Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:53, 10 March 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Georgian War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 5 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abkhazia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbkhaziaWikipedia:WikiProject AbkhaziaTemplate:WikiProject AbkhaziaAbkhazia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Ossetia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (country) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

A news item involving Russo-Georgian War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 August 2008.

[REDACTED]

References

Troop numbers in Georgia and South Ossetia

According to Moscow Defense Brief, "the total number of Russian forces in South Ossetia reached about 10,000 men and 120 tanks." In addition to this, Russia deployed 9,000 men in Abkhazia. So according to this they had 19,000 men in total in Georgia.

ISDP claims that Russian troops in South Ossetia outnumbered the 9,000 Georgian troops two-to-one on August 9. This means that Russia had 18,000 troops in South Ossetia on August 9, and at least 18,000 (South Ossetia) + 9,000 (Abkhazia) = 27,000 in Georgia in total. Our infobox says Russia had 15,000 regulars in Georgia. What is the truth?

First, I'd like to point out that the ISDP figure of 9,000 Georgians in South Ossetia comes directly from the Georgian authorities . (This seems to be the case for almost every information in the ISDP paper.) Therefore, I strongly suspect that the claim that Russia had 18,000 troops in South Ossetia also comes from Georgian officials. In any case, I don't personally think the claim is too reliable, as it contradicts other sources. Offliner (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is probably where ISDP got their number: "The Georgian president said Russia had sent 20,000 troops and 500 tanks into Georgia." But the reliability of Saakashivili on August 11 is questionable. According to some sources the Georgian military communications broke down soon after the war started, so even if Saakashivili is telling the truth, he might not have a reliable picture of what is going on. We simply need more sources. Can anyone find more numbers? Offliner (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried looking at the Russian MoD webpage, but found no numbers there. --Xeeron (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is from the WP you quoted above:

• "I think they had something around 15- to 20,000 in the theater," Kezerashvili said. "I had only 9,000. They were already bringing in new soldiers. They had a chance to rest, and our soldiers were becoming tired and more tired because I had no additional forces to change them. After two days of battle, they were too tired.

Here is what Moscow Defense brief writes:

• By the morning of August 10, the Georgians had captured almost the whole of Tskhinvali, forcing the Ossetian forces and Russian peacekeeping battalion to retreat to the northern reaches of the city. However, on this very day the accumulation of Russian forces in the region finally bore fruit, and the fighting in South Ossetia reached a turning point. Toward the evening of August 10, Tskhinvali was completely cleared of Georgian forces, which retreated to the south of the city.

ISPD:

• At 10 AM, the Georgian government announces that 1,500 of its 9,000 troops have entered Tskhinvali and that they now control the main part of the conflict zone. ... Russia gradually increases its number of ground troops in South Ossetia, outnumbering the 9,000 Georgian troops by nearly two to one.

All those sources point into the same direction: Georgia had an initial advantage, when it was only facing the South Ossetians and those Russian troops already in Tskhinvali. When more and more new Russian troops arrived via the Roki tunnel, the pressure started to mount and finally had to withdraw. Whether the estimate of 2 to 1 is correct is hard to tell, but on the general line, all sources say the same. --Xeeron (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No they don't. 10,000 troops don't equal 18,000. Basic math. The myth that the ISPD seeks to create is that Russians just threw a lot of men into South Ossetia, and won sheerly on numbers. That's a myth, which is why ISDP doubles or even triples the number of Russian forces. There's a huge difference between a 1 to 1 ratio and a 2 to 1 ratio in the military. 2 is not 1. If you want to test that theory, you can give me $2 million, and I'll pay you back $1 million. It is absurd to think that it is the same. ISDP cannot deal with the fact that NATO trained forces got their butts kicked, and so doubles the amount of Russian soldiers. 10 guys vs. 9 guys in a fight, isn't the same, nor generally the same, as 18 v. 9 guys in a fight. Plus some of the Russian soldiers were guarding supply lines, whereas the Georgian troops guarding the supply lines aren't counted. Therefore the ISDP comparison is absurd. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that Russians outnumbered the Georgians in South Ossetia at some point, but it is unclear by how much. From : "The Georgian army has five regular infantry brigades, each with some 2,000 troops." If you take a look at the Georgian casualty list, it seems clear that all the four brigades that were in Georgia at the time participated in the battle for South Ossetia. Moscow Defense Brief also confirms this. This means that Georgia had at least 8,000 regulars. Again, if you look at the casualty list and MDB's article, it seems clear that other units participated as well, such as the Separate Tank Battallion and the National Guard. But it is unclear how many soldiers these units had. MDB's claim that Georgia had up to 16,000 troops in the conflict zone does have some credibility when compared with the information from the casualty list. Still, with this information the current estimate in the article: 9,000 (Georgian claim) - 16,000 (MDB claim) seems to be all we can say about Georgian troop numbers. Also, here is a working link for the US claim of 15,000 Russian troops in Georgia: . Offliner (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Georgian list of casualties is not a good reference here, since it states Georgian casualties from the total conflict, including deaths from air attacks, deaths in the Kodori Gourge, deaths from fighting that happened in Georgia proper. Seeing how the number of casualtes from the first and fifth brigade are considerably lower than those from the 2-4th brigage, it makes sense to assume that they did not or only partially take part in the battle for Tskhinvali.

Just along the same lines, one can call the MDB's accessment into question: "all in all, up to 16,000 men) in the Georgian enclaves in the South Ossetian conflict zone". Take a look at File:SO1.jpg to see how tiny those enclaves actually are. For all we know the main Georgian trust happened from the south (this is even in the MDB itself: "forcing the Ossetian forces and Russian peacekeeping battalion to retreat to the northern reaches of the city"), that is from Georgia proper, not from the Georgian enclaves. Neither source is perfect, but the general picture is the same. --Xeeron (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean casualty list is not a good reference? Pro-Georgian editors have called Poti and Senaki occupations, not battles. That means that there was little contests, and virtually no casualties, you cannot have it both ways. Most of the fighting occurred in the Tskhinvali area, which is where most of military casualties come from on both sides. The amount of Georgian casualties due to bombardment in Georgia proper is minimal, and certainly doesn't reach anywhere near as high as Georgian casualties in the Battle of Tskhinvali. Also, in order to force the Ossetians and Russian Peacekeepers to retreat to Northern Tskhinvali, Georgians had to attack Southern Tskhinvali, which is in South Ossetia, well in South Ossetia. And once again, 10 vs. 16, or 10 vs. 9, is nowhere near the same ratio as the 2 to 1 ratio boldly portrayed by a source with few citations. Also, if you look at where the casualties took place - that's where the battles took place, thus casualty list is an extremely good reference, it's facts on the ground, rather then PhDs directly quoting the Georgian president. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The list does not include the location. Since fighting was not restricted to Tskhinvali, we have no way of telling who died where. --Xeeron (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, the list is still a crude argument for which units were involved, since most of the fighting occured in SO, and elsewhere Georgians mostly retreated, thus, most of the Georgian casualties must have occurred in SO.

Here is another number: according to IISS the Georgians had 12,000 troops in the conflict zone: . It falls between Saakashvili's 9,000 claim and MDB's 16,000 claim. Offliner (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we do about ISDP's "two-to-one" claim? If we look at the various numbers above, it is clear that the claim is contradicted by other sources. For example: the Georgians say the Russians had about 15,000 to 20,000 men in the theatre. But IISS (a British, presumably neutral source) says Georgia had 12,000. 2 * 12,000 = 24,000 != 20,000. Suggestions: 1) remove ISDP's claim, 2) add "...but this is contradicted by other sources" to the claim, 3) replace with more exact statements on troop levels (this would be a bit stupid, since we have those estimates elsewhere in the article, and ISDP's claim was about troop levels on August 9, I think.) Offliner (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We should replace it by a less specific statement that is backed by most sources. --Xeeron (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is still a major problem in your solution: it says that the Russians outnumbered the Georgians at the end of August 9. As far as I remember, this is not supported by other sources. We should change it to August 10 instead. Offliner (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On August 10, the Georgian troops already received the order to withdraw. While it is obvious that after the Georgian withdraw the Russians outnumbered them, the more important point is that they withdrew when being outnumbered. --Xeeron (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, outnumbering on August 9 is not supported by other sources, so I'm not willing to accept that version. Maybe "On August 9-10" would be a good compromise?Offliner (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Xeeron (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just gave this another thought. Are you absolutely sure that the combined Russian and Ossetian forces outnumbered the Georgians? IISS' article says the Russian troop number grew to 10,000: , and that the Georgian troop number was 12,000. The only sources that directly say that Russians outnumbered the Georgians are ISDP's article and the Georgian Defense Minister. Offliner (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. According to the infobox, SO had "3,000 regulars and 15,000 reservists; unknown number of volunteers". Together with the Russians that is more. --Xeeron (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are not exact numbers. 3,000 regulars is the estimated total size of the South Ossetian army. It is reasonable to assume a wide error margin in that estimate. Also it is not clear how many of those regulars participated in the war, and how many were not mobilized in time. Military of South Ossetia says there were just 2,500 regulars. If IISS numbers are correct, we have 12,000 Georgians, and the combined forces of Russians + Ossetians are about 12,500. I contest your claim. We have only two sources which directly say that Russians outnumbered the Georgians, other sources are unclear. If MDB number of 16,000 Georgians is correct, then we have a contradiction as well. Do you still say you are absolutely sure? Would you mind bringing a couple of more sources in to support your claim? Offliner (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the numbers in the Spiegel report : The Russians deployed 5,500 troops to Gori and 7,000 to the border between Georgia and its second separatist region, Abkhazia. From this wording, it seems possible that Spiegel means only 5,500 Russian troops were deployed in the SO warzone. If this is true, they definitely did not outnumber the Georgians. Offliner (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Russians did not reached Gori during the battle, only once it was essentially over. --Xeeron (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a better number from another Spiegel article : "Depending on the estimate, the Russians moved between 5,500 and 10,000 soldiers into South Ossetia through the Roki tunnel. Meanwhile, there were already between 7,000 and 10,000 Russian soldiers at the Georgian-Abkhazian border, many of them brought there on ships from Russia." So there were 5,500 - 10,000 Russian troops (presumably they mean: in total) in South Ossetia, and 12,000 Georgian troops had been amassed near the border at war's start. This also seems to undermine your and ISDP's claim, that the Russians outnumbered the Georgians. Offliner (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(ri) If 5500-10000 moved through the tunnel, then the total number opposing the Georgians has to be 5500-10000 plus the Russians already present beforehand, plus the South Ossetians, plus any possible non-Russian army volunteers present. Additionally, we don't know whether all 12000 Georgians were committed to the battle, a non-negligable number might have been held back in reserve in Georgia. --Xeeron (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Russian casualties?

