Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Georgian War/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The prose is not concise. That is a consequence of NPOV issues which are also reflected trough complicated and inconsistent terminology. What is more important, too many words are used to prove responsibility or innosence of one side or the other, although there is an article dedicated to it.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section does not properly summarize the article. That is a consequence of NPOV issues because it does not properly present the context of events but starts with "Foo began shelling... as early as...." which is aimed to blame one side for this conflict.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article does not stay focused on the topic. That is a consequence of its NPOV issues reflected in too much text dedicated to proving responsibility of one party in this conflict. Not onlly in sections about responsibility or reactions.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article does not represent viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article is not stable. It has been protected more than once because of edit wars and NPOV issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. The topic of this article is recent war which is still subject of heated debates. That is reflected both in sources and in editors' behavior. The article is not yet stable because of the frequent edit wars caused by its NPOV issues. That is why it has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Because of the serious NPOV issues explained in final assessment section below it is obvious that this article failes to fulfill GA criteria. I proposed possible steps toward solution.

General remarks

[edit]
  • Background
  1. Relevant content guide says that articles about wars should present: "The historical background to the conflict, including preceding conflicts, the political situation, military preparedness, and technology."
    1. Historical background. This article has only one paragraph with only two sentences dedicated to presenting historical background to the conflict. Rest of the background section is more appropriate for prelude section than background - Solution: text about historical background should be expanded. It could start with explanation what are Georgia and Ossetia (map of whole Ossetia, both south and northern might be useful for better understanding)? When was Georgia established as an independent country? Was Ossetia also established as an independent country or divided between Russia and Georgia? Red XN
    2. Earlier conflicts. Earlier conflicts are presented together with historical bacground, within two-sentence first paragraph. I think that is insufficient. On top of that, the background starts with 1921, although conflicts between Ossetians from Southern Ossetia and Georgian government began immediatelly after establishing of Georgia, three years earlier with Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–20) which is important for understanding historical background of this war. - Solution: include Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–20) to the list of preceding conflicts within expanded text in the background section. It is important to clarify that Ossetian - Georgian conflict at that time was much more complex than ideology based conflict of "communist" Ossetians vs. "democratic" Georgia (led by communist mensheviks).Green tickY
      • I've expanded the history section a bit. I've looked into history of South Ossetia and found out that historical maps from 19th century and early 20th century don't contain South Ossetia. The maps only contain Ossetia that covers the approximate territory of modern-day North Ossetia. Apparently the Ossetians had lived in Georgia for several centuries, however they didn't have their own entity or state before 1922.
      • I've also added the subsection about Russian interests, since this war mainly was the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Although the conflict began in South Ossetia, the war was not solely about South Ossetia. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia disliked Georgia and the relations even before 2008 were not friendly. This source says that Russian president Medvedev later explained that the main aim of the war was to prevent NATO expansion. --UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The historical background to the conflict
          • You should have expanded the historical background to the conflict. Not medieval personal feuds which existed 1000 years earlier and ceased to exist centuries before what is today ethnolinguistic region of Ossetia emerged. They are irrelevant here so the text about them should be removed."The historical background to the conflict" "could start with explanation what are Georgia and Ossetia". This is quite simple. Georgia is a country established in 1918 to include southern part of Ossetia, an ethnolinguistic region which northern part is in Russia. That is when conflict between Georgian government and Ossetians begin ("The conflict between the Georgian government and Ossetians dates back to 1918-1921"). Not in 9th century. Not in 1921. Not with 1991–92 South Ossetia War. It began in 1918, with establishment of Georgia as independent country, with region of S Ossetia included in its territory.Red XN
          • There are a couple of useful maps which could be used. One of them is maybe this map which clearly presents region of Ossetia and its southern part in Georgia. The map addition is only an improvement opportunity, not an issue for GA status. Question?
          • I will check rest of your additions later today. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You had asked to clarify when Georgia was first established. The first Georgian state was created in the tenth century. Then the Russian Empire annexed the Georgian principalities in the nineteenth century and Georgia was recreated after the demise of the empire.
  • I've given a few maps that show that the region of South Ossetia did not exist before 1922. Before 1922 Ossetia was the region in the North Caucasus. Also the other sources clearly say that the region of South Ossetia was demarcated and established for the first time in 1922. See this source, that is also based on the Ossetian sources. Page 76 says that the Ossetians living in Georgia were peasants who lived on the Georgian lands.--UA Victory (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I clarified that I did not refer to (irrelevant) medieval personal feud but modern era country.
