this page, but not commenting on it, or commenting in a very respectful manner. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It Appears that Kober did violate the moving convention

As per Wikipedia move rule - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves) - the third paragraph states:

Most move requests are processed by a handful of regular contributors who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, and page moving procedures. Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs of a few days develop occasionally. If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus".

Nonbinding precedence. There is no precedence to rename articles based on what Google says. Thus this discussion is illegal and has been illegal for quite some time. In military history it takes quite a while to establish precedent. In this case, no precedent has ever been established. No war was named after Google hits. No war was named after Google scholar.

Furthermore most military institutions are in conflict of how to name this war. While Georgia calls it the Russia-Georgia War or the Russo-Georgian War, Russia calls it Gruzinsko-Rossiskyaya Voina (Georgian-Russian War). Germany calls it War in the Caucasus. Iran charged that the war was US provoked. It's very clear that there is no concensus as to how to call this war.

For naming military history articles, and this article is clearly part of Wikipedia's military history projects - it says so on the article's talkpage, thus for naming military history articles - if it is a post-WWII war, and no name has been established, the war is to be named after the location in which it took place, as over 80% of all wars post WWII are named, or over 88% if you only focus on wars started at the end of the Cold War.

Also, no one debates that well over 70% of the war's fighting took place in South Ossetia and the war was about South Ossetia. Hence the most appropriate name for the war would be the South Ossetia War. Variants may include 2008 South Ossetia War, or Third South Ossetian War. Thus, the name we currently have is appropiate.

The name proposed, the Russian-Georgian War, cleverly disguised by Kober due to he adept gaming of the "move system" has no precedent. The sole argument rests on google search and google scholar. However no improtant wars were named after google search. No important wars were named due to google scholar. You cannot use wikipedia to establish a precedent.

As the paragraph above clearly states, in order to move an article so that its title can be changed precedence must exist. Here there is no precedence. Thus the move is a violation of Wikipedia moving policies. Also added is the charge of gaming the system. I will bring this up with people who have the power to lock down this article. Until this is resolved, I'd advise that no further discussion on the matter take place, but I cannot enfore said advice.

Nevertheless, I'd advise all editors to focus on making the article better, rather then this silly vote. Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not "illegal" and there is no way you can interpret the page you linked in such a way. Neither is a possible move in violation of Wikipedia move policies. There is no requirement that precedents must exist for a move to happen. And the part you cite is a statement of fact, not a policy "Most move requests are processed by ..." (not "have to be" ...). You are grasping at straw and wasting the time of everyone on the talk page here by making up these ridiculous accusations. --Xeeron (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have shown a tendency to distort the facts to meet your ends. I just saw another one of your absurd claims you've made after calling me ignorant of history. China and Russia were attacked by Japan. It doesn't matter why Japan attacked them because they were not reacting to any military aggression against them. By the same token there is no truth in what you are saying here. You said the Russians call it Georgian-Russian War, but that is the same as Russian-Georgian war with the only difference being order. However since this is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian wikipedia, it's irrelevant. Naming convention is clear on this point that it is the most dominant usage in that language which matters. Another conflict started by the country named second in the war is the Austro-Prussian War and yes it was Prussia that was the aggressor, not Austria. More reason why this argument is invalid.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know English very well or not, but "are processed by" means "have to be". It's the exact same thing. When one says "requests are processed by" that means that "requests must be in that format and according to those rules". Wikipedia was not established to set POV precedence. You are setting a POV precedence by naming the war after how Google search or Google scholar calls it. That means that the people that own the most powerful media sources, get to determine the name of the war. Every war. That is the precedence that you are setting. You cannot use Wikipedia to set this precedence. It is illegal Xeeron. It is a new, binding precedence. It is against the rules. Stop trying to say that apples are oranges. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

