Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 19 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.

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)

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)

He points out that if you plan a war with Georgia, it makes sense to train right next to the Georgian border. --Xeeron (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet he "forgets" to point out that no Russian forces crossed the border between Russia and Georgia Proper. Interesting how Mr. Cornell generally "forgets" all the counter arguments favoring Russia. And I've yet to hear from you on Mr. Cornell's comment on page 18, bottom paragraph: "After continuos attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops". The problem with writing a one sided paper is that eventually you lie and get caught. There have been no credible sources that point out that Russian troops continuosly attacked civilian homes. That is a blatant lie on the part of Mr. Cornell. For some reason HRW never reported Russian troops attacking civilian homes directly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The complete sentence is: "After continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops and South Ossetian militia , a large number of civilians escapes the city of Gori and surrounding villages." These attacks were reported by numerous observers, as well as by the ad-hoc delegation of the European Parliament:

I'm not entirely sure you know what the word "and" means. For example if I say "I have cookies and ice cream" that means that I can be quoted as saying "I have cookies" and I can also be quoted as saying "I have ice cream". Likewise, when Mr. Cornell says "After continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops and South Ossetian militia" I can, using the basic English grammar rules, split that into two sentences. "After continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops" would be one of them. It's called basic English grammar. I heard somewhere you had to know that to edit Misplaced Pages. Also, you say "numerous observers" and you don't say who they are. Like you, Mr. Cornell also says "Russian military expert" without mentioning the name. Also, you article states that "uniformed soldiers" were pillaging, not Russian Troops. Reading comprehension is totally awesome and highly recommended. It does say that Russian troops are blowing up railway bridges, yeah - and? Blowing up empty railway bridges is not the same as burning civilian homes. You cannot assume that "uniformed soldiers" are "Russian troops". If that report wanted to charge Russian troops with "pillaging the village" then the report wwould have simply stated "Russian troops are blowing up rail bridges in Kaspi and pillaging the village" - but it doesn't say that. Instead it puts in "uniformed soldiers". We also know that looters, hooligans and other criminals dressed up as "uniformed soldiers" and looted. You article merely states that Russian soldiers, blew up a bridge that no one was on. That is not a war crime. You've also skillfully shown that you don't know what the word "and" means. Thus the above point that I made has not been refuted in any way, shape or form. In short, Mr. Cornell has lied, and you are supporting his lie to go on Misplaced Pages. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what "and" stands for, thank you. The reasons I'm insising on citing the entire sentence are two. The first is that you're trying to blame Svante Cornell for anti-Russian position based on half of the sentence, you're trying to describe Cornell as somebody who's writing only anti-Russian things biasedly by putting lies, hence you want his removal from WP. However, the complete sentence reveals that he's not trying to blame (only) Russia, but instead to represent what have really happened. The sentence is nor anti, neither pro-Russian. There were really many damaged houses in Gori by Russian air strikes, many houses were demolished by Ossetian gangs, and many refugees fleed afterwards , . It is not a lie, it is the truth. You need to be very naive to believe that Russian army didn't damage even a single Georgian house during this war. Is that your point HistoricWarrior007?

You don't get it, do you? When someone uses the word "and" in a sentence - that means that the sentence can be split into two parts. The whole purposes of the word "and" is to join the parts together. This is basic grammar! And Mr. Cornell's anti-Russian bias is so clearly evident, that it's a moot point to even argue it. Mr. Cornell implies that Russia is evil so damn much in his articles, that only an anti-Russian person would think that Mr. Cornell isn't biased towards Russia. Lying about Russians committing war crimes, when they haven't, isn't anti-Russian? What is it? Mr. Cornell states, and I qoute again "After continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops" - that is a war crime accusation. That sentence, or part of the sentence, states that Russians have comitted war crimes. There were no war crimes comitted by Russian Troops that were proven. Hence, Mr. Svante Cornell has lied. Therefore, Mr. Svante Cornell is a liar. Mr. Svanta Cornell isn't saying that the Russian Army didn't damage a single Georgian home. That's your very own spin Mr. Kouber. If Mr. Cornell has stated that, it wouldn't be a problem. But please, Mr. Kouber, do me a favor: don't try to spin it towards your POV, when the facts contradict your argument. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The facts are that Russians damaged civilian homes, and I gave you sources confirming it. Now, you can believe it or not, but you definetely should not call Mr. Cornell a liar, when he's simply synthesizing what dozens of sources say. Even HRW confirms that both sides have most likely committed war crimes, but no - you insist that the Russian army is innocent. Sorry, but WP isn't the place for such naivity. Repeating hundreds of times "liar" and "anti-Russian bias" won't change the situation, and honestly I'm already sick of such kind of poor efforts to discredit somebody. Kouber (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, now you are just changing Mr. Svante Cornell's wording, Mr. Kouber. Once again, here it is: "After continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops". Not "likely attacks". Mr. Svante Cornell doesn't say "likely attacks". Mr. Svante Cornell says "continous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops". There has been NO proof. The proof you offered is houses damaged, possibly, or "likely" by Russian Air Force, not troops. Does Mr. Svante Cornell say the word "likely" in that sentence? Anywhere? Then why are you putting it in? Stop arguing against facts Kouber. If Mr. Svante Cornell makes a claim, and it is a lie, then he is in fact a liar. I don't see why this is so hard to follow? "Continuous attacks" do NOT equate to "likely attacks" - just like the word "and" binds two sentences. I have never seen anyone argue against facts, that are in black and white, but then again, there's a first for everything. Also, I didn't say that Mr. Svante Cornell is a liar 200 times. And are you seriously arguing that Mr. Svante Cornell doesn't have an anti-Russian bias? Seriously? Of course you are, earlier you argued that the word "and" isn't a connector. Why am I not surprised? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never argued that the word "and" isn't a connector! Please stop blaming me for things I've never written! My point was that "I have cookies and ice cream" is not the same as "The Georgian has been beaten by the Russian and the Ossetian" - the latter is a crime, and the first (normally) isn't, hence in the latter case the word "and" besides a simple connector expresses also shared responsibility, which is important when you are trying to blame Cornell for anti-Russian bias only. If you want to accuse Cornell for being biased based on that sentence, then you must mention also anti-Ossetian bias, mustn't you? It is the same as trying to blame somebody for being a cocaine addict, based on a sentence like "John has cocaine, heroine and LSD in his bag.". Why is it so complex to understand it HistoricWarrior007?

You have argued that the word "and" isn't a connector. You earlier stated the equivalent of someone saying "I have cookies and ice cream" would be quoted as out of context if I said "I have ice cream". By making that argument you have proven yourself to be an ignoramus of the English language. Also someone who has cocaine in his bag isn't necessarily an addict, he could be a dealer, be providing transportation or something else. If you say "John is addicted to cocaine, heroine and LSD" then John is indeed a cocaine addict. Really, really not complicated. First grade stuff. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am not pretending that Mr. Cornell isn't biased at all - everybody is biased to some extent, even the most reliable sources are. The fact that somebody is biased doesn't mean that he is not reliable and vice versa.

So are you arguing then that Mr. Svante Cornell is only a little bit biased? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, your point that the Russian Air Force and the Russian troops are two different things just made me laugh. Do you really don't know what the word troops mean? Well, I expected more from a person giving free lessons on English grammar to wikipedians.

Are you blind, or you are just too lazy to watch the movies, see the photos and read the articles I gave you? Or you will now accuse BBC and The Daily Telegraph for also being biased?

"For two days, Georgia has been convulsed by a Russian air and ground assault... Russian bombs had struck a residential area... at least two (bombs) fell in a compound of long, low-slung apartment blocks, five of which were quickly reduced to blackened shells. A third hit a small secondary school, which crumbled to the ground in a pile of rubble and twisted girders."

Assault isn't troops. The troops carry out the assault, but during the assault the buildings could have been destroyed by airstrikes or artillery fire. There is no proof that it was Russian troops. Yes they were destroyed during a Russian assault, but that's not what Mr. Svante Cornell says. Stop changing the wording. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you see somewhere the word "likely"?! I used that word to describe the report of HRW concerning possible commitment of war crimes, not to reveal the certain fact that Russians did damage civilian homes: "Forces on both sides in the conflict between Georgia and Russia appear to have killed and injured civilians through indiscriminate attacks, respectively, on the towns of Gori and Tskhinvali". Would you now accuse HRW for being a liar HistoricWarrior007?

It says "forces". The Russo-Ossetian side contained more then just Russian troops. Forces isn't the same as Russian troops. No I am not calling the HRW a liar. Good try Kouber. By the way - it lists the conflict between Georgia and Russia, signifying that Georgia was the attacker. Just a sidenote. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Svante Cornell isn't talking about war crimes, only about damage of civilian homes, but HRW on the contrary is mentioning war crimes. So according to your logic, the one that must be called a liar is the Human Rights Watch, isn't it?! Kouber (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"After continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops" - sounds like a war crime to me. Sounds like a war crime. You are arguing against facts. That means there had to be "continuous attacks" against "civilian homes" by "Russian Troops". That hasn't been proven. Therefore Mr. Svante Cornell is lying about it, by stating that what has proven, hasn't been proven. Once again, this isn't complicated stuff. It's not just damage of civilian homes. It's "continuous attacks" against "civilian homes". If I hit your house with my car I have damaged it. If I continuously ram your house with my truck, I have not only damaged it, but continuously attacked it. Stop trying to tone down Mr. Svante Cornell's lies. Learn the difference between these two words: "and", "or". Stop arguing against black and white facts. Once again here is the line: "After continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops". It was never proven. Mr. Svante Cornell stated it like a fact. Therefore he has lied. Therefore Mr. Svante Cornell is a liar. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The second reason is that as you know when there's a murder, for example, it is not only the murderer that personally pulled the trigger who's guilty - there could be also some people which helped him in committing the crime. So, if the Russian tied the Georgian to the tree and then the Ossetian came and beated the helpless Georgian whose responsibility is that? Is it only the Ossetian who's guilty? Which of the sentences would be correct to describe the situation then: "The Georgian has been beaten by the Russian and the Ossetian" or "The Georgian has been beaten by the Russian"? So, even if there wasn't Georgian houses damaged by Russians (which isn't the situation, as shown above), the sentence of Cornell wouldn't be a lie, unless being cut in the middle, which indeed you did.

Umm, ok, Kouber thank you for pointing out you have no clue what the word "and" means. Please consult a grammar dictionary. Also, stop coming up with these non-existant hypotheticals. Saying "The Georgian has been beaten by the Russian and the Ossetian" means that the Russian beat the Georgian. But in your own hypothetical the Russian didn't beat the Georgian. Please, study basic grammar before continuing to edit. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Svante Cornell, as most of us, has its own opinion and he has the right to express it. So, if he is not supporting the Russian invasion, occupation and cutting of parts of Georgia, what's wrong with it? I pesonally also don't support all these things, as well as many people worldwide (not to say the vast majority). Kouber (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And he has a right to express his opinion. However when he lies in a scholarly publication, he shouldn't be cited in an encyclopedia. You can have your own opinion. Clowns have their own opinions. My problem isn't with Mr. Svante Cornell having freedom to opine, or freedom of speech; my problem is with a liar, in this case Mr. Svante Cornell, being cited in the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Russian troops are blowing up the railway bridges in Kaspi, uniformed soldiers are pillaging the village, and the troops are moving on towards Tbilisi on both sides of the river, burning and looting the peaceful Georgian territory. This has to be stopped immediately. I call on the international community to intervene with the Russian President by all means, most urgently!"

See above HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar cases describing the situation in Gori and other villages around it are also described further in the document above. After all, these thousands of refugees were fleeing their homes with a reason, they were fleeing from something (and somebody), weren't they?

Bombs are a very valid reason to flee. Israeli settlers fled from Hamas bombs in the recent Israel-Hamas war. I'd flee from bombs if I was a civvie. Let's see - the villagers see a war, they see bombs falling on military infrastructure, they flee. No mention of Russians is necessary. Serbs also fled from US bombs. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there's a new book by Svante Cornell which was just published these days: .Kouber (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to it when I feel like reading Russia-bashing fiction. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) Cornell and Starr are both reputable sources/scholars. As to HistoricWarrior007's diatribe at top, please do better than quoting Mark Ames. Someone just has to look at Russia ever so slightly askance and Ames becomes a rabid attack dog--the very definition of a non-objective source. PetersV       TALK 16:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when did outspoken equate to biased? Ames attacks whoever he believes is in the wrong, be it Putin or Obama. That's precisely why he's objective, he doesn't let ideology or loyalties get in the way of reporting what he believes to be true, albeit in the most blunt manner possible. LokiiT (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Starr you speak of is not Kenneth Starr, but rather S. Frederick Starr who is a professor at Johns Hopkins University, the same one that took bribes from an oil company that runs one of its pipelines through Georgia, and Mr. S. Frederick Starr is proudly a professor at Paul H. Nitze School. His expertise, like Mr. Cornell's, is in oil politics. So one the one hand we have bribe-ridden institution dealing in oil politics, that are loved by the incredible scholar that is PetersV. On the other hand we have The Nation, a magazine not tied to oil politics, entrusting Mark Ames, who has been rather unbiased on Russia many, many times in the past and has been kicked out of Russia. I'm going to go with The Nation on this one. Mr. Cornell and company will be bashing Russia even more in the future, as Russian and Kazakstan get close and the company funding Mr. Cornell loses it's oil monopoly in Kazakstan. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare Cornell's "analysis" with the finding of the EU investigation commission.

Cornell: According to multiple and consistent Georgian sources (including witnesses to the discussions), at approximately 11 PM Georgian Presiden Mikheil Saakashvili receives information that a convoy of over 100 Russian military vehicles is passing through the Roki tunnel.

Note the wording; he clearly tries to point out that personally he thinks the sources are correct and reliable.

EU investigation commission: The experts found no evidence to support claims by the Georgian president, which he also mentioned in an interview with SPIEGEL, that a Russian column of 150 tanks had advanced into South Ossetia on the evening of Aug. 7. According to the commission's findings, the Russian army didn't enter South Ossetia until August 8.

Well done, Mr. Cornell. Offliner (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The commission report is not published yet. Moreover, according to this, the head of the commission, Heidi Tagliavini, calles the Spiegel article you are quoting "largely speculative" and "fictitious". Well done Der Spiegel? (PaC (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Not entirely sure what you're saying, are you saying that "largely speculative" is the same as lying? What you don't seem to get is that Mr. Cornell has been caught lying, red-handed. Der Spiegel has been called "inconclusive". There's a massive difference between the two, and I'm saddened that your bias blinds you from seeing it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:07, 18 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)

Moving on from this discussion is indeed what I'll do now, no point in repeating myself, simply check my above posts if you want an answer. --Xeeron (talk) 14:44, 9 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)

67.84.178.0, have you noticed that we talk about a time when SO was not recognized by Russia or Niceragua? --Xeeron (talk) 14:46, 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 — Relisting at WP:RM - discussion still ongoing; very controversial topic.--Aervanath (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

So you left a loaded message on the Russia wikiproject noticeboard, as if the wikiproject could have edited the article, and now you wonder why three users stumble upon this article in a day. Just amazing. Colchicum (talk) 08:56, 9 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)

Very well summarized. So you'll agree that your comment above "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)" is not true, since a one vote difference is no consensus. --Xeeron (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's exactly opposite. There wasn't nearly enough support to justify a name change. The one vote difference is completely irrelevant. LokiiT (talk) 06:54, 16 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)
• Boycott We have discussed it recently. It shouldn't be moved to 2008 Russian-Georgian war. We know that Georgian army fled when Russian army entered the Georgian boarders (do not confuse it with South Ossetian boarders). So, if you are insisting on moving it, then the article name should be War in Georgia after the War in South Ossetia.
• Support. Our duty to the WP:Dear Reader requires us to make our articles as easy to find as reasonably possible. Among other things, this means we should use the best-known keywords. Everybody knows where Russia is. Georgia (country) is a known country — Kindzmarauli is only one of its famous products — everybody who has sit through a year of high school geography can find it on a map. But Ossetia? It's not a sovereign entity; there's no industry nor natural resources to speak of. It's the name of a small patch of land few people know about, unless they're familiar with the situation already. And face it, the people looking up our article on Misplaced Pages are not the people who have thorough knowledge of this issue; to the contrary, the people interested in the article are people with rather limited advance knowledge about its subject matter. Informing people with limited knowledge is, after all, the very mission of any encyclopædia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per all support arguments listed above. It is more accurate and used all over various sources. Iberieli (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Everyone knows what the 2008 Russu-Georgian war was; but I've never heard of it being used under this title, ever, in the media. "South Ossetia War" is a misleading title, and one which few are familiar with. ResMar 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard it called the Russu-Georgian War by anyone. It has 0 hits on Google and Google Scholar. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:10, 18 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)

You are forgetting that 10 of those who voted "support" above also voted the same way the last time. We only have about 4 new supporters (I think), and 1 new opponent. So the count is 27 - 25 for "support." Hardly a consensus in any way. Offliner (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe we are counting differently, but I count only 7 editors who voted "Support" above who also did so below. I also counted 15 total users voting "Support" above. So, fifteen minus seven equals eight. Eight plus twenty-three equals thirty-one. Therefore, from the way I've counted, the count is 31 - 25 for "Support". But you're right, that is definitely not a consensus any way you look at it. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, this constant and repetitive badgering back and forth isn't getting us anywhere and we're no sooner reaching a consensus than ever before. Maybe a new title that compromises the two titles that are currently being discussed should be suggested. Any thoughts on this? Laurinavicius (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus cannot change overnight. The last vote took a month per Xeeron's request. No one objected to that request. This vote isn't going to take any time less time than a month. I've seen what's been done here. It's been a blitz-vote by the people who have generally made anti-Russian edits, and now they want to lock it down before the rest of the Wiki Community had the right to respond. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle to fit your POV needs. This isn't Fox News. You won't get a result before the month is up. You will be laughed at for saying that concensus has changed, within a week. Most of the voters who voted in the previous discussion haven't even been informed of this vote, and yet YeshuaDavid, one of the people that hasn't edited this article at all, suddenly votes. I'm assuming he keeps on his watch, like Colchicum. And Lauri - did you count the 27 people who voted against it last time. I think those 27 people should be informed about this vote. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think those 27 people should be informed about this vote.

If you start informing people you need to inform everyone who participated in last title discussion. Both all those who supported/opposed "Russian-Georgian war" and "South Ossetia war", and also all those who didnt vote for or against any of those two options, but backed or opposed some other titles that were on table ("August war", "Georgian war" etc.).--Staberinde (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I realize that consensus cannot possibly change overnight, or even in a short period of time such as a week. It takes a lengthy period of time for a consensus to change, weeks or even months. However, I have never stated anything that could be construed as this. What I believe that you are referring to was a comparison I made between the results of the previous poll and the votes so far of this survey. A brief summary of what I said is that the votes as of a day-and-a-half into this poll were suggestive that a consensus would be reached after its completion. However, after thinking about it for a while after making that edit, I realized that the results of this current poll would probably end up similarly to the previous poll: with no consensus being made. So, in my edit at 07:58 on 9 June 2009, I simply stated that this "constant and repetitive badgering" has been going on since early March (which is far too long, in my opinion) and that a consensus is still just about as far from being reached as it was three months ago. Therefore, I just pointed out that after three months of fervent debate, maybe a compromising title should be proposed, one that includes the main points that both parties want in the article's title, and I asked for some feedback on that idea.

Secondly, I completely agree with Staberinde: if people are going to be informed about this current polling, then everyone who voted in the previous title discussion and have worked on the article should be informed about it in a NPOV manner that encourages the editor to read and comprehend all of the evidence that both sides bring to the table. Either everyone or no one should be informed about this article. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never stopped anyone from informing anyone else. I don't make petty canvassing accusations unlike some of the other editors here. Kober accused me of canvassing when I informed a person who as editing this article a whole month before the vote. And Colchicum seems to be accusing me of it right now. If a person edited this article, it's ok to inform them. Also I agree with Lauri's suggestion, that if this discussion is deemed legal, it should run for at least two months. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me on this. I also agree with you on the fact that "f a person edited this article, it's ok to inform them". However, accusations of canvassing do not come about just from whom you inform about a discussion, but how you inform them, if it's from a POV that insinuates of even outright states that you want them to support a particular side.

Also, seeing as there have been accusations of canvassing just flying everywhere, I would like to let everyone know that I have left messages on all of the talk pages of the WikiProjects that this article is a member of that have not already been notified about this survey (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Georgia (country), Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Abkhazia, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ossetia, and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject International relations). This message lets all of the members of the aforementioned WikiProjects know about the renaming proposal in a manner that I view as NPOV, although if you do not feel that it is NPOV, please do not hesitate to let me know and I will change it upon reading the message. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at Google Scholar search results, and I got the impression that actually, "August war" is used most. "August war" Georgia gives 99 hits, "August 2008 war" Georgia 33, "Russian-Georgian war" 44, "Russo-Georgian war" 33 and "Georgian-Russian war" 19. Comments? If these results stand, and if they match with wat other reliable sources say, I will support a move only to "August war". If more disambiguation is needed it would have to be "August 2008 war". sephia karta | di mi 08:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to look at "Russia-Georgia war" (33 results) and "Georgia-Russia war" (11), that doesn't change my point though.sephia karta | di mi 08:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just pointing this out to you, sephia karta, but although "August War" is used the most overall on Google Scholar, "Russian-Georgian War" is the most used title for this year. If you would look at the dates at which these works were published, between 85 and 90 of the articles using the term "August War" were from the latter part of 2008. Meanwhile, of the 51 results that use "Russian-Georgian War" (there is a discrepancy between our figures for some reason), only 8 were from 2008, while the remainder were from 2009. Therefore, "Russian-Georgian War" is, by far, the most common and well-known title at the present moment, as the 42 scholarly works from 2009 that use it greatly dwarf any other title possibility from the current year. "Russian-Georgian War" is the most well-known and common term for the war used today, which is a key reason why it should be used as the title of this article. Laurinavicius (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're just shopping for criteria now. Most of the scholarly works on the war haven't even come out yet. 42 "scholarly" works don't give a war its title. And we don't rename wars based on the title that most popular in any given year. This isn't a popularity contest. It is most definately not an annual popularity contest. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:41, 19 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