Talk:2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Stop hand.svg Please read this
Hi, and welcome. Take a deep breath and relax your eyebrows. If you are about ready to explode it is suggested that you stop for a minute and relax, because that indeed may happen after sifting through these heated debates. This is a controversial topic!


          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Caucasia  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Caucasia, Caucasian people and Caucasian languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / History / Politics and law (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Georgia (country) (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Anti-Russian PoV?[edit]

This article is definitely written from an anti-Russian PoV. It has several strong statements needing to be referenced. I have marked them with {{fact}}. Furthermore, you can't put that Putin reportedly met with some people; either he did or he did not; if he did, please provide a reference. (Apparently, the ones currently provided do not seem sufficient to remove the reportedly) Errabee 23:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed all the problems you listed. No need for NPOV tag, IMHO.--Kober 05:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not anymore, now that you've removed one very POV section. And I had already replaced another PoV passage by a simple statement. Errabee 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Óðinn, the school incident occured not in Moscow as claimed by that Romanian newspaper, but in Tbilisi where the Russian Military Headquarters runs its own school.
Meanwhile, schools run by the Russian army in Georgia said they would no longer be admitting Georgian pupils. The Moscow Helsinki Group, a Russian human rights group, called for a halt to the "anti-Georgian campaign". [1]
В Тбилиси из школ Минобороны России вышвыривают детей-грузин. Т.е. какие-то дети могли с детства любить русских, хорошо знать русский язык. Теперь не будут. Людмила Алексеева справедливо говорит, что все это напоминает Германию 30-х годов. [2]
Trust me, I'm not happy at all to report such incidents despite the political tensions. Kind regards, --Kober 08:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Представитель российского посольства в Грузии опроверг информацию о том, что грузинские дети не смогут продолжить обучение в школах Группы российских войск в Закавказье (ГРВЗ). [3] (by anon)

Kober, please remember that Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. I restored the POV tag. The article carefully omits any mention of the torrent of personal attacks to which Russia and its leadership have been subjected over the previous years. From each source presented on the page, only the anti-Russian rhetoric finds its way to the article. For instance, the notorious data about the schools (more than suspect in itself) leads to the page which says that "Lavrov said Georgia was channelling funds from organised crime in Russia into a slush fund to buy weapons in a massive military build-up directed at the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia." I can't find any mention of this in the article. In short, the current pattern of editing the page is a fine example of tendentious editing which is better avoided. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article deals with the current crisis in the Georgian-Russian relations. If you want to describe all historic aspects of the problem you should start a separate article. As for personal attacks, Georgia and its leadership have equally been subjected to them, not to say anything about the increasing anti-Georgian sentiments among the part of the Russian society. Have you ever heard of a single attack on ethnic Russians in Georgia?
I have not heard about attacks on ethnic Georgians in Russia, either. Anyway, please don't confuse apples with oranges. The numbers of Russians living in Georgia and Georgians living in Russia are... err, not comparable. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, Lavrov’s comment will be mentioned. I see no problem in it though the official position of the Russian authorities (particularly that of MVD) on alleged Georgian crime is already cited. Btw, you can also do this. I don’t own this page. Again, I have nothing against mentioning any other comment, including yesterday’s profanities in the State Duma. The reaction of a Russian human rights watchdog is also cited, further balancing the content. Do you see any other (real) POV issues? Kober 13:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Girla, I can say the same for your attention: Wikipedia is not a propaganda web site. Please do not attack other users based on their ethnic background. Kober used reliable sources and I haven’t seen any "anti-Russian" rhetoric on this article. I think you should start constructive co-operation with other users instead of unproductive comments which only puts people down. The tone which you use during communication is not friendly and understanding. This theme is very controversial to you due to the fact that you are Russian and your country is directly involved in this crisis. I understand that and i do respect your concerns, don’t get me wrong. However, as i can see Kober is more willing to work out details of this article than you. The school situation is known in the west as we got information about it via BBC, CNN, Deutsche Zeitung, ect. Please lets drop this nonsense and lets all work together as a team to create a fair article. All the best. Ldingley 14:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla also needs to know know that wikipedia is not a tool for propaganda. All the facts can be documented by the BBC and CNN [[4]] [[5]] and even Al Jazeera too:) [[6]]. Those guys were "Spies" and Russia did not have any Casus Belli to blockade or invade Georgia. Putin compared Georgian govt with Stalin and Beria. Well, evrybody knows that Georgia is not a country wich has a KGB presdident. Sosomk 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili(Stalin) was from Georgia. Dudtz 10/5/06 6:04 PM EST

