Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


Closing note: Unlike in the many previous move discussions, we have seen a fairly reasonable discussion with a clear outcome this time. The numeric vote count is 9 for and 4 against, with some new contributors who were not previously involved in the entrenched renaming conflict (as far as I can see) on both sides. As for strength of argument, the move proposal is based on a clear WP:COMMONNAME argument, whose factual correctness has not been challenged in this discussion. This is clearly a reasonable argument in line with our naming policies. The counter-argument, based on perceived NPOV concerns, has remained more on the level of personal opinion, and I do not see that its proponents have successfully shown why it must override the argument of prevalent usage. In conclusion, I see only one possible conclusion from this discussion, as a consensus to move.
As for the secondary issues of formatting and minor tweaks to the proposed title, I believe the argument in favour of lower-case "war" is also clear and was not refuted, so I am tweaking the target to Russia-Georgia war. As for the proposal of retaining the date in the title, I suggest the following: For now, the article remains at Russia-Georgia war, without the year. Adding the year should be considered on the basis of needs of disambiguation and standard principles of disambiguation page design (WP:DAB). At present, no systematic disambiguation is done with respect to other wars involving Russia and Georgia. Editors are invited to discuss and decide between the following three options:
  1. If, as up to now, no other wars involving Russia and Georgia are felt to be important enough to warrant disambiguation under the term "Russia-Georgia war", everything can be left as is and no date needs to be added to the title.
  2. If there is a significant issue of disambiguation, but the 2008 war is the primary topic of the phrase "Russia-Georgia war", the present title should also be left as is but a separate dab page "Russia-Georgia war (disambiguation)" should be created, with an "other uses" hat not here.
  3. If other wars are of similar importance, competing with this one in prominence of usage, then this article might be moved to "Russia-Georgia war (2008)" and "Russia-Georgia war" might be turned into a disambiguation page. (I don't see this as particularly likely, though.)
Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war → Russia-Georgia War – Per WP:COMMONAME based on prevalence in English-language sources. As it stands there is no inaccuracy involved as the war was fundamentally between Russia and Georgia with the unrecognized republics essentially being the casus belli and participants on the Russian side. Neutrality is not really an issue as this name has been used by Russian state-owned news source RIA Novosti for some time and it is still characterized as fundamentally being a war between Russia and Georgia as recently as 2011, while Georgian and Western sources use this name frequently. More importantly, books published last year used the name "Russia-Georgia War" with much greater frequency ([1] [2] [3] [4]) than titles such as the current one (all instances of the "south ossetia war" name in 2012 are ripped from Wikipedia), "five-day war", "august war" (even the book that uses "august war" in its title uses "russia-georgia war" as the name for the war), and "war in Georgia", so it has clearly emerged as the most prominent name for the conflict.The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Procedural admin comment: Given the huge number of previous renaming attempts and the entrenched opposition between two determined camps of editors on this matter in the past, we will need to take measures against possible disruption of this process. But since the last serious move attempt was quite a while back, I believe this one should be seen as a new chance to get some truly fresh outside eyes on this matter and should be allowed to go ahead. However, at the smallest signs of disruption, filibustering or other attempts to derail the process I will probably impose some narrower procedural rules, along the lines I proposed the last time.

TDA, I strongly recommend you create a brief extra section with a bit more of concrete usage data than you have given in the nomination statement, including clearly comparable Google books counts for the different versions. If anybody wishes to present a case against, it would be a good idea for them to do the same. All article insiders, please do not engage in longish threaded discussion, as that will likely deter outside involvement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment – before the discussion starts, can you please replace the hyphen with an dash (like here and here and here and these books)? And perhaps reconsider capitalizing "war" when most sources do not? Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Minor tinkering need not be addressed in this discussion. I would rather not see this diverted by getting bogged down in such trivialities.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly South Ossetia was not a main protagonist. Enough said. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per Vecrumba. -Kai445 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Long overdue. The proposed title certainly predominates in reliable sources as the designation of the conflict.--KoberTalk 18:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neutrality is the issue of the proposed title. While it might be neutral for Russian side (highly controversial), it is clearly pro-Georgian for Ossetian side. The proposed title supports Georgian position which ignores existence of South Ossetia and says that Russia occupied part of Georgian territory. The second reason is that the proposed title is ambiguous and inaccurate. Let's go into what Russia-Georgia war means. It means war between Russia and Georgia, but actually the war was between "Tbilisi" and "Tskhinval(i)" where Russia supported "Tskhinval(i)". The proposed title have primary context stating war between just two countries with mutual claims, which is obviously not true and not neutral. This is similar to Georgia position and potential reader of the article could be offered Georgian position in the very title. From another point of view such the titles have context of that one country declared/started war with another. But the war began on declaration of war with South Ossetia, not with Russia. Reader could think that Georgia declared war with Russia (or that Russia began war with Georgia), what is also misleading.
    Why South Ossetia war is neutral. It doesn't say that South Ossetia is independent, because South Ossetia is common name for that region and South Ossetia is not opposed to Georgia. It doesn't say that South Ossetia is part of Georgia.
    Finally, just a comment on VєсrumЬа's argumentation. First of all South Ossetia may refer to the region too. Moreover, more likely it does refer to the region. Not to the country. I found your statement misleading and confusing. Giving no argumentation you say that the war wouldn't change greatly if we cut every event connected to South Ossetia. Please try to summarize the war without mentioning South Ossetia. For your consideration, the ones who are not among main protagonists are Ukraine and Abkhazia. To others, please try to give arguments that make sense. Also 5 years is not enough for this war to have common name. The war actually is referred by a variety of names and has not common name yet. --Bouron (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    The combatants were Russia and Georgia. There's also a quote--I'll have to track it down--from a Russian general specifically talking about provocative Russian military exercises along the border. It's not by chance Russia was so well positioned to defend its interests regarding Georgia's sovereign territory. To call the war anything else rather implies it wasn't between Russia and Georgia. And Russia's punitive destruction of Georgia's fleet on the Black Sea, for example, had nothing to do with South Ossetian territory, so your own argument of "region" as opposed to combatants fails on that basis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    I have to put in, there were FOUR combatants. The proposed tittle drops out two of them, of which one was involved since the very beginning and suffered heavy, probably the heaviest, casualities. Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Wars are often named after their Principle combatants. For example the Franco-Dutch War, which had many more combatants than this war did, its title refers to the major combatant from each side. While yes there were four combatants in the Russo-Georgian war, the principle combatants from each side were Russia and Georgia respectively.XavierGreen (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, see WP:POVTITLE. The title should be based on WP:COMMONNAME, even if it isn't NPOV. TDL (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – except for the styling errors noted above. Both "Russia-Georgia war" and "Russia-Georgia conflict" occur with 2008 in scholarly articles (Google scholar search) about 4X more frequently than "South Ossetia war" does. The argument that naming the main powers in the conflict this way is too POV, taking a position on the disputed issues, is not convincing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It has been discussed many times before, many times rejected, and no new arguments seem to have appeared. Many wars are named not after the belligirents, but after places, goals, time and various other aspects, such as Winter War, Great Northern War, or Breton War of Succession. Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
So do you have any evidence that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME? TDL (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose User:Bouron makes a compelling argument why the proposed new title is so biased and partial to one side. werldwayd (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
See WP:POVTITLE. Policy dictates that the title should be based on WP:COMMONNAME, even if it isn't NPOV. TDL (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I also find it dubious how some editors consider proposed title POV while having no such problems with current title, which for all practical purposes implies that war was only in South Ossetia, leaving out Russian/separatist offensives in Abkhazia and in uncontested-Georgia.--Staberinde (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. No sources at all use the current title, Russo-Georgian war is the name most commonly used in academia. It is common for wars to be named after their principle belligerents while omitting minor ones. For example the Franco-Dutch War, Polish–Soviet War, the Franco-Prussian War, ect. XavierGreen (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed title is certainly far more common than the current title. Any alleged lack of neutrality of the proposed title is irrelevant due to WP:POVTITLE. TDL (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Närking (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose there have been other wars/conflicts allegedly between Russian and Georgian forces - see List of wars involving Georgia (country). The present name is quite a good one, but if you are going to call it the "Russia-Georgia War", could you at least at the date in - Russia-Georgia War (2008).--Toddy1 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Similar to what Dicklyon said initially, such things are minor tinkerings. There is actually a less cumbersome process for those types of trivial name changes so it is not really an issue.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I've fixed the dash in the title, per the second point in the guideline about en dashes. Graham87 13:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
If you must ;-) I tend to deliberately ignore that part of the MOS, as I believe it matches neither an active consensus of the community nor an established majority practice of good typography elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Putin the war was a preventative strike to liquidate international terrorists

This article shows again how Wikipedia is nothing but another propaganda organ for the NWO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In a recent interview for RT Putin explained that the war was a preventative strike to liquidate international terrorists who were sent by Georgian forces to penetrate Russian territory. "About six or seven years ago when we had to attack Georgian territories, those were not just strikes on Georgia. We targeted militant groups that came very close to Sochi. … Georgian police vehicles were transporting the militants to the Russian border. So we had to take some pre-emptive measures." [5] Närking (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

With all honesty, I think Putin is out of his mind. He became very contradictory recently. Sorry but even I as a Georgian can accept the fact that Saakashvili did a huge mistake and tried to retake South Ossetia by force. It was either out of frustration because his popularity amongst the population was fading away, especialy after the violent crackdown of protests in 2007, so he tried to turn the nation on his side again by claiming it was under attack by Russia. It would also serve to distract from internal problems, which were mounting. He probably concluded that even if he will loose that conflict ( I can't imagine he was thinking about actualy winning it ), he would get the needed international support which he got and wich he used to remain in power. There was a lot of internal heat also after he got re-elected in January 2008. There are plenty of different versions too, but in my eyes this is the most likely one. A personal decision and the nation has to suffer for it.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

John McCain

Could mention that in the 2008 presidential election, John McCain took the Georgian side very strongly, while Obama and W. Bush were more restrained (condemning some of Russia's actions without supporting all of Georgia's actions)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of a planned Russian invasion

Sweden's National Defence Radio Establishment says that they could predict the Russian invasion: "We could see how the Russians moved military units and how things then became silent. That meant everything was in place and that the final preparations for a strike were underway," [6]. Närking (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

United States listed as a Belligerent in the war is grossly inaccurate

On the list of belligerents, the US is cited on the side of Georgia as "Supported By:"; if this is the standard by which all Wiki articles on wars is to be held, then we have some MAJOR re-visioning to do on nearly every war since inception. The source cited for this is a BBC article pertaining to medical supply being flown in following the conflict. That by no means warrants status as a belligerent in a conflict. US soldiers, US equipment, and US personnel did not assist the military capabilities of either side. It needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.217.36 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been against this misleading practice for a long time, and the worst example of this is Portuguese Colonial War. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The section "military analysis" states: "The Georgian air defence early warning and command control tactical system was connected to a NATO Air Situation Data Exchange (ASDE) through Turkey, allowing Georgia to receive data directly from the unified NATO air-defence system.[349]". That seems like NATO equipment assisting the military capabilities of Georgia, though i don't know if it is specifically US equipment, it is clear that Georgia received military assistance of NATO during the war. Seems like a "Supported By: NATO" does look appropriate.2A02:A03F:1A83:C00:BE5F:F4FF:FE1E:F54A (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes by user UA-Victory