Seeing how the Georgian list of names has been on the net for months now, is there any Russian list forthcoming? It would be quite valuable for the infobox. --Xeeron (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think its fine as it is no need to change. But when you say valuable for the infobox what do you mean? restructure it?--XChile (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Copied over from my talk page

That started on my talk page, but I guess it makes more sense to have all discussion here, instead of split up. --Xeeron (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, please stop your POV on the 2008 South Ossetia War Article. I have been very nice to you, but my patience with your edits is running out. You cannot simply put sources in the article that you like, merely because they were written by people holding PhD. And your attack on my, saying that I made up the 6,000 number, whereas it was in the article prior to my editing on it, is quite frankly nothing but an empty ad hominem. Your refusal to recognize NPOV, and your willingness to place anything pro-Georgian, no matter how poorly sourced and written into the article, as well as your edit-warring, are getting old. Please, for the sake of NPOV stop it now. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You confuse NPOV with YOURPOV. The fact that sources do not agree to your very one-sided view of events does not make them invalid. And that you go out and say that scientific sources, written by people in a neutral country, who work in the field are NPOV, just because they do not adhere to your favorite view of what happened, should be cause for worry.

PS: I checked before making that post and checked again now. The 6,000 is nowhere in the article, so get your facts straight. --Xeeron (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The article says 15,000 Russian soldiers. 9,000 were in Abkhazia. Check your math. BTW I discuss my edits before making them, I'd really wish you started doing the same. Care to show me how my view is very onesided? That I don't agree with people just because they have a PhD makes me biased? Suddenly if someone has a PhD, they're supposed to be my master? Oh, and do contribute to the discussion page please. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about, I have more contributions on the talk page than you. Anyway, be assured that I plan to continue contributing there.

The article says "Est. at least 15,000 regulars in Georgia". Note that it is a) an estimate b) does not count South Ossetian forces c) is concerned with troops in Georgia (does that include or exclude SO and Ab?). The source is also no longer avaible, the link did not work for me. --Xeeron (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you even read what you write? How can South Ossetian Forces not be counted as part of the Russian Forces in Georgia?! Wow, just wow. This is amazing. Furthermore yes it is an estimate, and Georgian forces are also an estimate, but it's the most accurate estimate possible. And it said 15,000 in Georgia, not just Georgia proper, which tears your argument to shreds. Saakashvili also said that Georgians won the war, can't wait for you to make that argument Daniel. And if you look at the current page on discussion, it shows that I discuss all of my edits, you do not. Discuss your edits either prior to make them, or at the very least as you make them. And stop placing POV sources into the article just because you like the writers, that is unacceptable Daniel. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Again I am going to ask all of you, can we discuss content issues only? I have extended the protection by two more days to facilitate additional discussion on the content. List the issues you have with the content or sources breifly without trying to think into other's motives. Explain why you think said sentence or source should not be there and what your ideal fix is. Discuss those, reach a compromise or two.

Remember that NPOV does not mean presenting just one so called "nuetral" point of view. It is possible and in some cases desired to have multiple points of view listed. I really suggest everyone on this talk page go to Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality and read that section instead of simply saying "Not NPOV", explain why you think it is not NPOV in one or two sentences (no more!). —— nixeagle 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Straight to the point: according to the agruments of you both, Xeeron, you are wrong about inserting 15 thousand Ru army number in SO just b/c article spoke of 15 in Georgia (and definitely was describing whole then-time Georgia).

HistoricWarrior is wrong about mixing SO and Ru armies. Two legally independent states, need to give numbers for both.

Sorry I do not have much time to edit the article right now. With kind regards from Austria, FeelSunny (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Title

I have zero awareness of that part of the world. I just wanted to say that the current title didn't help me finding this article at all. I searched google for russia georgia war and I didn't find this Misplaced Pages article at all except on result number 20, the end of second page of google. --Darwish (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That is strange considering that Russia Georgia war is a redirect here. (Igny (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

russia georgia war does not re direct to[REDACTED] not sure why not but thats out of Misplaced Pages's control and we can do nothing about to my knowledge at least. --XChile (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Google rates pages according to a lot of stuff. The redirect does not have enough content and incomming links to show up, only the main page will. --Xeeron (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to find something on Misplaced Pages, you should add "wiki" at the end of your search query. Suddenly and magically it becomes the first link. Also, I did the same query that you have, "russia georgia war" and it became the seventh link. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=russia+georgia+war And twentieth link is nothing to cry about either, you had to spend what, 2-3 mins reading it? Next time add "wiki". Also, the attacker usually goes first, and considering that Georgia attacked Russian base, it should be Georgia Russia War. No we aren't changing the name to aid your search. Remember "wiki"! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Try to be less aggressive. Such hysterical posts are not going to help your cause. I'm going to propose an article rename ASAP and the community's decision will prove which name is better.--Kober 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kober, when you are calling someone agressive, and use the word "hysterical" in the same sentence, it shows you're desperate and reduces your credibility. Also, there have been over 100 pages of discussion on what this article should be called, by scores of editors, and 100 discussion pages, 2008 South Ossetia War was the chosen title. Quite a few editors here would rather not go through that again, just to make the article "easier" to find. Is it really that hard scrolling down seven links, or typing four letters? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misreport, there was never a consensus to have 2008 South Ossetia war as title the title 2008 South Ossetia war was never chosen on the talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(hi-tech robotic female voice, announces in english but with with horrible russian accent, just like the one in Red Alert): Alert! Alert! Article rename attempt detected. Unit 212.192.164.14, advance to your position immediately.

Oh my god, is that really happening to me again? I'm still undergoing intensive psychiatric care since the last time, and have ways to go till getting fully recovered, yet it there has to be another round of rename discussion... What can i say? Life is hard and unfair. =)

Xeeron, he never said the word "consensus", and the words "chosen title" are not it's equivalent either. Or do you have some Venn diagrams showing otherwise? =)) (Sorry, i couldn't resist it. =) I think, what he was trying to say, is that there was no consensus before, and, since no significant info about the war appeared and there is no reason to expect from editors to have their opinions changed, it's highly unlikely that any kind of consensus can emerge this time. Personally, I don't expect anything from this discussion but a waste of time, too. Do we really have to go through this again?

To HistoricWarrior007: Hi, mate. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the power of the status quo. On wikipedia, a determined minority can block changes indefinitely. --Xeeron (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"...title 2008 South Ossetia war was never chosen on the talk page." Well, technically, it was chosen to stay. You, and everyone else made that choice implicitly, when stopped participating in rename discussion. =))

"It's the power of the status quo. On wikipedia, a determined minority can block changes indefinitely." Now, you're the one, who is misinterpreting here, Xeeron. One can be as determined as he wants, but he'll have to present reasonable arguments to be able to "block changes", as you name it. I don't think that i'm unreasonable, so if our situation shows something, then it's not the power of status quo, but the lack of counter-arguments from you, which will succeed in convincing me. I'm open to accepting and supporting some good compromise title if you're able think up one (i failed), but "Russia-Georgia war" is just the same no-go with me as it was before. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No need for such aggressiveness Mr./Ms. "Warrior". I told you I don't care about this war; I'm in the heart of the Middle East and we have enough wars and history to make me busy for 100 years. I just wished to post a view which is 100% from outside. And instead of thanking or civilly disagreeing, you're just attacking. External eyes are needed in any article. I'll say it again: for outsiders this title is really obscure. We don't really know what "Ossetia" is; all what outsiders know is "Russia" and "Georgia". --Darwish (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"" No need for such aggressiveness Mr./Ms. "Warrior" " On his place, you wouldn't be talking as calm as he did, after going through this mind-breaking hell which is misguidingly called "rename discussion". =)) Believe me, after some time spent in it, it becomes hard to remember what words "civil disagreement" mean. On your place, i would familiarise myself with the older discussion, before even suggesting this rename.

"I'll say it again: for outsiders this title is really obscure. We don't really know what "Ossetia" is; all what outsiders know is "Russia" and "Georgia". " So, Misplaced Pages is supposed to support readers' ignorance? And i don't see how this could be a problem anyway, since, as HistoricWarrior showed, to resolve it, one just has to append "wiki" to his query, and whether it contains mysterious "Ossetia" word or not, it will succeed in finding this article. And since article title is nearly the last thing Google cares about when it determines it's PageRank, i don't see, how this problem could be fixed with article rename. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, you have math skills. Current editors that may want change: Darwish, Kober, Xeeron, Narking. Current editors that oppose title change: 212, (who has a wiki account as can be seen by the quality of his edits), FeelSunny, Offliner, Igny, and me. So now 4 > 5. Just like 15,000 - 9,000 was < 18,000. It just never ceases to amaze me! Darwish - if you want to find a Misplaced Pages Article, type in "wiki". Otherwise it will keep on jumping around and will rarely be first, irrespective of the title. Also, if you don't know anything about Ossetia, we need the title so that you could instantly learn some valuable info! Our job is to inform, not to conform. To be NPOV, not to follow the majority. And no title is more NPOV then the one above. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The main reason why so many editors have left this article is that they simply are fed up of the constant incivility and personal attacks here. And yes, a minority can easily block an article this way. Närking (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and a perfect way to stop any move is by trolling the discussion, drag it down to a personal level, or get the opposite side bogged down by postulating a bunch of unrelated half-truths and straw men that need to be refuted. I remember perfectly well how that works, no need to show me again. --Xeeron (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What is it with the pro-Georgia crowd here. Reading trouble? The fundamental point from the previous edit was no title is more NPOV then the one above. Since when is NPOV, the fundamental key of Misplaced Pages, become a strawman? Are you guys seriously ignoring all of my major points and merely responding to sublets of these points? And Narking, when you are trying to be the Great Defender, attacking me really doesn't help your cause. The irony of this is just superbly thick, especially in this article, when one Great Defender (Saakashvili) already ended up chewing ties. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see that my comment was almost instantly confirmed. Närking (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you out with the formulation: The fundamental point Your assertion, not backed up by any source or arguement, from the previous edit was no title is more NPOV then the one above. For the rest of your post, this still fits perfectly: Oh and a perfect way to stop any move is by trolling the discussion, drag it down to a personal level, or get the opposite side bogged down by postulating a bunch of unrelated half-truths and straw men that need to be refuted. I remember perfectly well how that works, no need to show me again. --Xeeron (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, your "HistoricWarrior is evil because he attacks editors" claim is slightly, marred by your attack on me. Also, in 100 pages no one provided a more NPOV title, then the one above. You would do well to actually read those 100 pages, prior to proceeding with the commentary, which shows nothing except from your ignorance of the issue at hand. Once again Xeeron, come up with a more NPOV title, or stop commenting. 100 pages of discussion, 100 pages of arguments, is a source that backs up my assertion, and the fact that you're too lazy to look at it, simply shows your ignorance. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

When did I claim ... ah wait, I see: Oh and a perfect way to stop any move is by trolling the discussion, drag it down to a personal level, or get the opposite side bogged down by postulating a bunch of unrelated half-truths and straw men that need to be refuted. I remember perfectly well how that works, no need to show me again.