English is my first language and what it said was "most are" which means not all. In other words it does not say this is a requirement. I have used Google to find out where a name is being used and how often. I have found effectively no articles referring to this as the South Ossetia War and plenty calling it Russia-Georgia War or some variation of that. Your refrain that accepting the proposed title means giving into corporate media, namely Western corporate media, just reveals your underlying bias.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The most move requests part refers to the point that with a few exceptions, most move requests follow this format. The exceptions are usually newer articles, POV forks, or other exceptions. This article is not an exception. It is a Wikipedia Policy and therefore a requirement. What is the point of making wikipedia policies if users such as yourself aren't going to follow them? It's laughable that you weren't able to find any articles, because in 3 seconds I typed in "South Ossetia War" (with quotes) into Google and suddenly got 44,700 results. If you would like to, contanct me on my talkpage and I will give you a brief tour of how to use Google and other search engines. As for the last sentence, it's just an empty ad hominem. I stated that wars aren't named after google hits or google scholar, and that naming a war after either google hits or google scholar would be establishing new precedent, which is forbidding via Wikipedia rules. How exactly does that make me biased? Oh right, I refuse to accept your failed arguments. We've had over 100 pages of discussion on this, keep it up and I will find that discussion. It's where your points were throughoutly destroyed and you left the article as a result, and there was actual productive editing, not a civil war amongst editors over the title. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at it, your argument really is just nonsense. You highlight something which says the requests are processed by people familiar with precedents and naming convention and then use this to argue that somehow this discussion is illegal. However that has no basis in policy. Ultimately, however, you argue that this title has no precedence yet acknowledge that there are numerous wars named in a similar manner. Clearly there is precedence. Naming conventions don't include your absurd assertion that the order of countries in the name impacts neutrality. It does say a name must be widely used and reflect the scope of the article. The current title does not reflect the scope, period. You have yet to present an argument otherwise. As to searching on Google I was not referring to a general Google search but a Google News search which targets it at recently published news articles. That tells us what news media refer to it as now and Russia-Georgia War or some variation wins out easily. However, on further note I did a search on Google Scholar and Google Books. The latter was most interesting as while there were no books released calling it the South Ossetia War at least five books have come out calling it that. When you replace war with conflict that list expands for Russia-Georgia and maybe we can find one book which used South Ossetia. A general Google search brings up blogs and sites copying this article and its current title. It's not about the quantity of sources, though honestly that also favors Russia-Georgia War, but the quality of sources. As to your bias, I've made it pretty clear what makes you biased and that is your attack of anything contradicting your position as Western propaganda and argue that changing to the proposed title means caving to corporate media, namely Western media. Finally, if I leave a discussion page it is usually because the person I am discussing with is incredibly stubborn and presents no decent arguments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Devil's Advocate, if you haven't noticed I've also been referring to wars named after World War II. Also Georgian-Russian War isn't the same thing as Russian-Georgian War. If you looked at the previous voting results, you'd see that most users voted for Russian-Georgian War, but against Georgian-Russian War. If it's the same thing, why vote differently? The reason I brought it up, is to show that there's no established name for the war. If there's no established name for the war, then you name it after the location. It's how 88% of Wars that occured after the Cold-War are named. Yes - you will come up with single examples of wars. However you won't even be able to name ten wars after the Cold-War ended that are not named due to their location. And there has been over 50 total wars. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of naming an article they are the same. As for this nonsense about 88% of wars, most of those wars were civil wars or wars of independence and so naturally they're named after where they are fought. Before you make another ridiculous argument this war involved two separatist states fighting for independence not one. You have at this point not disputed my previous point about the first two Indo-Pakistani Wars. No argument you present changes the fact this current title is a bad one. Russia's argument for intervening with Abkhazia was that Georgia was planning an offensive there as well. In other words their reason for fighting there was separate but was still part of the same overall conflict. As such you cannot dismiss it when considering the title. As it stand naming both in the title would be off, but naming it as Russia-Georgia war naturally incorporates those two conflicts. Russia fought Georgia in defense of two separatist states.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This could be viewed as a sequel to South Ossetia's 1990's war for independence. The US War for Independence is called a War for Independence, even though towards the end of war the French were winning the biggest battles, like Battle of the Capes and Battle of Yorktown. How is this war different form American Indepedence War? You are using ad hominem attacks and nitpicking rare examples. Let's see how wars for independence work: you have a region declare Idependence. Check. You then have the country invade said region. Check. The region fights the country. Check. Other countries intervene. Check. Same exact format as the US War of Independence. Also, the 1920's and 1990's South Ossetia Wars are named similarly to this one. Nothing was said about it for decades. Russia helped out in both those wars. The only think that changed between the 1990's and today, is that today Georgia had the "moral support" of the US. The 88% isn't nonsense, it countradicts every point you make, like the point about the two Indo-Pakistani Wars. You calling it nonsense just shows you have no arguments. Never, in a professional debate, in a scholarly debate, would a respectable debator call the other one's argument "nonsense". You show how it's nonsense, not tell that it's nonsense. Remember English classes? Does the phrase "Show, don't tell" ring a bell? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm calling your arguments nonsense because they are nonsense. I'm not sure what you're angle is but you clearly are not being objective here and looking at your edit history I'd say there's plenty of reason to believe you aren't objective on this. In fact, some of your comments strongly suggest you are not objective here. How can you just gloss over the very basic fact that Abkhazia was a party to this conflict as well and that Russia clearly said their action was in response to an alleged Georgian offensive and thus not directly connected to the conflict in South Ossetia? As far as this title arguing that most wars have the aggressor named first or name the location doesn't matter since there are enough wars which name the aggressor second and plenty which don't name the location. Your ridiculous argument for why Six-Day War is a biased name and your argument about the Iran-Iraq War reveal that you are not at all objective in this instance and all of your arguments are tainted with a bias, an apparent anti-Western bias. In fact, from what I can tell the vast majority of your edits have been on this talk page. You objectivity is seriously in question.