Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Anti-Georgian Bias

I've noticed that the photos are extremely anti-Georgian. They constantly depict Georgian forces as bombing schools, civilians, and "neutral forces" as well as knocked out Georgian tanks and retreating forces. these photos are very negative and only target Georgia, I think we should have more natural photos or show both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.186.249 (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Georgia began the night barrage rocket attack against Tsinkhvali in order to bring its own declared citizens to heel that initiated the major armed conflict of August 2008 it is no surprising that the photos should appear anti-Goergian.Федоров (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the bias in the images presented, as every single "anti-Georgian" image is countered by an "anti-Russian" image. 3 burned buildings in Tskhinval(i) are countered by 3 burned buildings in Gori. Both Ossetian and Georgian refugees are shown. Saakashvili=Hitler is countered by Putin=Imperialist. I don't see mass bias. As per the Georgian burned tank, that's because the Russians won a major victory, so there are going to be images of burned equiptment of the army that started the war and lost. If Russians started the war and lost, we'd see a burned Russian tank. I must also respectfully disagree with Federov, as I believe that the images are fair, and don't reflect either side's POV. The winner is presented as the winner...HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We have worked on these photos during a major edit war period in the article. Even then, the pictures were a result of a consensus of many editors with different views. E.g. we have stripped the article of the pictures of corpses, and took off the most appaling photos there were, made shure we do not mention ethnicity of refugees, for they are all just civilians caught in the war. And we have added a counter-picture for every image you may find biased. President for president, house for house, etc. The problem is that, judging by your IP, you might be used to see only the images that are transmitted by the Western media. They are massively pro-Georgian, be sure about it. Here you see a result of a cooperation of users from many countries, and it differs from what you might be used to see.FeelSunny (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

CASUALTIES !!!!

SOURCE: [1]

Please fix it !

Also, please review the Bombing and Occupation of Gori section. Especially pictures in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.172.242 (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we already discussed this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Anti-Georgian_Bias. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Discussion of the Responsibility Section

There are two issues here:

Issue #1: Inclusion of a quote from an NPOV source

Facts: The Moscow Defense Breif is considered an NPOV source for the article. It has been cited 32 times, more than any other source. The next source has only been cited 12 times. The MDB was cited by both sides, for any issues arising in the article, including the order of battle, analysis of combat, and analysis of events. We used to have a section where independent analysts stated their viewpoints, but Offliner cut the section down because the article was too large. However, I do not believe that cutting out a section, because the article was too large invalidates the useful material in that section from beign reused. I've e-mailed Offliner on this matter, and he agrees with me. The perfect place for the quote is in this section, because it describes what Russia did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#Combatants_Positions

And here is the quote itself: 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.

When I tried to point this out on the talkpage, arguing that removal of a whole section because it was too large did not invalidate any material from being reused, Xeeron stuck to his arguments and undid my edits, FluffyPug, who never edited prior to this, supported Xeeron and undid my edits, without discussing any of it, and when I undid FluffyPug's edits, Adminstrator FutPerf went ahead and banned me for a week for "deliberate slow edit warring" even though I was discussing my edits, and FluffyPug wasn't, as is required by the template: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information."

Should the quote listed above be included, or should we set the prescedent that all material in the section that was removed, just because it was being too large, is banned from the article?

Issue #2: Order of the Responsibility Section

There are two sub issues here. First, are statements like these, The Report stated that Georgia started the war "with a massive Georgian artillery attack...against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008" and that the Russian response was disproportionate criticism? Second, should criticism go before or after the response to criticism?

There are two conflicting views here. I believe that statements like the ones listed below, constitute criticism, while Xeeron disagrees with me. In his own words: 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) If mere labels are the problem, I have no problem with adding them. Is the following criticism?

The officials treated the exchanges of fire in the preceding days as minor events and did not see them as a justification for Georgian war preparations. The NATO experts however did not question the Georgian claim that the Russians had provoked them by sending their troops through the Roki Tunnel. But their evaluation of the facts was dominated by skepticism that these were the true reasons for Saakashvili's actions.

According to Grist, it was Georgia that launched the first military strikes against Tskhinvali. "It was clear to me that the [Georgian] attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” he said.

The Report stated that Georgia started the war "with a massive Georgian artillery attack...against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008" and that the Russian response was disproportionate.

It denied Georgia's rationale of starting the war as an act in self-defence against Russian aggression. The Report further claimed that Russian citizenship, conferred to the vast part of Abkhaz and Ossetians may not be considered legally binding under international law. As a result, the interests of these people may not be used as a reason for starting military actions, in defense of Russian citizens living abroad.

Is this a response to criticism?

Georgia first claimed that its attack was a response to Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages, and that the aim of the attack was to "restore constitutional order" in South Ossetia.[133] Later, Saakashvili said the aim of the Georgian attack was to counter a Russian invasion.

Russia says it acted to defend Russian citizens in South Ossetia, and its own peacekeepers stationed there.

South Ossetia said that it called for Russian help once the Georgian bombardment of their capital city, Tskhinvali, started, in order to prevent genocide and was relieved when the 58th Army intervened to assist against, what Ossetians called "the most frightful fire".

Should the response to criticism go before, or after the criticism?

In case you are wondering why I am even including this into the RfC, the reason is simple. Xeeron will ignore my comments, and undo my edits, FluffyPug will undo my edits without posting, and FutPerf, whose actions in this article can be best described by the following section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring, will simply ban me. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

See my earlier response to your post. Your portrayal of me is both incorrect, and quite frankly, unfair. Considering that I warmly welcomed you back to Wiki after your block, I'm rather stunned that you would level such accusations (especially since they're not even close to being true). FluffyPug (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The evidence I have presented above, shows that you only edited one military article, where you made two edits, both reversions of my edits, while completely ignoring my posts on the discussion page, and reverting in favor of Xeeron, without discussing your edits. I'm sorry, I don't want it to be true either, but I cannot deny it being true. Here is a restatement of my earlier comment:

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. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Issue 1

The responsibility section had been too large for a long time, mainly due to the inclusion of material favoring one POV by proponents of both sides. In the light of numerous previous discussions (which point out how those statements are too long for the article and lead to a tit-for-tat inclusion of ever more statements) a very clear consensus was reached to remove the statements by analysts. That consensus is unchanged, with HistoricWarrior being the only editor arguing to change the adopted stance. --Xeeron (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Issue 2

There is a pretty clear ordering that is used almost universally in such cases: First present the competing sides, afterwards present the neutral conclusion. That is how basic essays are written, how newspaper articles work, how in a court, defence and prosecution give their points first and the verdict of the court comes only afterwards. And that is how encyclopedia articles should be set up as well.

Given that there are 2 competing claims (Georgia's and Russia's) and (several) outside opinions on those two claims, that structure is the one that fits for this section as well. --Xeeron (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Issue 1. No. Moscow Defense Brief is not an independent source, and it is not a reliable source. The article is already too big.Biophys (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Issue 2. The Responsibility section should be significantly shorter since we have a separate article about this. Let's leave only positions of combatants and the final conclusion by EU commission. There were only two combatants: Russia and Georgia. Let's keep only positions of combatants and remove criticism of positions. I can do it. Would that be OK? Biophys (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange, but both biophys agruments seem to be completely POVed. How come?:) Seriously, why on Earth is MDB not reliable? Is Bph living on another planet, where they use word "reliable" in a meaning "the one I like"? Why should we beleive Abkhazia and South Ossetia were Georgians? Were they Georgians fighting with Georgians? A civil war? Bullshit, and any citizen of those nations would say you the same. And of course they are not Russians, not de facto, nor de jure. So by no means there were only two combatants. Say that to those paramilitaries in Tskinval who defended their city for two days with rifles against tanks and artillery. Say them there was no South Ossetians as a side of conflict. FeelSunny (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, if you don't think the MDB is reliable, please explain why, because clearly you see something that all editors in this article failed to see in over a year. Please, enlighten us! Issue #2 No, it's not ok to remove criticism that you don't like. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, I am arguing for the inclusion of a single quote, which Offliner, whom I e-mailed about this issue, agrees with on. Not the whole section, but a single quote. Furthermore, I feel you are rather unfair towards me, claiming that I am the only editor, as that's not the case, and you knew it, as per this quote of February 3rd: 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) Issue #2: In a court, both parties agreed to subject themselves to a court's ruling. I don't recall Russia subjecting itself to the EU Report. The above, which you mistakenly portray as a court verdict, is mere criticism, which should go before the response to said criticism, as per logic and common sense. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any comment by Offliner indicating that he changed his mind. Whether you claim to have private correspondence with him is not really of any interest to me.

Issue 2: Whether parties agree to subject themselves to a court's ruling (or more appropriate here: An outside report) has no bearing on the court. From Goering to Milosevic to any number of petty criminals, the list of people not subjecting themselves to a court's ruling is long. That disagreement never stopped courts from ruling. And never stopped outsiders from commenting either. --Xeeron (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should e-mail Offliner, Xeeron. You can do with ease, if you don't believe me. As per Issue #2: first off, don't compare Nazis where they shouldn't be compared and violate Godwin's Law. Second, Nazi Germany was conquered, and Serbia was bombed into submission by NATO. Finally, you are comparing a person to a country, which is like comparing apples to oranges. And outsiders can comment, but it would make sense to let outsiders comment first, and let the involved parties respond, wouldn't it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Offliner should not have broken wiki policy and gotten himself banned, then he could join the debate here on the talk page. And, no, it does not make sense to put the outsiders evaluation before the statements by the 2 opponents in the war. --Xeeron (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation? I'm sorry, sounds like criticism to me. "You started this war!" "You went too far!" Yeah, definetely criticism, definetely not evaluation. It's funny though: first you claim consensus, which you wouldn't have gotten without Offliner, but when you are afraid that Offliner will no longer support you, you instantly claim that he's banned. In your so-called consensus, the only person making the argument is Offliner. The rest of you are just going "Good job!" and "+1", as if it's Youtube. So when I offer you to do the chivalrous thing and ask Offliner what he meant in the quote, that you used to claim consensus, you instantly claim that he's banned. I'm speechless. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of RV

The reason for Obama's statement is to update the US' International Reaction to the war. Otherwise, it looks like the US and Russia are still in a Cold War, which leaves the reader with a wrong impression. Our article must be up to date, not have 15 month old information masquerading as truth. Why would Obama call for a "reset" if the relations were fine and dandy? Also, undoing something that was the concensus for ages, to falsely imply Cold War rhetoric, as well as implying that Obama has no problem with Bush's stance, that's just, beyond words. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"falsely imply Cold War rhetoric". Haha, nice twist. Should I say nice unwarranted accusation? How does one falsely imply Cold War rhetoric by removing a statement that was made months after the war and not altering anything said during the war? Don't bother answering, that is a rhetoric question. What you should do, however, is backing up your claim that Obama has problems with Bush's stance on the war. Preferably by some sources, not your own elaborations on the talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama called for a reset of relations from the previous administration. That means a clean start. Why would you call for a clean start, if the previous guy before you didn't mess up? Russia didn't change leadership. You could have just read the linked article, and I qoute: A U.S. missile defense base has been planned at this shuttered base in Redzikowo, Poland. The Obama administration has signaled a willingness to reconsider the project. And Obama scrapped it. So according to you, Obama's logic is something like this: "I have no problems with Bush's policy, so I am going to scrap Bush's missile shield, and reset relationship with Russia". Sorry, that makes no sense. As per your edit, it was strategically done: you first edited Bush's suggested actions, reminiscent of the Cold War, and then you followed up by deleting Obama's qoute, falsely implying that the Cold War rhetoric is still there. Coming from a person who did his best to retain Cold Warrior Svante Cornell, in this very article, despite glaring errors in Svante Cornell's report...

If you have a statement that says "Bush used Cold War rhetoric, and Obama pulled a 180" and you remove the "Obama pulled a 180" part, how are you not implying Cold War rhetoric? And while Obama's statement did not alter Bush's, Obama is in power, not Bush, or his "Iraq haz WMDs let's invade!" gang, and it is Obama's stance that counts. So it is crucial for the reader to understand what Obama thinks about Russia, and about the war, as Obama is currently the US President. Considering that Obama wanted to "reset" Bush's actions on all fronts towards Russia, (his words, not mine,) that implies that Obama wanted to "reset" Bush's actions on the Caucasus Front towards Russia, which also includes resetting the policy about the 2008 South Ossetia War. Instead of saying "Bush's policy was wrong about Iraq, and about Russia, and about the economy", Obama simply said that "Bush's policy was wrong". That implies that it was wrong about Iraq, Russia, the economy, etc. That also, directly implies that Obama disagreed with Bush, on Russia, and on this war. It's not complicated, just clicky linky: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29478806/

Some more quotes for you: The new president also said it is time for the U.S. to "reset or reboot" its relationship with Russia, a nod to the increasingly tense relations of recent years. Obama disputed a published report that said he characterized his letter as "quid pro quo" with Russia, which has opposed the missile defense system. He said it was simply "a statement of fact." The president said he wants a constructive U.S.-Russia relationship "based on common respect and mutual interests." Medvedev said that Russia was encouraged by Obama's administration's readiness to discuss Moscow's complaints. Also, total money promised by Bush Administration to Saakashvili: $1,000,000,000 Total money promised by Obama Administration to Saakashvili: $0. If you want, I can find you some qoutes from Obama during the war, and rest assured, they differed from the Bush/McPalin club quite a bit, especially Obama's quotes after he was made aware of the situation. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see an article mainly concerned with the missile defenses in Poland (not really all that related to the war), which is not the source I asked for, and a wall-of-text rant (with tons of questionable assertions). However, not a single source about Obama's stance towards the war, nor any source backing up your absurd claim that Obama pulled a 180 on the war.

You should also note that this is not Russia – United States relations. This article here deals with one particular event in time, not the future history of US relations towards Russia. --Xeeron (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the article is calling for reset on all fronts, which includes the Caucasus Front, which is exactly what the quote is about. Here is the quote: However President Barack Obama stated: "it is time for the U.S. to reset its relationship with Russia". The president said he wants a constructive U.S.-Russia relationship based on common respect and mutual interests.[304]. It is 100% relevant, as all fronts, and a relationship based on common respect and mutual interest, would include upholding the status quo in the Caucasus, (otherwise it wouldn't be mutual interests,) which is the opposite of Bush's policy. Mutual Interests mean that US won't be launching air strikes against Russia; it's not that difficult to understand. No way in hell is this "mutual interests and common respect" Bush’s national security team discussed launching air strikes on the Roki Tunnel. "Hi there, I respect your country, so I am air striking it!" Really Xeeron? And air strikes do not uphold the status quo last time I checked. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever Obama said long after the war about US-Russia relations belongs to Russia – United States relations. Quite simple.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If Obama says something about the war, even implicitely, it belongs here, as he is the president of the US, right? It's under the US section. McCain's reelection would mean no turn from Bush's Cold War attempt to surround Russia with "Color Revolutions", whereas Obama's election is a direction in change. What was his motto again? "Change We Can Believe In?" If US's policy towards Russia changes, this should be pointed out, everywhere where it is relevant. If Obama wants to reset relations with Russia based on mutual interests and common respect, that should be included; it's rather simple. And Biophys, are you ever going to explain why MDB is not a reliable source? Aren't you going to back up that claim of yours? If you would like, I can ask. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And if Palin is elected and changes policy in 2 years? And then Clinton is elected and changes again in 6 years? And someone else in 10 years? This article is about the war and the US policy at that time, not all future interactions between the US and Russia.