Oh and, "August war" (was pointed out before on the talk page), surely more NPOV than the current one. --Xeeron (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, are you familiar with the art of reading at all? Or are you hoping that repetition will get your point across? Hey that's how Americans were misled to believe that Saddam had ties to bin Laden, and here you are using the same tactic of repetition. Xeeron, if you say it enough, it still won't be true. 2+2=5. 2+2=5. Damn that still equals 4. Also, if you would have read the archives, you would have found that the August War was countered with irrelevancy, because *gasp* more then two nations go to war in August. The 2008 South Ossetia War could only happen once, in South Ossetia, in 2008. The August War can happen at any time. Xeeron, go and read the archive, I am not going to continue this debate, until you read the archives. No one is going to repeat every argument made in those 100 pages for satisfying your majesty. This isn't GuildWars, you're not a Guildmaster. If you make a point, and people inform you that the point has already been contradicted, it is your duty to find out where the point has been contradicted, so that you don't make the same mistakes. Yet you never learn, do you? For the last time, Xeeron go and read the archives, I will not repeat the information for your pleasure anymore. And yes, all of your points were countered in those 100 pages. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and a perfect way to stop any move is by trolling the discussion, drag it down to a personal level, or get the opposite side bogged down by postulating a bunch of unrelated half-truths and straw men that need to be refuted. I remember perfectly well how that works, no need to show me again.

I know that you dislike "August war", but that does not change the fact that it is less POV than "2008 South Ossetia war". --Xeeron (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, when you repeat something three times as a way to insult me, you are, what was that quote, oh yeah, trolling the discussion by dragging it down to a personal level. Way to show everyone that you're a hypocrite Xeeron. Also, the reason that I dislike August War is because many wars happen in August. We can call this war The War of Shooting Guns and it would be more NPOV then the 2008 South Ossetia War, but like the August War it would be completely irrelevant. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, if you continue personal attacks you'll be reported to the admin board. Regarding your asertion that "many wars happen in August", many revolutions actually happened in February, but we do have the article titled February Revolution.--Kober 05:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Kober said: "HistoricWarrior007, if you continue personal attacks you'll be reported to the admin board." You know, Kober, i'm somehow sure the admin board will notice, that a repeated insertion of "trolling the discussion... get bogged down... I remember perfectly well how that works, no need to show me again." quote by Xeeron, prior to answering to any HistoricWarrior's post, constitutes a personal attack, too. So, legal threats nothwithstanding, i just wanna say to everyone: Play nice, guys, OK?

Kober also said: "Regarding your asertion that "many wars happen in August", many revolutions actually happened in February, but we do have the article titled February Revolution" Your example is about a historically determined title, which is VERY popular in usage, and is used in many military history books and studies. It's clearly not the case with "August war" title, so i hope, i made it obvious, why this example can't be applied in our situation.

Xeeron said: "I know that you dislike "August war", but that does not change the fact that it is less POV than "2008 South Ossetia war" " This is the place, where you, Xeeron, are substituting the opposition's arguments for something they've never been. Need i remind you, what was said to you by HistoricWarrior at the end of previous big rename discussion:

What happened to "everything is about POV"? Seems that suddenly descriptiveness of the title does play a role. -- Xeeron (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

When did I say that the descriptiveness hasn't played a role? I said that it had to be reasonable - remember my initial argument about not calling it the Russo-Georgian War because it didn't take place on Russian soil? Wasn't that all about descriptiveness of where the war took place? The best is a balance between descriptiveness and NPOV, which our current title, 2008 South Ossetia War, fits perfectly. It was never about "everyting POV". It is about the reasonable balance of the NPOV and descriptiveness. But good question, thank you for letting me clarify that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, Xeeron, i would have been doubting your good faith, if there wouldn't be your occasional posts like "I am worried by the fact that some previous outspoken opponents of the move have not responded yet. Eventually one might conclude from the lack of opposition that the move has consensus, but it might also be that these people simply missed the new section." Ordinarily, i would have repeated all the counter-arguments against "August war" title, at least, the ones i've seen being expressed, despite them being already presented to you earlier. Just out of my respect for you. But i'm starting to have absolutely no free time lately, so i ask you to excuse me, and reread at least this and this one parts of the discussions on your own. I urge you to focus on FeelSunny's and others' arguments, which i assume, amount to following:

"August war" title is

1. Nondescriptive: It tells much less about the war, than "South Ossetia war" title.
2. Ambiguous: It's not actually understandable, which one of the wars, that were unfortunate to happen in August of some year, is being referred to.
3. Unpopular in usage: The title's usage when it refers to the war of our interest, is less spread, compared to the usage of SOW title.

I hope, you'll explain, what you think is wrong with them. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx for your post, but I was not proposing to move the name to "August war". I only get annoyed by the fact that over and over, I have to counter clearly wrong statements that derail the discussion, e.g. "no title is more NPOV then the one above" . Since this has happened so often, I can help but feel that this is a deliberate attempt to stall the discussion: You could go to the archives to find the exact same discussion ("Your new title is less NPOV, only NPOV counts", "Ok, why is it not called August war?", "Oh wait, NPOV is not the only thing that counts, it has to be descriptive as well", "Ok, but Russia-Georgia war or Georgia-Russia war is more descriptive", "We cant use that because it is less NPOV than South Ossetia war and only that counts", repeat ad infinitum). --Xeeron (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just start voting and get this over with. I think everyone knows what the arguments for different names are, and everyone has made his position clear. So what is there to discuss? Let's stop wasting our time. Offliner (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This might indeed be the only way to resolve the situation. I'll create a straw poll below. --Xeeron (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting too big again?

Do you think the article is starting to get too big again, and if yes, what should we do? Especially the "Background" and "Responsibility" sections have grown a lot since the last big trim. Offliner (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove Combantants into its own article Im not sure the average reader needs to known that kind of data. It seems a bit to technical just my suggestion. --XChile (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is customary to have a combatants section in each article about a major war. I think it is good info, and should not be splitted off. What do others think? Does anyone know if such sections have been splitted off in other articles in the past? Offliner (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was usually customary to have combatants on the Battle of "____" and not the war in general. like in The Iraq war- Battle of Fallujah then goes into detail of equipment and things also WWII- Battle of Gazala numbers of equipment and so forth. Kinda like that. What does every one else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XChile (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The responsibilty section is an obvious target for shortening. The "other politicians" section is horrible. I'd not cut too much in the combatants section, after all, even though it is named war, on this was rather on the scale of 2 medium sized battles when compared to, e.g. the second world war. Neither the full Georgian, nor the full Russian army participated. --Xeeron (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

At least a quarter of the Georgian Army participated possibly 3/4ths, whereas it was less then a Corps from the Russian side. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) What is the good target? Keep the article under 150k? 130k? (Igny (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

For me, the technical size isn't as important as the "style." Everything is should be concisely summarized, in clear language, so that the reader doesn't have to read huge amounts of text to get the essential information he needs to know. For example, there are too many redundant statements in the "Responsibility" section, which do not add any essential information or point of view to the article that wasn't already there. Offliner (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed shelling comments

Xeeron removed the South Ossetian accusations of Georgian shelling: , saying that they were "one-sided." However, on the August 7 section we still have the Georgian accusation of South Ossetian shelling: "Georgian officials claim that on August 7 at around 2 p.m. Ossetian artillery fire that had begun the night before resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia and continuing for several hours" - which is now, after the removal of the other comment, one-sided, because it does not mention the Georgian shellin. How to restore balance? Either remove the Georgian claim as well, or bring the Ossetian claim back. Offliner (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It was standing alone in the pre-war clashes section (without, e.g., mentioning the Georgian policemen killed, or the attack on the Georgian peacekeepers ). But you are right that it should be mentioned in the previous section that it was not unprovokes SO shelling, but a continuation of the fighting in the days before. --Xeeron (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your solution. It only made things worse. Now there is still no mention at all of the Georgian shelling. "Following the fighting during the previous week" is both unexact and biased. Note that you do not say "following the fighting in the previous week, Georgian officials claim South Ossetian shelling resumed..." So in your version the Georgian action gets a pretext, but the South Ossetian does not. The old version was much better in every respect. Offliner (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check the article again. You commented in the middle of a series of edits I was making, what you saw was merely the stuff I copied up from the section below. --Xeeron (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The current version is still unbalanced, since it specifically mentions the Georgian claim of "resumed Ossetian shelling", and killed Georgian peacekeepers. We need one specific claim by the Ossetians also. Offliner (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I had that part removed in the lower section, but you reverted that as well. --Xeeron (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I also have a problem with this sentence in August 7: "Following the fighting during the previous week, at about 7 p.m., President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered a unilateral ceasefire, advised earlier that day by Russian peacekeeping commander Marat Kulakhmetov in his meeting with Georgian State Minister Temuri Yakobashvili (Yakobashvili was to meet with Russian chief negotiator Yuri Popov and the Ossetian side, but neither showed up)."