The user UA victory has changed the whole article to better fit his point of view of the events leaving out key parts. The objectivity of the article is gone.--Wrant (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This general statement is of almost no use. And please remember to WP:AGF. Please give specific examples of changes you object to. --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure but just compare the versions, for instance the first edit. He deletes every source and part which doesn't fit his POV. and this in the whole article:


The original: During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reclaim the territory.[1] Georgia claimed that it was responding to attacks on its peacekeepers and villages in South Ossetia, and that Russia was moving non-peacekeeping units into the country. However an OSCE monitoring group in Tskhinvali did not record outgoing artillery fire from the South Ossetian side in the hours before the start of Georgian bombardment.[2][3] Two British OSCE observers reported hearing only occasional small-arms fire, but no shelling. According to Der Spiegel, NATO officials attested that minor skirmishes had taken place, but nothing that amounted to a provocation.[4] The Georgian attack caused casualties among Russian peacekeepers, who resisted the assault along with Ossetian militia. Georgia successfully captured most of Tskhinvali within hours. Russia reacted by deploying units of the Russian 58th Army and Russian Airborne Troops into South Ossetia one day later, and launched airstrikes against Georgian forces in South Ossetia and military and logistical targets in Georgia proper. Russia claimed these actions were a necessary humanitarian intervention and peace enforcement.[4][5][6]

After his edit: Increasing tensions escalated during the summer months of 2008. Shelling by Ossetian separatists against Georgian villages began as early as August 1, drawing a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers and other fighters already in the region.[7] Later when Georgia launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reclaim the territory during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008,[8] it stated that it was responding to attacks on its peacekeepers and villages in South Ossetia, and that Russia was moving non-peacekeeping units into the country. Georgia successfully captured most of Tskhinvali within hours. Russia reacted by deploying units of the Russian 58th Army and Russian Airborne Troops into South Ossetia one day later, and launched airstrikes against Georgian forces in South Ossetia and military and logistical targets in Georgia proper. Russia claimed these actions were a necessary humanitarian intervention and peace enforcement.[4][9][10]

Just an example.--Wrant (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • To me, it appears to be getting rid of fluff. Condensing, as was necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, the sentence "Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on August 1, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region." is very controversial. OctoleggedMouse (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Read the article please, I don't understand how you can't notice that this guy is following his own agenda. --Wrant (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The lead was too long and I trimmed it a bit. The statements of OSCE monitors had no place in the lead, but it can be read about in the article as well. The lead is meant only for information and facts. Russian peacekeepers may have been killed during the attack. It's not absolutely confirmed by Western sources that they were killed. If I wanted to censor the fact of the death of Russian peacekeepers, I could have deleted the part about it from "Battle of Tskhinvali" too. Russians even claimed that 2,000 people died during the start of war in Tskhinvali, so we should include it as a fact in the lead too that 2,000 people perished during the attack? --UA Victory (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, good call taking that out of the lead. Details like that don't belong there. --NeilN talk to me 17:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Open your eyes this guy is trying to push his agenda here! I don't have enough time to overwork the whole article again. And why do you call it "Russo.." not "Russian.." not a single article in Wikipedia starts with "Russo..". IMHO this guy gets payed for this take a look at his account. --Wrant (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, you're not bothering to take thirty seconds and verifying your facts. See this? Scan the list for all the wars. --NeilN talk to me 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Many other wars that Russia fought in have articles about them named "Russo-... War". Here are a few examples.
—Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The title is irrelevant to this discussion anyway. I do not understand what the problem is. Can you please clarify? If not, please stop making false accusations. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • RGloucester, I have notified the user of the Digwuren restrictions and logged the warning. I hope it won't be necessary to take further action--the editor should discuss, obviously, and do so courteously. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ King, Charles (2009-10-11). "Clarity in the Caucasus?". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2011-12-24.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference washingtonpost.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference nyt-20081106 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c "The West Begins to Doubt Georgian Leader". Der Spiegel. 15 September 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-09-17. Retrieved 2008-09-15. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Russia and Eurasia". Heritage.org. Archived from the original on 2009-05-28. Retrieved 2009-05-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Kramer, Andrew E.; Barry, Ellen (2008-08-13). "Russia, in Accord With Georgians, Sets Withdrawal". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-24.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference shelling was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ King, Charles (2009-10-11). "Clarity in the Caucasus?". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2011-12-24.
  9. ^ "Russia and Eurasia". Heritage.org. Archived from the original on 2009-05-28. Retrieved 2009-05-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Russia_NYTimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Casualty figures

Great again!!! 143 killed even if the officials said on the third of September 2008 that there are more than 156 http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19384 in the end there were 171 killed. Great propaganda work on this article never expected that it would work out that well! Not even the Georgian article itself states figures like this. http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_II.pdf page --Wrant (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am working to upgrade this article to FA and I didn't even change the number of casualties, because I did not have time to check this part yet. Why are you always trying to blame me of something? You have to understand that there are numerous other editors who edit this article and I don't hold the exclusive rights for this article. Do your research before you try to throw around the accusations. I did search and found the revision responsible for the changes that you dislike. --UA Victory (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Great the changes I dislike, they are simply lies which come from an IP. Strange so far you've undone every edit which doesn't fit your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
And what may be my POV? All I did was condensing which means that article was too long to read and I shortened it. But the details that I removed, are not lost forever, they still are available in the linked main articles. This page "Russo-Georgian war" should be summary page, not the sum of the main articles. I also did fact-checking with the given sources and fixed factual inaccuracies. --UA Victory (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Then why don't you correct the casualty figure ? --Wrant (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the source says so. I am aware that there are multiple sources cited that claim different figures. I am planning to fact-check the casualties later. Have patience and assume WP:AGF --UA Victory (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not a source but a BLOG. So did you checked the sources? --Wrant (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No , I did not do the infobox yet. I am only halfway though. I am going to do the infobox after I finish checking the whole article. Actually, this work is taking a lot more time than I anticipated originally. --UA Victory (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"I am just trying to find the sources that best fit my narrative and I am no way just some butthurt ukrainian trying to write an evil russki story from Sakashvilis point of view..." /s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.100.135.204 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
So strange that someone speaks against the usage of the blogs as sources when he clearly used it as a source himself. --UA Victory (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The casualty figures of the GAF are wrong. They must be 170 killed. There was even a monument raised with exactly 170 stones according to the number of fallen. This is the official figure of the Ministry of Defence of Georgia. They have a full lsit of the personnel who fell in the war, what unit they served in, the amount of missing personnel and DNA identified personnel etc. http://mod.gov.ge/?page=agvistos-omi&shida=gmirebi&lang=en&lang=ge Why do you change it .... ? TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am saying I don't get it why this guy changes them. --Wrant (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What did I change? Today I did checking of another section, which took several hours. Now only the last section is left unattended. After the work is done on the last section, I will look at casualty figures. Please have some patience. --UA Victory (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed the figure on wounded Georgian servicemen because it doesn't match the one in the source at all http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=597. Human Rights Watch also had an earlier figure from 2008 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/appendix_ru.pdf wich puts the number of wounded to 1198. The newer figure from 2009 is 947, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I don't understand why the numbers in the sources are not being correctly written down here. Such huge unrealistic figures don't even make sense when you put them in relation to the number of killed. Please keep an eye on it. Less POV more facts. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: I see now where you got the figure from. The section "A SUMMARY OF RUSSIAN ATTACK" is from August 25, 2008 just a few days after the war and is outdated. The newer figures from 5 August, 2009 are right above them in the document "BASIC FACTS: CONSEQUENCES OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN GEORGIA". That's where I looked first when the link got me to the main site http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=GEO&sec_id=597. However the more current one must be used so I've corrected it. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

2 seconds then revert

The new york times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=0

Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.


And from the OSCE monitors

http://web.archive.org/web/20090514033051/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5114401.ece

it was Georgia that launched the first military strikes against Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital.

“It was clear to me that the [Georgian] attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” he said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town.”

Last month Young gave a similar briefing to visiting military attachés, in which he reportedly supported the monitors’ assessment that there had been little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali in which scores of civilians and Russian peacekeepers died.


The key sentence 

little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali 
little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali 
little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali 
little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali 
little or no shelling of Georgian villages on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali

But to me it is clear that people want to angle the article so I will not even attempt to revert the revert, have a nice life Lolanaive12 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lolanaive12 you might want to look at WP:BRD and WP:AGF. Discussion is a given on an article like this. Now, looking at sources I see: "In two other villages, interviews did not support Georgian claims. In Avnevi, several residents said the shelling stopped before the cease-fire and did not resume until roughly the same time as the Georgian bombardment. In Tamarasheni, some residents said they were lightly shelled on the evening of Aug. 7, but felt safe enough not to retreat to their basements. Others said they were not shelled until Aug 9."
The current source has, "Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, who spoke in a telephone briefing Aug. 14."
It is very clear to me the sentence you removed needs better, independent sources if it is to stay. --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Beligrents

How exactly does an assumption such as "Supported with military intel by NATO" fit into the Beligrents section .... ? I think someone's very POV here. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What is a "Beligrent"? 2.31.162.28 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinions needed

After I did fact-checking and improved most of the article, only the last section Combatants is left unattended. After some condensing, the entire article is still too long. I propose splitting this section into entirely separate article "Military analysis of the Russo-Georgian war". What do you think? --UA Victory (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The table that contains the description of military hardware is mostly original research with very few sources. Should I remove it entirely? --UA Victory (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It came to my attention that the user 94.226.14.216 is trying to make unsourced changes to the table. I have reverted his/her edits, but he/she still returns. I warned the user on its talk page and I hope if this is repeated, he/she will be blocked. I also checked the contributions and they mostly appear to be unsourced or OR. I noticed that the user's first edit of this article is in the section Military equipment. It appears that since than the section mostly has been rewritten by the user without citing the sources. --UA Victory (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The user has to understand that Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia, citations to reliable sources are required. See WP:VERIFICATION and WP:RS for additional information. Without the sources the changes appear to be WP:OR or Good faith edits. If the user can't cite the sources, then one must refrain from editing the articles and wait for somebody that may update the articles and will cite the sources. --UA Victory (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have finished working on the article and now it's almost ready to be promoted to FA. Maybe some copy-editing is needed. But the table Military equipment in the last section is mostly OR. Out of 32 cells that contain data, only 7 is fully sourced and 7 partially or incorrectly referenced. I did some research but couldn't find the relevant sources.

Other editors, please respond as I need your opinions: Should I remove this subsection entirely as it seems that nobody will rework it in the foreseeable future? --UA Victory (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I decided to remove the subsection entirely because it's mostly OR and contained some dead or unreliable sources. In case anyone is interested and is willing to rework the table, here it is in this revision. --UA Victory (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FA?

