Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Bad citing

The lead section ends with the following sentence: "The Russian military has occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia in violation of the ceasefire since August 2008.[32]" However, the citation leads to an article entitled "Georgia accuses Russia of violating international law over South Ossetia". Is Wikipedia blindly accepting one party's accusations as proof, without giving fair space for the other side's point of view? The sentence does not accurately report the information in the citation and is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.158.251 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree this is strange. There are additional extremely POV assertions, such as "Russia falsely accused Georgia of [...]" (emphasis mine). These are apparently backed by way less assertive links (which, even if they were more assertive, would still tell only one side of the story). This looks biased to me. We cannot objectively conclude, in cases of recent wars, whether one side was being "false" or not. 190.2.42.21 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to remove the "falsely accused Georgia" bit - it is by far the most blatant example of pov bias in the article, and it is astonishing that it is in the lede. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I think the article is in a dreadful state - its condition is so bad it raises serious questions about the editing abilities and aims of those who have worked on it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing

The pro-Russian POV-pushing brigade has arrived at last. The first accusation above is completely false, since IP editor clearly didn't read past headline. The text says: "Russia has occupied the two regions since 2008 in violation of an internationally agreed ceasefire following its brief war with Georgia." This is international position on the Russian military occupation. Of course, the people, who support Russia, won't like anything that is critical of Russia.

The red-linked editor is clearly biased towards Russia and resents the fact that the article doesn't agree with the Kremlin's propaganda version of history, that the war began with a surprise Georgian attack on Russian citizens and Russia had to defend itself from Georgian aggression. He claims that the accusation of "aggression" was not false. The cited source, published by the Library of Congress, is reliable and says, "On August 8, 2008, South Ossetia remained an integral part of Georgian territory, which excludes the possibility of Georgian aggression against South Ossetia and undermines the use of this international law principle in as justification for Russia’s action." So the accusation had no ground in international law. Needless to say, groundless accusation is false accusation.

The latest historical research, published by Rowman & Littlefield, also confirms that Russian accusation of being provoked by Georgia's "aggression" was false, "This official Russian narrative, however, was a prime example of active disinformation, a deception method of which the Russian secret service is the unrivaled champion. [...] Does this interpretation of the Russian war against Georgia as a Russian response, provoked by a Georgian aggression that led to a genocide, stand up to the facts? No, it does not."

I've been monitoring this article for quite some time and I think that this POV pushing circus and personal attacks have to end. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.--UA Victory (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Though you claim to know all about what Wikipedia is, you seem to have forgotten the basics: assuming good faith and not making personal attacks. After that, maybe a refresh of your understanding of what constitutes pov wording is in order, and also that of undue weight. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's rather bad form to respond to a contributor's call for an end to agenda-pushing and personal attacks with a politically motivated personal attack. 198.103.152.51 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've never claimed that I "know all about what Wikipedia is", but your original comment read like it was personal attack, so stop putting words in my mouth. I simply responded to your comment and explained the situation. You've failed to back up your belief with reliable sources on talk page, instead you remove reliably sourced content. Is not the Library of Congress reliable enough for you? --UA Victory (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"My original comment"??? You have dropped in from nowhere - so there is no "Original comment" that I could have made regarding you! What you posted above ("The red-linked editor is clearly biased towards Russia..." etc.), however, is a very clearly both a personal attack and a blatant display of bad faith. And this is harassment [1]. I advise you to change your ways regarding civility. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I came here to discuss the content and you've responded by commenting on my editing abilities, then you proceeded to revert without giving a valid reason, so I was forced to post edit-warring notice on your talk page, because it's a WP policy. Perhaps I've overreacted, but I'm sure someone else would take a comment on his/her editing abilities as personal attack. While you advise me to learn about WP policies, I'm well aware of them. However I've viewed your block log and I see that you are the one who has been blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing. You are avoiding the discussion of the reliability of cited sources.--UA Victory (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "Russia falsely accused Georgia of [...]" isn't one of reliability of sources. The problem is that its one point of view on a matter where there are different points of view in the other sources. The article is incorrectly using the voice of Wikipedia to make a statement of "fact" based on a selective set of sources. Its appropriate to say that this or that source has said "Russia falsely accused", but it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to be saying it as if it were an unquestioned and undisputed fact. Beyond this, the text in question should not be in the introduction in the first place. Political Bias is only a small part of the problems of the article. The greater problem is that its almost unreadable and has whole sections which make no sense at all. 75.17.127.27 (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Misleading lede

The lede states that "Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region. The Georgian Army was sent to the conflict zone on 7 August to defend civilians and restore order. Most of Tskhinvali, capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia, was recaptured in hours. Georgia later said it was also responding to Russia moving non-peacekeeping units into the country."

This is in clear contradiction with the findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. Here is an excerpt (p 19, 14.)

"Open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008. Operations started with a massive Georgian artillery attack. At the very outset of the operation the Commander of the Georgian contingent to the Joint Peacekeeping Forces (JPKF), Brigadier General Mamuka Kurashvili, stated that the operation was aimed at restoring the constitutional order in the territory of South Ossetia."

See also . The report dates from 2009 so that, imho, a complete overhaul of the article is long overdue.

The article states that the Georgian troops began military operation in South Ossetia on 7 August. However, this should not be confused with launching the war with Russia. The report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia also stated that there is "no way to assign overall responsibility for the conflict to one side alone."

A research from 2009 can not be a substantial reason for a complete overhaul, because some new researches have been published since 2009. A book published in 2010 by the Palgrave Macmillan explains that Ossetian shelling was one of the major factors that contributed to Saakashvili's decision to launch a military operation. A 2012 study uses the findings of the Russian researchers to question the findings of the EU-funded report. This study published in 2014 by Rowman & Littlefield found out that Russian General Baluyevsky had admitted to the war with Georgia being planned in advance before August 2008. The European Council on Foreign Relations found out in 2015 that "Russian deployment to South Ossetia" began on 7 August 2008 and "Lines of Russian disinformation even penetrated the EU's own final report." A brief overview of Russia's recent military history states, "Then-Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili launched a large-scale operation on August 8, 2008, against South Ossetian forces who were shelling ethnic Georgian villages in the region."--UA Victory (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

POV problems throughout article

This is one of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Its biased, its selective in its presentation of sources, and there is literally no attempt at any sort of a balanced presentation. The introduction is ten times as long as it should be. A background section which starts dealing the mongol invasion and events in the 10th Century to deal with a short war in 2008 is absurd. The section "Geopolitical impact" is currently being used for what amount to political speeches. A "..." is used to completely distort a quote. The section "Humanitarian impact and war crimes" depends far too much on one source and is far too long. Especially in the cases where there are articles covering a particular subject, there is no need to go over the same subject at such incredible length in the main article. The Military Analysis sections are incredibly confused, biased and make no sense when read. The Georgian analysis starts out praising the Georgian military for shooting down aircraft. The Russian section starts out with "performed poorly", then moves on to accuse a minister of "negligence", then goes on to describe the "poor performance of the Russian Air Force". The "see also" section is surreal. The first two entries on the list are the German occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Shelling of Mainila. Most of the article should be shortened and rewritten. Since the narratives with regard to the start of the war are in absolute conflict with each other, its probably going to be necessary to present both of them. 75.17.127.27 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And we have a much content about Russian interests and activities before the conflict began but nothing of Georgia's own activities, its policies towards its minorities which encouraged them to consider they had no place within independent Georgia, in particular the Georgia for Georgians policy, or of its president who proclaimed that Ossetians within Georgia were "trash that has to be swept out through the Roki Tunnel". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The article already mentions that there was an ethnic conflict between Georgians and Ossetians and that nationalism emerged in Soviet Georgia during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. You only focus on anti-Georgian content but protest against the content that is critical of Russia. --UA Victory (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Some parts even read like an editorial with dubious claims which cannot be verified. For example, the article claims that there is abundant evidence, including some in Russian media, that Russia actually started the war. The article does not specifiy where this "abundant evidence" can be found, and when checking the source for the claim, it turned out to be an opinion piece.

Is it that difficult to understand that opinion pieces and editorials can not be used as sources for claims that seek to present facts?

In the lead of the article one can read that the South Ossetians destroyed most ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia and were responsible for an ethnic cleansing of Georgians. This terrible allegation doesn't even cite a source!

Seriously, the user(s) writing this stuff shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. — 37 ^(talk) 00:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

" For example, the article claims that" - that's incorrect. The article does not claim that. The article claims that a particular scholar said that. Anything else, or is this just a bunch of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this claim is based on the opinion of one particular scholar, Svante Cornell to be precise. This person's views on the Russo-Georgian War have been criticised by multiple journalists and fellow scholars. Its just one example how this article is selective in its presentation of sources, as another user on this talk page mentioned. — 37 ^(talk) 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There was a lot of POV activity regarding this article since the very start. The neutrality was allways highly questionable and statements or claims mostly favoured the Russian standpoint at the beginning - neglecting and rejecting anything that might support or backup the Gerogian POV alltogheter. The ongoing cyber war is still not concluded. That way it is difficult to establish some decent neutral and solely fact based sections in response to claims and statements. If you have information with actual, topical, unbiased and preferably timely and valid sources that can varify events as they took place you are welcome to insert them. It's not like there is any restriction policy regarding that on wikipedia. But when you talk about "balance" and sources being "selective" it factualy goes both ways as everyone can see in the history. New studies are more important from a researchers perspective than just inserting some fact finding missions that were concluded in a matter of weeks after the conflict. Just complaining about replacing bias with what you personaly think is more bias is no sufficient complaint. If you are serious about establishing a neutral article, you should A. find valid sources that verify information, disregarding any possible bias from either side and B. when there are two opposite claims, then not just one, but both should be regarded, when they are further backed by valid sources. A source that concludes something backed by further reference and evidence - which happens to not saturate ones personal belief or POV - is not a biased source. It's a valid source. Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you the right to delete or replace it. If you can add something that backs up a different position than insert it as a contrast to the first one. That is the only way I see how this dispute can be settled. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The content seems not objective.

As I have witnessed the unfold of the war in a live feed by BBC journalist in South Ossetia at the time when the rockets rained down the city before the Russian Army responded next day.