• First, isn't this the exactly same meeting that is described in the previous chapter? Second, "neither side showed up" is a bad wording. It implies that neither the Ossetian nor the Russian side showed up, which is wrong, since Kulakhmetov did show up. I propose we remove the rest of the sentence after "Kulahkmetov." Offliner (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I propose changing "An OSCE monitoring group in Tskhinvali also did not record outgoing artillery fire from the South Ossetian side before the start of Georgian bombardment" to: "An OSCE monitoring group in Tskhinvali also did not record outgoing artillery fire from the South Ossetian side at the time." It seems clear from the latter statement what "at the time" refers to. At this point, the reader still doesn't know about "the Georgian bombardment", so that should be removed for clarity. Offliner (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• You removed the sentence "three brigades began the nighttime assault." But now we have a problem: the preceeding sentences describe the artillery assault. Then comes "The Georgian 4th Brigade spearheaded the attack, while the 2nd and 3rd Brigades provided support." - This would mean that the 4th Brigade spearheaded the artillery assault, which is not true: it spearheaded the ground attack. I'm not going to change anything now, since I might accidentally break 3RR, but this must be corrected. I propose adding "Three brigades began a nightime ground assault on Tskhinvali." Offliner (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Russian negotiator did not show up. The Kulakhmetov was participating in his, formally neutral, role as peacekeeper commander, not to represent one of the sides. --Xeeron (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

August 7 meeting - factual error in ISDP source?

Did Popov take part?

• From the article (source: ISDP):

"The meeting on August 7 went ahead, but only the Georgians and Russian peacekeeping commander Marat Kulakhmetov showed up, Russian chief negotiator Yuri Popov and the Ossetian side did not participate. Kulakhmetov advises the Georgians to declare a ceasefire. "

• From UNOMIG website (via Google cache:)

"Russian chief negotiator over South Ossetia, Yuri Popov, said no agreement has been reach with Tbilisi over format of talks.

Popov told Rustavi 2 TV on 07 August after meeting with Temur Iakobashvili, the Georgian State Minister for Reintegration and chief negotiator: "We have not yet found understanding over the matter."

• From OSCE report:

"An OSCE and JPKF team escorted the team of State Minister Yakobashvili to the JPKF Headquarters in Tskhinvali, where he had a meeting with ambassador Popov and the JPKF Commander General Kulakhmetov."

So Popov did meed with Iakobashvili on August 7 after all? Isn't this a contradiction? Other sources also seem to confirm, that Russia did not reject the talks on August 7, only South Ossetia did. Offliner (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Did South Ossetia take part?

From Financial Times:

"Following a short lull in the clashes, deadly fighting started again on August 7, each side blaming the other for the escalation. Heavier and heavier weapons were used. “One side would use a 60mm mortar, the other side would use a 90mm, then the 122s came out” was how one western observer put it.

Capt Ivanov and Eduard Kokoity, the pro-Moscow president of South Ossetia, say they held a meeting that day between Marat Kulakhmetov, commander of the Russian peacekeeping forces, and Temur Yakobashvili, the Georgian minister for re­integration, whose job is to deal with the breakaway regions. General Kulakhmetov asked Mr Yakobashvili to telephone Mr Saakashvili and tell him to declare a unilateral ceasefire. At 7.30pm Mr Saakashvili an­nounced the ceasefire: "I would like to address those who are now shooting at Georgian policemen. I want to say with full responsibility that several hours ago, I reached a very difficult decision – not to respond with fire.""

So Kokoity claims he took part in the meeting after all? However, the OSCE report cited above also says, that South Ossetia refused to take part.

Conclusion

ISDP's claim, that Popov did not take part, seems questionable. The claim definitely needs another source. If no second source is provided, the claim must be removed. Furhermore, as I have said all along, all ISDP's claims need to be double-checked, and a second source must be provided for each of the claims. The ISDP article itself says that "facts might need to checked when more solid evidence arrives", and it asks readers to send in corrections. If it is true, that Popov did take part after all, then the ISDP article's factual accuracy is called into question even more. If no second source is provided for all ISDP claims soon, I will start removing them from the article. Offliner (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source. But you are right on one point: Technically, neither source says that Yakobashvili did not meet with Russian negotiatiors (or even Popov, outside of the planned negotiations). I implied, because the talks did not happen and Popov did not participate in the talks, that Yakobashvili did not speak to a Russian negotiatior, but of course he could have a) spoken to a different Russian negotiator or b) spoken to Popov outside of the canceled talks. --Xeeron (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the OSCE report above, Yakobashvili, Popov and Kulahkmetov did have a meeting in Tskhinvali on August 7. The report also says that Popov and Yakobashvili also met in Tbilisi earlier that day. However, it seems to be some kind of leaked report, that was not meant to be public. Offliner (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely frustrating that the ISDP report did not mention its sources. I have again a big suspicion that the claim "Popov did not show up" simply comes from the mouth of Georgian authorities once again. And I know that you probably wouldn't like to use statements by Georgian / Russian authorities as sources. But since ISDP's "men with PhDs" essentially wrote an article based on Georgian claims (without naming the source), (ISDP being a "a scientific source" according to you), you are now sourcing the article with Georgian claims anyway. Do you agree with my criticism of the ISDP source at all? Offliner (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, my dream source would look different from the isdp report. But unfortunately, my dream source is just that, a dream. What we have to work with is the sources that are avaible and there isdp is not different from all the other sources that do not quote their sources (and are none-the-less heavily used in this article). --Xeeron (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But with the ISDP article there is a specific suspicion, that they are only quoting the Georgian version on almost everything. With the other sources (such as MDB), we do not have this suspicion. Therefore (in addition the the problem that the article was written early, and it says itself that facts might need correction later), I think we should try to avoid using the ISDP article as a source. Also note that the MDB article was written much later than the ISDP article. Offliner (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, MDB does not quote any source at all, but it is obvious that they use Russian military connections. Isdp uses neutral sources as well (check all the UN statements). If anything, MDB's use of sources is more biased. --Xeeron (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ISDP's sources are "a military analyst said" - what military analyst? They're jokes, not sources. I can write "According to a military analysts all Georgians enjoy chewing ties with Americans" and that is as well sourced as the ISDP. Also Xeeron, please show me where the ISDP uses UN statements? I wasn't aware that UN commented on the issue other then "both sides bad stop fighting" or "yay, peace". It could be a nation's representative in the UN, but not the UN itself.

Also, MDB was written much later than ISDP which means MDB had more sources to work with and perform better analysis. Just pure logic, as simple as 2+2=4. Oh wait, that might be a bad analogy here.... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"The NATO experts did not question the Georgian claim that the Russians had provoked them by sending their troops through the Roki Tunnel."

This unclear wording in the Spiegel article has annoyed me for a long time. Does this mean the NATO experts confirm that Russians did send troops through the tunnel at the time Saakashvili claims? If yes, then the article seem to contradict itself.

"The intelligence agencies were monitoring the Russian calls for help on the airwaves. The 58th Army, part of which was stationed in North Ossetia, was apparently not ready for combat, at least not during that first night."

"Russian troops from North Ossetia did not begin marching through the Roki Tunnel until roughly 11 a.m. This sequence of events is now seen as evidence that Moscow did not act offensively, but merely reacted. Additional SS-21s were later moved to the south. The Russians deployed 5,500 troops to Gori and 7,000 to the border between Georgia and its second separatist region, Abkhazia."

"The details that Western intelligence agencies extracted from their signal intelligence agree with NATO's assessments."

If NATO experts say Russian troops came through the tunnel at 11:30 pm on August 7, then their assessment certainly does not agree with the ingelligence agencies.

"One thing was already clear to the officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels: They thought that the Georgians had started the conflict and that their actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. In fact, the NATO officers believed that the Georgian attack was a calculated offensive against South Ossetian positions to create the facts on the ground, and they coolly treated the exchanges of fire in the preceding days as minor events. Even more clearly, NATO officials believed, looking back, that by no means could these skirmishes be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations."

So the NATO officials say that there was no provocation that could be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations. But if a massive column Russian troops (150 vehicles according to Saakashvili) entered Georgian territory on August 7, wouldn't that been provocation enough?

From all this material, why do we have to choose the most unclear and dubious sentence ("Nato experts did not question...") into the article? Offliner (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Imho, the NATO stance (as reported by SPIEGEL) can be paraphrased as: "We have no own evidence about the timing of the Russian troops in roki, but do not doubt the Georgian version that there were some Russian units. However that is not an excuse to start shelling Tskhinvali". Spiegel's own stance (being different from NATO's) seems to be that there were no Russian troops before 11am. --Xeeron (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is probably where the article was translated from : "Die georgische Behauptung, die Russen hätten provoziert und Truppen in den Roki-Tunnel einmarschieren lassen, wurde von den Nato-Experten keineswegs bezweifelt. Doch in der Bewertung der Fakten überwog die Skepsis, dass dies die wahren Ursachen für Saakaschwilis Vorgehen waren."

Note the conjuctive "and": "The Georgian claim, that the Russians had provoked and sent troops into the Roki tunnel, was not questioned by the NATO experts." So they did not specifically say that the troops in the tunnel was the provocation. But they did not question the claim that some provocations had took place (possibly separate incidents, which happened earlier.) And if the troops in the tunnel was not the provocation, then it may have been only a very small number of troops, not the massive 150 vehicle column Saakashvili is claiming. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you getting so hanged up on this? The article clearly states, in both the English and German version, that the NATO experts did not question the Georgian claim regarding the troop movements. It is just that those experts feel that troop movements in Roki are not a good excuse for starting a massive attack. --Xeeron (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spiegel's own stance (being different from NATO's) seems to be that there were no Russian troops before 11am - this was not Spiegel's "own stance." They were still quotiong Western intelligence agencies at that point in text. Offliner (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I still feel that this is Spiegel's accessment. Note how a new paragraph starts right before that sentence. In any case, this are not the NATO experts quoted before. --Xeeron (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would they announce their own assesment in a context like that? That part of the article is clearly about what the western intelligence experts think that happened. Still, I cannot prove that it was the intelligence agencies who said that. Maybe I should email Spiegel and ask what exactly did they mean? Offliner (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I would stop you, but, why? --Xeeron (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do it. Mention that's it's in a Misplaced Pages article, and forward this discussion as well. Ask the editor to opine. Or pm me if you want me to do it, becuase I will. Why? Because this will settle the contrversy once and for all. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"According to several Russian sources, parts of 58th Russian Army moved to South Ossetian territory through the Roki Tunnel before the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali."

I propose changing this to "according to an interpretation of some materials published in the Russian media..." since these claims are exactly that: based on interpretation of materials such as the Life Goes On (news article). The first version said that the troops were ordered to move on August 7, the second (corrected) version says they were ordered to move on August 8.