This article was a real mess before I started to work on it. After two months of hard work there is the current version. I had to condense the long sections Background and Active stage. For instance, the subsection Battle of Tskhinvali filled the length of two pages vertically and now it is one-third of what it used to be. I also did fact-checking of every statement and overall clean-up. I've requested the help from the guild of copy-editors for grammar but nobody has yet taken up the request. I would like to nominate for FAC. Do you agree that FAC nomination would be a good idea? —UA Victory (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The usual route is to make it a good article first. Please see WP:GAN. RGloucester — ☎ 01:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If the article gets promoted to GA, then can it be nominated for FA review immediately? I worked hard on the article in order to meet FA criteria, especially the verifiability of all facts. I'll wait for the guild of copy-editors to look at the article and then I'll proceed. —UA Victory (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. The best thing to do is nominate it for a GA now, as it takes some time for the review process to be completed. RGloucester — ☎ 05:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The size is still bigger than the recommended maximum size - 100KB. It seems that some editors have the tool that checks the size of readable prose. Can you check the size of readable prose and write here? —UA Victory (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The best thing to do is nominate for a GA, and then allow the reviewer to decide on sizing. Getting a GA nomination started is the best thing you can do, here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Admins, can you semi-protect this article so IP addresses and newly registered users can't edit this article? Recently some users have changed the lead because it doesn't fit their POV. They apparently don't like the mention that the tensions were further escalated on 1 August by the separatists. Especially I liked this reason "Founded as an anti-communist propaganda news source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe, RFE/RL received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency until 1972" though even if true, it can not be valid for the article written in 2008. I don't have time to engage in edit-warring and reverting. —UA Victory (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Go to WP:RPP to request page protection. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I went to RPP, but my request was declined. The good news is that the article is now copy-edited. --UA Victory (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I've only begun the copyedit (see history), because it's very long and a potential GAN (in the future; it's too unstable now). Due to the present level of activity, though, I may call it quits for now (see Wikipedia talk:GOCE/REQ for any discussion about that). Miniapolis 13:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I checked the article history, and since it's stable for now I'll continue the copyedit (which will take a few more days; I'll tag the talk page and ping the requester when I'm done). All the best, Miniapolis 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Miniapolis Thank you for your quality copy-editing. The prose is better now. However, your several changes had altered the facts, so I had to make minor copy-editing myself to restore the facts as they were. --UA Victory (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The article is ready to be nominated for GA review. However, the article still needs some more images, but I hope that they can be added later when the article becomes GA.
I expanded the lead. Before the expansion, the lead summarized only the first five sections, after expansion the lead now summarizes humanitarian and infrastructure impact, international reaction, media war and international relations after the war. I was unable to summarize the last section - military analysis of Combatants.
But the IP users still vandalize the lead like this recent edit, trying to change the facts and make it look like that Georgia suddenly attacked South Ossetia. I don't know how to stop vandals. The article must be stable before nominating for GA review. The lead must reflect all sections and subsections, and by deleting this sentence, the mention about pre-war clashes is omitted and the reader won't get to know that the situation became the most intense one week before the war. --UA Victory (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester How did you find this new map that you've added? —UA Victory (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I follow the graphists page, so I see what's going on there. That's a quite nice map. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's nice. I remember in the past I searched for the similar maps and all I could find was this low-quality map. --UA Victory (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester I see that you've corrected the main article image. Can you correct this error in the legend: "Abkazian and South Ossetian territory loyal…". --UA Victory (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to fix that, but it isn't editable text, but pathing. I'm not that good with changing such things, as it requires deleting that phrase entirely and restarting. I suggest you take that over to the graphics lab if you want it fixed. Someone there, with the appropriate knowledge, could fix it really fast. RGloucester — ☎ 14:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not that critical, but it's strange that the image is rated as FM, and yet it has spelling errors. --UA Victory (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I temporarily withdrew GA nomination. When this article stabilizes, I'll renominate again for GA review in a week or two. --UA Victory (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't wise. It can take a year for GA nominations, and removing oneself from the queue means it will take much longer. RGloucester — ☎ 14:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've restored it. It is VERY UNWISE to remove a GA from the queue. Very unwise. RGloucester — ☎ 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A year? That's too long! Anyway, since nobody is reviewing the article yet, I was making small improvements from day to day. But the GA criteria state that the article shouldn't change from day to day, so I thought that the reviewer may look at history since the nomination date and fail the article for this reason, so I decided to temporarily remove and renominate later. --UA Victory (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a large backlog. Regardless, those criteria mean no great changes. Minor improvements don't hurt, at all. RGloucester — ☎ 14:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Media

Two paragraphs removed for the following reasons: 1. In the first paragraph, even if the guy had provided a couple of examples, the statement about western media would still clearly be POV because it is about the general tone of hundreds of media outlets in "the west". (I don't believe it was correct anyway but perhaps that is only my impression.) 2. It comes from a western expert chosen by the state controlled media of one of the parties to the conflict. 3. The second paragraph is an even more irrelevant opinion by "The eXile" - the guy who said "Russian women are 142 million times hotter than all the Western girls combined" 4. If these paragraphs on the so called media war were to be allowed a special place in the main article they should have been most relevant and indisputable. Clearly they are far from that.PussBroad (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Serious issues with Mocow Defence Brief

The statements of the author of "The August War between Russia and Georgia" http://www.webcitation.org/5fm4fGQ5j Mikhail Barabanov are very POV and he gives personal estimates about the losses of the GAF without any references or further elaborating what he bases those figures off. It is blindly taken as primary source without any considaration if those claims and statements Mr Barabanov provides might be false and are just POV clearly aiming to mock or ridicule the opposing side. I also wonder how anyone believes claims like "Georgia lost its air and naval forces and air-defense systems entirely" are actualy true. Georgia lost most of it's naval capabilities but not even there it lost it's entire force. What was left of it got transfered into the coast guard. It lost neither all of it's air force ( in fact the losses taken mostly on ground weren't even anything close to decicive or would have prevented the GAF to continue air sorties ) nor did it loose all of it's air defence. That is simply a lie. I Propose to look over it and correct the casaulty segment. Also someone deleted the detailed casaulty list and for some reason refuses to mention Russian casualties too. There are numerous detailed figures mostly in Russian though, about how many tanks, armored vehicles and soft vehicles Russia lost. That has to be taken in consideration as well when having a segment about casualties .... TheMightyGeneral (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged use of foreign mercenaries" section

I've spent several days carefully copyediting this article for a GAN. This reliably-sourced section (which seems to have been in the article for a while), albeit a footnote to the war, was deleted by Hilltrot (ostensibly a new editor) with a poorly-reasoned edit summary. The interface wouldn't let me undo the edit because of a link to archive.is elsewhere in the article, so I rolled it back (rollbacks are noted as minor edits). Volunteer Marek promptly deleted the section again with a bad-faith edit summary not addressing the removal of reliably-sourced content. I don't like edit-warring, and I like tag-teaming even less. Miniapolis 20:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How was my edit-summary "bad-faithed"? Because I pointed out that you marked a major, controversial, edit as "minor"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above. You still haven't addressed your (and Hilltrot's) removal of reliably-sourced content, which seems more "controversial" than its restoration. Miniapolis 21:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I did not in any way collaborate with Volunteer Marek on this.
I have been going around eliminating certain things that the Russian government has said and have been proven to be completely false or have been completely lacking in evidence. This particular edit has been one of those examples. You used two sources in your edit. RT is not a reliable source in any way shape or form. The Wall Street Journal article also doubts its veracity. In fact, the Wall Street Journal writes its article with a "tongue in cheek" fashion. So, there is no reliable source for what was written. Let me repeat this you have no reliable source.
The problem is compounded by the fact that a real living person who is completely innocent and has no relation to this conflict is mentioned by name. Wikipedia's policy is very specific in discussing a living person you had better have a ton of WP:PROVEIT. Especially when this person is not a public figure and does not have the protections a celebrity or head of state would have. What was written could get this person killed. With flimsy gossip being the best source, it's best to follow caution and not include this, if for no other reason than to respect human life.
Although an interesting side note at the time, it was quickly proven false and had no actual effect on the war. It is simply not important and should not be included for that reason as well.Hilltrot (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Title capitalisation

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

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that sources are capitalizing the title as a proper name. Cúchullain t/c 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Georgian war → Russo-Georgian War
I'm just surprised how 'war' isn't capitalized yet per MOS:CAPS#Military_terms. Does anyone have a good explanation to this? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: I think this can be considered a technical request, and easily fixed. What say you, Anthony Appleyard? RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Capitalization is only for events that have widely accepted, conventionalized proper names, such as the Second World War or the Thirty Years' War. Last time the title question came up here, the result of the discussion was that no such single conventionalized name exists (yet) for this war in English. We are using this as a descriptive title rather than as a proper name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(Oh, and no, this is definitely not something to be treated as a non-contentious technical move; somebody tried that just a few months ago and thoroughly got his fingers burnt over it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If you say so. I wish the English language retained the integrity it once had. There was a time, not too long ago in history, when no one here would've even considered not capitalising "war" in this context. Such is life, I suppose. RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Try to think of any war with a "descriptive" name on Wikipedia and you'll notice that all of them are capitalized: First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Franco-Thai War, Mexican-American War, Iran-Iraq War, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War..etc.
I don't see why this should be an exception. I believe it is a technical request, since MoS guidelines are more of a priority than sources in this case. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Recent publications use the capitalized name [7] [8] and researchers use it too [9] --UA Victory (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Your examples show the opposite of what you claim. The first one is using capitalized "War" only in the heading (which is fully title-cased by convention, hence doesn't count for us), but lower-case "war" in the text itself. The second uses the phrase only in the heading and has no relevant attestation in the text at all. The third, finally, does use capitalization. What you need to do here is not to cherry-pick individual sources, but look at a representative sample of many, and of course watch out for the linguistic context in each. If you can show that there is what you suggest, a trend towards capitalization in recent sources, that would be interesting, but you can't prove that with a handful of cherrypicked links like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I only did a quick search. I am aware that many sources use different names, but We can't use multiple names for a single article, right? I don't know why we should make this issue such a big deal. The capitalization won't hurt per MOS:CAPS. --UA Victory (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
        • No, indeed, we have to choose one, and indeed the current wording is as good a choice as any. But capitalization makes a difference, because it implies that something is a widely accepted, conventionalized proper name, while the presence of so many alternatives suggests that it isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Let's wait and find out what will be the decision of majority. Even Second Chechen War has a different name [10]. I will stand by my decision. I am actually glad that this article has no other issues except capitalization in the title. I have looked at this article on other language Wikipedias and most of them are too short. Russian language article is the longest and comprehensive one (but contains too much propaganda and anti-Georgian/anti-Western bias); Georgian language article (despite being FA) apparently needs some cleanup; the German one has named the war as "Kaukasuskrieg 2008" in German; Latvian one has no images at all; Estonian one has only timeline; Vietnamese one says in the lead that Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico have recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia (in fact only 2 Latin American countries have recognized them - Venezuela and Nicaragua); Spanish WP lists North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as combatants on the Russian side against Georgia, while on the Georgian side Turkey and Czech Republic are listed. —UA Victory (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – In the English language, we capitalise words that function like a proper name. This may not be the "sole" proper name for the war, which is true, but it is serving as a de facto proper name in this case, as the proper name for the article itself, and for the war. Hence, it should be capitalised. All titles should be capitalised in this manner, and Wikipedia has strayed too far in the direction of the ungrammatical. This is not an issue of sourcing. Usage varies greatly, and is more than likely determined by the style guides used by respective publications. This is a matter of style and editorial judgement, to be decided based on the editorial principles that we choose to endorse. I choose to favour the standards of the English language, that is, to capitalise names. This is a name. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You are entitled to your preferences, but they are in blatant opposition to Wikipedia's policies. One of our most basic rules in titling pages is that not "all titles" should be capitalized merely because they are the "proper name for the article itself". We use normal sentence case in page titles. And as for whether this phrase is a proper name for the war as such, our guideline very explicitly says that we decide that based on whether there is "consistent capitalization" in reliable sources (There isn't.) Like it or not, we go by sources here, not by RGloucester's personal intuition. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with "policy" (MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are guidelines), and hence I'm stating my opinion, as is my right. You don't have to listen to me if you don't want to. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unless someone can show me sources that use this name in capitalized form. Wikipedia should not make up its own proper names for conflicts.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is your requested scholarly source --UA Victory (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is being "made up" here because we follow MoS guidelines on this. We already know there are many sources using the capitalized form, but whether it is common or not will not be confirmed (the same goes for the non-capitalized form). This is indeed one of the few cases where WP:COMMONNAME cannot and should not be applied. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
One source is not a lot, but it's better than nothing. I change my to neutral. By the way, the title should use "–", not "-"—FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No, a hyphen is appropriate in this instance. See MOS:DASH.

* Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry

RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


  • Strong oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise. Capitalisation of wars should only be used when it is consistently and predominantly used by sources. This conflict goes by many names, and "Russo-Georgian War", is just one of them and "Russian-Georgian W/war" or "August W/war" are used just as often if not more (as are other more descriptive ones, such "the conflict between Goergia and Russia" et cetera, while nobody uses "the conflict between the Axis and the Allies" as a name for WWII, or "the Holy Roman Catholic-Protestant civil war" for the 30 Year War).
    Capitalising that title would mislead readers into believing "RGW" is indeed such an generally accepted name, and considering the impact wikipedia has on public knowledge, it would be a grievous failure of our encyclopedic duty in promoting the usage of such a name, instead of following sources. walk victor falk talk 13:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Capitalisation does not imply any such thing. It is merely proper grammar, to capitalise a title. No reader will be able to tell the difference, other than to wonder why it isn't capitalised, as in standard grammar, it would be. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Because this kind of capitalization is not "grammar" (rules governing the structure and syntax of language), it is a matter of style guide (rules about layout, typography and publishing), and wikipedia's in-house guides, wp:moscaps and wp:nccaps, for a variety of reasons (such as e.g. facilitating pipelinking) deprecate capitalization, both in article titles and generally throughout wikipedia.
The relevant example from wp:nccaps#examples is "1993 Russian constitutional crisis", which is completely analogous to the subject of this RM, and would indeed be capitalized as "1993 Russian Constitutional Crisis" according to certain styles. walk victor falk talk 19:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The correct word would be "orthography", and could commonly be considered a form of "grammar". Whether it is a matter of style or not is up for debate. Firstly, as I've said previously, I disagree with the guidelines at MOS on this matter. Secondly, I would not say that these two examples are similar, as this name is used by a proper name by many different sources, whereas that is purely a descriptive title. RGloucester — ☎ 19:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The "1993 Russian constitutional crisis" example would be a better analogy if this article were at 1998 Russo-Georgian war which reads more like a descriptive. The fact that there is no date in the title makes it read even more like a proper name as there has been at least one other Russo-Georgian war in the last century alone. —  AjaxSmack  03:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Most other articles on Wars on Wikipedia use "War" with a Capital "W". IJA (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:UE. The article is not about Russo-Georgian wars in general but a specific war called the "Russo-Georgian War". —  AjaxSmack  02:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Jaqeli 18:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
A brief note. In the event that this page is moved, the following pages will need to be moved:

RGloucester — ☎ 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Official Russian POV pushers

I've noticed that it has been attempted several times to remove from the lead the sentence about pre-war clashes and shelling of the civilians ([11], [12], [13]). But they didn't remove the subsection in the article about the pre-war clashes. Now I can guess they thought that the majority of the readers don't read past the lead and by removing this sentence, they would distort the facts and imply that Georgia "suddenly" attacked South Ossetia. Fortunately, those vandalisms were always reverted to the last stable version. Today an IP editor from Russia (what a coincidence) again removed it and opened a new case on WP:RSN. It is a bit surprising 6 years later that Russians are still persistent to portray Russia and pro-Russian separatists as the sole "victim" of the war.

I want to emphasize that per WP:LEAD the lead must reflect the main aspects of the article. By deleting this sentence, the lead won't reflect Prelude section and most readers won't know that the situation became most intense one week before the war. Without the proper lead, the article will lose its neutrality.

AFAIK Radio Liberty is a well established news outlet and should be considered reliable source per WP:RS, because "well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". If these editors are disputing the fact that there were pre-war clashes and are implying that Georgia "suddenly" attacked South Ossetia, there are numerous other sources that confirm this pre-war clashes.

The cited source in the lead is not the sole source that talks about the shelling of the civilians. There are numerous other sources, that can't be disputed.

  • The EU report, page 251, says that "To the extent that the attacks on Georgian villages, police and peacekeepers were conducted by South Ossetian militia, self-defence in the form of on-the-spot reactions by Georgian troops was necessary and proportionate and thus justified under international law."
  • A news article published by Chicago Tribune on 9 August 2008, that can't be clearly labelled as propaganda, says: "The harsher fighting erupted when separatist forces began shelling Georgian villages Thursday evening, just hours after Saakashvili called for a cease-fire and resumption of peace talks."
  • Der Spiegel's reporting about the 2008 war was seen as favouring Russia at the time, but even it published an article on 25 August 2008, where this is written:

    At about 10 p.m. on Aug. 5, teacher Sisino Javakhishvili, after bathing her granddaughter, went into the courtyard of her house in the Georgian village of Nikosi, three kilometers from the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, to fetch water. She had heard gunfire before, but suddenly she sensed that it was serious. "No one here is surprised by individual gunshots or even machine-gun fire, but this time it was truly massive," she says.

  • The more recent scholar study published in Turkey in 2013, page 201, says: "In August 2008, Russia’s image as a peacemaker was badly damaged by its invasion of Georgia. Following local skirmishes in South Ossetia in late July and early August, Russia launched a mass invasion of not only that region but Abkhazia as well, the nature and speed of which led many observers to conclude had been premeditated."

If these sources aren't enough, independent Russian sources and analysts can also be cited. They are quite interesting, because they contradict the official Russian version.

  • The Tanks of August, the book published by the Moscow-based CAST, says (p. 44): "On the night of August 1-2, heavy exchanges of fire broke out across the border. The sides used grenade launchers and mortars. The number of Ossetian casualties rose to six, including one soldier of the North Ossetian Peacekeeper Battalion. The number of injured reached 15, including several civilians. On the Georgian side, six civilians and one policeman were injured."
  • The Times reported in August 2008 that Pavel Felgenhauer wrote in Novaya Gazeta that the plan was for the "Ossetians to intentionally provoke the Georgians" so that "any response, harsh or soft, would be used as an occasion for the attack".

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.

  • Yulia Latynina, Russian journalist wrote that Georgia didn't need small-scale clashes with the separatists, because if the Georgians had had military plans for reintegration of South Ossetia, then they would have needed secrecy. But South Ossetia was in need to shell the enemy, like Hamas or Hezbollah do. Original Russian text:

    Во-вторых, а зачем, собственно, грузинам перестрелки? Главный фактор победы — внезапность. Армии и разведки тратят миллионы на то, чтобы обмануть противника и скрыть свои военные приготовления. С точки зрения международного права, Южная Осетия — часть Грузии. Чтобы ввести в Цхинвали войска, Грузия не нуждается в предварительной эскалации конфликта. Наоборот, она нуждалась в полной секретности. Другое дело — Южная Осетия. Она нуждается в таких перестрелках по тем же причинам, по которым в них нуждаются «Хезболла» и ХАМАС.

  • The book, Russia and Its Near Neighbours, was published in 2012 and also includes analysis of some Russian experts. See page 94 for Andrey Illarionov's report that on 28 July 2008, South Ossetian forces fired at Joint Peacekeeping Forces and OSCE observers. On 29 July 2008, South Ossetians shelled the villages under Georgian control. On 6 and 7 August, South Ossetians shelled a number of ethnic Georgian villages.
  • See page 98 in the same book, where Yulia Latynina's comments on Tagliavini report are given. One of them: "...So when Ossetian 'volunteers' burn Georgian villages - that is not a war. But if they [the Georgians] respond to this, then here you, accursed ones, have started a war."

Is there any doubt left that several editors are not interested in the truth and simply try to dismiss the facts that don't fit their POV? I can't even imagine a huge influx of Russian (and pro-Russian) users on sixth anniversary on 8 August 2014, who will likely try to vandalize the article to spread their POV. I doubt if there is any protection against this. --UA Victory (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I will agree that a lot of vandalism has occurred. I will try to help out and come by once a week to check. I have my own fires to check, so I can't promise to check everyday.Hilltrot (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely the skirmishes between 1 and 7 of August have to be mentioned in the lead. However not everyone blames Ossetians for starting the shelling, like Radio Liberty does. Maybe it's better just to write about clashes in the lead and go into the details. Alæxis¿question? 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Some sources don't put the blame on anybody specifically, but others do. The only ones that blame Georgians for shelling, are Ossetians, but their claim is not supported by scholars or neutral journalists. Here is another scholar article, written by Ariel Cohen, that says that South Ossetian separatists attacked Georgian villages. "On Thursday of last week, South Ossetian separatists, supported by Moscow, escalated their machine gun and mortar fire attacks against neighboring Georgian villages." --UA Victory (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Today the lead section was vandalized again. This is the fifth attempt. I restored the deleted content and added new sources. This source clearly says that,

In July and August 2008 the situation in South Ossetia deteriorated sharply. Georgian positions and settlements in South Ossetia were targeted by Ossetian separatist militias. Serious clashes occurred between the two sides in the week before 8 August.