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So basically you have been defeated and now are proceeding to call my arguments "nonsense". I didn't gloss over the fact that Abkhazia was a party to this conflict. I said that most of the war occurred in South Ossetia and that the war, militarily, was primarily about Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. So basically when you lose an argument, you fume, call your opponent unobjective several times, don't bother to do any research, or even point out how my arguments on the Six Day War or Iran-Iraq War are biased. Please tell me, how are they biased? Did the US not sponsor Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War? Was Israeli or US Media (or allied media) no the first to come up with the title "Six Day War". Don't tell me I'm biased, tell me how I'm biased. And frankly, pull the plug on the cheap insults. Congratulations on sinking to a new level. I asked you to "show, don't tell" how my arguments suck, and you proceeded to tell me that I suck. That's your rebuttal? Seriously? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did explain what was wrong with your argument. Your bias in asserting that the Iran-Iraq War was named such because the U.S. wanted to portray the Iranians as the bad guys, essentially alleging some broad conspiracy. The same with Israel you made this absurd claim that it was meant to brag about how fast the Israelis won, which has no basis in anything except your own feelings. A war of that nature ending in six days was in fact quite unusual at the time and is actually still quite unusual. Not even this war ended in such a short time. These baseless accusations together with the fact that you have consistently posted only on the talk pages and discussions pertaining to Russia always on the side of pro-Russian editors for several months is also why I am calling your bias. As it stands there are several wars I have brought up which do not have the aggressor first which you still do not address. You then seemed to push forward saying it wasn't about post-Cold War conflicts but those after the end of the Cold War, when before you were arguing about all wars in history. Suffice to say you have not really addressed my arguments, you have only changed the scope of your argument to eliminate my challenges from the equation. I would love to know what you think of the Djiboutian-Eritrean border conflict though. That happened the same year as this war yet it is named with Djibouti first and they were not the aggressor. Not only that, the name is being used by Western sources who would naturally be more supportive of Djibouti.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Iran-Iraq War, the US was supplying Iraq to fight Iran. If the US is supplying Iraq to fight Iran, don't you think that the US thinks Iranians are the bad guys? US was supplying the UK when the UK was fighting Nazi Germany. I think it'd be safe to say that the US thought Nazi Germany were the bad guys. Well, if that's your feeling on the Six Day War, then let's call this war, the Ten Day War. Why not? Ten days is stil an amazingly short time period for a war to end. It is very unusual. Also, post Cold War, pre Cold War, most conflicts had the agressor named first. You may come up with a few rare examples. But in most wars, the agressor was named first. As for the Djiboutina-Eritrean Border Conflict, it's named after the Djiboutian-Eritrean Border - the LOCATION where the conflict took place. If this conflict took place on the Russo-Georgian Border, I would have no trouble naming it the Russo-Georgian Border War. But Tskhinvali isn't on the border. Also, where I posted is irrelevant. You counter-argue my points, not bash me, although that seems to be the new trend here. "We cannot defeat HistoricWarrior, let's bash him". And it's all the usual suspects, you, Kober, Ostap. I'm not really surprised. You counter-argue the argument, not bash the debator. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your response on the Djiboutian-Eritrean conflict was 100% predictable. I figured your argument would be that it was named after the border as a location. However this is just grouping words so that they suit your argument, but the honest way of grouping the words is "Djiboutian-Eritrean" "border conflict" as the latter describes the nature of the conflict. You can see this by looking at how sources use the terms separately. When used in a title the term "border conflict" serves the same purpose as "conflict" and "war" and as such you cannot split the two words.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you bothered reading the article, you'd find out that, well I'll qoute the section titled "Armed Clashes"