Actually, if he was not, I don't think Abkhazia or Ossetia would have ever been administrated from Tbilisi. The conflict is entrenched in the obnoxious desire of the "Father of Nations" to aggrandize his own nation. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, there would have never been the South Ossetian AO; Abkhazia, Artvin and Ardahan would have been administered from Tbilisi; and there would have never been the Georgian SSR, but the free and sovereign Democratic Republic of Georgia. During the so-called Georgian Affair of 1921-24, even Comrade Lenin desrcribed Stalin's policy towards Georgia as Great Russian Chauvinism (I can cite myriads of sources if you want). (personal attack removed) Regards, Kober 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Lenin was the father of Lenin's national policy, also known as the right of nations to self-determination. Stalin was an opponent of this policy.
IIRC, Stalin was in charge of the national policy in Lenin's government (Sovnarkom), so there is no much difference here. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And Lenin recognized the independent state of Georgia, in 1920, within the borders that included Abkhazia, what is now S. Ossetia, etc. However, within a few months, he sanctioned a Red Army invasion orchestrated by Stalin. This brought to the occupation of Georgia and the reign of terror, taking lives of at least 20,000 Georgians from 1921 to 1924. This is an another story, however. It seems to me the articles on the Soviet-Georgian war and Georgian Affair are becoming increasingly wanted, and I'm going to start them as soon as possible. Thanks, --Kober 09:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. Please don't forget to consult WP:TE before doing that. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I did not even know that! :) Sosomk
Really? Wow, ok than lets blaim Georgians. Also Hitler was from Austria and Napoleon from Corsica. Lets blaim them too :) Ldingley 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see Georgian-Russian relations are better than ever, as shown by the comments on this talk page. *rolls eyes* —Khoikhoi 02:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You'll find many interesting things on this talk page, including a major outbreak of anti-Americanism and a campaign against BBC, as well as the claims that the republic of Georgia is actually the US state Georgia #2, and the current crisis is forged by CIA, etc.:) --Kober 04:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the joys of editing Wikipedia. ;-) —Khoikhoi 04:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I find the talk pages to be more informative than the actual pages, in a sense. Jburt1 23:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I clicked on this article to get more information about the issue. Since there is a NPOV tag, I would like to know exactly what facts are disputed.

The references "neutrality disputed" in the text are of no use. For example, consider "Both sides claim the other party has engaged in inflammatory rhetoric against each the other." This sentance in itself is absolutely neutral to any sane person, or at least to any non-Russian and non-Georgian sane person. One might wish to elaborate by giving examples. If the examples would be one-sided, clearly there would be a doubt of neutrality. But after this sentance there is no example, so it is neutral.

I do not agree, I believe the word claim is too harsh of a word. I'll just delete the whole thing, no need for the citation needed and npov remarks.Xtcy3 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The same holds for most other "neutrality tags". I suggest that a non-Russian and non-Georgian who has participated in the editing and knows more about the issue, remove all NPOV tags that are not clearly motivated. I removed the NPOV tag from the article as a whole, because I don't think Russians and Georgians who can not control sufficiently their emotions are entitled to deprive the others from knowing the facts. If you know something you think is not there, add it please, we will be happiy to learn it, but don't place NPOV tags without addressing every and each issue you dispute.

NPOV tags are reserved for articles which are obviously uni-lateral or racist or etc, otherwise there should be a clear long list of "grevances" in order to place such a tag. What if I put a NPOV tag to all articles related to Chemistry based on tha fact that I once got a bad grade in Chemistry. It would be ridiculous.