Anyway, does anyone ever notice such lame attempts to distort the shortened timeline? --UA Victory (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

there is no problem to use a large number of information sources. who say the opposite. Your sources are not the reason for the change in the causes of war, is not a reason to change the one who attacked first. first attacked Georgia. small fights were between 1989 and 2008, many many many times.89.105.158.243 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you say that Georgia attacked the peaceful Ossetians for no reason? Did you read the sources? All say that the clashes between 1 August and 7 August, were more serious and intense than previous ones that preceded. The clashes that began on 1 August, are notable and should be included. Even the EU report acknowledged that "The events on 1-2 August were assessed by the OSCE Mission to Georgia as the most serious outbreak of fire since the 2004 conflict." --UA Victory (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

your personal opinion. this is very small. any war. before 8,8,8. does not change the fact. Georgia used his army to attack on residential areas Ossetian cities. attacked Ossetia from all directions. can be you shall say that it was excessive use of force?. Alas. is Georgia's aggression against Ossetia. this aggression lasted for from 1990. Ossetia is located inside the peacekeepers with a UN mandate for so many years before 8,8,889.105.158.243 (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, it's according to the respected sources. Those clashes could as well be responsible for this war. They definitely escalated the existing tensions. Nobody is denying here that Georgia launched a military offensive against South Ossetia. But the question is why? No war starts without no reason. What happened before 7 August? Pre-war timeline is quite a substantial study and should not be omitted from the lead. Also, Georgian use of force can't be called "aggression" because Georgia acted inside its internationally recognized boundaries. Legal definition states that an act of aggression occurs only against another widely recognized sovereign state. If you insist, do you also call the use of force by Russia against Chechnya "aggression" too? It's funny you mention 8,8,8 because on this date Georgia didn't attack Russia; it was Russia that attacked Georgia. This date is used only pro-Russian sources.
I am calling for other neutral editors to express their opinions --UA Victory (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue is still controversial and the sources which support it are all pro-Georgian. Giving the fact for granted is a straining.--217.201.195.73 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the Ossetian separatists have really started shelling Georgian villages on August 1, but suggesting that this was the cause of the war is a POV which agrees with the Georgian or pro-Georgian narrative of the war.--217.201.195.73 (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The sources are written by the reputable and independent researchers that studied the situation on the ground. Even if the sources can be labelled as pro-Georgian, why should we give priority to pro-Russian ones? We should remember that during and after the war, Russians lied practically about everything (2,000 dead Ossetians, Genocide and Russian withdrawal). Please, provide alternative and newer sources that support the claim that the violence since 1 August was initiated by the Georgians.
Where does it say that the war was started by the Ossetian separatists? Nowhere in the lead is specified that the war was started by the separatists. If we omit these events and say that the violence started on 7 August, when Georgia started a military offensive, the lead becomes untrue and supports pro-Russian POV that Georgia out of nowhere attacked the separatists. Including both events is a neutral description of the escalations.
P.S. Yesterday marked the day that the sixth POV vandalism occurred and today was the seventh one. Quite amusing, that both IP editors appear to be from Italy. --UA Victory (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the sources you cited to support your opinion (The_Tanks_of_August, page 44-45) says:
"The countdown to the war may have started on August 1. A Georgian Рolice pickup truck, a Toyota Hilux, was blown up at 0800 by an improvised explosive device planted on the side of a detour road between Georgia proper and a Georgian enclave to the north of Tskhinvali. Five policemen were injured. The Georgians had no doubt that the South Ossetian separatists were responsible. At 18:17 of the same day, snipers of the Georgian Interior Ministry's special task force retaliated by attacking the border checkpoints of the South Ossetian Interior Ministry. Four Ossetians were killed and seven injured, most of them South Ossetian Interior Ministry servicemen. On the night of August 1-2, heavy exchanges of fire broke out across the border. The sides used grenade launchers and mortars. The number of Ossetian casualties rose to six, including one solder of the North Ossetian Рeacekeeper Battalion. The number of injured reached 15, including several civilian The period of August 2-5 was relatively quiet, with only a few sporadic exchanges of small arms fire. But on August 6, the exchanges intensified. Mortar and small arms fire continued from both sides all through the night of August 6-7. Fourteen people were injured in Tskhinvali, most of them peaceful civilians, and another four in the neighboring South Ossetian village." which is quite different from what you claim.--217.201.195.73 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your given source was not cited by me. That source is given for this claim "On 1 August, a Georgian police lorry was blown up at 8 am by an IED on the road near Tskhinvali, injuring five Georgian policemen," and also for this "During the night of 1–2 August, grenade-launcher and mortar fire was exchanged. Six Ossetians were killed, and fifteen injured; six Georgian civilians and one policeman were injured." Don't try to distort the facts. The sources given for the violence on 1 August are [14], [15], and [16]. I don't claim anything, it's all according to the sources.
Your given source clearly implies that the South Ossetians were first to attack the Georgians by organizing a terrorist act. Even your source does not deny that there were fire exchanges between Georgians and South Ossetians, however it does not specify who initiated this exchange. Your source also says that the Georgian civilians were killed. How could they be killed if not attacked by South Ossetians? Your source does not contradict other sources, but fills in the gaps. The whole article does not rely on the single source. It's a combination of different facts from the the multitude of sources to get the whole picture.
Do you know what the purpose of the lead is? See WP:LEAD. The lead must reflect the whole article and should include the most important facts from the article body. You can't deny that the fact you deleted was not important.
You clearly are disrupting the article and pushing pro-Russian POV. --UA Victory (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You did this edit [17] and you cited "the tank of august" as a source of your pro-Gerogian claims. The article must be NPOV and if you include in the lead a controversial fact (who started shelling) as a given fact, you introduce in the article a POV content.--217.201.195.73 (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
IP editor, the link you posted is not useful. You need to post a "diff". The way to create a diff is to go to the page history, and compare the two versions you want to compare. Then post the URL. This only works correctly if you create the diff starting at the article history. If you go forwards and backwards in your comparisons, the URLs do not show what you need them to.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't cite this source in the article body, but I cited it on the talk page to show that there indeed were fire exchanges that started on 1 August. However, you favourite source doesn't say that the Georgians attacked the civilians.
Now look what have you done to the article. You've deleted the fact from the article body that you don't like and made the article a mess. The fact that you added ("On August 1, a Georgian police pickup truck was blown up at 08:00 by an IED on the road near Tskhinvali, injuring five Georgian policemen....") was already in the article. Your editing can be considered disruptive if the text is duplicated or the article is bloated. I'll have to restore the previous version and please don't revert.
You didn't give any logical explanation for the removal of facts except that it was Georgian POV (actually, neither the authors or publishers of the sources are Georgian) and gave another source that does not contradict the fact that there was violence on 1 August. Although your source doesn't specify who began attacking the civilians, you have to understand that Wikipedia is a combination of different facts from the the multitude of sources. --UA Victory (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I have difficulty seeing validity in the repeated edits by the IP editor
and a different edit:
The sources being cited back up the text that the IP editor keeps deleting.
The article text does not say that the shelling caused the conflict. It merely states that it happened on 1st August. Maybe the problem is that person using the IPs in Italy incorrectly understands the article - maybe because they are using machine translation from English to Russian or Italian.
Is the IP editor disputing that the shelling took place?--Toddy1 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

UA Victory, you say that "The fact that you added ("On August 1, a Georgian police pickup truck was blown up at 08:00 by an IED on the road near Tskhinvali, injuring five Georgian policemen....") was already in the article", where? I don't see it. You say that "neither the authors or publishers of the sources are Georgian", but they are all from NATO countries which support Georgia and have a pro-Georgian view of the events. We have to consider, and include in the article, even the point of view of the Russia and South Ossetia. We have to find source from third countries which are not involved to support one or the others of the contenders. The IP editor is disputing that the shelling was started by Ossetians and that the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia was a consequence of this.--217.201.195.73 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC) I did not deleted the sources because the same sources are cited elsewhere and the article text in the lead suggest that the shelling caused the conflict.--217.201.195.73 (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Stating (in the lead and in the article) that "the Ossetian separatists started shelling Georgian villages on August 1, drawing sporadic response from the Georgian peacekeepers in the region" de facto means to suggest that the war was initiated by the Ossetians and the Georgian invasion was simply a response to the attack suffered.--217.201.195.73 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that the Ossetians did not shell Georgian villages on 1st August 2008? Before you interfered with it, the article was citing three sources that say that they did.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
If you really are from Italy, it's a bit surprising that you don't trust NATO. As far I remember, Italy is NATO member. What do you have against NATO?
Not all of them are from NATO countries. Oleg Orlov is Russian independent expert. Since when is Russia a NATO country?
The text you added was already in the second paragraph. "On 1 August, a Georgian police lorry was blown up at 8 am by an IED on the road near Tskhinvali, injuring five Georgian policemen". Also second part of your text was in the third paragraph. "During the night of 1–2 August, grenade-launcher and mortar fire was exchanged. Six Ossetians were killed, and fifteen injured; six Georgian civilians and one policeman were injured."
Can you give even a single valid reason why we should trust pro-Russian sources? Do you know that during and after the war, Russian officials lied practically about everything (2,000 dead Ossetians, Genocide and Russian withdrawal). Russian official position is that Georgia suddenly attacked South Ossetia; Georgia was the bad guy and Russia was the good guy who saved the Ossetian people from annihilation.
Majority of the sources support the view that the violence was escalated by the South Ossetians. Even the independent Russian sources acknowledge that the shelling was started by the Ossetians. Pavel Felgenhauer wrote it here.

The Ossetian separatists were provoking a conflict to give the Russian military a pretext for direct intervention. Late in the evening of August 7, a heavy mortar bombardment of Georgian villages near the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali provoked Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to order a major assault.

Andrey Illarionov's timeline is included in this book. See page 94 where you can read that on 28 July 2008, South Ossetian forces fired at Joint Peacekeeping Forces and OSCE observers. On 29 July 2008, South Ossetians shelled the villages under Georgian control. On 6 and 7 August, South Ossetians shelled a number of ethnic Georgian villages.
Different theories exist to explain what caused this war, but none of them is included in the lead in order not to give priority to some theory over others and to preserve NPOV.
P.S. Again an Italian IP vandalized the page for the eight time. --UA Victory (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't trust NATO because I am from a democratic country and I know that even in a democratic country there is propaganda. The text that I added was neither in the second paragraph nor in the third. "Do you know that during and after the war, Russian officials lied practically about everything (2,000 dead Ossetians, Genocide and Russian withdrawal). Russian official position is that Georgia suddenly attacked South Ossetia; Georgia was the bad guy and Russia was the good guy who saved the Ossetian people from annihilation." :O? this opinion does not seem to me worthy of a neutral editor. You quote some sources, but, incidentally, "the jamestown foundation" is an American propaganda organization and Andrey Illarionov is now working for another similar organization. Are these reliable sources?--User talk:95.75.110.99 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Your POV seems to be that everything the Russian government says is true, and that anyone or thing that contradicts the Russian government's statements is a lying propagandist. You do not seem to have any reliable sources to back up your beliefs.
I do not believe you are in Italy. My friend Renata uses American IPs to get round country blocks on Ukraine. If you are smart enough to IP-hop, you are smart enough to have foreign proxy-server(s).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you want me to sing "O sole mio" to prove I'm Italian and not a Russian spy infiltrated? Does it seem so strange that an Italian disagree with the official position of his government? "IP-hopping" is caused by the fact that I do not have a fixed IP, which is common thing in Italy--217.201.140.228 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
O sole mio is not an Italian song, but a Neapolitan one. If you were Italian, you'd know that. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
If you were Italian you would know that the Neapolitan songs are part of the traditional Italian songs and if you were from Campania, like me, you would know also that the song is written mostly in Italian language.--217.201.140.228 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm one-quarter Neapolitan (of Pozzuoli ilk), so I'm quite familiar. "Traditional Italian songs" is a matter of point of view. Try telling that to a Neapolitan nationalist. RGloucester — ☎ 05:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Ahahahahahahahah! Neapolitan nationalists? Where are they? You're a bit confused about the political and social situation in Italy. If you are one-quarter napoletano, I suppose you understand italian language, so this is from it.wikipedia [18]: "Il repertorio che va dagli inizi dell'XIX secolo all'immediato secondo dopoguerra, costituisce invece la canzone classica napoletana ed essa rappresenta uno dei punti d'eccellenza della canzone italiana, divenuti nel corso degli anni simbolo dell'Italia musicale nel mondo."--217.201.106.131 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If you don't trust even the Russian researchers, then I don't know any other people that you would consider reliable. Here is another article by Pavel Felgenhauer in the Russian. Now don't say that you don't like Novaya Gazeta because it's NATO propaganda too. Andrey Illarionov did his own research on the war (in 2008) before he started to work for "another similar organization".
Here's article by Yulia Latynina in the Russian. You should know that in a democratic country everyone has the right to question the authorities and investigate independently. So why can't Orlov, Felgenhauer, Illarionov or Latynina investigate on their own or debunk governmental lies?
It's not my fault that Russian officials lied practically about everything. In case you didn't notice, the Russian and Ossetian positions on the war are also present in the article body.
P.S. I've lost count how many times the lead was vandalized today. Seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh occurrences of vandalism. This IP editor may as well be Russian immigrant living in Italy. --UA Victory (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