Current TEXT: Russia falsely accused Georgia of "aggression against South Ossetia",[30] and officially launched a large-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia on 8 August under the guise of "peace enforcement" operation. My version: Russia accused Georgia of "aggression against South Ossetia",[30] and officially launched a large-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia on 8 August under the guise of "peace enforcement" operation.

The use of the word "falsely" already made judgement for readers who are unaware of the before and afters of the war. I cannot say for sure ALL events but at least I have seen the live footage from a BBC journalist who happened to be in the capital of South Ossetia at the time when the Georgian rockets rained down the city before Russian troops were stomping in next day. Therefore, using the word of "falsely" is not only controversial but also taking the situation out of context unless the author can prove the time, date and place of occurrence. Leave that word out and let the reader make their judgement. For example, after I read to that phrase "falsely accused", I have no more interest to read the rest of the article as I felt it will be biased and the so called "facts or incidents" in the subsequent paragraphs may be falsifiedWorld Citizen in New York (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. And in the article Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War is said that EU Independent Fact Finding Mission Report "open hostilities started "... with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008"". Cathry (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there are massive problems here. The latest edit that included the "falsely" ([2], subsequently edit-warred back in [3][4][5]) is just the icing on the cake. Even without that overtly POV addition, the wording of the intro is seriously skewed. Just compare the wording regarding the activities of the two main parties in the lead: the Georgian army "was sent" (passive voice, de-emphasizing agentivity and responsibility) "to defend civilians and restore order" (claiming legitimate goal as an unquestionable fact); Tskhinvali "was captured" (again passive voice). In contrast, Russia "launched an invasion" (active voice, emphasizing aggressive intent) "under the guise of 'peace enforcement' operation" (presenting motivation as false, using scare quotes); Russian forces "battled" Georgian ones (again, emphasizing aggressive agentivity and responsibility of Russian side). All these are covert POV messages through the choice of language alone; not even looking into the choice and weighting of facts and sources. I'm quite disappointed this was passed as GA when all this POV verbiage was already there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Will there be any consequences for those who created this "massive problems" with POV? What about those responsible for passing this article as GA, contrary to valid objections of other editors or reviewers (including myself)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Admin, the source was reliable and it was POV-editors who were removing reliably sourced content because they didn't like the content. I've now reverted my edit. I'm sorry if I've caused a mess. However, I want to point out that two users who have reverted me, 92slim and Tiptoethrutheminefield, both edit in Armenia-related topics and the Satala page, which suggests the possibility of tag-teaming. Yet, it was me who was given a discretionary sanction warning.

Also I want to point out that it was RGloucester who objected to Antidiskriminator's original GA review and other editor also found it strange.

I don't understand what your problem with "The Georgian Army was sent to the conflict zone on 7 August to defend civilians and restore order" is. Multiple reliable sources say that the Georgian Army was indeed was sent on 7 August. For example, the WSJ writes: "Six days later, fighting flared to a level not seen for years between the ethnically Georgian and ethnically Ossetian villages that form the patchwork of the separatist region. It was then that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili sent thousands of U.S.-trained troops into the province". --UA Victory (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

World Citizen in New York, Cathry, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Antidiskriminator. I am sorry that I opened a new section before reading this one. The concerns expressed are the same and the two sections should perhaps be fused. This article is a disgrace. Right now, I am too busy working on a professional project to rewrite it, but I hope someone else will take up the task very soon. Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"defend civilians and restore order". :) How can anyone read anything like that with a straight face! It only lack the "invited in" to become the stock phrase used by the aggressors in just about every illegitimate act of military aggression ever. The most disgraceful thing about this article is that it has fallen under the ownership of someone who can write stuff like that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources say that Ossetians attacked Georgian civilians in South Ossetia. As a 2010 study found out, "What was Mr Saakashvili supposed to do? If he ignored the shelling, leaving his supporters to flee or be killed, the loss of prestige would be catastrophic." This is a clear case of WP:JDL. --UA Victory (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The source you presented is reconstruction (of the unknown author) of the: Asmus, Ronald (19 January 2010). A Little War That Shook the World: Georgia, Russia, and the Future of the West. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-230-10228-6.

This source explains that author of your "reliable" source "supported ...as a government official and private advocate -- NATO enlargement in the 1990s ". This source explains that "Fewer, however, would agree with his essentially Georgian view of the war's details, causes, and significance." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't label the source as "unreliable" because you don't like a past job of the author. The book also states that the Georgian leadership made errors which led to tensions between Russia and Georgia. Although Georgia was no angel and maybe a few would agree with the book's content in 2010, today more people are critical of Russia than before. Even the Russian researchers say that attacks on Georgian villages took place before 8 August 2008.--UA Victory (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Very short but very unconstructive comment:

1. Unnecessary personalisation - "... because you don't like a past job of the author" Personalization of the issue is not constructive. What I like or not is none of your business.
2. Your nationality/ethnicity based arguments regarding Pavel Felgenhauer and Andrey Illarionov is also unconstructive. Their nationality/ethnicity is irrelevant. Their anti-Russian government position is not. Your attempt to mislead readers of this discussion by presenting opponents of Russian government as "Russian researchers", without clarifying their position toward Russian government, is another unconstructive addition of yours.
3. Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU and Wikipedia:Cherrypicking - There is no doubt you know there are different points of views regarding this event. "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted." "If you are familiar with multiple credible sources on a subject and they are significantly different from each other, you may realize that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines support reporting from some or all of the sources, and you should edit accordingly."

I caught you red handed. You attempted to present text about "What was Mr Saakashvili supposed to do?" as some kind of scholarly consensus. Your behavior was obviously unconstructive for very long time. It was systematically tolerated and the result is a very biased article. I see that you are already warned and I suppose you will probably be topic banned soon. That would not resolve the main problem here. The main problem is not your (and not only your's) disruptive editing in this topic area. The main problem is that it was tolerated for so long. That is why I asked about the consequences (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand how my comment is "very unconstructive"? Please remember WP:AGF.

I understand that you disagree on some facts in this article and dislike the article because of those facts. No, you didn't catch me red handed, because I've never claimed that my source represented a scholarly consensus. It just showed the existence of such opinion. All of the sources agree that the Georgian operation began on 7 August 2008, but many of them mention that the incidents had already happened in the conflict zone before that and some of them suggest that Russian regular troops were probably already present in South Ossetia.

Your comment suggested the unreliability of the source because it could be a POV of the NATO, so how else could I explain to you that Russian sources also mention incidents before 8 August 2008? I didn't try to base my argument on nationality/ethnicity, just mentioned the fact that the author of the research had already mentioned in text, so why do you have an issue with me? The argument that some Russian man/woman can't be a researcher because he/she is an opponent of the Russian government sounds wrong.

The assessment of the United States diplomatic cable says, "All the evidence available to the country team supports Saakashvili's statement that this fight was not Georgia's original intention," and then says the Georgian villages were attacked.

May I remind you that after you had failed the very first GA review of this article, RGloucester suggested that that you might have "a severe bias" and "failed the article as a result", and another editor suggested that you were "cherrypicking and caught in the act of deliberately making issues to further an agenda."--UA Victory (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

While the current article is clearly biased in some areas, the arguments presented here are unconstructive or just further POV / mere assumptions and also trying to disqualify certain sources or views with personal complaints about non-relevant subjects as are an author's background etc. If appied, such arguments would apply both ways - see past edits, not solely on the content one dislikes or does not accept - not that it's a valid point in the first place. Such claims regarding single individuals are yet more POV, which negate a constructive discussion alltogheter. So without repeating myself, my statement from above section "POV problems throughout article" also applies here accordingly to the guidelines. Views of both sides are to be regarded especialy when backed up with valid sources and qualified information and research. Further one fact doesn't negate the other. For example: just because Russia responded to the attacks (Russian POV) / counterattacks (Georgian POV) on it's peacekeepers stationed in Tskhinvali, doesn't negate the fact that skirmishes took place days, weeks and months before the outbreak of large scale hostilities between the Georgian Armed Forces and the South Ossetian military. See articles on the timeline of events such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russo-Georgian_War. All - especialy certain incidents that took place days before - which contributed to the steady aggravation of tension that ultimately lead to a Georgian military incursion into South Ossetia and it's capital city and open hostilities with the Russian Federation. Give facts and views, but when doing so both sides are to be regarded not just heavily insisted on one position or one particular side of the conflict. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_I.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_II.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_III.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/287861,report-blames-georgia-for-starting-war-with-russia-newspapers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest changes

Hey everyone. While I see some problems with this version of the article, what are the reason of deletion of the following parts:

• Paragraph starting with "An independent, international fact-finding mission headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini ..." in the International Monitors section
• European Union subsection of the Reaction section
• this photo - it's clearly relevant and important given large Caucasian diaspora in Turkey.Alæxis_¿question? 06:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Damianmx, thanks for adding relevant information to the article! Could you clarify your explanation of the removal of this photo, "for every photo like this, one can find a photo of the opposing side, nothing significant here." I'm sure you're right and we can add them also, but how does this make this photo insignificant? It shows the complexity of the conflict, the differences in reaction to the conflict between and within county and how modern conflicts relate to the past ones. Alæxis_¿question? 19:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There's an entire article dedicated to protests related to both sides of the conflict - it already contains this and other photos, and its already linked in this main page in case anyone is interested. For every South Ossetian demonstrating against Georgia, one can find Lithuanians and Estonians protesting against Russia. The photo in question does not explain something not already apparent in the article. Instead, it risks turning this into a competition of who received more support, and images will just keep coming, you know how it goes...--Damianmx (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Damianmx.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Alaexis first started a discussion on May 5, then inserted cherrypicked text into article on May 10, citing the discussion in the edit summary when nobody had responded yet and there was no consensus reached. Cherrypicking some points from the report, which was not uncontroversial, is not a good idea. The 2009 EU report was alleged to have been influenced by Gazprom. There are plenty of neutral and more recent reports out there. I'm opposed to such manipulation of readers, who'll think that the Tagliavini report is the only trusted source of truth. Edit history of Alaexis proves that the editor is following an agenda to promote pro-Abkhaz stance.--172.56.20.162 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• German occupation of Czechoslovakia and Shelling of Mainila in See also - seriosly? Crimea it's obviosly Sudetes, but not those 2. You can also add Holocost - I don't see connection, but you'll see. Springbok (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/287861,report-blames-georgia-for-starting-war-with-russia-newspapers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

USSR/Georgia vs Georgia/S Ossetia comparison

One issue I raised at the good article eligibility discussion was how the split of Georgia from Soviet Union was described in a different (positively framed) words from a split of South Ossetia from Georgia. I'm copying what I wrote and Kober's response below for convenience.