  • Ossetia as etnoreligious region, of course, existed before 1922. There are thousands of 19th century sources you can find by simple GBS. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. What about ethnic cleansing of Ossetians? The background section of the article does not treat civilian victims eqally. It presents information that thousands of Georgians were forced to leave Abkhazia during 1990' but do not mention that "approximately 100,000 Ossetians fled Georgia proper and South Ossetia" in the same period. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The HRW source (link) connect fleeing of Ossetians with fighting and clearly say they "fled" (flee - To run away, as from trouble or danger) not "emigrated after the conflict". One American professor (link) explains that in 2004 Georgian government launched third anti-Ossetian ethnic cleansing campaign (George, Amiso M.; Pratt, Cornelius B. (13 August 1997). Case Studies in Crisis Communication: International Perspectives on Hits and Misses. Routledge. p. 364. ISBN 978-1-136-59373-4. As many times before, Ossetians were chosen as the scapegoats. So, the third anti-Ossetian ethnic cleansing campaign started in the summer of 2004.). I don't insist to use "ethnic cleansing" term, but it is against NPOV to present number of Georgians who were forced to flee without presenting information that large number of Ossetians was also forced to flee. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:NPOV: I don't think Ossetian position about the background of this conflict is presented to the readers. The aforementioned first paragraph is also cited with this source: " ОСЕТИНСКИЙ ВОПРОС [Ossetian Question]" Tbilisi. 1994. pp. 154–161. This source begins with following sentence: "В апреле 1922 года по приказу из Москвы грузинские коммунисты подарили осетинам часть исконно грузинской земли" (my translation: In April 1922, based on the orders from Moscow, Georgian communist awarded Ossetians with part of ancient Georgians' land"). The text cited with this source and the source itself obviously represents Georgian position regarding SO vs G conflict, and should be attributed as such and followed by the Ossetian position about the background of this conflict. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Red XN[reply]
  • Page 153: "Разумеется , этот вопрос должны были решить Центральный Комитет Компартии Грузии , Ревком Грузинской ССР и Кавбюро Центрального Комитета РКП ( б ). Решающее слово было за последним." The most influential decision maker was the Kavburo. Page 154: "Окончательно вопрос был решен на заседании Кавбюро ЦК РКП ( б ) 31 октября 1921 года ...". The problem was finally solved by the Kavburo on 31 October 1921. Page 156: А народный комиссар внутренних дел Грузии считал невозможным образование не только Юго - Осетинской ССР , автономной республики или даже автономной области , а выделение этого региона как отдельной уездной административной единицы. The Georgian government did not want to create the Ossetian administrative entity.
  • There are no reliable sources that contain the Ossetian position. I've already added more neutral sources on the conflict that clarifies that the Ossetians began insurgency against Georgia with the Russian support. However, they were defeated. --UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you see the quotations that I've provided?
  • I've replaced the debatable source with the western one (that also uses the Ossetian sources) that also says that South Ossetian autonomy was established in 1922. --UA Victory (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede
    • WP:LEAD says "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." -
      • Historical context is not mentioned in the lede. Instead it starts with prelude and 1990's events. Solution - amend lede with short explanation about the establshing of Georgia, what is Ossetia and beginning of Georgian - Ossetian conflicts after Georgia was established.Red XN
      • The lede does not mention "heavy exchange of fire across the border" described by the sources ("sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region" has different meaning). Red XN
      • The lede says "Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region". The text of the article says "Each side accused the other of firing first". This sentence does not properly explain who fired first and could mislead readers to believe that Ossetian forces fired first, which is not what article says.Red XN--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for "Each side accused the other of firing first" is the earliest news report about the events of 1-2 August and contains the statements of both the Georgian and Ossetian officials. However, the later researches concluded that it was South Ossetian separatists that instigated the fire exchanges in early August. Check the cited sources for this: "Ossetian separatists began systematically shelling Georgian villages as early as 1 August, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers and other troops in the region." On the night of 1 August, the South Ossetian separatists fired on civilians and the Georgian forces returned fire and the fire exchange lasted during the night. This was assessed as the most serious outbreak of fire by the OSCE. --UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above mentioned WP:LEAD, lede summarizes the whole body of the whole article, including its background section. I did not propose to "expand lede too much", but to summarize background section including historical context. That can be easily done within a couple of sentences. For example, the second paragraph of the lede could start with something like this:
  • The source you presented does not address the issue. The text in the article's body says that each side accused each other for firing first. The lede says something different. Many other sources used in the articles say that it is impossible to blame one party or another, and explained that early August conflicts gradually evolved after jeep of Georgian militiamen run into a mine on some sideroad. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous conflict was resolved in 1922 when the South Ossetian autonomy was established. The current conflict has its roots in the fall of the Soviet Union. I've clarified that the previous conflicts were between newly independent Georgia and its regions.
  • Which source says that it's impossible to determine who fired first? The news report is the earliest source that also includes the statement of South Ossetian officials claiming that Georgia opened fire first. That does not neccessarily mean that what the South Ossetian representatives say, is true.