If the BBC would publish an article which said "Bush ordered the attack on Iraq in 2002," and would later publish a correction, which said the correct date was "2003", not "2002," would I be allowed the use the first version as a source for my claim in Misplaced Pages, that Bush already ordered the attack on "2002?" Offliner (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the only source quoted for that statement, you should check the others as well, e.g. . --Xeeron (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Georgian troop deployments before the war

From :

"Zwölf Tage nach dem Nato-Gipfel erlässt Putin den Befehl, Russlands Beziehungen zu den Separatisten-Regimen in Abchasien und Südossetien bis hart an die Grenze der Anerkennung aufzuwerten. Am 20. April schießt ein russisches Kampfflugzeug eine georgische Aufklärungsdrohne über Abchasien ab. Daraufhin zieht Saakaschwili, nach Beobachtungen der International Crisis Group, 12 000 georgische Soldaten im hochgerüsteten Militärstützpunkt Senaki zusammen."

Translation: "12 days after the Nato summit, Putin gives the order to strengthen Russia's relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, almost up to the point of recognizing them. On 20 April, a Russian fighter shoots down a Georgian spy plane over Abhkazia. After that, according to International Crisis Group, Saakashvili deploys 12,000 troops into Senaki."

From :

"Dass die Georgier bereits im Juli Truppen an der Grenze zu Südossetien massiert hätten, bestätigt ein anderer Kenner der Lage, der vor Ort in Tiflis war: Wolfgang Richter, Oberst im Generalstab und Leitender Militärberater der deutschen OSZE-Mission."

Translation: "Colonel Wolfgang Richter, a leading military consultant to the German OSCE mission, confirms that the Georgians had amassed troops to the South Ossetian border already in July."

Since we mention specifically mention the deployment of Russian troops in Abkhazia, and their exact number, maybe we should mention these statements about the Georgian deployment too?

Also, about the (dubious) ISDP claim, that the Russian troops didn't return to their bases after the Caucasus Frontier 2008 exercise (which Xeeron insists on keeping in the article): I have still been unable to find confirmation for it. However, take a look at the following (from ):

"Westliche Geheimdienste beobachten, wie nach dem 30. Juli, nach Ende des Militärmanövers "Kaukasus 2008", die Melde- und Kommunikationswege auf russischer Seite, anders als üblich, in Betrieb gehalten werden und die 58. Armee in Alarmbereitschaft bleibt. Für die US-Kundschafter mit ihrem Arsenal aus Spionagesatelliten, Aufklärungsflugzeugen und unbemannten Drohnen ist das eigentlich ein Grund zur Besorgnis."

Translation:

"According to Western intelligence agencies, in contrast to what is usually the case, the Russian military communications system was kept in operation even after the Caucasus 2008 military exercise, and the 58th Army was kept in alarm status."

Maybe this is the source ISDP was using? It does not confirm, that the troops didn't return to their bases, just that the remained in alarm status. Also, if we have to include this information (or ISDP's claim, which I'd really like to remove unless it's directly confirmed by other sources), then we should also include this:

"Denn auch nach dem Ende des Großmanövers auf der anderen, der georgischen Seite, tut sich unter den Augen amerikanischer Militärberater Erstaunliches. Präsident Saakaschwili schickt nach dem 30. Juli Teile seiner Armee nicht zurück in die Kasernen, sondern in Richtung Südossetien. Die Artilleriebrigade etwa, die acht Tage später, am 7. August, mit dem Beschuss der südossetischen Hauptstadt Zchinwali beginnen wird, ist eigentlich auf zwei Standorte verteilt, Senaki und Gori. Nun wird sie in Gori zusammengezogen."

Translation:

"After the end of the Georgian exercise, something amazing also happened, according to American military experts. President Saakashvili does not send a part of his army back to the barracks after July 30, but into the direction of South Ossetia. The artillery brigade, for example, which 8 days later, on August 7, will start the barrage of Tskhinvali, is actually is based in two locations, in Senaki and Gori. Now, however, it was brought together in Gori."

All possible (minor) translation mistakes are mine and not Google's. Offliner (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We should mention the move from Senaki to Gori. However, keep in mind that unlike Russia, Georgia is tiny: If you say Georgian troops in Senaki are close to Abkhasia and those in Gori close to South Ossetia, then there is no way of moving those troops that is not close to any border. The highway between Senaki and Gori is the one (and only) big east-west road in Georgia. To be any further from both Abkhasia and South Ossetia and still on a highway, the troops would have to at the turkish or armenian border. Also, all Georgian military bases are along that road (which runs from the turkish border, via Senaki, Gori and Tbilissi, towards the armenian border). It's not like they could be stationed anywhere else. --Xeeron (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the American military experts describe the move as "amazing", then it really does have to mean something. And according to Richer they deployed troops to the South Ossetian border, which cannot be a coincidence. Note also, that in the article Richter says that the Georgians had partly "lied" about their troop movements. I understand your point, that Georgia is a relatively small country, but I don't agree with your attempt to play down the troop deployment statements. Offliner (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we really expand this on the article? I'm not sure if that's really that important. There already is some mention of operations that were going underway before the escalation of the war. I'm not sure what your trying to imply by putting it in great detail. It seems like your trying to imply something at least to me....or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.--XChile (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I included this material was that the Russian buildup was already detailed in the article, where as the Georgian one was not. I tried to make it more balanced in this respect. Offliner (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your translation is partially wrong. The "amazing" is not according to american military experts. Also, it is enlightening to read the next part: "Noch sieben Tage sind es bis zum Ausbruch des Kriegs. Zwei Armeen stehen sich gut gerüstet, wenn auch in ungleicher Stärke gegenüber: Auf einen georgischen Soldaten kommen im Fall der Fälle 48 russische."

"It is another 7 days till the war starts. Two armies face each other well armed, but with unequal strength: For one Georgian soldier, there are, in the case of cases, 48 Russian ones." --Xeeron (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it was not "amazing" according to the American military experts but according to Spiegel. The "48-to-1" comparison is, of course, a bit irrelevant, since they are obviously comparing the whole armed forces of Russia to Georgia's military (1,000,000 / 48 ${\displaystyle \approx }$ 20,000), and as far as I know, not every active soldier in the Russian army was concentrated on the border in early August. Offliner (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Translating from German

Please be careful when using translated material. You inserted: "Sources in European governments and secrets services speculate, that the Russian warning concerns Saakashvili's plans for invasion of South Ossetia. According to an early blueprint, the goal is to take over all important positions in 15 hours."

The German original reads: "Am 3. August meldet sich das russische Außenministerium mit einer letzten Warnung zu Wort: Ein "weitreichender Militärkonflikt" stehe bevor. Nur in den europäischen Regierungs- und Geheimdienstzentralen ahnen sie bereits, wovon die Rede ist: Saakaschwilis Pläne für einen Einmarsch sind schon länger fertig - ein erster Entwurf aus dem Jahr 2006, eine Art Blaupause für die spätere Operation, so heißt es, habe vorgesehen, in 15 Stunden alle wichtigen Stellungen zu erobern."

The original does not imply that the Russian warning concerned his plans. It only states that european governments/secret services had a vague idea of what Saakaschwili was planning. Also, the second part is given with a qualifier: "An early blueprint, it is said, ..." indicating that the Spiegel author did not trust the source. --Xeeron (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there are English language articles available as well, which seem to have the exactly same statements. So there would have been no reason for me to look at German sources after all: , . How silly :) Offliner (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the same claim from the English version: "On Aug. 3, the Russian foreign ministry issued a final warning that an "extensive military conflict" was about to erupt. Officials in Europe's seats of government and intelligence agency headquarters had a sense of what the Russians were talking about. Saakashvili's plans for an invasion had been completed some time earlier. A first draft prepared in 2006, believed to be a blueprint of sorts for the later operation, anticipated that Georgian forces would capture all key positions within 15 hours." Offliner (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Independence" of article authors

I would really like to ask you all, people, to consider one thing when you cite an "independent" source:

Who is funding it?

In case money comes authorities, we should not think this is an "independent" source. That simple.

It includes the BBC and, I guess, RT, Radio Free Europe and Deutsche Welle, and dozens of others. However, you would think of some of these as independent, some not. Ask yourself, if you have a bias here.

It also includes some less obvious "NGOs" which turn out to be somewhat "GOs" at a closer look.

Here is an example: The Institute for Security and Development Policy says it's an "independent and non-profit research and policy institute". It was discussed on this page. However, at the same site you see their "independence" is only supported by one "core" source of finance: Utrikesdepartmentet (Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs).

Another example: the Freedom House describes themselves as "independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world". However, comes directly from "federal grants". Who would argue they are independent after that? How can one, for example, openly and fiercely criticize government that pays him?

Another important thing is:

Who is writing it?

Can you imagine former Russian army captain, and the second Chechnya war veteran, making an "independent" research for some Russian NGO on the war in Kosovo?

That's just what HRW in for South Ossetia. There only was a former U.S. captain that told aims for U.S. planes during NATO bombardments of Serbia.

Try to check things like this. Look at some of these reports with a critical view before you add them here.FeelSunny (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side note: You should even be more suspicious of those organisations that do not state the source of their funding. --Xeeron (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Like the Silk Road Studies? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Still trying to bad mouth them? (don't answer, that was a rethoric question). No, not like Silk road studies, since they list their sponsors very prominently on their web page: http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/sponsors/index.htm --Xeeron (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Amass, deploy and concentrate

Does anyone know if there is a difference between the verbs "amass", "deploy" and "concentrate" (troops, equipment)? Also, which prepositions should be used with those? Is "they had amassed lots of troops to the border" correct, or should it be on or into the border? Please check if the usage of those terms and prepositions is correct in the article. Offliner (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"into" is definitely wrong, since that would make the border have depth. On suffers from a similar problem, but most people would understand it. I'd use: "Concentrate troops near the border" to avoid any problems. --Xeeron (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is with the dating. If I say "they had concentrated 12,000 troops to the border on August 7," does it mean that they concentrated all the troops on that day (which they probably didn't)? Would "...until August 7" or "...before August 7" be better/more correct? Offliner (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to express "it happened before or on August 7, but not after, and they were still there on August 7", I'd say "... had concentrated 12,000 troops near the border by August 7." --Xeeron (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to be the correct expression. Offliner (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

"Russian policy of recognition was supported by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation" - This sentence is only backed up by one, non-working, source. However it is directly contradicted by several other sources (e.g. Global affairs, Guardian, CACI). Unless there is further evidence that those sources are all wrong, I'll delete that statement soon. --Xeeron (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name vote

Offliner suggested this above and I agree that this might be the best way to end the endless discussions. Below are alternatives of the title with support or oppose sections in alphabetical order (if you miss a name, feel free to add it). I suggest letting be poll run for a month. Then we can implement the alternative with the highest support - opposition. To prevent sock puppets, I propose that only editors that have a minimum number of edits (how about 50?) at the time the vote starts, be counted.