“ Intro, paragraph 2. Different words are chosen to describe Georgia's separation from USSR and contemporary South Ossetia's separation from Georgia: "declared independence" vs "left under internationally unrecognised separatist de facto control". ”

“ 1. Georgia's separation from the USSR and SO's secession from Georgia cannot be compared to each other. Despite the fact that Georgia was forcibly sovietized, its separation from the Soviet Union was the right envisaged by the Soviet constitution. South Ossetia was a Soviet-era creation with no constitutionally guaranteed right to secede. Furthermore, Georgia declared independence on the basis of a nationwide referendum which was internationally observed and monitored, while SO's wannabe referendum in 1992 asked question on independence retrospectively, with the exclusion of its Georgian population; the fighting was ongoing and there were no observers and monitors. ”

Speaking of the constitution, the law on the procedure of exit of a union republic from the Soviet Union (passed in 1990) required carrying out a referendum in all the autonomous entities in the union republic wishing to secede [6]. So actually the potential separation of autonomous entities from the union republic was envisaged. Alæxis_¿question? 18:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kober what was in USSR at that time (in 1992) had zero meaning. Also in 1991 USSR gone in history and international community recognized Georgia in Soviet time borders. --g. balaxaZe★ 22:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are "" around peace enforcment?

The Title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.12.195 (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This was not a war between Russia and Georgia

This was primarily a war between Georgia and South Ossetian and Abkhazian Separatists who were supported by Russia. The Kosovo war was primarily a war between Serbia and Montenegro and the UCK that was supported by the US-dominated NATO and not a war between the NATO and Serbia and Montenegro. In the german-speaking Wikipedia the name of the article is Georgian war for example.---The SBC Guy (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

Impartiality of source is disputed 73.41.239.230 (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. There is no Criticism or Controversy section, which source(s) do you question? Cannolis (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Combining forms that cannot stand on their own, such as 'Russo', take a hyphen, whereas regular adjectives take an en dash. See MOS:DASH. (non-admin closure) RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Russo-Georgian War → Russo–Georgian War – As seen with Soviet–Afghan War, Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, etc., en dash is the correct form. RadiculousJ (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think combining forms such as "Russo-" are specifically preferred with hyphen instead of en dash; en dash is used when the two components are parallel, as they are in those other examples. See the Franco-British rivalry example at MOS:DASH. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @RadiculousJ and Dicklyon: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Text removed from lede

[7]

This seems premature to me. The linked source begins with "Georgia accuses Russia ...", which makes it seem like an accusation, not an assertion of fact. The source goes on to say Georgia is accusing Russia of violating international law, which is not the same as the ceasefire agreement. In fact looking at the ceasefire agreement in this article I am not sure what clause Russia is violating here. The source might be cited for a different claim but it doesn't really back up this one. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The statement you quote in your comment comes from the headline; however the article content justifies the edits you deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your response is too brief for me to understand what you are saying. In fact you've not answered the objections (e.g. what exact clause in the ceasefire agreement is being violated?) at all. Note also that you are reverting two of my edits, the second one of which has nothing to do with the quoted source. Banedon (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That the Russian military buildup in the disputed territories violates the ceasefire agreement is not only Georgia's position. "I am not sure" is not an argument. Also, you removed Medvedev's very important quote without any explanation.--Kober^Talk 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The linked article does not claim a Russian military buildup in the disputed territories. Removing Medvedev's quote is explained in the edit summary [8]. Banedon (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page under discussion says "The Russian military has, since the war, increased its presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia...". The source cited for this says that Russian troops have erected "new ’border’ markings several hundred metres deeper into disputed region", thus increasing the area under Russian occupation. The source talks about individual farmers losing their fields, and about the increase in Russian-occupied territory including part of a pipeline.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Increasing the area under occupation isn't the same as the Russian military increasing its presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The latter implies a military buildup (more boots on the ground, more hardware, etc), which is not implied by the former. The current text also says it is in violation of the ceasefire agreement, which is not evident since it is unclear which clause is being broken. Can you explicitly cite the clause that is being broken, or provide a source that claims the same? Banedon (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You are not answering the objections raised, but you are reverting [9]. I'm bringing this to DR/N, please comment [10]. Banedon (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Two editors objected to your removal of Medvedev's quotation. The only explanation you gave for removing it was that you did not think it necessary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As regards the sentence "The Russian military has, since the war, increased its presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia...", would you prefer it to say "The Russian military has, since the war, increased its area of occupation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia..."? I am sure you will agree that this is supported by the cited source. If you do not like that, then by all means suggest a different form of words, providing that it is supported by the cited source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure "occupation" is the correct term here. The Georgian politics of forced assimilation put Abkhasz and Ossetians at cutthroats with Tbilisi, and Russia merely jumped at the opportunity to "protect" the discriminated minorities. The rise of rabid nationalism was amazing in post-Soviet states once the Soviet clamp-down was off. The Baltic States were lucky to be the first to jump off the train and now it is too late for Russia to play the Russian card there, despite the local Russophobia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because Medvedev's quotation is not necessary. It's effectively given in the immediate preceding sentence. What is given in the quotation that is not obvious from "NATO would have admitted former Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia"? I suppose the location of where Medvedev gave the speech is removed in that case, but that is obviously not important. Why is it that you think the quote is necessary? As for the other objection, that is better but still inaccurate. The article does not say the Russian military has increased its area of occupation. I can accept "Russia has, since the war, increased its area of occupation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia" without mention of violating the 2008 ceasefire agreement, unless there is some source that elaborates on how the agreement is being violated.

@Staszek Lem - "Occupation" should be correct, since it's used in multiple sources (see the last paragraph of [11]). Banedon (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually on second thoughts I think "area of occupation" is a clunky phrase that should be replaced with something like "self-declared border". Banedon (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, see Occupied territories of Georgia, where the issue is handled. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Banedon: Actually, Medvedev's quote is quite necessary, because it is a rare case when Russia and the West have the same judgement on the conflict. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. The quote in full is "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated in November 2011 that NATO would have admitted former Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia. "If you ... had faltered back in 2008, the geopolitical situation would be different now," Medvedev said to the soldiers of a Vladikavkaz military base." The question I have is, what is in the italicized text that is not in the preceding sentence? The judgment of the West on the conflict is not in the sentence. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia violated the fifth principle of the ceasefire agreement. The document legally obliged Russia to withdraw troops to the pre-war positions.

This paper explains that Russia illegally invaded Georgia and occupied the Georgian regions in violation of the ceasefire agreement. It explains the significance of Medvedev's statements. http://www.fhs.se/Documents/Externwebben/forskning/Forskningsprojekt/Statsvet/Forbe/US-RussianRelationsKarlsson160912Def.pdf Canome (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The source cited (Guardian) does not say the Russian military is expanding its borders, and so does not back up the assertion that the ceasefire agreement is being violated. As for the link: I do not see the relevance here. Please answer this question: what is in the italicized text that is not in the preceding sentence? Banedon (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the cited source states that Russian military is expanding the borders. The creeping annexation and Russia's "borderization" policy is reported in the source. "Russia has occupied the two regions since 2008 in violation of an internationally agreed ceasefire following its brief war with Georgia." "Instead, Moscow has further entrenched in South Ossetia and Abkhazia."

Medvedev's italicized text proves the point of the preceding sentence. It is very important statement showing war goal of Russia.

I'm going to restore the text mentioning evidence Russia was guilty because it provides historical context. Remember the shelling of Mainila. The Soviet Union told the world that Finland was responsible for initiating hostilities. Later, the evidence showed that the Soviet Union was actually responsible. Canome (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough about the first bit - using different text though for subtle reasons. Russia's military is presumably acting with the consent of the Russian government, so there's no need to use "Russian military". Also 'increased its presence' has the implication of there being more soldiers / weapons etc on the ground, which is not the case here.

About Medvedev's italicized text: I don't see how this "proves the point" of the preceding sentence. It is already in the preceding sentence. Medvedev's italicized quote can be summarized as saying that if Russia had not invaded Georgia, Georgia would have been admitted into NATO - but that's exactly what the preceding sentence says. As it is, the sentence is saying something similar to "10 people died in this accident. Slightly less than a dozen people died in this accident". These two sentences say the same thing, so given the first, the second is not necessary.

Finally about the text you restored: I do not agree. Remember, there is a whole Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article, and responsibility is disputed. Giving only one side is a violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the section is on the media war. Arguing that Russia is responsible in a section on the media war is a violation of WP:COATTRACK. Banedon (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No territory has been added to Abkhazia since August 2008. Only South Ossetia has been expanding. There must have been troop rotations to Abkhazia and South Ossetia since the war.

Disputed by who? Russia? Portrayal of victims as aggressors has been the main idea behind the military information campaigns. The Russian government says that Russian troops only acted after the Georgian attack on 8 August, but the evidence presented in the Russian media says that South Ossetian leader Kokoity reported to Abkhaz leader Bagapsh the entry of Russian troops into South Ossetia on 7 August. There is no way that pro-Russian separatist would libel his patron. The evidence proves that Russian troops acted before the Georgian attack on 8 August. Canome (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit to the section on the "media and cyber war", it is relevant whether the "international information campaign" was truthful or not. This tells us about the nature of the information campaign.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't understand the point behind the first paragraph. As for the second paragraph, sure it's disputed. The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article doesn't say that Russia is responsible and that's the end of the story. Sections such as this or this clearly assign the blame for starting the war to Georgia, and they are not Russian sources either. As long as there is dispute on who is responsible we cannot claim that it's the truth. I am going to tag the article for NPOV. Banedon (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more useful to tag the sections you object to?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article says that Russia was preparing for the war and ordered Ossetian separatists to shell Georgian villages. When Georgia responded to the Ossetian attack, Russia claimed that Georgia launched unprovoked attack on Russian citizens. The article presents evidence that Russian troops were already acting against Georgia before Georgian takeover of Tskhinvali. The statements of two former OSCE monitors were dismissed by the OSCE. One of former monitors had apparent conflict of interest. He was friends with suspected KGB agent. The European report criticized Russian actions. However, the report was dismissed. Putin stated that Russia was training Ossetian separatists for the war with Georgia. Canome (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to call strong NPOV on that. If it were unequivocal that Russia is responsible for the war, the responsibility article would be a lot shorter. We can move this to a RfC if you like, or take it to DR/N. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Medvedev's italicized quote is partially present in the preceding sentence. However, the italicized quote emphasized the geopolitical impact of the war. The evidence in the Russian media undermines the truthfulness of the information warfare painting Georgia as an aggressive country. If Georgia had been actually guilty for starting the war, then Russia would not have to wage the information campaign portraying Georgia as the aggressor. Everyone would accept it.