--- I am protecting the page from anon IP edits for 72 hours to allow people time to work this out on the talk page. BCorr|Брайен 17:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I frankly don't believe that 72 hours will be enough since this POV vandalisms have been going on for 3 months. --UA Victory (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is peculiar that in this topic started by UA_Victory the majority of users are in disagreement with his version of the facts (a version that considers Radio Free Europe a reliable source), nevertheless his version is considered NPOV. It is relatively easy to find sources to support one own personal vision of the facts, as UA_Victory did when he edited the article. Here some reliable sources that do not support the statements of UA_Victory:
A report for US Congress: "On July 25, 2008, a bomb blast in Tskhinvali, South Ossetia, killed one person. On July 30, both sides again exchanged artillery fire, with the South Ossetians allegedly shelling a Georgian-built road on a hill outside Tskhinvali, and the Georgians allegedly shelling two Ossetian villages. Two days later, five Georgian police were injured on this road by a bomb blast. This incident appeared to trigger serious fighting on August 2-4, which resulted in over two dozen killed and wounded. On the evening of August 7, 2008, South Ossetia accused Georgia of launching a “massive” artillery barrage against Tskhinvali that damaged much of the town, while Georgia reported intense bombing of some Georgian villages in the conflict zone."
A georgian source: "Six people were reportedly killed and 22 injured in the worst violence in years in the South Ossetian conflict zone late on August 1 and overnight on August 2. Both sides have accused each other of opening fire first. Authorities in breakaway South Ossetia said that six people were killed and 15 injured after the Georgian side opened fire in the evening on August 1, followed by shelling of the capital Tskhinvali late on August 1 and overnight on August 2... Mamuka Kurashvili, a Georgian Defense Ministry official in charge of overseeing peacekeeping operations, said that the Georgian side had opened fire in response to shelling of Georgian villages. Six civilians and one Georgian policeman were injured as a result of shelling of the Georgian villages of Zemo Nikozi, Kvemo Nikozi, Nuli and Ergneti".
The online version of the German newspaper Der Spiegel: The skirmishes became more frequent in the final days leading up to all-out war. On Friday, Aug. 1, five Georgian police officers were injured in a bomb attack in South Ossetia. A short time later, snipers shot and killed six people, most of them police officers with the pro-Russian separatist government, while they were fishing and swimming... by Aug. 6. In the Georgian-controlled villages of South Ossetia, skirmishes between Georgian army infantry and South Ossetian militias became more intense, erupting into nonstop artillery exchanges during the ensuing night."
And the "Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia" report of the EU page 207 and 208: "On 1 August, an improvised explosive device that went off on the Georgian Eredvi-Kheiti road by-passing Tskhinvali left five Georgian policemen injured. During the evening and night of 1-2 August, a series of intense and extensive exchanges of fire including sniper fire and mortar shelling occurred in the conflict zone, causing fatalities and casualties. The events on 1-2 August were assessed by the OSCE Mission to Georgia as the most serious outbreak of fire since the 2004 conflict. Exchanges of fire continued in the nights of 2-3 and 3-4 August. Beginning in the afternoon of 6 August fire was exchanged along virtually the whole line of contact between the Georgian and South Ossetian sides, with particular hotspots in the Avnevi-Nuli-Khetagurovo area (west of Tskhinvali) and the Dmenisi-Prisi area (east of Tskhinvali). After a short break in the morning, firing, involving mortars and artillery, continued on 7 August, reportedly causing human casualties and fatalities. The same day, international observers could see significant movements of Georgian troops and equipment towards Gori from the east and west. Other troops and equipment were observed stationary north of Gori, just outside the zone of conflict".--217.201.140.228 (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP-hopping editor wrote "It is peculiar that in this topic started by UA_Victory the majority of users are in disagreement with his version of the facts". This statement is untrue. The IP-hopper simply uses multiple IPs.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
User 89.105.158.243, a static IP, and Alæxis do not agree with UA_Victory, which seems to have seized this article. You're trying to move the discussion from the issue to the fact that I could not be Italian but a Russian emigrated to Italy.--217.201.106.131 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Alæxis didn't oppose the fact that you dislike, but instead suggested to include more specific details in the lead. That's quite different from what you claim. As for 89.105.158.243, it's Russian IP, so he/she hardly is neutral. Again, the burden of proof lies upon you to confirm that Ossetians didn't attack Georgian civilians. I've provided enough sources. BTW, before I even registered on Wikipedia, the fact that the Ossetians shelled Georgian villages, was already there, which interested me and I had to research and came up with numerous sources to confirm this.
You don't want to understand that Wikipedia combines different sources to create the information. Let's discuss this situation. We have source A that says "Leonardo da Vinci was an Italian polymath who was born in 1452 in the town of Vinci", and source B that says "Leonardo da Vinci was born in Tuscany on 15 April 1452. He is considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time." The fact that one source does not contain specific information, does not mean that the second source is untrue. Wikipedia happens to combine both sources to create something like this: "Leonardo da Vinci was an Italian polymath who is considered one of the greatest painters of all time. He was born on 15 April 1452 in the Tuscan town of Vinci."
Again you've avoided to answer this question: You claim that you have the right to question your Italian government (which already has been pro-Russian for some time). Can Orlov, Felgenhauer, Illarionov or Latynina investigate on their own or debunk the lies of their own government? You don't trust them too?
P.S. How does this IP editor happen to be in Florence, Rome, Milan, Rome again and Florence again at the same time? --UA Victory (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"Does it seem so strange that an Italian disagree with the official position of his government?" Did you read this article to find out what your government's position was? Look under "International reaction" and then read the statement by Franco Frattini. I assure you, it was quite pro-Russian, even more pro-Russian than the position of Belarus was. It's no wonder that Eastern European countries oppose the candidate from Italy to become EU commissioner.
I don't see any contradiction between your sources and the article. As I've said, Wikipedia is a combination of different facts from different sources to create the comprehensive timeline. Even the fact that Georgians were moving troops along the South Ossetian boundary on 7 August, is mentioned.
The same EU report (page 251) says "To the extent that the attacks on Georgian villages, police and peacekeepers were conducted by South Ossetian militia, self-defence in the form of on-the-spot reactions by Georgian troops was necessary and proportionate and thus justified under international law." It's amusing that earlier you've dismissed English-language sources as NATO propaganda, now you use the same sources.
Other editors, do you see any contradiction here between Italian's cited facts and the article? --UA Victory (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"To the extent that" is a dubitative formula and at page 249 says "When considering the necessity of the immediate on-the-spot reactions to the alleged attacks by the South Ossetian side". In essence, the whole section examines the Georgian conduct of the war hypothesising that the Ossetians were the first to shoot. You're trying to shift the discussion in your favour taking scattered passages out of context--217.201.106.131 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly encourage all involved to discuss the content of the article to find points of agreement rather than discussing and questioning the motives and tactics of other editors. Instead, "suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns" (see Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving_consensus). For example, if there is not consensus among the editors on which side "fired the first shot," propose a version that states that there is disagreement, cite a soure or two for each position, and work for consensus on that.

I also urge you all to review the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars essay.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Alæxis wrote "Surely the skirmishes between 1 and 7 of August have to be mentioned in the lead. However not everyone blames Ossetians for starting the shelling, like Radio Liberty does. Maybe it's better just to write about clashes in the lead and go into the details." which is what I did with my edits but it seems that you do not want to go into the details of skirmishes before the Georgian invasion and just want to say (in the lead and in the article) that "Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region" which di fatto is a lie. The fact that 89.105.158.243 is a Russian IP does not mean that he/she is not entitled to contribute as much as anyone else. Orlov, Felgenhauer, Illarionov and Latynina are politically biased against the current Russian government and some of them work for anti-Russian propaganda organizations (Felgenhauer, Illarionov). You accept as true all positions critical of the Russian government and assume that "Russian officials lied practically about everything". This is not a neutral point of view. Above I mentioned some Western institutional sources (US Congress and EU) which are not blaming the South Ossetians for starting the skirmishes but state that the skirmishes were originated by both parties: this is the right and true NPOV method to address the issue and this is what I tried to do with my edits.
P.S.: to be in "Florence, Rome, Milan, Rome again and Florence again at the same time" is usual if you are in in Italy and have a dynamic IP address.--217.201.106.131 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

My reply is the last one because you seem to blindly believe in the Russian government. As for Alæxis, I didn't say any different: "Alæxis didn't oppose the fact that you dislike, but instead suggested to include more specific details in the lead."
You didn't provide any sources that would prove that Ossetians didn't start shelling Georgian civilians thus seriously escalating tensions. Neither your claim that both parties simultaneously originated the skirmishes is true. The skirmishes don't start by themselves; someone has to fire first and then the other side has to retaliate. You can't prove that this fact is a lie. In fact, the sources you provided, were already cited. They also support the view that one week before the war, the tensions were most intense. Although your sources don't allocate the blame specifically, this does not mean that the Ossetians didn't start attacking civilians. I have already explained that Wikipedia combines different sources to create the information. If we have two reliable sources (A and B), and A does not contain specific information that B contains, this does not mean that the source B is untrue. Wikipedia combines A and B to get the whole picture.
For example, the same citation from the Spiegel article you provided, clearly says: "In the Georgian-controlled villages of South Ossetia, skirmishes between Georgian army infantry and South Ossetian militias became more intense, erupting into nonstop artillery exchanges during the ensuing night." How does this contradict the timeline of the article?
You say that you distrust your government, but you are wrong because this Wikipedia has no connection with the Italian government. It only reflects the views of scholars and published sources. You say that you can not trust your government; however according to you, Orlov, Felgenhauer, Illarionov and Latynina don't have any credibility because they don't trust their government. Facts speak for themselves. You are mistaken if you think that Russian government is fluffy and always right. Remember the Soviets were denying the responsibility for Katyn massacre for half a century.
I can show several examples of Russian lies about this war. Medvedev accused Georgia of "genocide" and atrocities, saying that "The form this aggression took is nothing less than genocide because Georgia committed heaviest crimes — civilians were torched, sawed to pieces and rolled over by tanks." However, the investigation of Human Rights Watch debunked this and clearly said that "Human Rights Watch researchers were told similar hearsay accounts of atrocities allegedly committed by Georgian troops in other villages of South Ossetia, but our follow-up research did not confirm these allegations." Russian officials also said that "at least 2,000 civilians had died in Tskhinvali alone"; however, later the Russian investigation revealed the casualties were only 162 people. Russia said in August 2008 that it "acted to defend Russian citizens in South Ossetia, and its own peacekeepers stationed in the breakaway region." However in 2011 Medvedev admitted that his real aim was to stop NATO expansion, saying that "NATO would have expanded by now to admit ex-Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia in 2008 to defend a rebel region". Russia was also saying that they didn't expect the Georgian attack and their military operation was a response to sudden attack, but in 2012 Putin admitted that he was ready and prepared for the war. --UA Victory (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

