Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Moving Over from my Talkpage - naval stuff

Do you know who had inserted this ridiculous text? Offliner (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the comment (though likely incorrectly inserted) is germane. Anybody/source asserting a naval blockade by the Russians of Georgia during the August 2008 conflict should cite some source facts rather than merely making an assertion. If we only go with the rule that you merely have to cite a source, any number of insertions into the overall article should be considered valid and not removed. However, I believe that the purpose of the Wiki process is to ferret out the "truth". To do so we need facts and not undocumented assertions. An article in an apparently reputable publication which reflects the author's opinion is only that, the author's opinion - unless some provable facts are cited.Moryak (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was incorrectly inserted. If one questions a source, it should be done by providing a counterpoint, or questioning the original source, not by writing "THIS QUOTE IS INCORRECT". One has the "Dubious-Discuss" and the "Citation Needed" tags for this purpose. Prior to attaching such tags, one must make an argument on the discussion page. On the other hand, it looked to me like an honest mistake, so I'm not going to go after the culprit. We all make mistakes, and what I've let slide in the past, is much more egregious, than the newbie mistake presented above.

Now unto the problem: Fedorov stated that the map is incorrect because it includes the Russian Blockade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg However, the way the map portrays the Russian Blockade, is that the blockade doesn't extend all the way to Batumi. A proper naval blockade covers the entire country. What the map presents, is a partial naval blockade.

The IP presented evidence, which is most likely questionable, that on August 9, At 16:40, Russian navy blocked Moldovan ship “Lotus-1,” carrying wheat, from entering the Poti port" and "August 11, At 20:25, Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia was notified that Russian Black Sea Fleet prevented cargo ships “Castor” and “Asha” from entering the Poti port. This, if true, certainly signifies the Naval Blockade of Poti; nevertheless, there are no sources confirming the Naval Blockade of Batumi that I could find. The Report of Xinhua states: MOSCOW, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) -- Russian warships had arrived at Georgian Black Sea coast to prevent weapons from landing by sea, Interfax news agency quoted a Russian navy source as saying Sunday. "The crews were assigned the task to not allow arms and military hardware supplies to reach Georgia by sea," the source told Interfax. The Black Sea Fleet comprises missile cruiser Moskva, patrol boat Smetlivy, three large amphibious ships and logistics ships, the source said. Meanwhile, the Abkhaz law enforcement agencies confirmed that several Georgian warships attempted on Saturday to approach the coast of Abkhazia. But the attempts were curbed by ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet."

In other words, we have a possible blockade of Poti, and no blockade of Batumi. As such, I believe that we should clarify, on the map if necessary, and definitely in the text, that no Russian Naval Blockade of Batumi existed, and as such, no Russian Naval Blockade of Georgia existed. At best, there is a partial Russian Naval Blockade. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most sources don't go into detail about the blockade and don't give more info other than that it existed.

1. The Russian Black Sea Fleet left Sevastopol on the evening of August 8 and established a de-facto sea blockade of the Georgian coast. [1]
2. The Black Sea Fleet, among the most combat capable in the Russian Navy, was used to blockade the Georgian coastline. [2] Offliner (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Федоров or Moryak, any counter-arguments? 68.164.150.133 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there was a vessel on the 24th of August that docked in Batumi. Aside from that, I don't see any issues here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some rejoiners.

- Units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet were observed leaving Sevastopol. However, that in and of itself does not mean they deployed off the Abkhazian-Georgian coast. The Russian Black Sea Fleet has been known to move ships between Sevastopol and Novorossiysk - closer to Georgia. The armed conflict was ongoing in South Ossetia. It would be prudent for Russia to move naval forces to Novorossiysk. - Reports of the Russian at-sea engagement with possibly one Georgian unidentified sunk generally refer to small ships, not large combatants, and are described to take place off the Abkhazian coast just south of Sukhumi. - As I have noted elsewhere, the stated blockade actions (turning away ships) by the Russian Navy have no source citations and provide no proof. If the "blocked" vessels can be identified why can't the Russian naval ships that allegedly stopped them? - Also, the term "blockade" has a very specific definition in both military usage and in international law. Information cited does not match that definition. - I view as insufficient the mere assertion of an alleged action. If this were an acceptable approach than any single unproved assertion published by an established newspaper or made by an established media outlet should be accepted as fact. We all know where such uncritical acceptance leads. Федоров (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet, even Russian media has reported, that they have entered "one Abkhaz port" and even sank Georgian vessel: http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/10/sank/ (in Russian)

According to Georgian officials:

• August 9, At 16:40, Russian navy blocked Moldovan ship “Lotus-1,” carrying wheat, from entering the Poti port
• August 11, At 20:25, Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia was notified that Russian Black Sea Fleet prevented cargo ships “Castor” and “Asha” from entering the Poti port

source --136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's your source? Good one! "At 11:00, a Russian motorcade consisting of 30 armored vehicles led by the Commander of the 58th Army General Anatoly Khruliov was destroyed by Georgian armed forces at the northwestern entrance of Tskinvali." Umm - really? So how come most of the people in the destroyed motorcade survived? Isn't a destroyed motorcade supposed to be destroyed, and therefore unable to return back to base? "[August 8th] 05:30 additional column of Russian troops entered Georgia through the Roki Tunnel, passing Java, crossing the Gupta bridge and advancing on the Dzari bypass road. Georgian artillery and military aircraft conducted targeted attacks on the Gupta bridge and the moving Russian column (Georgian aviation has made no operational flights since then). Soon after that, two more columns of Russian troops entered the Roki Tunnel and advanced south by the Geri-Dmenisi road." No operational flights since August 8th? Oh boy. I am not even going to comment on this one. "At 15:00, Georgian forces declared a 3-hour ceasefire to establish a humanitarian corridor. The Russians used the ceasefire to advance towards Tskinvali by the Dzari road and towards Dmenisi by the Geri-Dmenisi road." Humanitarian Corridor, eh? How come most of the civilians who tried to use the humanitarian corridor were shot? Part of Georgia's "Humanitarian" efforts? Not to mention, we aren't going to count IP sources as legitimate. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

1) That's very offtopic here. 2) I wonder what makes the destroyed motorcade "survive"? The fact that Russian government obviously lies bout number of casualties? Destruction of the Khrulev's motorcade is mentioned in very pro-russian, Alexander Kokh's report.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Entering one port" or "sinking one vessel (unnamed)" does not consitute a naval blockade.

It is tragically unfortunate that due to a number of patently false statements made by the Georgian Government in the course of the 2008 August conflict and even since (see previous highly illustrative comment by Historic Warrior) it is extremely difficult blanketly to assume that statements by the Georgian Government are true. Therefore, references to a Russian naval blockade of Georgia - whether those made by the Georgian Government or those that are echoes of the Georgian statements in other publications - cannot be credited as true. Only if there is information of persuasive credibility can a naval blockade be said to have occurred. As noted in previous posts, if the blockaded ships can be named why cannot the Russian Navy ships alledgedly responsible for the blockade?Moryak (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What I think should first and foremost be noted, is that the actions of Russia's Navy have been largely ignored, or relegated to a secondary concern by the authors of this article, and since "all it takes for Propaganda to triumph is for Good Men to do nothing" - Russian Naval Actions are not represented properly in this article. And no one has presented any evidence, let alone legitimate evidence, of a Russian Naval Blockade of Batumi. We have proof of a single ship sunk, and it's either the Tbilisi or the Grigoriy Torelli. However there was a single engagement, with no more then five shots fired by both sides; to call it a battle is laughable. As per the Russian blockade of Poti, one could argue that Russia's Navy was simply supporting Russia's Army in the Battle and subsequent occupation of Poti. Furthermore, Russia could not have blockaded the Abkhaz Ports, simply because Georgia cannot claim blockade of ports that it cannot reach via land. The purpose of a blockade is to prevent resources from reaching the interior of the country, and as such, Georgia cannot claim blockade of Abkhaz ports, as supplies dropped in those ports have no chance of reaching Georgia's interior, as they are controlled by Abkhazia, that was at war with Georgia during this time period.

On the other hand, Offliner's sources are credible, and cannot be ignored. They claim that a blockade existed. However they do not tell us the extent of the blockade. Perhaps a compromise is in order, saying something like "Russia's Black Sea Fleet Blockaded the Georgian Coastline near Poti to aid Russia's Army; however the Russian Blockade did not extend to Batumi. What do you Wikipedians, think? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• HistoricWarrior, which of Offliner's sources do you consider credible and why? Perhaps a reason why Russian naval actions have not been represented properly in this article is because there weren't many and those that occurred were of very short duration and limited spacial extent.Федоров (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Moscow Defense Brief has pretty much been viewed by experts in both, Russia and NATO, and hasn't attracted virtually any criticism. Generally, if a publication stays in the mainstream of the military for as long as MDB has, and hasn't been discredited or properly criticized, it's considered valid. Additionally, no one has disproved anything the MDB said about this war. I don't know enough about the second source to comment on it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• If a publication merely repeats a statement made by an untrustworthy source - in this case the Georgian Government - does it make that statement true or credible? I think not. This is the case with many items used in Wiki entries in general, particularly regarding near current events where there is not extensive reporting. The best that should be said in such instances in the actual article text is: such and such source says "x". Then the reader can form his/her own judgment whether they wish to accept the statement. Insertion of information with a disembodied footnote leaves the impression that what is said is accepted as credible fact.Федоров (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"You know the source is truly independent when it is attacked by both sides" - famed quote by speaker whose name I forgot. The MDB wasn't quoting the Georgian Government. The Georgian Government reported the blockade on August 9th, the MDB reported it on August 8th. I'm wondering, do you have any sources that state that the Russian Navy wasn't blockading the Georgian Coastline? Such as the location of the Russian Navy during August 7th - August 16th? The Russian Navy cannot be in two places at once. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought our issue was credibility not independence. There are more than enough independent voices who don't get it right. In the case of this reporting I believe that when the Ukrainians watched Russian Black Sea Fleet ships leaving Sevastopol they assumed they were heading for Georgia and so reported. I'd have to rummage about to find a Ukrainian report. However, an assumption isn't a fact.Федоров (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is credibility and verifiability, both of which the MDB meets. For instance Felgenhauer's claim of 1,200 tanks is easily disproved by other sources. Do you have any sources that disprove the MDB's claim about the Russian Navy? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just edited the alleged order of battle for the Russian Navy off Georgia/Abkhazia. In my edit I cite a couple of sources which explain where some - the largest - of the ships that left Sevastopol went. It was not to the Georgian/Abkhazian coast but to Novorossiysk and the Russian coast.Федоров (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Statements by "analysts"?

Currently some parts of that section leaves pretty questionable impression. "Mexican TV Journalist" and "economist by training" don't explain sufficiently what makes those persons notable or competent analysts on this topic.--Staberinde (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So what do you propose and what do you think should the principles be for choosing what to include there? Alæxis_¿question? 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, first question could be actually, if this article needs such section at all? If there is general agreement that this section deserves being in main article of war, then I would assume that only analysts who are clearly notable should be included. Maybe those few problematic cases I mentioned are actually somehow exceptionally notable, but currently article definitely fails to demonstrate that.--Staberinde (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility section exists, is because there are still books out there, like the Guns of August, that try to contest the responsibility of the war. The EU Report admitted that it was not the final version. And it didn't want to hear my country's side. So the Responsibility section is vital! The reason for mentioning Raul Fajardo, is because you need a non-European and non-American viewpoint. Here you have a Latin American JOURNALIST who traveled to South Ossetia, and recorded what he saw with an unbiased eye. That is very rare! So this testimony is also vital! Kotlyarov's claim shows that it was possible, even for economists, to figure out who started this war, while the EU Report took a year to figure it out, and the authors of the Guns of August still cannot get it right!Soslanx (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I totally did not suggest removing whole "Responsibility section", I have been talking only about "Statements by analysts" part(which I also used as title on this talk page section), that seems to consists of pretty random list of different statements. I am pretty sure that large number journalists from all over the world have visited area of conflict after war, I still don't see what makes Raul Fajardo exceptionally notable analyst. And I hope that you can come up with better reason for including Kotlyarov, because current "to show that even X can figure it out" could be as well used for including some totally random blogger.--Staberinde (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Analysts are an integral part of the section, because they provide a viewpoint that is non-governmental, nor those of organizations with massive budgets. You don't get to exclude everyone who doesn't have a million or more per their research! And if you don't think Fajardo is notable, perhaps you can find us another, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST, who visited South Ossetia, and isn't from any of the involved countries. And Kotlyarov isn't a blogger, he's an economic expert studying the issue. There's absolutely nothing wrong with his inclusion.--Soslanx (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

For adding independent analysts into such article their notability needs to be established. This article should include only most important about conflict, for example it doesn't include majority of international reactions or protests related to war. For having some random economists or journalists here you need very good reason.--Staberinde (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the choice of statements seems pretty arbitrary to me. I don't know who is Kotlyarov, however the point he made is valid imho, and is also made by other analysts. This is a quote from an article by International Relations and Security Network news and analysis section:

“ On the Georgian side, the escalation of the conflict can be traced to two major issues. First, in the last year or so, Saakashvili has been under intensifying pressure from within Georgia to deliver on the socio-political and economic reforms promised by the Rose Revolution. To this end, he has attempted to divert attention and boost his ratings through nationalistic rhetoric and actions. An all-out invasion of South Ossetia could be placed within that context. ”

It could easily replace Kotlyarov's words in the article.

However I'm not ready to present a set of general principles as to what should we include in this section and so I'm willing to read others' opinions. Alæxis_¿question? 21:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

First you said you didn’t want to talk about International Relations, now you do? Can you just clarify your argument please? Because that’s a whole other section.