This discussion is not the best place to prove guilt or innocence of Russia. Many arguments were presented against the removal of some relevant statements. I have no dog in this fight. I'm not going to participate in the never ending dispute. Canome (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

In the same way, if Russia had been actually guilty for starting the war, then Georgia would not have to wage the information campaign portraying Russia as the aggressor. Everyone would accept it.

If you are not going to participate in dispute resolution then I suppose I'll just edit the article. Will give it a week to see if anyone else objects. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if you waited to see if anyone agreed with you. So far, nobody does, and two people have stated their disagreement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Depends on which edit you are referring to.

1. 'Russia has, since the war, occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia in violation of the ceasefire agreement of August 2008.' - I consider this one resolved.
2. '"If you ... had faltered back in 2008, the geopolitical situation would be different now," Medvedev told the officers of a Vladikavkaz military base.' - I do not consider this resolved, but it's minor and I do not think it's worth pursuing.
3. 'According to political scientist Svante Cornell, the Kremlin spent millions in an international information campaign to blame Georgia for the war; however there is abundant evidence, including some in Russian media, that Russia actually started the war.' - this is not resolved.

Also, as mentioned, I am waiting. Banedon (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

the Kremlin spent millions in an international information campaign to blame Georgia for the war; however there is abundant evidence...

The following sentence keeps having the underlined portion deleted:

According to political scientist Svante Cornell, the Kremlin spent millions in an international information campaign to blame Georgia for the war; however there is abundant evidence, including some in Russian media, that Russia actually started the war.

The source for this sentence is:

Svante Cornell (17 June 2009). "Georgia feels Russia's heavy hand". The Guardian.

The source says:

Moscow also spent millions in a public relations campaign to convince the world that Georgia, not Russia, started the war – in spite of plentiful evidence to the contrary, with the most damning reporting coming from Russia's own media.

The source for this is an opinion-piece; i.e. it is a statement of the author's opinion. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says that "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution." This has been done by prefacing the statement in the article with "According to political scientist Svante Cornell".-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not challenging this because it is biased, but because of the place it is in the article. It is appropriate in a section on responsibility for the war. It is not appropriate in a section called "Media and cyber war". A section on the cyber war can go into details about what both sides did in cyberspace, but it should not say anything about who is responsible. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

But the sentence is about the Russian public relations campaign.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The first part of it is, the second part is not. Banedon (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

They are inextricably linked. The second part tells the reader the nature of the first part.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are they inextricably linked? There are two parts to the sentence. Part 1 says Russia conducted an information war to blame Georgia for the war. Part 2 is that Russia is responsible for starting the war. You can have part 1 without part 2, and vice versa. Banedon (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

the worst article on wiki by a mile

so biased and badly written you wouldnt believe it was protected and allowed to exist in its current state. So pov and anti-russian its laughable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:201:E700:6D5E:80C2:F710:4224 (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but you have to admit it's a good laughing material. The fact that this article is allowed to exist in current form is a true testament to Wikipedia deficiencies - where objectivity is basically one person's opinion. I like how Library of US Congress is used as a source of "poor Georgians were only defending themselves from Ossetians attacking them" while there are countless sources claiming the attack was unprovoked. But hey, let's trust American Congress, they sure look to be reasonable people and they always tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.8.106.157 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You aware that the Library of Congress <> U.S. Congress? It's actually the American national library and, as such, contains documents referenced here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The EU itself did not publish the 2009 report. The conclusion blaming Georgia is just a personal opinion of Heidi Tagliavini. The 2009 report is a self-published work of the commission hired by the EU. The EU has never endorsed the final report. The 2009 report is outdated and unreliable. Science books of the 19th century were not retracted by their authors after new scientific discoveries were made in the 20th century, however these books do not remain valid sources of information by the mere fact they were not ever recalled. I did not post my thoughts, I cited the reliable and relevant EU source explaining Putin's modus operandi: "The 2008 war began when Russia-controlled fighters in the breakaway South Ossetia region in Georgia escalated skirmishes against Georgian troops." Georgia could not start the large-scale hostilities because they had already been initiated by Putin's stooges. What is the purpose of your edit? It does not add anything of value to the article. I reject your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.160.4 (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No. This article is correct in general, except that the "war" and the "victory" in this "war" are too mighty words for this conflict. Just ignore russian troll-clowns in talk page and don't let them edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.95.245.132 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

EU Report

I checked the archives and found no consensus that the BBC and Der Spiegel articles were not allowed. Since the publishers of these respected journals think the story is relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't. – [12] – per WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

European Union – On 30 September 2009, the EU–sponsored Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia stated that, while preceded by months of mutual provocations, "open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008. – "Georgia 'started unjustified war'". BBC News. 30 September 2009. – "EU Report: Independent Experts Blame Georgia for South Ossetia War". Der Spiegel. 21 September 2009.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of your edits from many editors means no consensus [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. I found this discussion in the archives [22], where editors were against insertion of your pictures and text. The European-sponsored report is currently condemned. I think that citing the Munich Agreement there [23] is irrelevant. Canome (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Canome: Please can you provide reliable sources to back up your statement that the "European-sponsored report is currently condemned". An assertion by a Georgian-POV Wikipedia editor in the talk page archive does not count. Nor does an assertion by Saakashvili.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Which one is Georgian-POV editor? I can't comment on Saakashvili's position. Did Saakashvili comment in the talk page archive? I read the comment left by anonymous editor. This Russo-Georgian War article provides more recent sources which disagree with the EU-published report. The EU 2015 report [24] says that Russia attacked Georgia and Europe appeased to Russia. The 2015 report does not say that Georgia attacked Russia. The 2009 report can be considered as a form of appeasement. The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article says that the report was criticized and some of its contents were questioned. Canome (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 35#Misleading lede, in which UA Victory responded to an unsigned comment by Mitochondrial Eve.[25], explaining why information from the 2009 EU report should "not be a substantial reason for a complete overhaul, because some new researches have been published since 2009."

UA Victory cited an European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) article dated 2015, which said: "The very limited Russian information operation were effective in influencing Western (particularly German) public opinion, which soon tilted towards the Russian version of the events. Lines of Russian disinformation even penetrated the EU's own final report, which overplayed the significance of US support and military assistance to Georgia."
By "EU's own final report" is meant the 2009 report, which is linked to in both the original and my quotation of it.

I believe that Saakashvili disagreed with the 2009 EU report, but I cannot find a reference.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The neutrality/reliability of the 2009 report is indeed disputed. Wikipedia should not present some controversial statements of such reports as undisputed facts. The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article neutrally presents many conclusions reached by the EU-sponsored commission. Tobby72 inserted a single controversial statement here, which conveyed the message that Georgia was responsible for initiating hostilities. That statement contradicted the page 50 of this paper [26] I had recently read. I read in the talk page archive that the 2009 EU report said that there was "no way to assign overall responsibility for the conflict to one side alone." The article on responsibility also explains the controversy caused by some statements of the 2009 report. I agree with Banedon that the article on responsibility is the best place for the 2009 EU report. The article on responsibility also mentions other reports.

I believe that recent EU documents on Russia don't reference the 2009 report. Everyone can change their position. The position of the 2015 EU report on Russia [27] is different from 2009. The 2015 EU document acknowledges that the EU was appeasing Russia following the war. This comes straight from the horse's mouth. How reliable is the 2009 report written in that appeasement period? If the EU had put the blame for initiating hostilities on Russia, the EU would have to impose sanctions on Russia. My point is that the 2009 report is not the final verdict on the war. Canome (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Canome's arguments. --g. balaxaZe★ 20:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Canome:. I don't see how the link you posted "acknowledges that the EU was appeasing Russia". Can you please explain? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Page 3/7 of the link, point B, it says " the EU opted for an increased cooperation model as a way to appease Russia". On the other hand I don't see how this is relevant to the current article. Banedon (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a draft document that does not appear to refer to the 2009 "Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia". Furthermore, any mention of "appeasement" does not appear in the final text at all (I believe it's here [28]). This final draft also does not refer to the 2009 IIFFMCG document. So, how can we possibly say that the EU has repudiated this report (the document that @Tobby72: is proposing to reference)? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of previous edits does not mean this edit is also rejected. I'm also still waiting for your response to the above PoV objection. Banedon (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Canome: The 2009 report does not say that Georgia attacked Russia. The report says that Georgia attacked Tskhinvali (in South Ossetia) and the surrounding areas. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the EU "reaction" because, on reading the section again, it's not a reaction. The other leaders responded immediately after the attack (in 2008) while the EU report was in 2009. It was also aimed at determining the events that led to beginning of hostilities, not a critique on whether's Russia's actions were right or wrong. The content is fine in the article on responsibility, or in an appropriate section here, but not this one. Banedon (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It may be true that many in the EU thought in 2009 that the war was the result of Saakashvili's foolish provocation. However, it is now widely accepted that Putin's stooges started the war and forced Saakashvili's hand. https://euobserver.com/foreign/132425 Anybody, who says otherwise, must be either a victim of Russia's disinformation campaign or a shill. Pro-Russian people are the only cause of disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.160.5 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The EU did not officially retract its report. The 2009 report is still valid. Your thoughts are irrelevant.