To keep the voting section clean, I'd like to ask everyone to discuss below, not in the support/oppose sections.--Xeeron (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I urge the people here to read the discussion on the title, prior to voting. Please realize that all those supporting the change, just want to make Russia look like a bully, instead of letting the reader decide. They only have the Google Hits argument, which is trumped by the NPOV argument, as the title they want to change it to, Russia-Georgia War, contains an inherent anti-Russian bias. In his desperate hopes for the change, Xeeron has placed the discussion after the vote, not before it. I strongly urge everyone to read the discussion, to take note of how the people in favor of changing the title by sheer force, rather then intellectual prowess, without any facts to support their claim, desperately try to get it passed. In war, the attacker is always mentioned first. Georgia attacked a Russian Peacekeeping base, not the other way around, those are facts. These "wikipedians" don't want our article to have an NPOV title, as it is right now, but want to force their title upon us. The current title is the most relevant and neutral title anyone can find, and the people seeking to change it, won't even bother counter-arguing this point, because they know they cannot. They merely hope to rally as many of their buddies as possible into the vote. These are the facts. You will see them try to counter-argue my post, but neither one of their counter-arguments will mention a title that is both, less biased and more relevant then the one above, because no such title exists. And they are changing it to "2008 Russia-Georgia War" to fit the bias that has been instilled into them. Look at the voting, prior to vote. Read the discussion. Do independent research. Please vote for what your mind, heart and spirit tells you, after doing the proper research. Don't be fooled into doing what your friends what you to do. That is all that I ask. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing about this vote is that it's a huge waste of everyone's time and energy. It isn't going to go anywhere, and I think that is crystal clear by now. I mean, look, whereas the first time people started to argue over the name there was some semblance of creative discussion, people trying to defend their decisions with actual logic, thought processes and all, this time it's just a straw poll. Basically, consensus failed so now its become a popularity contest with each side trying to recruit as many people they know will vote in their favor to "win" the contest and have the name changed.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 August war

Support

1. weak support --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. very weak support --Kober 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. weak support – Närking (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. weak support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. weak support - I saw this name used in strongly pro-Russian and strongly pro-Georgian sources, thus eliminating the POV-issue the other names seem to raise. Don't like the month-name-war thing, though. --Illythr (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose, imprecise -- Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - does not look prceise enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose – ambiguous, imprecise. --Zlerman (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose -- FeelSunny (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Imprecise, not a common name. –Black Falcon 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose This title will make it hard for the reader to find this article. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose There's no indication at all of who the sides of the war were; Outsiders will not necessarily remember the war date, thus it will be very hard for them to recognize the article. --Darwish (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Darwish. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose No context LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose: ambiguous, no context. -- Wesha (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Caucasus war

Support

1. sign here

Oppose

1. Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose --Kober 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, imprecise - Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - never saw it referred in that way -- (Clarification: it was referred as the Caucasian Conflict in Germany, and an armed conflict is war.68.167.2.102 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
9. Oppose --FeelSunny (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. –Black Falcon 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose Too vague, implies that conflict took place all over the Caucasus region Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Worse than the current title. Very hard to find by outsiders, which consist most of the article readers. –Darwish (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose The Caucasus spans many different countries and there have been various wars in that region recently. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose: excessively broad -- Wesha (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Five-Day war

Support

1. Weak support -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. weak support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose--Kober 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose--Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, not an established name, imprecise, duration is contested. - Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - used mostly in Russian media, POV-pushing Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Ostap 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose.Geagea (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose --FeelSunny (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Per Colchicum: "not an established name, ... duration is contested". –Black Falcon 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose This title will make it hard for the reader to find this article. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Not a widely established name internationally as the Israeli-Arab Six Day War; very ambiguous for outsiders. --Darwish (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose: not an established name -- Wesha (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Georgia-Russia conflict

Support

1. Weak support -- officially, the war was not declared by any of the sides. Though I rather support "war" name, as more medias referred to the conflict like this.FeelSunny (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support good name for the article, readers should be able to find the article with this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support easy to find and recognize by readers. --Darwish (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose--Kober 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Misleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties. –Black Falcon 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose Makes no sense to omit the the name of the region this war was fought over. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Weak Oppose: It's mainly Ossetian-Georgian conflict. Russia came to help Ossetia, not started it all. -- Wesha (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Georgia-Russia war

Support

1. sign here
2. Support good name for the article, readers should be able to find the article with this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support' easy to find by international outsiders. --Darwish (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose – Närking (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Misleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties. –Black Falcon 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose: there was no official declaration of war. -- Wesha (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Russia-Georgia war

Support

1. Weak support (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Support --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support --Kober 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support – Närking (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Ostap 04:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. SupportBiophys (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support.Geagea (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support good name for the article, readers should be able to find the article with this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong Support The most used name internationally and for people who are not experts on the Russian/Gerogian affairs. Usually in such cases of naming belligerents in the title, people name the stronger country first. --Darwish (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support, per Ijanderson and Darwish. Why hide the fact the the major belligerents were Russia and Georgia? Martintg (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose - the war included not only Russia and Georgia but South Ossetia militias; still my second choice after "2008 South Ossetia war" Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose – this version does not mention one of the main protagonists, South Ossetia. --Zlerman (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Alex Bakharev. Additionally, Russian-Georgian conflict also included the Abkhazian independence which is only tangential to South Ossetian war. NVO (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong oppose -- this version is actually only made to present Russia as agressor, right? We've discussed the option before - the side that started the conflict, comes first. Get real already.FeelSunny (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Misleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties. –Black Falcon 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose as per all above arguments. --Russavia 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose per Zlerman and FeelSunny. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose per my above argument, it makes no sense to omit the region that this war was centered around. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose: there was no official declaration of war. -- Wesha (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Support

1. Extremely strong support HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support for now (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
3. Support -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong Support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - the war was centred around South Ossetia although Abkhazia was also important. I think it is precise enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support – unambiguous, concrete, precise. --Zlerman (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, this title is accurate and does not paint aggressors. --Tavrian 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, neutral title easy to understand. --ellol (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support: defines the place unambiguously. NVO (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong support -- unambigous. Supported by medias. The place denotates the conflict perfectly. There are no argues about order of naming the conflict sides. Another advantage is this is a perfectly neutral option. FeelSunny (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. The only option offered that is not misleading, biased, or a neologism. –Black Falcon 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support as per Zlerman and FeelSunny --Russavia 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong support per FeelSunny and Black Falcon. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong support This is not the appropriate name as more parties and territories were involved however it is the best way for the reader to find the article --XChile (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support The best of the options in my opinion. Not perfect, but at least it acknowledges that this was a war about South Ossetia and it doesn't push a POV about who the aggressor was. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support: there was no official declaration of war, so I would rather call it 2008 South Ossetia conflict, but this gives a better context than the alternatives. -- Wesha (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Kober 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose.Geagea (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose the war/ conflict took place in regions other than S Ossetia, such as Gori, Tbilisi, Abkhazia, black sea and other parts of Georgia. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose A very vague name; hardly recognizable by outsiders. --Darwish (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose, per Ijanderson. Martintg (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose The war was not confined to South Ossetia, it involved Abkhazia as well. I oppose the canvassing campaign by HystoricWanker007. Colchicum (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war for independence

Support

1. Weak support (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose--Kober 18:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, 0 Ghits -- Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - POV Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Ostap 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose--Geagea (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose -- South Ossetia did not start war for independence, so it's not their war for independence.FeelSunny (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Not neutral, not an established name. –Black Falcon 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose S Ossetia had already declared independence previous to this war/ conflict, the 2008 South Ossetia war for for Russian annexation would be more appropriate than this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose POV title. --Darwish (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per FeelSunny and Black Falcon. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Opposte The war wasn't even initiated by South Ossetia. They started on the defensive. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose: POV. -- Wesha (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 War in Georgia

Support

1. sign here
2. Support Appropriate name for this article as this is where the war took place Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Offliner (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

It is definitely a war, not a conflict despite what some media might have called it. Conflict seems to have broader meaning. It is not a Five Day, even though this title may be popular in Russia, not August, as too vague. I am actually against Russia-Georgia title, since Georgia did not attack Russia, it attacked SO when the war started. But if the current version loses, this is my second best variant. (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I was somewhat surprised by the number of google hits for "August war". This seems to be more popular than I thought. Therefore the weak support. --Xeeron (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Every name has its problems. I don't think "August war" is a name that will stay. "Caucasus war" sounds OK, but is not in widespread use. "Five-Day war" is not 100% correct, since the war took longer. However, since major warfare phase took 5 days, and because Prof. Charles King uses this title, it seems the second best option to me. "Georgia-Russia" conflict is not exact enough, it could refer to the wider conflict instead of the war. "Russia-Georgia war" has two problems: it ignores the fact, that the separatist republics took part and that Russia was not the aggressor. "South Ossetia war for indepence" is not correct, since South Ossetia did not start the war. "2008 failed Georgian conquest of South Ossetia" would be better, but not very neutral. "South Ossetia war" is the best option for now. I doesn't mention Abkhazia, Russia or Georgia, but it doesn't have to. South Ossetia was the main battleground. Also, these is no hurry to change. In a year or two, we should check again, if "Five-Day war" or "August war" has clearly become the common name used for the war, and then consider switching. Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Until Russia withdraw from Georgia I thought the "The Russian invasion to Georgia" can be the best name. But now I think that "The Russian-Georgian war" is o.k. The name fie day war is only a poor attempt to compare the war to the Israely Six-Day war, which have nothing in common. Geagea (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaegea, so you don't think that Russia has withdrawn from Georgia yet? It's March 9th. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Google hits info