  • "In July and August 2008 the situation in South Ossetia deteriorated sharply. Georgian positions and settlements in South Ossetia were targeted by Ossetian separatist militias."[BP 1]

  • "In July and during the first week of August 2008, a number of confrontations took place in South Ossetia after attacks by Ossetian separatists on Georgian positions."[BP 2]

  • "Oleg Orlov, the head of Memorial, said that artillery exchanges across the border with South Ossetia began on August 1 - and then "got worse". Civilians on both sides were injured, he said. South Ossetian troops had fired on civilians, Orlov said, including an enclave of ethnic Georgians living inside separatist controlled South Ossetia, north of Tskhinvali. South Ossetian troops had also fired from the Tskhinvali headquarters of Russia's peacekeeping force, Orlov added. "It's important to find out who was the aggressor. But the answer isn't straightforward," Orlov, who spent two weeks in South Ossetia and Georgia investigating the conflict, said. "Of course Georgia's armed forces started a full-scale military operation. But the previous politics of Russia provoked Georgia to do this.""[BP 3]

  • Did you see these sources? These sources clarify that the fire exchanges were initiated by the Ossetians. The fire exchange of the night of 1-2 August was caused by the shelling of the Georgian villages. This is included because this was assessed by the OSCE as the most serious outbreak of fire since the 2004 war.--UA Victory (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Roy Allison (2008). "Russia resurgent? Moscow's campaign to 'coerce Georgia to peace'". International Affairs. 84 (6): 1145–1171. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00762.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 September 2009. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Jean-Rodrigue Paré (13 February 2009). "The Conflict Between Russia and Georgia". Parliament of Canada.
  3. ^ Luke Harding (19 November 2008). "Georgia calls on EU for independent inquiry into war". The Guardian.