Compromise version:

European Union – On 30 September 2009, the EU–sponsored Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia stated that, while preceded by months of mutual provocations, "open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008." – "Georgia 'started unjustified war'". BBC News. 30 September 2009. – "EU Report: Independent Experts Blame Georgia for South Ossetia War". Der Spiegel. 21 September 2009. – However, the ECFR article stated in August 2015: "The very limited Russian information operation were effective in influencing Western (particularly German) public opinion, which soon tilted towards the Russian version of the events. Lines of Russian disinformation even penetrated the EU's own final report, which overplayed the significance of US support and military assistance to Georgia." – "In the shadow of Ukraine: seven years on from Russian-Georgian war". European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). August 6, 2015.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The EU itself did not publish the 2009 report. The conclusion blaming Georgia is just a personal opinion of Heidi Tagliavini. The 2009 report is a self-published work of the commission hired by the EU. The EU has never endorsed the final report. The 2009 report is outdated and unreliable. Science books of the 19th century were not retracted by their authors after new scientific discoveries were made in the 20th century, however these books do not remain valid sources of information by the mere fact they were not ever recalled. I did not post my thoughts, I cited the reliable and relevant EU source explaining Putin's modus operandi: "The 2008 war began when Russia-controlled fighters in the breakaway South Ossetia region in Georgia escalated skirmishes against Georgian troops." Georgia could not start the large-scale hostilities because they had already been initiated by Putin's stooges. What is the purpose of your edit? It does not add anything of value to the article. I reject your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.160.4 (talk)

Can you please provide citations? The official website of the European Parliament seems to disagree with you. "The European Parliament ... having regard to the report of the International Fact-Finding Commission on the Conflict in Georgia published on 30 September 2009 (the Tagliavini Report) ... welcomes the Tagliavini Report and supports its main observations and conclusions" [29]. If the European Parliament has since repudiated this assessment then can you please provide links to this repudiation from the European Parliament's own website? Thanks. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The European Parliament welcomed the 2009 report in 2010. Is there any proof that the EU still supports the 2009 report? The 2015 report [30] admitted that the EU was appeasing Russia and the final resolution of the European Parliament [31] said basically the same: "the EU opted for an increased cooperation model as a way to continue the engagement with Russia." The increased cooperation with aggressors instead of punishment is a kind of appeasement. That appeasement period ended in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine. The Great Powers appeased Germany and supported German territorial claims in Czechoslovakia in 1938, however, after the WWII, the Munich Agreement was no longer valid. Tobby72's text puts emphasis on Georgian action against Tskhinvali, however, the 2009 report also has the following statements: "any explanation of the origins of the conflict cannot focus solely on the artillery attack on Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August," and "it was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents." I also don't understand what Tobby72 tries to achieve. I find Tobby72's edit as WP:UNDUE and a violation of WP:NPOV. The current consensus among analysts is that Russia invaded Georgia because Russia wanted to halt NATO's expansion [32], not because Georgia 'started unjustified war'. Canome (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again ... the EU did not officially retract its report. Your thoughts are irrelevant. I find your edit a violation of WP:NPOV.

Per WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Canome. Neither of your links to the European Parliament website mention "Tagliavini" nor "International Fact-Finding Commission". Am I missing something? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

She's playing possum ;-) -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian trolls and fake news

Tobby72, I just looked over this page and I am shocked at how selective you are in which parts of the EU report you cite, and which you don't. You may want to read Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. You seem to have an agenda of making Georgia look bad, while covering Russian tracks, not just on this article, but across wikipedia. The EU report was much more nuanced than you make it seem and much more critical of Russia than you want it to appear. I went through the article history and discovered a rather good summary of the EU report that was apparently deleted by someone. I've attached it below. This is a good description of what the report actually said, as opposed to what you're saying

EU Fact Finding Mission

An international fact-finding commission headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini was established by the EU to determine the causes of the war. The commission was given a budget of 1.6 million euros and relied on the expertise of military officials, political scientists, historians and international law experts, who issued their final report in September 2009.

The report found that Russian and South Ossetian allegations of "genocide" committed by the Georgian side were "neither founded in law nor substantiated by factual evidence." On the contrary, the commission found indicators of ethnic cleansing committed against Georgians themselves, saying that "several elements suggest the conclusion that ethnic cleansing was indeed practised against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia both during and after the August 2008 conflict." According to the commission, in many cases Russian forces did not act to prevent or stop South Ossetian forces from committing acts of deliberate violence against civilians during the conflict and after the cease-fire.

The commission concluded that South Ossetian separatists could not validly invite Russia to support them militarily. It also held that "Russian military activities against the Georgian military forces were not justified as collective self-defence under international law" and could not be justified as a humanitarian intervention either. According to the report, Russian citizenship, conferred to the vast part of Abkhaz and Ossetian populations, could not be considered legally binding under international law, and that the constitutional obligation to protect Russian nationals could not serve as a justification for intervention, since Russian domestic laws could not be invoked as justification for breaching international laws. The commission concluded that Russian intervention in Georgia was not justified as a rescue operation for Russian citizens in Georgia.

The commission held that the South Ossetian attacks on Georgian villages were equivalent to an "attack by the armed forces of a State on the territory of another State" resembling the situations described in Art. 3(a) of UN Resolution 3314. As the South Ossetian attacks were "primarily" directed against Georgian peacekeepers and against Georgian police, this was an attack by the South Ossetian armed forces on the land forces of Georgia. The report notes that Georgia's response to these deadly attacks was justified, albeit at times disproportionate.

The report acknowledged that when Georgia started a military operation in South Ossetia, "a violent conflict had already been going on" and that the operation "was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents". The commission saw "... no way to assign overall responsibility for the conflict to one side alone", but it confirmed that Russian military "volunteers or mercenaries" illegally entered Georgia before the start of open hostilities and that there was already some presence of non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia before the official intervention was announced by Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B11A:C559:7989:8A95:9887:393C (talk)

The above unsigned comment was the first and only post by anonymous IP.

Please don't make personal attacks. The BBC News and Der Spiegel are generally seen as reliable sources of information per WP:RS, but feel free to expand the "EU report" section. --Tobby72 (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

While I agree to the obvious namely that certain people are still trying to make the report and its conclusions seem one sided than they really are - in fact they are not at all, actualy the report concludes with blaming Georgia for the most evident = the disproportionate military intervention in response to seperatist provocations and assaults on civilian as well as law enforcement targets - facts are facts and you'd serve this article better if you simply expanded the section EU report to avoid false conclusions by the reader instead of just continuesly deleting those single excerpts. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tobby72 Really not, he has a very valid point here and needless to bring up brief news reports biased or not are not the best sources per se on a complex issue like this. Especialy in regards to whole documents of a fact finding mission etc. Should be expanded. Accurately. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of a single statement of the single report is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE, considering the same report made other statements and the up-to-date reports were provided in the above discussion. However, the scope of the article does not allow to present a detailed overview of the EU report or present the summaries of the new reports published since 2009, therefore it should completely stay out in order to preserve NPOV. Tobby72's only goal is to claim that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali started the war and it's pretty much obvious that Tobby72 is trying to absolve his homeland of any guilt for starting the war. Whatever the EU thought in 2009, it's now obvious that Russia encouraged South Ossetian militias to attack Georgian peacekeepers and villages. Georgian troops were obliged to protect the residents of Georgian villages within South Ossetia. Only a massive counterattack could suppress violence initiated by South Ossetian militias and Georgian military indeed counterattacked Ossetian separatists in Tskhinvali since Georgia did not have any other choice. Russia was waiting for this to boost its propaganda narrative that Georgia had attacked without any provocation and Russia had to force Georgia to peace. However, Russia had already started an invasion of Georgia before "Georgia attacked Tskhinvali (in South Ossetia) and the surrounding areas." Russia did not actually have the right to invade Georgia. Unfortunately, Russian propaganda influenced the EU-sponsored commission. Those were the days. The article has no neutrality problem, only Tobby72 himself has neutrality problems. 80.139.254.80 (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote looks pretty NPOV to me too. But in any case, this is all tangential; cite the statements in the article you think violate NPOV and we can discuss those. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, what about this: "At about 14:30, Georgian tanks, 122 mm howitzers and 203 mm self-propelled artillery began heading towards South Ossetia to dissuade separatists from additional attacks."

This doesn't look to be a neutral POV statement to me. I checked the source and no surprise - it's a document published by government of Georgia. Russians claim that this was already start of the offensive, moving offensive pieces to the front line. Instead of citing both sides' view, only Georgian one is. And there is really no doubt about that, the actual source 121 has title "Documented by Government of Georgia". Let's not pretend this is NPOV, please.

I think that is article can be saved in only one way: split explanation of order of events in two parts, Russian and Georgian, and clearly state who says what. 141.8.106.157 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2017

I am unable to find anything in the provided source to back up the following statement:

By August 1, 2008, Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region. To put an end to these deadly attacks and restore order, the Georgian Army was sent to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August.

I suggest it should be changed to:

By August 1, 2008, the Georgian Army was sent to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August.

Which is in fact stated in the provided source. Dan-klasson (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It says that in the source: "On August 1 and 2, 2008, ethnic Georgian villages in the territory of the South Ossetian Autonomous District were bombarded by the South Ossetian paramilitary self-defense force.". Stickee (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Responsibility for the war and the media section

@Kober:@Toddy1: regarding this edit.

I do not view the dispute as resolved. The linked section by Toddy1 in the edit summary does not deal with the text in question, rather something else (and he and I were more or less the only two people participating, hence "nobody agreed" with both sides). The text in dispute this time was discussed [33] and not resolved. Toddy1 please respond to the arguments I advanced then.