Spies?[edit]

Yes, "those guys were Spies", but did Georgia have jurisdiction over them? -- Petri Krohn 08:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

Due to further escalation of the crisis and freeing of Russian officers arrested, this article should be renamed to a Georgia-Russia relations crisis, 2006 or something like that.--87.251.146.68 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the subject of voting. Kober 13:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, and what we need to do that?--87.251.146.125 13:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please consult [7]. As far as I know, you will need to log in to request a page move.--Kober 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia. Please register and join us for discussion. Ldingley

Something messed up in the timeline[edit]

I wanted to format the dates in the timeline in this article and I noted that when I wanted to edit the section there is a lot more in the textarea field than there is on the page. I don't know what's wrong with the formatting of the section that would make it that it doesn't show up in the article. I don't see any html comment tags or something like that. Maybe someone who knows more about it can have a look? Thanks. BigBen212 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Background information" section disputed[edit]

Im disputing this section because of its strong POV statements, un-reliable data, sources which are not neutral. I don’t speak Russian but I can tell that those numbers are not based on any official statistics or were conformed as such. Suggestion: let’s use neutral sources or others to back up those claims (preferably in English due to the fact that this is an English Wikipedia and most of us can not conform the sources), Most of the statements used numerous sources on this article. Avoid strong POV statements and implement NPOV policy fully. Until this, the tag will remain. Thanks for your contributions and understanding. Ldingley 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, you don't speak Russian. If you did, you would read in the source that the numbers were presented by Mr. Mikhail Tyurkin, vice-president of the Federal Migration Service of Russia. These are the number the Service believes to be realistic, possessing more information than you and me. Further, per definition there can't be exact numbers on illegal immigrants as well as on the amount of money they transfer to their homeland. So you have to trust someone, who has the most to do with this issue. You don't want to recognize the statement of an official Russian government body, blaming it to be POV. But everyone visiting your wikipedia userpage also can blame you not to be politically neutral. So why should your opinion have a priority over the opinion of the Russian Federal Migration Service? I don't see any reason. Being liberal, I suggested you to find other (even less official sources) and place them besides existing sources. This would enable the reader to compare it and to decide himself, whom to trust. But you want to limit the information, making it compatible to your single opinion. So who is totalitarian? Voyevoda 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
According to your user page, I may presume that you have anti Polish agenda here as stated clearly. However, I don’t claim that you have POV although you should avoid any negative comments on any nationals. I don’t trust your numbers from that article because as i said before, they are not reliable, official and conformed by others. Please provide additional sources, which are neutral and not one sided. Russia is directly involved in this dispute and it’s definitely a one sided statements. I can ask Georgian users for additional info and im sure they will get different numbers which are recognized by their own institutions. But Wikipedia has NPOV policy, that’s why please insert the numbers from the sources which are recognizable fro many users who don’t speak Russian and can understand this numbers and statements. Also do not make any personal attacks and inappropriate comments. I’m not totalitarian and i don’t want people to read only my comments. That’s why the tag will remain until the group of people will decide on how we should carry on. Until this, that section is disputed. Thanks for your contributions and I appreciate your efforts. Regards. BTW I lived for a short time in Karlsruhe too :)Ldingley 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tyurkin said that the majority of Georgians living in Russia are not enregistered anywhere. He said they will be deported home, to their mothers and families, and classed this mission as humanitarian.[8] --Ghirla -трёп- 08:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of its accuracy, I fail to see how any of the information from "Background information" section is relevant to the article. --Itinerant1 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Move this page[edit]

For the love of all that's holy, this title sounds amateurish and rushed. Move it to 2006 Georgian-Russian espionage scandal or 2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy or something like that. -- «klaus»

Moves[edit]

BBC Coverage[edit]

The BBC coverage of this dispute seems particularly pro-Georgian, without giving enough detail to the Russian side. The recent article, "Russia turns screw on Georgia", claims President Vladimir Putin's official spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, suggested that the Georgian military was being built up with profits from two Georgian restaurants in Russia. This seems a little silly, and I can't imagine that this is truly an official position of the Russian government. Georgia is getting closer to being a full member of NATO. If it's being militarized, the money is coming from NATO, not the restaurant industry.

According to the BBC, he also claimed the conflict has nothing to do with the arrest of the alleged spies, but came as a result of "a history of hostile behaviour by Georgia". Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any details about this history. All it describes is the wine embargo (again, Russia's side.) Can anyone fill in the blanks on this? If Russia is not simply trying to push its influence on Georgia, why are these things happening?