|}

  • The last paragraph of the April–July 2008 subsection refers to the forces involved in the conflict. Also in the 1-7 August subsection the deployment of Georgian army is mentioned: "At about 2:30 pm, Georgian tanks, 122mm howitzers and 203mm self-propelled artillery guns began heading towards the South Ossetian border to deter further separatist attacks." The Russian army: "According to Georgian intelligence, and Russian media, parts of the regular (non-peacekeeping) Russian Army moved to South Ossetian territory through the Roki Tunnel before the Georgian military operation." --UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are several alternate native names of this conflict, maybe it would be good idea to create subsection (or note) for different alternative names, both English language and native languages and avoid clogging of the lede.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear beligerents
    • This is article about ", a conflict between Georgia and Russia, along with the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia". The first sentence does not clearly present beligrents in this conflict. On whose side were South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Did South Ossetia and Abkhazia belong to Russia or to Georgia? Were they separatist regions, or self-proclaimed independent states? This should be clarified? Green tickY
  • They are self-proclaimed states, however their independence is questionable. The ruling elites are supported and financed by Russia. Their independence and the borders are protected by the Russian troops. "pro-Russian separatist entities (claiming independence from Georgia)" seems to be more neutral and clarifies whose side they were on. --UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Western nations and international organizations have adopted declarations where Abkhazia and South Ossetia are mentioned as occupied territories. The only side that disputes that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are occupied, is Russia. The Russian user disputed that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are under military occupation, and inserted this. --UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1–7 August - How many Ossetian casualties of 1 August events?
    • The article explains what happened on 1 August and how many casualties had Georgian side (5 injured). The text continues with description of the events and says that "Georgian snipers retaliated by attacking the South Ossetian border checkpoints." The source says that they killed 4 Ossetians and wounded 7. The text of the article does not mention Ossetian casualties. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  • What about Ossetian civilian casualties of 1-2 August conflict
    • The afore mentioned source explains that Ossetian casualties included several civilians during the exchange of fire on the night of 1-2 August. The text of the article emphasizes that Georgian side had civilian casualties, without mentioning Ossetian civilian casualties. Green tickY
    • Ossetian casualties during the exchange of fire on the night of 1-2 August are not properly presented to the readers. The source explained that during the exchange of fire on the night of 1-2 August number of Ossetian casualties rose to 6 killed and 15 wounded. Rose. Earlier that day the number of casualties was 4 killed and 7 wounded. That means that during the exchange of fire on the night of 1-2 August Georgian forces killed 2 and wounded 8, including several civilians. Attributing all Ossetian casualties to the night event could mislead readers about the actual timeline of the conflict. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  • Responsibility and reactions
    • Wikipedia:Article size and WP:NPOV: The text of the article which deals with responsibility and reactions is too long and may be even considered as off-topic straying. There are already articles which deal with this topic (i.e. 2008 Russo-Georgian diplomatic crisis). This should be summarized. Both sides blamed each other for responsibility for this conflict which escalated from several skirmishes into large scale conflict. Some say that conflict started when Georgian army tried to capture South Ossetia while other say that it was a trap well planned and organized by Russia. The "Combatants' positions" subsection gives much more weight to Georgian than to Russian point of view without mentioning Ossetian point of view.
    • Has anybody on the West criticized Saakashvili? I think I saw a lot of criticism of Saakashvili's action, even in the mainstream Western media (unlikely to be pro-Russian).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Red XN[reply]
  • I trimmed the existing information and left the most significant information. I've also added Felgenhauer's research because he was the sole person that had predicted that Russia was preparing for the war with Georgia since April (apparently after the NATO summit) and that the war would start in August 2008. Felgenhauer's assertions were later partially confirmed by Medvedev in 2011 and Putin in 2012.
  • President Saakashvili was criticised in the early aftermath of the conflict, since the most people didn't know what really happened and why. I haven't seen recently any criticism of Saakashvili for the war except in the Russian state-controlled media. --UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Saakashvili was criticised in the early aftermath of the conflict" then this information should be presented to the readers, otherwise they could be mislead to believe that only Russia which was criticized and that would be violation of WP:NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trimming and addition of Felgenhauer did not resolve my concerns. On the contrary. It made the issue even worse because many of trimmed information did not support Georgian position while addition of Felgenhauer gave additional weight to Georgian point of view and created another issue because it gave undue weight to opinion of sigle jornalist.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source interpretations:
    • "preventing bloodshed" or "cooling heads"? I think that the source was not interpreted properly. Russia emphasized "preventing bloodshed". That is also in the title of the source. Not "cooling heads" which was actually taken out of context and emphasized by Georgian side.Red XN
      • Article says: "Georgia recalled its ambassador from Russia after Russia had admitted to intrusion into Georgia's airspace to "let hot heads in Tbilisi cool down.""
      • The source says: (link): "Russia says it sent warplanes over South Ossetia to ‘prevent bloodshed’", "“For clarification of situation, Russian Air Force planes made a short flight over the territory of [secessionist South Ossetia]. As further development of the situation showed, this step let hot heads in Tbilisi cool down and prevent the development of the situation by a forceful scenario, the possibility of which was very high,” "the Russian statement asserted. “There was a necessity to act instantaneously and decisively, to prevent bloodshed and keep the situation in the lawful, peaceful framework.” " ---Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source misinterpretation is now maybe even worse. The article now says "Russia had admitted to intrusion into Georgia's airspace" which is not what the source says ("Russia says it sent warplanes over South Ossetia to ‘prevent bloodshed’"). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses word admitted more than once, 4 times for Russia and 1 time in case of Georgia. This is not exactly correct interpretation of events and sources, although in one case the source (news headline) uses the same wording. This kind of wording should be avoided because it implies that Russia (or Georgia) admitted their responsibility for something, which is not correct.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "According to Russian media" or "several publications in the Russian press may ...."? The source is misinterpreted to give more weight to POV that Russia started this war.
      • The article says: "According to Georgian intelligence,[139] and Russian media, parts of the regular (non-peacekeeping) Russian Army moved to South Ossetian territory through the Roki Tunnel before the Georgian military operation"
      • The source says: "However, several publications in the Russian press, including those owned by the Ministry of Defense, may undermine the official position of the Russian military."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BALASPS After explanation of early 20th century events the text of the background section continues with late 20th century events beginning with 11 December 1991 and decision of South Ossetia to declare itself directly subordinate to the USSR. Why would they do that? Not knowing much about the subject I found it strange that some people would rather live in dying USSR then in modern democratic free republic like Georgia. When I looked at the source used in the article (link) I was stunned. The source clearly emphasize that in October 1990 nationalist coalition "Round Table — Free Georgia" of Zviad Gamsakhurdia won the elections. "Georgians viewed the national minorities in Georgia as stumrebi (guests), there at tolerance of majority of the population. The notion was widespread that the fears and aspirations of the non-Georgians were artificial, illegitimate, and influenced by sinister forces from Moscow ... the new government made clear its intention to deal in its own way with its minorities....." New head of state explained how new government was going to resolve the fears and aspirations of the non-Georgians "if (the Ossetians) do not want to live peacefully with us, then let them leave Georgia". Another source used in this article explain what was the programe of nationalist parties who formed Georgian goverment: "Georgia for the Georgians", "subversive minorities" who "should be chopped up" and "burned out with a red-hot iron from the Georgian nation", drive out of Georgia "all the evil enemies and non-Georgians",... When this kind of nationalists won the elections in Georgia in Autumn 1990, the Ossetians declared South Ossetia directly subordinated to the USSR. Solution: It is necessary to properly use sources (without cherry picking ) to amend the text in the background section which deals with late 20th century with explanation about the position of nationalist Georgian government toward national minorities in Georgia which is crucial for the explanation of the context of events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsections in Russo-South Ossetian-Abkhaz order of battle were merged. The Severance of diplomatic relations was merged with Recognition by Russia. The subsections in the Responsibility section were merged.--UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autonomy as reward?
    • "Some historians believe that autonomy was granted to the Ossetians by the Bolsheviks in return for their assistance in fighting against independent Georgia, since this territory had never been a separate entity" When I read this sentence for the first time I found it completely illogical. If Bolsheviks wanted to reward Ossetians for their assistance in fighting against independent Georgia, they would establish Ossetia as one administrative unit equal to Georgia. Instead they divided it between Russia and Georgia. Were Ossetians happy about it? I googled this issue and confirmed my impression because I discovered many sources which say that Ossetians believed that border which divided Ossetia was illegal, unnatural, that it was " political division of the Ossetian nation on its historical territory" or "... they perceived to be an unnatural division of the Ossetian people and their homeland by an administrative border". When I took a closer look at the source I noticed that it also explains that Bolsheviks were "dividing an established ethnic group by a state border". The source is actually misinterpreted. It does not say "Some historians believe". It says "Some argue". The referenced work is authored not by group of historians but by one person, Russian ethnographer Mikhail Kosven who died more than 50 years ago. Solution: it is necessary to properly interpret the source, or maybe better to avoid giving undue weight to outdated sources but to explain what was the real perception of Ossetians about the division of their homeland by administrative border between Georgia and Russia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Red XN[reply]
  • The Ossetians as a nation might be divided between Georgia and Russia. However, the sources also say that the Bolsheviks did not want to antagonize Georgia by annexing Ossetian-populated areas to Russia. As I've explained, Ossetia before the Russian revolution was the region in the Russian North Caucasus. While the Ossetians also lived on the territory of modern South Ossetia, the region was not called Ossetia. This source, page 130 explains that "the two Ossetian areas form a special case in Soviet nationality policy. North Ossetia is considered to be the indigenous homeland of the Ossetians, and the North Ossetian ASSR was therefore, so to speak, the mother republic of the South Ossetians. Hence the autonomous unit of the Ossetians within Georgia was put on a lower administrative level than North Ossetia."
  • This recent source, page 113, also explains that the Ossetians supported the Bolsheviks and also confirms that the autonomy was a concession. --UA Victory (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unexplained removal of referenced text
    • With this edit (diff) nominator responded to several issues I pointed to. But this edit included removal of referenced text without any explanation. What was the reason for this removal?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Below is a list of referenced assertions removed without explanation. As far as I can see, the removed text do not support pro-Georgian point of view:
        • "Georgian forces remained in the gorge until the 2008 war."
        • "Russia initially accused Georgia of genocide against Ossetians,"
        • "According to a senior Russian official, the first Russian combat unit was ordered to move through the Roki Tunnel at around dawn of 8 August (after the Georgian attack had begun)."
        • Whole paragraph about "the Russian reaction to the Georgian attack". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Georgian forces left the Gorge in 2008 is already mentioned in the Abkhaz front.
  • I've restored the rest of the deleted information. I had understood your previous request as to trim the section. --UA Victory (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncontested Georgia?
  • Terminology
    • The terminology used in the article is not consistent nor always neutral.
      • Troops, Militia or separatists? - Military forces of SO are inconsistently referred to as South Ossetian troops, SO militia, separatists.... It is necessary to refer to this troops consistently and neutrally. I think that refering to those forces as separatists is not precise nor neutral. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt those forces were military and militia forces. Georgian government viewed those forces as separatists while they viewed themselves as defenders of their countries from Georgian invasion and occupation. Whether they were separatists or defenders is not wikipedia to judge. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Europe's First War of the 21st Century?
    • I searched this name on GBS. Only six hits, all belonging to the name of book, not as direct reference to the conflict. The first sentence of the article is cluttered with alternative names, so removing this, quite long one, would be beneficial for the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final assessment