• "August war" Georgia (I added that to make sure it is the right war): 59,700
• "Caucasus war" Georgia: 6,850
• "Five-Day war" OR "Five day war" Georgia: 33,600
• "Georgia-Russia conflict" OR "Georgia Russia conflict": 11,900
• "Russia-Georgia war" OR "Russia Georgia war": 143,000
• "South Ossetia war" Georgia: 23,600
• "South Ossetia war for independence": 0

--Xeeron (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

About "Russia-Georgia war" Despite what some editors may think here, the order Russia-Georgia versus Georgia-Russia has little to do with who attacked whom, or who started the war. It seems to me that journalists just prefer to list the stronger country first. For example, if Mexico attacked US, that would likely be called US-Mexico rather than Mexico-US war.(Igny (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Did you add -wikipedia to your searches? Also "South Ossetia war" does not need Georgia in the search. But "August war" has to mention Ossetia in my opinion. (Igny (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

The reason August war gets so many hits is that many articles use it to refer to the war in the sense "the war that took place last August," especially in the article titles, where anglophone media often use shorthands. I don't see much evidence, that they are actually giving the war the name "August war." I suspect than in next August, they won't use "August war" anymore, at least not as much. Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did the searches with the exact phrases above, you can copy&paste them into google. So "the war that took place last August," would not trigger a hit, since I searched for the exact phrase "August war", but Igny is right about excluding wikipedia. --Xeeron (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that the anglophone media uses "August war" as abbreviation of "the war in last August," not as a name for the war. Take a look at what's currently on BBC's frontpage. For example: "Police break up Malaysia protest." Here "Malaysia protest" is an abbreviation for "the protest that took place in Malaysia today." They are not naming the protest "Malaysia protest." This is the same phenomenon as with "August war." Also note, that if "August war" were a name, it would be "August War" (with capitalization.) If you take a look at the Google hits for the term, its called "August War" only in the article title, where every word should begin with a capital letter. But in the article text it is called "August war," thus implying that it is not a name, but a shorthand description like I said. Offliner (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely strongly supporting the current title, and therefore, opposing any changes to it. The Russia-Georgia War title is incorrect, because the attacker goes first, and in this war, Russia was not the attacker; the US Ambassador to Russia said that Russia launched a counter-attack! Therefore, Russia, according to the US Ambassador's statement cannot be first in the title name. This is just like calling a dog, a cat! If the title is changed, I will leave the article's editorial page. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The attacker doesn't necessarily go first. See Soviet-German War and so on. Otherwise the order Georgia-Russia would be even more wrong, because for sure Georgia didn't attack Russia. Colchicum (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

On[REDACTED] articles, the attacker goes first, 99.999% of the time. That's a military history rule and it's not up for debate. You can't go around changing military history rules to fit your definitions of propaganda. And Georgia did attack Russian soil, because just as an embassy, a military base is considered the soil of the country that the base belongs to. If Cuba attacked Guantanamo, I guarantee you that Americans would view this as an attack on the US. If Serbia attacks Camp Bondsteel, would you not see that as an attack on the US? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool down your personal attacks a bit, HystoricWarrior007. Where are your glorious military history rules written down? This is disingenious. We have WP:RS, WP:V etc. There was no Russian military base in S. Ossetia at the time of the attack, there were peacekeepers, pretending to be international. Wake up, before August 26 even Russia officially considered South Ossetia part of Georgia, it couldn't legally install military bases there without the consent of Georgia. Guantanamo, on the other hand, was voluntarily leased to the US by Cuba. So you insist that there were illegal military bases in S. Ossetia, right? Colchicum (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's use common sense. A peacekeeping base is the equivalent of a military base, which is the equivalent of an embassy. You may want to check out Israel's quick reaction to Israel's attack on UN Peacekeepers, remember how many time Israel apologized? Do you think Israel apologized because they just love the United Nations Colchi cum? And umm, if you were to read the peace treaty of 1992 between Russia and Georgia, you will find that there was actually Georgian concent to a Russian peacekeeping base. Reading is really a wonderful thing. Also, in my post, no where did I mention your name, why take it as a personal attack? The base that was "voluntaraly" leased by Cuba to US, was leased when US Mafiosos took control over Cuba, but just as you don't know about the 1992 treaty, I can see that history is irrelevant to you when editing historical articles. Thus, I insists that there was a legal Russian military presence in Georgia, via a peacekeeping base, that was mercilessly shelled. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just read intro to Guantánamo Bay (Igny (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Just read it a bit further. Colchicum (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what should I have read? It was leased by Cuba voluntarily. A contract, you know. It doesn't matter that Cuba now regrets about this. Georgia has never agreed to Russian military bases in S. Ossetia. What is your point? 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For your convenience, the Cuban-American Treaty to have been procured by the threat of force in violation of international law. So not voluntarily. (Igny (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Your argument only makes your opponents want the change more. Just make the case that in WP articles the winner goes first, and you would see how your opponents quickly change their mind. I myself do not think that the war in one of your cases would be called Serbia-US in the case of the Serbian attack, unless Serbia wins.(Igny (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Also I believe that your opponents want the change not because they want to accuse Russia of attacking but because the current title gives too much weight (in their opinion) to South Ossetia, which Georgia will likely always consider as its territory. And it does not look good for Georgia to emphasize that it attacked its own territory. Trying to diminish SO's role by removing it from the title, that is likely the goal of the proponents of the change. (Igny (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Btw, instead of Russia-Georgia war maybe the proposal should be Russo-Georgian war like Russo-Swedish, Russo-Persian, Russo-Turkish etc. wars.--Staberinde (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As I generally consider simple Google hits to be worst solution(especially as[REDACTED] and its mirrors disort the picture themselfly too) I tried to test few in Google Scholar:
"Russia-Georgia war" 2008 august - 22
"Russo-Georgian war" 2008 august - 16
"South Ossetia war" 2008 august - 1
--Staberinde (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar, well thing is, my Iraq example, where you google scholar: "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" vs. "Iraq does not have Weapons of Mass Destruction" with quotes or without, you still get that Iraq was WMDs. Google Scholar is just like Google in the case of political issues. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That comparison makes no sense at all. Nice try though. Ostap 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify as to how it does not make sense? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Because its a statement, not a term or title. You cant do such things with statements as then put in context meaning may be radically different. If we look at "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" then lets replace it with "..." for shortening and lets look at context in few answers. I see among others "Bush argued that ..." and "If ..." and "the issue of whether ..." and "mislead the country into believing that ..." . In our case we are simply looking which title is used more oftenly for war. Situations would be somewhat comparable only if there would be serious doubt if war took place at all.--Staberinde (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Titles can be statements. Calling this war Russia-Georgia War, is the same as stating that Russia attacked Georgia. Hence the current NPOV title would be the best. Also,[REDACTED] prefers NPOV over Google Scholar in controvercial articles. Precedence also helps. You guys are just pushing Rupert Murdoch's title. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch's title. lol. "Calling this war Russia-Georgia War, is the same as stating that Russia attacked Georgia." What makes you say that? Ostap 01:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note how under Article Policies, NPOV comes second and Google Scholar isn't even mentioned!!!HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that[REDACTED] should use title that reliable sources use, and editors of[REDACTED] are NOT reliable source (fortunately). If you base your NPOV argument on claim that there is some sort of widely recognized standard for putting invader first at title, then you should provide reliable source that backs this claim. Your own opinion has very little value considering that finding historical counterexamples (like various Russo-Swedish, Russo-Turkish, Russo-Persian wars) is not really that hard. Also I would like to make a FRIENDLY note that bolding your stuff does not give it extra value. Thank you for your attention.--Staberinde (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, do you read what is written prior to what you write? Misplaced Pages Editors did not come up with this title. Post WWII - that's how wars have been named. Now I could go back to pre-WWII, like you do, or heck why not pre-Roman Empire war naming while we're at it, and title this war The Savage Georgians vs. The Noble Russians. However, we have to name wars based on how military historians name wars after WWII not how they named wars several centuries ago. All this was discussed in the previous 100 pages in the archives on title changing, that none of the editors wanting to change NPOV to POV bothered to read. The only addition was the year 2008, that was the only part that was original research. If you want 2008 removed, I have no problem with it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to read 100 pages of archives for searching something that may, or may not be there. If it is now standard to name wars with agressor as first, then im sure you can provide reliable source for that claim with minimal effort, especially if you have already posted it before.--Staberinde (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007 has violated Misplaced Pages policy on voting by mass canvassing and posting POV announcements on improper article talk pages. Please see evidence below on this page.--Kober 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Five comments, four didn't show up, and it was on one page, singular, nor plural. Don't be so zealous at trying to discredit me. Staberinde, to show that the attack goes first, you have your own examples, Russo-Turkish, Russo-Swedish, Russo-Persian Wars. I can come up with many more. Person who declares war, is labeled as the attacker. Russo-Turkish provide an especially good example. Also, interesting how many people who haven't ever edited this article showed up and voted for Russia-Georgia War. And I already apologized for it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have any actual source. Only thing you can provide are historical examples that fit your claim. As it is possible to provide counterexamples of cases then agressor is not the first one in title, we can only reach to conclusion that order of countries in title has no relevance and there is no POV pushing. Your personal opinion that agressor always goes first has no value if you don't have reliable sources which prove that it is widely accepted standard among historians.--Staberinde (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

From :

An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event (such as Battle of Gettysburg, Siege of Leningrad, Attack on Pearl Harbor, or Doolittle Raid). If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations; see also the section on capitalization. Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care.