""On June 10 according to Djibouti several Eritrean troops deserted their positions fleeing to the Djiboutian side. Djiboutian forces then came under fire from Eritrean forces demanding the return of the deserters.[8] Djibouti called up soldiers and police who had retired since 2004 in response to the fighting. Eritrea dismissed accounts from Djibouti as "anti-Eritrean". A statement from Eritrea's Foreign Ministry said it would not "get involved in an invitation of squabbles and acts of hostility" and claimed Djibouti was trying to drag Eritrea into its "concocted animosity."[16] According to French Colonel Ducret, French soldiers in Djibouti provided logistical and medical assistance to the Djibouti army as well as providing them with intelligence.[17] Clashes between the two forces reportedly continued for several days before Djibouti's military announced on June 13 that fighting had subsided.[7] 44 Djiboutian soldiers were killed and 55 wounded during the fighting. According to Djiboutian estimates, 100 Eritrean soldiers were killed, 100 captured, and 21 defected. Djiboutian President Guelleh declared: "We've always had good relations. But they aggressively occupied part of our country. This is an aggression we are resisting." ""

So Eritrean troops crossed the border and firing began at the border. The conflict never escalate too far beyond the border. The majority of fighting happenned within 10 kilometers of the border. Thus, if wars are named after locations where they occur, it would be called a conflict on the Djiboutian-Eritrean Border. The conflict means a minor skirmish. A war indicates something bigger. Border is a location, not a category to describe the conflict. For instance the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casamance_Conflict "Casamance Conflict" has no "border" word in it. Also, if you take a look at "border conflicts" since 1945, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_wars - you will notice that smaller wars with low casualties are called conflicts, whereas larger wars are called wars. Thus the word war can replace the word conflict. Therefore your attempt to divide the title into two parts to suit your needs is incorrect. So while you may not be able to split the two, I prefer to read the title as a whole, not just the parts favorable to my argument. A war is a war. There is no such thing as a specific type of war. Over half of the so-called "border wars" don't even have the word "border" in the war title, especially if the war escalated beyond the border, which was my initial point. It's very easy to argue when military history and facts are on your side, you should try it sometime. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly (do not take offence, SVP) nobody gave a flying f**k about Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict in the Northern hemisphere. They only started raising brows when the pirates began their operations. 80 000 G-hits for a full-scale war? Come on guys, I'm quite sure the conflict was named like this just because it had to have some f**king name and noone knew nothing about it. Plus, Djibouti starts with D, and D comes before E-ritrea. Be simple:) FeelSunny (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FeelSunny - the other side wants us to go crazy. They cannot win the argument with logic, so they provoke. Stay cool. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious this will continue to be a fruitless discussion. The fact is, no one would say removing the word border conflicts with naming conventions because it lines up perfectly with them. Claiming the border is the location is really just your absurd way of dodging the more important fact the Wikipedia article is the only major source referring to it by that name. Wikipedia is not going to be setting standards and making up the names for a subject, though with the Djibouti-Eritrea case it's an inconsequential difference, but here you are demanding that we ignore naming conventions and have Wikipedia decide what this war will be called on absolutely no basis because this title isn't even close to being widely used and is not sufficiently descriptive. All your examples are established names in history, the title you are suggesting we use here is not established while the one you are objecting to is established. Your only objections that is even remotely based on Wikipedia naming conventions is the objection on neutrality, but your logic is terribly tortured. Order is inconsequential in naming because order is determined by which order is most widely used and nothing more. If Georgian was more widely-used I'd be here arguing for that specific order because it would be the most common, not because I'm part of some vast media conspiracy against Georgia. This is about which title is well-established and Russia-Georgia War is the most well-established by far. It also received the second-largest amount of support in the previous vote. It's that simple and I'm not going to dignify any more of your asinine objections.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if you are aware of the fact, but a border is a location. It is not my absurd claim. Here, I am demanding that you follow military naming conventions, and I have provided multiple sources for it. You are the one demanding that we ignore history, not me. I'm using history to back up my arguments, and if you look at the names, for every oddball case of the defender going first, there are at least seven cases of the attacker going first, or where it's named after the territorry. Historical Precedence is on my side. This has been the name of the war for almost a year now on Wikipedia. You want to change it, based on Google hits?! All titles take time to be established in history, if you give this one a change, it will be too. But yes, previous war titles are established in history. The previous part might have something to do with that. My objections, are based in cold, hard, military history that Wikipedia follows. Try actually reading all of them, not just the ones you like. Order is consequential, because if you had actually read the "scholarly" papers calling it the Russian-Georgian War - you would know that those papers depicted Russia as the attacker. Clearly order mattered to them. You can claim that the title is "well-established" all you want, but it is merely a claim, and a poor one at that. It is not even first on Google Scholar. Second place is first loser. We don't call wars by their second names, we call wars by their first names. I do find it hilarious that while you call my objections asine, you sir, are grasping at straws. You are using the Djibouti-Eritrean Border Conflict to prove your point, while arguing that border isn't a location. You have more ad hominems than facts. You have lost the argument. I will recap my points for the reader.