Thanks, TheMightyQuill 04:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Paradoxically, this restaurant stuff is an official position of the Russian authorities. See, for example, Mr Lavrov's comment that I've included in the text at the request of our Russian colleagues. These things are happening exactly because - as you correctly assume - Georgia is getting closer to being a full member of NATO. Cheers, --Kober 05:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please scroll up: "Lavrov said Georgia was channelling funds from organised crime in Russia into a slush fund to buy weapons in a massive military build-up directed at the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia." BBC's egregious anti-Russian rhetoric has been discussed in Wikipedia on numerous occasions. It's better not to cite such sources as BBC or Le Monde, if you aim at the even-handed coverage of contemporary Russia. What BBC calls "two restaurants" were huge "entertainment complexes" in Moscow downtown, a Russian Las Vegas, so to speak. The officials say that the major casinos of Moscow are run by the Georgian Mafia, who then transfers their gains to Saakashvili for militarizing the country. In other words, the baby took to biting the breast he feeds from. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is happening because Georgia is being a dick and is working to undermine Russia's strategic position in the world economy and polytics. --169.232.125.12 05:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you are rude 169.232.125.12. Second of all, I don't see why Georgia should care about Russia's "strategic position in the world economy and polytics", especially if it just means Russian imperialism and is against Georgian national interests.Eizengrim 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Because Georgia is Russia's neighbour? Or Canada doesn't care about US strategic position?
The USA isn't currently attempting to split Canada up. The USA isn't currently controlling two secessionist tyrannies in Canadian territory. The USA doesn't have unwanted troops in Canadian soil, constantly postponing their time of departure. The USA is Canada's *ally*. On the other hand Russia is quite clearly Georgia's enemy, and clearly wanting to tear bits off Georgia, piece by piece, until nothing remains. What you are talking about is that the sheep should care about the strategic position of the wolf. Give it a break, you aren't fooling anyone who's not already a willing supporter of Russian imperialism. 62.38.195.83 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I am a US Citizen, and I can speak for myself when I say that I highly anticipate the succession of Quebec and our annexation of British Colombia and Alberta. I hope this helps the discussion. Jburt1 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Background info section[edit]

I have a problem with the Background Information section of the article. For example the following line: "Unofficial estimations amount the annual monetary transfers to Georgia to a total of 2 billion dollars, exceeding the annual US help of 1.5 billion dollars." does not specify what "annual monetary transfers" are exactly. I'm assuming it's monetary remittance from Georgians living in Russia sent to relatives living in Georgia, but the sentance is not specific on that. One could assume, for example, that the $2 bln ammount is total currency exchange or economic trade between the two countries.

Also the words "the annual US help" are ambiguous: what does "US help" mean exactly: help from US government, help from US humanitarian ogranizations, or is it, again, monetary remittance from Georgians living in the US sent to relatives living in Georgia?

Whoever (or someone else) who wrote that section please "unambiguate" the information.

Also, the last two "facts" ("18% of Georgian foreign trade is being handled with Russia making it the most important Georgian trade partner." and "The Georgian share of Russian foreign trade makes up 0.5%.") are written to give the impression of how important Russia is for Georgian economy, and how insignificant is Georgia for Russian economy. Obviously, Russia is much bigger coutry than Georgia in every aspect (area, population, etc.), so the numbers will look disproportional. Also, I"m not sure where the author got that 18% figure from, CIA Worldbook page on Georgia says following, making Russia third most important Georgian trade partner:

Exports - partners: US 16.1%, Turkey 15.5%, Russia 12.3%, Turkmenistan 11.3% (2005)

--Berkut 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. I've fixed one figure incorrectly estimating the number of Georgian citizens of Russia at 400,000 instead of 197,934 (2002 All-Russia census). The entire section is somewhat out of context here though the demographic data should obviously be somehow mentioned in the article. --Kober 05:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Please scroll up. Only a small portion of the Georgians living in Russia is officially registered and may be accounted for, so there is no point in discussing the official figures. What background info is really missing is the local elections. Kober carefully purged all mention of them. As best I know, the elections illustrate the political alignment of Saaskashvili, who proudly reported that he consulted Condoleezza Rice about their timing. The Channel One reports that the votes of electors who failed to turn up are automatically given to the "majority party", but I'm not sure whether such nonsense may really be true. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The elections have nothing to do with the recent crisis. Don't believe to everything what you are told by mass media tightly controlled by Mr. Putin's adminitration. I'd humbly suggest to read this --Kober 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not "mass media tightly controlled by Mr. Putin's adminitration" who told me that you engage in removing all mention of these elections from Wikipedia. Such attitude is unacceptable. We should have a separate article on the subject, not suppress the data. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
We have the article called Georgian local elections, 2006. Why do you think I'm trying trying to remove all mention of these elections from Wikipedia? --Kober 09:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1.5 billion figure does not refer to US annual help. It is the total amount received by Georgia from United States since 1991. See here [9] and here [10] In fact, Strana.ru never says that it's an annual figure. It says: "... exceeds direct aid from USA which is estimated to be around 1.5 billion dollars." --Itinerant1 18:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Parading of officers[edit]

User:Berkut deleted the word "paraded" from the image caption with this comment:

I object to using the word "padare": the word conjures up the image of public humiliation, anyone have a source that considers act(s) pictured as that?