38 minutes of video - people, houses, soldiers, equipment, destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Rhr5FiwZ8&list=PLD9E45E61856E024B&index=61 if you are interested in footage outside the newspaper headings 89.105.158.243 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Georgian POV

Reading the article it seems that the war started because one day the separatists decided, all of a sudden, to start shelling Georgian villages. It must be explained that the war was the end of a political-military escalation that began with provocations from both sides, continued with bomb attacks and exchanges of fire on both sides, first with light arms and then with heavy arms. As almost always happens, it is quite impossible to determine who fired the first shot (and maybe it is not even important), but there is no doubt that the war began with the Georgian offensive during the night of 7-8 August 2008. Any other reconstruction of the events is pure speculation.--Antonioptg (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Italian. See WP:SUMMARY. The article is already too long and when you add more minor details, it becomes uninteresting and distracting. There are separate detailed articles on pre-war skirmishes - 2008 Russo-Georgian diplomatic crisis and Timeline of the Russo-Georgian War. The version before your edit, already mentioned the fact that both sides were involved in the clashes.
It seems that "the separatists decided, all of a sudden, to start shelling Georgian villages" because no reliable source says that the Georgian villagers first attacked the separatists. Your edit also messed up the timeline.
The article doesn't say that the war began on 1 August. Neither does it say that the war began on 7 August. I don't agree with your definition that "there is no doubt that the war began with the Georgian offensive during the night of 7-8 August 2008" because on 4 August 2008 Russian media reported that there was already a war going on. Different researchers also differently date the beginning of the war. It's hard to say when did the war exactly begin.
You directly copied text from the sources. See WP:COPYVIO. --UA Victory (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This is your personal opinion. "Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region." is a copy and paste from "Shelling by Ossetian separatists against Georgian villages began as early as August 1, drawing a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers and other fighters already in the region.", other sources (OSCE observers) do not confirm.--Antonioptg (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The part you quoted is not a copy and paste, but retelling. OSCE didn't confirm their monitors' allegations and one of the monitors later denied his claim while the other refused to talk to journalists. --UA Victory (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a meat puppet (or sock puppet) of the Italian IP-hopping editor that was trying to push his POV exactly one week ago. You also used the same expression "your personal opinion" like Russian IP editor was using. Your first and second edits that were made today, contained multiple copyright violations. Although you reworded the copyvios in your third edit, your edit introduced minor details into the article which caused the problems related to WP:SUMMARY and WP:SIZE. Your edit also messed up the chronology of events. You introduced an outdated information, "However, independent military observers in the area did not confirm the allegations that Georgian villages were attacked with heavy weapons before 7 August." Here are your counter-sources. Terhi Hakala, head of the OSCE mission to Georgia didn't support Grist. Virginie Coulloudon, OSCE Deputy Spokeswoman, said "...However, the OSCE is not in a capacity to say who started the war and what happened before the night of [August] 7-8." Grist himself said "I have never said there was no provocation by the South Ossetians." However, Stephen Young did not comment on his assertions, and OSCE said it "would not be publicly engaged in this disagreement." You don't want to discuss your changes and to reason. You template me while you were the first one to breach the rules. You also reported me on WP:AN/EW while you were the one that reverted my edits without any discussion. --UA Victory (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have ideas a bit confused about the issue. I NEVER reverted your edits, instead you ALWAYS revert my edits on various pretexts although I added always the sources.--Antonioptg (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the usage of the word lorry

Something foreign to most American English speakers, but native to UK English speakers. That made me wonder what the official Wikipedia policy is on usage of English, is it neutral and avoiding things confusing to each "side" of the language, pro-proper English or US centric, which the latter is dubious in my mind, considering other Wikipedia policies. For a brief moment, I considered changing the term to a more neutral one, but fatigue has sapped my linguistic legerdemain. Hence, my appeal for peer support, as I turn into a toadstool for the "night" (I'm on mid-shift).Wzrd1 (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RETAIN. This article is written in British English, and will stay that way. Other articles are written in American English, and will stay that way. "Lorry" is perfectly neutral. RGloucester — ☎ 13:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the reference. What is needed is to glossed, per the MOS. If I can manage it, I'll sort it out later. Regrettably, time is a finite resource.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian forces occupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia

This is not neutral claim, that why I reverted it to previous stable wording. Don't push your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.219.184 (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not POV, it is what happened, as verified photographically, by satellite imagery and other intelligence sources, civilian and governmental. I also reviewed the classified versions, the POV there is really telling.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No one is questioning presence of Russian military there. The issue is interpretation. Russia considers A and SO as sovereign states and Georgia as part of its own territory. So, Georgia's POV is "occupied territories" and Russia's POV is "foreign military bases", "peacekeeping" etc. 93.181.217.36 (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Erm, Russian military attacked and occupied sovereign Georgian property. A foreign invasion is an invasion and hence, invasive by nature. Invading involves occupying. I know that one first hand. Peacekeeping is a variable term, peacekeeping in a nation formerly at civil war is different from peace keeping in an occupied foreign nation, something I also have first hand experience in. What is rather different is the "criminal" group RBN collapsing the Georgian government networks as military forces approached and engaged, making this an act of war. Do you really want this to go public further, which would further embarrass the Russian no-longer empire? I'll answer further griping after work. It's past 0630 here and I really need to get some sleep to keep the RBN and assorted other foreign idiots from my appointed networks. So far, when I didn't keep them out, I shut them out before data was lost. I'll only say that what I discussed is fully open source, otherwise I'd not divulge it. Provide citations to support your claims of that which does not exist that isn't Russian or a pawn or go away. I'm going to bed.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Georgian War/GA2

There has been a request for a new editor to undertake a new GA-review of this article as the articles editors was unsatisfied with the first one. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The review has started. Click the link to join the review. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Right now I am extremely busy and I will respond in several days. --UA Victory (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem, take your time. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is still not listed as GA here. --UA Victory (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ups, I always forget that. Will list it immediately. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The wikiprojects' ratings also need to be changed from B to GA. --UA Victory (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's listed under Ancient wars, while it needs to be listed under Modern history (1800 to present). --UA Victory (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I nominated DYK hook for review on T:TDYK. However, when I saved the nomination, WP thought that the creator of this article was the person who improved it to GA. --UA Victory (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Russo-Georgian War/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

During this article's DYK nomination, I found that the article contains copyright infringements, which is a quickfail criterion according to WP:WIAGA. As the problem appears to be extensive, this article needs considerable revision and likely should not be a GA. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You can check and post your findings here. I'll post a request at GOCE and I'm sure someone will copyedit the article and rephrase the problematic text. --UA Victory (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There are examples at the DYK page, but this is not a simple matter of copyediting - there needs to be much more significant revision. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Are there any other issues except some close paraphrasings? Please, name them. --UA Victory (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware close paragraphing is also copyright violation, but did not know the article contained any when I listed it. As the reviewer who passed the article I shall of course watch this page and participate in the discussion as much as I can. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I shall be happy to help resolve any incidents of close paraphrasing, as that's one of my specialities. Provide an index of the problems, if you please, so they can be addressed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that page is heavily sourced to publications by Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, in particular ref. 16 [19]. That was published in Moscow by people no one really knows about. Does it really qualify as an RS? And even if it does, I think it would be best to use other sources, rather than something published by politologists in the country that belonged to one of the sides in this conflict and still continue to be involved in other similar conflicts. My very best wishes (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
When you say it was published by "people no one really knows" do you mean the journalist is unknown or no author information exists? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The Moscow Times did an interview with the people behind it. They consider it reliable. In fact, BBC found it to be reliable enough to publish a report by it. I think that makes it clear that this is not some "invisible" non-RS source. If BBC is willing to report their claims, then that should be good enough for us. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Information about this author (Mikhail Barabanov) obviously exists. This is a military analyst in Moscow. But I think he is relatively unknown compare to someone like, for example, Pavel Felgenhauer. My concern here is that article relies too heavily on his judgement (ref 16, for example, was used more than 10 times). In addition, I suspect a promotional editing on behalf of this "Center" and its analysts in Wikipedia [20]. Yes, the quoting by the BBC indicates this might be a valid source. But I still believe it should be generally avoided in the "good article", because there are many better sources on the subject.My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is wrong to cite something as it is done in this article, but further investigation might be warranted. I'd argue that the source is reliable. You seem think it is given WP:UNDUE weight in the article, which may be the case regardless of its reliability. I don't know, now, because I don't have time to investigate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
A article in MIT journal Daedalus also cites the Defence Brief. It definitely seems like reputable outlets have no concerns with citations to the Defence Brief. Undue weight may still be a problem, but reliability is not. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not telling their publications do not qualify as RS, but I would not trust too much their judgement when it comes to the Russo-Georgian war. Now, speaking about your argument in general (high citation means reliability of the source), it does not hold. Consider this source. It was quoted more than a 1000 times in Google books, but reliability of this source is questionable. In fact, it was even blackisted on wiki (incorrectly, I believe). My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if one looks at Google books and doesn't parse the data. That's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at good outlets, like the BBC, like the MIT journal, that have a reputation for fact-checking. Given that they allow citations as such to appear in their works, that means they've deemed the source to be RS. If they have, so can we, as they are RS outlets. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, most of the books which quote Kavkaz Center in the link above qualify as secondary RS, just as BBC. But again, I am not telling that publication by the both "Centers" can not be used. Yes, they can, but with care and not as a major source for GA. My very best wishes (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If one takes the time to look at the citations, most of them are for minor matters, and technical details. It may be cited many times, but none of the citations are for anything other than troop movements and the like. Regardless, I don't have time to verify whether the citations support the text. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this is a highly sensitive and controversial article and therefore only known, reliable sources should be used. If there are better sources to support better claims I'm in favor of replacing them, but I would not exactly count it as an error. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That was just a minor comment. Perhaps there is a more serious shortcoming. From what I read about this elsewhere, it appears that the war was well preplanned in advance by the Russian military, and the shelling of Georgian villages was a deliberate provocation to start the war. The Georgians fell into trap by responding to the provocation. However, this is lost in WP version. Unfortunately, I can not help because of insufficient time and because I know that any serious effort to fix these problems would result in prolonged disputes... My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If you don't mind me saying, I feel your last comment regarding prolonged disputes is an exaggeration, but I understand if you need to take some time off Wikipedia per personal issues. And yes, this reassessment is mainly about possible copyright violation, but thanks still for notice. Best regards. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I find it odd that you still haven't told us where the problems are. We can't fix them if we don't know what they are. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There are examples listed in the DYK nom linked from my opening statement; based on the extent of problems noted there, I suspect a very thorough check of the whole article will be necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I would love to see a thorough check, so that the problems can be resolved. Are you going to provide one? RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of having some kind check which detailed describe all problems. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the Background section alone, and not comprehensive - the takeaway here is that there's more problematic text than not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see what the takeaway is if the text isn't provided to me. Please provide a detailed description of the problems, comparing the article's text and the supposedly cited text. Otherwise, this article will never be fixed. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that large segments of the article are identical or nearly so to copyrighted external sources. There are already some detailed comparisons in the DYK nom demonstrating this, which a week later have yet to be addressed. You stated above that resolving close paraphrasing is a specialty of yours, so I am confident you will be able to find similar examples throughout the article - a detailed comparison of all instances of problems would be longer than the article itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't resolve it if the text isn't provided to me. I need to see the texts side by side, item by item. RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could open each in a different window, to show them side by side. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what to open, because you've not told me where to look. You've just provided links to books that do not provide text, and you've not indicated the sentences that engage in close paraphrasing of those texts here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
"History 1", etc, refer to section names and paragraph numbers within those sections; the sources of concern are mostly those being cited, so you can compare the cited source to the text it's citing - or, in this case, the text copied from it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to rephrase the above-stated problematic text. I've always been interested in what counts as a close paraphrasing? What are the criteria to determine how close is the cited text to the original text? Sometimes it's difficult to rephrase 100% of the original text in order to avoid distortion of the facts.
I've removed the Kremlin source for the translation of the peace plan, since the New York Times translation seems to be more accurate.
RGloucester, can you look at the text in Media war section that cites Donovan? I was unable to significantly rephrase it. --UA Victory (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've done my best. RGloucester — ☎ 21:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Who's going to check the whole article for close paraphrasing? I think that some editors have the tool that automatically detects such issues. --UA Victory (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Everyone has access to automated detection tools like Duplication Detector or Earwig's Copyvio Detector. However, these tools are severely limited both in which sources they can examine (they usually cannot access print sources, Google Books, etc) and in which problems they can detect (they are primarily useful for direct copying, but close paraphrasing is also problematic in terms of GA status). Thus, manual checking is typically necessary, despite being very time-consuming. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that nobody has checked the article yet. I propose that Nikkimaria or some other editor who has strict requirements as what counts as close paraphrasing, should check and then create a copy of this article in the sandbox where the problematic text will be highlighted. This will ease the job for everyone. After the article is revised, then the sandbox version will be deleted. I understand that the article is rather large and it will take some time, however I think that one section per day is a reasonable. --UA Victory (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