Personally I feel that this discussion is not likely to go anywhere (since views are entrenched) so it's better to settle this by RfC or by informal mediation. If either of you are happy to accelerate immediately to those venues of dispute resolution, we can go there at once. Banedon (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Canome: because she was also involved in this when it was discussed in January/February 2017. The background was that one editor kept deleting cited text, and three editors kept restoring it. There was a discussion on the talk page. Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 35#Text removed from lede was the start of the discussion and it was continued at Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 35#the Kremlin spent millions in an international information campaign to blame Georgia for the war; however there is abundant evidence....-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you deny the existence of such evidence? Your pro-Russian bias is damaging the article. Especially when you are trying to cover up some facts pointing to Russia's guilt. 2A02:8109:A640:43E:C0A6:497F:8A7A:EB82 (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Answer the objection, not make personal attacks. Why should the evidence be in this section as opposed to one on the responsibility of the war? Banedon (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been explained to you before. The two parts of the statement are linked. The meaning of the first part is governed by the presence or absence of the second part. If you remove the second part the meaning of the first part is changed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This was also answered before [34]. You have not responded to that. Banedon (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll explain this further. Part 1 of the sentence says that Russia undertook a media campaign to blame Georgia for the war. Part 2 says that Russia is responsible. Stringing both parts together conveys the meaning that Russia undertook a media campaign to blame Georgia for the war even though Russia is the one that's responsible. This alleges dishonesty on Russia's side and, without a counterbalancing claim made from the Russian PoV, violates NPOV. It also violates COATTRACK, since it's in a section that is not on responsibility for the war. Can the material that Russia is responsible be somewhere on Wikipedia - yes, but not in this section. If there were a section in this article on responsibility that would be the place to put it. Since there isn't, the responsibility article is the place to put it. Banedon (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The source says "Moscow also spent millions in a public relations campaign to convince the world that Georgia, not Russia, started the war – in spite of plentiful evidence to the contrary, with the most damning reporting coming from Russia's own media." The meaning that Russia undertook a media campaign to blame Georgia for the war even though Russia is the one that's responsible is the meaning that the source conveys. Wikipedia policy is that "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication."-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we'll get anywhere since views are clearly entrenched. I suggest the DR/N. If you're not interested in participating then I'll start an RfC. What do you think? Banedon (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This report came to a conclusion that Russia drew Georgia in an armed confrontation by proxy. Therefore, Russia was responsible for the conflict. The report explains that Russia employed a massive-scale information warfare to deprive Georgia of international support by portraying Georgia as aggressor. Banedon's belief that Russia is an honest actor in international relations is not a sufficient reason to delete a well-known fact. Russia's allegation about Georgia's responsibility can not be presented as fact. Pro-Russian editors seem to be the sole cause of probable disruption of this article, so I'd propose WP:PBAN for them. 69.91.178.73 (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT about deleting the "well-known fact". It is about it being in the wrong section. As I have said many times before, this should be in the Responsibility section. If you want to push a page ban for me, formally propose it at ANI. Banedon (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Since this 'discussion' is barely happening I'm going to open an RfC in the upcoming days. If any objections - say so now. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come on, cited reference makes an explicit connection between Russia's media war and Russia's responsibility. Russia waged information warfare to hide its own guilt for starting the war. How is that not relevant for the media war section? If the media war section had listed the detailed evidence proving Russia's guilt, that would've been inappropriate.

You've claimed this: "Stringing both parts together conveys the meaning that Russia undertook a media campaign to blame Georgia for the war even though Russia is the one that's responsible." Your previous comments make an impression that you too want to hide Russia's guilt. You don't have the right to force others to agree to your demands. GoHuskies86 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to force others to agree to my demands. I'm going to generate consensus, preferably among experienced editors. That is what a RfC is. I can't go to DR/N since people are apparently not willing to discuss, leaving the RfC as the only option. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Responsibility for the war

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that as long as attributed to Cornell, the sentence is to be kept. Darouet's wording fits these criteria, and thus will be kept. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The sentence in dispute is this one: "According to political scientist Svante Cornell, the Kremlin spent millions in an international information campaign to blame Georgia for the war; however, there is evidence, including some in Russian media, that Russia actually started the war." Is the inclusion of the full sentence in the Media and cyber war section justified? Banedon (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify - the locus of the dispute is whether the second half of the sentence is justified because it is sourced to Cornell, or if it is not justified because it is not related to the media and cyber war (the name of the section it is in). Banedon (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Whether it should be included or not, the statement needs to be properly attributed. In the version as it stood before my edit [35], the wording shifted in the second sentence so that Wikipedia adopted Cornell's voice as its own. That shouldn't happen. -Darouet (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that at the least, Darouet's wording is necessary because otherwise it looks like we are saying it rather than Cornell. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• (Summoned by bot) As long as it is properly formatted to reflect being some else's words, yes. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep the sentence. Russian media war was aimed at making the world believe that Georgian troops attacked Russian civilians and peacekeepers without provocation on the night of 8 August and Russia reacted in self-defense on the afternoon of 8 August. What other purpose did Russian media war serve? It's wrong to claim that Russia waging media war against Georgia or the existence of evidence proving Russia's guilt are just Cornell's opinions. These are facts. People familiar with Russian affairs know that the claims of the Russian government shouldn't be taken at face value. There's the evidence the Russian government isn't honest. Please, pay attention to the dates.

APN reported that the residents of North Ossetia–Alania were able to see the movement of a large number of troops towards the Roki Tunnel beginning at 6 PM on 7 August, however, they couldn't believe that Russia was involved in the war until the morning of 8 August. [36]

Duel reported that soldier Maksim Pasko, who died near Gori on 12 August, sent several SMSes. One SMS was sent on 3 August 2008 and said: "Don't worry too much, the Georgian mercenaries are battering Tskhinvali. We were given orders to go there." Another SMS, sent on 5 August 2008, said: "Yesterday, our artillerists were messing with Georgia. 22 were killed and 150 injured." [37]

Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported that hero of Russia, Denis Vetchinov, who died in South Ossetia, left the base of the Motor Rifle Division in Vladikavkaz for Tskhinvali on the early morning of 7 August 2008. [38]

Top Russian General Yuriy Baluyevsky has stated that the full-scale invasion of Georgia was ordered by Putin when he was still president. Putin confirmed that war plans were created and South Ossetian militias were trained by Russia before August 2008. Russian preparation to fight on the South Ossetian side violated Russia's obligation to act as a neutral peacekeeper. [39] Despite Russian information war efforts, it turned out that Russia was provoking Georgia and Russia wasn't an innocent victim of unexpected Georgian attack. 108.179.152.175 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• No - The inclusion of the second part of the sentence is not justified because the text is within the section about Media and cyber war. Even if there was a section dedicated to responsibility for war and even if the assertion in the second part of the sentence would be carefully attributed, this kind of simplified blaming one side as responsible for the start of the war in this kind of conflicts is a blatant and misleading oversimplification. It does not belong to wikipedia anywhere. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• Remove the second part of the sentence or clearly attribute it to Cornell per Darouet's edit. It's inappropriate to state it in Wikipedia's voice. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep it. It is not just Cornell's personal view. Yet, the passage in question clearly attributes the statement to the author. --Kober^Talk 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Remove per Antidiskriminator. It's in the wrong section, and even in the article on Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War it needs to be carefully worded or it'll violate WP:NPOV. Darouet's edit is great and makes the sentence better, but the fundamental objections remain. Banedon (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. The sentence is not someone's biased opinion. Russia's aggression towards pro-Western neighbours is an irrefutable fact. Another source [40] was presented in the previous discussion to prove that Russian information warfare aimed to deflect guilt. See page 14. Russia is doing the same thing in Ukraine and Russian government blames Ukrainian government both for forcing people of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and for the war in Donbass. Some editors supporting removal apparently have pro-Russian bias, therefore their appeal to NPOV must be a joke. Darouet's wording implies that the sentence is someone's biased opinion. 91.65.248.5 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article1/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ossetia-war.com/dvlist
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/12445_84_6allison.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=580345
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=33560
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/silkroadpapers/0808Georgia-PP.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050242/http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/195_russia_vs_georgia___the_fallout.pdf to http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/files/europe/195_russia_vs_georgia___the_fallout.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ng.ru/regions/2008-08-06/1_kazaki.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smr.gov.ge/uploads/file/On_the_eve_of_war.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18941
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/08/15/hero/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.ge/eng/page.php?m=media_discussions_news_detailed&id_numb=84
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heritage.org/research/RussiaandEurasia/wm2017.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4589586.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node%2F4930
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.hrw.org/en/node/79681/section/10
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.memo.ru/2008/09/19/1909082.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1011783
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rferl.org/content/South_Ossetia_Floods_European_Rights_Court_With_Georgia_Cases/1294435.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/140/14915.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://index.hu/belfold/ovgruzorsz08/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rian.ru/world/20080819/116132622.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mil.ru/info/1069/details/index.shtml?id=49309
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news%2Faw081808p2.xml&headline=Georgian%20Military%20Folds%20Under%20Russian%20Attack
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article3/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/russian-forces-in-the-georgian-war-preliminary-assessment-and-recommendations
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1069

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5h7JPVbIl?url=http://www.memo.ru/2008/09/19/1909082.htm to http://www.memo.ru/2008/09/19/1909082.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Crazy anti-Russian bias in the lede and the references say the complete opposite to the wiki article

This still should have a neutrality tag on in it, the Guardian and Radio Free Europe references say very little of Ossetians starting the war on 1 August by attacking Georgians, referring instead to fighting breaking out; and the Georgian attack on the village on 7 August is universally described as artillery shelling but the wikipedia entry euphemistically calls it 'taking control within hours'.

The line: "By 1 August 2008, Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region" is a direct quote from Saakashvili's version of events, disputed by the RFE journalist; suggest replace with: "By 1 August 2008 fighting had erupted between Ossetian separatists and the Georgian military".

As for the spectacularly biased and euphemistic: "To put an end to these attacks and restore order, the Georgian Army was sent to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August"; suggest change to "The outbreak of the war is usually dated to 7th August with the Georgian military artillery assault on Tskhinvali village, within the South Ossetian conflict zone."

146.199.83.165 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Article is POV

Please stick to the truth! This article is completely one-sided and ignores the independent EU Commission's 700 page paper on the causes, course and aftermath of the war. It is available at https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/HUDOC_38263_08_Annexes_ENG.pdf

Some of the key findings, which contradict much of the position taken in the Wiki article, can be found at pp. 22-24 (items 19-21) of the paper. Specifically, Georgia initiated the conflict by shelling South Ossetia on the night of 7-8 August, there is no evidence of Russian troops in South Ossetia prior to 8 August, and Russia was within its rights to respond at first, but disproportionate when it continued into Georgia proper:

"19.) There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was justifiable under international law. It was not. Georgia had acknowledged that the prohibition of the use of force was applicable to its conflict in South Ossetia in specific legally binding international documents, such as the Sochi Agreement of 1992 or the 1996 Memorandum on Measures to Provide Security and Strengthen Mutual Trust between the Sides in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict. Even if it were assumed that Georgia was repelling an attack, e.g. in response to South Ossetian attacks against Georgian populated 23 villages in the region, according to international law, its armed response would have to be both necessary and proportional. It is not possible to accept that the shelling of Tskhinvali during much of the night with GRAD multiple rocket launchers (MRLS) and heavy artillery would satisfy the requirements of having been necessary and proportionate in order to defend those villages. It follows from the illegal character of the Georgian military assault that South Ossetian defensive action in response did conform to international law in terms of legitimate self-defence. However, any operations of South Ossetian forces outside of the purpose of repelling the Georgian armed attack, in particular acts perpetrated against ethnic Georgians inside and outside South Ossetia, must be considered as having violated International Humanitarian Law and in many cases also Human Rights Law. Furthermore, all South Ossetian military actions directed against Georgian armed forces after the ceasefire agreement of 12 August 2008 had come into effect were illegal as well.