The words "paraded" and "public humiliation" where used by BBC news. Here are some sources:

-- Petri Krohn 06:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Human rights watchdog[edit]

I don't think that characterization of the Moscow Helsinki Group as a "Russian human rights organization" is appropriate. For the last decade, Mrs. Alekseyeva's establishment has been better known as a mouthpiece of anti-Russian rhetoric. It derives its funding from the same sources as the Saakashvili administration does - from the bellicose Bush administration. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have sources for such bold claims? Ldingley 14:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Also please avoid any political retheoric here and calling respected Human Rights Watch organization as anti-Russian just because their ideas do not match yours. Thanks Ldingley 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not respected within Russia, as best I know. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Girla, its respected for numerous reasons (in EU, N. America and rest of the world), one of which are their activities, history, reports, etc. Many things are not respected in Russia, human rights is one of them. Ldingley 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Your revolting accusations are not relevant to the dispute. If you want to learn more about countries not repsecting human rights, I advise you to read Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, Extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow not relevant? is this photo which you posted relevant to the topic? I can post thousands of photos of butchered Chechen children (which were massacred by invading Russian troops) but it’s not going to help this case as your photo does not support your equally. Let’s be more productive and co-operative and stay on topic. Thanks. Ldingley 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ldingley, you seem to be unable of holding a civil discussion. Both Chechnya and alleged disrespect for human rights in Russia (and alleged respect for them in the U.S.) are off-topic. It was you who chose to open these cans of worms. Since my comments are not appreciated but removed by my opponents (repeatedly), I see no point in my presence on this page. Therefore I leave it to the mercy of three Georgian editors. Good luck. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Which three Georgian editors? Im not Georgian and you know that very well. Also please avoid this kind of statements :"holding a civil discussion." Im ready for any dicussion which my Russian friends here (icluding you) so dont accuse me of being not civil. I also dont see a point of me being on this article too. Ldingley 16:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Ghirla, Chechnya is right next to Georgia and the USA is located on the other continent. Obviosuly, when we talk about Russia's treatment of Georigia, we compare it Chechnya, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and etc. Sosomk 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some 'human rights organizations'(the Moscow Helsinki group for example) are just propaganda tools.Nothing more. Sosomk,you made a mistake in your post:Chechnya is not (and has never been) an independent country,unlike Estonia,Lithuania,Ukraine,Belarus,etc.Dimts 17:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dimts, it does not matter if Chechnya has or has not been an independent country. The point is that human rights has been violated in Chechnya very strongly, and it’s not only the Moscow Helsinki group’s POV it’s what almost everybody outside the Russia thinks (This POV is based on very strong evidence by the way).Eizengrim 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But that wasn't Russia's policy (just the idea of several Russian commanders).On the other hand,the Chechen rebels conducted ethnic cleansing of Russians and other minorities all around 'Ichkeria'.Dimts 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Strana.ru vs CIA factbook[edit]

Ghirla, could please explain why an obscure Russian website is supposed to be more neutral than the CIS factbook? Additionally, Strana.ru is not verifiable for non-Russian speaking Wikipedians. --Kober 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Because some people think that CIA is directly responsible for this "espionage controversy". Espionage is their profession, after all. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
))LOL:)) Ok, guys we don't have American troops in Georgia and we don't plan to have them either. Russia is our powerful neighbor and we would like to cooperate in the process of moderation. Sosomk 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that some people think something is not a valid reason to discount the credibility of a particular source. --Kober 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If we would like to have more balance POV, maybe we should use neither of those, since there is a growing histeria about the Westerrnization of Georgia. Strana.ru is not more accurate than CIA factbook, however, some might argue that CIA factbook is more acceptable for the English laguage encyclopedia. Well, we can use some type of British source to get more balanced POV. Sosomk 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Rephrasing: The fact that some people do not trust a source is not a valid reason to discount the credibility of the source. -- Petri Krohn 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition, CIA Factbook is not a spying factbook. CIA stands for Central Intelligence Agency. Sosomk 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And Strana.Ru portraysmore Russian nationalist POV. Sosomk 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not use the official Georgian statistics? They say that trade with Russia makes about ~16% of the trade. (17.6% of its exports and 14% of its imports). mfa.gov.ge bogdan 16:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we can do that, if we don't get attacked by some users blaming us for not being neurtal.Sosomk 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There's something very wrong with that document, or at least with the "exports" column. I'm counting 16 countries among "others" with export values between 38500 and 39000 thousand USD. That's way too many to be random. Also, the total is off. 16*38500 is 616000 but they say that the total for "other countries" is just 293000. --Itinerant1 17:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, many numbers in the "imports" column are in the magical 38500-39000 range too. --Itinerant1 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right, there's a mistake in that report. Probably, it should be xxx instead of 38,xxx. :-) bogdan 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Or more likely, x-38,718. bogdan 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