First, most wars are named with the agressor going first, or by location. This is military convention. Pure and simple. The previous names of conflicts involving Georgia on one side vs. Russia and Ossetia on the other, were named in this manner. Be it the Georgia-Ossetian Conflict (of Georgia vs. Ossetia and Russia) from 1918 to 1920 or the South Ossetian War (of Georgia vs. Ossetia and Russia) in the 1990's (1991-1992). The sides didn't change. Why should the war title change? Cause Google said so?

Second, calling this war the Russian-Georgian War is biased against Russia, as the attacker is listed first. Same as in the courts, (the Plaintiff goes first, not the defendant,) same as with Axis and Allies, (not called Allies and Axis now is it?) same as with well over 80% of war titles, and the exceptions feature a propaganda powerful country, such as the US or Israel.

Third, Wikipedia doesn't create naming conventions, Wikipedia follows the current naming conventions. It is with great pleasure that I present the evidence and gere's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1991%E2%80%931992_South_Ossetia_War&diff=105344940&oldid=105344315 This link clearly establishes that in the year 2007, the war between Georgia on one side, vs. Russia and Ossetia on the other, is called The South Ossetian War. This was before all the propaganda bruhaha began. It's been there from 1991-2007. It is established, it is cemented. The sides are exactly the same. This name hasn't been challenged. A date has been added, but that's it. And the date here isn't in question, and if one wishes to question the date, we can address that. Same exact sides? Why different names? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone evaluating your claims will find that they are wrong, so I don't see much reason to keep this up. However, I will point out that Wikipedia does have naming conventions and the duration of a title on a subject is not part of them. Naming conventions for Wikipedia articles are clear. If a name is well-established, as the proposed change is though the current one is not, fits the scope of the conflict, same score here, and is neutral, it is by all means neutral, then it should be the title, Period. This isn't something decided by majority vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy it's a tyranny of facts. Actions are decided by who is right and who is wrong. You are wrong. I am right.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Why don't you stop telling readers what to do, and let them decide? Or is that too much? Duration of a title on a subject determines how well established that subject is. I find it truly hilarious that after stating that duration of title is irrelevant, you state that the title should be well-established. So are you arguing that duration is irrelevant to establishment of the title? Seriously? This is Wikipedia, the Free encyclopedia. Also, Russia-Georgia War is not neutral, as most of those articles who called it Russia-Georgia War, claimed that Russia was the attacker, whereas in reality Russia was the defender. You know you are desperate when you end with "you are wrong, I am right". Also, didn't you say something about not arguing with me again? And here you are, stating your thoughts as if they're supposed to be facts. Keep repeating them, but also keep in mind that repetition of "Iraq has WMDs" didn't make those WMDs appear in Iraq. You arguments have been soundly defeated. You trying to repeat them, won't work. So let's recap: first it was Prussia that started the Franco-Prussian War, according to your logic. Now the duration of a title is irrelevant to its establishment. Keep arguing against facts, you're doing a stellar job at that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did say I was going to stop arguing with you. The duration of a title on Wikipedia is irrelevant because Wikipedia does not establish standards. The proposed title is not biased because even Russian sources use it. Now I'm finished.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet you're still here. The duration of a title on Wikipedia is relevant, because Wikipedia reflects the title. Wikipedia does not establish standards, I agree with you on that. However you are trying to use Wikipedia to establish standards. You are trying to name a war after the most Google hits, per title, in quotation marks. Not even Google Scholar, because the "August War" doesn't serve your needs. For your side, Russia must be guilty. Saying that calling this war the "South Ossetia War" isn't mainstream is bullshit. If you type in "The South Ossetia War" into Google, without quotes, you get over one million hits! How is that not mainstream? You need 2 million? Also, you don't question a title for over 15 years, and then you have the same sides, fighting the same war, a Deja Vu, and suddenly it deserves a different name, because Fox News/CNN/Sky News said so? Wikipedia doesn't establish standards. Wikipedia reflects precedents. There is a crystal clear precedent here. Your title has no precedents. There are a few oddballs, but it's nowhere even near the 1/10th mark. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how easy it is to get 10,000 hits for something on Google? If you have 10 people, putting up 100 websites a day, for 10 days, you have 10,000 hits! And the way you do it, is very simple: you have spin offs from major sources. You have 100 major sources, and then have thousands of sources spinning off the 100 sources. Just to prove my point typing in "Russia-Georgia War" gives 183,000 hits. Now let's remove the top anti-Russian source, Rupert Mudoch's Fox News and suddenly the count drops to 60,900. That's only a single source removed. One source. And over two-thirds of the hits are gone. Merely adding the year, 2008, drops it to 40,400. Requiring that the article mention the name Ossetia, drops it to 38,200. Requiring that the article mention the title of of the major battle, Tskhinvali, drops it to 10,800. Here's what I typed in:

"Russia Georgia War" -"Fox News" 2008 Ossetia Tskhinvali

Is it so hard not to mention Fox News? Or is it so hard mention the name of the region where over 70 percent of the war was fought? Is it really tough to get the year right? Or to get the name of the major battle correctly? This isn't rocket science. Thus, I find it hilarious that you accuse me of using Wikipedia to set standards, but all I want is the status quo and the rightful name for the article, that was used to name the exact damn same war, just over 15 years. Is this war that different from the one that occurred in the early nineties? The sides haven't changed. The only thing that's changed, is the West's Elites' Media reaction. And Rupert Murdoch's loud yelling of "Damn you Russia!" doesn't justify changing the war's title. Thankfully most wars are named my military historians, not media elites. I don't see why this should be the exception. So please, stop accusing me of trying to use Wikipedia for my own ends, I'm not doing that. You are. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit I have a hard time turning away from an argument, especially when someone's arguments become increasingly ridiculous. However, at this point there's not much of an argument left to be had. I already explained how I searched Google so I suggest you go back and look as you clearly are not conducting the same type of search. I also have already made my point on the proposed title's usage in media, you have yet to address its frequent usage in Russian media. As it stands it seems your only argument against neutrality now that I have thoroughly debunked everything else, is to claim Murdoch and "Western media elite" came up with the name out of some vicious anti-Russian agenda, which is not only absurd on its face but also revealing of your blatant bias. I would love to know what ends you think I am working towards, though. That should be good for a laugh.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? It's funny how much praise you give to yourself. It's even more hilarious that you say that you have throughtly debunked everything else. Perhaps you can show me where you debunked this paragraph?

"And yet you're still here. The duration of a title on Wikipedia is relevant, because Wikipedia reflects the title. Wikipedia does not establish standards, I agree with you on that. However you are trying to use Wikipedia to establish standards. You are trying to name a war after the most Google hits, per title, in quotation marks. Not even Google Scholar, because the "August War" doesn't serve your needs. For your side, Russia must be guilty. Saying that calling this war the "South Ossetia War" isn't mainstream is bullshit. If you type in "The South Ossetia War" into Google, without quotes, you get over one million hits! How is that not mainstream? You need 2 million? Also, you don't question a title for over 15 years, and then you have the same sides, fighting the same war, a Deja Vu, and suddenly it deserves a different name, because Fox News/CNN/Sky News said so? Wikipedia doesn't establish standards. Wikipedia reflects precedents. There is a crystal clear precedent here. Your title has no precedents. There are a few oddballs, but it's nowhere even near the 1/10th mark. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)"

Wikipedia editors cannot make up titles. Your title is made up. It is unprecdented in military history. A word of advice: when there's a paragraph right in from of your argument that you haven't debunked, claiming that you have debunked it, when you haven't, makes you either a liar or a fool. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not gonna hold your hand. My previous comments address any criticism of my use of Google results, period. Nothing else you said is even close to a decent argument and I'm not gonna bother explaining why to you since a simple review of the facts will reveal the reasons. Oh, and please explain to me what agenda you think I am serving. I could use a good laugh.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care what agenda you're serving. I do find it hilarious how often you use Ad Hominems against me, after you lost, in your desperate hopes that the reader is stupid and won't pick up on your Ad Hominems. First you claim that my arguments are ridiculous. Then you merely counterargue the part that you want to counter argue, not the whole argument. Then you continue with more Ad Hominems. Do you think the average Wikipedia reader is stupid to not see directly through your tricks? I gave you an argument, a whole re-indented paragraph. You failed to counter argue it. Now what? You going to respond with more Ad Hominems? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make this clear, the objections you raised were addressed already. I'm not going to reargue the same point over and over, especially since you keep claiming I never argued the point at all. Oh and I still want you to say what agenda you think I'm serving.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(RE-Indent) I don't think you're serving any agenda. In order to serve an agenda, one must make sense. I'll be back thursday, and I'll show you exactly what arguments you skipped. It'll be my Wikipedia day. And this article will improve drastically. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, do try to refrain from historic wikilawyering. Consensus is consensus; it doesn't matter much who enacts it. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 08:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please realize that if you sign in Russian, we still know your Digwurgen. Also, please explain to me how you view WikiLawyering? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)