Uninvolved Latin American JOURNALIST, taking testimony of the people in South Ossetia seems damn notable to me, and a damn good reason to include it. As for Kotlyarov, I honestly don’t see why you don’t like him. He is a very notable economist. It is important for the reader to know what Russian economists think about the war, especially those who study my region.--Soslanx (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Alaexis, that link doesn't seem to show any specific article ;). Now Soslanx, I simply used International Relations as an example to demonstrate that not everything ever said about this war gets included here in this article, but only the most important information. Anyway I still don't see what makes that journalist particularly notable, unless he is like only journalist who has visited the area (which I doubt), or is exceptional some other way. About Kotlyarov, I don't have any dislike about him, I practically don't even know anything about him, for all practical purposes he may be totally nice and intelligent person. But my(or yours) personal opinion about him doesn't establish his notability as analyst of this war. Btw, typing "journalist" in full capital letters doesn't make your comments any easier to read.--Staberinde (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx, link corrected. Alæxis_¿question? 08:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, I support adding those Kotchikian's conculsions there.--Staberinde (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The notability of these journalists is very questionable. Fajardo, for example, is still trying to push the genocide theory, which doesn't seem adequate at present. We should try to decrease the number of dubious quotes in the article. Kouber (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since you aren’t getting my arguments, I will phrase it as clear as I can:

1. Raul Fajardo is:

An Independent

Journalist

From a neutral country

That is not part of the EU, NATO, CIS, SCO

Who visited South Ossetia

And made neutral observations about the country

Ten people out of billions, is very unique. Can you find at least ten people like Fajardo, i.e. that meet all of the above criteria, to prove that he is not unique to our article?

2. Ivan Kotlyarov:

Find out something about the guy that you are trying to remove. Ignorance never helps in editing Wikipedia. He is a notable economist, who wrote about the war, because he focused on my region. How notable do they have to be for you? Do they have to win the Noble Peace Prize?--Soslanx (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Check yandex search results or google for Kotlyarov. It looks like he's hardly notable. Besides, almost the same point is made in the article I've found. Alæxis_¿question? 20:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

SoslaxSoslanx, in wikipedia notability is established through reliable sources. I agree with Alæxis, there isn't much that would indicate Kotlyarov's notability as analyst. Also you can't invent some personal criteria and decide by it if someone is notable. Fajardo probably would qualify if we had section "statements by journalists", but currently among "analysts" he seems to be clearly problematic, especially considering how strong claims he makes.--Staberinde (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde, my name is Soslanx, not "Soslax". Alaexis, if you read the statements by analysts you will notice that most have fancy resources. It's refreshing to have someone who is acting on his own initiative, analyzing. Plus, as your source verified, his comment is verifiable. The criteria is verifiability, and Kotlyarov meets that. Staberinde, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Additionally NPOV is encouraged. Fajardo is perfect for NPOV. This is a person who visited my country, and wrote about it. He had no bias before going. He doesn't serve any interests. Georgia named the action "Operation Clear Field". Do you know what clear field means? Would you call a field clear if it had people? I am not inventing any criteria. First "Soslax", now you are charging me with inventing criteria? Please stop the Ad Hominems. What does an analyst do? He analyzes. So according to you, a journalist cannot analyze? A journalist cannot publish analysis? Funny how you accuse me of inventing my own criteria, and try to come up with your own, such as arguing that a journalist cannot analyze? The definition of analyst? It's someone who analyzes!

You asked me how Fajardo was unique. I gave you the criteria that made him unique. You turn around and accuse me of "making my own criteria"? Fajardo is verifiable. He is NPOV. That's all it takes to get him into the article. And his claim has been verified by the title "Operation Clear Field", i.e. a field with no people on it. Or are you arguing that a clear field can have people on it? A journalist can be an analyst; in fact most journalists are required to analyze and to have analytical skills. Kotlyarov is also verifiable, not only as a source, but also via other sources, as has been posted by Alaexis. From your links Staberinde: Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. Is Alaexis' source not reliable? If not, what's wrong with Kotlyarov? Why are you establishing your own criteria of notability, whilst accusing me of inventing a criteria of my own? The main principle for inclusion is verifiability, and both have been verified. How are they not reliable? You linked to a page, I read it, read some other Wiki rules, and I don't see your argument. It's not clear enough. Can you specify what you mean? And please, call me Soslanx. Thank you in advance.--Soslanx (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I think that all the useful info from this section could be incorporated elsewhere, particularly to 'Background' section (though I don't have time and will to do this myself). If you think otherwise, could you formulate the criteria for inclusion of analysts and their opinions? Alæxis_¿question? 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I apologize for misspelling your name, it was not intentional, and I have corrected it in my previous comment. Anyway I think that Alæxis makes good point, there is no good way to determine proper criteria for individual analysts, and in the end it brings only endless arguments about what qualifies as proper analyst like currently with Fajardo, (also I didn't ask what makes him "unique", I asked what makes him "notable analyst") "journalist from uninvolved country who visited area" doesn't convince me, while for you it seems to be sufficient.--Staberinde (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde, thank you very humbly for fixing the typo. Just because two people cannot agree on a criteria, does not mean that it should not exist. Otherwise all Wikipedia articles that are controversial would be blank. The analyst section exists for a reason and I think it is a damn good reason. A lot of people could not agree on the title, does that mean that the article should be without a title? We will rarely agree what is proper to include. I firmly believe that a journalist who visited the country on his own accord, is not sponsored by anyone and analyzes the actual news, is crucial to include. You clearly disagree, instead preferring to have quotes from fancy organizations. According to you someone who has no millions behind him is not notable. I disagree with that. Just because my country cannot hire a fancy legal team does not mean our views should be excluded. You are ok with including the EU analysis, but not ok with including an actual journalist analyzing the news without an agenda? --Soslanx (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Who says that Fajardo has no agenda? We don't know practically anything about him except being some Mexican journalist. I would note that source which is used for including him www.georgiatimes.info doesn't look as particularly reliable source but more like some imposter of Georgian Times, and that would be already sufficient grounds for removing his statement on its own. Also I don't understand why you brought up EU analysis as mistreatment of your country, considering that it confirmed Georgia starting the war. Also all combatants positions are already represented in article.--Staberinde (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you have a journalist from the neutral country of Mexico visiting South Ossetia and reporting. What agenda do you see there? When you ask “who says that Fajardo has no agenda” without providing any sources, you sir are doing original research. As for the websites being used, how about RIA News? http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090811/155785964.html Or Moscow Top News? http://www.moscowtopnews.com/?area=listByTag&id=31 Or any of the other 422,000 Google Hits for Raul Fajardo Georgia? Like this interview transcript? http://armoredd.com/home/archives/2511 Is it so hard to do a simple Google search before bashing Fajardo? And even if not all of them are about Fajardo, he is still a significant voice..

Everyone confirmed that Georgia started the war. There is satellite data, that cannot be altered, showing columns of Georgian tanks heading to Ossetia. The war took place on my soil, in Tskhinval. How did the Georgians get there? The reason I brought the EU Report being anti Ossetian is because they did not use a single Ossetian source, in a war where the majority of the civilian casualties were my people. Our views at the very least must be examined and not just through Russia’s eyes.

I disagree. The movement of troops itself does not represent an act of war. Also, it's not true that the EU Report is not using Ossetian sources - actually it does, look at the 3rd volume (pages 495 - 526). Finally, it is questionable whether the majority of civilian casualties were among "your" people, or not. And that certainly is not a criteria for choosing one source over another. Kouber (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Combatant positions are not NPOV views now are they? Why are you so against Fajardo’s NPOV? Also, please note that while Fajardo states that:

I am confident that if it had not been for Russia and the courage of the Ossetian soldiers who defended their homeland, mankind would have regretted today the genocide of the Ossetian people, the irretrievable loss of the people with a unique history, traditions and culture

some of the newspapers interpret his quote “proof of genocide in Georgia”. We are not placing that interpretation but merely Fajardo’s NPOV quote. Your lack of knowledge about Fajardo is not an excuse to remove him. And before you continue please look at WP:OR. Thank you in advance.--Soslanx (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So if Russia moved its troops to Guantanamo Bay, it would be ok with you Kouber? It is just moving troops. Look at my page, see where I am from. It is called Tskhinval. The Ossetians are my people, and there is no need for you to be insulting about it and place it in quotes. Also – when you say that “moving troops is not an act of war” – is that not original research? Which sources say that moving troops in not an act of war? According to BBC and Other Points of View, the EU Report Volume I is the actual Report. If you were to further read the EU Report Volume I, you would note that the EU Report admits that only Volume I is authoritative. You are citing Volume III. I was referring to the actual Report, Volume I. If you can find Ossetian sources in Volume I that would be great Kouber.

Which source are we choosing over Fajardo? We are not choosing one source over another. Wikipedia is not a race to get your sources in and eliminate the sources of the opposition. This is not a “Zero Sum Game”. Nor am I choosing criteria on who to include based on casualties. Once again, Fajardo is an independent journalist from a neutral country who visited my country and wrote about it. What is wrong with including him? You and Staberinde both ignore the major issue and focus on the minor points. I believe in your language it is called “nitpicking”.--Soslanx (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay is not in Russia, nor Russia has an agreement to deploy its troops there. South Ossetia, however, is part of Georgia, hence the movement itself of Georgian troops inside Georgia is not an act of war. And that's not my original research. The same rule applies for the movement and concentration of Russian troops in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. Also, since the name Tskhinvali is Georgian, the nominative case should be applied - Tskhinvali (not Tskhinval). As to the report, generally there are no sources in Volume I, that's why it is authoritative - it represents the conclusions of the Mission, based on the documents and sources presented in detail in the other two volumes (incl. Ossetian and Abkhazian ones), and based on the meetings it held (incl. in Tskhinvali and Sukhumi). Kouber (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ's sake. Kouber is ready to plunge into his de-jure vs. de-facto recognition argument. Again. Maybe we should continue this discussion of ours, then? You have failed there to provide a proof, that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia, and now you're making here this assertion too? "That's not my original research", yeah right. Sorry, Kouber, but whatever you believe about what constitutes an act of war, it is completely irrelevant to the question about including a source. You might also care to explain, what can be the point of you elaborately calling the Ossetian city Tskhinval with a Georgian name "Tskhinvali" in this discussion, and claiming that this is the proper name? This sentence is widely employed by radically minded Georgians to provoke Ossetians, by asserting that Tskhinval belongs to Georgia - the fact you can't be unaware of. Please, remember, Kouber, that Wikipedia is not a place for claiming ownership over cities and ethnic disputes. ETST (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that the act of war and the name of the city both are irrelevant to the topic, but it wasn't me that raised these questions. I really wasn't aware that commenting a name of a city can insult Ossetians, and that wasn't my intention. However, besides a purely Georgian name, Tskhinvali is also the name used in English.

Also, I am not Georgian, so I am not trying to push any ethnic dispute, nor to claim city ownership. The origin of the name, however, is undisputed.

As to our previous discussion, I wasn't aware that I had to prove something that's a geographical fact (according to 189 UN members states). Anyhow, we are risking to fall again in an irrelevant discussion, because of our different points of view, which would be counter-productive in the current situation. Kouber (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kouber, last time I pointed out that you are ignoring the major issue. You have graced our encyclopedia with three replies, none of which are relevant to what is being discussed. If you want to discuss something else, please start a new section. Nothing that you mentioned here is relevant to either Fajardo or the analyst section. If you are not here to provoke, please argue on topic, or start a new section. --Soslanx (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war???

Why "south ossetia"? Was it fought only in South Ossetia? Wasn't it mainly between Russia and Georgia? Didn't it involve other parts of Georgia?

Google search: 2008 russia georgia war - 9,320,000 results 2008 south ossetia war - 585,000 results

So, the current title not only does confuse about what and where has happened, but is used 20 times less often, than "2008 Russia Georgia war".

Current article title is clearly a Russian POV.--78.48.225.28 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, more scholarly articles are using Russo-Georgian War or some other similar derivative. The current title of the article was created by wikipedians at the start of the conflict, at a time when it was confined to South Ossetia and involved solely the Georgians and South Ossetians. I would challenge anyone to find a scholarly source that terms the war the 2008 South Ossetian War, those articles that you do find will use wikipedia as a source for the title of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here comes the flash mob! Haven't we been through all of this before already? Come on guys, we have better stuff to do. Furthermore, at no point in time was this a war that involved only Georgians and South Ossetians, as the Russian Peacekeeping Battalion was hit very early in the war, and when you hit a part of the Russian Peacekeepers, and by extension the Russian Army, you involve Russia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspecting others in what you did, aren't you? I'll raise the WSSing issue later, when I have time for it. Unfortunately I am not one of those 300 hundred "warriors" from "Commission under the President of Russia to counter the attempts of falsification of history to the detriment of Russia" to work on it full time.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings IP who attacked me while I was topic banned. I've been suspected of sockpuppetry by both Xeeron and Biophys, and yet I'm not guilty. I never want a sockpuppet, I fail to see the purpose of using one. I asked for evidence to be produced at trial, and yet none was produced. And here you are with another silly accusation. The Commission started in 2009. I was editing Wikipedia since September, 2008. So apparently, according to you, I mind read in 2008 what was going to happen in 2009, and yet have not won a lottery. Damn, I gotta put my mind putting skills to better use. Also, a bit of history: the 300 warriors were Greek Warriors, not Russian Warriors. Russia didn't really exist in that part of the World back then. And if I was working on Wikipedia full time, why so few edits for full time? But yes, my nick is HistoricWarrior007, of that I am profoundly guilty. Too bad there's no wikipedia rule ensuring that everyone posts as an IP, instead of having their nicknames. Danke for your Ad Hominems good sir. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You should read the sheer number of pages on discussion of the title before proposing your own changes, that have been already proposed multiple times here. I have yet to see anyone argue that it's Russian POV. So do tell, how is it Russian POV? Is the name Kosovo War, US POV? Vietnam War? Korean War? First Chechen War? Second Chechen War? Damn, there's so much POVed names going on. Or, are we biased, because we don't adhere to Google Hits? Do you know how many wars were named after Google Hits? It's zero, nada, zilch, nil. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Google_hits_yet_again and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move.2C_part_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people, and if you actually had the courtesy to browse through the talkpage, you would actually find lots of discussion on this issue. But naming the war after the region, where the main battle was fought, has yet to be declared POV by anyone, congratulations, you are the first.