20.) At least as far as the initial phase of the conflict is concerned, an additional legal question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified. Again the answer is in the negative. There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation. Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August could not be substantiated by the Mission. It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack, in spite of certain elements and equipment having been made readily available. There is also no evidence to support any claims that Russian peacekeeping units in South Ossetia were in flagrant breach of their obligations under relevant international agreements such as the Sochi Agreement and thus may have forfeited their international legal status. Consequently, the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law.

21.) When considering the legality of Russian military force against Georgia, the answer needs to be differentiated. The Russian reaction to the Georgian attack can be divided into two phases: first, the immediate reaction in order to defend Russian peacekeepers, and second, the invasion of Georgia by Russian armed forces reaching far beyond the administrative boundary of South Ossetia. In the first instance, there seems to be little doubt that if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, Russia had the right to defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of force for defensive purposes during the first phase of the conflict would be legal. On the second item, it must be ascertained whether the subsequent Russian military campaign deeper into Georgia was necessary and proportionate in terms of defensive action against the initial Georgian attack. Although it should be admitted that it is not easy to decide where the line must be drawn, it seems, however, that much of the Russian military action went far beyond the reasonable limits of defence. This holds true for all kinds of massive and extended military action ranging from the bombing of the upper Kodori Valley to the deployment of armoured units to reach extensive parts of Georgia, to the setting up of military positions in and nearby major Georgian towns as well as to control major highways, and to the deployment of navy units on the Black Sea. All this cannot be regarded as even remotely commensurate with the threat to Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia. Furthermore, continued destruction which came after the ceasefire agreement was not justifiable by any means. It follows from this that insofar as such extended Russian military action reaching out into Georgia was conducted in violation of international law, Georgian military forces were acting in legitimate self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In a matter of a very few days, the pattern of legitimate and illegitimate military action had thus turned around between the two main actors Georgia and Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.166.249 (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Why the Georgian War crimes against South Ossetian and Abkhazian Civilians are not mentioned?--Janos Hajnal (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Any reliable third-part sources please...--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a German-speaking Article about it: Georgian admission of the use of Cluster bombs and an English-speaking one. In the German-speaking Wikipedia Article this War crime of Georgia is already mentioned by the way.--37.24.7.146 (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The German Journalist Armin Wertz takes the line that the Rose Revolution in Georgia was an American Regime Change based on a Coverted Operation like the Operation Ajax so that would mean that all actions of Russia were reactions to the aggressive foreign policy of the US and not an Aggression against Georgia.--37.24.7.146 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place to propagate conspiracy theories cultivated by the Kremlin and useful idiots in the west. It is outraging that people like you consider Moscow's actions in Georgia as a legitimate reaction as if Georgia was a Russian backyard and not an independent country with the full right to decide its own foreign policy priorities. Moscow has always sought to use the ethnic conflicts as a leverage in order to prevent Georgia from becoming a success story in the post-Soviet space and many immature political leaders in Georgia inadvertently contributed to its efforts. Otherwise, neither the Kremlin nor its apologists give a damn care about Abkhaz and Ossetians and their fears or interests.--Kober^Talk 10:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Armin Wertz is not a Conspiracy Theoretic nor pro-Russian. And Wikipedia is also not a Forum to promote Propaganda of the White House.--37.24.7.146 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Complete horse shit pack of lies hit piece by total Wikipedia editor/censor/gatekeeper stooges. Disgraceful that the controlled Wikipedia touts the NWO and NeoCon line to the hilt. Shame.

The article blatantly contradicts the findings of the independent commission[41]. Leaving article as it is, is an intentional malicious disinformation. Its very name clearly POVish and shouldn't be here. Hellerick (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV - Wikipedia isn't supposed to post propaganda.

Multiple INDEPENDENT sources have already reached the clear and undisputed conclusion that Georgia started the war in 2008. Yet this pure crap tries to state the opposite? Look at the damned FACTS, Russia is supposed to have started a war with a numerical disadvantage of 1 against 12? "Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Russo-Georgian state border and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August"? Really, anyone who actually checked their sources knows this is bullshit. The only Russian troops in the conflict zone at the time were the peacekeepers and their replacements. Russia had also just finished its exercise in the area, and the vast majority of its troops even close to the area was moving AWAY from it, most of them were on trains, heading for their homebases. It took Russia THREE DAYS to get reinforcements to their peacekeeper troops, and they got them there by flying in airborne troops from OUTSIDE the region. And said peacekeeper troops were only still alive because they repelled the Georgian assault. This was information that I could get ahold of less than 5 days after the conflict started, and yet this shit is still perpetuated? Russian troops in the area was either in the South Ossetian capital in their barracks, or enroute there, 100% in accordance to the rules set for them to be present as peacekeepers. Georgian troops spent a frickin WEEK to mass artillery, tanks, infantry and vehicles in preparation for the attack, not to mention WEEKS of logistical preparations, hell they even set up a propaganda office in Belgium TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ATTACK. This propagandapiece is falsifying history. Fix it. DW75 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Instead of parroting what Russian state-sponsored media outlets say, you should give valid reasons for POV accusations and cite sources to back up your claims. Otherwise, your, to put it mildly, emotional comment is not very different from pro-Kremlin journo escapades happening these days. --Kober^Talk 14:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This is mostly unrelated to the above poster, but the article's lead repeats some pro-Georgian(?) claims that are spurious at best and debunked at worst. Look at these two articles from Der Spiegel: [42], [43]. There was no massive Russian attack incoming, nor was the Georgian operation a response to anything in particular. The Guardian on the same report: "There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation ... Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive could not be substantiated ... It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack." The fact that this report isn't mentioned higher up is disappointing. I see this a lot on Wikipedia: users strongly dispute or ignore sources from some countries like Russia and China without considering that the smaller countries they are up against, like Georgia, might have similar reliability problems. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You may be surprised but Der Spiegel has never been immune to pro-Russian bias. Back in 2009, some respected Russian opposition-minded observers accused it of "fabrications" and fake news.[44], [45]. As for the EU report, "It's not, obviously, the ultimate truth about the war" as one of the high-ranking European diplomats himself said in 2009. Many would even argue that "Lines of Russian disinformation even penetrated the EU's own final report, which overplayed the significance of US support and military assistance to Georgia." --Kober^Talk 13:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As for your latest addition to the article, that's what the "Secret cables released in 2010" really reported: "One plausible explanation for all this is that de facto leader Kokoity decided to roll the dice and stimulate a conflict with the Georgians in hopes of bringing in the Russians and thereby saving himself or enhancing his position."[46] As you can see, Spiegel either misquoted Wikileaks or, worse, blatantly faked the cable text. --Kober^Talk 14:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

But look, you're doing the same now by quoting the other side as evidence for sources being unreliable. The EU report can't be used because some EU diplomat said it's not the ultimate truth and critics call it Russian propaganda, but can you actually say all other sources here were put under the same scrutiny? I mean, what about the US having enormous interests in this conflict and therefore probably not being very reliable? If EU sources are now also pro-Russia, our one and only source conveniently becomes the US (and Georgia). And we should not use a source like Radio Free Europe, which is basically an American equivalent of Russia Today. I hate having to defend a country I have nothing do with, but this last decade with stuff between Russia and the West has made many English Wikipedians (most of whom are from the United States) opposed to Russia and it's really affecting article quality. There were actually several cables released, and it seems they got their information from more than one. The articles by Der Spiegel of Wikileaks cables seem sufficiently reliable with most of them being quoted by The Guardian. Look at this cable for one:

Kitsmarishvili was unable to provide a name and stated for the record that he had a conversation with Ambassador Tefft in which Ambassador Tefft said unequivocally that military action was unacceptable and that the USG had not given anyone a "green light" for military action.

Kitsmarishvili clarified to the press that the "green light" to Georgian authorities from the USG had come directly from President Bush. (Note: Post has used Department press guidance to publicly deny this allegation. End Note).

The US itself clearly disapproved of the violence and never denied that Saakashvili made the gamble. See: "For those few Russian officials willing to believe that the U.S. did not directly goad Georgia into attacking, it is an article of faith that Georgia's military relationship with the U.S. triggered Saakashvili's fateful miscalculation on August 8." Also, New York Times explains where most of this information in US publications comes from:

The cables show that for several years, as Georgia entered an escalating contest with the Kremlin for the future of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two breakaway enclaves out of Georgian control that received Russian support, Washington relied heavily on the Saakashvili government’s accounts of its own behavior. In neighboring countries, American diplomats often maintained their professional distance, and privately detailed their misgivings of their host governments. In Georgia, diplomats appeared to set aside skepticism and embrace Georgian versions of important and disputed events. By 2008, as the region slipped toward war, sources outside the Georgian government were played down or not included in important cables. Official Georgian versions of events were passed to Washington largely unchallenged.

