Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:10, 9 June 2009

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

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

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

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

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

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

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

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

Just Wanted to Say

HAPPY VICTORY DAY!!! Everyone in this article probably had a family member or 2 or 3 or more fight against the Nazis. Just want to say CONGRATULATIONS!!! to both side. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualty change

I believe that the number of Russian and Georgian casualties is incorrect. While I agree with the South Ossetian loss of 150 killed and 41 captured, and the Abkhazian loss of 1 killed and 2 wounded, some reference state differently, saying that Russian losses are 71 dead, 341 wounded, and 6 captured, while Georgian losses are 215 dead. I would like to change this.

Unless you can prove that 71 dead is the most recent number, please don't change anything. Offliner (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In Arkady Babchenko's new book "Pictures of a small war" he gives these Russian figures: 74 dead, 171 wounded and 19 missing. He gives Anatoly Nogovitsyn as the source of the figures. Babchenko who was there during the war concludes that these figures are probably close to the real ones. Närking (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When was the book published? Offliner (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was published last month in Sweden . I don't think it's been published in any other language yet. Närking (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Books aren't usually up-to-date; it takes a few months from when the writing is completed to publication. Therefore, I suspect that this 21 February number from Reuters is more recent: . But this is, of course, just guesswork. Interesting book, for sure. Do you think there is something else in it that could be used in our article? Offliner (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, there still is the Georgian claim of 256 victims who died during Russian air raids and artillery barages against plenty of Georgian villages of which some were practically irradicated ( there are dozens of reports about that from every kind of news agancies and eye-reports, not including russian news-agancies ) But after UN and NATO confirms, I have no doubt about the cruelty of Ossetian Militias and some of Dimitri Medvedev allias Vladimir Putins orders.

Considering that you also treated Svante Cornell as a scholarly source, and that this book is only in Swedish, I am extremely sceptical. Furthermore, Russia won a total victory in this war, losing less men then they lose per year in training. There is absolutely no reason for Russia to lie about the amount of men killed. I'd understand if Russia reported 64 killed and in reality that number was 640. However 64 and 74? That's a 10 people difference. In all likelyhood these seven could have been initially been reported as killed and then ended up as wounded. Likewise, the wounded could have been reported wounded, but have light wounds, such as ricochet shots in the arm. If the difference was 64 and 640, certainly something wierd would be going on, but 64 and 74 sounds a bit, similar. Also let's not forget that the initial report of casualties by Russia Today on South Ossetian civilians was 2,000 - and yet no one is questioning that it was too high. However 64 and 74 is somehow too different for it to be a mistake? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this book is originally written in Russian and by a well-known Russian journalist and former Russian soldier . He entered South Ossetia together with Russian volunteers (Vostok) and took also part in fightings. In other words he can give first hand information and as a former soldier he also knows what he is talking about. Närking (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It says that he fought in Chechnya. This article is about Ossetia. If you want a journalist's story about Ossetia, here you go: http://artofwar.ru/w/wiktorow_a_w/text_0010.shtml HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article about him that I linked to is about his book about Chechnya, where he fought as a Russian soldier. If you cared to research a little further you would know that Arkady Babchenko now is a journalist and went with Russian soldiers into South Ossetia during the war. He didn't use arms in this war but he was in direct contact with it together with the soldiers. Närking (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He also took a great series of pictures from the war: . He even gave me permission per email to use the pics in this article. Offliner (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he sure took many interesting pictures that also can be seen in his book. Of course his text is very interesting also. And hopefully it will be printed in Russia also, if it hasn't been already. Närking (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the dating of the prologue, looks like he finished the book in January: . So the Reuters figure from February is ore recent. Offliner (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, there still is the Georgian claim of 256 victims who died during Russian air raids and artillery barages against plenty of Georgian villages of which some were practically irradicated ( there are dozens of reports about that from every kind of news agancies and eye-reports, not including russian news-agancies ) But after UN and NATO confirms, I have no doubt about the cruelty of Ossetian Militias and some of Dimitri Medvedev allias Vladimir Putins orders. So what about those 256 killed civilians alongside with the 170 killed soldiers.

First: There were reports about nearly 2000 Russian instructors, peacekeepers, Specnaz officers and regular army stationed in Tskhinvali and the local MC base, right before the Georgian Army began to take the city under massive artillery fire and air raids. The "few" russian forces then were forced to leave the area togheter with most of the Ossetian Militias, because they took heavy casulties ( Ossetian Militia eye reports of at least 160 uniformed dead russians after strikes against the MC garrison, proof the desinformation about the casulties ). Second: The Main MC headquarters in South-Ossetia does not exist anymore. Should I believe that only 16 peacekeepers died ? You come to a different conclusion after seeing fotos of the base, or what is left of it. Remember, the Russian soldiers were hit by BM21-Grad's when they slept in the barracks. Third: The famous georgian raid against the convoys of the 58th Russian Army, leaving, if you believe georgian army claims, dozens of tanks, armored vehicles and personal carriers burned out and at least a few dozens of soldiers dead, you will finally come to the conclusion that the Russian Army suffered losses of at least 300 men. There were no massive confrontations between both countries ground forces.

Got sources?FeelSunny (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Georgia did have an initial claim of 256. Russia had an initial claim of 1,492. When the dust settled it turned out that the real civilian casualties were 69 and 365. We go by the most accurate casualty list, not by what people initially thought. The reports you are reading are inaccurate initial assumptions. We have much better upto date data. Furthermore, neither Saakashvili, nor Medvedev have any reason to lie about civilian casualties at this point. Also, the peacekeepers didn't sleep in the barracks, they knew the attack was coming. You can't sleep if you know you'll be attacked, that's just military psychology. The rest of the statements are just as innacurate. You are relying on initial data. We have much better, post fog of war data. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm not too happy with many of the recent edits. For example:

However, no conclusive evidence has been presented by Georgia or its Western allies that Russia was invading the country before the Georgian attack (the Russians claim the it was simply a routine logistics train or troop rotation) or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary.

Was changed to:

This point is still disputed (the Russians claim the it was simply a routine logistics train or troop rotation). Georgian leaders claimed that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary.

But this is not what the sources say. They do not say "Georgian leaders claimed that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary."

Just another example:

On the opposite side, there were just 1,000 Russian peacekeepers and 500 South Ossetian fighters ready to defend Tskhinvali, according to an estimate quoted by Der Spiegel.

Was changed to:

On the opposite side, there were said to be 1,000 Russian "peacekeepers" and 500 South Ossetian fighters holding Tskhinvali, according to an estimate quoted by Der Spiegel.

Why the quotation marks in "peacekeepers?" Spiegel does not use them. Why change "to defend Tskhinvali" to "holding Tskhinvali?" The former wording is used by the source. Why add "there were said to be?" It is unnecessary as the claim is properly attributed anyway. Offliner (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

About Peacekeepers. Stop placing that word in quotes. The difference between peacekeepers and regular units is that peacekeepers are lightly armed and don't have too much training. The fact that 10 people were killed by Georgian artillery fire and there was no response, proves that they were peacekeepers. Special forces could not be hit that badly, and everyone reported that their equiptment was too light to be part of the regular army. In addition, Der Speigel reported that word without quotes. I'm not as nice as offliner, next person to do that, will be reported for vandalism. Also, do not re-word the source. Next person to re-word the source will be reported for vandalism. I've seen editors be nice to you about it. This has gone on long enough. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Another difference is peacekeepers have right to be there. JKPF forces had every right to be there, and they were accepted and greeted by both Georgia and South Ossetia, the OSCE and the UN. Calling them "peacekeepers" is just pushing nationalistic Georgian POV. And we all know that, and discussed this many times. FeelSunny (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really nationalistic Georgian POV. It's more of a moronic adherence to Saakashvili and Friends' brainwashing techniques. Just like Svante Cornell, Saakashvili said so, thus it must be right. If I was a Georgian nationalist, I'd certainly defend my country on wikipedia, but I wouldn't defend the idiot that tried to win against Russia, while Russians were defending, considering that the Russian Army is famed for being great defenders. And this war was basically Georgian Attack, Russian Defense, Russian Counter-Attack, Georgian Rout, Russian Mopping Up, bunch of people whining about mean Russia exposing all their military tactics and propaganda tactics. Maybe think before attacking? I just wish that this whole thing doesn't turn into a Georgia vs. Russia conflict over the web, or at least doesn't escalate. It's the only reason I stopped my feud with Kober, despite having the better hand. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone also changed "Medvedev (commander-in-chief)" to "Medvedev (commander-in-chief: Vladimir Putin)" ... What can I say. It is WP:OR and not supported by the source given. This is vandalism, pure and simple. Offliner (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish the editor who made those edits (User:Vancraft) would explain himself. Offliner (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing to mention is, the fast retreat of the 2000 russian "peacekeepers" and the 800 Ossetian Militiamen, to the north. The Georgian Army meat much weaker resistance and was streightly directed into the russian trap, the heart of the city, where the ground forces were easy to pick by Russian SU-25's gound attack aircrafts and artillery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.56.25 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Bullshitting in an article, when a military historian is editing it, will get you caught. First off they were peacekeepers. No qoutes necessary. Secondly there is a difference between a retreat and a tactical withdrawal. A retreat usually leaves behind a lot of weapons and ammunition, as soldiers drop them; see Georgian retreat, in this war. During your so-called retreat, no weapons were picked up by the Georgian army, unless they were stored in lockers. In addition, a "fast retreat" doesn't exist as a military term. It's called a hasty retreat, or a rout, during which there is at best sporadic fire. On August 8, the fire was fierce, and therefore not sporadic. Thus no "fast retreat" took place. In addition the Russians didn't have air superiority until the heat of the Battle of Tskhinvali was over. Also, no army would drop bombs so close to their own soldiers, for fear of casualties, not to mention civilians in Tskhinvali. Perhaps you can show proof of Russians bombing Tskhinvali, the heart of the city as you claimed. Finally, your spelling is atrocious. Meat isn't the same as met, and the reader shouldn't be making guesses. Lastly, that note is definetely nowhere near the most important thing to mention. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is 92.196.56.25 (User:Vancraft)? FeelSunny (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Most likely. Same edits. We can assume so until they/he/she says otherwise. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's beleive it's not sockpuppeting, and he just forgot to log in. FeelSunny (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced changes to military equipment table

The numbers provided by the anonymous editor are interesting, but they need a source. Offliner (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Svante Cornell - a reliable source?

Svante Cornell is credited here as a reliable source. I disagree, due in a large part to Mr. Cornell's rabidly anti-Russian bias. In every conflict that Russia participated in, Mr. Cornell was quick to take the opposite side. When an expert is giving a testimony in a court room, this exchange is allowed:

defense council: "How many times have you given testimony?" expert: "Over 400." defense council: "And have you ever testified against the insurance company?" expert: "No."

Why is such an exchange allowed in courts, but no on wikipedia? We can't we call Svante Cornell what he is - a pro-oil company hack. From the Nation http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081103/ames:

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

Cornell 's piece argued that Russia attacked Georgia not in response to Georgia's invasion of the breakaway South Ossetian province but rather because Russia was just plain evil--and, in the style of evil villains everywhere, Russia had no motive other than to show "the consequences post-Soviet countries will suffer for standing up to Moscow, conducting democratic reforms and seeking military and economic ties with the West."

According to Mr. Cornell's logic, Russia should have invaded Ukraine a long time ago. Not happening. The so called "Central Asia Caucasus Institute" has been caught red handed by ABC news for placing a positive spin http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5908348 on the government of Kazakhstan, for - you guessed it, oil revenue! What's even more interesting is that the trans-oil pipeline in Georgia, gets its oil from - wait for it - Kazakhstan!

So here you have a rabidly anti Russian hack with a PhD, writing an article that affects his employers' pockets, on the issue affecting said employers' pockets, and we're treating him as a scholar, because no other guys with PhDs. would counter him, the reason being is that most real historians would puke after reading the first paragraph.

"They talk about Kazakhstan's "new middle class" and the "success" of this oil-rich central Asian nation. But the three reports, issued this year by an institute at Johns Hopkins University, don't mention one key fact: who underwrote the cost. The answer? The government of Kazakhstan."

Here's a qoute from Cornell's op-ed, called "Russia blames the victim"

The victim? But our Misplaced Pages article lists Georgia as the agressor. Shall Svante or shall the public with truth and honesty prevail?

"America must hit where it hurts: Russia’s international prestige, an obsession of Mr. Putin’s. To begin with, we must do everything possible to see Russia’s membership in the Group of 8 industrialized nations be suspended (something the Republican presidential hopeful John McCain called for even before this crisis)."

The American public trusted Mr. Cornell and Senator McCain so much, that they overwhelmingly voted against them. And Russia has been kicked out of the G8, and the G7 was about to collapse, so it became the G20, with the inclusion of Russia.

"Once the fighting is over, America must step up its campaign for NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Should European countries reject the idea, America could designate them “major non-NATO allies,” along the lines of Israel and Pakistan. This would involve more American military trainers in Georgia, intelligence-sharing, joint exercises and other steps, if not a full pledge by Washington to defend the country in case of attack."

Yeah, screw cooperation with Europe, Mr. Cornell is a Unilateralist, I mean that worked so well for Bush in Iraq. Oh wait, no it didn't, it turned out to be America's biggest crisis, and today is still America's second biggest crisis. It's also called Bush's biggest blunder.

"Finally, in a measure of fitting symbolism, America must note that Russia started this war on the opening day of the Olympics, while it plans to hold its own Winter Olympics only a dozen miles from the victim of its aggression. America should seriously consider announcing a boycott of the 2014 Sochi Olympics. We owe our Georgian allies nothing less."

Mr. Cornell, you are not an American. You have no right to use the symbolic "we". Why don't you call for your country to boycott the Olympics? Why must America take the brunt for your grugde against Russia? So let me get this straight: the US should be against treating the Olympics for political and military purposes, by, according to Svante's own advice, using the Olympics for political purposes! The definition of hypocricy never fit so well, as it does to Mr. Svante E. Cornell.

Also, the reason that Georgia attacked South Ossetia on the 7th of August, is in hopes of making China angry at Russia, should Russia respond on the 8th. Too bad Saakashvili didn't realize the blatantly obvious fact of Russia informing China, (and pretty much the rest of the World thought a press release) about Georgia's provocation. Or did you guys really think that Bush and Putin sitting together, Bush getting the aisle seat, was accidental in China's pre-planned Olympic Opening Ceremony? Russia didn't violate anything, it counter-attacked Georgian agression, and any country in Russia's place would do the exact same thing.

So why are we still treating Svante E. Cornell as a scholarly source? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He is cited 9 times in the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you putting some concrete part of his statements into question or you want to blame him only because he's not supporting the Russian aggression? Especially the theory of "Russia willing to show an example of the consequences post-Soviet countries would suffer" is shared by many other analysts. Me personally, I also think that this was indeed one of the Russian goals in this war.

I don't know why Bush was sitting in an aisle seat. Instead I know that Nikolay Pankov (The Russian Deputy Minister of Defense), together with the commander of the 58th army and other Russian commanders met with Kokoity in Tskhinvali on the 3d of August. On the 7th of August Kokoity himself went to Java to meet with some very important Russian official - presumably much more important than the persons he met 4 days ago. The entire Petersburg military region commander staff was near the Kodori gorge in Abkhazia already on the 7th of August. At the same time, in the beginning of August their Georgian counterparts were on a holiday abroad - David Kezerashvili (Minister of Defense), Gela Bejuashvili (Intelligence Director), David Bakradze (Chairman of the Parliament), and even Saakashvili. Misha for example returned in Georgia on the 6th of August.

So, you can believe in fairy-tales or in whatever you want, including in "Russia not violating anything", but I can tell you that if every country was (re)acting and doing the exact same thing as Russia did, which you describe as normal, there would be no independent countries at all - only the right of the stronger would apply, as it is in the jungle. Kouber (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You want a concrete part of Mr. Cornell's statement questioned? Sure I can do that. Mr. Cornell claimed that x amount of Russian soldiers were in South Ossetia. How did he know? The Russians used smoke grenades, and the battle was overall very confusing, so the US satellites could not have picked that number up. Were the Georgian soldiers counting how many Russian soldiers were shooting at them Kouber? While under fire? Mr. Cornell's paper doesn't contain any sources explaining that. Some statements, like the ones from his Op-Ed quoted above are outlandish. He's trying to provoke another Cold War between US and Russia for his own personal and financial gain.

While you rail against Pankov, Mr. Kouber, it's interesting how you conveniently forget that Russia warned Georgia not to invade South Ossetia. "We're setting a trap here, so we're going to warn you that it's a trap." Is that your logic Kouber? On August 6th Russia warned Georgia. August 7th, Mr. Kouber, comes AFTER August 6th. There is nothing wrong with military figures visiting and advising. The US advisory staff was in Georgia long before this war began. Are you going to say that the US violated international law Mr. Kouber? Also, what international law did Russia violate? Not was accused of, but actually violated? Georgia's shelling of Tskhinvali was a blatant violation of International Law. Now what law did Russia violate? The cluster bomb use against the military isn't against international law. HRW doesn't like the use of cluster bombs, but it has yet to be proven that Russia used cluster bombs against civilians, especially considering how close Russian and Georgian cluster bombs look. It's also interesting to note that Russia cleaned up the cluster bombs. "We're going to hope that civilians blow up on cluster bombs, by removing the cluster bombs!" The logic is dumbfounding to say the least.

Russia is willing to show consequence to post-Soviet countries. But war has never been, nor will ever be one of these consequences. There's a fine line between refusing to trade with a country, and invading a country. Mr. Cornell's paper fails to make that distinction, meaning that Mr. Cornell is either extremely moronic or extremely biased.

Here is the introduction: "In August 2008, Russia launched an invasion of Georgia that sent shock waves reverberating-first across the post Soviet space, but then also into the rest of Europe and the World, as the magnitude of the invasion and its implications became clear". So poetic. Can I try? "Svante Cornell's level of self-granted Homerian Poetic License, reach gargantuan levels of bullshit, hoping to culminate in a miserably senseless war, which will fill his pockets with the gold of Midus!" Hey look, I can do it too! First off the post-Soviet space wasn't in shock. Only the Baltic States and Ukraine issued strong anti-Russian statements, and considering Ukraine's arms sales to Georgia and the Baltic States' general feelings towards Russia, I wasn't surprised. Azerbaijan's statement was more of a veiled warning to Nagorno-Karabakh, then a reflection of the war. The rest of Europe and the World? Well last time I checked Cuba and Nicaragua are part of the World. Does Mr. Cornell speak for them too? If so, I think his translator is having a few problems. Nor was Europe in shock, as was noted by Italy's statement. The EU futhermore apologized to Russia for their actions during and immediately after the war. Today the Russo-EU relations are at an all time high.

Mr. Cornell tries writing as if he's speaking on behalf of others. I was in the US at the time the war was taking place, and here it was treated rather jocularly. There was media hype, but most Americans didn't give a shit. Nor did most Americans think that the US and Georgia are allied. Yet Svante Cornell makes that statement, where he pretends to be speaking as an American, asking Americans to help "our" ally Georgia. When did US and Georgia sign an alliance? I think I missed that treaty. I have nothing against US and Georgia forming an alliance; what I am against is Mr. Cornell's rampant bullshitting and pulling "facts" out of his ass by creating alliances that, quite frankly, don't exist. This isn't a scholarly source. This is a bullshitter displaying the opinions of Saakashvili, that soon won't even be the opinion of the Georgian government. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The things cited from Cornell's paper in the article aren't those you mentioned. There's nothing concerning the soldiers on the battle field, for example. Moreover most of the facts cited from his work are already confirmed by many other sources, so I don't see how the overall picture would change if we discredit one of the sources.

Your coarse irony isn't worth much. The world was really shocked by what happened. At the time of the war I was in Nantes (France) - the people there were also worried. The mayor of the city had a speech (which I captured with my camcorder) expressing his sympathy for the Georgian people at that difficult moment, etc.

According to your logic, if a killer warns his victim that he will shoot him if he doesn't follow his orders, that is a legal excuse for his actions? Or probably you forgot that South Ossetia is part of Georgia? So, Russia had the right to maintain order by force in Chechnya (by killing hundreds of thousands and destroying everything), but no other country had the right to fight separatists on its own territory? It sounds a bit imperialistic, isn't it...

Also, it is true that US have given military advises but they haven't occupied Georgia afterwards, and haven't done it only days and hours before a war took place. On the contrary, Russia was expected to act as a peacekeeper, not as a side in that conflict. Your claim that the Georgian shelling of Tskhinvali is a violation of international law is possibly true, but so is the Russian bombardment of it, and Russian preparations for that war for several months (extensively). The world is not black and white. Yet there's no international investigation held there (thanks to Russian occupiers), and it's already a bit late for it. So any chance of revealing the truth of who did what in Tskhinvali is lost. I'm reminding you that firing from civilian buildings makes them perfectly legitimate military target, and there were many similar cases reported in that war.

But let us forget South Ossetia for a while, at least Russians had some excuse for their actions there. Let's see what happened in Abkhazia? To what exactly were Russians reacting? I'm still not getting it. How does the Russian occupation of Abkhazia fit into the "protect innocent civilian population from evil Misha" slogan? Kouber (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Kouber, nothing from Mr. Cornell's paper concerning the soldiers on the battlefield? Really? May I direct you to page 18 (out of 45) in the article that's quoted 9 times. "6,000 new Russian troops arrive through the Roki Tunnel into South Ossetia." How again is that "nothing concerning the soldiers on the battle field"? So giving the exact number, (without divulging any sources as to how he got that number) on the battlefield is not concerning the soldiers on the battlefield? And I'm the biased one?

Nor can Mr. Cornell's sources be discredited, because anything controvercial doesn't have an actual source. The sources are cited as "sources in Moscow" or "sources familiar with the story". A drunk can be a "source in Moscow" and a newspaper reader in Djibouti can be a "source familiar with the story". I cannot discredit Mr. Cornell's sources, because when Mr. Cornell cites anything controvercial, he fails miserable to give a clear source.

I was in California when the war began. Not much sympathy, or anyone really caring. Yeah the officials were giving speeches, but that's what officials do. Remember the Avian Fly Panic?

The 2nd Chechen War began after Chechnya invaded Russia's Dagestan. BTW I believe the Russians had no right to fight the First Chechen War, but the 2nd was a response to blatant Chechen Agression in Dagestan.

Preparations for war is no more a war crime then internal troops movenments. Preparations for war are not, and have never been a war crime Mr. Kouber.

Also, Russians bombarded Tskhinvali only after Saakashvili turned it into a war zone. Nor did they bombard the city, but rather the ouskirts. The bombardment was further used to evacuate civilians, and was therefore not a war crime. Nor is it true that there was no international investigation held there. Independent journalists were allowed to operate in Tskhinvali. And in South Ossetia. A journalist's job is to investigate. How is journalists operation in a city not an investigation?

Mr. Kouber is exactly the reason that Mr. Cornell should be removed from the article. It's nothing but blatant, anti-Russian bias, going as far as calling Russia a war criminal for performing internal troops movements. Other readers, such as Mr. Kouber, are mislead by Mr. Svante E. Cornell. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you two want to have a chat about the evilness of Russia, Svante Cornell or the world in general, why not take it to some forum, chat or email? Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. --Xeeron (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The evilness of Russia isn't related, and I don't know why Mr. Kouber is bringing this up. Svante Cornell is being quoted here as a realible source and questioning his realibility is directly related to the article and therefore not soapboxing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, regarding the matter at hand, you surely remember that you tried before and failed to have him removed. I am rather talking about your smear campaign against him ("Mr. Cornell is either extremely moronic or extremely biased", "Mr. Cornell's rampant bullshitting and pulling "facts" out of his ass") that is you should better place elsewhere, since it may fall foul of wiki rules here. --Xeeron (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good job on finding those Xeeron. However none of them have the fact that Svante Cornell's employer has a direct interest in the pipeline that runs through Georgia. I don't mind quoting Mr. Cornell, I do mind quoting him as an unbiased source. Let's recap here; A: All of Svante Cornell's article are anti-Russian. B: Svante Cornell's employer has been caught red handed by ABC helping out a Kazakhstani oil company. C: Said oil company is now vulnerable to Russia as a direct result of the war. A proved to be not enough in removing Mr. Cornell, but B and C weren't mentioned. Also, I would like to see Mr. Cornell cite a source for a controvercial fact. Here's how Mr. Cornell cites his source, I'm not slandering him - I'm quoting his source citation: page 14 - "according to multiple and consistent Georgian sources" (well beggars are multiple and consistent, Svante's really vague), page 14 - "according to Georgian authorities" (again what authorities, Georgia has more then one), page 15 - "Russia gradually increases its troops in South Ossetia outnumbering the 9,000 Georgian troops by nearly two to one" (how does Mr. Cornell even get that number, where did it come from, no primary sources even remotely corroborate it, were the Georgians counting the Russians as the Russians were shooting at them?!), page 18 "after continuous attacks on civilian homes by Russian troops" (what?! Other sources please. Oh wait, that's a flat out lie!), page - 25 "Russian response lacked any proportion" (Is Mr. Cornell calling Russia's response disproportionate? If so Mr. Cornell is once again lying, because under the International Rules for disproportionality you must not inflict more civilian then military casualties, and Russia didn't do that.) The whole report is an anti-Russian, corporate funded smear.

Not to mention that Mr. Cornell's article contradicts itself so many times, (a point I have also not brought up before) for instance on page 12 of the report, Mr. Cornell assures us, without citing any sources, that "Russian Armed forces complete the "Kazkaz-2008" military exercise. However, rather then returning to their bases, the troops remain in their positions by the Georgian border". That was on August 2nd. Then a few pages later, on page 14, on August 7th, Mr. Cornell assures us that "the Georgian authorities recieve foreign intelligence reports about movement of Russian troops towards the Roki Tunnel". That's odd, because the Russian troops ended up in Russia, without going back to Russia according to Mr. Cornell. Can someone please explain to me how that's possible? I too want to end up at work without driving to work. Mr. Cornell also talks about cyber attacks on Georgia, but fails to mention those done by Georgia. Isn't that hypocritical? Also, according to Mr. Cornell a railway built by the ebil Russia serves no other purpose then to transport troops, (page 23).

Xeeron, your and Kouber's good-wiki user, bad-wiki user routine, and your implicit threats aren't going to work on me. If you can, please explain why Mr. Cornell should be kept as a valid source. Otherwise, focus on attacking the posts, (my arguments) rather then the user, (me). It will be greatly appreciated, thank you in advance! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with HistoricWarrior. This guy has an obvious conflict of interest, and it's painfully obvious if you read his articles. There are more than enough unbiased, credible sources to use for this article. The only thing that Cornell can contribute is a skewed point of view. LokiiT (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"That's odd, because the Russian troops ended up in Russia, without going back to Russia according to Mr. Cornell." What is odd is not Svante Cornell, but your assertion that Russian troops would need to somehow get back to Russia after a military excercise held in Russia. Guess what, they simply got to Russia by staying where they were. Indeed no moving needed. Next time you are at work try it: You can get to work without driving to work if you already are at work! --Xeeron (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So Mr. Cornell is ridiculing the Russian troops for conducting military exercises in Russia? Is that what you are saying Xeeron? Cause then he really has to be deleted from this article. That, and his contention that the only purpose Russians build railroads is to transport troops. Funny thing, most troops in this war didn't even arrive by rail. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is he "ridiculing the Russian troops for conducting military exercises in Russia"? Unless you give me his sentences, that is nothing but slander by you, because I did certainly not say that. Same for your "most troops in this war didn't even arrive by rail" assertion. Did you stand next to the railroad in Abkhazia and count? --Xeeron (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On page 12 - he states: "Russian armed forces complete the "Kavkaz-2008" military exercise. However, rather then returning to their bases, the troops remain in their positions by the Georgian border." I understand if English is not your native tongue, but that sentence clear shows ridicule of Russian troops for internal troops movements within Russia. It's extremely clear cut. As for most troops not arriving by rail, why don't you actually read the article Xeeron, check on some of the sources within this article and come to your own conclusion. Most of Russian troops in South Ossetia came through the Roki Tunnel, which doesn't even have a railroad. Here's an image - let me know if you can find the rail tracks: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/080819_roki.jpg. As soon as you can find railroad, let me know. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You see any ridicule in that sentence? Accusation, maybe, but ridicule? lol

Regarding the reading skills, I return the compliment: The railway tracks are in Abkhazia, just as I talked about the railroad in Abkhazia, while the Roki tunnel is in South Ossetia, so obviously, the Russian troops in SO were not the ones using the railway, but the ones in Abkhazia. It is indeed extremely clear cut: You have no idea what you are talking about. Next time, spend a bit more on reading the comment you reply to and a little less comming up with "funny" replies. --Xeeron (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(Re-Indent) Once again, railroad aside, there is clear evidence that Mr. Cornell's company was clearly harmed by this war. That Mr. Cornell has an anti-Russian bias. That the article is poorly cited. That Mr. Cornell lied about Russians comitting war crimes in the 2008 South Ossetian War.

Well we won't agree on ridicule, but even we agree that there's accusation. So Mr. Cornell is accusing Russian Troops of conducting military exercises on Russian soil. Where exactly are Russian troops supposed to train? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

North Ossetia not mentioned in the background

North Ossetians and South Ossetians view themselves as one entity. They are all Ossetians. Why isn't this mentioned in the background section? While nearly all of South Ossetia's trade is with Russia, over 80% of all South Ossetia's trade with Russia involves North Ossetia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a valid point. According to this article, this was one of the reasons why Russia had to go to war and why it could not afford to lose.

External observers frequently miss the point that Russia’s stake in the conflict over the unrecognized republics is much higher that that of Georgia’s entry into NATO or the destabilization of energy transit routes that bypass Russia. Russia simply could not afford to lose: in view of the harsh nature of the conflict in Abkhazia and Georgia in the early 1990s, Georgia’s seizure of these territories would mean ethnic cleansing, and the flight to Russian territory of many tens of thousands of embittered and armed refugees. The loyalty of the North Caucasus republics of North Ossetia and Adygeya, tied by blood relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, would be undermined. North Ossetia, moreover, is the largest and most loyal autonomous republic in the region. Russia would have been shown to be weak before the entire North Caucasus, and this would have marked a return to the situation of the 1990s. Offliner (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Offliner. I'll find a place to put it in. Do you have anymore sources on North Ossetia - South Ossetia relations? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We had to do it, because otherwise, we "would have been shown to be weak". Awesome kind of arguement. Reminds me of drug gang members being interviewed. Can I suggest this wording: Russias hold on the strategic North Caucasus region is based on intimidation and strength. In this rule based on fear, a sign of weakness by the ruler will immediately be seen as a chance to revolt by the surpressed subjects. To keep regions such as Chechenia subjugated, Russia had to prove its military superiority.

The worst thing about it: I am sure Vasily Kashin actually means what he says.

PS: For some stuff about North-South Ossetia relations, check the sources in Ossetian–Ingush conflict. There was a really good article detailing the interaction between that and the south ossetian conflict as well, I cant find it right now. I am sure it is linked somewhere. --Xeeron (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, what Kashin is saying is: "If Russia had not reacted to the Georgian attack, the Ossetians would have thought that Russia isn't capable of protecting their interests, or doesn't want to. In that case, it would have been better for the Ossetians to take matters in their own hands and establish their own state that is willing to protect their people." Offliner (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Russia would have been shown to be weak before the entire North Caucasus, and this would have marked a return to the situation of the 1990s

You should have a look at those sources I pointed out to HistoricWarrior above. A quote: "For all these reasons, it was almost inevitable that most Russian leaders would favor the "always loyal Ossetians" over the "permanently discontented Ingushetians," especially at a time when even the democrats among them had shed their romantic illusions about the unqualified benefits of national self-determination."

That both sources use the word "loyal" with regard to a whole group is especially striking, since that is a concept very much at the heart of classic feudalism: The subjects are loyal to their lord and the lord in turn protects his subjects. --Xeeron (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So the US and USSR were UK's loyal subjects in World War II? You're not getting it Xeeron. In the Caucasian region, people are tired of war and will side with whichever power will lead them to peace. With NATO provoking hostilities through Georgia, and Russia brining back peace, guess which side most Caucasians will take? This has nothing to do with feudalism, stop it with the silly insults already. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed not getting what makes you talk about the US being the UKs loyal subject. Whether that is due to my inferior intelligence or you not making any sense is up for debate though. --Xeeron (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea of an alliance is to ally with those who promote the growth of your region, your country and your people. You went in on a wacko tangent of Feudalism. If country "A" can protect my land and help my people grow, I would be smart to ally my region/country to country "A". Feudalism is where the Lords tortured the peasants and paid the King to protect them from other Lords. Feudalism is not a mutuallistically symbiotic relationship for the peasant. The North Ossetia - Russia relationship is a massive mutualistically symbiotic relationship. North Ossetians aren't "subjects" in the classical Feudal sense, and Putin is most definetely not a Lord. I pointed out that North Ossetia is as much a "subject" of Russia, (in the classical feudal sense) as US and USSR were loyal "subjects" of UK during WWII. That too was a mutualistically symbiotic relationship. Frankly I don't even see how you putting Feudalism in the article or on the discussion page, has any merit, unless you're just trying to anger me and then bash my response. Isn't that against Misplaced Pages rules Xeeron? And after your colorful dialogue on my talkpage, rest assured Xeeron, next time you pull something like this, I will report you. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't threaten me with reports, either do it or leave it. With your history of lies about me (one more example: I never put Feudalism into the article), I am not worried in the least. Regarding your theories of "mutuallistically symbiotic relationship" and whether Feudalism is one, or whether the US and USSR were "subjects" of the UK in WW2, I'll leave that to you and will stick with more mainstream views. --Xeeron (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You damn well knew what I meant when I said you put Feudalism here. It's in this very discussion. You have no right to make up lies and insult a valid source and a whole group of people, the Ossetians, for your POV needs. You implied that the Moscow Defense Brief said that the Ossetians are "feudal subjects" of Russia. In case you forgot, here's you qoute:

"That both sources use the word "loyal" with regard to a whole group is especially striking, since that is a concept very much at the heart of classic feudalism: The subjects are loyal to their lord and the lord in turn protects his subjects. --Xeeron (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)"

Next time you unjustly insult a whole group of people, you will be reported. I wasn't threatening you, I was putting you on notice. I don't see how the above quote has any relations to the article, or why you view Ossetian loyalty to Russia as feudalism. It doesn't belong here, it was an unnecessary and provacative comment on your part, and instead of correcting yourself, you keep trying to provoke me. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry if your reading comprehension mislead you here, but me saying that MDB puts Ossetians close to being feudal subjects is not the same as me saying they are. Had you read my above statement "The worst thing about it: I am sure Vasily Kashin actually means what he says.", you would have noticed that I disagree with Kashin's view. So keep your high talk to yourself and finally stop making up stuff about other people's comments, it is definitely not the first time I have asked you to. --Xeeron (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(Re-Indent) That is your interpretation of the Moscow Defense Brief. What you are trying to do is to discredit the Moscow Defense Brief by painting them in a negative light. If you want to discredit the Moscow Defense Brief, use actual facts, not your interpretation of how they view Ossetians. Loyalty almost never means feudalism. Kashin wouldn't insult a whole group of people for his needs. And your comments on your interpretation of Kashin's view of Feudalism have absolutely no place in this article or on this discussion page. For the last time, Ossetians aren't peasants and Russians aren't Lords, and there is no way could Kashin have meant that. Why is apologizing and moving on so complicated for you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Internationally unrecognized government?

The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians had left most of South Ossetia under control of a Russian-backed internationally-unrecognised regional government.

It appears that rather then discussing my edits here, someone decided to provoke an edit war. I won't bite. The very link that is provided, disproves the editors who inserted it point. Internationally unrecognized means not recognized by any state. Prior to this war, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transdnistria recognized each other. These are international bodies that aren't UN members, but still exist as international bodies. Taiwan is an international body that's not a UN member. How can they be internationally-unrecognized is they are recognized by international bodies? 22 UN members that recognize Taiwan show that one doesn't have to be a UN member to be an international body. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. The appropriate description is "minimally recognised state". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "minimally recognised" seems to be your personal invention. It is not a widely used term. "Partially recognized" is the right one. Offliner (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, are you just making up terms now Diwurgen? No such thing as a minimally recognized state. Also, I've removed everything until we come to a concensus. Actually come to think of it, I think just calling it a regional government is better, that way you don't get into what's what and let the reader decide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A google search for that exact phrase "minimally recognized state" brings up one single result, which is an archived page of the South Ossetia 2009 election. And looky here, it was you who edited that in. Why would you just make something up like that and pretend it's "official" or what not?LokiiT (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We could also simply stay with what New York Times, Encyclopedia Britannica, Amnesty International, Pravda and just about the rest of the world call it: Internationally unrecognized. --Xeeron (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be internationally unrecognized if it's recognized by at least one international body. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, they're talking about the Internationally unrecognized government not the country. You can recognize the country but not the government. For instance the US recognizes the country of Iran, but doesn't deal with Ahmanedjad's government, or at least that was the case during some point in time. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that NYT, Amnesty, Pravda, Encyclopedia Britannica and all the others have only waited for the reknown expert Historicwarrior to point out their faulty writing. Guess, what, I'll ignore that the personal opinion by a wiki editor and go with the sources use anyway since, you know, their definition of "internationally unrecognized" trumps yours. --Xeeron (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhhm...The NYT and Pravda articles you cited were written before Russia/Nicaragua recognized South Ossetia, the Britannica article says nothing about its current state of recognition, only that the 1996 election and 2006 referendum were unrecognized, and the amnesty international page was written in 2006. I really don't know what to say to that without sounding insulting so I'll hold my tongue. LokiiT (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article part under discussion here before commenting. It concerns the time before the war, therefore also before Russia/Nicaragua recognized South Ossetia and therefore exactly the time when those sources were written. --Xeeron (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for getting caught up in that specific phrase and missing the bigger picture, I need to work on not responding to fragments of arguments. But then what is this talk about "minimally-recognized"? Whatever the sources say is what should go into the article. There's no such thing as minimally-recognized as far as I know and as far as google knows, and if it was partially recognized because other international bodies like Abkhazia recognized it, there needs to be some good sources to back that view. It seems like a trivial matter really. LokiiT (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Np. What happened was just Historicwarrior deleting a well sourced statement, without backing up that deletion with sources. Then digwuren used the opportunity to promote his personal favorite, again without giving any sources. Going back to sources usually resolves these issues. I could be wrong, but this seems like a discussion from Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia without belonging here. --Xeeron (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the link that was given, pointed out that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, were recognized. Prior to the war, South Ossetia and Abkhazia had the same status as Trasnistria, and the link shows that Transnistria is recognized. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Transnistria isn't recognized either. PetersV       TALK 23:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what I said. The link is this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition. It lists Transnistria under "Recognized by non-UN members only". If the link you provide states that the country is recognized, then it's kind of hard to argue the other side. You cannot be unrecognized if you are recognized. The sources that Xeeron had referred to UN recognition only; the article linked referred to UN and non-UN as well. I'm not going to change anything in the article, I'm just explaining that source of the confusion. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) Are we saying that unrecognized A recognizing unrecognized B and unrecognized B recognizing unrecognized A means A and B are now recognized (by "someone")? This is wishful thinking. PetersV       TALK 04:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Two drunks sit on a bench together after finishing another bottle. "Do you respect me, Vasya?" - "You have my utmost respect, Petya!" - "And I respect you as well." - "Then we are respected people!" Anyhow, these unrecognized states have recognized each other only in 2006, so the quoted sentence is correct regardless of how you define "international recognition." --Illythr (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your example. Technically speaking, you only need to be respected by one person to be a respected person. So your example proves my point, even though you used drunks. That's why it's called respected, instead of globally respected, well-respected or internationally respected.

Vecrumbra - it's not wishful thinking. If they recognize each other and support each other militarily, that's more then just wishful thinking. That's actual weapons, medical supplies, volunteers for military and civilian sectors, etc. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no internationally recognized government in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, or Transnistria. The only two nations that recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia are Russia and Nicaragua. Thus they can be considered to be partially recognized states. See the article List of states with limited recognition. It is well source and has been established for many years with states arriving when their governments form and leaving the list when they are disolved or internationally recognized. This precedent is followed in all of the articles concerning unrecognized states and i suggest that it is wise that it be continued.

67.84.178.0 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

I am really getting tired of looking at this article and seeing this title is still being used. People should be aware that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and just because a title gets the most votes doesn't mean the title is appropriate according to the rules of Misplaced Pages. This title by no means reflects the scope of the conflict. It ignores the front in Abkhazia and the whole invasion of the coastline by Russian forces. However in some deference to public support I think Russia-Georgia War is a fine alternative. Since it received considerable support, is widely used by numerous news articles and organizations, and better reflects the scope of the conflict I think we should change the title to Russia-Georgia War.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to start another discussion now, as the vote was conducted precisely in order get rid of the endless discussions. Let's concentrate on other things now, such as improving the article itself. The are a lot of things to do: for example,

• 1) summarizing the "responsibility" chapter
• 2) shortening the military equipment chapter (a lot of the prose is redundant now when we have the table)
• 3) coming up with suggestions of what could be left out from other chapters
• 4) improving readability and language throughout the article. Offliner (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can convince enough neutral people to edit here to outnumber those canvassed from Talk:Russia or the Russia portal, you wont change the title. My bet is you can't, so don't waste our time discussing this. --Xeeron (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the title has nothing to do with what a bunch of biased users want, at this point the only reason I can't do this myself is that moving the article has been blocked. This means only certain editors can change this title. This is more of an appeal to them. No public vote overrides Misplaced Pages's rules and this title flagrantly violates them. I'm only suggesting we go with the second most popular since it happens to be the one that complies best with the rules, including neutrality. I saw the official declaration by Medvedev and in it he said the "aggressor", meaning Georgia, had been sufficiently punished as part of the reason for ending the operation. So the President of Russia wasn't even denying that it was about taking Georgia down a notch. There is no real basis for calling it a biased title and it doesn't need to include South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the title. Titles aren't chosen based on majority vote but on how well the title fits the subject and what is the established title. No one is calling the war by the current title, in Georgia they often call it the August War.

The point here is all opposition to Russia-Georgia was illegitimately-backed because the title doesn't need to mention South Ossetia or Abkhazia as they would be seen as proxies or allies of Russia fighting on the Russian side and it is not even slightly biased to call it a war between Russia and Georgia because both sides acknowledge that it was. Order of the names is completely irrelevant to who started the conflict. In other words all objections where a reason was given can be thrown out while there are many legitimate reasons given to change the title to Russia-Georgia War. Going by a majority vote is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The current title stays. See how easy it is? No need to drag us all to another pointless debate. (Igny (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

The fact it is not a democracy but run by rules is exactly why it shouldn't stay. The rules say a title must reflect the scope of the conflict and be commonly used. This title is neither, while Russia Georgia War is both incredibly common and reflects the scope of the conflict. The fact more people support keeping the current title is no argument for keeping it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To attract enough neutral people here, a page move needs to be formally requested. This had never been done before. --Kober 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF, people? WP is not a democracy, you say? What is it then - a HIM Academy of Science? With Kober and Xeeron as revered academics, and all others are apprentices? Why do you regard your reasons to be more convincing than arguments of the others - in denial of the consensus of the majority of editors? Because you do not like the results? There has been a vote, and the article needs no further discussions on title, no matter how much Kober dislikes it.FeelSunny (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Russo-Georgian War be renamed and moved to 2008 Russian-Georgian war. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2008 South Ossetia war → 2008 Russian-Georgian war — Per an excellent summary of reasons posted by User:The Devil's Advocate on this page: 1. The current title ignores other fronts of the war; 2. Russian-Georgian war is a more descriptive title; 3. It is the most popular name in the international media, e.g., "Russia-Georgia war", "Russian-Georgian war". Kober 06:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Support - Because the present name is totally neglecting the war-decisive Russian attack from the west (Black Sea fleet, landing operations, para troopers etc.). The chronology says that after the attack from the west Georgian government gave up immediately the fight. - Elysander (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - It wasn't a war only between Russia and Georgia. The early fighting in South Ossetia was done by the Ossetian armed forces and Georgian military. Also in the latter stages the contribution of Ossetian militia was important. There is currently no generally accepted name for the war in use. In such cases, we should use the name of the main battleground, which in this case was South Ossetia. 2008 South Ossetia war is also much more NPOV than Russia-Georgia war. Offliner (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment The name does not imply it was only between Russia and Georgia, but even so no name being used by the media or respective government calls it the South Ossetia War or anything which would include the separatist regions. In Georgia it has been consistently called the August War, though beyond Georgia it doesn't seem very established. Countless Russian sources have called it a war between Russia and Georgia in those exact words and certainly plenty of Western sources have said it was between Russia and Georgia. As for not being neutral putting Russia first is irrelevant as countless examples can be given of wars where the aggressor was named second such as the Iran-Iraq War, Franco-Prussian War, or either Sino-Japanese War. There are also plenty of cases where the aggressor is named first. That argument thus holds no bearing on the title's neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Franco-Prussian War, France was the agressor. Hence it's named first. The Iran-Iraq War was US Propaganda at its finest, hence that war is misnamed. It's a rare exception, such as the Yom Kippur War and Six Day War, (wars aren't usually named after holidays or the amount of days the were fought; that's days, not years for those shouting "100 years war"). In the Sino-Japanese War, China was the attacker. Way to know your history Devil's Advocate. I'm sure Kober will support it! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - per the arguments presented above. --Kober 15:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - is there a way to stop these disrupting move requests? As in like, no more move requests, PERIOD.(Igny (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment - very well-explained vote. --Kober 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support My reasons are above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Strong arguments listed above. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support More accurate and far more widely used in reputable sources then current one .--Staberinde (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per strong arguments above. It's simply the common name for the war. Närking (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is "Russian-Georgian war" according to Russian sources. For example, Yulia Latynina tells this (an approximate translation): "I want to emphasize: this is Russian-Georgian war. The strike was conducted from two fronts: the Abkhazian and the South Ossetian fronts; approximately 25,000 Russian Army serviceman have been involved and several hundred tanks; rocket strikes have been conducted, and Russian strategic aviation completed sorties..." see here. Biophys (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support most popular name. Ostap 02:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This has already been voted on, the consensus was to keep the name as it is. I already stated my reasoning. LokiiT (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Boycotting the Vote - there was another vote one taken less then a few months ago, and Kober and company lost. There was also over 100 pages of discussion on it. John Kerry didn't ask for a revote when he lost, what makes you so damn special? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Ostap, Elysander, and others. This was an armed conflict between Russia and Georgia, nothing else. To HistoricWarrior007, in democracies no one is elected for life. There is nothing special, that is how democratic consensus works. PetersV       TALK 03:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. LokiiT (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Consensus can change. Ostap 04:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Consensus usually means general agreement, I wouldn't describe narrow victory of one side in a poll as "consensus".--Staberinde (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment That is right, but the controversial moves especially to allegedly POV titles do require a consensus. No consensus to move means no move. So even in this poll, it is not enough to have a majority, it requires an overwhelming majority to demonstrate the consensus to move. And yes, a consensus may change, but only if some of the people who voted against the move changed their mind. Just because they did not vote here yet does not mean that they changed their mind. But a flash mob can indeed make it look like there was a change in the consensus. Just keep proposing the move and eventually it may happen at an opportune moment when the nay-sayers either stop voting or unable to vote for other reasons. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose This has already been voted on, the consensus was to keep the name as it is. nejron (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per arguments above. This should be quite obvious – there were two main parties in this conflict. --Epiq (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment There were three main parties actually. Almost as many South Ossetian soldiers were killed as Georgian. They sustained far greater losses than Russia. To suggest they weren't a main party when they sustained that many casualties and most of the fighting was on their soil is simply absurd. LokiiT (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose until there is evidence that this is the predominant name of the conflict. I would be more willing to accept Russian-Georgian War; there is no real reason to include the date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The Hwanker is back at canvassing :) Colchicum (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why do you keep bringing this word, canvassing, up? I just hope that you do not blame everyone for the sin because you have committed it yourself. Noticed a rush of support votes in the first 20 hours or so? If it is not canvassing per se, it is definitely a premeditated coordinated effort by the people who were beat in the previous poll and just can not let it go. I want to ask the admin who will make the final decision, please, wait for at least a few weeks to let the oppose votes eventually overcome this artificially skewed poll. (Igny (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

What sin? What are you talking about? Are you drunk or what? Colchicum (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an American and Russian saying. Happens when a certain wikipedia user provokes others via petty insults, you wouldn't happen to know who does that here, would you Colchicum? I mean seriously, do you happen to know a guy who uses kindergarden insults against other wikipedia editor? I wonder who might that be, don't you wonder that Colchicum? Anyways, the saying goes "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". As for canvassing, Ingy is correct. There has been a coordinated effort of supporters to change the title. Last vote lasted for a month, this vote will also last at least a month, if it's even going to be recognized And the title isn't getting changed. It's strange that in a single day, people who haven't edited this article for a while, simply find it. This all reminds me of a Ukrainian joke: "Yanukovich won the 33rd round, we will have a revote in the 34th round tomorrow". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so I meant it was you, right? Well, then I can tell the world where the canvassing took place: . Isn't it strange that in a single day, people who have never edited this article, simply find it? BTW, the article and the noticeboard are on my watchlist, and in real life Yanukovich lost :) Keep dreaming. Colchicum (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, asking people if they're drunk, or telling them to "keep dreaming" is entirely unnecessary and counterproductive to solving the issue at hand. Please tone down the incivility. LokiiT (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, what does it take to accuse me of canvassing? Hilarious. I haven't even voted so far, thanks for the reminder, guys. Colchicum (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. So far three users that have never edited the article prior to this discussion suddenly expressed support. It's a miracle! When I was accused of canvassing I contacted users that actually edited the article. He's not accusing you of canvassing Colchicum, but rather your side. And so far, he's correct. I mean three users stumble upon this article in a day! Amazing! Also, saying "I haven't even voted" and then voting one second later makes you look like, well like a Colchicum. And don't turn this into a blog about Ukraine. My joke wasn't about Ukraine as much as it was about pointing out the silliness of having another vote, coming in here, flaming the editors and hoping they'd respond so you can report them. I'm dissapointed, no new tactics, same old tricks. Anyways, if you want to talk about politics, use my talkpage, I'll be happy to continue there. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I don't know about the other two editors "that have never edited the article before prior to this discussion suddenly expressed support", but I for one did actually "stumble upon this article". Earlier today, I read the announcement that you left on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Russia page telling the members of WikiProject Russia that there was a proposal to move this article again (which, as Colchicum pointed out recently, I must say does have a bit of a canvassing tone). Originally, I had planned to oppose the merger as I previously felt that this article's title was quite descriptive and NPOV as is. However, rather than being a bit rash and immediatly opposing the move, I read the article several times and all of the evidence that each side had brought to the table. And, after doing so, my opinion changed, as I felt that the editors supporting the merger had proven (at least to me) that their point of view on the article's title was more commonly used, more NPOV, more descriptive, and, on the whole, better. Therefore, I decided to vote on the side of the move. I'm just letting you know, HistoricWarrior007, there was no canvassing involved in my vote whatsoever. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The suggested new name is both more common in the media and more descriptive to outsiders. Just a note on all those claiming there was consensus to keep the name before: You are wrong. There was no consensus to move, but no consensus to keep the old name either. Instead there was a split vote with no side having significantly more support than the other and the final outcome being decided by 1 vote (in favor of the side that used vote canvassing, keep). --Xeeron (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment again, wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't decide things by who gets more votes. There needs to be overwhelming and clear consensus in order to make a title change. LokiiT (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per the strong arguments listed above. The "Russian-Georgian war" is, by far, the most common and well-known name. Laurinavicius (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. Colchicum (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support google search has changed from the first days of the war. Russian Georgia War is now the commonly accepted internation term. And is used in international media, press, and scholorly articles.XavierGreen (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per all support arguments above. It was not only in South Ossetia. Such a move seems reasonable. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

There has already been a vote on this. The move was rejected by consensus of editors.FeelSunny (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not a formal request for move, but just an opinion poll regarding editors' choice of several possible titles. We will see whether "consensus" can be achieved now without widespread canvassing used by certain users to call his compatriots to arms. --Kober 09:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just wasting everyone's time. We have been through this over and over again. By launching this you are forcing everyone to reiterate their arguments for the umpteenth time. We should be improving the article itself instead. Offliner (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Noone is oblidged to spend his/her time on the issue. You can devote your energy to "improving the article" if you think that the renewed discussion wastes your time. Could you, guys, just say "Support" or "Oppose" and provide a brief rationale for your vote instead of trying to obstruct the move request?--Kober 12:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What is so good about the move request that noone can obstruct it? You say it like obstructing the move is a bad thing. I say, you better stop your disrupting move requests, and stop obstructing other editors to obstruct your disruptions. (Igny (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Choose your words. I'm not disrupting anything, and your word salad is offending. If you don't like the move, vote "Oppose". Period.--Kober 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, you are disrupting. And the word obstructing was your choice. (Igny (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm not going to react to your provocative tirades. --Kober 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That "we already voted about it" approach isn't going to cut then current title fails so clearly against proposed title in places like Google Scholar. Not to mention that last time there was pretty solid case of WP:CANVASSING.--Staberinde (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're oh so "solid" case of canvassing was a newbie mistake that you trumped up for your POV purposes. All I did was notify 5 editors, who have PREVIOUSLY EDITED this article, and my sin of placing the comments on the talkpage of Russia vs. WikiProject:Russia. Also, we've voted on it recently, you don't get to re-vote anytime that it doesn't suit your needs. There has been multiple pages of discussion on it, over 100 pages, and the Devil's Advocate's arguments, were soundly defeated. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So why did you rush to announce it at wikiproject:Russia but didn't mention it at wikiproject:Georgia? You do realize that neutrally notifying people requires giving same notification for both sides? Not to mention that you did exactly the same during Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia.--Staberinde (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from notifying WikiProject:Georgia. You're more than welcome to do so. As for the other WikiProject mention, that was concerning whether or not the article should be a part of WikiProject Russia or not. It had nothing to do with renaming. Yup, you're playing hang the witches again. This isn't Salem, it is not 1692. Wiki Users can no longer treat fellow editors as witches. Things have changed! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: the last (we've already had several) naming discussion ended on 7 April. The results can be seen here: . Obviously, the initiators of this new "vote" are refusing to comply with the result they didn't like. Offliner (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to note: There was not a request for move in April. It was just an opinion poll regarding multipe titles. --Kober 04:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Same exact thing. You sir are gaming the system. In April there was a request to change the title. All your request for moving does, Kober, is changing the title. Instead of saying "have an apple" you are saying "grab an apple". Also, the multiple titles argument is just plain silly, because everyone could vote for every title, so in a run-off election, the votes would be exactly the same. Quite frankly I'm not sure what you're doing here is even allowed under Misplaced Pages rules. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This was already voted on, multiple times. It had over 100 pages of discussion. You aren't going to get your way by spamming this page with your POV request Kober. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kober undoubtedly did this because of my recent comments on the title and I have no interest in pushing a POV. There is nothing biased about this name neither the order of the names, countless examples of the aggressor being second in the name instead of first, nor the fact it calls it a war between Russia and Georgia since even Medvedev said it was. There is also no need to mention South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Italy fought in the Austro-Prussian War after all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even know that France was the agressor in the Franco-Prussian War! When Kosovo and Serbia fought, the title is Kosovo War. Thus by asking us to change this title, you - the Devil's Advocate - are following Bush's argument that Kosovo is a unique case. Otherwise, if Kosovo's not a unique case, why should the titles be any different? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine instead of the Franco-Prussian War how about the Iran-Iraq War, the Russo-Japanese War, and how about the 2008 Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict? In all of those the aggressor is second, not first. Your comment about Kosovo is nonsense since there was a South Ossetia War and Abkhazia War in the early 1990's. There was also the Nagorno-Karabakh War.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any such rule of putting the aggressor first; but the Russians began the Russo-Japanese War. They were unwise to do so; but that's a different question. (The order is for euphony; hence the Spanish-American War and the modern usage of Philippine-American War; there is no real question that McKinley began both of those.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's a tradition. Thank you again for correcting The Devil's Advocate's lack of historical knowledge in regards to the Russo-Japanese War. Traditionally, and in over 90% of the wars named in such manner, the attacker goes first. The fact that the attacker goes first is ingrained into our minds. Think of the popular game Axis & Allies. It's not called Allies & Axis now, is it? Or about how the Plaintiff in Court goes before the Defendant. The Iran-Iraq War is the oddball, because the Corporate Media tried to demonize Iran. I mean those Iranians, they couped the government that the US brought in via a coup! Damn them! So Iranians were demonized as the bad guys, and thus placed first as the attackers. It happens extremely rarely. It is military incorrect and I'm not going to let that happen here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Axis and Allies and Franco-Prussian War are both scansion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember this is an encyclopedia and not your personal political blog. Närking (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out why Iran-Iraq War is a problem to use here in the shortest way possible. Considering that changing the title is the topic of the day, in more ways then one, I think showing past precedent of how wars were named, and exposing bad case precedent that's been used less then 10 percent of the time, and even then incorrectly, is hardly "blogging". Besides, I'm never this nice when I actually blog about warfare, it's mean, kids die, no point in being nice about it in a blog. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Russia didn't start the war. They may have been carrying out an expansionist policy in Manchuria, but that was not part of Japan or a Japanese territory. Nothing they did was military aggression against Japan. The Japanese were the ones who engaged in military aggression first. Even so this is missing the point, I can point out countless examples contradicting this absurd notion of aggressors being placed first in the order. The first two Indo-Pakistani Wars were both started by Pakistan. The two Sino-Japanese Wars were also started by the Japanese. The order has nothing to do with who started the war.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kober, would you please explain why do we need a new "poll", "naming campain", "names consideration" or anything? Do you beleive that anything important, both in arguments, and opinions, was missed in the previous discussions?FeelSunny (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you, FeelSunny and Co, leave Kober alone and stop this hysteria? Everyone has the right to propose the move. Several users find the current title inadequate and I decided to initiate a formal procedure for renaming. It is not against Misplaced Pages's policy. If you object to it, vote "Oppose". I don't know how else to explain you anything.--Kober 15:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's called gaming the system. The only thing your "move" does is rename the article. People who are voting deserve to know when the system is being gamed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The goal of a naming discussion is to see whether there is consensus for the move. But why was this new discussion launched so soon after the last one? All those people who voted the last time - have they changed their minds? Unless they have, their opinions are all still valid. Offliner (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If their arguments were in conflict with rules, as all objecting to the proposed title were, they weren't valid then.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and Misplaced Pages's all about consensus. In this case, it looks like it has changed. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication that consensus has changed on this issue. Compare the above "votes" with the opinions of the previous discussion below. You will see that most of those who opposed the move have not yet voted in the new discussion, where as many of the supporters have. However, everyone's opinion is still valid. Offliner (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I see, Offliner, Patar knight is correct: the consensus appears to have changed. If you compare the above votes to the votes from the previous survey, you'll see that 15 editors currently support the move, as compared to 23 during the previous survey, and that only 5 editors currently oppose the move, as compared to 24 during the previous survey . So, in the past two months, since the closing of the last survey and the opening of this one, the consensus appears to have dramatically changed. However, this current poll has been open only for a day-and-a-half, so it assuredly needs much more time, seeing as the previous survey lasted for exactly a month. But at the current moment, it appears, most assuredly, that the consensus has swung enormously, from barely favoring the opposers of the move, to favoring the supporters of the move by a 3:1 ratio. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinions from the previous discussion

I've restored the opinions made during the previous discussion which was conducted just a short while ago. These opinions are all still relevant in determining consensus, unless the editors have changed their minds. Of course, everyone's opinion should be counted only once. Offliner (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2008 South Ossetia war

Support

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

2008 Russia–Georgia war

Support

1. Weak support (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Support --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support --Kober 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support – Närking (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Ostap 04:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. SupportBiophys (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support.Geagea (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support good name for the article, readers should be able to find the article with this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong Support The most used name internationally and for people who are not experts on the Russian/Gerogian affairs. Usually in such cases of naming belligerents in the title, people name the stronger country first. --Darwish (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support, per Ijanderson and Darwish. Why hide the fact the the major belligerents were Russia and Georgia? Martintg (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Support This names when and who, per Darwish07 and others. The title should reflect something that is logical for the average reader. Also, one does not have to "formally" declare war to have war or to be able to describe a military conflict as "war." PetersV       TALK 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. dima (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support --Yakudza (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - Biruitorul 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - Kouber (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Strong Support This is the most appropriate title for the article. The opposition to it mentions irrelevant matters like South Ossetia not being included in the title. Many article titles include none of the parties involved. The primary focus of the conflict was Russia against Georgia. It was the intervention of Russia that kept this war going and what made this conflict so notable. Ultimately Russia's actions extended well beyond South Ossetia and in fact the current title does not reflect how broad this conflict was, which is a key criteria for naming articles. There was a whole other front that is basically ignored by the current title. This title is the only alternative which seems to be getting considerable support and I would say it's completely neutral. It mentions the two primary belligerents in the conflict without showing any preferences towards either perspective.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong support JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - per The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs). —Ed 17 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - per The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) - Elysander (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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