[edit]

Problem

The main problem of this article is NPOV. Most other issues are consequence of NPOV issue. Its text is, with few excemptions, a massive POV caused by fact picking, source misinterpretations and words selected to push POV of pro-NATO Geogian government. NPOV issues caused many other issues, including issues with prose (i.e. complicated and inconsistent terminology), lede that does not properly summarize the text of the article, going into unnecessary details, etc. Almost every citation I checked is misinterpreted or subjected to fact picking. I understand that the topic of this article is recent war which is still subject of the heated debates. People are entitled to have certain position. Without strict following of wikipedia rules the consequence might be frequent edit wars and NPOV issues = not completely stable article. Just like it is now. That is why it has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it.

Solution

There is a lot of good material in this article. It reminds me of over-seasoned dish. One can not eat it, but it is still too valuable to be wasted. To save this dish it is necessary to first prevent its further over-seasoning and then to somehow fix it.

1 - Preventing future POV pushing

Behind NPOV issues of this article are, of course, its editors. To improve the quality of this article it might be necessary to first reduce the risk of future disruptive POV pushing. It might be good to secure attention of some admin and maybe implement 1RR in the proces of improving this article's quality.

2 - Fixing the article

There are two main points (related to the background of this conflict) over which two sides are arguing:

  1. Souvereignity - Do territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia belong (or should belong) to Georgia or not?
  2. Responsibility - Who is responsible for start of this war?

Those two points are not subject of this article. There are other articles that deal with them. Still, they are directly related to the background so they should be elaborated within background section, not over extensively. Only in background section, not troughout the whole article. NPOV policy should be followed and readers should be informed about positions of both Georgian government and Abkhazia/S Ossetia/Russia. Maybe within two separate subsections in the background section, of equal size. Their text should be result of clear consensus, maybe by RfC or poll.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War/GA1&oldid=967083918"