Also, the Berkelian, that's the newspaper published by UC Berkeley, you know, the #1 Public University in North America, they're calling this war, the 2008 South Ossetia War. Additionally, there has been a vote on the issue, and despite an entire Cabal trying to rig the vote, people still preferred this title. Oh right, I still haven't presented that evidence, thank you for the reminder! For instance, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Article_name_vote. Finally, we even had an administrator come in and explain that there are valid arguments for both sides, (although I've yet to hear a valid argument aside from "Bang we haz moar Google Hits" and since there is no consensus on this article, we won't be changing the title. No wars are named after Google Hits, and Wikipedia Editors cannot establish precedence, no matter how desperately some people might want to do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Google hits just demonstrate which term is more commonly used. So, again, what is the reason of using this CONFUSING title, besides that it pleases some Russians and is in line with Russian propaganda, please?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings same person with different IP. How is this confusing? How is this Russian propaganda? You can yell that it's Russian propaganda all you want, (BTW Russia called it Gruzinsko-Osetinskaya Voina, Georgian-Ossetian War), but unless you actually show us how it's Russian propaganda, your posts on the matter are pointless. We're academics here, not New York Times Readers. Just saying something, without any proof whatsoever, isn't going to fly here. All Google Hits demonstrate is which term the Corporate Media uses most often, but that doesn't mean that it's the most often used terms by the ordinary folks, who cannot produce 1,000 Google Hits on a whim. If you read any of my links, you'd know by now that the reason is that's how most wars are named, either attacker-defender format, or via location where most of the fighting took place, i.e. Vietnam War, Korean War, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Dagestan War, Iraq War, want me to keep going? And in the Vietnam War, there was some fighting in Cambodia, but most of the fighting took place in Vietnam. Same thing here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, you are Spiegel and Uwe Klussman reader. But back to the point:

• Was it fought only in South Ossetia?
• Wasn't it mainly between Russia and Georgia?
• Didn't it involve other parts of Georgia?
• The current title not only does confuse about what and where has happened, but is used 20 times less often, than "2008 Russia Georgia war" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was World War 2 fought in Antarctica or on Rapa Nui? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see, how an example of a more broad name applies here? Wouldn't it be easier for you to state, that this war wasn't fought in Russia and all of Georgia? Now, how does it make Russian term "south ossetia war" less misleading?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming a war after the location where most of the fighting occurs is misleading? And your proposed name, that portrays Russia, the defender in this war, as the attacker, isn't misleading? Wow. Just wow. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither this war, nor war in 90th was fought within SOAD borders. Most of the fighting was between Tskhinvali and Georgian villages, bordering it from North, East and South (outside SOAD borders).--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was fought mostly in South Ossetia. Vietnam War was fought mostly in Vietnam. More South Ossetian Servicemen died than Russian. In fact it was roughly twice as much. To claim that Russia would have achieved as stunning a victory, in such a short time period, as they did, without the help of Ossetia's Army, is to bullshit. According to pro-Georgian editors, their were no battles in Poti and Gori, there were just "occupations and bombings" of those cities. Irrespectively, most of the fighting still took place in South Ossetia. The current title isn't used 20 times less often. It's used 20 times less often by the mass media, but here's a hint: not all of us work for Fox News/CNN/Sky News. Furthermore, upon looking at the war naming conventions that are generally accepted, you will find that the extreme majority of wars are named either by locations, or in the attacker-defender format. No wars are named by Google Hits. Nil. Zero. Zilch. Nada. All of these arguments that you are making, have already been made, multiple times, and have been rejected. If you would have actually bothered to read the discussion archive, you would know this. Nor is this the Russian Title; the Russian Title is Georgian-Ossetian War. This title is 2008 South Ossetia War. Last time I checked those two titles aren't the same. The term was obtained per WP:MilHist which requires that unnamed wars are to be named after the location where they took place. Thus it was legitimately named. We don't need Saakasvhili's propaganda department renaming these wars. If you have anything new to add, please do so. If you are going to parrot failed arguments, please stop. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No it was not. There were not only fights outside SO administrative borders, but naval battles as well as capturing of upper Kodori Gorge. It was a full blown Russia-Georgia conflict, which was fought wherever possible, focusing only SO confuses the reader.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the point: that's what we call it. Jellyfish aren't really fish, a Bomberbeetle doesn't have actual bombs, and you can try suing the local zoo for calling Hippocampus a seahorse. It's a name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So your point is? Should we name this article "Jellyfish"? It's a name, after all.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now arguing against facts, Mr. IP. There was a single Naval Engagement. There was no Battle of Tbilisi. If this was a full blown Georgia-Russia Conflict, then Russians would have, at the very least attacked Tbilisi. Seriously, we don't need Saakashvili Central here. Once again, see the previous arguments. Here, I'll post the discussion for the IP:

*There was a single Naval engagement just because Russian fleet is overwhelmingly superior to Georgian.

*Tbilisi could have been only the very last target, as after invasion in the western part of Georgia, Georgian government pulled all troops back to capital. Friench officials have mentioned, that according to French intelligence, Tbilisi was indeed a target.

*It's clear, that you need Putin's Central here, but I hope it will not work.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had over one hundred pages of debate on this, we have had two votes on it. Get over it. Thank you. This was already discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_2#Article_name and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_3#Name_change and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Google_hits_confirm_most_popular_names and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Media_call_it_Georgia-Russia_conflict and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_War_in_Georgia and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#name_change.3F and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_now and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Article_rename and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamed (this one actually started by the Devil's Advocate on August 12th, 2008) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_7#Requested_move (although it's crossed out) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_8#Needs_to_be_renamed and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_10#Article_rename and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_rankings_on_Google_News (after being defeated, the Devil's Advocate waited a whopping two weeks to bring it up, again) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_of_article and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_13#.22South_Ossetia_War.22.3F and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_14#Title_consensus (where the Devil's Advocate waited two more weeks, before getting slaughtered in the name change debate, I am beginning to see a pattern...) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#New_Title_consensus (yup, Devil's Advocate strikes again) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Rename (Where the Devil's Advocate waited a whole *gasp* three weeks) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_19#Rename (I wonder who suggested it? Could it be, the Devil's Advocate? *inserts eerie music*) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_22#Specific_options (where there is a whole vote on it!) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23#To_Those_Opposing_the_current_title and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 - where the whole damn archive is dedicated to yet another vote! And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#The_title_and_the_lead and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#It_Appears_that_Kober_did_violate_the_moving_convention (where editors are getting sick and tired of it, but the Devil's Advocate marches on!) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 (yup another vote, illegally started, for those who missed the first two: attractions include editors who have never watched the article, but miraculously, three of them appear and vote to change the title, on the exact date that it's proposed!)

Now, IP - we have been more than patient here. If you are unable to offer any new arguments, and you continue to spam this page with cluelessness, you will be reported. A full-blown war would have involved a lot more than two Iskanders, and would last for more than nine days. That much is obvious to everyone, and I'm not going to babysit every user who claims that 2+2 is really 5. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, please stop talking about your self in plural.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bit early for new move request, I would wait until 2010. Although its pretty obvious that despite wikipedia's promotion of current fringe title it still fails google books=2 scholar=14 in competition with title like "August War" google books=13 scholar=146 or "Russo-Georgian War" google books=6 scholar=59. Just moving article away from current fringe title is horrible pain, because there is always notable bunch of editors that will rush to its defence and accept no alternatives.--Staberinde (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should actually try and get new arguments, before moving for a request. The "Google Said So" Argument is getting old. Not a single war was named after Google Hits, and Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming. We can only follow it, like we did in this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming."

That's exactly what I have argued ever since I joined this title dispute here, because this is what wikipedia is currently doing by using title that is clearly used only relatively small minority of reliable sources, while there are clearly several more popular titles in use. Google books and Google scholar are just most easily avaible methods for evaluating usage of title in large number of sources easily. If you have better alternative method for evaluating which title is most widely used in reliable sources, then please explain it to us.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, Google Books and Google Scholar are not the most easily available methods of evaluating usage, as, believe it or not, but some books, especially military books that name wars, aren't published on Google Books and/or Google Scholar!

Second, searching for 2008 South Ossetia War is incorrect, as others can simply call it Third S. Ossetian War, and still be correct about the naming. As thus, the proper Google Search is Ossetia War. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000 for Ossetia War. One million Google Hits. That's quite popular to me. Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 6,550. Google Books: Books 1 - 10 of 926 on Ossetia War.

Third, I have already explained this multiple times, see all the links above, but here's the summary: wars are either named after the location where most of the battles took place, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, First Chechen War, Dagestan War, Second Chechen War, or in the agressor-defender format. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, obviously Google Books and Google Scholar are not 100% ideal. Best solution would be gathering all reliable English language sources together, and then let a committee of neutral professional encyclopedians to evaluate them. Unfortunately that is not a realistic option. Also you failed to propose better alternative for evaluating usage of titles in large number of reliable sources.

Second, "Ossetia war", google books=2 scholar=18 is only marginally better than "South Ossetia war". "2008" and "August" are included in search because there is also 1991–1992 South Ossetia War. Also we need to search for source using exactly term "South Ossetia War" not for source that includes words "war", "ossetia" and "south", because it is useless as these words may all appear on separate pages.

Third, these are all statements of anonymous wikipedia editor, you need to provide a "reliable source" that backs up your claims about war naming, especially that claim about "agressor-defender format" (I have been asking a source to that for months). Obviously original research by wikipedians does not count as reliable source.--Staberinde (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You have? I think I posted this link multiple times, don't know how you missed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars. You take a look at the war titles, and who the attacker was and who the defender was. We already agreed that 2+2=4 isn't original research, nor is 2+2*2=6 original research. You look at war titles, you look at who the agressor/defender was. It's so simple that Geico...errr a caveman can do it! And the reason that I didn't give it much attention, is because it's mostly irrelevant, as after World War II, most wars are named after the location. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon a further inspection of the wars, I have found that out of the wars on that list, since World War II, as we are living in 2009 and that's past 1945, 135 out of 176 Wars are named after location. The ones that aren't, are famed exceptions, such as the Israeli-Arab Wars, the War on Terrorism, India and Pakistan going at it, retarded names like Shifta War, Sand War, Dirty War, Clean War (sorry had to make that joke), names after predominant insurgencies, names of operations, there's also the Football War, War of Attrition, and The Troubles. These inapplicable names account for 29/41 wars. Furthermore, if one looks at the historiography of naming conflicts taking place in post-USSR space one will find that all wars are named exclusively after location. Nagono-Karabakh War, War in South Ossetia, War in Transnistria, War in Abkhazia, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Ingushetia Civil War, 2008 South Ossetia War. Additionally, if one was to look at Yugoslavia, that experienced rabid nationalism and an economic fallout, errr Free Speech and Democracy, you will find the same pattern: Slovenian War, Croatian War of Independence, War in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo War, Insurgency in Presovo Valley. Anyways, my evidence is overwhelming. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CIRCULAR.--Staberinde (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be such a big issue (Frankly, I'm dumbfounded, but alright), let me be naive and ask: would it be agreeable to add a short section "Terminology" similar to the one given at Vietnam_War#Terminology? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, adding a Terminology/Etymology section and creating a new article on the etymology of the war, like Vietnam_War#Terminology and Etymology of the Vietnam War, sounds good to me, and is certainly much better than going through another huge article move discussion that'll likely end after fervent debate with no consensus. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde, there's a whole section dedicate just to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Staberinde_gets_busted_using_the_.22Kamikaze.22_Tactic. Enjoy :D Seb and Laurina, while I admire your constructive edits, I really don't think the naming/renaming is a huge issue. If it becomes an issue, than I concur with you guys, that an etymology section would be the best way to go :D. And thank you both for your constructive contributions! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so big issue, that's why I actually said that I don't think that its time for new page move request yet, as too little time has passed from previous one. But unless usage of "South Ossetia war" starts dramatically rising in reliable sources in near future, I would say that new move request is pretty much inevitable, no matter who starts it, as keeping such article under relatively rarely used title is pretty ridiculous.--Staberinde (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest dare to offer you one more possible name for this article: The "5 day's war" - its short, neutral and do not hurt intersts of any participants of the actions.--Yegor (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe what is best here is the most commonly used name for the conflict. It is most certainly not the "5 days' war" and Im sure I've never heard it referred to as such, in any of our citations or otherwise. Outback the koala (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, why don't we all just get over these childish games. I mean, after dozens of votes, can we get reasonable again, and stop these moving attempts? Every argument for the move mentioned above was discussed extensively in previous votes. Every one. None was convincing enough. This article has the name which is a result of a consensus of WP editors, and the one confirmed time after time. Which you could see easily, would you bother reading archives named by HW007 above. So please, let's all go and do something useful instead. WP proposes many other articles which actually need your attention.FeelSunny (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to resurrect this old section, but please don't claim there is a consensus for the current name, there clearly is not. --Xeeron (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'd claim there were elections, and this option was like Obama winning over McCain. Time and time again. Despite - as we all know - the results were influenced by the EE mailing list. FeelSunny (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

More like Bush winning over Gore. I heard of no single mail from the EE list ever mentioning the vote. However, the open canvassing of the other side is well documented in the talk page history. --Xeeron (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was just a coincedence about EE list members. And, as I see, you still wage the same war over the long-forgotten canvassing case?:)FeelSunny (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Check above who started the discussion about the name, check who brought up the vote and who brought up undue influence on the vote. Hint: Not me. In either case, it is hard to forget HistoricWarrior's canvassing, since some people around here seem to bring up the canvassed vote with good regularity (btw, you are wrong about the "dozens", too).

It seems to be your strategy to bully every new editor who questions the title (and the amount of new people posting about this should be some indicator of the current title's quality) into shutting up by citing that rigged vote. --Xeeron (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron and other editors, how is this productive to the discussion? There have been discussions in the past, yes, but this is a discussion that is active NOW. So lets all try to stay on topic.