Regarding MDB, Biophysis has his work done for him by yourself. Your own post shows why MDB can not be seen as neutral. Quote: "In fact, Russia's Gov't. withheld the publishing date of Lavrov's article, until all the problems were remedied." --Xeeron (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm yeah, it would be logical for a government to not publish criticisms of its military forces' weaknesses, until those weaknesses are remedied, if they are in the process of being remedied. The Russian Gov't. can withhold a publication of a neutral article, as well as a foreign article, if the publication threatens Russia's Security. An article saying "we had no quality army-air force coordination" isn't going to be published, until the coordinations drastically improves. But can you do me a favor? Explain how exactly the MDB, which was written by Barabanov and published right after the war, is not credible? The article by Lavrov was withheld, not the one by Barabanov. I think you got the author's mixed up, unless of course you can provide another explanation, which I am sure you can, right?

And if someone else is elected, we will change it. It's called updating the article, a very simple concept Xeeron. It is important to know what the US head of state thinks, when talking about Russia. When Bush says "Cold War is back, plan a bombing campaign of Roki Tunnel", and Obama says "Reset to normal relations with Russia" - that means that the Roki Tunnel, which is very relevant to the article, won't get bombed. The Obama quote applies to all aspects of US Russia policy, including this war. And not everyone in the US was gung ho about invading Russia at the time, as Bush was, so please Xeeron, stop misleading the readers. I know that not confusing the heads of state or authors is tricky, but the current president is Barack Hussien Obama, not George Walker Bush. And Obama was analyzing the war as a senator, and now that he's president, it's crucial to know what he believes. It wasn't like Obama was a Joe Blow at the time of the conflict, he was a US senator.HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgian Su-25s

The Russians claim they shut downed and/or destroyed 3 Georgian Su-25 , any informations about they achieved this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

new addition to airforce evaluation

The recent addition has several points that need to be revised:

1. The citation is not directly pointing to the source used
2. 2 citations for the same source
3. Much to long, no need to go into detail and name individual pilots, nor individual bombing runs
4. losses need to be moved to the losses section
5. Calling destruction of a bomber "tragic" shows POV and should be avoided (I am sure that the downing of a Russian bomber was far from tragic for those who had otherwise been bombed). We need to not take sides, apart from stating that all deaths in war are tragic in general.

If you correct point 1, I can do the rest myself, but I want to give you a chance to revise it yourself first. --Xeeron (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I will try and fix it, but should I miss it, I am sure someone can manage that daunting task, as it linked to the only clickable book.

I cite my paragraphs, and the source is 144 pages long, so instead of of cluttering up the citations, by saying source X p.1 and source X p.51, in an already long article, I just cited the article, twice. I can site the same article, several times with page numbers, if you want.

The only bombing run named as the Tu-22M bombing run. Considering that the loss of a strategic bomber shocked pretty much everyone, I felt I need to go into detail, solely about that bombing run. I did not go into details on any other bombings runs. The names are mentioned to show credibility, that I didn't just make it up. If you want, we can create another sub-article, about air warfare, and I'll place the names there instead, but they should be placed somewhere.

I thought a summary would be nice, but whatever. Additionally, it is crucial to point out that, aside from the T-22M, the Russians only lost 2 skilled pilots. Russia doesn't care about the planes they lose; Lt. Col. Kolybash was back in action on another Su-25. The loss of a skilled pilot hurts, but the loss of a plane - not really. That goes for Russia, US, Italy, any country with first World military units.

Tragic death referred to the manner in which the bomber was shot down, i.e. instead of being at 16,000 meters, it descended to 4,000 meters, and was killed, because it was not doing what it was assigned to do. In military terms, that's called a tragic death, irrespective of who shot it down. If it was shot down at 16,000 meters, I would not call it a tragic death. My apologies for trying to use military terminology in a military article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting No1, I'll deal with the other points then. If you think a subarticle with the long version is needed, feel free to create it. --Xeeron (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing was sloppy, and you turned facts into opinions. First to the sloppiness part. 2 Su-24s were shot down, not 4, and no one claimed that. And a Tu-22M has 4 pilots, not 3. You completely ignored the important part about the pilots being lost as the meat of the additions, and instead turned it into a disagreement between Lavrov and the MDB, which is very difficult, because they both work with CAST, and Lavrov was simply updating MDB's data. It's not Lavrov's opinion that Georgians didn't get any Su-25s, that's a fact. As for adequate and admirable, that's an opinion, the part that you kept, and the part that mattered least. Readers care about facts, not opinions. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Very funny that you would accuse me of sloppy editing, when you introduced those numbers into the article. I merely copy and pasted them to a different section. Of course, I admit that it was a mistake by me to trust your addition without looking the numbers up myself. --Xeeron (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Georgians shot down 2 Su-24s, one on August 9th, another on August 11th. I went into detail about every plane lost. This is why we actually post facts, detailed facts. The 4 was a typo on my part. Deleting the correct facts, and copying the typo was sloppy editing. And it's funny how you quickly upped the Russian casualties, Russia claimed 3 Su-25s and 1 Tu-22M, you upped it to 6 Su-25s, 2 Su-24s and 1 Tu-22M, as per Lavrov's facts, but when it came to explaining the losses, you went ahead and claimed: back to short version. As long as there are different claims (notably from the Russian government), this is Lavrov's opinion and not a fact. If you love Russia's Government claims so much, why did you try to reinsert Svante Cornell's claims earlier. Or Pavel Felgenhauer's 1,200 tanks theory, whereas US satellites captured only 150 tanks. Seems like you are just picking and choosing, and not really applying the same standard everywhere. And just so you know, Lavrov's claims were shown to Russia's Gov't, and acknowledged by Russia's Gov't. In fact, Russia's Gov't. withheld the publishing date of Lavrov's article, until all the problems were remedied. Lavrov's sources are in the Russian Air Force, which has the best factual information about the Russian Air Force. Is it ok if I trust the Russian Air Force's facts about the Russian Air Force? Or are you claiming that the Russian Air Force isn't part of Russia's Gov't? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go "detail about every plane lost", do it at Evaluation of the Russian forces performance during the 2008 South Ossetia war or whatever subarticle you prefer. The main article here has no place for such details. --Xeeron (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Lavrov, Russia lost 9 planes. According to Barabanov, Russia lost 6 planes. Here Lavrov's data, that Russia lost 9 planes, would be more detrimental to Russia, than Barabanov's claim that Russia lost 6 planes. The more planes Russia lost, the worst it is for Russia. Thus, in the losses column, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#Equipment_losses_and_cost, Lavrov's fact is more detrimental to Russia.

However in the analysis column, Barabanov's analysis is more detrimental to Russia, than Lavrov's. A consistent, NPOV editor would go with either Barabanov, or Lavrov. An editor wanting to update the article, would go with Lavrov, as that is the update on Barabanov. Xeeron just takes the most detrimental information about Russia that he can get, and posts it, irrespective of consistency. Xeeron was quick to update Barabanov's numbers with Lavrov's, but when it came down to analysis, Xeeron went with Barabanov's. So he's using Lavrov's numbers, and Barabanov's analysis. Aside from anti-Russian POV, there is simply no explanation for his edits, thus I undid them.

And before you claim "Article too Long" or "we do not have space for this" - keep in mind that the MBD analysis, parts of which I removed, can be used to make space, and I already deleted the names, as a compromise, meanwhile you offered no compromise on the matter. And I've corrected the citations as well! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice lies once more, since I kept both Lavrov's and Barabanov's analysis in the article. Just as I kept both MDB's old and Lavrov's new numbers in the article. So the readers would see both and can decide for themselves.

Oh and do you think Barabanov is going to say "Oh, Russia lost more planes than I initially knew of, so surely they must have done better than I thought"?? If anything, his analysis is reinforced by the new numbers. --Xeeron (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You trimmed Lavrov's analysis to mere opinion. You had previously worked your ass off to take away an NPOV quote, this one:

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

because the quote was too pro-Russian for you. You then went ahead and claimed, along with Biophys, that a source quoted by both sides, isn't NPOV. And now you are accusing me of lying? Barabanov didn't know the real reason that the Tu-22 was shot down. Lavrov did. It's a big difference if a plane is shot down due to a poor command, or if there is a mechanical defect, or pilot error. None of this matter to you, and thus you want to hide details from the reader as well. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, weren't you the guy arguing about how Russians outnumbered Georgians 2 to 1, because Svante Cornell said so? Someone should write a parody on his book. Anyways, you, or the source you are defending, seems to be having trouble again: if you go by planes, 9 were lost, but only 4 were damaged beyond repair by friendly fire. 4/9 isn't half, which makes Barabanov's analysis outdated. If you go by pilots, then once again, only 1 out of 5 died due to friendly fire, and 1 out of 5 isn't 50%. No matter how you spin it, when it comes to Aviation, Barabanov's initial analysis is incorrect, and Barabanov acknowledged this, it's too bad you cannot read Russian, otherwise you'd actually know that the update was done by Barabanov, Tseluiko and Lavrov, all three of whom edited it. It's called an update Xeeron, not a counter-argument, as you try to present it. At the time of the writing, Barabanov knew only about 6 Russian planes; when he found out about 3 more, he let Lavrov correct his analysis. And if you dare to accuse me of lying again, I will call you out on it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You said that I was "using Lavrov's numbers, and Barabanov's analysis", when in fact my edit left both number and analysis by both (and Lavrov's analysis even a good bit longer than Barabanov's) in the article. So your statement was a lie, plain and simple. And you are not saying the truth once more in your next statement: "because the quote was too pro-Russian for you." is wrong. My reasons are stated clearly in the talk page archive. As are those by the other 6 people who all disagreed with you including that part.

Regarding the analysis, you still have not explained how losing more aircraft amounts to a better evaluation. Or how losing units to friendly fire is inherently better than losing them to enemy fire. I see you didn't take up the link offered above either. If you want to get your every detail for each plane down, do it there, but stop blowing up the main article by unneeded detail. --Xeeron (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If Russia loses 6 Su-25s, but only one pilot, that would be better for Russia than losing 3 Su-25s and all 3 pilots; it really is not hard to get for anyone who views human life above money. The US Air Force works in the same manner, and has been working in the same manner during and after World War II. Additionally, it is important to know exactly how and airplane was shot down. Was it engine failure? Was it pilot error? Was it portable launcher? Was it set launcher? My edits did not expand the article. I replaced outdated material (written by Barabanov,) with new material, edited by Barabanov. It's called an update.

Are you aware of what an update is? The material that you continue to reinsert is outdated and incorrect. Just like Svante Cornell's was, and yet you fought tooth and nail to keep it in. Unlike Svante Cornell and Pavel Felgenhauer, Barabanov actually admitted his mistake, and hired an avionics expert, Anton Lavrov, to update Barabanov's article. I have repeatedly pointed out to you that it is an update, and you, knowing full well that it is an update, keep on edit warring, just like you did with Svante Cornell's claim saying that "Russian troops outnumber Georgians 2 to 1". If read page 2 of the source, you will notice that Barabanov is the editor of the entire book, meaning that he is responsible for every article within it. An update is where Barabanov's article with old material, is updated with Lavrov's article with new material, updated by Barabanov. But none of it matters to you, you just blindly revert and hope that someday FutPerf bans me for edit-warring.

And stop accusing me of something I did not do. about individual bombing runs has no place in the main article - I'm not talking about individual runs. I am talking about a single bombing run, (you do know that using the "s" in the English language means it's plural, right Xeeron?) a single bombing run, only because in it, I explain that the Tu-22 was shot down due to an order given by either a moron or a traitor, to descend from 16,000 meters to 4,000 meters, which is something that the Tu-22s never do. Additionally, Su-25s were used for scouting, so Tu-22 scouting would have been unnecessary.

You should also stop attacking new users that you do not like. What you did to NC1701 was just plain wrong, and you're doing it again: Could you please leave an explanation for this edit at the talk page? As discussed there, the version you reverted to is not backed up by the sources given. Additionally, you reverted to a version with double citations Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.157.98.136#Edits_at_2008_South_Ossetia_war - Xeeron, I am sure that you can explain how a version that is not backed up, is double cited. His edit was correct, he undid your version, which restored the old update. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop your baseless accusations. If you check the diff provided on that talk page, you will easily see that changes were made at 2 different parts of the article. The upper change is the one with the double citation, while the lower change is the one not backed up by sources given.

You also fail to mention what actually happened to User:Nc1701, namely that he was blocked as a sock puppet. If you think it is "plain wrong" to inform admins about suspected sockpuppets at the noticeboard created for that purpose, you should change your attitude towards our policies here. --Xeeron (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

NC1701 was blocked because you managed to successfully convince the Administrator that banned him, that his edits were the same as that of Billy Mays. Brilliant argument Xeeron, I can never pull off saying that edits arising out of a copy-paste of the archives of the discussion page, are the same as edits based on common sense, the first paragraph of the article, the map and the talkpage, were the edits that, to quote you "demonstrated a deep knowledge of the previous discussion ('which is mainly buried in the lengthy archives') and cited wikipedia rules". So please Xeeron, do tell, which edits of Billy Mays demostrated a deep knowledge of the previous discussion and are buried in lenghty archives? Name just one. After all, you used that argument to get both blocked, as sockpuppets, let's see you back it up. The truth will come out eventually, and the sooner, the better. And if an edit is double cited, you fix the citation, instead of just undoing the entire edit, on a technicality. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, once again - it's an update

Both were edited by Barabanov. Article A was published earlier than Article B. Article B was published later, and has better data. Since they were both edited by the same editor, Article B is an update of Article A. I really don't know how much clearer I can make it for you. And my edits in other articles doesn't give you the right to prevent me from updating this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Update all you want as long as you are consise and short. Instead you insert again and again your lengthy text. And when I try to shorten it myself, you revert. The detailed version, the information about single planes, whether they flew at 4000 or 16000m, the text about changed introduced after the war, all that has its place elsewhere, but not in a section of this article that tries to evaluate the performance of the whole Russian effort in about half a page. You should extent some effort to writing a readable article, and not just "winning" your talk page battles. --Xeeron (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, you really disgust me. Do you go around attacking other editors all the time? I'm surprised that the administrators have not been notified of this. HistoricWarrior007, you must not let this lout push you around. I laud you for your defense of 99.157.98.136 here. Keep up the good work. I think we are nearing our success in banishing Xeeron from Wikipedia. Thanks for your assistance. The Reformed Editor (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@HistoricWarrior: For you benefit, I'll assume that you have no connection to that person and no idea about "our success in banishing Xeeron from Wikipedia". --Xeeron (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, I've pretty much been focusing on modern military articles. I haven't seen The Reformed Editor, or at least don't recall seeing him in any of them. For once, we agree, I don't seek to "banish" anyone from Wikipedia. It'd be interesting to check "The Reformed Editor" against the people who edited this article, to see if any of them are puppets of the "Reformed Editor". Nor have do I recall "The Reformed Editor" trying to banish you from Wikipedia; it just looks like someone trying to make me look bad. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I am certain that it's a set up, to make me look bad, because "The Reformed Editor", or his alternative sockpuppet, had no interactions with either one of us. Looks like someone wants us (Xeeron and me) to declare war on each other or something, and took tried used this cheapshot, as a provocation. My defense of the IP was based on his talkpage's discussion, and his edits, not on his bullying or banishing of other editors, which he hasn't done as far as I am aware, and if he did, I wouldn't be defending him. I just like the IP's edits at Felgenhauer's article, where the IP pointed out that Felgenhauer, initially claimed that Russians were going to lose the war, and after the Russians won a major victory, without apologizing or correcting his majestic self, Felgenhauer blamed the Russians for provoking the war. This was missed by most editors, and the IP pointed it out, something I've immediately commended the IP on (as soon as I noticed it). I also like the IPs edits in this article, hence I defended the IP, User talk:99.157.98.136. Of course users who see conspiracies everywhere will think differently. Since "the Reformed Editor" is justly banned as a sockpuppet, I consider this issue dropped. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edit