It is clear that in our case, no such generally accepted or widely used name exists. Therefore, I think we should name the war after its main battleground: South Ossetia. I really don't understand why people would like to call this "Russia-Georgia war," since this name creates problems, such as the above mentioned "which country comes first," among others. Offliner (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To Those Opposing the current title

Do you actually have any other reasons for opposing aside "Google said so" and "we want to make Russia look guilty by changing the title, stating that Google said so!"??? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. You've described the matter of discussion right.FeelSunny (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to re-read the lengthy discussions on this: The main counterarguements against the current title have been that it is not widely used by the media (see Google) and that it disregards the fighting that took place outside of South Ossetia. Since we have been over this discussion about 4 times now, I think the arguements are well known to everyone, lets vote now. --Xeeron (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We had, actually. The current naming holds the strongest position in the vote.FeelSunny (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Very little fighting took place outside of Ossetia. Xeeron - guess what, the Battle of Stalingrad was also not entirely fought in Stalingrad, should we rename that? All you have is the Google Argument against our arguments of the current title being the most unbiased and most relevant. But Google Hits will show everything that mass media says as a majority opinion, even if it is bullshit. For instance, Google this: Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction vs. Iraq does not have Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Google hits test, your only hope will tell you that Iraq still has WMDs. And that's the kind of test you are using here in an attempt to trump NPOV relevance. In addition, according to precedence, i.e. the Second Chechen War, well part of it was actually fought in Dagestan, Russia's reason for the Second Chechen War was the Chechen attack on Dagestan. Yet most of the fighting ocurred in Chechnya, hence the Second Chechen War is the name. Now, you are using the Google Hits Test, which will give more hits for whatever 10 CEOs say, in your attempt to trump NPOV, Relevancy, and Precedence. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For your information it wasn't Xeeron or anyone else at Misplaced Pages who coined the name Battle of Stalingrad. And as far as I know Misplaced Pages is not an international institute who decide names of wars or battles. What we should use here is the name used by media, publications etc and not invent something new. Närking (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We didn't invent South Ossetia. Nor did we invent the title. And once again, the Google-Media argument has been repudiated multiple times, please see above. South Ossetia was an invetion of Stalin, when he chopped Ossetia in two, to give a part of it to his native Georgia. Then Stalin just transferred Abkhazia to Georgia. And if we are to use precedence Narking, then the title works, because the Second Chechen War isn't called the Russia-Dagestan-Chechnya War now is it? The only invention that we came up with, was putting 2008 in the title, and no one has been against that. If you are against having 2008 in the title for clarity purposes, then we can have a vote on removing it. But aside from that, we simply followed the doctrine for naming wars established in the Post-WWII World, Korean War, Vietnam War, War in Afghanistan, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War. None of these were our inventions. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll Mr. HW don't you believe that the Abkhazians might object to that title? I think that might be the prime reason. But we should put this to rest, 2008 SO War is not correct but the media uses it so it would be just to do so and We should remind ourselves that we are here to make this article correct, clearer and easy to find every thing should be done with those intentions in which for the most part is. Thank you every one for all your hard work but the Title should stand as it is.--XChile (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Status of OSCE mission to Georgia?

Does anyone understand what this means: .

"The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe extended on Thursday a mandate for its unarmed military observers in Georgia, the OSCE press service said."

However: "The mandate of the OSCE Mission to Georgia ended on 31 December 2008 and is not affected by today's decision," the organization said on its website."

What's going on? Offliner (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There was more than 1 OSCE mission in Georgia. It seems the canceled one was the OSCE observer mission in place before the war, while the new one is the one put in place after the war. My guess is that the old one had some mission statements (e.g. return of refugees or restrictions on the number of foreign troops in SO/A) that Russia disliked, but we need more sources to establish that. --Xeeron (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still unresolved. Exactly how many OSCE personnel are there in Georgia right now, and what are doing? Let's try to find this info for the article. Offliner (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Peacekeepers killed in the artillery attack

From :

Yes, it does say that the 18 were killed in the artillery attack. Offliner (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, cool. That makes the other source (which says 10+) pretty redundant. --Xeeron (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the more accurate figure? Every sources says that 10+ civillians died from both sides, and yet we don't have 10+ for civillians. Don't Russian Peacekeepers deserve the same respect? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Defenders of Tskhinvali?

Exactly how many Russian peacekeepers where there in Tskhinvali when the Georgians began their attack? The background section says:

says:

Offliner (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to make (almost) the same claim as Spiegel:

Just, what is this North-Ossetian battallion? Does this mean there were two Russians battallions in South Ossetia? Offliner (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting the two sources together, this is the only interpretation left (assuming they are both correct): There were 1000 Russian peacekeepers in SO before the war, 500 of them being in the NO battalion. 500 of them stayed in Tskhinvali directly, the other 500 somewhere else. There were also 500 Georgian peacekeepers (nothing is said about Georgian, Russian or South Ossetian non-peacekeeper soldiers). --Xeeron (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you reinserted the number of peacekeepers in Abkhazia to the background section. I removed them, because that part of the section talks about the situation in South Ossetia, not Abkhazia, so the Abkhazian number is not relevant to that section. The number of peacekeepers in Abkhazia is given in the military buildup section. I don't think there is a need to repeat the number in two sections. Offliner (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbers in Military buildup

Currently, there are 2 kinds of information mixed up in the military build up section: For the Georgians, we quote numbers of the troops near the South Ossetian border. For South Ossetia only those in Thkinvali, for Russia only those in South Ossetia, but not those near the South Ossetian border. This is further aggravated by using "on the opposing side", despite the fact that not all Georgian troops attacked Tskhinvali and further South Ossetian and Russian troops opposed the Georgians outside of Tskhinvali. What is relevant for the war is the total number of troops that was avaible and used. The number of troops in Tskhinvali itself should be mentioned at the appropriate place - Battle of Tskhinvali. --Xeeron (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In my version I followed the Spiegel article's wording very closely. They say:

They are mixing these two kinds of information in exactly the same way. If reliable sources think this is the approriate wording, then I have no doubt that this wording can be used in our article as well. Offliner (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dagomys Accords of 1992?

Does anyone know if the "Dagomys Accords of 1992" (referred to by Sergei Markedonov in the article) are the same as the Sochi agreement? According to the Sochi agreement article, that contract created the JCC. However, Dagomys Accords are also credited for creating the JCC: . Offliner (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the same thing. Look at the dates signed. Both come from decent sources, so I think it's a must to have in the article. One was in June, the other I think in July. Gah! Dates! But it's not the same thing, great find Offliner :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It noticed this on p. 164 of Markedonov's article: "On June 24, 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze signed the Dagomys (Sochi) accords on the principles of settling the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict." They have to be the same agreement. Offliner (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Canvassing

User Historic Warrior energetically engaged in canvassing other users in an apparent attempt to influence the poll by recruiting exclusively Russian (-speaking) users. Please see , , , , . He also left an announcement on Talk:Russia#2008 South Ossetia War Article in the manner clearly designed to influence the voters’ opinion:

There's been a discussion about what to rename the 2008 South Ossetia War, and basically wants to make Russia look evil, by changing it to the 2008 Russia-Georgia War, as if Russia was the attacker (attacker goes first in Wiki Articles). Please help with the voting. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Historic Warrior has essentially disrupted the poll.--Kober 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew this poll was going on, and was going to comment at some stage, so his posting on my talk page made no difference to my voicing my opinion. --Russavia 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You knew, but others did not. And Historic's post on Talk:Russia has clearly done its job. According to WP:Canvassing, such behavior is called Inappropriate canvassing/Campaigning/Votestacking --Kober 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A note to Historic Warrior advising him of WP:CANVASS should suffice I think. Of course, it should have been worded neutrally, as it was done on my talk page, and posted to WP:RUSSIA, but as yet, I don't see any harsh damage having been done yet? --Russavia 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, notifying all the main contributors and relevant Wikiprojects should not be judged as canvassing. But notify the editors selectively might be characterized as canvassing. Both sides engaged in canvassing here or both didn't, why wouldn't you check Narking's edits? (Igny (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Huh! Narking did that in an abosuletly neutral manner in full compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. And he has never misused Talk:Georgia (country) calling other users to arms in order to prevent Georgia from being illustrated as "evil".--Kober 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative of notifying Historic Warrior on his talk page in regards to canvassing, and have removed the message from the Russia talk page. No harm no foul I think we can say? --Russavia 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that five Russian (speaking) editors ,,,,, who never edited this article before came here and backed up exactly the vote that HistoricWarrior007 cast himself and taking into account that the two leading suggestions are currently separated by exactly five votes, I can't really agree with the "no harm" part. --Xeeron (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, I did edit this article before! :-b Like, 2000 revisions ago. Nice try to stack up your cards by limiting your history search to 1000 revisions :-b -- Wesha (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What "harm" is there in that? I am confident that every editor is capable of making a neutral decision based on his own judgement, regardless of how their attention was drawn to the vote. Offliner (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This surely didn't come as a surprise. It has happened many times before. So much for the beloved NPOV... And Igny, perhaps you should check yourself before you start to accuse someone. And since this vote clearly has been hijacked it would be of much more interest if truly uninvolved editors could come here and give their views. Närking (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, attack the man before he can defend himself. First off, the authors that I PMed have worked on this article before. For instance Kober even included Pocopocopocopoco, with whom I have worked on this article as recently as a month ago. Rather poor checking for such an accusation. Actually, if you read my PMs, Kober, they all started out with "Hello, you have contributed to the article. Currently there is a vote seeking to change the name of said article. Can you please vote as you feel is right?" Not exactly biased. Also, Illythyr didn't take a vote on the two main ones, Wesha didn't vote, Pocopocopocopoco didn't vote, Antony Ivanoff didn't vote. Those were four out of the five that I have sent to, who didn't show up. And yet Xeeron went ahead and made his attack on me anyways, why am I not surprised? Will Xeeron ever apologize? Also, Russavia probably was checking this article regularly, seeing as my "canvassing" didn't do any harm.

The only thing I did wrong was due to my ignorance, and I apologize for leaving a message on the Russia page. Russavia, thank your for the explanation. Igny and Offliner, thank you. The rest of you, thank you for not giving me the chance to defend myself, whilst continiously attacking me. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Given that User:HistoricWarrior007's apology is an admission of canvassing, I think we should strike these five votes from the poll. Martintg (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tbilisi's withdrawal from JCC?

From the background section:

In what Sergei Markedonov has described as the culmination of Georgian "unfreezing" policy, the control of the Georgian peacekeeping battallion was transferred from the joint command of the peacekeeping forces to the Georgian Defense Ministry

From the pre-war clashes section:

Tbilisi had withdrawn from the JCC in march, demanding the format include the EU, the OSCE and the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia.

It seems clear that these two sentences describe the same event? I think it would be important to date the first one. Is it OK to append "in March, 2008" to the first sentence? Offliner (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The famous OSCE Spot Report

I suspect this is the famous OSCE August 8 spot report, which has caused so much discussion: (or at least one of them.) Offliner (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Abkhazia articles
• Top-importance Abkhazia articles
• WikiProject Abkhazia articles
• B-Class Georgia (country) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (country) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Top-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles