Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Russo-Georgian War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

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)

I am 100% agree with you, Life is like a box of chocolates FeelSunny (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How long is this vote stil open and what will be done with it? I don't see the point in voting if nothing is going to be done with it.... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we close the poll and move on to more important stuff, like the rest of the article? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems the poll closed itself, so yes... Strange enough this conflict doesn't seem to have a steady name on CNN and BBC uses Georgia-Russia conflict, which is not an opinion... - Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested above to let it run for a month and no one disagreed, so the vote will close on April 7. --Xeeron (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I beleive some irresponsible users are going to fight a Final Canvassing Battle in early April. After all, everyone who was really interested, voted during the first week. FeelSunny (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a general notice, the voting time of 1 months will be over shortly. --Xeeron (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Time's up. The results: 2008 South Ossetia war: +9, Russia-Georgia war: +5. There will be no rename. Offliner (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 August war

Support

weak support --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
very weak support --Kober^Talk 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
weak support – Närking (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
weak support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
weak support--Staberinde (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, imprecise -- Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - does not look prceise enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose – ambiguous, imprecise. --Zlerman (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- FeelSunny (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Imprecise, not a common name. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This title will make it hard for the reader to find this article. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Oppose per Darwish. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose No context LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: ambiguous, no context. -- Wesha (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose could be anywhere anytime, it's not a popular neologism and will mean nothing to the average reader--who is neither Ossetian, Georgian, or Russian. PetersV TALK 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Caucasus war

Support

sign here

Oppose

Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Kober^Talk 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, imprecise - Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
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))
Oppose --FeelSunny (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
–Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too vague, implies that conflict took place all over the Caucasus region Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Oppose: excessively broad -- Wesha (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose--Staberinde (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per Lokiit, this hardly narrows the scope. PetersV TALK 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
–Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 Five–Day war

Support

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

Oppose

Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose--Kober^Talk 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose--Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, not an established name, imprecise, duration is contested. - Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - used mostly in Russian media, POV-pushing Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Ostap 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose.Geagea (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --FeelSunny (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Per Colchicum: "not an established name, ... duration is contested". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This title will make it hard for the reader to find this article. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: not an established name -- Wesha (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose could be anywhere anytime, per Wesha and others. PetersV TALK 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Georgia–Russia conflict

Support

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)
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)
Support easy to find and recognize by readers. --Darwish (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support per Darwish and BBC uses a similar term. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose--Kober^Talk 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Misleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Oppose - Reenem (talk) 1 April 2009 - Abkhazia and South Ossetia each played a role that cannot be ignored.
Strong oppose --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 Georgia–Russia war

Support

sign here
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)
Support' easy to find by international outsiders. --Darwish (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support per Darwish. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

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

2008 Russia–Georgia war

Support

Weak support (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
Support --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support --Kober^Talk 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support – Närking (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Ostap 04:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
SupportBiophys (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support.Geagea (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Support --Eurocopter (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Strong Support This names when and who, per Darwish07 and others. The title should reflect something that is logical for the average reader. Also, one does not have to "formally" declare war to have war or to be able to describe a military conflict as "war." PetersV TALK 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. dima (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Support --Yakudza (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - Kouber (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support This is the most appropriate title for the article. The opposition to it mentions irrelevant matters like South Ossetia not being included in the title. Many article titles include none of the parties involved. The primary focus of the conflict was Russia against Georgia. It was the intervention of Russia that kept this war going and what made this conflict so notable. Ultimately Russia's actions extended well beyond South Ossetia and in fact the current title does not reflect how broad this conflict was, which is a key criteria for naming articles. There was a whole other front that is basically ignored by the current title. This title is the only alternative which seems to be getting considerable support and I would say it's completely neutral. It mentions the two primary belligerents in the conflict without showing any preferences towards either perspective.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong support JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - per The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - per The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) - Elysander (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Strong oppose – this version does not mention one of the main protagonists, South Ossetia. --Zlerman (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Misleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as per all above arguments. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per Zlerman and FeelSunny. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Oppose: there was no official declaration of war. -- Wesha (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Tavrian 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Seems to be biased toward the georgian version of the events. יחסיות האמת (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Sort of biased — vvv (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per above. KNewman (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
the current name is better--Patton^t/c 14:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose POV, IMHO --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Support

Extremely strong support HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support for now (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
Support -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - the war was centred around South Ossetia although Abkhazia was also important. I think it is precise enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support – unambiguous, concrete, precise. --Zlerman (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support, this title is accurate and does not paint aggressors. --Tavrian 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support, neutral title easy to understand. --ellol (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support: defines the place unambiguously. NVO (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong support -- unambigous. Supported by medias. The place denotates the conflict perfectly. There are no argues about order of naming the conflict sides. Another advantage is this is a perfectly neutral option. FeelSunny (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The only option offered that is not misleading, biased, or a neologism. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support as per Zlerman and FeelSunny --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong support per FeelSunny and Black Falcon. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong support This is not the appropriate name as more parties and territories were involved however it is the best way for the reader to find the article --XChile (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support The best of the options in my opinion. Not perfect, but at least it acknowledges that this was a war about South Ossetia and it doesn't push a POV about who the aggressor was. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Support: there was no official declaration of war, so I would rather call it 2008 South Ossetia conflict, but this gives a better context than the alternatives. -- Wesha (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Weak support Taamu (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Support as the best of the options listed here. It would be preferable if Abkhazia was mentioned in the title as well, though. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Per Robofish. יחסיות האמת (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
'Support. The best option out of suggested — vvv (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
–Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
'Support. KNewman (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Support- Denotes the place, avoids "taking sides", is clear, concise, and- importantly- understandable to the average reader. Commander Zulu (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Patton^t/c 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

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

His username is HistoricWarrior, not HystoricWanker. Mine is Russavia, not RuSSavia. You need to stop with the childish name-calling Colchicum, and you have the nerve to call others a troll? --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

2008 South Ossetia war for independence

Support

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

Oppose

Strong Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose--Kober^Talk 18:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, 0 Ghits -- Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - POV Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Ostap 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose--Geagea (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Not neutral, not an established name. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Oppose POV title. --Darwish (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per FeelSunny and Black Falcon. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Opposte The war wasn't even initiated by South Ossetia. They started on the defensive. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: POV. -- Wesha (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose It wasn't even the Ossetians' war. PetersV TALK 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia led to creation of two completely dependent protectorates with puppet governments. dima (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
–Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 War in Georgia

Support

Support Appropriate name for this article as this is where the war took place Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support best descriptive--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Offliner (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose That was a war "by" Georgia "in" South Ossetia. FeelSunny (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
–Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:51, 2 April 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)

I beleive Geagea meant "Before Russia withdrawn...". Please correct me if I'm wrong. FeelSunny (talk) 07:05, 1 April 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)

"War in South Ossetia": 76 300. Quite probable these results will be shown in Google when one looks for a South Ossetia war. Google is not that simple. PS. Noone looks for a general information with quotes. FeelSunny (talk) 18:21, 7 April 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 wikipedia 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. [2] 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 wikipedia 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, wikipedia 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)

Because Rupert Murdoch states that Russia was the attacker, that kinda gave it away. He furthermore went ahead and equated Russia to Al Qaeda. Shall I find the quote? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:34, 17 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 wikipedia should use title that reliable sources use, and editors of wikipedia 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? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy on voting by mass canvassing and posting POV announcements on improper article talk pages. Please see evidence below on this page.--Kober^Talk 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 [1]:

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)

It's not clear at all. The majority of the combat took place outside South Ossetia. Google searches prove "Russia-Georgia war" is the most common name, with 143,000 hits. I don't understand why some people are too scared to admit Russia and Georgia were at war. Martintg (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't argue against facts. Most of the fighting occurred in South Ossetia. Plus we have Georgian military dead and Russian military dead. I think it's clear that Georgia fought Russia and no one is denying it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because they're trying to frame it as a dispute over Georgia's overseas territories not involving "Georgia proper". Russian propaganda services have from day 1 trying to present South Ossetia and Abkhasia as belligerent nations fighting against Georgia, and even though nobody besides Russia has bought it (Nicaragua doesn't count here), its Wikipedia brigades are dedicated and thorough in pushing that counterfactual notion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually an "overseas territorry" is a territorry that's not attached to a country via land. For example Reunion is an overseas territorry of France. Also, Ossetia and Abkhazia were independent of Georgia, prior to Georgia's request for Russia's defense in the early nineteenth century. Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia (now Georgia Proper) joined the Russian Empire at different dates. The Georgians tried to reclaim the belligerent nations three times, in the 1920's, in the 1990's and in 2008. If they weren't belligerent nations, why did Georgia try to annex them by force? Am I being paid by Putin to be asking this question? If so, Mr. Putin I prefer Euros. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that "Russia-Georgia war" has the most Google hits. But that's not what I meant with "a generally accepted name for the war." As you can see from the list above, there are still many different names in use for the war. None of them has yet gained universal status, precedence over other names. Professor Charles King recently called the war "The Five-Day War" in his scholarly article, not "Russia-Georgia war" - an example of the clear fact that no generally agreed name exists yet. Therefore, we should name the article after the main battleground, as suggested in the guideline cited above. Offliner (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the combat took place outside South Ossetia?? That's something new to me, and I guess, to many people who did participate in older renaming discussions. And if we have to ask inflammatory rhetorical questions, then mine would be "Why some people are so scared to admit that it all was started by Georgia, which attacked South Ossetia, and are so eager to remove any mention of it from the title, pointing all fingers at Big Scary Evil Russia instead, in the mood of stupid western propaganda, which already have gotten it to Google results, and now wants to take it to the last stronghold of neutrality and objectivity, namely Wikipedia?" ETST (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even Russia's official news agency calls it Russian Georgian War, so why aren't Russian wikipedians here falling into line? Martintg (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why these drones aren't conforming to the state endorsed view either. What a perplexing bunch these brainwashed Russians are. In fact I'm surprised they even managed to find this page in the first place what with all the vodka they must have in their systems 24/7. Strange world indeed. But I'm rambling, I must get back to my Fox News, Glen Beck is on soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.244.35 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to know that Martintg is unaware that Russians no longer have to fall in line with their news. Geez, all these "omg USSR used to be Russia and it was ebil" attacks are just so pathetic, they are laughable. Plus, here's another Russian News Source calling it the South Ossetia War

http://www.russiatoday.ru/Politics/2008-11-20/New_website_allows_South_Ossetia_war_victims_to_speak_out.html

Here's a neutral article, calling it "South Ossetia war". And this is as NPOV as it gets. http://exiledonline.com/the-new-cold-wars-premature-ejaculation/

"As the South Ossetia war raged in early- and mid-August, the Times published an editorial labeling Georgia’s invasion as “Russia’s War of Ambition“; it also published a series of hysterical op-eds, including William Kristol’s comparing Russia to Nazi Germany (Hitler’s charred skull must be spinning in its museum case from being turned into the cheapest cliché in the hack’s analogy box), and another from Svante E. Cornell of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins–the same corruption-plagued institute that ABC News discovered was taking money from Kazakhstan’s tyrant for issuing positive reports about that authoritarian oil-rich country." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Results

The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins.

As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? That's not very nice. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks not civilized, really. FeelSunny (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Threatening? You must have seen to many mafia films. No, no threats here. Just a reminder that I will not forget that you bend and break the rules to get your way. --Xeeron (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted 5 users, all of whom have previously edited this article, and I've posted what you and Kober deemed a "biased" message, and the two of you went nuts, I was even thinking of making a "Wikipedia Editors Gone Wild Video". Yes I should have posted the question on WP:Project Russia instead of WP:Russia, it was a newbie mistake and you went berzerk. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the biased message succeed in luring enough users from Russia here who voted for the option you favored to tip the vote. Kober and me neither went "nuts", nor "berzerk", we simply pointed out how you broke the wikipedia rules to have your way. --Xeeron (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, making a newbie mistake is a vile violation of Wikipedia rules. Have you read WP:Don't bite the newbies if they disagree with your POV? And you wrote "i am getting fucking sick of it" (it being a collection of my edits and my discussions here) on my talkpage in bold letters, in caps, and followed by three exclamaition marks. I'd say that definitely qualifies as nuts and berzerk. So when you make a statement such as "never forgive, never forget" I become a bit worried regarding your hostility. Here's a more reasonable way one could have, and did, go about it:

"Hey there, Kober has brought up some canvassing done by yourself at Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Wikipedia:Canvassing. Whilst the note you left me on my talk page has nothing wrong with it, as I was aware of the discussion already, the message you left on Talk:Russia was inappropriate. Just be aware of Wikipedia:Canvassing. The Russia article isn't the right place for such messages, as that talk page is for the improvement of that article; a more appropriate place would have been WT:RUSSIA, and it should be done neutrally, such as "There is currently a poll on *link* regarding the name of the article. As the article within this project scope, project members may be interested in voicing their opinion". And then interested editors can choose to respond to it, or not, and we won't have unnecessary questions of canvassing being raised, etc. I've removed the message from the Russia talk page, and feel free to let me know about such discussions in the future (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices), if they relate broadly to Russian-related topics. Cheers --Russavia Dialogue 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)"

I really hope we can get past this, so that you don't end up bashing me everytime you don't get your way. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I went nuts because you never stopped lying and misrepresenting others (FYI, that is breaking WP:TALK). Like saying I went nuts over the vote, when I went nuts over your lying. Or saying I wrote "never forgive, never forget" when I didn't. --Xeeron (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be a drama queen, do it elsewhere, this is Wikipedia. You wrote "I will not forgive" that sounds awfully like "never forgive" and if you never forgive then by definition you "never forget". I'm done here, exuse me but I got an article to edit. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As anyone can check just a few lines up, I wrote "I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote", not "I will not forgive". By now I am used to be misquoted by you... --Xeeron (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you forget without forgiving? When you forget, you forgive, unless you are reminded of it by another action. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think one important result of the vote is that no other names are bearing even close to the same weight as these two. Is it ok if I alleviate the pain of reading the first sentence of the article by removing the mention of all other names? (Igny (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Location: Georgia?

In the infobox it says that the war took place in Georgia. However in the Kosovo War infobox it states that the war took place in Kosovo. Kosovo is no more an independent country then South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Neither is recognized by the UN majority, neither is recognized by the entire security council, all are recongnized by at least one UN member and a security council member. In the Kosovo article, the location of the war is "Kosovo" but if our article was to be followed, the location should clearly say "Serbia" - for the purposes of Wikipedia consistency. Thus, either that article's location changes, or this article's location changes to "South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia Proper". You cannot eat your cake and have it too. You cannot be hypocritical. If the Kosovo War article's location doesn't change in 72 hours, this article's location will in the name of precedence and consistency. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The war took place in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia proper. This is an exact and correct description. However, Elysander is trying to change this to "in Georgia" only. I really don't see how the latter version would be better in any way. Saying that the war took place in SO and A is not POV - it is simply a description of the locations, wheter one thinks the regions are part of Georgia or not. Similarly if some evil country would attack Hawaii, causing a war would to be fought there, we wouldn't say the war "took place in the United States" - we would say it took place in Hawaii. Offliner (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

NOW is the time to hear the other side of this brewing edit war. (Igny (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh well it was a good run of several weeks without edit wars on this article. I wonder what changed. Did I miss some news? (Igny (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Well, the infobox says nothing about independence or recognition., and presence of regions in the infobox does not imply neither. If one wants more accuracy, one could add de-facto independent to avoid possible misunderstanding, but it would clutter the infobox.

While I disagree with edit wars, isn't South Ossetia + Abkhazia + Georgia Proper = Georgia, or my maths skills suck? Kouber (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally, a sensible argument. Offliner, care to retort? (Igny (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

There's no reason to use the latter when we can use the former, like I've said. Offliner (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not your math skills, it's the issue that differentiating "Georgia Proper" and "Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia" is POV. There are Georgia's internationally recognised borders, and that's where the war took place. In certain contexts, it may make sense to refer to the territories controlled by Thbilisi, but that's not where the war took place. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, again with the POV issue. The infobox says nothing about independence or recognition before or after the war. If anything, it is POV to ignore the fact that SO and Ab are recognized by Russia now. It is so easy to counter your argument with the Kosovo war. (Igny (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Quite unfortunately, the are no "internationally recognized borders of Georgia". Just like with Serbia, and quite unfortunately again. In "August 2009" (as the article defines the time of the war) both Abkhazia and South Ossetia were recognized as independent states. Yesy, by two UN members, but that does not matter with regards to the matter - Kosovo is also recognized by the vast minority - even though it's a Western and Muslim minority. FeelSunny (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Consider this news report from BBC citing Condoleezza Rice, for example: The Russian intention to recognise two regions that have been in conflict but are clearly within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia, by multiple Security Council resolutions... is regrettable. and later And therefore, in accordance with other Security Council resolutions that are still in force, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a part of the internationally recognised borders of Georgia and it's going to remain so. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding the Kosovo argument. If you believe there's something wrong with the Kosovo war article, it should be discussed on it's talk page, not here. Kouber (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Kosovo war which took place in Kosovo. Same with SO/Abkhazia, it is not a POV to differentiate it from "undisputed" Georgia. I mean, Georgians are using the names "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" with regard to the "territories occupied by Russia" so they also differentiate these territories from the Georgia proper (unoccupied part). WP can't stop using the proper names with regard to SO and Abkhazia as if they do not exist, regardless what Georgia or Russia think about their independence. (Igny (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Georgians are using name "Samachablo", not South Ossetia to denote the region. At least, officially. This "Samachablo" is not an administrative unit, the larger, and inhabited mostly by Georgians, Shida Kartli is. The last one includes "Samachablo". Actually - and it may be quite surprising for some users - there is no official administrative entity even remotely close to Soviet times South Ossetia, according to the official Georgian administrative division. Not to say any kind of autonomy for Ossetians inside Georgia. See the picture here.

Still nobody talks of "Smachablo", and if we are to talk about war in georgia, then we must understand Georgia does not officially know of any South Ossetia. This region just does not exist, according to Georgians. Then we definitely must call this a war in "Samachablo", and call Ossetians how? Samachablians?:) FeelSunny (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be news to you, but it's not uncommon for people and their geographic region to have unrelated names. Perhaps the well-known example are the Rroma people; the region which they inhabit is called the World instead. And, of course, there are Kurdish people who live not in Kurdia but Iraq and Turkey; there are Amish people who live in America, and the American people themselves often call their homelands Reservations. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have long suspected this, but it should become clear to everyone by now that same people who wanted the title change to Russia-Georgia war want to erase any mention of South Ossetia from the article as possible. I wonder why. (Igny (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Stop making brash assertions ^ not helping. Dear Historic warrior for Kosovo your are right however when you look a Georgia's situation its different Georigas central government did not colapse and split(to name all the regions would be messy maybe in the Kosovo article it should say *former Kosovo) even though the events are quite the same. For the fella who says it happened in Georgia only X+Y+Z ≠ Z. It should stay thanks all for your work and time --XChile (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

@Διγουρεν, on "it's not uncommon for people and their geographic region to have unrelated names"

The first problem with your argument is that actually every ethnos on earth lives in many states. Not only Roma, but Chinese too. And Greeks and Georgians also. But every nation usually has it's own territory, and the right to self-determination.

Another problem with your comment is you do not distinguish between nation and ethnos at all. Just call both "people", which is a word with so many meanings, that it becomes meaningless at the least. That is highly typical of people from formerly largerly monoethnic European nation-states (like Ireland, or Greece, etc.). Especially those unitary governed ones. But even there people tend to become more informed of the difference over time. Not your case, obviously.

As to the Roma: Do you compare Ossetians to Roma? Many Georgians would love that POV, maybe you could even become their next president.

As to the Kurds: sorry, you are wrong again. They live in Turkish Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan. The latter is an official name of the ethnic autonomy within Iraq, which shows why Iraq is a democracy (at least, on the paper), while Turkey is an autocratic state.

As to the Amish, Mormons, Adventists etc.: pity you can not tell a confessional entity from a nation. You tell me of any UN-member state created "by and for the sake" of the whole confession, and I send you flowers via the net (please do not tell Vatican, or Izrael, that will be completely wrong again).

As to the "American people": concerning everything written above, please explain what did you want to tell when speaking of the "American people"? I am not from the US, so I may only guess you wanted to say US nationals? Well, they surely must know their country of citizenship (and not "homeland", that's about ethnoses again) is not and Indian reservation (at least, not all of the country). It is rather an Indian cemetery: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ...

@XChile:

How comes you know if the Georgian government still works right now? Do you follow the news? My IMHO is that you can not predict anything for a country where there was never ever a single example of peaceful presidential power transition through elections, a country that with cruel force disbanded peaceful demonstrations recently, and where a hundred thousand demonstrators protest right now in the capital. I really want there to be no violence during these demonstrations in Georgia now - not because I have my fingers crossed for Georgians, but because Georgian permanent revolutions really destabilize the whole Caucasus region. And destabilization of the Northern Caucasus ends in destabilizing Russia at whole.

PS. Bash me not, I am also helping with the article:) (Signing my comment) FeelSunny (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 20:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Its about what has happened not whats going to happen. we are not supposed to be fortune tellers regardless how much we think we know whats going to happen. But I will have to agree that American people comment( refering to American natives is not wrong but a generalization ) about the Kurds, they have no recognized territory from any entity except themselves unfortunately.

As for the "bashing" I assume that you speak of this

Well, I have long suspected this, but it should become clear to everyone by now that same people who wanted the title change to Russia-Georgia war want to erase any mention of South Ossetia from the article as possible. I wonder why. (Igny (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

which is not helping. lets keep it relevant Thank for your time and effort also sign comments so its not so confusing :)--XChile (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC) all in good faith brother

How is copypasting my comment helpful? Let me clarify my point. The same usual suspects wanted the title change ostensibly to a more popular name. The same usual suspects want to erase SO/Abkhazia from the lead and the infobox citing lack of recognition/independence as if it has anything to do with the lead or the infobox. The other usual suspects are against the title change and for keeping the SO/Abkhazia in the leading sentence and the infobox. I just pointed out this fact, and it is in fact helpful as it shows the pattern, the goals and motives of everyone involved in this dispute here. So the editors, who want the changes, evidently want to remove any hint at the following events

(a) Georgia attacked its own (de jure) territory and its own people to restore the control over de-facto independent region

(b) Georgia failed in this mission and lost control over the regions possibly forever.

Clearly it is not in interest of Georgia's government nor in interest of its western allies to highlight any of these events as it is damaging the principle of Georgia's territorial integrity. In my opinion, removing this emphasis on the role of SO/A in this war will be giving the undue weight to the Georgian POV for the reasons I just mentioned.

But ok let us drop this for a moment. The only sensible argument I heard so far was that at the moment of the war SO+A+GP=Georgia, and even after SO/A partial recognition, most of the international community maintained their support for Georgia's territorial integrity, so SO+A+GP=Georgia according to most even now. Not so according to Russia/Nicaragua. So the question is does a more accurate description of the place (SO+A+GP) in the infobox give an undue weight to the view of minority? (Igny (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

I have signed my comment above:) I was not going to argue with you, XChile, it was just a notice on Georgian politics frivolous nature:)

@Igny: There's one mistake in the only able Georgian argument you cite: the internationsl law does not know the word "majority", only the word "recongnition". Thus, I agree with you, SO+A+GP > Georgia. Definitely the article should name SO & A & Georgia. There are no minorities in international relations.

Overall, it's been 9 months Russians have been trying to explain their position to the West. The one thing we just can not understand ourselves, is that nobody actually need any explanations, for everyone has his own interests, and will act in accordance with what he needs, not with what is right. Look at the Georgians, and you will see a good example of how a nation's interests prevail over a nation's conscience. FeelSunny (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright then but all this talk of equations kinda confusing so for the purpose of clarification

FOR STATUS QUO(Keeping it the same) with SO and A and Georgia in the info box (reasoning)-no arguments valid in its removal .Thanks for all your hard work --XChile (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, long discussion. A couple of comments: Serbia's central government collapsed in Kosovo after it was bombed into submission by NATO airplanes. These NATO countries can end up on trial for the bombing and may be forced to pay financial remedies (for the bombing) to Serbia. South Ossetia was never de facto part of Georgia, so it would be hard for the Georgian government to collapse in South Ossetia, considering that de facto, no such government existed. De Jure governments, or paper governments supported by actual nations, by definition cannot collapse. Saying "Stop making brash assertions ^ not helping. Dear Historic warrior for Kosovo your are right however when you look a Georgia's situation its different Georigas central government did not colapse and split(to name all the regions would be messy maybe in the Kosovo article it should say *former Kosovo) even though the events are quite the same" would thus be incorrect. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I made clear who was making brash assertions or at least I hope so it was to the user before my original statement.To HistoricW007 About South Ossetia never being part of, I assume you mean Georgia which it was part of it ever since the Democratic Republic of Georgia in 1918. By the Regional Government in South Ossetia that was pro Georgian was ousted in the Ossetian Conflict by Pro Bolshevik Ossetians. This is why I said it was similar, why we should not use Kosovo as a cookie cutter is because Kosovo is no longer under its own jurisdiction with respect to its deceleration of independence in 2008 see Resolution 1244 of the United Nations security council I hope that clarifies, --XChile (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro again

Offliner's idea to remove the blame game and stick to the facts is a good idea. However if we do that, it needs to be removed in full. Russia "responded" is a statement about exactly this, therefore it needs to go. Otherwise, we need to put both sides in again and go back to the version before Offliner's edit. --Xeeron (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We all already agreed to include only facts in the intro, so I think your edit was good indeed - Russia sent additional troops into SO is better than Russia responded by sending troops into SO, because:

1. It reveals the fact that there were already Russian troops in SO before the operation of the Georgian army;

2. It removes the responded word, which I find ambiguous in this case. Georgia didn't attack neither Russia, nor the Russian troops, hence the use of response is irrelevant.

Not to mention that the Georgian attack was indeed a response to the actions of Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages (and movement of Russian troops into the Roki tunnel)... so it would be very hard to reveal all these actions and reactions in the Introduction section. Kouber (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is ok by me if you add back that there is that disputed Georgian claim about who started the war. But removing the well supported claim that Russia responded to the Georgian attack would be POV. (Igny (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

"Responded" goes right to the heart of the "who is responsible" debate by implying that Georgia started (is responsible) and Russia did nothing and only responded (is not responsible). --Xeeron (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, responded says more about sequence of the events than about who was responsible. Didn't everyone (but Georgia) come to the consensus that Russian attack occurred after the Georgian? Didn't everyone (but Georgia) agree that Georgia started the war? Or you meant Georgia responded to Russian/Ossetian provocations? Even if true, it is not the same as responding to an invasion (as Georgia claims). (Igny (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

If you do not like responded, I suggest rewording to emphasize the sequence and timing. Something like

Early on August 8 Russia sent reinforcements to support their peacekeepers in Tskhinvali and launched the operation to force Georgia to peace.

But I think others will argue against that as even stronger POV. "Responded" is the best compromise at the moment, I think. (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I edited the sentence a bit. Is that better? It is without doubt that Russia sent troops in SO on Aug 8. It is under question that Russia did anything on Aug 7. So let's stick to the facts, no? (Igny (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

The new version is much better, since it sticks to the facts. --Xeeron (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we clarify that the troops present in SO, for which reinforcements were sent, were in fact peacekeepers? (Igny (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I also think the new version is much better. IMHO it's not worth mentioning the peacekeeping status, because there were also Georgian peacekeepers present there, so both sides in the conflict could claim that they were actually reinforcing their peacekeepers, which doesn't seem fair to me, given the scale of the actions. The current version is good. Kouber (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely should call them peacekeepers.

They had a valid mandate to be there, signed by legitimate Georgian authorities.
If we do not call the forces PKs, we will actually state there was Russian army in the respublic of South Ossetia before the Georgian onslaught, which is directly what Misha says, and is a plain lie, not supported by anyone reliable (NATO, OBSE, EU, etc.).

So no "forces", only "peacekeepers".FeelSunny (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You can try to give justice to the fact that both Georgia and Russia had peacekeepers there, that the Georgian's were under attack by the Ossetians, that the Russians were under attack by the Georgians (and the different nature of the attacks), that both sides send reinforcements which were not peacekeepers in one sentence. I pretty much doubt it can be done without either taking a whole paragraph or running into POV issues, but by all means present your version here. --Xeeron (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We are still sticking to the facts, right? It is without doubt Russian and Georgian peacekeepers were present there on Aug 7. Were they attacked on Aug 7? Possibly, but this is not important enough for the lead (belongs to the blame war). Was there any other Russian force present there? Not without a significant doubt. Now Russian reinforcements does sound ambiguous, was there a Russian invasion already under way on Aug 7? Is there a better way to phrase it? How about just troops or battle troops? how about additional troops to support their peacekeeping force? We are not discussing "reinforcements to the Georgian peacekeepers" because noone ever said anything about that simply because a barrage by multiple rocket launchers is a poor way to reinforce the peacekeepers. (Igny (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

I changed the wording again, is it ok for the compromise so that we can leave this issue in peace at last? (Igny (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

To Xeeron: I'll try to put it clear: According to the independent Western medias and organizations, Georgia and Georgian peacekeepers were in no way attacked by Russia before August, 8. They had no justification to attack Russia or any of it's sitizens and servicemen. However, Russian peacekeepres base was shelled by Georgians for hours on August 7-8. Georgian ex-peacekeepers chief Mamuka Kurashvili commanded this artillery onslaught and, later, a tank attack on the city he vowed to protect. This is totally disgusting. But what's more important, it strips him and his men of any "peacekeeper" naming.

All the "Ossetian provocation" excuses Western neocons like you provide for their Georgian hawk friends are a nonsence. As if the Georgians did not shell and kill Ossetians for the last 15 years: border skirmishes are a two-way street. And - surprise - their amount started to grow exponentially exactly when Mishiko came to power. What a funny coincidence, really! Or is it just evil Ossetians who wanted to overthrow the democratically elected peace-loving Georgian government?

And back to those Russian guys you do not want to call peacekeepers: they were locked inside the city they were defending with AKs against tanks and artillery. They fought there for several days, until reinforcements came and kicked Georgians out. Their barracks were totally destroyed. Many of them died - while protecting the city they vowed to protect. And they did not start the fight. That simple. And that is why we should call them what they were - peacekeepers.FeelSunny (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

@FeelSunny:How were they locked into the city, when they were just driving through the Roki tunnel? And go ahead with the personal comments about me, that makes clear the agenda you are pursuing here. --Xeeron (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Peacekeepers were in Tskhinval for years, not going through Roki on August, 8th. Please tell me what of the previous post was a personal attack, and I will say sorry for that. But now please answer at least one of the questions from the post: 1) did not Georgians shelled the city they vowed to protect? 2) Were not Russian peacekeepers protecxting the city? 3) Does not all the rubbish about "provocations" has one flaw: they came from Georgians too?FeelSunny (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, those units in Tskhinvali were Peacekeepers, those in the Roki tunnel were not. I doubt that calling me a "neocon" is a personal attack, but it is a very wrong personal comment. If you have zero knowledge about my views, don't talk about them. In fact, don't talk about them in any case. All it achieves is showing that you are trying to label your opponents in the debate instead of using arguements.

Regarding your questions: 1) I have no idea what they vowed, and since you do not provide a source, I can't check 2) I read nothing about that, only about them getting shelled 3) No.

Also: Why did the russian peacekeepers not keep the peace during the week before the war? Why did they not stop the South Ossetians from firing at the Georgians? Or the Georgians from firing at the South Ossetians? Is that not the task of peacekeepers? --Xeeron (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is no, peacekeepers are not policemen. Their capabilities are rather limited in regard to protecting anyone from anyone. Their main goal, as I see it, is to prevent wars, not skirmishes/crimes. One of their main tools is deterrence: the warring sides should try to avoid armed confrontation because of a possibility to hurt the peacekeepers which would significantly damage their image in international arena and may lead to a military confrontation with the nation peacekeepers of which were hurt. They clearly failed in their mission, precisely because (quote from deterrence theory) suicidal or psychopathic opponents may not be deterred by any forms of deterrence. (Igny (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Well, I have a different view of peacekeepers than you do. They should prevent all hostilities, not just large scale ones. And given that both Georgians and Ossetians did fire at each other before August (including with artillery, hards what you would call a normal "crime), you seem to imply that both sides soldiers are either psychopatic or suicidal. I disagree with that as well. --Xeeron (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, their ~~goal~~ obligation was not to prevent the hostilities, but to observe the agreed terms of a ceasefire/truce, and impartially report all the violations. That was what they did. They were placed there partly because of lack of trust between the belligerents. Note that Russia was not a belligerent in the conflict until after Russian peacekeepers got engaged. (Igny (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

I disagree with you FeelSunny. The claim that Russian peacekeepres base was shelled by Georgians for hours is just false. Georgian and Russian peacekeepers were working together for years. At 23:30 on the 8th Georgian authorities warned Kulakhmetov that there is a military operation which was about to begin shortly - a military operation to stop Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages, not a military operation against Russia. Georgia was never targeting Russian peacekeepers, nor Russian troops until they took a side in the conflict and started to fire at Georgians.

You're blaming Kurashvili for not acting as a peacekeeper, but what have done the Russian peacekeepers in order to protect civilians? For days in the beginning of August Georgian villages were shelled, even with artillery. An artillery fire was reported from the roof of a building just next to the headquarters of those "peacekeepers" - what have they done to stop it (in order to fulfill their duties - to keep the peace)? Nothing! Not to mention who actually provided the Ossetians with all these weapons and armament... Kouber (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its POV to say "Russia responded by sending troops..." This exactly the formulation I've seen used in many major international media sources. Sometimes they say "Russia counter-attacked," or something similar. But the claim that Russia's reinforcements were a response to Georgia's massive attack is not really disputed in major international sources. Offliner (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2Kouber: As to those accusations of "provocations" - which are basically the same with you, or with Xeeron - please give me at least one independent and reliable source since November that claims there was any shelling from the buildings adjacent to Russian peacekeepers barracks. I can give you some reliable and independent sources - OSCE, NATO oifficials, and EU comission, claiming there was no freaking shelling that could provoke Georgian attack on August 7. Why don't you just listen to the world?

You say: The claim that Russian peacekeepres base was shelled by Georgians for hours is just false. ... Georgia was never targeting Russian peacekeepers, nor Russian troops until they took a side in the conflict and started to fire at Georgians. What the hell is it all about? Did not Georgians kill 12 Russian peacekeepers on August 7-8th? Were Georgians attacked by Russia prior to that? Did not Georgians shell Russian barracks for hours? Well, so the barracks just shelled themselves? Or that was also a Russian provokation, shell themselves to accuse Georgia?

Regarding the difference b/w peacekeepers and "peacekeepers": unlike Georgians, Russians just did not kill people they vowed to protect. They fought Georgian soldiers that were aiming to kill people of Tskhinvali. That is what Russians did as peacekeepers. As for the Georgian "peacekeepers", any freak that is commanding a peacekeeping batallion and then commands a storming of a city he was to protect, is just beyond any morale. He is disgusting. That is my personal opinion, of course. You may well find Kurashvili and his behavior normal.

Well, of course Russian peacekeepers and Georgian "peacekeepers" once worked together. But this does not explain why Russian peacekeepers' barracks are in ruins now, and 12 of them were killed during one night of Georgian shelling. FeelSunny (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FeelSunny, I am not telling Georgians didn't kill Russian peacekeeprs, I am telling they weren't targeting them intentionally. When they informed the U.S. embassy that they were about to begin a military operation, they were explicitly advised by Matthew Bryza to be extremely careful not to intervene directly with Russians.

Concerning the friendly fire you don't want to believe, indeed it happened, according to Kurashvili: "... what I have seen with my own eyes was that the Russian aviation was bombing their own check-points ... I have never ever before seen scenes like that before, though I have gone through many challenges.".

The Ossetian fire coming from Russian headquarters before the launch of the Georgian military operation is also confirmed, by Memorial:

"Oleg Orlov, the head of Memorial, said that artillery exchanges across the border with South Ossetia began on August 1 - and then "got worse". Civilians on both sides were injured, he said. South Ossetian troops had fired on civilians, Orlov said, including an enclave of ethnic Georgians living inside separatist controlled South Ossetia, north of Tskhinvali. South Ossetian troops had also fired from the Tskhinvali headquarters of Russia's peacekeeping force, Orlov added." Kouber (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kouber, Georgian military killed Russian servicemen on that infamous night. That was a clear unprovoked attack. It could be provoked if any of the Russian PKs killed a Georgian before, but it's not the case. All the stories about provocations were clearly disproved by the OSCE staff in the region. All the stories about Matthew Bryza are just a joke, really, if youknow what type of man is this Rice-Rumsfeld envoy. Noone kills if he is not ready to. Especially with artillery. On that night Saakashvili was ready to kill Russians. Now Russia will never feel spiritually close to you - for better or for worse. FeelSunny (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(re-indent) May I intervene in this conversation? Kouber, don't you think, that your argument with FeelSunny became mainly about what one believes, rather than about what one can prove?

"FeelSunny, I am not telling Georgians didn't kill Russian peacekeeprs, I am telling they weren't targeting them intentionally. When they informed the U.S. embassy that they were about to begin a military operation, they were explicitly advised by Matthew Bryza to be extremely careful not to intervene directly with Russians."

So, one is expected to believe that all those statements by Bryza and suchlike were something more than just futile post-war attempts of Georgian government to deny that they were following American guidances to the doom of their own people, matched with a similar desire of American government to avoid associations with ensuing war crimes? And it should be taken as a proof of Georgians' "initially good intentions"?

"Concerning the friendly fire you don't want to believe, indeed it happened, according to Kurashvili: "... what I have seen with my own eyes was that the Russian aviation was bombing their own check-points ... I have never ever before seen scenes like that before, though I have gone through many challenges."."

Your source says much more than you do. You forgot to mention he said that when challenged by investigation commission with the question whether or not it was an attack on Russian peacekeepers by Georgian peacekeepers under his command that provoked Russians into taking Ossetian side. Summary of his answer: "Oh no, it's all russian propaganda! We didn't lay a finger on them! They were bombed all by themselves!". Oh yeah. Why is that I feel so compelled to take his word on it?

"The Ossetian fire coming from Russian headquarters before the launch of the Georgian military operation is also confirmed, by Memorial... bla-bla-bla."

For the number of times that Memorial has been discredited as a Soros-funded propaganda tool I refer you to the archives of this talkpage.

Forgive me my bitter sarcasm, but to take your POV one has to believe in words of a Georgian official, who was trying to not get himself jailed. Or to believe in words of yet another "Human Rights Organization", which useful activity is limited to writing texts that western media might use to continue tarnishing Russia. Or to believe in words of America "the Biggest Georgian Ally in Fight for Freedom and Democracy" diplomates. I bet you see some kind of similar weaknesses in Russian arguments. It is all a matter of belief, Kouber, and I don't expect that we'll be able to convince each other. My responces above were exaggerated to illustrate it, so please don't take any offence.

Anyway, what is your point? That Russian peacekeepers should have stepped aside and let Georgians proceed with whatever kind of military operation they had in mind? Somehow I doubt that ANY kind of military operation of regular forces was permitted by peacekeeping agreements, i.e. Russians were obliged to step in anyway. Weren't Georgians the ones who broke the truce first?

PS. I can't really know about all Russians, but I agree with FeelSunny, that this war costed some "spiritual closeness" between Russia and Georgia. But I can tell you, Kouber, that I certainly don't hate Georgians. I hadn't lost my relatives, after all. All I feel is a great GREAT sadness about Georgians and Russians falling as low as to killing each other. All I wish is that it WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN AGAIN. ETST (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

@FeelSunny: What type of man is Matthew Bryza FeelSunny? I personnally don't know him. Do you?

It's true that Russia disappointed me very much with its actions, but do I personally have anything spiritual with Russia at all!? :-)

I completely disagree with you that it was an unprovoked attack. If you give a gun and a shelter to a killer, you're also guilty for his actions. So, if the separatists were firing from the Russian peacekeepers' headquarters, it was fully legitimate to answer and to target them. The fact that they were in this building, and that by coincindence in that building there were Russian peacekeepers is not a fault of Georgians.

@ETST: I am not somebody who would advocate Kurashvili's actions or statements. That's just what he said in front of the parliamentary commission.

Concerning my point, I can easily reply the same way as you did:

Should the Georgian peacekeepers have stepped aside and let Ossetians proceed with whatever kind of military operation they had in mind? Somehow I doubt that the extent of firing and the arms used by Ossetians were permitted by peacekeeping agreements, i.e. Georgians were obliged to step in anyway. Weren't Ossetians the ones who broke the truce first?

Really, what should have Georgia done? Waiting and watching silently how somebody's killing its own citizens on its own territory? How would you react if for example in Russia somebody's killing Russians, somebody's firing at the Russian army in Russia?... Or how would you qualify the "peacekeepers" who are letting somebody to fire at the Russian army in Russia from their headquarters?

Georgia had much more right to step on parts of its territory, than Russia had to intervene on foreign one. The latter is called an aggression by the international law.

Concerning Memorial, it's well mentioned on its page who's funding it. The Open Society Institute is just one among dozens of other sponsors (the United Nations and even the Russian Government). It's not discrediting Memorial in any way.

P.S.: I think we all believe that the war is not the way to solve any problem. Kouber (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess your rhetorical question is best answered by a Soviet slogan of unintended hilarity. It went thus:

Long live the Soviet nuclear bomb, the most peace-loving nuclear bomb in the world!" Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

@Διγουρεν:) Really unintended hilarity, esp. to anyone speaking Russian:)) We know what is the real joke behind this one, invented by you, or your friends. But the original is hardly translatable. Anyway, I've never heard the slogan in the form you cited, about nukes:) However, I've heard of the USA's fancy black ICBM called "Peacekeeper". Did you mean that was a USA's slogan?

@Kouber: What we could have in common: common faith, perhaps? Russians are Orthodox Christians, most of us. But now I think you are right. We do not have anything in common.

About the unprovoked attack: This is the last time I'm going to explain this. NATO told there were no provocations from the Ossetian side. OSCE told there was no shelling from Ossetian side. EU special investigative comission thinks there was no shelling that could provoke Georgia. Condoleeza Rice acknowledges Georgia fired first shots. What provocations are we talking about? FeelSunny (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

@Kouber:

"I am not somebody who would advocate Kurashvili's actions or statements. That's just what he said in front of the parliamentary commission."

You said "Concerning the friendly fire you don't want to believe, indeed it happened, according to Kurashvili" which sounds like you, as opposed to FeelSunny, believe in it, and the reference, you provided, can serve as a justification of this belief. If you said that not for affecting FeelSunny's opinion, what did you say that for, then? If that's not "advocating", then I don't know what is.

"Concerning my point, I can easily reply the same way as you did:..."

Of course, you can use my form of questioning, but you can't use my facts to support it. It still has to be proven, that whatever "Ossetian operation", you are referring to, was indeed taking place at the beginning of Georgian offensive, or that its "extent of firing" was something more than the usual border clashes. Should I remind you of two former OSCE monitors testament? Oh no, FeelSunny have already done that for a second time in a row. On the contrary, the proceedings and effects of "Georgian operation" are well-known, and no one denies now, that it was started prior to Russian involvement. So, for all intents and purposes concerning whether we should call Russian peacekeepers as such in the article, it were Georgians, not Ossetians, who broke the truce first.

Let me also comment on what you said to FeelSunny:

"I completely disagree with you that it was an unprovoked attack. If you give a gun and a shelter to a killer, you're also guilty for his actions. So, if the separatists were firing from the Russian peacekeepers' headquarters, it was fully legitimate to answer and to target them. The fact that they were in this building, and that by coincindence in that building there were Russian peacekeepers is not a fault of Georgians."

Maybe. But again, it still has to be proven, that this "Ossetian firing from the Russian peacekeepers' headquarters" occured before these headquarters or any other Russian peacekeepers' positions were attacked by Georgians, or that Georgian shelling of these headquarters was indeed justified by this firing, e.g it might be that the Ossetian firing from the headquarters had been accidental and was stopped by Russians before long, yet Georgians shelled it anyway. Anyway, your reasoning is so weak that I can turn it around:

So, any coincidential firing of Ossetians from adjacent locations notwithstanding, if Georgians were shelling Russian peacekeepers, it was fully legitimate to answer and to target them. The existence of possibility, that the fire upon Russian peacekeepers might have been attracted by the nearby Ossetians, doesn't mean that Russian peacekeepers weren't the intended targets of Georgians, and impossibility of distinguishing between these two cases is not a fault of Russian peacekeepers.

So, instead of answering to your multiple rhetorical "how would you react to..." questions, which model situations of dubious similarity to the actual events, I would rather answer your question "what should have Georgia done?". It should have contacted Russian peacekeepers and demand ceasing of firing from their positions, and if they refused, then a recording of this conversation could have been somewhat more substantial, than those laughable tapes that Georgia provided as an "evidence of Russian aggression". I haven't seen such a record, have you?

"Georgia had much more right to step on parts of its territory, than Russia had to intervene on foreign one. The latter is called an aggression by the international law."

You don't want to get me started on "rights" and "Georgian territory", do you? It was ever-questionable, whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia belong to Georgia. And speaking of "international laws", since Georgia have never fulfilled terms of Soviet secession procedure, according to which Georgia clearly wasn't permitted to deny to Ossetians and Abkhazs their right to secede in the nineties, it becomes legally questionable whether there is such country as Georgia at all. Also, it always gets me amused that some people approve the shelling and capturing of Tskhinvali, which they conveniently assume to be a part of Georgia, as a mean of "stopping Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages", but get all indignant about "violation of Georgian sovereignity" and "aggression" when they talk about Russia bombing a few weaponry stocks and capturing a military base in "Georgia proper" in order to "force Georgia to peace". It's an indiscriminate shelling of citizens that I'd call "an aggression". Anyway, none of this matters to the topic.

"Concerning Memorial, it's well mentioned on its page who's funding it. The Open Society Institute is just one among dozens of other sponsors (the United Nations and even the Russian Government). It's not discrediting Memorial in any way."

Really? Well, it is well mentioned, who's sponsoring it, indeed. Let's look at it, then? [2](ru). And what we see?

Фонд Сороса (The Soros Foundation) - a Russian representation of The Open Society Institute, which, thanks to you, requires no introduction.
Фонд Форда (The Ford Foundation) - or, as it is often referred to, a "philanthropic facade for the CIA".

Only these two foundations are mentioned as the ones, providing main financial support. Despite the impression that your words give, the United Nations participation was limited to the following:

Управление Верховного Комиссара ООН по делам беженцев и Программы ТАСIS Совета Европы при партнерстве с Европейским Советом по беженцам и изгнанникам оказали содействие в развертывании сети юридических консультаций для беженцев и вынужденных переселенцев.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and European Council's TACIS Programme had cooperated in unravelling a net of legal counseling offices for refugees and forced migrants.

Whoops, not a financing relationship, then. More like a one-shot deal. Also, the TACIS program and its successor, the European Neighbourhood Policy, are worth of separate review, but it would get us too far from the topic.

And I can only take fun at your "Russian Government" remark: the only place in this list of sponsors, where one can suspect something "Russian" at work, looks like that:

Правительство Москвы выделило средства для издания книги памяти, посвященной захоронению на бывшем полигоне НКВД (совхоз "Коммунарка")
The Administration of Moscow had granted funds for publishing a book, dedicated to the burial place on a former NKVD ground (sovkhoz "Kommunarka")

That looks like a real deep involvement of Russian Government to me... oh wait, it's not.

Other "sponsors" are auxiliary, but still: 7 from USA, 3 from Germany, 2 from Netherlands, from Poland, Britain and Switzerland. Am I the only one, who noticed total NATO countries' domination in this list? And if they wouldn't look like auxiliary in it, I would have also went into interesting details on "National Endowment for Democracy", "Henry M. Jackson Foundation", "Bradley Foundation" and "Guggenheim Foundation".

In other words, if you know something "not discrediting" about Memorial, Dear Kouber, then, please, let me know - I will be amazed to the heart.

PS. It's funny how everybody around seems to think that "wars are bad solutions", yet they happen. --ETST (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you both are trying to use the report of OSCE monitors given to confidential briefings to diplomats in Tbilisi as a counterargument. But they simply said that "they were unable to verify that ethnic Georgian villages were under heavy bombardment that evening". Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that they were unable to verify something doesn't disprove its existence. Actually it has nothing to do with proof or disproof, it just reveals their point of view, which I'm not trying to deny anyway. I would accept this as a counterargument if I was about to have in mind that on the contrary they saw something, but it isn't the situation.

Imagine two friends sitting around a table. Person A sees a bird in the sky and states:

- I just saw a beautiful bird flying in the sky.

But then Person B responds:

- I'm unable to verify it.

Your point is that only because Person B was unable to see the bird it just didn't existed? No, it is just that he wasn't able to see it. It doesn't disprove the statement of Person A in any way.

The shelling of Georgian villages is confirmed not only by Memorial, but also by numerous Georgian officials and soldiers in the field (Gia Karkarashvili, for example). The deteriorated situation was confirmed in OSCE reports too [3], [4]. Furthermore on the 7th of August in an interview Eduard Kokoity openly declared that if the Georgian government does not withdraw its forces from the region, he will start "to wipe them out". These Georgian forces were peacekeepers, legally present there.

Concerning your advice to Georgia, it had indeed done exactly what you proposed - it contacted the peacekeepers. When Temur Yakobashvili met him, Kulakhmetov stated that he cannot contact Kokoity, that he cannot stop the Ossetian attacks and admitted that Ossetians are shooting from the vicinity of Russian peacekeeping posts. Additionally he suggested to Yakobashvili that the Government of Georgia should declare a unilateral ceasefire. And that is exactly what Georgia did.

So, on one hand we have Kokoity, who clearly states his intentions, on the other we have numerous reports by independent organisations, OSCE and even Russian peacekeepers (not to mention Georgian authorities), confirming that he was conducting actions in order to fulfil these intentions, but somehow we're supposed to believe that Ossetians did nothing!? Sorry, but it is ridiculous. If Ossetians were so innocent, and Tskhinvali was a peacefully dormant city, as the Russo-Ossetian side wants us to believe, why they didn't allow international independent investigation ot be held there? What did they have to hide?

Also, you don't want me to remind you the way Georgia was annexed and incorporated into the Soviet Union, nor the breach of the Treaty of Moscow (1920), do you? By the time Georgia was occupied by Soviet troops, the entities South Ossetia and North Ossetia (with that name) even didn't exist at all. But if you insist, let's see what states the Soviet Constitution:

"Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR."

"Article 82. An Autonomous Republic is a constituent part of a Union Republic."

"Article 86. An Autonomous Region is a constituent part of a Union Republic or Territory..."

As I interpret the Constitution, Georgia had the right to freely secede from the USSR (A.72), with Abkhazia (A.82) and South Ossetia (A.86) as constituent parts of its territory. Furthermore, in 1991, the Russian Federation had already recognised Georgia once whithin its borders, with South Ossetia and Abkhazia being part of it.

I can only feel sad, when I see somebody talking of "Russia bombing a few weaponry stocks and capturing a military base" seriously. It is a pity given the amount of civilians killed and wounded in the Gori district (incl. South Ossetia), the bombing of civilian houses in Gori, the looting and demolishing of several Georgian villages and cities, and all these refugees with stolen lifes. Only the fact that Russian authorities lied in front of the entire world talking of genocide, of thousands killed and of Tskhinvali being completely demolished (by Georgia), simply in order to make Ossetians hate their Georgian brothers was enough for me. It is a pity and it doesn't amuse me in any way, sorry.

So is the situation with your efforts to discredit Memorial. Probably you missed that it's sponsored by Solzhenitsyn's fund and numerous dissidents too, which have nothing to do with NATO. Honestly, I don't understand you - once you're denying the entire work of a Russian organisation only because it is partly sponsored by funds located in NATO countries, but at the same time you're citing The New York Times and Der Spiegel? Is it worth to mention the details behind their sponsors and funding, if you insist going that way (although I don't see the point of doing so)? Kouber (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one thing abt Georgia and Soviet occupation: "In breach of the arrangements with Abkhazia, as early as 17-19 June 1918, troops from the Georgian republic supported by the military might of Germany landed in Sukhum and virtually occupied the country. General A.S. Lukomskii, Denikin's comrade-in-arms, wrote in this connection: "Taking advantage of German support, Georgia occupied Abkhazia and the Sochi district against the wishes of the population ..." - 14. Arkhiv russkoi revolyutsii, Berlin, 1922, Vol. 3(5-6), p. 114. That was actually Georgia who, taking advantage of the Russian revolution, attacked the Russian white movement government. Just at the moment the white movement was engaged in the most fierce fighting against bolsheviks in 1918. Just to make sure you understand in what way "Georgia was annexed".

And, provocations, - sorry to repost, but Kouber seems to not mention this - NATO told there were no provocations from the Ossetian side. OSCE told there was no shelling from Ossetian side. EU special investigative comission thinks there was no shelling that could provoke Georgia. Condoleeza Rice acknowledges Georgia fired first shots.

Face it, noone actually trusts Misha anymore. FeelSunny (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) FeelSunny (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

@Kouber:

"It seems that you both are trying to use the report of OSCE monitors given to confidential briefings to diplomats in Tbilisi as a counterargument. But they simply said that "they were unable to verify that ethnic Georgian villages were under heavy bombardment that evening". Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that they were unable to verify something doesn't disprove its existence. Actually it has nothing to do with proof or disproof, it just reveals their point of view, which I'm not trying to deny anyway. I would accept this as a counterargument if I was about to have in mind that on the contrary they saw something, but it isn't the situation."

Well, actually, I refer not to this pseudo-neutral position, which OSCE officially adopted, but to an eyewitness account provided by Grist and Young. They told that "there had been little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops began their onslaught on Tskhinvali, adding that if there had been shelling of Georgian villages that evening as Georgia has claimed, the OSCE monitors at the scene would have heard it". Oh, they are russian spies, obviously. Anyway, thanks for your lengthy explanation of the "unable to verify" concept, it certainly makes your case look more convincing. But how a man, who missed a bird because he wasn't looking at all, can be equated to an OSCE monitor, who was on patrol and didn't saw any shelling of a village mere 2 kilometers away, is beyond me. This is just another story of dubious similarity to the actual events that I get to hear from you. I can compose a more appropriate and artistic one, but, since I don't want to imply that your mental capabilities don't allow you to understand my point without a simplified "life example", I guess I'll skip it. Anyway, you might have failed to notice it, but it's not up to me to prove, that there was no shelling, it is up to you to find a neutral source which says otherwise. And testimonies of "numerous Georgian officials and soldiers in the field" (although, personally, I'm interested in reading them) are not exactly a neutral source - another fact, which you don't seem to realize.

"Furthermore on the 7th of August in an interview Eduard Kokoity openly declared that if the Georgian government does not withdraw its forces from the region, he will start "to wipe them out". These Georgian forces were peacekeepers, legally present there."

Oh, really? Because, according to Kokoity's statement you mentioned [5](ru), the "forces", he was referring to, were Georgian special forces, who occupied Sarabuki and Prisi Heights, which are immediately adjacent to Tskhinvali and are very suitable for shelling Sarabuki and Tskhinvali from it. Moreover, Sarabuki was indeed reported to be shelled from the Heights in night of 29 July 2008. And I don't know about this "legally present" part, but provoking Ossetians by occupying two strategically important heights, which - no more, no less - overhang their capital and many villages, sounds like a new word in peacekeeping to me.

"Concerning your advice to Georgia, it had indeed done exactly what you proposed..."

Links, please.

"If Ossetians were so innocent, and Tskhinvali was a peacefully dormant city, as the Russo-Ossetian side wants us to believe, why they didn't allow international independent investigation ot be held there?"

International independent investigation? Oh yeah. And which one would that be? USA's? Of those countries, which were "investigating" in Yugoslavia? No, thanks. I've seen this pig circus of court enough.

"Also, you don't want me to remind you the way Georgia was annexed and incorporated into the Soviet Union, nor the breach of the Treaty of Moscow (1920), do you? By the time Georgia was occupied by Soviet troops, the entities South Ossetia and North Ossetia (with that name) even didn't exist at all."

Oh, and you don't want me to remind you about the Georgian-Ossetian conflict (1918-1920), which seems to be about the only notable thing that Georgia managed to do in those "freedom years". And there was also a time, when the entity Georgia didn't even exist at all, now, why won't we take that date to illustrate some obscure point of yours? Which one is it, by the way? That, if Ossetians didn't have their own land, then they can't have it now, or what? Anyway, what it has to do with the discussion at hand? Citing random facts from history without an explanation of your point is a little unhelpful, you know.

"As I interpret the Constitution, Georgia had the right to freely secede from the USSR (A.72), with Abkhazia (A.82) and South Ossetia (A.86) as constituent parts of its territory."

I'm pretty sure, you've been doing your homework on history, Kouber, and since it's so well covered and popular topic, it's almost suspicious that you want me to elaborate on it. But here we go: did you forget about this accompanying document: "Concerning the procedure of secession of a Soviet Republic from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"? The Article #3 of it is pretty self-explanatory in regards to our question. As I said, Georgia violated the law in many ways, the most important of it being ignoring Abkhazian and Ossetian referendums which were in favor of staying with Russia. So, when I say "It was ever-questionable, whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia belong to Georgia.", I refer to a legal question of no small debate, and I expect to be trusted on that.

"Furthermore, in 1991, the Russian Federation had already recognised Georgia once whithin its borders, with South Ossetia and Abkhazia being part of it."

Recognition only means establishing of diplomatic relations and absence of territorial pretentions. And Russia still recognizes Georgia and has no territorial pretentions to it, in case you didn't notice, so I don't understand why you mentioned it. But former Soviet autonomous republic Abkhazia and autonomous region South Ossetia are not Russia, and are perfectly entitled to have territorial pretentions to Georgia, because the latter violated their right for self-determination granted to them by Soviet law, under jurisdiction of which they were.

"... Only the fact that Russian authorities lied in front of the entire world talking of genocide, of thousands killed and of Tskhinvali being completely demolished (by Georgia), simply in order to make Ossetians hate their Georgian brothers was enough for me."

Thank you, Kouber, I was well aware without you mentioning it that current course of georgian propaganda is "Our ordinary Abkhazian and Ossetian brothers really wanted to live in peace and to stay with Georgia, but their criminal corrupted Russia-appointed puppet governments wanted a war to annex our precious territory". If you think that I'm very amused about this Ossetian hate to Georgians, then you're wrong. But it seems to me that Georgians brought this hate on them all by themselves. You say, Russians lied about genocide and Tskhinvali-in-ruins and naive Ossetians believed them? Yeah, as if in a small country, like South Ossetia is, which can be walked through on foot in several days, such lies wouldn't get exposed in a matter of a month. An Ossetian can easily find out the real amount of death, destruction and their origin just by taking a trip around the Ossetia visiting his relatives in other villages and parts of Tskhinvali. A trip, which, you can bet, nearly every Ossetian had took right after the end of war, just to check, whether all of his relatives are fine. No doubt, he was greeted, feeded, and told all the details on what exactly had happened in the vicinity (not necessarily in that order). And Russians weren't the ones, who destroyed Tskhinvali, like you imply, because the heaviest barrage on the city was reported during the night of August 7-8, when there were no Russian regular forces nearby. So, please, don't expect me to believe into this "Russians deluded Ossetians and destroyed Tskhinvali" theory, which was brought up by Saakashvili to cover up his misdeeds, and which still manages to beat a critical thought only thanks to its constant repetition on Rustavi 2.

"It is a pity and it doesn't amuse me in any way, sorry."

Only the fact, that Georgians valued their territory more, than the well-living of "their Ossetian brothers"; that Georgians wouldn't let Ossetians go; that Georgians started a war instead, was enough for me. It is a pity and it doesn't amuse me in any way, either. Actually, nothing in this war amuses me, but it's better to pretend that you're grimly amused, than kill yourself in depression from the sadness of it.

"So is the situation with your efforts to discredit Memorial. Probably you missed that it's sponsored by Solzhenitsyn's fund and numerous dissidents too, which have nothing to do with NATO."

There's not so much of an effort necessary to discredit Memorial. It discredits itself by its mere existence. I didn't miss Solzhenitsyn foundation I just considered it unimportant, and it can be easily illustrated, why. If you know so much about Memorial funding, that you're even aware of some "numerous dissidents", despite that they are nowhere to be seen in Memorial's list of sponsors, then I guess you'll be able to provide us with the details on how much greater the income of all those other entries in the list is, compared to an income of a single foundation, which was founded on the profits from selling a single book (The Gulag Archipelago)? And, speaking of dissidents, frankly, if you think that I can trust a person, who was unfortunate enough to see the worst of USSR but never got to see the worst of the West, to shape my country in accordance with his delusions, then you're wrong, again. Sorry, Kouber. Russian staff and financial support from a single russian micro-foundation (with no less obscure income, I might add) don't add up to an "Independent Russian Organization".

"I don't understand you - once you're denying the entire work of a Russian organisation only because it is partly sponsored by funds located in NATO countries, but at the same time you're citing The New York Times and Der Spiegel? Is it worth to mention the details behind their sponsors and funding, if you insist going that way (although I don't see the point of doing so)?"

I don't understand you - why you're talking not to me, but to a strawman, whom you presume to employ binary thinking as his primary cognitive process? Of course, if you see no difference between NATO ordering an article from Memorial to blame Russia - its long standing enemy, and NATO ordering an article from New York Times to blame Georgia - its recently acquired ally, then your strawman won't be able to see it either. But, your rhetoric notwithstanding, if you have any ideas of why the countries, which stay behind these media outlets, ordered some Georgia-blaming articles, especially after several months of ordering only Georgia-praising ones, I'll be glad to hear them.

Our discussion became a little too lengthy, don't you think? I mean, a matter as simple as whether we should call russian peacekeepers as such, could have been resolved without resorting to some 80-years-old history, some organizations' financing background, and some mouldy constitutions. Now, since we got carried away, let me hear it again, what exactly your specific objections on the matter are? ETST (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrey Illarionov opinion

Andrey Illarionov is a former Kremlin-insider, but has not been for some 3 years. He is also an expert in economics, not in military affairs, and would struggle to pass as a "politician" at all (he was an economic adviser, which is not necessarily a politician). Given this, he would not be in the position to know what was or wasn't planned in August 2008, and his opinion within the "politicians" section is misguided placement within this article. There are numerous commissions within the government of Russia made up of politicians from United Russia, Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and Fair Russia -- comments from members of the various commissions dealing with military affairs in Russia, from any of those parties would hold greater weight than a person whose expertise lies in macroeconomics. When these opinions are available, and including only Illarionov as indicative of opinion in Russia, is akin to scrubbing Dana Rohrabacher (a member of a defence commission) and replacing it with Noam Chomsky. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Kremlin outlet. It does not require from prominent commentators to be sanctioned from Moscow to be cited here. Illarionov's opinion has been extensively covered by Russian and international media and is certainly relevant. The rest of your post is just your personal oppinion of Illarionov and, hence, irrelevant.--Kober^Talk 15:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that removing Illarionov was part of a broader attempt to shorten the article by removing opinion pieces which do not contribute much the the article's message. While I agree that Illarionov may be well informed in general but so are many other persons whose opinions are being removed today. (Igny (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Looking at the version before Offliner's edits, it seems obvious that the entire section was build up sole with POV in mind, not the prominence of the politicians. Look at who is listed: "a US Defense official", an "ex-advisor in economics topics", a "former ambassador", a "former head of Georgia's Border Police", "Georgia's former UN ambassador". Who is not listed: Saakashvili, Putin, Bush, Obama, Medvediev, or any other high ranking politician. The complete section is bogus and the article would be better off without it. --Xeeron (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's correct Kober, Wikipedia is not a Kremlin outlet, but nor is it an outlet to dump every opinion out there into the article. At best one could call him an analyst; at worst an afterthought. Politicians is not the right place for his views in this article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Illarionov's opinion was actually not "extensively" covered in Russian medias. Illarionov is a promonent critic of "Kremlin", yes, and as such his words will certainly have a very good coverage in the "neocon" Western press. But he is by no means a prominent politician in Russia. He has no supporters, no program of development for Russia, and, actually, no will to take power, which is absolutely necessary to be a "politician".

WP is not covering just any critic of "Kremlin", disregarding his importance, and especially not any economic expert having a conspiracy theory on war. WP is not a neocon outlet, or is it?FeelSunny (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would go even further and call Illarionov an opportunist. There were many people on all sides who tried to score some political points by making public statements of varying sensationalism with the regard to this war. Most likely he just gambled that Russia will be quickly proven to be in the wrong, and there he 'd be: a knight with shining armor. Where is he now with all his accusations? (Igny (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Ah yes, Illarionov. From previous discussion:

Illarionov: "The Russian Forces crossed the border on August 7th"

Gaidar (Masha): "How come American sattellites didn't discover the crossing?"

Illarionov: "Well I read it in the Russian Press"

Gaidar (Masha): "Which Press?"

Illarionov: "Military Press"

Gaidar (Masha): "So American Sattellites just didn't read the Russian Military Press?"

Illarionov: "Exactly"

Clearly the guy has to clue what the heck he is talking about. He cannot represent his own opinion, much less that of Russia. In another question he blames Ossetians for the war. Damn Ossetians, they just want to be shelled. Illarionov, Cornell, who's next? Rupert Murdoch? Bill O'Rielly? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Where can we find this interview? The one broadcasted by Echo of Moscow is held by Maria Gaidar (not Masha):

М.ГАЙДАР: Американские спутники просто не читали СМИ.

А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Я не знаю, чем занимались американские спутники. Это все можно найти в российских газетах. Там достаточно подробно рассказывается о том, что и кто и как делал. И будничное повествование многих российских солдат и офицеров говорит о том, что по крайней мере для них в этом не было ничего удивительного, ничего ненормального. Они выполняли тот приказ, который они получили. И судя по тому, кто об этом говорит и рассказывает, как минимум четыре подразделения российской армии находились на территории Южной Осетии еще до 7 августа, включая 135-й мотострелковый полк и 22-ю бригаду спецназа. Кроме того, там же находились и некоторые танковые подразделения регулярных российских войск, которые участвовали поначалу в маневрах «Кавказ-2008», а потом оказались на территории Южной Осетии.

The case of Giordano Bruno proved that burning somebody is not the way to disprove him.

Andery Illarionov is not just an ordinary guy with some oppinion. In the last months (and years) he has done deep analysis of the situation in South Ossetia, the Russo-Georgian relations, the war, etc., published by universities and medias. Most notably, he was many times in SO, he met with both Georgian and South Ossetian authorities. Me personally, I'm following his blog since September and I'm impressed with his extensive work, which I find very serious. I think his statements have their place in the article, if not in the Politicans section, then in the Analysts one instead. Kouber (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno was actually burned at stake, not figuratively burned in a debate. The sooner you pick up on that "subtle" difference, the sooner I will stop forwarding your posts to the laugh factory. In the interview cited, Illarionov is EXTREMELY VAUGE. "Russian Media" will publish everything and anything. Heck, I can be as vague as Illarionov and find a story that clearly states that George W. Bush is actually a lizard. Should I post that in his biography on Wikipedia? For instance, Illarionov then proceeds to find several different accounts, all claiming different stuff, and tries to be scientific about it. Apparently it never hit Illarionov in the head that different people, based on different locations, will have different experiences of when the shooting started. Illarionov on the other hand considers this "strange". "Stellar" analysis, I further consider it strange that different people on wikipedia have different posts - using Illarionov's logic. Furthermore, Illarionov claims that some forces stayed there since the completion of Operation Caucasus 2008. Yet no credible source has followed up on that notion. Furthermore, Illarionov claimed that some South Ossetians were telling Russians to GTFO. This is contrary to everything else that I have read. In that interview, even Masha Gaidar could no longer lead the interview without laughter, and inquired of Illarionov if the Marsians have landed in Ossetia. Illarionov was quick to respond "Ya Ne Znayu" - "I don't know". Or something like that. Please Kouber, we are writing an actual military article, not an article for Projector Pariz Hilton. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A link t the interview in question. FeelSunny (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the point - deleting something from Wikipedia is not the way to disprove it (burning Bruno was neither). Illarionov wasn't burned in a debate.

There are a lot of sources confirming that some forces stayed there after the completion of Caucasus 2008.

"По данным "Полит.ру", Минобороны РФ, предполагая, что грузины нагнетают обстановку, после учений "Кавказ-2008", 7 августа, отправили в ЮО через Рокский тоннель 58 армию, считая, что это не грузинская территория."

Also, what's "normal" about "different people, based on different locations, will have different experiences of when the shooting started"? I find it also strange. At least, it's confirming to some extent the Georgian claims that Ossetians were shelling Georgian villages right before the launch of the Georgian operation.

I agree with you - we're writing an actual military article. Andrey Illarionov is a serious well known person (ex-advisor of the President of the Russian Federation), with huge work and analysis concerning exactly the events we're trying to describe. Hence, I believe we shouldn't censor him only because his opinion differs from the official Kremlin one. His speeches and articles rely on (in most of the cases public) sources. Kouber (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not removing his opinion from WP, just moving to Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war together with other opinions of the similarly uninformed persons. (Igny (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

I haven't edited this article in some time, so will try to be brief. The whole responsibility article seems to be NATO-centric, and Illarionov is probably better understanding the global impacts the war had. I don't see a single mention of the articles by Gareth Evans, for instance, about the viability of peacekeeping (critical of Russia). Ottre 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kouber, talking of Polit.ru "information", can you tell me how many men make up one "army" unit in Russian military? How comes NATO satellites have not found any tanks coming throw the tunnel? Be more original than Illarionov, please? And how comes Georgia did not notice a substantial surplus of South Ossetia population after Russian 58th army entered SO? FeelSunny (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Geez, what are you people talking about? Wanting to remove such a credible source as Illarionov. I mean the guy had a ground-breaking hypothesis that Marsians were involved in this war, and here you are, with your carefully planned out facts and theories based on logic! Russian army? Tell me how many men make up a corps in the Marsian Army! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to tell you, Kouber. 58th is 70 000 servicemen. And South Ossetia official population is 72 000. Care to explain where 70 thousands soldiers can live in a region of 72 000? FeelSunny (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@FeelSunny So? What does it prove or disprove?... I don't get your point.

@HistoricWarrior007 Very funny. Let me cite again:

А. ИЛЛАРИОНОВ - ... Именно поэтому примерно с 3 августа появляются отдельные сообщения, некоторое недоумение и начинаются разговоры о том, что возможно в районе конфликта появилась третья сторона.

С. БУНТМАН – А кто это может быть? Марсиане, азербайджанцы, турки.

А. ИЛЛАРИОНОВ - Я не знаю. По крайней мере, в тех сообщениях, которые высказаны, причем сообщения о третьей стороне высказаны и грузинской и осетинской сторонами...

The one mentioning Marsians is Sergey Buntman, not Andrey Illarionov! Stop diffusing the discussion by citing words out of their context, please. That's not the way to discredit Illarionov, but yourself instead.

Anyway, my initial citation of Illarionov was concerning militarisation per capita, not the third party rumours (which were not Illarionov's theory, but both Georgians' and Ossetians'). Kouber (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kouber, I actually think Buntman discredits Illarionov there by taking the piss in a humourous way. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

@Kouber It disproves the reliability of the source claiming "the 58th army has entered the SO". It's definitely "parts of 58th army. FeelSunny (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "parts of 58th army" is correct, but the link I gave is citing other sources, i.e. it's not the primary source anyway. Kouber (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Buntman stated that it was Marsians, Azerbiajanians or Turks. Illarionov says he doesn't know. It's a conspiracy theory! If every conspiracy theory was placed on wikipedia, no one would read wikipedia. This is precisely what I've been complaining about, conspiracy theorists still trying to blame Russia or Ossetia, even after everyone quitied down, http://exiledonline.com/freddy-gets-fingered-how-i-busted-the-washington-posts-op-ed-page-editor/all/1/ and the Washington Post forgot about the war after that, only coming back to say it was disastrous, which it was for the corporations. You are saying that since a person is credible, we should accept any crazy conspiracy theory that said person comes up with. Colin Powell was credible. Were there WMDs in Iraq? The argument should stand on its own, without the need of big names. Also, if Illarionov was an insider, but is no longer an insider, that means he either sucked at his job, or was unjustly fired by the very people in Russia who led the Russian Army to victory, think Illarionov might be biased a tad? Or are the Turks coming back to Georgia? Along with the Marsians? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK Illarionov quit his job because he disagreed with his employer. I agree with you that we shouldn't accept crazy conspiracy theories, but that's not the part I included initially in WP, nor is Illarionov supporting it. He just said that "he doesn't know". The thing I cited is relying on other sources. Also, you're calling "conspiracy" the fact that Russian and Ossetian actions (or lack of actions) triggered the war, but for me personally it's clearly the situation. Calling every statement not supporting the Russian aggression a conspiracy isn't worth much. Kouber (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kober, if tomorrow Russians in cold blood will kill 12 Georgian servicemen, by shelling Senaki military base, would it look like an agression to you? FeelSunny (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So you compare bombing georgian soldiers on Georgian territory to killing russian "peacekeepers" on Georgian territory, "peackeepers" who were actually involved in shelling on 7th of August http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5308341e0e08.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.199.97 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, yes, I compare killing officially greeted peacekeepers to killing Georgian soldiers on their own land. It was Georgian government who recognized their right to be there. Ask any lawyer, and he will say there will be no difference in concequences you face. He will also add killing peacekeepers is a war crime - which killing Georgian soldiers on their own land is not.

As to the "provocations" bullshit - I have answered twice, with all these international organizations saying Georgia lies on this - did you lost your ability to read?

Sad image. A hero killed by the lowdown scum - what else?FeelSunny (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)