Can someone take a look at this, where Xeeron reverted FeelSunny? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=347286206 FeelSunny's valid point was that it was a counterattack, not an invasion, and thus the word invasion should be in quotes, since a counterattack isn't the same as an invasion, i.e. US counterattacked the Taliban, US didn't invade the Taliban. I think FeelSunny's version is better, as it makes more sense, and is more NPOV, as counterattack is a much better description, than an invasion. 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that your POV pushes you towards labeling it a counterattack, but that does not stop the source which we quote for that part from using the word invasion. So counterattack is a misquotation. --Xeeron (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed the above edit. Xeeron had quoted directly from the source, there was nothing amiss about this edit. Regardless of what is a better descriptor, direct quoting of the source took place. Outback the koala (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Makienko's Incorrect Analysis

Opposition affiliated Russian analyst Konstantin Makienko pointed out the poor performance of the Russian Air Force: "It is totally unbelievable that the Russian Air Force was unable to establish air superiority almost to the end of the five-day war, despite the fact that the enemy had no fighter aviation."[349]

However we know that to be untrue. The MiG-29s established superiority in the air, and Georgia's air force was unable to do any serious damage to the Russians - it just slowed them down. Throughout the war the Russians flew over 100 sorties, the Georgians managed just under 10 after August 8th. If that's not air superiority, I don't know what is. I'm all for different opinions, but if something is incorrect, shouldn't it be removed? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of out of context and comes down to whose interpretation of the term "air superiority" you want to use. Russia obviously controlled the skies, but this author's idea of air superiority seems to mean being virtually unopposed with no losses. Further in the article he talks about Russian air losses, and says: "One possible explanation for the Russian Air Force's failure to suppress Georgian air defense is that its pilots most likely had not been practicing such missions — as this kind of training had proved irrelevant in both Chechen campaigns. On the other hand, the Russian Air Force found itself pitted against much more advanced air defense systems in Georgia (mostly Buk-M1 s) than NATO pilots had in Iraq and Yugoslavia (obsolete Kub/Kvadrat (SA-6) and even S-125 (SA-3) SAM systems)." - perhaps that last part should be added? The "it's unbelievable" comment doesn't exactly match up with his further analysis. LokiiT (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Russia and US have the two best air forces, (arguably,) in the World. Russians know they had air superiority, so let's take a look at the US' definition: (DOD, NATO) That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. (DOD means Department of Defense.) Notice that the USAF's manual points out that there is an air battle, so this author's definition of "air superiority" actually contradicts that of the USAF, and the RAF (Russian Air Force), and NATO's definitions. That being said, I completely agree with the rest of your comment. Thus, I think the guy should be removed, but please do as you feel is right. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevant question is: What is "prohibitive interference"? Namely, do you count the Georgian air defenses as such. --Xeeron (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the Georgian Air Defense only shot down the Russian bombers when they went beyond the capacity of performing their duties, nope. MiG-29s established Air Dominance. Tu-22M shouldn't have been used in this war at all, and definetely not at 4,000 meters. Su-24s should not have been out there that long. They're supposed to make the bombing run, and fly back to base, not attempt to make several bombing runs. However all bombers were hit after completing their primary mission, dropping the bombs. The Russian Air Force prevented the Georgian National Guard from mobilizing by bombing its centers of gathering. And the Georgian Air Defense failed to shoot down a single Su-25 (Russia's primary bomber in this war) and scratch a single MiG-29 (Russia's primary fighter in this war). Thus I don't think that Georgian Air Defense "prohibitively interfered" with Russia's Air Force. I should also point out that the Serbs shot down NATO's plane, and NATO still stated that they established air superiority from the beginning, and proved it by bombing Serbia into submission. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2010 (UT==C)

Well, you are certainly entitled to that view, but I am asking about sources. After all, we can't quote your opinion in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the Russian Air Force wasn't prohibited from preventing the Georgian National Guard from mobilizing, which is stated in the "Tanks" source, and numerous other sources, there was no prohibitive interference. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgia's Poor Performance

I don't understand, Georgia bought all this expensive cutting edge military technology from the United States, and then they launched an attack without even bothering to learn how to use it first. The Russians on the other-hand using dusty old cold-war era equipment (much of which is in barely operable condition) still somehow easily manage to come out on top. I guess this proves that the training of militaries is still an crucially important factor, even in 21st-century conflicts. The Russians were far better trained so they won, despite inferior equipment 64.222.123.55 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting commentary. Please consider joining Wikipedia to improve articles. Outback the koala (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

64.222.123.55, sounds like you are really disappointed about the results of the war or you just trolling us, bad mood to write something into Wiki. I think, that Russia is not poor country to make some modern tanks, jets, etc for most dangerous region in it's territory (I mean Caucasus). 80.90.120.7 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is also an interesting comment. Please consider joining Wikipedia to improve articles. Outback the koala (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Russia had T-90s, but chose not to use them. Russia's equipment is far from ancient, the MiG-29s patrolled the skies, and that's a new fighter. The problem when going against Russia, is that Russians are one of the best counterattacking armies. They are also quite good city fighters. Fancy equipment never wins wars on its own, you need experienced officers, but more importantly, you need to fight Just Wars, not wars of agression, as those will never win the people's hearts and minds. When will people realize that bombing other people (or in this case shelling them with rocket launchers,) will never win their hearts and minds? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Retarded. When will people realize that there never was something like a genocide attempt of Ossetians from Georgian side and that "rocket launcher attack" on a cleared city by the way, were far less dramatic than the bombing raids against Gori which killed at least 60 people. There are not even evidances about the claim that more than 20-30 Ossetian civilians were killed accidently during war, not to talk about a phantom mass-attack against Tskhinvali, in which all apartments which were not damaged during the wars in the 90s, still stand. Propaganda and brainwashing is not to underestimate, ok. Nationalism andretarded supporting of massmurderers like Kremlin also, but please people, come to mind ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Arguments made by persons who choose not to sign their comments say much about their author. Regarding the statement that Tskhinvali was a "cleared city" - what makes you think so. There was no reason for the inhabitants to have moved prior to the nighttime rocket barrage ordered by Georgian authorities who somehow thought that this action would "unite the country". Mighty strange way to make friends.Федоров (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NYT successfully made another error

In the Order of Battle, (ORBAT) NYT claims that 3 infantry battalions of the 135th infantry regiment were used. However, Russian regiments used only 2/3rds of their infantry battalions, meaning that out of the 3 infantry battalions, only 2 were used. The reason here is that unlike SPRI-trained Saakashvili units, the Russians actually like to keep a reserve, to prevent a retreat from turning into a rout. So from each of the 5 Russian Regiments that fought, (135th separate, 503rd and 693rd from the 19th and 70th with 71st from the 42nd,) two battalions were used, totalling ten Russian mechanized infantry battalions, of 500 each, or 5,000 men, amounting for half of Russia's forces in Georgia, as would be logical. (SpetzNaz, VDV, Recon Bats, Arty Bats, Tank Bats and Support Bats made up the other half.) One of the infantry battalions of the 135th was already stationed near Tskhinvali as peacekeepers. 2 - 1 = 1, so that means logically only one more battalion of the 135th infantry regiment could enter. Not according to the New York Times, who boldly claimed that two battalions entered, and 2 + 1 is not the equivalent of 2. 10 battalions from 5 regiments fought, and 10 / 5 is 2. According to the "Tanks" reference, 1,500 men were ready to go, which is the equivalent of 3 battalions in numbers, but part of the 1,500 also included a tank battalion, and 2 arty battalions, two recon companies and support units, which makes it possible for only two battalions to be part of the 1,500 men force. I should remedy this situation in the article's ORBAT, any objections?

I have no idea where you are taking that information from, but you kept MDB as the source for the army setup. Yet MDB contradicts your edit, so I reverted. If you want to use information that is not in MDB, you have to add the source you are taking that information from as well. If "tanks" has a list of units, use the tanks list, if they don't leave MDB, but don't come up with unsourced numbers by yourself. --Xeeron (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How does MDB contradict my edit? MDB said ten mech inf battalions, that's what I have. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

MDB says: "Russia had six regimental tactical groups (135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division from North Ossetia (...)"

You put into the article: "Two Mech Inf Battalions of the 503rd Motorised Rifle Regiment of the 19th Motorised Rifle Division", "Two Mech Inf Battalions of the 693rd Motorised Rifle Regiment of the 19th Motorised Rifle Division"

That is not in the source given and as such a wrong attribution. --Xeeron (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

First, you stated that MDB contradicted my edit. Your quote: Yet MDB contradicts your edit, so I reverted. I asked where exactly MDB contradicted my edit. Let me post text from MDB: Later that day, three tactical battalion groups from the 135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division Xeeron, what is 3 divided by 3? Does it equal 2, as the NYT alleges? If three tactical battalion groups come from three motorized rifle regiments, that means that one tactical battalion group came from one motorized rifle regiment. This isn't complex math, it's basic stuff. As the war progressed, more tactical battalions came in, raising it to "Two Mech Inf Battalions" of each regiment. That is exactly what I wrote.

Second, don't change your argument, without admitting that you were wrong, yet again, but at least you're not insisting that we still place Svante Cornell's 2 to 1 ratio into the article, so there's some improvement. Initially you stated that MDB contradicted my edit. That you were dead wrong about, and an apology would be nice. Now you changed your argument to "not in the source given and as such a wrong attribution". The regimental tactical groups are in the source given: By the evening of August 10, Russia had six regimental tactical groups (135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division from North Ossetia, the 70th and 71th Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 42nd Motorized Rifle Division from Chechnya, and mixed from the 104th and 234th Paratroop Regiments of the 76th Pskov Air Assault Division), units of the 45th Reconnaissance Paratroop Regiment and the 10th and 22nd Special Forces Brigades, as well as significant artillery and air-defense forces. Two Chechen companies from the Zapad and Vostok Battalions and regimental tactical groups of the 98th Ivanovo Airborne Division, deployed to the battle zone too. The total number of Russian forces in South Ossetia reached about 10,000 men and 120 tanks. That's 120 tanks, not 1,200 tanks. Thus, part of the edit comes from the source. Additionally saying Regimental Tactical Group means that the entire regiment did not move in. Thus, according to the MDB, units of the 135th, 503rd, 693rd, 70th and 71th motorized rifle regiments moved in. I merely clarified what the units were, as I have access to later data, which would be tough to cite, as access is restricted for the time being, but within a few months, it won't be, and you'll see that my numbers were correct.

Allow me to make it crystal clear. MDB: six regimental tactical groups fought or in other words units from six regiments fought. My clarification: units X and Y from six regiments fought. Xeeron's rebuttal: you contradicted the MDB! Please, show me where I contradicted the MDB. Either back up your claim, or withdraw it and admit that you were wrong. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Two Mech Inf Battalions are not in MDB. When you have some "restricted" data, come back to edit here once it is unrestricted and can be quoted in Wikipedia. Till then, your edit contradicts the MDB, which talks of regimental tactical groups, not Mech Inf Battalions. --Xeeron (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What an update is, and McDermott

An update is when the same editor, uses better information, to update his sources. An update is not replacing RIA Novosti's material with McDermott, who with all due respect has no idea what he is talking about. Russian Intelligence was stellar during the war, accomplishing all of its tasks, and losing very few men. Yet according to McDermott, they performed poorly. Then what does it take to perform well? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Russian Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C³I) performed poorly during the conflict. The communication systems used were obsolete, resulting in one case where the commander of the 58th army was reported to have communicated with his forces in the midst of combat via a satellite phone borrowed from a journalist. Due to the absence of satellite-targetting, precision-guided munitions could not be used (US controlled GPS was unavailable since the war zone was blacked out). Furthermore, the Russian defense minister had failed to authorize the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, which lead to the use of a Tupolev Tu-22M3 long-range bomber on a reconnaissance mission, where it was subsequently shot down. Nevertheless, most of the reconnaisance was performed by the 3 Russian reconnaisance battalions, so the need to use a strategic bomber for it was questionable. American researchers working for the Heritage foundation praised the comprehensive and systematic planning of the Russian general staff, stating that, the operations "were well prepared and well executed" and that the Russian offensive achieved a strategic surprise.

Absense of GLONASS? Then how were the Iskanders launched? How were the Tochkas launched? Russia couldn't authorize use of unamanned aerial vehicles, because none were active in the Caucasus Military District. The TU-22M is not designed for a reconnaisance mission, anymore than the B-52 was, . This is why, you DISCUSS new sources before placing them into the article, as is required, as has been required for as long as this article existed. You don't claim an update of RIA Novosti (Russian) with McDermott, (American), this is just plain silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger McDermott speculated that the (compared to earlier Russian conflicts) high level of criticism in the media after the conflict is part of "an orchestrated effort by the government to “sell” reform to the military and garner support among the populace.

There was 90% for military reforms after the war, without any criticism. Clearly according to McDermott, more was needed! Come on! United Russia has 315 out of 450 seats. Next party, the Commies, have 57. Military reforms were supported by all of Russia's major parties. United Russia also controls the upper house. The above four parties, enjoy the support of over 90% of the Russian voters. They were all pro-reform. Just look at the election table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_legislative_election,_2007#Official_results. There were no real critics of the reform. The parties may have had different ideas and emphasis on what should be reformed, but you didn't need any scandals to reform the military. You don't need to garner more than 90%. Here's CNN's poll on the war: http://digg.com/politics/92_of_CNN_readers_Russia_s_actions_in_Georgia_justified Here is a Gallup Poll on the war, by Georgians: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110602/georgians-look-toward-russia-respect-admiration.aspx HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Critique of McDermott with citations that show he gets his facts wrong

The war did not "jeopardize" Russia's relationship with the EU. There was an initial scuffle, but by 2009, the article's publication date, Russia and EU were getting along rather well. They still are.

McDermott states that, and I quote from http://www.usamhi.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/09spring/mcdermott.pdf: "within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs with 1,550 soldiers and more than 100 vehicles". Ahhh, panic, the Russians, they are coming! Help! Get some vodka! So let's see here, according to McDermott, who would never make stuff up, within a few hours of operation the 104th moved in, so they have to be in South Ossetia before nightfall on August 8th. According to the Russian Commander of the 104th Pskov Regiment http://artofwar.ru/k/krjukow_w_n/text_0150.shtml at 1 AM on August 9th, (that's the one that comes after August 8th,) they were still crossing the Roki Tunnel and instead of a whole regiment, it was a single battalion.

McDermott boldly continues: "A key factor in the speed of the Russian military victory was the opening of a second front in Abkhazia". Yup, that's definite Bush-like thinking - want to speed up the war, open up a second front, that'll speed things up! Works so well with Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean right after the US invaded Iraq, the Afghanistan victory was sped up! Oh wait, it had the exact opposite effect. For this war, the Abkhaz Theater of War had little to do with the Ossetian Theater of War, and it was opened up by Abkhazia, not by Russia. Georgia had a maximum of 3,300 men in Abkhazia, if you think that these men could have turned the tide of war, you are mistaken, just read the Battle of Tskhinvali. Oh wait, the Jamestown Foundation also argued about Iraq having WMDs.

According to McDermott, capturing the military base at Senaki enabled Russia to control all heavy traffic movement accross Georgia. According to reality, Google Maps, any maps, here's one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg whether one controls Senaki or not, one still does not control the Gori-Tbilisi road. Nor the Batumi-Tbilisi road. And that's just the first two pages, I don't want to waste my time. The entire VDV Regiment in on August 8th, that's just hilarious. Unfortunately this is an encyclopedia, not a comedy club.

This guy reminds me of someone. Oh wait, it's the Jamestown Foundation, a notable part of the anti-Russian lobby. From Pavel Felgenhauer, who boldly claimed that Russia was going to lose this war, and after Russia won, claimed that Russia provoked Georgia, to Svante Cornell who spoke of Russia outnumbering Georgia's army two to one and wrote a book about Russia using 1,200 tanks, (150 according to US Satellite Data, Russian Satellite Data, European Satellite Data, and any sane military analysis.) Xeeron, stop trying to insert Jamestown Foundation into this article. They are completely clueless, be it Felgenhauer's claim that Russia will lose this war, Svante Cornell's with 1,200 tanks, or McDermott's claim that the entire 104th fought on August 8th, despite the 104th's commander repudiation of that "fact". Xeeron, this article is about facts, not Jamestown Foundation's Fiction. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest nor any need to discuss your rant/OR above. Of course, you would prefer to only have Russian state owned RIA and Moscow based CAST as sources in the article, but it does not work that way. And aggressively attacking any author who's position you dislike wont help either. A further note: Stuff like "has no idea what he is talking about" is close to slander. You should be careful with that. --Xeeron (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I will point it out again: McDermott made up something, and dubbed this a "fact". According to McDermott, the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th. According to the commander of the 104th of the 76th VDV, in an official report, his regiment's avanteguard battalion, (that's the one that enters first) did not enter South Ossetia until August 9th. This is not a "Russian owned source" - that is an actual report. And if you want, I can find anti-Russian articles on the website that published the report. Russian VDV commanders do not lie in their reports about battles when they win and everything goes according to plan. That is a fact. Do you understand the difference between propaganda and an actual report written by the commander?

Also, McDermott claimed that by controlling Senaki and overseeing the road, Russia divided Georgia in half. However I used a map, you do realize that Google Maps are not a pro-Russian source, right Xeeron? According to maps, any map, Russians had no control over the Batumi - Tbilisi Road, and thus Georgia was never divided in two, contrary to what McDermott said.

Every single source that I have provided was dead on accurate. Every pro-Jamestown source you provided was contradicted by reality. Be it Svante Cornell's "2 to 1 ratio in favor of Russia", the "Russia is attacking with 1,200 tanks" article, or Felgenhauer's claim that "it will be tough for Russia to fight this war". I don't care where the sources come from. I do care that you are putting sources into the article, parts of which contradict reality. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with that point, Jamestown is well known for having a partisan goal (since its inception it was supposed to be actively anti-Soviet/Russian, and it still seems to be regarded as such) so it’s articles on the topic it’s partisan over wouldn’t make any better primary sources than something in Daily-Kos or MoveOn.org would in a topic covering Iraq or Afghanistan. More so in this case since it’s published blatantly false information (Tank and numbers claims that have been established as false) and positions such as the idea of a Russian first strike that are considered fringe ideas (given that third parties such as the EU’s commission and NGOs and western goverments say the opposite). Freepsbane (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this indeed seems to be the case, then we should no longer consider Jamestown to be a reliable source. And if we do that then we shouldn't use it the article at all. We must stick to what is verifiable - and if two sources are being contradictory, with one clearly seeming to be on the WP:FRINGE then lets stay with the generally accepted sources. Good research, HW007, on this one. Outback the koala (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your flimsy "research" betrays your desire to remove non-Russian sources here and shows why OR does not really have a place on wikipedia.

• Your research: You call McDermott "US Military"[2]
  • Fact: "Roger N. McDermott is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent at Canterbury (U.K.). He is also a Senior Fellow in Eurasian Military Studies with the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, D.C." [3]
• Your research: "According to McDermott, the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th." [4]
  • Fact: "Within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division’s 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs with 1,550 soldiers and more than 100 vehicles" Notice that he does not specify which operation that was and when it started. Also take a look at who is McDermotts source for that statement: Mikhail Barabanov. [5]
• Your research: "Russian VDV commanders do not lie in their reports about battles when they win and everything goes according to plan." [6]
  • Fact: We have no idea what that commanders plan was, and consequently no idea whether all went according to that plan. Further, Russia has been fighting a public relations battle with Georgia over the exact timing of events in the war, giving them every incentive to only "report" what is helping their side. [7], [8] Stating that someone does never lie is just absurd.
• Your research: "According to maps, any map, Russians had no control over the Batumi - Tbilisi Road, and thus Georgia was never divided in two, contrary to what McDermott said" [9]
  • Fact: There exits only one big highway in Georgia, running from Tbilisi-Gori-Kutaisi-Senaki-Poti-Batumi. Russia occupied Gori (through which the highway runs). Russia also had units at Senaki (through which that highway also runs). They definitely had control over the east-west movements in Georgia.[10], [11]

I am sick of you putting (wrong) statements in other peoples' mouth and I and also sick of reading page upon page of your poorly done OR. --Xeeron (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Xeeron, if you wouldn't mind sourcing these facts, it would be helpful in establishing whether or not he is a reliable source. This is all well and good but I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not without confirmation of somekind. Who knows what is WP:TRUTH? Outback the koala (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your research refers to HW's post here, the other quotes to the McDermott paper. But I'll add links for your convenience. --Xeeron (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, from looking at these sources/diffs provided I will give my analysis;

• McDermott is likely not US Military himself, he may admittedly be a bit bias toward the US standpoint, but we have other sources in the article that are equally as bias toward the Russian or Georgian viewpoint. On that point Xeeron is right for inclusion. (Although you only provided the disputed source as a ref, I will concede this point)
• On the 2nd point raised, I have no idea what is true; because you only reference the very report we are discussing as an argument as fact. We don't know if the disputed source is fact! That's what this discussion is about.
• On the third point, yes Xeeron I think is right, we have no way of knowing what the commanders plans were and whether real life events went well to these afore mentioned plans.
• Lastly, you are both right. No Georgia technically was not cut completely in half, But they did occupy the highway later on; cutting the country in half communicationally and militarily. From a purely military standpoint the country was essentially cut in half.

If you could clarify the second point further, it would mean alot toward seeing if McDermott is factually correct. Outback the koala (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please reread HW's sentence: "According to McDermott, the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th." As I pointed out above, McDermott does not write that. --Xeeron (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I misunderstood. Thank You. I think the operative word that may have confused HW in the original was 'operation', which one? I dont know. In that case, it seems that the article is factually correct as far as I can see. The other objection that HW007 raised above that I picked out was the overall note - Freepsbane commented on it as well; the idea that Jamestown is inherently anti-Russian. But I don't understand the connection to McDermott. At all. I read over HW statements, but I can't seem to follow what he is trying to say as far as the connection between the two. What does he mean by 'anti-russian lobby'? -Is there such a thing? Might be just me, but if this could be clarified for me, I would really appreciate it. Outback the koala (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive walls of text by block-evading IP sock of User:HistoricWarrior007

I'd actually like to hear HW's response, unfortunately he was banned by a very immature administrator who prefers fiction over facts. As to the first point, HW pointed out that McDermott was Jamestown Foundation, and that Jamestown Foundation writers were previously wrong about the war, and that Jamestown is US based. Yes, we have corrupt lobbyists, can you name a country that doesn't? According to the reference cited, http://www.usamhi.army.mil, the web address belongs to the US Military, which made HW wrongly assume that McDermott is US military. Just because the website belongs to US Military, does not mean that every comment published on it is US military, and HW should know better. However the Russian military commander's report, if he is indeed the commander HW makes him out to be, is more important than a statement of an expert who was never present during combat, if indeed he can be called an expert. Jamestown Foundation was the same foundation that yelled "Saddam has WMDs" and "Russia will lose the Second Chechen War", so anyone associated with the foundation is instantly questionable. Nor does McDermott correctly cite Barabanov, as Barabanov writes that one regiment was mixed from the 104th and 234th Paratroop Regiments of the 76th Pskov Air Assault Division whereas the 234th is absent from McDemott's paper, showing his research to be very sloppy. As to the second point, if Russia was doing PR, the commander's report would be published all over the news. Instead I did not know about it until HW cited it here. Russia is clueless when it comes to PR; they failed to mention that MiG-29s ruled the skies, a major PR blunder; but no one is so clueless as to write a report for PR purposes and forget to use it for PR, as Xeeron alleges. HW is pro-Russian, but in a different way; the information he cites and debates has been credible thus far, but he is only placing pro-Russian information into the article. However, Wikipedia cannot ban HW for something that HW is not doing, (not placing responses to Russian information,) and I think HW has a lot more information, than he's telling us. Nevertheless, the quick counters when he tried to edit the ORBAT, albeit his edits were unsourced, might show why he is being cautious. And the unjustified ban, justified HW's actions. As to whether the Anti-Russian Lobby exists or not, I was able to find this review in under 2 seconds on Google: http://us.macmillan.com/russophobia, http://www.russiablog.org/2009/03/make_hay_while_obama_is_there.php As to the third point, that McDermott did not mention: the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th. On top of page 66 McDermott's document states: Within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs. Within a few hours is in essence the same as on August 8th, what else could "within a few hours of the commencement of the operation" mean? The operation was in full swing by noon of August 8th. Are the few hours greater than 12? "76th's (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment" is the exact same thing as "104th of the 76th VDV". "Suburbs of Tskhinvali" would be in Tskhinvali, where else could the suburbs of Tskhinvali be? As to the fourth point, a glimpse at a map shows that HW is correct. There is no way that Russia controlled the section of the Batumi-Tbilisi Road, and thus Russia did not control the entire Georgian Highway, if indeed that is a single highway. Finally a bit about me should be known: I am a military historian; we are following these debates closely to determine whether or not historians should come out of their "Ivory Towers" and enter "Wikipedialand". I am arguing the negative side, and I want to sincerely thank FPaS for his contribution to my side. Until the recent ban of HW, the other side was winning. However, even military historians have their orders, that they must carry out. I only have one other edit on Wikipedia, and that is restoring "The Air War" in the Battle of Tskhinvali. My apologies for being blunt. Finally, HW, if you want a job amongst real military historians, let me know - I wonder what you could do with proper training. I'll be watching your talkpage. 68.164.118.203 (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "There is no way that Russia controlled the section of the Batumi-Tbilisi Road", when the map clearly shows Russia controlling 2 cities that the highway passes through. I can only asume that you are not looking at the correct map, or that you have no idea which of the roads pictured on the map actually is the highway. PS: As with everyone else posting, I want to encourage you to create an account, since it is much harder remembering whom you are talking to when posters are only identified by some numbers. --Xeeron (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Considering the amount of edits I made, this being my 3rd edit, I think you can keep up with me. As to the map, I am looking at this map, that has been at the top of the article for quite a while, at least since August 7th: This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for August 7, 2009. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg Here is the quote that I made, which you are questioning: There is no way that Russia controlled the section of the Batumi-Tbilisi Road, and thus Russia did not control the entire Georgian Highway. The US Satellite photos confirm that the Russians were not in Ajaria, unfortunately they are classified. Thus there is no way that the Russians controlled the Batumi-Keda-Khulo section. Additionally, no Russians were present south of Tbilisi, and the mountains prevented any clear view from the north of the Khulo-Vale-Abkhalstike section. The road forks at Abkhalstike, and if one takes the southern fork, followed by the northern fork, it is again protected by mountains, and then by the Georgian defenses around MtShketa, which the Russians did not cross, until the road's section reaches Tbilisi. My argument stated that the Batumi-Tbilisi section was not controlled, and I just proved it. Because the Russians did not control that section, they did not control the entire road, as a section was not controlled. Should you find that map not credible, by viewing maps.yahoo.com (of Georgia) I recommend that you take the A306 south-east, go past A308 and take the A303 north-east, pass by Lake Tba Paravani, hang out by another lake next to Tsalka, admit that US Military Historians are usually correct, unlike our assorted lobbyists, and take the A301 north to Tbilisi. http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=41.638626&lon=43.671242&zoom=9 Zoom in and out to get the names. How do you think US supplies got into Tbilisi without losing anymore Hummers to the Russians? That might be one of the roads they took. And the designations, A301, A303, A308 show that Georgia has more than just one highway. 68.164.118.203 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC) As I thought, you are talking about the wrong road. What you are talking about (labeled A306 and A303 on your yahoo map link) is *not* the highway. The only well maintained east-west road in Georgia is the highway (labeled M27 on yahoo). Clearly McDermott knows this, since he talks about "severing the main highway". This shows again the dangers of conducting WP:OR on the talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I'd like to begin by thanking Laurinavicious for the greeting on my talkpage. Those are always appreciated. As to the argument presented above, I fully agree that conducting WP:OR on the talkpage is dangerous, so I would ask Xeeron to cite a McDermott source that states that M27 is the main highway and the only well maintained east-west road as Xeeron alleged earlier. As to his implied accusation of me employing WP:OR - I ask Xeeron to tell where exactly I employed WP:OR. I merely outlined existing routes on maps that are both valid sources. I would also like to know how exactly Xeeron knows that McDermott is talking about M27, because McDermott did not say it. Is Xeeron conducting WP:OR while accusing someone else of doing so, in the very same post? Additionally, the full sentence reads: severing the main highway and railway at a second location, enabling de facto Russian military control of all heavy traffic movement across Georgia. I just outlined a route for you that showed how a part of heavy traffic can move across Georgia. You responded with a partial quote, while ignoring therest of the quote. There have been no sources presented, except Xeeron's original research, which violates WP:OR, to show that the Batumi-Tbilisi road cannot contain what the average reasonable person would call heavy traffic. This is the difference between real historians and the lobbyist historians of the Jamestown Foundation. Real historians use exclusionary words, such as "all" or "none" with extreme caution, and are always able to back them up by facts. Real historians cite roads, such as "M27", not simply designate "major and minor routes". McDermott's research is sloppy; no real historian is going to assume that all heavy traffic movement was across M27, a single route. That is an extraordinarily poor assumption. It means that heavy trucks carrying everyday goods from Batumi to Tbilisi had no direct route. No country, that has over a million people, can survive with only a single route taking up all heavy traffic, which is what McDermott is implying if Xeeron's original research is to be considered. 68.164.118.203 (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Well, what 68.164.118.203 says (Welcome btw) about these routes seems reasonable. Now I do doubt the yahoo maps is a RS; but we could easily find a Georgian transportation related source if we want, I would assume. This has changed my view of this discussion; Frankly I feel like I'm a little out of my league. That being said, another discussion here should not become confined to less than a few editors. We need outside views on this discussion. While its visible here on the talk page, I think its unlikely we'll be getting comments from uninvolved editors. Maybe a RfC (Request for Comment) would be helpful here. The topic would be on whether McDermott is a RS and if he is factually correct. Thought? Outback the koala (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Nice try, but when I paraphrase or quote McDermott, my words statements are backed up by a source, unlike yours. You (without any basis) assume that there has to be a second highway. So that is your opinion vs McDermotts. And incidently this are 2 quotes from a casual google search of the road that you assume you know more about than McDermott (first and second hit for a google search about "A303 tbilisi road"): "The infamous A303 road from Tbilisi to Tsalka and beyond. My map marks it as a "main road, asphalted", but I think that may have only been the case when it was built in the 1960s."[12] "The A303 is a very bad road" [13] This has gone on for much to long really. People try to discredit McDermott with nothing but made up OR, based on stuff like personal assumptions how much roads a country must have. Even a most basic google search shows that McDermott's view is consistent with what others write, while the OR is not. But then, the point seems to be, once again, to push out a source disliked by some editors. --Xeeron (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you Outback the Koala for your interest, and for the warm welcome. As to Xeeron's claim that my statements are not backed up by a source, I find that slanderous. I took Yahoo! Map, and the map from the top of the article, and simply highlighted a possible secondary path. I fail to see why Xeeron thinks this is not backed up by a source, or why a Yahoo! Map is my opinion. Nor do I assume without any basis that I know more than McDermott. Xeeron tries to mistakenly present mere highlighting of the road as an opinion, while it remains a fact. If I open a book to a page, highlight a sentence, and say "read this", I have not engaged in original research. The A303 exists as a road, and forms a section of a possible path for heavy traffic; that is not my opinion as Xeeron alleges, that is a fact. As to Xeeron's source that calls said road, infamous, the source reads: The infamous A303 road from Tbilisi to Tsalka and beyond. My map marks it as a "main road, asphalted", but I think that may have only been the case when it was built in the 1960s.. In other words the source admits that the road was asphalted, while the author states that he merely thinks, I think that it is no longer asphaulted. However such thoughts did not prevent the author from marking it as his main road. Thoughts are opinions, not facts. The fact here is simple: a secondary road exists, and whether it is asphaulted or not, the road enables heavy traffic travel; since the road was not controlled by the Russians, there is no way that the Russians controlled all heavy traffic as McDermott and Xeeron jointly allege. As to me assuming that a country with over a million people, Georgia's population is 4,385,400, has more than one major road that enables heavy traffic - that is not merely an assumption; that is an obvious fact, as modern countries with over a million inhabitants cannot function with only a single major road. The road may be terrible, bad, infamous, but as long as the A303 can sustain heavy traffic, all heavy traffic cannot be controlled by the Russians as Xeeron and McDermott allege, as Russians did not control the part of A303 leading from Batumi to Tbilisi. This is not a battle of opinions, as Xeeron mistakenly portrays it. That is a fact. In a book published in 2008, by Tim Burford, http://books.google.com/books?id=qQ6R4Fg6rh4C&dq=A303+road+tbilisi+-uk&source=gbs_navlinks_s, the A303 recieves a reasonable description: http://books.google.com/books?id=qQ6R4Fg6rh4C&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=A303+road+tbilisi+-uk&source=bl&ots=Zsb4tHKMFL&sig=1vRjpeT6gQl9w6b56XrEYOIHW1c&hl=en&ei=5mOtS8zNFouIswOCq4X4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=A303%20&f=false on page 246, which reads: It's odd that in both Britain and Georgia, it's the A303 that goes from the capital to the country's finest ancient monuments, from London to Stonehenge and from Tbilisi to Vardizia. The Georgian A303 starts as Chavchadze Avenue... the book goes on to point out that the A303 is rough but nowhere does it say that A303 cannot sustain heavy traffic, and it repeatedly calls A303 a road. The book confirms that most traffic goes from Tbilisi to Akhalkalaki via Borjomi. By saying most, instead of all it implies that some heavy traffic goes from Tbilisi to Akhalkalaki via A303. The problem with McDermott's argument is that he used the word all instead of most. McDermott's writing just does not add up, as McDermott portrays irreconcilable events, as facts. For instance, on page 66, McDermott writes: Within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs. That means that within a few hours, the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment had to fly to Tskhinvali; there is just no other way to get from Pskov to Tskhinvali within a few hours. If the 104th Airborne Regiment had to fly to Tskhinvali, that means that the 104th Regiment had to land in Tskhinvali. That's over 2,300 kilometers. Please note that all I did was to state the obvious: that only by flight can a few thousand kilometers can be covered in a few hours by an entire VDV Regiment; the Regiment has Anonas, whose top speed is 32 kilometers per hour. It cannot cover over 2,000 kilometers, without flying, in a few hours. And the only way that infantry can go from air to ground is by landing. No original research here, although I am sure Xeeron will try and claim it anyway. If the VDV of the 104th Airborne Regiment is landing, they would come into range of the Georgian anti-aircraft guns, that surrounded Tskhinvali. You can see Tskhinvali partially surrounded by Georgians on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tskhinvali_battles.png. And even if that was not the case, the range of a Buk-M1 is 30 kilometers. According to McDermott, the Russians failed to suppress Georgian anti-aircraft guns. Furthermore, an Su-24 was shot down on August 11th. My question is this: why did the Georgians fail to shoot down the transport planes, or helicopters of the 104th Airborne Regiment? Why let them make a perfect landing? No amount of incompetence would allow an entire Airborne Regiment to land; and yet there is no record of such an engagement. The reason? Because such an engagement did not exist. The 104th Airborne Regiment was flown into North Caucasus, and reached Tskhinvali, on August 9th, by road, not by air, as was written in the report by the commander that HW presented. I checked, and that was an actual commander's report. http://artofwar.ru/k/krjukow_w_n/text_0150.shtml, which shows that McDermott is capable of simply making things up. I also looked up Xeeron's edits, and he consistently defends Jamestown Foundation, irrespective of whether they are correct or not, irrespective if they get their facts correct, or simply make them up. When Svante Cornell of the Jamestown Foundation, http://www.jamestown.org/media/experts/ claimed that Russians outnumbered Georgians by a 2:1 margin, and HW called Xeeron out on it, Xeeron rushed to the defense of the Jamestown Foundation's "Scholar". Here, Xeeron is continuing his quest, choosing to use a report published by yet another Jamestown Foundation "Scholar" about the 104th Airborne Regiment over a report written by the actual commander of the 104th Airborne Commander. Xeeron even went so far as to claim that the commander's report was written for PR purposes, without providing any credible confirmation for his statement, and thus violating WP:OR, something Xeeron repeatedly accuses me of doing. 68.164.118.203 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am closing this debate. There is obviously no prospect of it turning into anything constructive. As an outside neutral observer, I can see no hint at any prima facie convincing case that a renaming would be required under our policies. On the other hand, I see no willingness to discuss the matter constructively from the side of the opponents either. No new arguments that haven't been exchanged numerous times are coming forward. Any new proposal at renaming can be brought forward later only if it comes with fresh, new ideas, and if it is proposed by somebody other than those who have been squabbling over it for months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I know suggesting a new name will only focus discussion on that title and its merits so I am hoping we can at least agree the current title is inappropriate and in need of changing. The rules on naming an article are clear: it must reflect the scope of the subject. It does not matter where most of the fighting was because ultimately there were significant battles and military actions taking place outside the vicinity of South Ossetia. If the only combat outside South Ossetia was in its vicinity, airstrikes, or sporadic activity it would be one thing. However, we can not neglect the existence of an entire other offensive in Abkhazia and the coastal regions of Georgia not to mention a naval battle that took place in that area. If NATO forces had invaded Serbia proper or tried to liberate Vojvodina it would not continue to be called the Kosovo War.

My request is simply that we reach a decision that the current title needs to be changed. What it is changed to would be something for a later discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have tried to initiate this debates literally dozens of times, always with the same arguments on both sides. I would advise against rehashing it now. Latest instantiation seems to have been this one: Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Archive 31#2008 South Ossetia war???, where you will find a list of links to some 26(!) prior threads on the same issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at those discussions most of the people arguing against a change have since had warning or sanctions against them for POV-pushing and edit-warring on this same general subject, almost always in Russia's favor. There is no limit on the number of discussions and certainly not if it violates conventions or rules. If you want to avoid further discussion and change the title yourself that's fine, but as long as this title stands it will always be challenged, if not by me then someone else, because it uses a non-notable name when countless better alternatives exist.

Unfortunately early on this title was subjected to a constant edit war and locked in with this title. It was never meant to remain the title, only to be there until a more common name emerged. There are many names more common than this one now and they represent the scope better than this one.

Also is that "advise against rehashing it now" meant to be some sort of threat? You cannot sanction me for discussing a legitimate subject. Also I am tired of people saying "now is not the right time" because that is what has always been said whenever a discussion is started. I was told to "wait a few months for a common name to emerge" over one and a half years ago and after being told several times to wait a few months and after a common name did emerge still I was told to wait. I am sorry, but this is getting absurd. One thing which can not be disputed by anyone with any sense or objectivity is that this current name is not common or accurate. It misrepresents the entire subject and violates nearly every rule on naming an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? This has been discussed ad nauseam. I personally favour the present title, and I doubt anyone has changed their positions, clearly not you either. Please, this is ridiculous. (although I do not mean to put down your position in any way, because it certainly is a legitimate argument, I simply disagree with it, respectfully) If the discussion goes ahead, and ends in 'no consensus' for change (again), a 1-year or 2-year break on this topic should occur. Enough is enough. Outback the koala (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you favor the present title? Saying "it is accurate enough" is not a good reason when it is not as accurate as more common names. Admins reviewing other names have not found them to be biased in any way either. The claims Historic made were vacuous and have no basis in reality, let alone in Wikipedia. You cannot just say you like the title, but you have to give a substantive reason. What reason do you have that overrides the fact only a handful of news reports use this title now and the dozens of recent reports that use other names come from a wide group of organizations including Russian news of numerous persuasions?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My unchanged opinion is: The current title is bad, there are better titles out there, but I am not willing to spend time discussing this vs a (predictable) concerted effort by a group of pro-russian editors to keep the current one. Seen it all happen before, numerous times and it is simply not important enough to warrant spending my time. --Xeeron (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Speak of the devil, and he doth appear" - I guess you should memorize that saying, Xeeron, since here I am, a genuine "pro-russian editor" =). Looks like I'm starting to have a sixth sense about these Devil's Advocate rename proposals - I have opened this talkpage for the first time in several months, and what do I see? His two-days-old rename proposal (FACEPALM). Quite predictably, I also hold no positive emotions about this (yet another) waste of time. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder, what makes Devil's Advocate do it repeatedly? Is it a high level of fanaticism, or he just likes to troll people that much? But of course, he will answer that "This current name is not common or accurate. It misrepresents the entire subject and violates nearly every rule on naming an article." (FACEPALM #2) and, of course, he just can't stand that, so my question was rhetorical. In any case, I also seen this all happen before, and I'm not even going to argue with Devil's Advocate, unless he finally has a brand-new argument up his sleeves (which I doubt). ETST (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a rather useful policy page for this matter on moving a page:

There are many reasons why you might wish to rename a page:

• The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate
• The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that it is not the common name of the subject or it is overprecise
• It needs to be disambiguated in some way to avoid confusion with an existing, similarly named topic, or it exists at a disambiguated name but should not because it is the primary topic
• It is an article at a descriptive name and the scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed
• It is an article that has been created as a subpage of a Wikipedian's user or user talk space for development purposes and it is ready to be posted to the mainspace
• It is a talk page and discussion on it is ready for archiving (there are other methods; see Help:Archiving a talk page)

These are the reasons for changing a title. The two bolded portions are most significant as it concerns this article's title.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How has the scope of the article changed? It is about the 2008 South Ossetia war, completely and utterly. Outback the koala (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. No one wants to discuss it with him anyway, it's useless. And you're probably inexperienced in those "rename discussions", so take care about your mental health and avoid them, while you still can =). Just ignore him, and maybe he'll go away. Personally, I think that the only editor, with whom one could still seriously argue about article rename is Xeeron (since he, unlike Devil's Advocate, is an article's vet). But even Xeeron and I have nothing new to say to each other already. So we all will be better off doing some real work. ETST (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, yes I was only marginally involved in the last discussion. Thanks for giving me a heads up. Outback the koala (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's what Devil's Advocate calls "violating nearly every rule on naming an article.". Two out of six rules at the very best. Till today, I had somewhat different understanding of "nearly every" (FACEPALM #3). Anyway, that was no different from what you've been telling before, and I'm not going to repeat all the counter-arguments. You can reread them all under the link that Future Perfect has kindly provided. I'm growing tired of this, so go on, do what you want, Devil's Advocate. Propose polls, votes, whatever (That's what you want, aren't ya? Wikipedia is not a democracy still didn't sink in?). Just don't forget to notify me in time, so I can turn it down. ETST (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromise title

Let us be honest, this name is definitely not the most common or even fourth-most common name. It is also not the most descriptive title out there. However, as discussion on the other more popular names out there seems to have little chance of persuading certain editors I am going to suggest what I think would be a sufficient compromise. If the article were renamed as the 2008 South Ossetia and Abkhazia war it would accommodate concerns about the current title not reflecting the scope of the article. Though it would not be a common name, neither is the current one, I and probably other editors here would at least feel more comfortable with that title than the current one. Surely no one would suggest it would be biased either. I think It would be a suitable placeholder until it becomes more clear to everyone which title is established in English usage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you're saying, but frankly, that title is worse. "Let us be honest"? Okay then, let's try that. Why do you need so much to change the article's name? I really can't understand that. I consider current title to be the best imaginable POV compromise between "Russia-Georgia war" and "Operation to enforce Georgia to peace". And you don't see me arguing for the latter, do you? Once, you stated, that your reason for the change is so that users can find the article easily. And now you propose a new "sufficient compromise" title, and expect them to type in the browser that much longer? And it's even less common name than just plain "South Ossetia war", too. Just what kind of compromise is that? Honestly, I don't know what else to say. The arguments on "scope of the article", "easiness of search", etc - they still remain in the same places of the same previous discussions. I can understand that you don't agree with them, and it is your right. But, please, recognize other people's right to disagree with you, too, and realize that their disagreement has as much ground in current Wikipedia rules, as yours one. This discussion is getting us nowhere, again. ETST (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea of compromise is that it is not what either side wants the most. Also, admins already ruled, and I can provide the link, that Russia-Georgia War was a neutral title. It is not about a POV compromise, or even common name because as I said there can be little logical dispute about which title is more commonly used in English sources. However, what I proposed would at least address the issue of the article's scope. Russia did not justify its actions in Abkhazia or on the coast because of South Ossetia, but because they claimed Abkhazia was going to be attacked by Georgia as well. To call this the South Ossetia War is to neglect the reality of what happened with Abkhazia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats true. and although, We shouldn't forget about the Abkhazian Front during the war, I'm not sure. ETST does make a very valid counter-argument. Has this title come up in previous discussions? Outback the koala (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. The current title has two problems: Not getting the scope of the war right and not being a commonly used name. The compromise version proposed above does not better the second point, but at least would get the first one right. So, while I don't think it is the best name, it is somewhat better than the current name. --Xeeron (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, on your own accord or not, but now you're knee-deep in this discussion, so let me, a FSB Web Brigade Colone- whoops, I mean, a totally unbiased editor, be your opponent again =D. Actually, I'm quite surprised, that you did voice support for this new title, since I thought your primary concern about current title was that it's not common. If you're interested, later I can try to explain what are the other problems (besides the ones I stated below) that I see with that new title, and maybe you will be able to dismiss my concerns. But right now I'm occupied with Devil's Advocate, so, if you'll excuse me, I'll spare the serious talk for the later. ETST (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, that I did. If you want to know my position in more detail, click on the talk page archive links above. I can already see all the usual technics being applied, which undoubtably will lead to the usual result: none. No need to go into detail for me, nor to make up conjectures about what my possibile possition is and even less to create time wasting walls-of-text. I am not trying to achieve anything here, so go change or not change the title however you please. --Xeeron (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. The uselessness of these debates is overwhelming me too. You may not believe it, but I'm sorry, that I'm also the part of all this frustration for you, and let me assure you, that I'm not getting any kind of pleasure from it either. Usual techniques or not, but if only Wikipedia didn't require "for technical reasons" a one specific "main" article title, which makes everyone wanting it to be in their own way, there would be at least one less reason for us to argue. Honestly, I can't imagine a one single reason, why MediaWiki engine developers couldn't have done only with what is now called "redirects". =( ETST (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me answer for Devil's Advocate. As far, as I'm aware, this specific title haven't appeared previously. But the same could be said about just any other title that anyone can make up in their head. This specific proposed title has so much problems, that I don't even know, where to start. Anyway, the whole idea of inventing a whole new title isn't actually new, there was a couple of such titles and they were outright rejected in previous votes (but he'll probably try and use it to organize a whole new vote anyway =D). ETST (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It was brought up once Outback, but there was not much discussion about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all for the background info on this. :) Outback the koala (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"The whole idea of compromise is that it is not what either side wants the most." I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say here, and what that has to do with our discussion. Maybe, compromise is not what either side wants THE MOST. But still, it is something, that either side WANTS, isn't it? So what exactly do you WANT? First, you talk about "common name" and "easiness of search", and now it seems, you're all for the "scope of the article". Will you, please, settle on something already?

"It is not about a POV compromise, or even common name" Maybe now "it is not about a POV compromise", but despite your pretense, it's still about "common name". Just as I have already pointed out, what you're trying to do now is some kind of a trade between "easiness of search" and "scope of the article". But the current article name is also not only a "POV compromise", but a long-established compromise between "easiness of search" and "scope of the article", too. So, what exactly makes you think, that your new proposed search/scope ratio is better? Personally, I don't believe so. Proposed title doesn't "address" your imagined "issue of the article's scope" (which somehow is rarely brought up by anyone but you). It trades in favor of slightly more descriptiveness in the title, but, in return, it literally sinks the title into the bottoms of "common name" lists. The proposed title is not used anywhere. It's a complete disaster.

"there can be little logical dispute about which title is more commonly used in English sources" Well, I guess, it would be surprising, if you would call the arguments, that you disagree with, correct and "logical". But in fact, "logical disputes" about "more commonly used title" and about pros and cons of different methods, which one can use to try and measure "сommonness of title", do exist in reality. They all can be found in the talkpage archives and, since they're not going anywhere, you can refresh your recollections of them in your free time.

"To call this the South Ossetia War is to neglect the reality of what happened with Abkhazia." Somehow, I do not need to claim knowledge of "the reality of what happened" and to accuse someone of "negligence" in order to make my point. Need I remind you about the difference between "the reality" and the Point of View?

"Also, admins already ruled, and I can provide the link, that Russia-Georgia War was a neutral title." Looks like I really had needed to remind you about POV. Somehow, I'm not even interested in your link, since if you have read the rules, then you know that no admin (or any other kind of an authority figure whom you can persuade in correctness of your opinion at your leisure) can legally make verdicts establishing presence or absence of a NPOV dispute. I really don't understand, what you were trying to achieve by saying that.

Pity, but it looks like the "honest" approach didn't work. You haven't stated your reasons for changing the title. And when you will, then, no doubt, they will miraculously change from what they were the last time to something accommodating your latest most strongly-looking argument. Everything goes just as usual. ETST (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I keep asking you guys to acquaint yourselves with the naming conventions, but you seem to show that you have done no such thing. The policy is that when a consensus can not be reached then a descriptive title should be used. You cannot argue that the proposed change is not more descriptive than the current one and one other editor who has called for a change sees it as an acceptable compromise. At least one other editor who has resisted a change at least shows some receptiveness to this proposed compromise.

Also, you can say the current title is a POV compromise as much as you want, but when the most vigorous supporters of it are so pro-Russian they do not even consider Russian state-owned media to be an acceptable resource proving another title's neutrality towards Russia it suggests otherwise. The current title does not represent any form of compromise.

Aside from common name, which as I said is not a consideration if it is a compromise due to a lack of consensus real or otherwise, do you have any other objections at all? It is certainly more descriptive of the scope and will only open up new chances for a search to uncover the article. I doubt you have a POV objection either. Can you think of any other reason?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All valid points. It is hard to say this proposed title is less descriptive, but I think we should really avoid making up titles, if titles like the current one are used elsewhere (which it is used-although I'm sure arguments could be made for how widespread is the use, whether scholarly source use it...) then we really should not deviate from the status quo, in this situation. We should be wary in general of using titles on event that, while they may be descriptive, is not a used name for said event. I really don't want to sound like I'm putting down the actions/events on the Abkhazian front during the war, but as far as this title goes, I'm not so sure that I could support over the current title. Xeeron, above said that a problem wit the current title is that it's not a commonly used name (I am paraphrasing), but this would only make it worse if you subscribe to that position. Outback the koala (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added your signature. Don't forget to add it next time =D. ETST (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"I keep asking you guys to acquaint yourselves with the naming conventions, but you seem to show that you have done no such thing." Er... "You guys"? You really do have trouble counting? In case you didn't notice, I'm the only one here, who has bothered himself with opposing you, simply because nobody else wants to waste their time. What can I say, let us see into how you have mastered Wikipedia rules yourself, shall we?

"The policy is that when a consensus can not be reached then a descriptive title should be used. You cannot argue that the proposed change is not more descriptive than the current one" And? Even keeping in mind all the oversimplifications you could have made to make your arguments sound more convincing, the closest thing to that statement I could find is here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view. Disregarding your unfounded claims about what I can and can't argue, I have to say that I'm not even going to argue about that. Where does it say that we MUST use the MOST descriptive title? Do some kind of secret Wikipedia rules also regulate the level of descriptiveness a title should have? Can I name the article "2008 South Ossetia and Abkhazia war and also a naval skirmish near the borders of Abkhazia, and also there was that bird flying by at the time, you know, with a white-gray tail, etc"? To mock your argument even further, why don't we just copy-paste all the article's content into the article's title itself? I mean, why not, nothing else can be more descriptive, can it?

"one other editor who has called for a change sees it as an acceptable compromise. At least one other editor who has resisted a change at least shows some receptiveness to this proposed compromise" So, you can actually manage counting sometimes? (hmm, well, you still haven't shown that 1+1=2, so I guess I won't let my hopes raise up) Anyway, what was the reason for you to provide these statistics? Maybe you forgot again, that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and an imaginary vote already takes place in your head? Or maybe you want to convince someone, that your position has more arguments, since it has oh so unbelievably big support? Just what exactly you were trying to prove? Don't try and misrepresent things. This tiny squabble among us two (okay, four, if you insist so much on counting Xeeron and Outback the Koala too) doesn't really decide anything. If one wants to see for a really representative discussion, which will show the extent of support for each title, he will look for it in the archives, not into this circus, in which no one besides me wants to take part.

"Also, you can say the current title is a POV compromise as much as you want, but when the most vigorous supporters of it are so pro-Russian they do not even consider Russian state-owned media to be an acceptable resource proving another title's neutrality towards Russia it suggests otherwise." With these few sentences you managed to convey several funny implications like:

1. There were no "not pro-Russian" editors, who have supported current title (yeah, that's true, as long as you keep defining "pro-russian editor" as "one who doesn't support my title change").
2. Pro-Russian editors can't possibly support neutral title. If they support a title, then "it suggests"(to whom?) that there has to be something fishy with it.
3. Pro-Russian editors are "lower class" editors, whose arguments shouldn't be considered when discussing the article title (I mean, they're all oh so evil and biased, why listen to them?).

Looking at that, all I can do is make FACEPALM #4, #5 and #6. You know, maybe I won't even argue that presently most of the current title supporters are not "pro-Russian" in a true sense. But it's only because all "unmotivated" people were scared away by the likes of you and me a long-long time ago to the galaxy far-far away. Since you made an attempt at statistics up there, I'll let you know, that it's called Attrition bias, and your implications are based on data that suffers from it. In any case, I can't pretend that I'm really surprised by your attitude, since you have never hesitated to show it before. It's just your usual Ad hominem argument, which you always employ, when you start to lack real arguments.

Now, speaking of to the pale shadow of a real argument, hidden behind all that. The argument "Russian state-owned media" is an "acceptable resource proving another title's neutrality" was very easily disproven in previous discussion with a counter-argument, which can be understood by any person, "pro-russian" or not. By the way, while re-reading that discussion, I also discovered, that it was also the one, in which you first tried that clever "admins ruled title is NPOV" trick, pity it didn't work then, too, isn't it? Anyway, your constant repetition of arguments while acting like they're still fresh is exactly what makes this discussion a circus.

"The current title does not represent any form of compromise." To keep on a par with your "You can say the current title is a POV compromise as much as you want", I'm obliged to tell that you are also free to think so. I do not share your opinion.

"Aside from common name, which as I said is not a consideration if it is a compromise due to a lack of consensus real or otherwise, do you have any other objections at all?" I do, but if I can help it, I won't waste my time seeing you address my other objections, when you yet have the problem with a "common name", which is a consideration, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

"It... will only open up new chances for a search to uncover the article" Are you sure you were reading me carefully? Just in what way making user to type more in browser will help "to uncover the article"? Or are you trying to imply, that Google will suddenly and drastically change PageRank, just because you added two words "and Abkhazia" to the page content, of which one is a mere conjunction (which by default isn't used during search) and another is already present? And even forgetting that for a second, have you really wanted to say that someone would search not for "South Ossetia war" but for "Abkhazia war"? Let alone the fact, that it's yet another title, which is used nowhere, but many won't even spell Abkhazia properly or even won't bother to memorize it (somehow that didn't preclude some of them from arguing there about article title though). Stop joking around, will you?

To sum it all up. A compromise is a compromise. A trade is a trade. Stop mixing these just because "compromise" sounds better. If you think that the article title needs a new search/descriptiveness ratio, you have to make arguments for that. You still fail to explain, what's so good in proposed title, that we must adopt it. And you use all the same mouldy arguments and ad-hominems, as in previous discussions. I'm not an Iron Man (2) and I'm not durable enough for this endless repetition, so, another post from you in that spirit, and I'm asking an admin for mediation. ETST (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Devil's Advocate, since you immediately went ahead with planting seeds of doubt in my persona among admins, I have no choice but request the mediation immediately too. User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#User:ETST. Be advised. ETST (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am against "Russia-Georgia war" because the war was between S.O. and Georgia with Russia on Ossetian side. Soviet Officers supported opponents of US during war in Vietnam. But the war wasn't called USSR-USA war. You should feel difference between "Russia supported S.O." and "Russia attacked Georgia".
• What about South Ossetia Abkhazia war. I think the topic should be divided. Great Patriotic War was WWII. So war in SO in 2008 was part of "events happened in august 2008". I think the article and the topic should be reorganized.--Bouron (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that second part meant to say you think we should have a general topic to cover all events including those in Abkhazia with the current title being assigned to a topic dealing only with events in the war concerning South Ossetia? It is a nice idea which has been proposed before, however that would be a later consideration. What specifically do you think about having the current article moved to 2008 South Ossetia and Abkhazia War?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this: I think the title proposal is too confusing. It sounds like it might be a war between South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and just sounds awkward overall. It also fails to mention the two main parties involved (Russia and Georgia), which makes it no improvement over the current title in that respect.

I don't think there's need to mention Abkhazia in the title. While involved, it was only a minor actor. South Ossetia was the focal point of the war. A similar example I can think of is The Crimean War. It was a war fought between multiple empires and involved much more territory than The Crimea alone. Yet it would be silly to call it The Crimean and Baltic and Western Turkey and Pacific etc.. war, wouldn't it? "The Crimean War" is fine, and I feel "The 2008 South Ossetia War" is similarly fine. LokiiT (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Crimean War is the name it is essentially universally known by today. There is no way you can make the same claim about the current title for this article. As such your comparison is moot. Also, as I said, the point of the compromise is addressing the scope and while some like to look at the level of actual combat you cannot neglect the strategic gains either. Not only did Russia capture several towns in the area of Abkhazia but one of Georgia's two main ports. They subsequently sunk every Georgian military ship there. The fact the Georgians turned tail and fled during these operations should not diminish their significance as it concerns the scope of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And here comes this mouldy "fighting took place outside of South Ossetia" argument. I believe, that LokiiT's main point was that current title has enough descriptiveness as it is (and if you're ever going to answer me up there, you won't be able to pretend, that rules do require any more of it). But of course you went ahead and mixed that with it being universally known or not. I guess that marks the end to a constructiveness in our discussion. Looks like my initial resolution to avoid this discussion and only come back after you have managed to bring up yet another vote was absolutely justified. ETST (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the current title has enough descriptiveness. You see, that is what the compromise is about. The fact a less descriptive title is used overwhelmingly for a war a century and a half ago does not mean one of the least used names for this war is ok because it is also not descriptive of the scope. If South Ossetia War were used most I would not object to keeping it, but it is not. If South Ossetia War were descriptive of the article's scope I would not object to keeping it, but it is not. Consider what most people think of when they hear "Crimean War" and whether they get from that title an accurate representation of the conflict. They don't, but since it is the common name we must accept it. However, in this case the current title is not the common name so there is no justification for a title that misrepresents the scope of the subject. Even though the POV objections regarding other names were not legitimate in deference to that I proposed this as I see no reason for it to be objected to on the same grounds and it will better represent the scope.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, what can I say, it really entertains me, how even a shadow of possible admin intervention made you tread such a thin line. But unfortunately, even your careful handling of words won't make your arguments fresh and convincing. I can make several conclusions about this discussion up to that point:

1. Right now, you have failed to answer my big post above, but just repeated your arguments again, as if you didn't hear me (and using summarizing explanative style, which absolutely coincidentally is very suitable for being understood by uninvolved admins). Therefore, I declare your arguments void. These include, but are not limited to:
   1. Your proposal is required to be accepted by some kind of Wikipedia policy, which requires article title to be THE MOST descriptive.
   2. You have a link to an official decision by some Wikipedia authorities, that "Russia-Georgia war" cannot be considered biased title for the article, and POV objections regarding that title were illegitimate.
   3. Accepting your proposed title will improve accessibility of the article to Wikipedia users.
2. You continue to use as a justification and base your conclusions on the same old arguments, which were (ab)used numerous times during previous discussions ad nauseam, but nevertheless have not gained universal acceptance, and were opposed with (no less abused) corresponding counter-arguments. These include, but are not limited to:
   1. "Current title is not the one most commonly used" (there was never an agreement neither on that thesis, nor on a method, which should be used to determine commonness of a title, and whether common title could have been established so soon after the event at all).
   2. "Current title is not descriptive enough"/"doesn't reflect the scope of the article"/"misrepresents subject" (there was never an agreement neither on that thesis, nor on what amount of what kind of fighting in what areas warrants mentioning said areas in article title).
3. You continue to exhibit the same behavioral traits, which preclude conduction of a constructive discussion. These include, but are not limited to:
   1. Repetition of arguments unchanged, simply ignoring presented counter-argumentation or not answering to particular posts at all (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).
   2. Usage of Ad Hominem arguments against opponents.

Let me also reiterate over counter-arguments to your proposal from me and other users, that you keep on very successfully ignoring:

1. Current title is descriptive enough (hopelessly differing opinions on #2.2).
2. Proposed title is less clear for understanding, than current one. E.g. it may confuse users into thinking, that it was a war between South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3. Proposed title is significantly longer and has much more difficult spelling, which might hinder article accessibility to Wikipedia users.
4. Proposed title is even less commonly used, than current one (if at all).
5. Since even the current title has to constantly face the commonness objection (#2.1), the adoption of proposed title will lead to a much increased title-warring.

Now, having said all that, since this discussion is clearly leading us nowhere, just like the other 20+ rename discussions before, and there's obvious lack of interest in it from other editors, I'll only continue arguing with you seriously, if your next post will:

1. Contain your admission, that your points #1.1, #1.2, #1.3 are void.
2. Not contain restatement of points #2.1 and #2.2 as if they were universally accepted facts, and not just your own opinions, which they really are (In your latest post you have finally added the magic words "I think" to your usual "the current title hasn't enough descriptiveness". That's a good start).
3. Contain your full point-by-point answer on each and every of the five counter-arguments, presented above (Quotation/Response format is very welcome, foreign inclusions into this very post are not and will be removed).

Otherwise, I consider my further presence here a yet another waste of time, and I won't show up, unless you'll somehow manage to canvass up a yet another voting session. Another possibility, which I'll gladly pursue if Future Perfect at Sunrise will be unable to handle this situation, is a start of an RfC or ArbCom on this whole matter with two-year long title-warring in this article. Have a nice day. ETST (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have always preferred the title "Russo-Georgia War" as they were the two main combatants in the war. "2008" South Ossetia war" has never been appropriate, as the conflict also took place in Georgia proper and the disputed area of Abkhazia. IJA (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear IJA, I have to remind you, that this thread is not a general rename discussion. You can find a week-old general rename discussion just above closed by an administrator with these words: "Any new proposal at renaming can be brought forward later only if it comes with fresh, new ideas, and if it is proposed by somebody other than those who have been squabbling over it for months". As you surely understand, neither you, nor your arguments qualify. This thread contains a discussion about a specific title "2008 South Ossetia and Abkhazia war" proposed by Devil's Advocate. Why won't you express your opinion on it? ETST (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not bite away other contributors from this discussion. I left this discussion open because in the beginning it looked as if, counter to all expectations, it was developing into a slightly more constructive debate than on earlier occasions. To keep it that way, what we need most is wide input, rather than just a to-and-fro between two or three. At the moment, the main source of non-constructiveness in this thread appears to be you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this debate on and off as an independent observer. It is probably correct to assume that some who object to the current title, object because they believe 'wikipedia' violates internationally recognised Gerogian sovereignty, that it presents a Georgian region as an independent state - a state which has been overtaken by Russian geopolitical ambitions. It also seem reasonable to assume that some editors who want to keep the title do so because they want to push South Ossetian independence. However, south Ossetia can also be seen as a region - an internationally recognised region of Georgia - and that specific war spiraled out of that Georgian region. It is a specific chapter of the wider Russia-Georgia conflict that has been going on since 1991. That is why I would be inclined to keep the title. It may be useful to adapt the introduction of the article and, for instance create a '2008 Russia–Georgia War' article that re-directs to this one. For instance Russian campaign redirects to French invasion of Russia . Well, of course I might be wrong and this is the end of my involvement. Finally, just imagine if South Ossetia re-named itself to Republic of Shida Kartli and spoke of 'ethnic Shida Kartlis' as an separate nation... Fortunately that is not the case. Politis (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the full list of redirects (some of them are really weird). Feel free to add more. --Illythr (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good day, Dear Politis, thanks for your contribution to this discussion. I'm glad to finally see a new face here. =) Concerning your opinion, I fully agree with you. But these arguments (which, I believe, can be named for short "South Ossetia war is NPOV since SO is a name of a region", and "If we need that title so that users can find the article, why don't we make it a redirect instead?") aren't exactly new, and unfortunately, they didn't help to reason with anyone. =( At least, you can see, that "2008 Russia-Georgia war" is in the list of redirects for a long long time, but adoption proposals for that title still appear even now. ETST (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One editor raised an issue concerning the title saying it could be seen as a war between South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I do not think this would be an issue as it seems when the name of combatants on both sides are used in an article's title they usually use a hyphen as in Eritrean-Ethiopian War or Iran-Iraq War while articles that use the name of combatants on one side would use "and" such as French and Indian War, which is used as a general name for several conflicts with France in the North American colonies as well as the formal name of the Seven Year's War on the continent. Also, something I just thought of, one could see it as saying what the war was about. The current title could be taken and indeed has been taken as meaning the war is about South Ossetia, while South Ossetia and Abkhazia war would mean the war was about South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Given that the buildup to the war, the events during the war, and the aftermath of the war all involved both republics it would seem to me to be a better fit in that respect.

Also, I would like to reiterate this is referring to a compromise, meaning the question is not whether you think it is the best title, but whether you consider it an acceptable alternative.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there some sort of source using this name? Also, it doesn't solve the original issue of the war scope being larger... Say, did someone propose "2008 war in Georgia" before? That one looks fairly accurate and neutral to me as it 1) Defines the scope correctly and 2) Makes no implications about who fought/attacked/etc who. --Illythr (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

War in Georgia raised issues from some editors as it suggests South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia. The point is to find a title where no POV objection can be made that will also better accommodate the scope.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, at the time of the war South Ossetia and Abkhazia were recognized as part of Georgia by every UN member, including Russia... --Illythr (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

support War in Georgia (2008) - most neutral--DAI (Δ) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

POV has absolutely nothing to do with the title of a historical event, the majority of sources should dictate what the actual title is. The literature on the subject calls this conflict mostly by two competing titles (or dirivitives of the same concept), the Georgian War or War in Georgia and the Russo-Georgian or Russia-Georgia War. No respectible literature uses the title 2008 South Ossetian War, the only sources that use the currenty title generally derive from wikipedia itself. Whatever title is chosen should reflect what actual sources cite as the title and not something made up purely by wikipedians is as the current title is. Both Georgian War or War in Georgia and Russo-Georgian War (or some other dirivitive) can easily be sourced through large amounts of reputable literature and either one of these titles should be used.XavierGreen (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A good example of a similar historical conflict that would follow a convention similar to Russo-Georgian War would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878). This conflict was quite similar in nature as it involved sepratists and the russians invading a foreign country to support the sepratists. There are literally dozens of similar conflicts using the same naming convention.XavierGreen (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree there are a lot of people who object to it and convincing an admin to move the article is difficult as long as that remains the case. Basically, the question here is whether the proposed change would be acceptable. Many other proposed titles are resisted for a variety of reasons. A few editors opposed to a change in the past showed signs they would be receptive to the compromise title listed above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up to my earlier comment and taking into account the arguments above, I'm sticking with my original opinion that the current title is better than the proposed compromise. As I already said, if the compromised name is supposed to be more descriptive, which does seem to be the sole intent of this specific name, then it still fails in that respect for not mentioning the two main actors in the war. If description is the main concern then you might as well just go with Russia-Georgia war. However I'm not advocating this name myself. I still think the current title is fine. Moreover I don't think this topic should be revisited until the war can be found in history books and we can use those as an academic point of reference, taking into account the POV of different countries' texts. LokiiT (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate asked me to comment on this discussion several days ago, as I played a role in past discussions on the article's title, which you can see in Archives 25 and 26. First off, I would like to say that I agree with XavierGreen that the best article title, in my opinion, would be 2008 Russian-Georgian War. However, that is not what we are here to discuss. Rather, we are determine whether to keep the article title as is or change it to the proposed compromise title: 2008 South Ossetia and Abkhazia War. This brings me to my second point: I feel that including "Abkhazia" in the article title would be better than keeping it excluded for the reasons already given by The Devil's Advocate, primarily that including "Abkhazia" better reflects the scope of the article and the war. Third, I feel that the concerns brought up by LokiiT are spot-on: neither the current title nor the proposed compromise title mention the two main combatants, which is something that I feel needs to be addressed. Therefore, I would like to propose another compromise title, one that addresses the lack of mention of the two main combatants in both the current title and The Devil's Advocate's proposition and the lack of mention of "Abkhazia" in the current title. My proposition is this: as a majority of post-World War II military conflicts have been named after the geographic location of the conflict, why not this one? I suggest that the article title be 2008 War in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. However, this title will only be a temporary one. As there is a lack of consensus on the name of the war amongst scholars and historians, I feel that we should use the name that is most descriptive (which I believe to be this one), at least until a firm consensus has been made on the name of the war amongst scholars and historians. In addition, Wikipedia's naming convention states that, when consensus cannot be reached on the name of an article, the most descriptive name should be used. I believe this title to be the most descriptive. Therefore, I feel that we should temporarily move this article to the title of 2008 War in South Ossetia and Abkhazia until consensus is reached on the name of the war amongst scholars and historians. Then, the article should be moved to that title. What do you guys think? My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what D's Advocate proposes. --Illythr (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, yes. The only real difference is the re-wording of the title and the inclusion of the word "in", so as to reflect the geographic lcoation of the fighting. Laurinavicius (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The war was between South Ossetia and Georgia. So my favorite title is 2008 Georgia-South Ossetia war. it was not only on the territory of SO but also on Georgian part of kartli plain. Title 2008 War in South Ossetia and Abkhazia is acceptable for me as neutral title. --Bouron (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Gori, Poti etc are part of neither. --Illythr (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And what do you mean?--Bouron (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That the argument about the new name (2008 War in South Ossetia and Abkhazia) being descriptive of the geographic location of the conflict is invalid. "2008 Georgia-South Ossetia war" is a no go as well, because SO wasn't recognized as separate from Georgia until several weeks after the war. Even now, it's just 4 countries out of 194. --Illythr (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page to comment here (I'm guessing because of my involvement with Cyberattacks during the 2008 South Ossetia war). After reading the discussion, I think that any title will reflect one or more of at least three topics:

1. The location of the conflict (i.e., Where was the conflict fought?);
2. The participants in the conflict (i.e., By whom was the conflict fought?); and
3. The locus or focus of the conflict (i.e., Over what was the conflict fought?).

2008 war in South Ossetia emphasizes the location of the conflict, 2008 Russo-Georgian War emphasizes the participants, and 2008 South Ossetia war emphasizes either (not entirely correctly) the location of the conflict or the focus of the conflict. The first two are problematic for reasons which have already been noted, including that the conflict was fought on Abkhazian, Georgian, and South Ossetian territory and that the conflict was fought by four parties, not two. The third one, however, is not as problematic, since South Ossetia was (regardless of all other factors) the main focus of the war.

So that we can avoid a title that is too long (e.g., 2008 war in Abkhazia, Georgia, and South Ossetia or 2008 Abkhazian-Georgian-Russian-South Ossetian war), and unless someone can establish common usage, I think we should continue to use the current, least-problematic, and shortest title. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked because you previously opposed a move. While you may still support the current title this issue will keep coming up as long as it remains the title. The point here is to see if the proposed title is acceptable, meaning most of the interested parties will not subject it to back-and-forth debate. It looks like until this war becomes more widely covered by academic literature a common name resolution is out of sight. Since you did not express this here I'll note your stated lack of opposition to this proposal.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. The fact that we are trying to name a conflict which took place less than two years ago is definitely an impediment to reaching agreement on a generally-acceptable title. And, yes, I do not really oppose the proposed change, but I do think that the current title is better (more general and more accurate). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: we've had enough discussion on renaming the article already.FeelSunny (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Article should had been renamed long ago because its current title was not previously, nor is now, among most widely used names of war in reliable sources (which are "August War" and "Russia-Georgia war" and "Georgia War"). But certain group has effectively managed to stall any attempts to rename it, demonstrating once again excellent failure of wikipedia consensus method in such controversial topics. There will never be any consensus on this topic, and therefore faction behind current title is well entrenced. In current system they can hold their position for years, as long as they manage to field atleast some minimal numbers, which shouldn't be a problem considering high importance of this war. And that's it. But hey, all knowing wikipedians know better then those silly books and stuff that tend to use other names anyway, so its all fine!--Staberinde (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that its quite clear that there is consensus to change it to Georgian War, or Russia Georgian War. It does seem that there is a small cabal of NPOV editors holding it up. It also seems that those editors care little about actually history and more about the politics surrounding the name. I think the current title actually holds a South Ossetian centered point of view that is not reflective of the rest of the world, thus this article does not satisfy the NPOV requirements.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you two accept the proposed compromise title? The point is to find some middle ground so that we can avoid more of these rename discussions, at least until an undeniable consensus emerges outside Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept only 3 titles which I mentioned earlier: "August War" google books=28 google scholar=222, "Russia-Georgia war" gb=31 gs=114 and "Georgia War" gb=37 gs=90 which all clearly beat current title gb=10 gs=24. We can compromise by choosing between these 3 titles which are all relatively popular but that's it. We cant compromise by choosing some title which is halfway between common title and fringe title, we will just get even more fringe title which is silly. You either have common title which is one of the most popular ones among reliable sources, or not. There are no "half-way" solutions. It gets somewhat more problematic to establish which is most common in reliable sources between "August war", "Georgia war" and "Russia-Georgia War" so I consider all 3 acceptable but these are also only ones which I consider acceptable. If "Russia-Georgia War" is considered to be POV by current title's backers, then we can compromise by picking either "August war" or "Georgia war".--Staberinde (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, missed it earlier but actually "Georgian war" is also an option gb=39 gs=109.--Staberinde (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the sister articles on the other language wikipedia's there seems to be several that have already changed the article names to Russian-Georgian War or a similar equivalant.XavierGreen (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Staberinde and The Devil's Advocate - the current title is far from being the one used most commonly in English-language sources. Even if we forget about Google, we can still look into the sources used as references for the article to verify that. And as Devil's Advocate pointed out, first we all need to agree on the above - that we have to change the title in order to respect WP:AT.

The second step is indeed to find an appropriate title, among the most common English-language names. IMHO all the three titles, proposed by Staberinde, are good and definitely are a lot better than what we have now. The title "Georgia war" (which I also proposed in the past) seems a good compromise, in case there're serious complains about "Russia-Georgia War". Last but not least, it's close to the name, used by the most authoritative source we have - the Tagliavini report. There this historical event is called "The Conflict in Georgia". Kouber (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "Georgia war" sounds best among possible variants.--Staberinde (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with Georgia War or some variant (such as War in Georgia, or Georgian War).XavierGreen (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Replying here, because I don't want to get involved in the slugfest below. While I still think Georgia-Russia war would be better, I am not opposed to War in Georgia or variants (it is clearly better than the current title). --Xeeron (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly i haven't read everything, but if another title for convenience/searching is required why not be WP:Bold create it and redirect to the main South Ossetian war page.Lihaas (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the point is more to have the article be under a different title to provide a temporary compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that based most of recent comments, making official move request to "Georgia war" (note: no "2008" is needed as no other war has such name) would be appropriate soon.--Staberinde (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that based on the fact, that many people (including me) simply don't want to discuss it with you guys anymore (for God's sake, 27 rename attempts in 22 months!), which is reflected by several comments in this discussion, and others plainly and explicitly stated, that they don't accept any kind of "Georgia-Russia war" title (with or without "2008"), that there's clearly still no consensus for the move. And that aside, it's really fun to see, how this discussion was initially supposed to be about "compromise title" but turned out into yet another "yay, Russia-Georgia war title" round, just like I have predicted. Looks like this case of disruptive title-pushing really needs administrative attention. ETST (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, if you can't be bothered reading what I actually wrote, or are simply unable to comprehend basic English, then in future please don't bother replying to my comments at all. Thank you.--Staberinde (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"If you... simply unable to comprehend basic English" Oh my, did I get a personal attack now? Ah well, I've seen worse from you guys, you better try harder to surprise me next time. And it's not that I'm not reading what you write. It's that I can stand reading the same thing 27 times only if it's Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and even there I'm reaching my limit.

"in future please don't bother replying to my comments at all" Sorry, not even in your wildest dreams I'm going to leave this title-pushing matter alone. It has gone too far, in my opinion.

Speaking to the point, if you somehow think, that those mutually-reassuring cries of "yay, Russia-Georgia war" between you and XavierGreen (with nothing but the same old mouldy arguments, and in a thread, that from the start was supposed to be restricted to discussing only Devil's Advocate proposal) somehow nullify all 26 previous rename discussions (including votes, in which at least 50+ people have participated, but which, despite being rigged by Eastern European Mailing List cabal in your favor, still turned out in favor of current title), then I'm not the one not knowing "basic things" here.

I can recall at least 3 different admins (I can probably find more, if I'll dig into archives deeper), who explicitly stated here, that these rename discussions are unproductive and should cease for a long time, yet here you are, as persistent, as always. No wonder, you're being ignored.

If you think, that under these circumstances you will be able to convince any admin to approve your "official move request", then I believe, that you are sadly mistaken. On the contrary, if this matter will finally attract administrative attention, I'm pretty confident, that there will be legally-binding decision on ceasing these "rename proposals" from you "old folk" for at least an year, and I have all the arguments and facts necessary to meet that end. As for now, I'm going to continue to be not bothered by your repetition of arguments Ad nauseam. But don't let my silence confuse you into thinking, that I'm not here. I'm just sparing my arguments for admins' ears, and I'll be putting down your move request if such need arises. Have a nice day. ETST (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you show at least some form of respect, by reading what we have written, before writing such an offensive reply. Kouber (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly ETST, if you don't plan to read to end of this comment, then there is no point in replying.

Now it is obvious that you either still don't understand what I wrote, or still didn't bother reading it at all, or just intentionally misrepresented my point (also known as Straw man argument) to derail the discussion, I just didn't spell out last variant previously because that would be assuming bad faith.

I am going to tell my last suggestion (supported by several other people if you read discussion) one more time, try to stay concentrated, proposed title: "Georgia war", like Georgia war. Period. No "Russo/Russia(n)" anywhere. Not at all. It is that simple. If anything remains unclear, then feel free to point out specific sentences, and I will explain again.--Staberinde (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Now it is obvious that you either still don't understand what I wrote..." It's OK if you think so, just don't place your hopes on it.

"...or still didn't bother reading it at all..." I have already explicitly pointed out, that I do read this discussion on a regular basis. But of all people, you and Kouber accusing me of "not reading" is plainly hilarious. "Georgia war" not only fails as an article title due to the very same reasons as "Russia-Georgia war", but it also fails so much more miserably due to its bunch of added weaknesses (like missing "mention of a major war participant - Russia", which was a very frequently stated argument in favor of "Russia-Georgia war" before; or like the weakness that even was mentioned by no one else but Devil's Advocate himself!), that I'm almost surprised, that you guys have decided to take it out of the dump, in which (if I'm not much mistaken) it was laying for at least a year now.

Now if YOU were reading me, then you would have gone to the vote I mentioned in my previous post (you were participating in it too, remember?) and seen, how "War in Georgia" title have never even managed to attract attention worth more than 7 votes(of which 5 were against). In a yet another slightly older big vote, there was a choice of "Georgian War including variants such as War in Georgia, 2008 Georgian War, Georgian War (2008), etc." it got only 5 votes with 3 against. Comparing this to the attention focus of 50+ opinions on current title, I have really nothing more to add on popularity of your title here.

In the wonderful discussions near those votes (and not only there, I might add) it is explained clearly (I see at least 3 distinct counter-arguments without digging too deep into archives), why mentioning only Georgia in title is unacceptable. During them I was there, you were there, Kouber was there. I really don't see any point in discussing it with you again.

"...or just intentionally misrepresented my point (also known as Straw man argument) to derail the discussion..." In all honesty, I don't even lay a finger on "your point", because, in case you didn't notice, I simply don't argue with it now. It was already done good enough before, many times, both with and without me. The "Georgia War" title (especially compared in quality to "Russia-Georgia war") has "durability of a straw" indeed, but I could care less about that, since it doesn't change either present situation or validity of my objections to this "discussion" a tiny bit. If you pretend not to see how my arguments against this title-warring circus remain valid whether I talk of "Russia-Georgia" or "Georgia", and instead insist on representing me as stupid and ignorant to oh such an "important" title distinction, then I'm not the one "derailing the discussion" here. You guys for a year now can't come up with a single new argument (but just endlessly repeat your old ones in hopes of finding a sympathetic admin) and blame all your problems on "cabals". "Derailing discussion" accusations aside, that simple fact is enough to say, that there's really no discussion taking place to begin with.

"...I just didn't spell out last variant previously because that would be assuming bad faith." Your proposed title is bad. You might continue to disagree with that statement, and it's your right to do so, but remember, that I have the right to disagree with you too, which I exercise now, since you have presented nothing new to change my opinion. This is called "lack of consensus". I would have really liked to achieve consensus once in a time for a change, but "There will never be any consensus on this topic" - you said it yourself. And calling your opponents "certain group" didn't really help resolving the dispute and upholding your pretense at "assumption of good faith" either. That's why I really don't want to discuss it with you, but you managed to answer with something so ridiculous that I nearly had no choice, but respond and point it out. Well, what can I say, I'm looking forward to finding out, whether I'll finally be able to stay faithful to my resolution of talking only with reasonable people and admins after your next reply. ETST (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. So many words but not what I expected, like good arguments how current tile "2008 South Ossetia war" is somehow superior to proposed "Georgia war". Saying that it fails for same reasons as "Russia-Georgia war" seems to indicate that you haven't really participated in those naming discussions so much at all, as main argument against that was basically "putting Russia first makes it look like agressor and violates NPOV". Any other weakness that "Georgia war" may have, like not mentioning some participants, automatically also apply to "2008 South Ossetia war". And mentioning some old poll which took place in August 2008 to prove that nobody likes the proposed title is hilarious, considering that number of reliable sources talking about war that can be used as basis has increased since then probably like few dozen times, not to mention WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CCC. On other hand I pointed out very clear major advantage of "Georgia war" over current title, it is simply used more widely by reliable sources.
Re: "In all honesty, I don't even lay a finger on "your point", because, in case you didn't notice, I simply don't argue with it now." Ok, so basically it is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not that I am particularly surprised. Still, thanks for honesty.--Staberinde (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're fantastic. You've managed to make me appear again. Keep it up.

"Oh my. So many words but not what I expected, like good arguments" Oh my, so few words and none of them to the actual point I made. As usual. What can I say, the technique of picking and attacking the weakest sentence out of opponent's text and completely ignoring his point doesn't produce lots of text indeed.

"Saying that it fails for same reasons as "Russia-Georgia war" seems to indicate that you haven't really participated in those naming discussions so much at all..." I think, you better stop projecting your ignorance on others. I've been in this article from the start till today, and have read everything on the talkpage, which is obviously not your case.

"...as main argument against that was basically putting "Russia first makes it look like agressor and violates NPOV"." And that's an example of your ignorance. Just because for the last half a year the main "change proposer" was Devil's Advocate, who like "Russia-Georgia war", and his main opponent was HistoricWarrior007, who liked that particular counter-argument, it doesn't mean, that it is single (or even "main") counter-argument there is. Now, in my previous post I specifically mentioned "at least 3 distinct counter-arguments" which work against "Georgia war", but did you care enough to go see them, before going "oh look, my title has one problem less"? No. You do not want to see the problems in your title. You do not want to ponder on your previous failures. Somehow, of all the people present, only I am obliged to actually make some effort and look into archived discussions - the tons of text, that were generated by your, title-pushers, relentless attempts to game the system. You're just wasting my time.

"Any other weakness that "Georgia war" may have, like not mentioning some participants, automatically also apply to "2008 South Ossetia war"." You are sadly mistaken. Anyway, it's more saddening to see, how long does it take to make a point across to you. It is obvious, that "not mentioning major participants" is and always was an argument against "2008 South Ossetia war" title, and I have quoted it as such. The point is (hint: bold font indicates that your attention should be turned on here) that since of all alternative titles the most popular is "Russia-Georgia war", and one of the most popular arguments in its favor is "not mentioning major participants", then your title, which (unlike "Russia-Georgia war") doesn't satisfy that criteria, miserably fails in comparison with "Russia-Georgia war". We're not having "Russia-Georgia war" title, so I don't see, why we should have your proposed title, which is even worse than that (and is not even a "compromise", contrary to the heading of this whole section). End of the point.

"And mentioning some old poll which took place in August 2008 to prove that nobody likes the proposed title is hilarious..." Well, looks like reading and counting never have been your strong point. I used as an example not one but two votes, and the latest and biggest of them was in April 2009, at the peak of attention to the article, not in August 2008. That clearly demonstrates, that there was never any kind of popularity for your title. But of course, you went ahead and picked the vote you liked, to try and represent it all like an outdated information. Now that is what I call "hilarious", but ultimately it's actually very sad.

"...considering that number of reliable sources talking about war that can be used as basis has increased since then probably like few dozen times..." Yeah, "probably". It's always the unfounded claims like that from you guys. You don't actually know, so I don't actually care.

"not to mention WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CCC" Damn, you actually made me laughing at that. So you mean, that you have participated in all these votes, because "wikipedia is not democracy"?? =) So you admit, that organizing votes is a useless thing? It is very crucial that you answer this question, because people have been saying "wikipedia is not democracy" to you guys for ages, but you still went ahead and got yourself a vote each and every time you wanted. And now, you're telling me, that I can't even use these votes to make a point. How very convenient to you and absolutely hilarious to me. =) And yes, "consensus can change". But it usually does only when there is an actual reason for it, e.g. unexpected news a-la "Turns out it really were Russians, who invaded first". Latest lack of interest in the article and its title discussions clearly indicates, that it's not the case. Also you guys keep forgetting that "consensus can change" doesn't mean "we can game the system and organize a discussion every month, until everybody gets sickened and lets us change the title". Not to say, that after looking at several people in this very section, who already voiced in favor of keeping current title or boycotted the discussion altogether, you can't call your opinion "consensus", anyway.

"On other hand I pointed out very clear major advantage of "Georgia war" over current title, it is simply used more widely by reliable sources." I hope you do realize, that arguments about "usage by reliable sources" were repeated there too much times for me to even bother? Looks like next time I see repetition of mouldy arguments I'll have no choice but answer only with "Ignored per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" (the combination of "Ignored" with "I didn't hear that" is quite ironic, I admit), in order to not waste my time.

"Ok, so basically it is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT." It looks like the actual reason for me not to argue with you still didn't sink in. I am going to repeat it again one more time, try to stay concentrated: I won't argue with the same people on the same matter for 27th time in 22 months (Oh wait, it's 31st time actually! I forgot to count 4 discussions that happened since HistoricWarrior007 first published his famous registry of rename attempts). Don't confuse it with a lack of arguments. I'm sparing my arguments for admins' ears, and I'll be putting down your move request if such need arises. Period. It is that simple. If anything remains unclear, then feel free to point out specific sentences, and I will explain again.

"Not that I am particularly surprised. Still, thanks for honesty." I've practically lost my ability to be surprised ever since that previously-unthinkable war started. The 31 rename discussions didn't help me to recover either. As for my honesty - you are always welcome. ETST (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion is getting very distracted, probably we are both more or less at fault here, but lets try to get concentrated and stick to relevant arguments, ignoring for a moment whole "who is the asshole here?" dispute where we are otherwise getting into. "2008 South Ossetia war" and "Georgia war". Simple advantages and disadvantages one title poses over other. My arguments are following:

1) "Georgia war" gb=41 gs=92 amazon=4 is simply more commonly used title in reliable sources compared to "2008 South Ossetia war" gb=11 gs=26 amazon=0. This is my primary argument.

Secondary somewhat less critical arguments:

2) "Georgia war" is more accurate then "2008 South Ossetia war" as location, because fighting took place not only in South Ossetia, but also in Georgia proper and other seceding republic Abkhazia.

3) "Georgia war" is more unambiguous as no other war has such name, while there is also 1991–1992 South Ossetia War forcing us to use "2008" in beginning of current title. That makes our title actually even less common gb=1 gs=13.

Feel free to disprove my arguments and/or show arguments that prove how "2008 South Ossetia war" is superior title compared to "Georgia war".--Staberinde (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"lets try to get concentrated and stick to relevant arguments, ignoring for a moment whole "who is the asshole here?" dispute where we are otherwise getting into."

You mean you have nothing to reply with, so you just feel like completely ignoring what I have said. Pretty amusing. As a matter of fact, what you have called "who is the asshole here?" dispute (and which is really "what is deeply wrong with this dispute" dispute) is the most constructive thing possible at that point, and nobody have ever seriously tried it before (unlike this so-called "relevant arguments" dispute that sees its 31st incarnation). But obviously you want to avoid it, because it's not to your advantage. Well I'm sorry, but this time I'm definitely putting an end to this tradition of indulging you guys and debunking your long-dead arguments each and every time you demand it. These discussions will never ever grow in quality, as long as you are allowed to pretend that your points have never been countered. Let me start doing it right now:

""Georgia war" is simply more commonly used title in reliable sources compared to "2008 South Ossetia war""

Ignored per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You've been bringing this up at least since June 2009, if not earlier, and the whole "Google hits" argument have first appeared and met its premature demise in August 2008, so if you feel like you still don't get some of it, do me a favor, and read all instances of discussing this on your own. I generally agree with what HistoricWarrior have been telling you for a year, so you may take his opinion as mine.

""Georgia war" is more accurate then "2008 South Ossetia war" as location, because fighting took place not only in South Ossetia, but also in Georgia proper and other seceding republic Abkhazia."

Oh my, tell me we're not into that Devil's Advocate favorite argument again. Ignored per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Looking at archives, I see it being constantly brought up and constantly refuted at least since September 2008. Please, do me yet another favor, and re-read relevant sections yourself.

""Georgia war" is more unambiguous as no other war has such name"

Oh really? That's actually not true, and the whole point of "Georgia war" being ambiguous and existence of other wars which it can be confused with, was actually one of "at least 3 distinct arguments against "Georgia war" title" (which I mention for the third time already). This ignorance of yours kinda spills the fact that you didn't bother to look into archives again. Ignored per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Overall, it's obvious, that you don't want to put any effort into remembering old counter-arguments against your proposals, which is quite not surprising, since you still can't beat them. But in case you'll finally want to try harder, cease pretending to have long-term memory dysfunction, and wish for a pointer on where in archives to look for the counter-arguments against your title (although I met no difficulty in locating them in a matter of 5 minutes, without any pointers besides knowing that they do exist), take this hint: The reason why "Georgia war" title never was popular, is because it was quite easily defeated in the earliest discussions and was abandoned by title-pushing gang in favor of a stronger "Russia-Georgia war" title. A big discussion in October 2008 is one good example of that.

Now, I feel obliged to reiterate over the following points, on which you still fail to comment. You might find them as "distracting" as you like, but I think that most of them would actually be very interesting to admins.

1. Of all alternative titles the most popular is "Russia-Georgia war", and one of the most popular arguments in its favor is "not mentioning major participants". Your title doesn't satisfy this (obviously important to many people) criteria and therefore fails in comparison with "Russia-Georgia war". We're not having the second-best "Russia-Georgia war" title, so why we should have your proposed title, which is even worse?
2. Several people in this very section already voiced in favor of keeping current title, other titles differing from your one, or boycotted the discussion altogether, so you can't say that there's a consensus for the move. Your arguments are overused, and they had failed to convince all of the people currently present. You have admitted it yourself, that "there will never be any consensus on this topic". If not for a consensus, then why exactly are you arguing here and what are you trying to achieve by it?
3. "Georgia war" title is an unpopular title (mostly, due to flaws that you are yet to admit), and that can be clearly seen from previous polls (which are much more representative, than this discussion). Since there's no consensus on adopting it even in this discussion, and it is not even a "compromise title" (contrary to the heading of this whole section), which could, at least, have kept most of the editors satisfied, then, if this title gets adopted, just how long do you expect it to last? Or, rather, how big of increase in occurrences of counter-productive rename disputes do you expect, when both major groups of discontented editors (who prefer the most popular titles: "Russia-Georgia" and "South Ossetia") will start to discover that sad fact?
4. "Consensus can change", but it usually does only when there is an actual reason for it, e.g. unexpected news a-la "Turns out it really were Russians, who invaded first". Latest lack of interest in the article and its title discussions clearly indicates absence of such reason. "Consensus can change" doesn't mean "we can game the system and organize a discussion every month, until everybody gets sickened and lets us change the title", so what exactly justifies bringing this discussion up for 31st time in a row, in a clear violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? ETST (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all "Russia-Georgia" and "South Ossetia" are not the most popular titles for this war. Those are, however, the two main titles we have discussed so far. And both have been proven inacceptable for the other side. That's the main reason we have this discussion repeated over and over again. And it will continue that way, unless we show some intelligence and pick a compromise title. I don't see how banging on the desk could help us in this situation.

And, yes, consensus can and should change, as indeed what seemed as a South Ossetia war on 8 August 2008 (when this title was initally picked), quickly evolved in something much wider. The sources are proving it. Kouber (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright ETST, if you don't want to to have any more reasonable discussion over title, then I can't really force it upon you.--Staberinde (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

...said Staberinde, while thinking "Bwa-ha-ha, if I place a move request that'll definitely force you, ETST, to argue in my way and copy paste those numerous counter-arguments from archives again. Eat that, sucker!". =) Well, of course you were right about that. But I'm really glad, that you finally did place a move request, and I was even planning to suggest it to you in my next post. We both know, that there are still enough neutral and reasonable editors left for this yet another rename attempt of yours to be going nowhere. But if you guys will finally start to bother with your title-pushing not only your fellow editors, but also the Wikipedia staff; if there'll be more involved administrators to witness and testify on uselessness and disruptiveness of these "rename discussions", then this madness will be stopped much quicker. I consider it a great mistake, that you weren't forced to place an official move request during each and every one of previous 30 rename discussions. It's good to know, that this mistake is going to be fixed from now on. ETST (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting, but I was requested to share my opinion by the DA on my TP. My opinion has not changed since the last vote: 1) I believe the curren title is the best of the proposed, 2) These discussions with repeating arguments are a total waste of time.FeelSunny (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)