In response to user:Yegor, I think that although name may not do justice to the geographic location of military conflict (not all the fighting was in SO, there was also naval conflict and fighting in the Abkazia area (in this sense in agree with 78.48.225.28 who started this thread)), but I also think we just can't pick the name of a war ourselves! I think in real life its called case law, and in this case the president is set; the present name being the most legitimate and other commonly used names continue to floating around. Similar to the First World War, which also could go by the Great War, War to end all Wars.... Is this line of thought faulty? To all editors, your thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with you Outback, but you will soon find out that others disagree (try mentioning the word "google"). The problem is that "2008 South Ossetia war" is not the most legitimate, it just happens to be the last name that this article was moved to. And wikipedia is very strongly biased in favor of the status quo, so changing it is close to impossible. --Xeeron (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, stop wasting everybody's time.FeelSunny (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements by politicians and analysts removed

I have boldly cut the massive "responsibility" section down. Some of you may oppose this, but I really think we have to do something. I believe the easiest solution is to just remove the statements by analysts and politicians (since it's difficult to come up with an objective criteria for which statements should be included and which not.) Everything is still available at Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war however. Offliner (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that overdue move. That section had been much too big for a long time. --Xeeron (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that it was very good move.--Staberinde (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

+1 Kouber (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the move. However I will accept you removing the section, provided that you agree with my adding of reference to other sections, if logic and necessity and betterment of the article dictate it as such. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Peacekeepers?

Using the word "peacekeepers" for troops belonging to belligerents is nothing but propaganda. That's aggression, not peacekeeping. Any possible true peacekeepers could only belong to a side other than Georgia, Russia and the puppet governments.

I thus propose replacing all lowercased uses of this word by "troops", "contingent" or equivalent; everywhere except for proper names of actual units (ie, uppercase uses). KiloByte (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Peacekeepers" is a qualitative term, it denotes a group of lightly armed men who are not qualified for full scale military engagements. Thus, it's not POV to call these men "peacekeepers," as it allows to differentiate them from regular troops. Indeed, it would be POV and incorrect to portray them as regulars. --Illythr (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Illythr, I'd like to see your source for that definition. It appears to me that KiloByte has both a valid objection and a simple remedy. --Crusher1 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you specify whether you want to see a source detailing the armaments of the Russian-Georgian-Ossetian Joint Control Commission or the general notion that peacekeeping contingents usually don't have heavy artillery, fighter-bomber wings or guided missile cruisers at their disposal? And no, it's not a remedy, since, as I said, equating a dedicated peacekeeping regiment with a fully war-capable army would be factually incorrect (at least, for this particular conflict). I think KiloByte has confused the prewar JCC battalion with the regular Russian troops who entered the area on August 8 - as naming the latter "peacekeepers" would indeed amount to propaganda. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to Illythr and other people coming and asking the same question after watching Fox. In the case with South Ossetia, the country hosted international peacekeeping force, greeted in 1992 by all sides, i.e. both Georgia, and S.Ossetia. That is why we call them PK force, not belligerents' servicemen. There were 3 batallions of PKs in S.O.: Ossetian, Georgian, and Russian batallion. The latter, as Tagliavini's comission states, was attacked during unfortunate Georgian assault on the city on 07-08.08.08. The Georgian assault force included men from the Georgian PK batallion, and it stripped them of their mandate, of course. Actually, Mamuka Kurashvili, who was in command of the G. PKs, was also in charge of the storm of Tskhinvali. This, however, does not make Russian peacekeeping force in the country a "belligerent troops". They remained there under their mandate, they were to protect the city and its' civilians, and they did. That is why we still name them peacekeepers.FeelSunny (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Depleted uranium?

Does anyone have any sources on whether either or both sides used depleted uranium ordnance? 99.191.74.146 (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read anything about it yet. You best check the EU report and/or the HRW reports. If there is any credible claim of DU use, it is bound to be in there. --Xeeron (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

URLs for those please? 99.22.94.58 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just check the reference section of the article. --Xeeron (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are more than 364 references at present -- more than Iraq War has! I looked through some EU and HRW sources without finding any mention of uranium, but I have no way to know if I looked at the ones you meant. 99.38.149.213 (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tagliavini, Heidi (2009), Final Report. Volume I. (PDF), Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG – CEIIG)
• Tagliavini, Heidi (2009), Final Report. Volume II. (PDF), Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG – CEIIG)
• Tagliavini, Heidi (2009), Final Report. Volume III. (PDF), Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG – CEIIG) --Xeeron (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why has the issue of depleted uranium arisen? I have not seen any mention of its use whatsoever in conjunction with the Georgia-Russia conflict.

I call upon the person(s) who raised the issue to clarify. Федоров (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that at the time of the conflict, both NATO-backed and Russian troops considered depleted uranium ordnance a tactically and strategically useful part of their arsenals. However, investment in and transport of DU ordnance has since been banned in Brussels. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen a single source which claims depleted uranium was used in the conflict. Let's stop this unsourced speculation now. Offliner (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium was not used in the conflict, by either side. Both sides have DU, but it does not mean that both sides used DU. While it is true that Georgia and Russia have chemical weapons and chemical battalions, none were deployed in the conflict. Georgia hoped to clear the area, "Operation Clear Field" and settle Georgian civilians there. Russia was defending Ossetian civilians. Either way, both sides would have civilians living in the area, after the war. This creates problems, as DU is harmful to civilians. Just because someone has weapons, does not imply their use. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A thank you

I have recently looked through the article we have after a year and a half from the beginning of the war. I beleive this is a very good article, surprisingly good for English WP. Written by Georgian, Russian, Ossetian and Western users alike, rich in citations, using multiple sources, and very well balanced, compared to many other former USSR-related articles. I say a thank you to all users who contributed, with this article you have done WP a very good service. And, perhaps, you've done a very good service to your countries as well: when people from around the world work together, they create a knowledge that is quite free from political bias, and that is not easy to use for propaganda. Many internet users, I beleive, have used this article to gain a better understanding of what has happened in SO on 08.08.08., and they got a non-biased view. And this also helps to make international politics more reasonable, and humane. For all of this: Thank you! FeelSunny (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You spoke to soon, apparently copy-pasting NPOV sources is considered unneeded POV by some. Their reaction one those files I requested on weapon transfers from Ukraine and the Czech Republic to Georgia come in, will likely be the same. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the article is surprisingly good given the circumstances. But it still has some major problems. It is bloated, oversized and not very readable, it has too many references (we don't need 5 different refs for a single sentence) and almost every section could use a rewrite. Offliner (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the intro, but I agree that the article need to be shortened. Would you consider summarizing this section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#Combatants, and moving everything in it, intact, to another article, like every other section that was moved? The section is 26KB long! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

US military plans

Isn't this a bit too much? It's interesting for sure, but since they only considered it for a short while without actually doing anything, it doesn't seem too important compared to the rest of the article. I would revert this addition. Offliner (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A whole section is too much, a couple of sentences in "Reaction to conflict" seem reasonable. (Igny (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

"several senior White House staffers urged at least some consideration of limited military options," This is weaker than weak. It is their job to present different options, and from that quote it sounds like the president (or whoever did not give in to the urge) didn't even move that idea forward to a planning stage. Compared to actual US actions, such as flying in the Iraq brigade, this is not notable at all. --Xeeron (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's rather interesting. It is their job to present different options and it is our job to report the presentation if it is published by a reliable source. I agree with Igny though, it is too much for a whole section. Several sentences and a citation should be fine. However I agree that it should be in active stage of the war, maybe as a sub-subsection of the "Evening of 7 August" section, as the date is mentioned in the passage. It's also fascinating how the claim was dismissed on August 11th, (7 + 4 = 11), the day when the Russians booted the Georgians out of South Ossetia, and destroyed the 1st Mech Battalion, along with 2nd, 3rd and 4th brigades. Good thing they're not in office anymore. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was only plans, but it was on the top of the country government (if Bush considered it), more than that - only an actual attack. Xeeron says it was their job, but no one other NATO country planned any military actions against Russia. So I think it's interesting enough to mention US, the main Georgia supporter, military plans to take part in this conflict. -- Cattani (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There are subtle differences between considering options and drawing plans. (Igny (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

Well here's my opinion on this: the section should be included, in its entirety, in the relevant sub-article, and should be summarized here, in the main article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are only two small paragraphs, it should be included entirely. But probably it should be placed in more relevant section of this article. --Cattani (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the names

I am not going to push for another name vote as I am fairly there is no way a certain editor will change his mind. However, I figure the best chance is to appeal to the admins who have the power to change the name. To that end rather than trotting out more Google News results which a certain editor refuses to accept, despite rules clearly establishing that a Google search can be used when it is not a blind web search, I figure it should just be noted where the term "Russia-Georgia War" pops up. That it is used widely in mainstream media can be of little doubt when looking at these articles:

The Financial Times

AFP

However, since a certain editor apparently believes all Western media are biased against Russia and therefore pushing this title to smear them I figure we should perhaps look at another source:

Press TV

Surely, no one thinks Iranian state-owned news media is biased against Russia, especially since Iran openly endorsed Russia's actions and has even made signals that it could recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, as if that isn't enough we have this:

The Moscow Times

RIA Novosti

So not only is Iranian state-owned media calling it the Russia-Georgia War RIA Novosti, Russia's state-owned media, is calling it that. The Moscow Times could best be said to be opposed to Russia also agrees. So when you have both sides in Russia calling it the Russia-Georgia War, Iranian media calling it that as well as countless Western media outlets there is no rationale behind the claim it is not a neutral title. This is the one name I notice popping up regularly in mainstream publications of all major countries, including Russia, with others popping up rarely or only in certain regions. I implore those who have the power to do so to change this title already. Do not say "we need to wait a little longer" because that has been said for over a year with absolutely no change in the dynamic, that of South Ossetia War being used by hardly any sources with Russia-Georgia War the clear choice, and with no change in the opinions of certain editors. Lastly, yes I am referring to Historic Warrior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the logics in the certain naming. The major part of the war (like, 70%) was focused around the South Ossetia, the major issue solved in that war were security and safety of South Ossetian people. The other developments of that war are less important. Russia did not use even an 1% of its military might in that campaign. It's certainly not a war fought by Russia (rememver of the World War II and Soviet war in Afghanistan as token Russia-fought wars); it's an incident in which some of the Russian troops took active participation. ellol (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the fighting on land may have been in South Ossetia, but considering some 30 people died in a naval battle off the coast of Abkhazia you should not be so quick to say it is all about South Ossetia. I also scarcely see the logic of saying it was not a war fought by Russia. Russia's intervention was crucial. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev actually said it was an operation to "punish the enemy" meaning Georgia. There is no denying the result either, Russia recognized both separatist states. At any rate, policy is clear that the most popular English name should be used on the English Wikipedia. The only exception is if the title affects neutrality and considering the parties this would supposedly be biased against also use the title there is no objection on neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my argument, but the argument you invented yourselves. I did not say the conflict was ALL about South Ossetia. I said the major part of the conflict (like 70%) was about South Ossetia. ellol (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would propose a vote on the ban of change name proposals for a period of, say, one year. These discussions waste too much of my time. I would prefer we stop these discussions for some time, just to spare time and efforts of us all.FeelSunny (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It amazes me that the two Russian users who commented here insisting on keeping this name are not compelled by the fact a news source owned by their own government uses the name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, Wikipedia is not a news source. (Igny (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia may not be, Russian editor #3, but major news sites are considered reliable for a number of things and in displaying that the name Russia-Georgia war is not biased against Russia there is no better a source to use than a news source owned by Russia's government. If it was biased against Russia why would they use it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Er... DA, say, do you understand your way of throwing ad hominems looks stupid? Do you understand that calling me Russian does not prove me wrong, but shows that you lack any real arguments? Just get over this, dude. Go do something useful, really. PS. BTW, in what country do people like you live?:) FeelSunny (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not using it as an insult. However, it seems the only people who object to this are Russian or unusually pro-Russian for whatever reason. It is then ironic that they would be suggesting a name used by Russian state-owned media is biased. The only logical reason someone who is Russian would consider a named used by their own media, private and state-owned, to be biased is if said Russian is biased. After all, most Russian editors who come on here saying Russia-Georgia War is a biased name are Russian apologists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not using "Russian" as an insult:) Man, I mean it, get out of WP, and PC altogether. I did lately. It's not easy, but it pays.FeelSunny (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said Russia-Georgia war was biased. In fact, if you look up the old votes, you'd see that that title was my second best choice. One of the reasons why it was second was a number of clear and persistent attempts by certain editors to eliminate South Ossetia from the title, lead, infobox to the maximum extent possible. I understand that a failed attempt by Georgia to attack its own territory and its own people was a shameful episode in Georgia's history, but you really can not erase it by moving South Ossetia to a less prominent position in the article and portray the conflict as simply Russia's interference in Georgia's affairs. (Igny (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

So you're saying it wasn't biased but it is biased. South Ossetia was the direct cause of the war and saw a great deal of fighting. However, the title should not be kept simply because some editors want to minimize South Ossetia's place in the conflict. This article is move-protected so it will not be subject to changes except by admins. Other edits can still be made, reversed, or discussed by any editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you are wasting my and others' time by all this, right? It is possible that a sympathetic admin may show up and hearing your constant, non-stop pleading, may decide to change the name eventually regardless of validity or seriousness of your arguments. Is that what you're trying to accomplish here? (Igny (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't need a sympathetic admin, just one who can see through this crap coming from a particular set of users who seem to have no interest in the facts. or policy. The facts are as I said, there is nothing biased about Russia-Georgia War and it is more established than South Ossetia War. Policy on naming articles means we go with the most widely used english name as long as it is neutral. As Russia-Georgia War is neutral, best reflects the scope of the conflict, and is the most widely-used it should be the title. No one stubbornly insisting on keeping this article can provide decent evidence to support their opinion. The only reason an admin hasn't moved this article is because POV editors flood nearly every discussion of a name change so that the decision is no consensus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a big waste of time, and needlessly taking up time on the talk page. As it's been discussed already in a number of previous threads(and votes), I have to feel like FeelSunny's proposal to ban all these name change proposals is a good idea. This really doesn't seem productive at all, and frankly is exhausting to editors to make the same arguments all over again. I can see many saying(to themselves), "I've seen this before, and I'm changing the channel". And then No Editor without a vested interest will come and make any arguments for either side. Then how will we have a real WP debate at all? I hear your arguments DA, but it's redundant and not productive. What is different here from previous discussions? Outback the koala (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason we have not a decision, as I have noted constantly, is that biased editors keep flooding every discussion so that it turns into a decision of no consensus. If admins seriously judged it as the rules demand, rather than treating it like a democratic vote, they would have changed the title long ago. There is not a single decent argument for keeping this title and abundantly good reason for changing it. What I put up just goes further to demonstrate that. Nearly every objection is about neutrality which is quickly demolished by looking at the amount and type of Russian news source that use Russia-Georgia War. No other argument can deal with the fact the current name does not reflect the scope of the conflict and that it is one of the least used names with Russia-Georgia War one of the most, in particular the most throughout the world.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason we have not a decision, as I have noted constantly, is that biased editors keep flooding every discussion so that it turns into a decision of no consensus.

There was a decision. You did not like it, but it does not mean that there was no decision.

If admins seriously judged it as the rules demand, rather than treating it like a democratic vote, they would have changed the title long ago.

Wikipedia uses this rule: you name controversial wars after the location. This war is named after a location - South Ossetia. Wikipedia rules are applied to Wikipedia, your rules are not applicable when they conflict with Wikipedia rules.

There is not a single decent argument for keeping this title and abundantly good reason for changing it.

Historicwarrior creamed your arguments, and it is written in bold, on this very talkpage. Feel the full power of copy paste:

We've had over one hundred pages of debate on this, we have had two votes on it. Get over it. Thank you. This was already discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_2#Article_name and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_3#Name_change and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Google_hits_confirm_most_popular_names and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Media_call_it_Georgia-Russia_conflict and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_War_in_Georgia and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#name_change.3F and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_now and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Article_rename and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamed (this one actually started by the Devil's Advocate on August 12th, 2008) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_7#Requested_move (although it's crossed out) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_8#Needs_to_be_renamed and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_10#Article_rename and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_rankings_on_Google_News (after being defeated, the Devil's Advocate waited a whopping two weeks to bring it up, again) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_of_article and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_13#.22South_Ossetia_War.22.3F and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_14#Title_consensus (where the Devil's Advocate waited two more weeks, before getting slaughtered in the name change debate, I am beginning to see a pattern...) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#New_Title_consensus (yup, Devil's Advocate strikes again) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Rename (Where the Devil's Advocate waited a whole *gasp* three weeks) and here: http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_19#Rename (I wonder who suggested it? Could it be, the Devil's Advocate? *inserts eerie music*) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_22#Specific_options (where there is a whole vote on it!) and here: http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23#To_Those_Opposing_the_current_title and here: http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 - where the whole damn archive is dedicated to yet another vote! And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#The_title_and_the_lead and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really..2C_really_want_to.22_people and here: http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#It_Appears_that_Kober_did_violate_the_moving_convention (where editors are getting sick and tired of it, but the Devil's Advocate marches on!) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 (yup another vote, illegally started, for those who missed the first two: attractions include editors who have never watched the article, but miraculously, three of them appear and vote to change the title, on the exact date that it's proposed!)

What I put up just goes further to demonstrate that. Nearly every objection is about neutrality which is quickly demolished by looking at the amount and type of Russian news source that use Russia-Georgia War.

You put up two sources. To claim that these two sources represent the Russian view is as laughable, as claiming that Fox News represents the full American view.

No other argument can deal with the fact the current name does not reflect the scope of the conflict

So in other words you opted to completely ignore Ellol’s argument, and hope that no one notices you ignoring it?

and that it is one of the least used names with Russia-Georgia War one of the most, in particular the most throughout the world.

Least used names? It has over 1,000,000 Google Hits.

Nc1701 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello new editor I think you should acquaint yourself with this little bit. Let us review what the policy says for everyone's sake:

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

It also clarifies on using search engines since some people here apparently don't get how to do a search engine test to check the names:

Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page.

Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.

So if you look throughout every one of those discussions you'll note that while Historic Warrior kept using raw Google hits I consistently did exactly what the rules say is supposed to be done, examining the type of hits. Also using Google News is much more reliable than using a raw Google search. However, if you want a more reliable raw Google search you should limit the date of the results. You see, a lot of people did call this South Ossetia War when it first started because at first it was limited to South Ossetia, not to mention there was a war called South Ossetia War in 1991 and 92. By limiting it to more recent hits you'll find that name quickly fell to the wayside since the conflict expanded.

As far as only two sites, I only took note of those articles. There are many more instances where Russian news sources, including RIA Novosti, use that name.

The decision reached was no decision as that it is what no consensus means. Of course, the problem is people keep thinking of consensus as majority, but this is not a democracy and what rules are the facts. Just so everyone is clear once more on what consensus is here you go:

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others.

In other words consensus is not determined by how many people can shout down an argument they do not like, but how many can provide a quality argument. A quality argument here is one that is faithful to naming conventions. As several admins have already determine there is nothing biased about Russia-Georgia War it is only a matter of showing it is the common English name. By using raw Google hits some editors seek to confuse the issue, when a proper use of search engines shows South Ossetia War is the least used and Russia-Georgia War the most. The quality of the results is also much greater. I do not keep insisting on a change because I am stubborn or have some sort of bias, but because this current title is going against every single aspect of Wikipedia naming conventions. I will keep pointing this out until someone with the power to enforce a change understands this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Devil’s Advocate! I firmly believe you should acquaint yourself with the rules of Wikipedia, where if the title of a war is disputed, it is named after a location, South Ossetia. The title is disputed. In order to make a Wikipedia title move, one must have consensus for the move. This cannot happen when the title is disputed. You might want to check this out: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Renaming_.2F_Moving “NPOV – Words used in a page's name show a bias or point of view. The neutral point of view policy requires that titles be given "neutral" titles — using general and unbiased words.” All the Russophile editors stated that the move you proposed would not be NPOV.

It is pathetic that you are lying about what HistoricWarrior said. He never favored the use of Google Hits to name the article, please stop using the fact that he is topic banned until January to state lies about him. ‘’So if you look throughout every one of those discussions you'll note that while Historic Warrior kept using raw Google hits I consistently did exactly what the rules say is supposed to be done, examining the type of hits’’ <<< that is a lie. I did look through all of these discussions, and I encourage you to do the same.

I agree that the quality of arguments is more important then the votes. However it is not up to you to determine the quality of arguments. That is up to the neutral editors. Let us take a look at how the neutral editors reacted during the vote:

2008 South Ossetia war Support Extremely strong support HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Support for now (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)) Support -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Strong Support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Support - the war was centred around South Ossetia although Abkhazia was also important. I think it is precise enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Support – unambiguous, concrete, precise. --Zlerman (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Support, this title is accurate and does not paint aggressors. --Tavrian 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Support, neutral title easy to understand. --ellol (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Support: defines the place unambiguously. NVO (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Strong support -- unambigous. Supported by medias. The place denotates the conflict perfectly. There are no argues about order of naming the conflict sides. Another advantage is this is a perfectly neutral option. FeelSunny (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The only option offered that is not misleading, biased, or a neologism. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Support as per Zlerman and FeelSunny --Russavia Dialogue 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Strong support per FeelSunny and Black Falcon. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Strong support This is not the appropriate name as more parties and territories were involved however it is the best way for the reader to find the article --XChile (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Support The best of the options in my opinion. Not perfect, but at least it acknowledges that this was a war about South Ossetia and it doesn't push a POV about who the aggressor was. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Support: there was no official declaration of war, so I would rather call it 2008 South Ossetia conflict, but this gives a better context than the alternatives. -- Wesha (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Weak support Taamu (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Support as the best of the options listed here. It would be preferable if Abkhazia was mentioned in the title as well, though. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Support Per Robofish. יחסיות האמת (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC) 'Support. The best option out of suggested — vvv (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 'Support. KNewman (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Support- Denotes the place, avoids "taking sides", is clear, concise, and- importantly- understandable to the average reader. Commander Zulu (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Pattont/c 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose --KoberTalk 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose.Geagea (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose the war/ conflict took place in regions other than S Ossetia, such as Gori, Tbilisi, Abkhazia, black sea and other parts of Georgia. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose A very vague name; hardly recognizable by outsiders. --Darwish (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose, per Ijanderson. Martintg (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose The war was not confined to South Ossetia, it involved Abkhazia as well. I oppose the canvassing campaign by HystoricWanker007. Colchicum (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) His username is HistoricWarrior, not HystoricWanker. Mine is Russavia, not RuSSavia. You need to stop with the childish name-calling Colchicum, and you have the nerve to call others a troll? --Russavia Dialogue 00:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When one goes personal, he shows his argumentation is too weak to rely on it. FeelSunny (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Ostap 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Biruitorul Talk 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - The decisive Russian attack came from the west therefore Georgia did give up to avoid a 2-fronts-war. Elysander (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose not just SO --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bakharev is a fairly neutral editor: “the war was centred around South Ossetia although Abkhazia was also important. I think it is precise enough.”

Zlerman is neutral: “unambiguous, concrete, precise.”

Tavrian is neutral: “this title is accurate and does not paint aggressors.”

Black Falcon is neutral: “The only option offered that is not misleading, biased, or a neologism.”

KNewman, Julian Colton, Patton, Commander Zulu – all neutral: “- Denotes the place, avoids "taking sides", is clear, concise, and- importantly- understandable to the average reader.”

Another fascinating event is that all Russian editors voted for the title, clearly showing you that the other title is biased. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it should not prevent sides from weighting in on a dispute, especially the neutral editors.

Additionally, as Black Falcon pointed out, your title is “[m]isleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties”. Zlerman concurs, as “this version does not mention one of the main protagonists, South Ossetia”. The Fear God is also neutral here, as he voted against the current title. He also voted against your title, because: “Oppose POV, IMHO”.

The reason that the title will not get changed is because the current title is the best all around. I am using multiple citations from neutral editors. I am using the facts as presented by other editors. You are making up lies. Show me a single comment where HistoricWarrior actually favored using Google Hits, crude or simple. And you are completely ignoring Ellol’s argument.

Nc1701 (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute does not mean the existence of a disagreement, but the legitimacy of disagreement. You can not have a legitimate dispute over blatant violations of Wikipedia policy. The argument about neutrality is completely destroyed by the fact the Russian state-owned news uses the name. Why would the Russian government press use a title that was biased against them? They wouldn't. Wikipedia naming policy as I noted is about common name first. If there is no common name then a name that best reflects the scope of the event. The latter certainly does not apply to the current title which saw major actions, including one that left 30 dead, outside South Ossetia. The former unquestionably does not apply to the current title because it is used less than any other name floating around. A neutrality objection is the only thing that could be a legitimate reason to resist a change but as Russian sources both private and state-owned use the name that is out of the question. If the name is biased against Russia someone should tell the Russian government to stop using it. Wikipedia policy is clear and the evidence is clear to anyone willing to see it. Some editors on here want to make their own rules and decide which title they want. I for one do not really care, but Russia-Georgia War is clearly the predominant title being used by the mainstream press in Russia and the West, whether you like it or not. Checking multiple variations of the name you find that not a single other title is used more. Let me reiterate the most important part: RUSSIA'S OWN GOVERNMENT-OWNED NEWS USES THE TITLE. Biased my ass.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I come from a neutral perspective, as I am brazilian and my country couldn't care less about russia (positively or negatively). I think wikipedia exists as a bottom top organization, in which everyone has a say in articles and in which the majority should decide what stays and what doesn't. Thats not what happens with the media. Information published in the media is decided on a top-bottom structure, which is necessarily different from the concept of wikipedia, therefore we shouldn't rely on the media to define the name of our articles. We, the users of wikipedia, should rationally discuss over it.

Going through what was a rational discussion at some point, I see no sense in changing the article name. The war was entirely about south ossetia, not russia and georgia, and therefore its name should reflect... South ossetia.

Had there been significant escalation in either russia or georgia, we could call it the russia-georgia war, but considering there wasn't, it makes no sense but to promote some agenda to do it.

We shouldnt partake on it.

Does anyone here want to call the afghanistan war the US-Muslim Extremism war?::::::

Your argument is completely wrong. If this was biased against Russia why would Russia use it? To say the war was entirely about South Ossetia suggests you are either biased or willfully ignorant. Not only did it involve attacks that would in no way serve the fight in South Ossetia, Georgia's navy cannot reach South Ossetia, the tensions that led to war involved both Abkhazia and South Ossetia and many events occurred in Abkhazia that could have just as easily led to war. It was in fact Russia's actions that caused the escalation in tensions that led to the war. Note that Russia sent troops to Abkhazia and invaded undisputed Georgian territory because they claimed Georgia was going to attack Abkhazia. In most wars involving separatist states we have one separatist state, here we have two. To say this was entirely about South Ossetia is to deny Abkhazia's place in the conflict. So what if most of the fighting took place in South Ossetia? Most of the military actions covered places other than South Ossetia, the Georgians just turned tail and fled in those instances.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed title is biased against the Ossetian and Russian people. Not against the Russian Media, not against the Russian Government, but against the Ossetian and Russian people. You cherry picked your sources. RIA News + Russia Georgia War gives under 35,000 Google Hits. RIA News + Ossetia War gives over 70,000 Google Hits. And even if this was not the case, just because a single, or even several news organizations say it does not mean that it is NPOV. Just because a government source says it, does not make it NPOV. So according to your argument, because a single, or several, government sources say it, it must be NPOV, right?

Well an American Supreme Court Justice candidate and Senator, Floyd Burnington, stated (about the African Americans): “I did not say they were monkeys, I said they reminded me of monkeys”. Or the former US Senator, George Allen, stating that an African American was a “Macaca”. That’s an official government source, and it’s unbiased according to your sound logic, since it’s an official government source. Or take Rush Limbaugh, with the “Nappy Headed Hos Comment” – that again according to The Devil’s Advocate is unbiased, I mean hey, a mass media spokesman made it, he’s affiliated with the Republican Party, gotta be NPOV.

According to your logic, if RIA News said it, then it cannot be biased against Russians. So if Fox News said it, it cannot be biased against Americans, right? Because according to this article, you are incorrect: http://www.alternet.org/story/123574/fox_news_is_using_the_obamas_to_perfect_its_racist_attacks_on_black_america

You should stop lying: “Note that Russia sent troops to Abkhazia and invaded undisputed Georgian territory because they claimed Georgia was going to attack Abkhazia.” That is a lie. Abkhazia is considered contested territory, just as any De Facto controlled territory under a De Jure “control” of another country (as Abkhazia was prior to the war) is considered disputed.

“Most of the military actions covered places other than South Ossetia , the Georgians just turned tail and fled in those instances.” That is another lie. If the Georgians just turned and fled, why did the Russians bomb Kodori Valley so intensively? Now you are making up lies to support your argument, while ignoring other arguments that beat your arguments. Why are you doing this?

Wikipedia Rules clearly state: if a title of a military conflict is disputed, it should be named after a location. You sir, are disputing a title that has lasted over a year, despite numerous attempts to change it. Please, for once, just follow Wikipedia’s Rules. Billy Mays Here With OxiClean (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the talk page, User with exactly one edit, which happens to be this longish post. By now I am really interested: Is there some hidden agenda behind pushing the old name? Or is the average talk page editor a lot more nationalistic than RIA? How come that the other name is not problematic for official Russian sources, but as soon as it is suggested a bunch of new accounts pop up, just to dispute it? What is the mystery behind that tooth and nail defense of the South Ossetia war name? I am curious. --Xeeron (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A funny thing was that in response to Devil's Advocate's phrase "The only reason we have not a decision, as I have noted constantly, is that biased editors keep flooding every discussion so that it turns into a decision of no consensus." above I wanted to point out that DA's edits outnumbered all other editors in this particular section. But just a bit later other editors came and indeed flooded this section. (Igny (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Like I noted earlier many of these same users feel strongly that the war was about South Ossetia, specifically Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. The current title makes it about South Ossetia and thus for them makes it about Georgian aggression and Russia defending against that aggression. If you call it Russia-Georgia War it suddenly also becomes about Abkhazia and undisputed Georgian territory on the coast that Russia invaded without provocation. With South Ossetia they can claim Ossetians were massacred, but no such claim can be made about Abkhazia. It is very hard to create the same moral outrage when you include Russia's actions along the coast. Funnily even though some claim changing the title is biased against South Ossetia, Abkhazia is left out when Russia claimed they were also under threat of attack.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate! Hello! It's great to see you! How have you been? I want to thank you for coming into the article and reigniting my interest in editing it. Now for that argument: and undisputed Georgian territory on the coast that Russia invaded without provocation - nope. There was provocation. The army that shot at Russian Peacekeepers was based in undisputed Georgia, that's where they had their bases. One can argue that there was no legal provocation, but there definitely was factual provocation. Shooting someone counts as provocation. Nor are we trying to create moral outrage, as that is not the purpose of the title.

The title must be given based on logic, not on moral outrage. Pathos is certainly important in determining whether a title is POV or not, but that's as far as pathos should go. Let us take a look at the title debates, a year in review:

The war started in South Ossetia on August 7th. By the night of August 8th, it became a major event, and warranted a Wikipedia article. As per Wikipedia naming conventions and common sense, the title given to the article was the "2008 War in South Ossetia", later changed to "2008 South Ossetian War". This was all legitimate, and within Wikipedia's rules. Throughout numerous debates and discussions, editors who just happen to prefer anti-Russian or anti-Communist sources, (every source has a bias,) launched a series of attacks on the legitimately chosen title. Wikipedia rules require that in order for a legitimately chosen title to change, consensus must exist. It's pretty damn clear that here, there is absolutely no consensus.

Indeed, that't the point. Article names are determined by consensus, and there's no consensus over the current title, hence we have to change it. Of course, since the active stage of the war began in the so called South Ossetia, that name applied to the initial name of the article. But after that the things changed. It became evident that Russia was conducting a war not for the so called South Ossetia, but against Georgia - by ground, air and sea. It was an all-out war between Russia and Georgia.

The title of the article must follow WP:NC, and not some title picked long ago, when the war erupted, as you are insisting. If you were right, then why don't we refer to World War II as September_Campaign, and to World War I as Austria-Hungary_Serbia_War?! Well, simply because the sources say so!

So, would you now please try to prove that the current title is the one that is most commonly used in English? Or that it puts the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists? Or if it isn't the case, would you please explain whose interests are you protecting, if not the ones of the English-speaking readers?! Kouber (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you do realize that changing the name won't change the fact that there's no consensus, right? You're arguing that if Side A wants and has something, and Side B wants it, taking it from Side A and giving it to Side B would make both happy. That argument makes no sense. World War I was named after a location, and last time I cheked, the World is a location, but you can feel free to argue otherwice. I actually have the guts to admit that I don't know which title is most commonly used in English, because Google Hits do not determine that, and unless we polled all English speakers, we have no way of knowing. I do know that there is a very vocal group, the same ones who boldly claimed that Iraq has WMDs, have gone on a bashing spree about Russia, calling it the attacker. And against my council the editors of the article actually believed them; this can be evident early on in the article, with Russia placed in the attacker's box and Georgia placed in the defender's box. The trend has now been reversed. A few very loud individuals producing millions of Google Hits, can no more speak for all English speakers, than Rush Limbaugh for all Christians. Just because you are vocal and claim to represent your group, and produce a lot of Google Hits, does not mean that you actually represent the group.

As per WP:NC, I see that you conveniently forgot about #5. Let me remind you: from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NC#Deciding_an_article_name we get the definition, and those are important: Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. So Kouber, can you show me an article where Russia was the defender and named as the attacker? Oh wait, those don't exist. But we do have Afghanistan, First Chechen War, Dagestan, Second Chechen War, heck even Vietnam and Korean War acknowledge that USSR fought in those areas. How about looking at post WWII names of Caucasus Conflicts? Again, I get consistency on my side, and you have no examples.

The other ones are covered by this name. First, it is linked to the Russia-Georgia War, and that title is also introduced in the first paragraph, so it's recognizable. Due to link and redirect it's easy to find. If you Google Russia-Georgia War, it's the very first entry. It's precise, brief and to the point. Qouting again: Most articles will have a simple and obvious name that satisfies most or all of these criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice. Calling a war after the location where most of the fighting took placed is straightforward, as that has been precendence. Naming the defender first would simply confuse the reader. Did "use it as a straightforward choice" suddenly become "start an 11 page archive discussion about it, vote on it, and disregard the vote when it doesn't suit our needs"? Additionally, the ideal title is one that meets all five criteria as per WP:CN. We have that. Why change it?

Do you really want to argue that it's an All Out War? Because an all out war between Russia and Georgia would leave most of Georgia in a rather Vietnamese state, and civilian casualties would not have been 228. Here is the definition of an "All Out War" aka "Total War" http://www.answers.com/topic/total-war. Military conflict in which the contenders mobilize all of their civilian and military resources in order to obtain a complete victory. It is distinguished from the partial commitment of lives and resources in limited war. The Russians did not fully mobilize. Also from the definition: World Wars I and II are usually regarded as total wars. After World War II, especially during the Cold War, the prospect of an all-out nuclear war made the major powers reluctant to engage in full-scale international warfare or allow their client states to do so. So are you sure you want to make that argument here? That this was an "All Out War"? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The title-changers opted to flat out ignore the Wikipedia rules, and started a vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#2008_South_Ossetia_war. Despite immense lobbying by the EEML, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list, and the flashmob vote, the neutral editors unanimously preferred the current title. The reason being is that arguments against the title were weak. The contention that calling it South Ossetia neglects Abkhazia's front was not taken seriously, because the name the Vietnam War neglected the Cambodian and Laotian fronts, where the Marines charging an island took as many casualties as they did on Iwo Jima. As the Afghanistan War expanded into Pakistan, no one pushed for a renaming of the war, and as Wikipedians we must be consistent.

Furthermore the name Russia-Georgia War would neglect Ossetia and Abkhazia entirely, just as much as naming it Ossetian War neglects Abkhazia and undisputed Georgia. However the latter has precedence, see Vietnam and Afghanistan, whereas the former has none. In the event of a tie, we go with the current version, the one that has precedence, as that is the cornerstone on encyclopedic writing.

No one expected the Russians to be this good, this fast. Thus a massive PR campaign was prepared against Russia. Look at the desperation in this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-SdKAXJK6U And yet he is not crazy, he is dead on. Only a well driven PR campaign can cause that desperation. The extreme majority of the articles calling this war the Russia-Georgia War, labeled Russia as the attacker. The initial Wikipedia article had Russia as the attacker too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=230661287&oldid=230661247 There has been a lot of misconception who the attacker is. Today we know that Georgia was the attacker, that has been stated by every sane diplomat and established by the EU Report.

But what the editors who are working hard to change the title are doing, is that through the title they are trying to recreate that old misconception. Just because RIA News said it, or any other Russian media, does not make it NPOV. Just because any media says it, does not give it NPOV immunity. Not all Russians agree with Russian Media, and there have been times when the Russian Media discriminated against Russians. This is the truth of the media in any country. Anywhere. However when you have the extreme majority of Russians tell you that the title is biased, it's biased. No means no.

So for the last time, can we please move on, and actually focus on cleaning up the article? I'll start by setting an example. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The only sources I prefer are reliable sources. Unless you think RIA Novosti is an anti-Russian source then your argument is illogical, the fact you seem to actually be suggesting it is tells me your position is based on delusional bias than an actual good faith position. Also your argument about Georgia attacking from undisputed territory might work for the attack on Gori, but not the attack on the west coast. As for neglecting both separatist states, the term Russia-Georgia can at least encompass both as the battle between Russia and Georgia took place in both. The current title is here because when the war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as long as it was limited to that region I would be fine with that title, but it was not. I am not anti-Russian or pro-Western, I just look at the cold hard facts. The cold hard facts are that the chief feature of this was was the battle between Russia and Georgia, without which South Ossetia would have been overrun in hours. That Russia then expanded the conflict outside South Ossetia means we can not continue treating it like it is a South Ossetia War, it wrongly discriminates to serve biased editors who think the focus should be kept away from everything but South Ossetia. You have made your opinion here and on your user page abundantly clear. You do not think any Western media is reliable, which partly discredits you already, and you have a clear bias towards the Russian position on the cause and justification for war. The fact a bunch of other biased users hold your same position is meaningless. Those neutral editors who actually side with you give no decent reason for keeping it. Any objective editor looking at all of the evidence and rules and considering them intently would side with me, because it is the only logical conclusion. Yours is not a logical conclusion, but one rooted in your personal beliefs about the war.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So unless I think that Fox News is an anti-American source, my argument that Fox News is anti African American is illogical? Can I pay you to make that argument in Harlem? The Georgian forces that attacked South Ossetia were based in Georgia proper, including the west coast. Russia was destroying Georgian military bases everywhere they stood, because those who attacked Russia were based in these bases. It's why it is called a base. Furthermore the title is not a summary of the article. You continuously ignore Ellol's argumentation. The rest of your post is not serious at all. Every single objective editor sided against you. For you, sir, I have a Stephen Colbert quote: "Reality has a liberal bias". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You realize nothing you just said makes any damn sense? Russians are not the African-Americans of Russia and the Russian government, the government that ordered the war, certainly has no reason to be biased against its own position in the war. The only logical reason they would then use Russia-Georgia War is if it was in fact neutral, which was what the admins who reviewed the matter decided was the case, that it was a perfectly neutral title. They decided there was no consensus, but that is because you and a bunch of other incredibly biased editors flood every single discussion precisely to create the appearance of no consensus without the fact of no consensus. Also Georgian forces involved in the attack were not coming out of the west and there was no need for Russia to do anything to them to keep Georgia out of South Ossetia. Anyone thinking clearly knows the attack on the west coast was about Russia going after Georgia itself rather than about South Ossetia. Though, I am curious which "objective editors" you are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is simple: just because a news organization says that it is NPOV, does NOT make it NPOV. I used your exact argument, I just replaced RIA News with Fox News, and Russians with Americans. That's it. Your argument either holds up for all races, or it is a poor, racist argument. And get your facts straight. The 2nd Georgian Brigade was based in Senaki. According to the EU Report the 2nd Georgian Brigade was used to attack Tskhinvali. According to the map, Tskhinvali is East of Senaki. Thus in order to go from Senaki to Tskhinvali, one must go from the west to the east. If Russia wanted to go after Georgia itself, they would have taken Tbilisi. They could have taken Tbilisi, as the Georgian Army was routed, and the city was in a panicky state. Of course this would result in massive civilian casualties, at least thousands, so the Russian wisely decided not to do that. (Total civilian casualties in this war are under 1,000, actually under 800 even if the wildest claims are taken into account.) If Russia wanted to go after Georgia itself, they would retake Adjara. They would destroy all oil pipelines. And remind me again, which admins thought that Russia-Georgia War was NPOV? In the Chronicles of Narnia, the dwarfs cannot get to Heaven, because they refuse to see it. Likewise, you are so committed to your argument, that you are refusing to see the other side. Here is the vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#2008_South_Ossetia_war. If you cannot just look at their edit histories and figure out who the neutral editors are, I cannot help you anymore. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, that argument is completely insane. Fox News isn't owned by the U.S. government and you were talking about the title discriminating against Russia the country. The Russian government, as those who carried out the war, should be against the title if it is biased. To throw racism in for no reason is just ridiculous, aside from the fact Fox is not racist. Also, every admin I know that has reviewed it has declared the title neutral. As I noted regardless of where those units were based there was no need for Russia to invade the coastline as they were perfectly capable of securing South Ossetia without any second invasion. As for neutral editors, I am curious because I want to know who you think is neutral and who isn't. I have a feeling you might make me laugh. The fact you think I am biased already tells me you are a terrible judge of neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RIA News isn't owned by the Russian government. Just like Fox News, aka GOP TV, (GOP = Republicans) RIA News also caters to certain factions in the Russian Government. Personally I think they're not as bad as Republicans, but after electing Bush for two terms and nominating McPalin, you can't really do worse than that. RIA News does not represent all of Russia, nor does RIA News represent all of the Russian Government, nor has RIA News ever claimed they do so. Every Admin you know? You've still to provide any names and/or links. I gave you a direct link, you at least owe me the same courtesy. A truly neutral user would accept the results and move on. A truly neutral editor would not go against Wikipedia's rules which state that consensus is required for the title move. A truly neutral editor would not ignore the massive amount of arguments that you ignored, with the argument that RIA News has twice as many Google hits for Ossetia War as they do for Russia-Georgia War. In this debate, you sir, are not a neutral editor. At least I am honest. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You really have proven your lack of knowledge here. RIA Novosti was created by a decree of the Russian president and is under the authority of the Russian government. It is a state-owned new agency. If you want to see who the admins are then check the talk page of the admin who closed the discussion several months ago. Also, insisting that the rules are being violated by keeping this title does not indicate a bias. It indicates that I understand the rules and want them to be honored. Consensus does not simply mean majority vote, which you seem to be unable to understand, it depends on the quality of the argument and every fact supports a change. Also I did not ignore the argument about Google hits, I checked it and amazingly I got completely different results. I have always checked every argument and I have always found that they fall apart when I check them. That is not ignoring the arguments, but debunking them. I am only biased towards the rules and facts.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My main point is that just because a government faction says it is unbiased, does not make it unbiased. Is everything that Castro's Paper says about Cubans true? Is it NPOV towards all Cubans? Which rules are being violated? Where are the links to administrators agreeing? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not indulging you because I already directed you to that information months ago and I see no need to do it again. As for which rules, this is also something I have repeatedly noted. Also, what Castro says about Cubans is different from what he says about Cuba's actions. We are talking about a Russian government-owned news source using this title and if they consider it neutral there is no reason to think it is biased. The only people here saying it is biased are biased themselves. You are suggesting we keep this title based on your interpretation of the conflict, whereas I consistently note the words of Russia as it concerns the war. The Russian government clearly did not see it as simply about South Ossetia, they clearly said their actions on the coast were to prevent an attack on Abkhazia, meaning there was no direct connection to South Ossetia. Medvedev also clearly said the war was about punishing Georgia, meaning many things did were not in defense of South Ossetia. These are their own words and everything else that occurred suggests your insistence that we focus on South Ossetia is motivated by your own personal bias towards Russia. However, that position is incredibly ironic considering the Russian government does not share the same position.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You cherry picked a source from the Russian Government, declared in NPOV, and despite me repeatedly pointing out that cherry picking a government source is not NPOV, you kept at it, hoping that repetition will hypnotize someone. My interpretation of the conflict? Georgia attacked and Russia overreacted, is my interpretation? Dude, that's reality, it's not an interpretation. Abkhazia and South Ossetia have a defense treaty, and Abkhazia entered that war honoring that defense treaty. That's as direct as it gets. When the Al Qaeda attacked the US, all of NATO went to war with Al Qaeda. It's called a defense treaty and it is a direct connection. Also, during the 2008 South Ossetia War, most of the fighting took place in South Ossetia, but other countries were involved. This is the exact same scenario is Vietnam. We have precedent, we must follow it. You aren't indulging me, because you cannot back up your claim. Which Wikipedia Rules are being violated? Which admins agree with you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You really don't get it. The term Vietnam War is used because it is most used in English-speaking parts of the world not because of some absurd percentage game, even then whenever a conflict outside Vietnam or the conflict in all the countries is mentioned it is always emphasized that Second Indochina War is another name for the conflict. However, your argument has absolutely no strength because South Ossetia War is the least used in English-speaking parts of the world. Saying the battle of Kodori Valley in Abkhazia is part of the South Ossetia War is just absurd to anyone reading it. I am not indulging you because I have already provided you with all the information before.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't understand your arguments, but that may be because I like arguments based on factual evidence. The reason that the term Vietnam War became popular, is because it was the title of the war. Usually first a war is named, and the title becomes popular, not the other way around as you try to argue. People call a war by its title unless you have evidence that concludes otherwise. You see, back in the Vietnam Days, military historians did not have to deal with Google Hits when naming a war, and they could name it after the location, as per the precedence set by the Korean War. Did you know that the Battle of Kursk took place primarily outside of Kursk, and it's still called the Battle of Kursk? My strongest argument, and main argument, was that most of the wars fought after WWII are named after locations. In the Russian case we have First Chechen War, Dagestan War, Second Chechen War. In order to go back to find a war that Russia was involved in, that did not touch De Jure Russian soil, except a military base, you would have to go back to quite some time. In fact, such a title does not exist. Even where there was conflict on Russian soil, you would still have to back way back to 1905, and even then the attacker is named first. So in essence, you have no precedence. My presedence is every single war that Russia/USSR fought in, post-WWII. Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechen, Dagestan, every single one. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the problem with Google Hits, is that they do not represent the majority. It's what massive and powerful media networks call the war. You can pay to have Google Hits produced. The way it works is very simple: most mass-media networks hire bloggers, who blog on the topic assigned to them by the mass media. So you have one article, which is copy-pasted onto 10 blogs, which is then posted on 100 forums. Google can't tell the difference. Tskhinvali has under 300,000 Google hits. How can you discuss the war, without discussing the main battle, the Battle of Tskhinvali? You cannot, unless you are just trying to raise the voting tally. And I believe Berkeley Science Review has no problem calling the Kodori Valley Conflict as a part of the South Ossetia War, nor did the US Congress have a problem calling the bombing of Cambodia as a part of the Vietnam War. http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articleex.php?issue=16&article=features_07_spam HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More Fascinating Facts

I've been reading up on Jane's Magazine, specifically weapons transfers to Georgia. But before that, let me point out a few things:

In 2007 Georgia raised its spending from 200 million to 600 million, in order to "appeal to NATO's standards". This amounted to 4-4.5% of the GDP. At one point in time Georgia's defense spending was a whopping 8% of their GDP. Why such high expenditure, if you are not mobilizing for warfare? Well in order to mobilize for warfare, Saakashvili decided to go shopping.

Purchases from the Czech Republic, (a country wanting a missile shield, what a coincidence!)

26 Dana Howitzers, (Raising Georgia's stock by 26)

70 T-72M, (combined with tanks from Ukraine, it raised Georgia's T-72 tanks from 31 to 192)

4 Grad and 2 RM-70 Grad

Purchases from Ukraine, (another Color Revolutionary, another coincidence!)

7 Mi-24 Helicopters

2 Mi-8 Helicopters

91 T-72AB and T-72B (90 pre-war and 1 post-war/did not take place in war)

12 Akatsiya

5 PION

48 Gecko surface to air missiles

48 9M38 surface to air missiles

At least 6 BUK AA-Guns.

52 BMP-2

15 BMP-1

33 BTR-80

25 BTR-70

Purchases from Poland, (damn, US wants missile shield in Poland too, so many coincidences!)

PZRK Grom launcher 30 and PZRK Grom missiles 100

This is just preliminary data. You need a subscription to Jane's to get that data, but the T-72 stuff is available everywhere. http://www.deagel.com/equipment/Main-Battle-Tanks-Georgia-importer.aspx And the same website also has data on other weapons. I think this data should be included into the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

MDB also published a similar article in 2008: Known Deliveries of Military Equipment to Georgia 2000-2008. Too bad I didn't manage to webarchive it before it became subscription only. Offliner (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that someone made a copy of the article, and placed it on a forum, somewhere. I've seen the T-72 lists on the MDB, they are identical. But Deagel has similar data, readily available, and we can cite it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is also available an extensive list of military equipment that Mr. Saakashvili "bought" from Ukraine prior to the August 2008 conflict.Федоров (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about lead, statements section, and consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=337014913&oldid=336944281 "Unneeded POV stuff out"

Why I think it is important: Very few people know that Russia has a defense treaty with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and that South Ossetia and Abkhazia have a defense treaty with each other. In the edit that I made, I took the title from a BBC Article, where Russia merely said that it will honor its defense treaty with South Ossetia. How is this "unneeded POV stuff"? The ignorance of the average user can be seen in the Devil's Adovocate's post, where he thinks that Abkhazia attacked Georgia to get some land, not in the defense of South Ossetia. I am just trying to place facts into the article, to make it better, to improve it. Abkhazia ended up regaining the Kodori Valley, but that is not why they entered the conflict. If they would not have entered the conflict, they would be viewed as someone who ignores their defensive treaty obligations, and would risk losing the alliance with Russia. A lot more was a stake for Abkhazia, than merely Kodori Valley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=337018042 "We agreed to remove the statements at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Statements_by_politicians_and_analysts_removed please do not readd them)" No, you agreed to remove the section, because it is too long. I have merely added explanations of why Russia responded in the way that it did. Of why South Ossetia responded in the way that it did. Here is what Xeeron, who claims he's not really anti-Russian, wants to hide from the readership of Wikipedia:

(On South Ossetia): "After visiting South Ossetia in September 2008, a Latin American TV Journalist, Raul Fajardo stated: "I am confident that if it had not been for Russia and the courage of the Ossetian soldiers who defended their homeland, mankind would have regretted today the genocide of the Ossetian people, the irretrievable loss of the people with a unique history, traditions and culture"

(On Russia): "External observers frequently miss the point that Russia’s stake in the conflict over the unrecognised republics is much higher that that of Georgia’s entry into NATO or the destabilisation 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. The reaction of the international community to Russia’s war with Georgia, no matter how harsh, could not compare in significance to the implications of a new war in the North Caucasus. Georgia’s attempt to export the ethnic conflict that it created in the early 1990s to Russian territory had to be intercepted at any cost."

I firmly believe that the readership of Wikipedia can handle the truth and should be exposed to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=337018329 "combatants position is more important than NATO's imho, so should go first)"

The move: The reason I arranged the order of the combatants in the section, is because both Georgia and Russia were charged with breaking international law. In a court, or in an encyclopedic article, the defender always gets the last word. In the responsibility section, the Georgians and Russians are responding to charges brought against them, thus they should get the last word. First you have the charges, then you have the responses, that would be logical. Placing the responses before the charges is illogical. I just wanted to make it more reader-friendly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of important statements in this article. The problem is to write the lead as concise as possible. (Igny (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

That's true, but I only inserted Russia's warning in the lead, and I only used BBC's title, I mean you can't be anymore concise than that. The rest of the edits pertain to the responsibility section. If we really wanted to trim the article, we could just create another subarticle for the "Combatants" section, and summarize the analysis and the data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#Combatants.

I am not sure how can you talk about treaties or alliances of Georgia's republics with Russia before recognition of their independence. (But if there were such treaties they would be important enough for the lead). The warnings are not important enough for the lead, Russia and Georgia have been exchanging the warnings since 2004 or so. (Igny (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Russia's job, until the Georgians fired on the JKPF base, was to keep the peace, that is what a peacekeeper does. During the assault on Serbia by NATO, the peacekeepers did not do their job in checking the assault. In this case, the Russians stated that the peacekeepers will be doing their job in checking any aggressive assaults. As such, I believe the statement is warranted. Additionally I used BBC's wording to avoid any POV claims. The introduction is rather short, and one more sentence, that puts things into perspective, is not going to kill the reader. Finally there have been numerous sources claiming that Russia's attack was "surprising". Some of those sources even claimed that Saakashvili didn't commit a blunder. How can a counterattack, on August 8th, be surprising, if on August 5th the Russians informed the Georgians that they will counterattack? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reordering: This is not a court, nor are there any defenders. There are many different opinion and the most important should be mentioned first, not last.

This is an encyclopedia. It makes sense to place the question before the answer. It makes sense to place criticism of Russia before Russia's response. Same with Georgia.

• "Vowing to defend" is not a neutral fact, it is a political statement. We might just as well report that Saakashvili "vowed to protect Georgia from Russian aggression" (note: Irony, we should definitely not include that in the lead)

On August 5th, 2008, Russia stated that it will protect South Ossetia. That is crucial, as it showed what Russia did. There were several sources, amongst them quite a few that you inserted, you know the ones that claimed Russia outnumbered Georgia two to one, had 1,200 tanks, etc. The same exact sources acted "surprised" when Russia counterattacked. However if the reader knew that on August 5th Russia said they were going to counterattack, and on August 8th the Russians counterattacked, suddenly there is no surprise. The edit is from BBC, that's not Russian POV. It discredits your POV sources, so I can see why you are against it. However I see no reason to remove it. All sources should be presented.

• Statements: They were removed with consensus and with good reasons. They were long, bloated the article and especially those you brought back are very one-sided. Instead of countering a pro-russia statement with a pro-georgia one and bloat the article even further, better to remove them both.

No, the section was removed with consensus, not the statements. The section was long and bloated. However the statement that I reintroduced comes from an NPOV source, and does a damn good job describing Russia's reason for the war, in the section that talks about Russia's reason for the war. Just because you don't like it, does not mean that it is POV or biased. The statement is not a pro-Russian source. It is the reason that Russians intervened, that is blatantly obvious to anyone who studied the issue. The post war blasts in Ingushetia and Dagestan would have been much deadlier than they were, had Russia not intervened. This is like saying that white is white. There is no pro-Russian bias here.

Finally, a note on talk page use: You need to discuss your edits on the talk page first, when you revert edits that have previous consensus on the talk page or when you introduce POV material to the lead. And, if you read the edit summary, you will find my explanation, including a link to said consensus on the talk page. I changed the section header to something more truthful and desciptive. --Xeeron (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus for eliminating the section does not give you a card blanche to eliminate every single source from the section. As Wikipedians it is our job to salvage quality material. You cannot use the consensus for eliminating a section, in order to eliminate every single source in that section. I haven't reproduced Kotlyarov now, have I?

Finally a note: what Xeeron is doing, is claiming that every pro-Russian source must be countered by every pro-Georgian source, and any source that helps Russia is a pro-Russian source. This is a neat tactic, used by the Republicans in the campaign against Obama. What happened there was that the Republicans claimed that the media covered 100 gaffes that McCain made, and only 10 gaffes that Obama made, so the media was pro-Obama. However, considering that Obama only made 10 gaffes, and McCain made 200 gaffes, it was a foolish claim. (Number of gaffes has been changed for clarity.) Same exact thing here: Russia performed much more admirable than Georgia in the war. Russia did not try to attack South Ossetia in 2004, did not buy 160 tanks from Ukraine and the Czech Republic, and did not spend a vast amount of their GDP, the largest of any UN member, on the military. Russia made a lot less gaffes in the war than Georgia. Attempting to write the article that says otherwise, is biased. Our job is to write about the war as it happened. If Russia won, that's what we write. If Georgia won, that's what we write. And we don't engage debating tactics requiring that an equal amount of gaffes must be presented for both sides. If one side committed more gaffes, then the article, if objectively written, is going to pro-the side that committed less gaffes. Calling this POV is bullshit. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FluffyPug, would you please clarify which part of Xeeron's reasoning you found, that showed more importance, than placing a credible source, used by pro and anti Russian sources alike, that talked about Russia's responsibility in the responsibility section? Otherwise I will have no choice but to undo your revision. This is a controversial article, and as such, all edits must be defended with logic and reasoning. An NPOV source, that talks about Russia's responsibility, in the responsibility section, should not be discarded. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "It makes sense to place criticism of Russia before Russia's response." Your reasoning is invalid, since we do not have any "criticism of russia" section. The section is called "Responsibility for the war and motives" and it is neither a court case, nor does it have a defendant. It simply presents different views by several entities.

You don't need a section to state that white is white. What is this? the invasion of Georgia by Russian armed forces reaching far beyond the administrative boundary of South Ossetia", and is considered to be "beyond the reasonable limits of defence". With respect to the war's second theater, the report found the Abkhaz/Russian attack on the Kodori Gorge was not justified under international law. And the response: Defending Russia's decision to launch attacks on uncontested Georgia, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that Russia had no choice but to target the military infrastructure being used to sustain the Georgian offensive. Looks like criticism of Russia, and response to criticism. And I also did the same for Georgia and South Ossetia, so I don't see how that makes me biased. Once again, you place criticism, than response, question, than answer. 72.245.7.67 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Just because you don't like it, does not mean that it is POV or biased." I know that it is easier to argue against made up stories of what I supposedly did, than to stick to the point. Makes for good bashing of others. Just a pity that I never mentioned POV when removing that section. And why should I? There is a clear consensus here to remove it, and that is not based on POV reasoning.

The consensus was to remove the section, not to ban every single piece of information in the section from entering the article, or from being reused. I have stated that several times now, and you continue to ignore it.

• "what Xeeron is doing, is claiming that every pro-Russian source must be countered by every pro-Georgian source, and any source that helps Russia is a pro-Russian source" What you are doing is making up lies. I did not make that claim.

You need to discuss your edits on the talk page first, when you revert edits that have previous consensus on the talk page or when you introduce POV material to the lead. Look familiar? Since when is the MDB "POV material"? You didn't state it directly, but you clearly implied it.

And about the Obama rant at the end: If you insist on using wikipedia to vent your political anger, please do so on your user page. I am not interested in Obama gaffes, nor would I trust you as a source for the relative number of Obama gaffes, nor is that relevant for this article. --Xeeron (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was exposing a tactic used and needed to use Obama and McCain as an analogy. It was an analogy, nothing more. It is similar when I say that I don't have to prove that white is white. That too is an analogy, as we both know that this article isn't about the color white. I also stated that I changed the number of gaffes for the purpose of this being an analogy. It wasn't a rant, it was an analogy, I am sorry that you missed that.

And don't mess with my edits. I am responding to you point by point. I am not "posting in the middle of your post", you are addressing semi-related points. Responding point by point makes it easier on the reader. Having to requote your entire post, as I am responding to them in their entirety, rather than chosen snippets as you are doing, would be repetitive, and if your argument is pure, you don't need to use the repetition tactic either. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior and 72.245.7.67, please stop placing your replies in the middle of my comment. It results in unattributed comments, where it is no longer clear which editor wrote which part (as you can see in this old version, it is not clear who wrote the part in bold). Interruptions are only allowed for "short comments" to a "long contribution". Given that your comment was longer than my contribution, that hardly applies. Furthermore, it needs to be attributed with {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}}. --Xeeron (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As reply to your points: Consensus was to remove the entire section, not removing the entire section less some comments you like a lot. And, again, you make up lies. You did not add MDB to the lead and I did not call MDB POV, neither explicitely nor implicitely, I did not talk about bias of MDB at all. You added MDB to the statements section and I called that inclusion what it is: Against consensus. --Xeeron (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So in essence, you are arguing that because I inserted the MDB quote in the wrong section, it should be deleted, because the entire section was deleted? As far as I remember, Offliner shaped the consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Statements_by_politicians_and_analysts_removed, and the rest of you just agreed to it, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. So if I e-mail Offliner, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Offliner, and ask him about whether the consensus was to remove the entire section, but be able to reuse useful information from that section, if it is relevant in another section, or to ban all information in that section from our article, will you accept his decision? Because from the language of the consensus, it seems that Offliner shaped it, and you all simply agreed; so wouldn't it be best to ask Offliner what Offliner meant and accept his consensus? We all have his e-mail, I linked it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it, by your silence, that you are ok with Offliner having the final word on the matter, since he engineered your consensus. If there are no more objections, I shall e-mail him. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to email him, but he didnt "engineer" anything. He simply removed the section and all others agreed with his action. --Xeeron (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Offliner has no problem with the quote being placed in the article. Furthermore, the whole theory of banning material from the article, just because it was in the wrong section, and wasn't timely moved to the correct section, is rather poor. So are you going to let me place the quote in the article? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That quote was removed for good reasons, those reasons have not changed, and so I am still opposed to including it (and all those other parts that were also removed as well). You are free to look up the lengthy discussions about that section in the archives to find out more. --Xeeron (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles here. Once again, removal of a section, does not ban any material from that section from being added into the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reordering of statements section

Almost forgot about that one: I was waiting on HistoricWarrior to be able to edit here regarding another issue. Since now you are, please give good reasons why you reordered the statements section. I am not convinced by the statements given above and I will revert back to the old order unless you can give compelling arguments for the new order. --Xeeron (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Common sense. It makes sense to first show criticism of Georgia, Russia and Ossetia, and then post how these countries responded. It makes no sense to first post the responses to criticism, and then the criticism itself. When I stated this earlier, I thought the issue was settled. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

From an earlier discussion, in this very section:

Xeeron: Reordering: This is not a court, nor are there any defenders. There are many different opinion and the most important should be mentioned first, not last.

Me: This is an encyclopedia. It makes sense to place the question before the answer. It makes sense to place criticism of Russia before Russia's response. Same with Georgia.

HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not settles, rather the discussion got interrupted by you being banned. I don't see see the section being names criticism of Russia nor Georgia, nor do I see anything that would warrant the header "response by Russia/Georgia to criticism". And common sense tells me to put the two competing views first, before hearing the verdict by neutral outsiders. I'll go back to the previous order. --Xeeron (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am begining to see a trend. You ignore my points, you and FluffyPug undo my edits, and when I require YOUR revisions to be discussed and undo them, FutPerf comes in and bans me. Good tactic. You give me no choice but to RfC this whole thing, and please don't revert while it's under RfC. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't you drag me into this. I don't agree with your version of things, but I haven't edited the page in close to a month (and don't intend to, given that reasonable debate has ceased in regards to this subject). I had even expressed regret that you had gotten a block applied to you, welcomed you back to Wikipedia, and stated that I hoped the argument that was raging on this page could be resolved amicably! Quite frankly, I'm pretty offended by your last statement. FluffyPug (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the truth. You knew the talkpage template, you edited anyways, without discussing your edits. All you were doing is revert-warring on Xeeron's behalf: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=337591907&oldid=337514605 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=337965378&oldid=337940761 And you've accused me of yelling at you, which isn't something that I've ever done. When I pointed this out, you simply deleted my statements on your talkpage, which is also illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFluffyPug&action=historysubmit&diff=337972598&oldid=337690784 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFluffyPug&action=historysubmit&diff=337991601&oldid=337972598 I am sorry if it offends you in any way, but if Xeeron and FutPerf are going to try to prevent me from effectively editing the article, and you seem to be helping them, I will fight back. Your contribution log, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FluffyPug, lists this as the only military history article you are editing. And you're still not discussing your edits, as the above edit, is your only edit on the talkpage of this article, (as of this date, you will probably add more later). HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This exemplifies what people have gone through trying to discuss things rationally with you. Number 1- You've lied about "discussing my edits". That's completely not true- my edits WERE discussed in my edit summaries; just because I'm not very good at arguing and feel like Xeeron and others have already eloquently stated his case doesn't give you license to attack me and/or simply revert me as well. "Still not discussing my edits" is a lie, as I stated earlier, I haven't edited the article in close to a month after the initial edits I made, so that's another falsehood on your part. Furthermore, your attitude- your refusal to assume good faith, plus your vow to "fight onward" leads to a greater understanding of how you got yourself blocked in the first place. As I've stated- I intend to have no part in your little fight, so leave me out of it. FluffyPug (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to defame me. It's not going to work. You made your edits AFTER I countered Xeeron's point. You arguments, "RV as per Xeeron" aren't arguments. Nor discussions. Nor do they fit the template of the article. By still not discussing your edits, I meant that you still haven't explained why you prefer Xeeron's to mine, aside from comments, like "it's just better". Instead of explaining, as you should have done in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Issue_.231:_Inclusion_of_a_quote_from_an_NPOV_source, you proceed to attempt to defame me, and act which, if successful, would certainly benefit Xeeron. I assumed good faith initially, I even asked you to discuss your reversion, but you chose to simply make another reversion instead. For someone who wishes to have no part in this, you're mounting quite an Ad Hominem attack on me. Please stop. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fighting for my right to edit, as this is being cleverly taken away from me. I believe every Wikipedian has a duty to fight for his right to edit, unless ArbCom says otherwise. It's also why we have appeals, RfC's, and a multitude of checks and balances in Wikipedia. If I am blocked because I am fighting for my right to edit Wikipedia, then who's next? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Defame" you? Simply rebutting your accusation isn't "defaming" anyone. I've simply defended the paltry two edits I made to the page, and pointed out quite plainly that, despite your failed rebuttal of Xeeron, your arguments were completely unconvincing, hence why it was clearly stated in the edit summaries. Just because YOU don't feel satisfied with it is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, accusing people of bringing "terror" to an article is the farthest thing from assuming good faith that I can think of. Continuing, I've never made an "ad Hominem" attack, I'm simply rebutting your unwarranted accusations. So YOU "stop". If you want to "fight" about something, again, leave me out of it, because (as I clearly stated in my "welcome back to wikipedia message I had left you earlier), I have no interest in "fighting" about anything. FluffyPug (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the link I provided? I am NOT fighting you. All I did, was point out that you undid my edits, without discussing them. Then you went on a defamation string. The whole previous post is an Ad Hominem attack against me. You aren't rebutting any of my accusation. Once again, here is an accusation I made against you, let's go through it, step by step:

I provided proof via five links, you misquoted me. The template at the top of the discussion page, provides that one must first discuss edits, prior to making them. In this very section, I have provided links, that you did not do that. I additionally provided links with you doing nothing, except edit-warring to help Xeeron, twice. And I never accused people of bringing terror. I accused a single administrator of it, and if you want, I can provide additional links to back it up. Instead of responding to the Issues, Issue #1 and Issue #2, you are trying to make this personal, without providing any proof, and accusing me of something I did not do, such as "accusing people of bringing terror to an article". So to repeat: argue against my arguments, don't bash me, and we will all get along. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The only "proof" you've provided is a distinct inability to deal civilly with other other editors, usage of excessive hyperbole, accusing people (admins ARE people, FYI) of bringing terror. By the way, using two edits in a monthlong span to civilly put the page to a state that someone else eloquently explained isn't "edit warring"- what YOU have been doing, on the other hand, most certainly is. This is why you were blocked, and I must say, I can see why you were now. You have no interest in "getting along", you simply wish to eliminate the influence of an editor you perceive as having a difference of opinion. Just so you know, levelling accusations of "bringing terror" at an admin is a personal attack, which goes against Wikipedia's policies and can lead to a block. FluffyPug (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More Ad Hominems? Instead of debating the issues, you accuse me of incivility while pushing for me to be blocked. All I want to do is dicuss the issues, edit the article, and not have to face Ad Hominems every step of the way. And didn't you disagree with the block? Just wanted to welcome you back to Wikipedia since your block has ended. I didn't think you should have been blocked in the first place, honestly- I may have a disagreement with an edit you make, content-wise, but you're still a good editor. So hopefully we can all pull up our bootstraps and work together again. Happy editing! FluffyPug (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC) What changed? I accused you of something you did? You have two reverts, to this article, both supporting Xeeron, without any posts on the talkpage in regards to those edits. You have never edited a military article before. Furthermore, a single administrator is a single person, and would not qualify as people. And I cited the section. I want to get along, this is why I am repeatedly asking you to make counter-arguments against the issues that I presented, but you continue to level Ad Hominems against me instead. Here are some quotes about said Administrator:

Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And this admin basically warns us all to leave his internets, or he would block everybody around. Cool.FeelSunny (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier. And Xeeron is correct, in my opinion. "The main issue at hand is improving the civility of the talk page discussions such that the talk page becomes an avenue of improving the article again." Full page protections, blocking editors, etc. are unnecessary as there is little evidence that either revert- or edit-warring is occurring. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The worst articles on wikipedia are those of controversial subjects in which like-minded editors have free reign. Have you actually taken a look at some of the articles the people on that mailing list edited that didn't get any opposition?LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But I see that you did not come to discuss issues with me, nor to explain what I am doing wrong, but merely to level reapeated Ad Hominems against me, in hopes that I get banned. Once again - argue against the issues, and stop repeating your Ad Hominems. Repetition won't make them stick. So please, stop it with the Ad Hominems and counter my issues instead. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)