The article continues by stressing how much the US relied on official government sources without questioning these, and that many of the claims had no evidence. Why would we go by the word of Saakashvili alone? Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

US encouragement

Whoever is responsible for this article is a disgrace. Der Speigal is the New York Times of Germany, while VOA and the Swedish military establishment are both Western state funded intelligence assets. It's universally recognized that Georgia, a client state with a large percentage of its GDP consisting of American NGO cash, attacked, with a military armed with American weapons and advisers, South Ossetia. It took the Russians days to pass through the mountains to counter attack, as their token force in South Ossetia was overwhelmed in a day. This war was highly covered in the modern internet era. There is no contention of the facts by the world public and the world's major newspapers near universally acknowledge Georgia's attack on South Ossetia. Whoever said the Russian government, a bankrupt country with a smaller economy than Italy, uses German journalists as assets needs to go into comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.53.54 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What was the rationale for removing this? Probably it's somewhere here, just couldn't find it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't talk for the one who did, but I cant think of some. Generaly the credibility of Spiegel Online is very questionable as it tends to oversimplify events, is edited by few people and is known for releasing controversial articles without much reference, backup and evidence while promoting fact based journalism. What is the source for supposed "cable leaks" ? are any of the things they quote and claim even remotely valid when they don't even provide sources ? why is it written like the Russian side had literaly no play in the establishment of the sessessionist governments and aggrevation of tensions that lead up to mentioned pre-war clashes ? the article seems very one sided as in trying to portray Georgia the villain, while the major players and influencers US and Russia come off largely clean, giving the impression they were dragged into a war they never wanted, which seems to be the purpose of the article. At the same time other Spiegel articles describe the event and its background in a completly differently light. Inconsistent news magazines like that are simply unreliable on such matters. That's my 2 cents. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well are there sources contradicting these assertions? I'll try to locate the cables... Looks like Spiegel is held to a lofty standard which lots of other sources on that page don't reach. Alaexis_¿question? 19:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually I've managed to find a cable they refer to in 5 minutes. I believe this should be in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:TheMightyGeneral that the tone of Spiegel article is not neutral. Spiegel has been known for publishing hoaxes — such as the Lübke English statements. Even the title of this thread is not neutral, since it was Russia who actually encouraged South Ossetians to begin hostilities. Canome (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Any newspaper or magazine has its share of issues and definitely each one of the hundreds cited in this article. There is no reason to single out Der Spiegel. Also, Bryza's message to Saakashvili has been reported not only by Der Spiegel but also by other media, for example by The Guardian and the article contains the link to the original cable itself. Note that I used the word encouragement only at the talkpage and it is not used in the article.

If you know of other sources discussing the US policy towards Georgia in the run-up to the war in light of the leaked cables, please add it rather than removing the paragraph altogether. Alaexis_¿question? 18:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

http://www.agentura.ru/dossier/russia/people/kalugin/ KGB general confessed that Spiegel was collaborating with KGB and was spreading disinformation. Georgiano (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What do allegations of usage by KGB to spread disinformation 50 years ago have to do with this? Again, multiple sources and not just Der Spiegel are cited in this paragraph. Alaexis_¿question? 18:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What the US cables reported about the relationship between the US government and Saakashvili is irrelevant and can not be used for determining Georgia's guilt for the war because in the end, Russian proxies triggered the war with Russian endorsement. Blame-shifting is the main goal of the pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign. The conclusion of the Spiegel article that Georgia was somehow responsible for starting the conflict is flawed. Early reporting is sometimes inaccurate and new facts can emerge later. Did the US encourage Saakashvili to annex Crimea from Ukraine? Did the US encourage Saakashvili to start the war in Donbass? Did the US encourage Saakashvili to shoot down flight MH17? Did the US encourage Saakashvili to conduct chemical weapons attacks against Syrian civilians? Did the US encourage Saakashvili to poison Skripal? Patterns of Russian behavior in recent years demonstrate the aggressive nature of the Russian state. It is likely that Spiegel has attempted to spread misinformation for the benefit of Russia. Therefore, the Spiegel article must not be cited per WP:VALID. The Guardian article that you've cited in your last edit contradicts the conclusion of Spiegel because it states that "The cables broadly support Saakashvili's view" that Russia was responsible for the conflict. 2604:2000:1281:4368:2163:39F5:1D76:6DE (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The KGB still existed 27 years ago. Putin worked for the KGB 27 years ago. Spiegel article never mentions Putin, but only badmouths Saakashvili. This looks suspicious. Canome (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No one has proven that Spiegel has been spreading Russian propaganda so WP:VALID is irrelevant. If there are claims that its reporting WAS influenced by Russian FSB then let's examine them and decide what this means for this particular article.

The Guardian article does not contradict the Spiegel article, it's just that they arrived to different conclusions from the same facts, which is perfectly fine and is precisely the reason why we are including both.

Finally if the issue is just with the Spiegel article, please edit the passage accordingly and not remove it altogether (the passage is based on several other data sources), at least out of the respect to the editors who wrote it. Alaexis_¿question? 09:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)The passage is based

The confession by the KGB general does not count? The unreliability of the Spiegel article is not the only issue with your edit. The cited secret cable neither mentions Bush nor states that Saakashvili was emboldened to start the war with Russia. The Guardian article also states that the cables reported extensively also about Russia's attempts to escalate the conflict. I see that concerns have already been raised over your pro-Russian editing actions and motivation. I have a similar suspicion that you deliberately WP:CHERRYPICKed such information about Saakashvili to defame Russia's foe because you have omitted information imputing Russia. Is Russia your homeland? Are your editing actions driven by motivation to defend the image of your homeland on Wikipedia? You are definitely engaged in WP:BLUDGEONing. You are the only editor who is pushing this nonsense POV in the article that Saakashvili was encouraged by the US support to start the conflict and Russia was innocent. There is another secret cable cited in the article which actually states that Saakashvili did not start the conflict and that Russian support encouraged Eduard Kokoity to start the war: "One plausible explanation for all this is that de facto leader Kokoity decided to roll the dice and stimulate a conflict with the Georgians in hopes of bringing in the Russians and thereby saving himself or enhancing his position." 2604:2000:1281:4368:195B:322F:3DFA:C5B2 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

http://www.etpress.ru/?content=article&id=2873 Spiegel was financed by Russian Gazprom. Georgiano (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

After reading this discussion I think that, in the era of Russian state propaganda a position of the user Georgiano and IP(2604:2000...) is valid and well argumented. Wikipedia already suffers from their destructive propaganda (like TV, FB, or Twitter) and removing this paragraph will be reasonable.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 08:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice one, to leave an anonymous message on my talkpage and then refer to it as 'concerns have already been raised' Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is generally regarded as a reliable source. I'll note that the lede makes a rather bold claim based on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ("Artillery attacks by pro-Russian separatists broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement"), which unlike Der Spiegel, is actually a government-run propaganda outlet. Attacks on editors because of their supposed country of origin are totally out-of-bounds. Please assume good faith and address the issues. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is actually a tabloid. Tabloids often tend to blow things out of proportion and make sensationalist claims. This is not the first time that Der Spiegel has demonstrated prejudice against southern countries. Read more: https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2018/06/02...tina-197999558/ Even if Der Spiegel was generally reliable source, it is not entirely unimaginable that corrupt journalist would abuse trust of newspaper editors and slip his article with unverifiable claims through.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is not the only source which proves the ceasefire violation by pro-Russian separatists. A report by the Swedish Defence University is also used. Even if there were no sources cited to back up the claim, common sense would dictate that a ceasefire agreement would never allow pro-Russian separatists to launch attack.

The country of origin of certain editors is not a problem. The real problem could be their bias and questionable actions. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral encyclopaedia and biased edits could hurt Wikipedia's reliability. It has already been noted in this discussion that the issue with Der Spiegel is that it makes unverifiable claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.205.236 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is not a tabloid. It's a political magazine similar to Newsweek or Time in the United States, and is well known for its investigative journalism. It doesn't matter whether you can imagine that the journalist is corrupt. We don't rule out reliable sources on the basis of people's imaginations here. If you want to argue that Der Spiegel is unreliable, you can go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and present your evidence, but imagination isn't going to cut it.

The two sources that claim the Ossetians broke the ceasefire are Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (a propaganda outlet run by the US government, previously run by the CIA), and an essay written by someone at the Swedish Defence University. We have a major, reputable political magazine on the one hand, Der Spiegel, and on the other hand, a propaganda outlet and an essay written by someone in the Swedish military establishment. It's clear that Der Spiegel is more reputable than either of the latter two sources, yet Der Spiegel is not being used, while the latter two sources are being used to make a very bold claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted back. Please, if you believe that Der Spiegel is an unreliable source raise this issue at the WP:RSN. If you believe that there is still some context or details missing please add them without removing everything. Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No source is flawless, including Der Spiegel. In fact, its many pieces are marred with thinly veiled bias. As for the article in question, it does not take Sherlock Holmes to observe that this Moscow-based journalist sees everything through a Russian prism. The cables don't imply that Georgia intended to start a war. The quotes just say that "war is a bad option for Georgia" and make a reference to a "military action by Georgia", without specifying whether this action was meant to be offensive or defensive. There are many similar Spiegel-type articles which claim that the West was not inclined to support Georgia even in the case of a defensive war and urged the Saakashvili government not to resist militarily.--Kober^Talk 15:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Russia is certainly known for using German journalists to influence public opinion. [47] Although there is no doubt about the existence of cables, the whole paragraph in question must be removed because it is influenced by a biased source containing untruthful statements. The paragraph places an WP:UNDUE emphasis on warmongering nature of Georgia. It is in stark contrast to the rest of the article, which shows warmongering nature of Russia-South Ossetia alliance and demonstrates that Georgia was acting defensively. Therefore, the paragraph in question violates WP:FRINGE policy. 89.246.111.98 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that the whole paragraph has subtle bias and makes Georgia look like the trigger-happy state. The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article already has a neutral section on WikiLeaks and sums up the most important revelations of secret cables. The only way to get rid of bias in this article is to delete the biased paragraph. Canome (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A contradictory sentence

"Although the Ossetians were initially discontented with the economic stance of Tbilisi authorities, the tension shortly transformed into ethnic conflict."
There is a contradiction. Why is being discontented contrasted with conflict? The latter directly comes from the former.--Adûnâi (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Bias" in introduction

The introduction section of the article seems really biased.

By 1 August 2008, South Ossetian separatists had begun shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area.[31][32][33][34][35] Artillery attacks by pro-Russian separatists broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement.[36][37] To put an end to these attacks and restore order, the Georgian Army was sent to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August.[38] Georgians took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, in hours.

There is an official EU report about the events that led to the start of the war. This report was also requested by Georgian authorities themselves, according to [33], but then the opposite and wrong conclusions are presented to the reader. This is an official, independent report, redacted by the EU with the help of 30 legal and military experts, and it clearly states that "The shelling of Tskhinvali (the South Ossetian capital) by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia, [...] There is the question of whether [this] use of force... was justifiable under international law. It was not.". The report is only cited in the EU response section at the bottom of the page, while the conclusions presented in the introduction are "biased" to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.47.73.100 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice to see that after several months nobody has taken the time to reply (even at least just to dismiss?). 2.38.8.249 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

well, several months for a such big conflict is very short. wait until 2028, when the 20th anniversary approaches, then you can get the bigger picture.213.230.113.46 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)