And in the interim we can close this and delist the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've undertaken the task to check for closely paraphrased text and I've rewritten large parts of text. I hope I've eliminated all the problematic text. --UA Victory (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


an excess force

in the article there are many words of too strong reaction of Russia against Georgia (forgetting that Abkhazia and Ossetia were never fully a part of Georgia even in the USSR just do never came back from the 1991 and even peacekeepers appeared for many years before 2008) so that's what I want ... if Russia against Georgia too much then what is? -> http://www.aif.ru/society/history/42003 2 million civilians have been killed in a war based on politics in such a case Russia was from 2008 to 2018 continue to bomb Georgia and many times to capture the whole country, the whole to undermine and kill At least a million Georgians I think in the article do not need to talk about too much participation of Russia against Georgia, literally no slightest hint. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Complete reversal of the meaning since October 2013

The current text states now politically the exact opposite what it said about a year ago (and before that). (Compare with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Georgian_War&oldid=579051674)

On top, the current text is far less readable because of its structure.

I recommend to "merge" large sections back to strike a more logical, balanced and neural note. Also, it would match then again more closely other translations of this page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacy73 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Lech Kaczynski's mission

Why any infos about the mission of Lech Kaczynski and leaders of Central Europe has been deleted? As wikilkeaks satates this mission was on of the crucial reasons for saving Tbilisi from Russian direct attack95.83.249.165 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Supported by

The Turkish Army neither did fight alongside the Georgians against Russia, nor did supply weapons during armed hostilities. The purchase of weapons does not warrant inclusion of the country of origin as combatant. If WP lists every country from which armament is bought by the warring party as combatant, then Israel, Ukraine and Czech Republic would be listed too. Two of the Turkish-language sources are blogs and therefore not reliable. Not one of them indicates that the armament was provided in 7-12 August period. --UA Victory (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias

The opening section of the article reads a lot like a personal opinion and is barren of relevant citations, notably the citation of the very end, asserting that the current status-quo is a violation of international law should be taken in its appropriate context, one-sided saber-rattling and rhetoric in the heat of the Crimean crisis.

early versions of the article (before UA Victory started making edits) were of neutral disposition and heavily cited, it's nice to have personal opinions, but they should be left at the door when editing articles.

Additionally, there's no good reason to have removed the '1 August – 7 August: "Sniper war"' section other than to bias the article, which in its current form paints an inaccurate picture of the conflict beginning with South Ossetian shelling (un-cited, might I add).

It also mentioned the "retaking of Tskhinvali" which was never occupied to begin with, and reads as though it wasn't Georgian forces who escalated the conflict by effectively invading South Ossetia, and for some reason, the mention of the UN's response to said escalation, http://www.un.org/press/en/2008/sgsm11735.doc.htm has been removed as a citation. It omits any mentions of the Georgian air strikes on humanitarian convoys and of the tank strikes and air strikes on Tskhinvali resulting in civilian casualties.

also removed are then Prime Minister Putin's (at the time attending the Beijing Olympics) reaction to the events, promising retaliation. Also removed are references to the shelling of the Tskhinvali barracks and the resulting death of several Russian peace keepers http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7548715.stm which is generally seen as one of their main factors for Russia's involvement.

The list goes on and on, but I think the idea is made clear. I ask that editors be more aware of what this article has become, and refrain from using wikipedia as a soapbox. Looking at the time frame when these edits begun taking place, it is clear that UA Victory cannot separate his or her bitterness regarding the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian dispute from the unrelated 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.42.241 (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

GA-status

As the GA-reviewer I can say If the copyright problems from the heavily discussed GA-reassessment are fixed, the article is off GA-status. I would be happy to re-review if someone decided to fix it. Ping me if my attention is needed in the future please. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

It used to present impartial or otherwise respected sources like the OSCE and UN, and their views of what occurred, and now, it only seems to quote sources from early in the war, when the Georgian PR campaign was at it's height. I looked through the last page of archived edits and it appears to show a single user consistently making edits, with the false claim that they're doing it for the sake of condensing, with other's sporadically coming up and questioning the sheer bias demonstrated. I've met hard-core maidanists, and Georgians who voted for Saakashvili who concede that he screwed up by trying to retake South Ossetia, and yet the article makes it out like he's some heroic defender.--Senor Freebie (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, heavy POV-pushing has happened. No need to dig deep inside article to notice it. 29 August 2014 it was:

Georgia launched a large-scale military operation against South Ossetia during the night of 7-8 August 2008

and

Russia officially deployed units of the Russian 58th Army and airborne troops into South Ossetia on 8 August, launching air strikes against targets in Georgia proper.

In 2015 it is:

The Georgian Army moved to South Ossetia on 7 August to defend civilians and restore order

and

Russia officially launched a large-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia on 8 August

Nicely done. 46.237.19.104 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

In the articled it is stated that: "After a prolonged lull, relations between Georgia and Russia began to worsen drastically in April 2008. Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region."

But according to the latest official reports from EU fact-finding mission in 2009, the 2008 conflict was caused by Georgia's illegal attack on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali on August 7-8 relative article: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/

Sasiskas (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is a third-party interpretation of the report, not what the report actually says. Even your source says this: "South Ossetian separatists begin attacking Georgian peacekeepers, ending a ceasefire." --UA Victory (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

94.43.226.251 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC) On 8 Augus 2008 ,The Georgian aircraft's target was only the Gupta bridge, which links the northern part of South Ossetia to its southern part where Tskhinvali is located

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tskhinvali

 Not done It's unclear what do you want. --UA Victory (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate templates

I've just begun to copy-edit this article, and I could not help but noticing that there are two templates/sidebars/navboxes that are titled "Russo-georgian War," and a third that is "Georgian–Ossetian conflict." Now I am new to this topic, but it seems to me that there is some redundancy here, which should be dealt with by somebody who knows the topic better. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Russo-Georgian War/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Will rap this up shortly. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has not changed much since my last review - in which I outlined all serious problems. I've reviewed the new content and like what I see. The copyvio issues shown in the reassessment has also been fixed. Good job people, I'm passing this. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this on account of edit-warring. Can editors please discuss here first in an attempt to broker some consensus/compromise? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This was not a war between Russia and Georgia

This was primarily a war between Georgia and Southern Ossetian and Abkhazian separatists. No one would call the Kosovo war a war between Serbia-Montenegro and the USA/NATO. The Russian military intervention in this war was like the military intervention of the USA/NATO in the Kosovo war with one difference Russia justified its interventions with the protection of Russian Citizens and the USA and the NATO claimed that they just wanted to secure the Albanians.--95.114.29.174 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.222.93 (talk)

Nope, this was a CONTRA-style funding and mounting of an insurgency by Russia, followed by their outright invasion of non-aggressive Georgia.
Agreed this was a straight-up Russian invasion.Hilltrot (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Description of Heritage Foundation's report: "praised"

In regard to: "Heritage Foundation researchers praised the preparation of Russian general-staff, saying that the operations were planned and implemented effectively, with a strategic surprise being engineered by the Russians.[264]"

Problem: This violates the following criterion of a good article: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each."

Recommendation: change "praised" to "reported that" or some other NEUTRAL word. Let's try to keep ideological beliefs about various think-tanks away from this Wikipedia article.Thewindblows1 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)thewindblows1


If you still disagree, please read the following:

Obviously, "praised" connotes "support of"--as in "x is good; it's praise-worthy"; however, after reading the source from Heritage Foundation, it's pretty clear the article isn't about praise. It's initially a positive (non-normative) assessment of the Russian military:

"The war appears to reflect comprehensive and systematic planning by the Russian general staff. As a result of this planning, the combined operations were well prepared and well executed, employing combat, support, and logistical forces as well as pre-positioned ships and planes. Most likely employing deception to mask operational preparations, the Russian offensive achieved a strategic surprise."

It's not praise. It's a think-tank's (or rather, a political advocacy group's) positive assessment. It's non-normative. There's no flag-waving about how awesome the Russian military is. The Heritage Foundation's article isn't expressing how 'praise-worthy' the Russian military was during the conflict. If anything, the Heritage Foundation article expresses concern about the efficacy of the Russian military ops and then--becoming normative--recommends that the US do x, y, and z for the US military.Thewindblows1 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)thewindblows1 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewindblows1 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Armenian economic losses

According to the Armenian government the war cost Armenia's economy $ 700 million [30]

Should this information be added (in my opinion, it should be) and to which section should it be added to? --Երևանցի talk 11:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported oil conspiracy rubbish

"The pipeline circumvents both Russia and Iran. Because it has decreased Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the pipeline has been a major factor in the United States' support for Georgia.[65]"

The presence of the oil line is not in dispute, I presume its strategic significance is substantial, but the article cited says nothing about it and is a tremendously unreliably source ... just a Putin propaganda list.

Is this article locked ot something? I couldn't edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.209.96 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article is semi-protected, meaning anonymous and brand-new editors can't edit it. You can request an edit using {{Edit semi-protected}}. clpo13(talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War/Archive_34&oldid=1144173868"