Do we really need that many? We don't have to reference every sentence. I'm going to remove some from the timeline since most of it is not controversial / disputable... Óðinn 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Putin's Sochi meeting[edit]

Where is the proof that it added to the espionage scandal. The situation was not even mentioned there. Publically, at least. The references that are used currently in no way assert any connection. Óðinn 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It more intensified Georgian-Russian dispute and separatist support by Moscow is number #1 issue for Georgia. According to your reasoning we should also remove Kodori crisis and the rest of Russian blockade of Georgia. As for references I can say the same of ones which were inserted by your countryman (including Russian news agencies and strange statistics). Ldingley 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia concerning the Sochi meetings. --Kober 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Great. And at which point do they link the two events? Kodori crisis is mentioned in the background, not the timeline; and the Russian blockade is a direct result of the dispute. Abkhazia and South Ossetia might be #1 problems for Georgia, but that doesn't imply its inclusion into the article that talks about a different issue entirely. It's not a #1 problem for Russia either Óðinn 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, since there is still no rationale for including the passage, I'm removing it. If even the Georgian Foreign Affairs Ministry doesn't claim the connection between the two events, why should we? Óðinn 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The event took the place amid the current crisis, and everything related to the conflict zones is directly relevant to any article about Georgia-Russia relations. Even Mr. Lavrov claimed that the espionage scandal was "provoked" by Georgia and its "patrons" in NATO to dicredit the Russian "peacekeeping" forces in the conflict zones and demand their withdrawal as a preliminary to military solution to the conflicts. --Kober 04:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tribe of Huns"[edit]

I still have a general concern about the passage in the article quoting President Saakashvili as allegedly describing Russia as "a wild tribe of Huns." If this were true, certainly all news media would have caught that phrase. So far, the article cites only a Russian news website which can hardly be considered neutral. I failed to find any other source claiming the same. Hence the tag. --Kober 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your bias about what's neutral and what's not is irrelevant. As far as you're concerned, anything originating in Russia is not neutral. In fact, anything critical of Georgia is not neutral either, like the BHHRG. Óðinn 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I never said that anything originating in Russia is not neutral and I used many Russian sources in the article. The British Helsinki Group's bias is well-known and is even discussed in the main BHHRG article. Btw, you have not yet addressed my concerns.--Kober 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you would only use the Russian sources that were critical of the Russian government. The rest are, of course, not neutral and - what's the expression you used - are full of Kremlin propaganda? Anyway why should anyone address your concerns? If you beleive that Saaksashvili's statements are blatantly not true, find a source to disprove it. I took time to refute your allegations. Without resorting to tagging, I might add... Óðinn 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There cannot be a source for what he did not say. What I’m asking you is to provide any other source supporting Regnum’s claims. --Kober 20:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This was all over the news in Russia. I can give you a dozen articles.http://www.day.az/news/georgia/58236.html. Besides, if that wasn't true, Georgian media would have a field day.Óðinn 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The article at Day.az comes from Lenta.ru which in its turn cites Regnum. Not very convincing, IMHO.--Kober 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The speech was covered by Polish media. It did not say Russians are Huns, which would indeed be inappropriate, only compared bolsheviks to Huns when pointing out the similarities in Polish and Georgian history during the interbellum. I can't really say if the Russian media acted with malice aforethought on this or if it's simply a linguistic issue or a simplification.

Specifically he said: "[in 1920] Georgia was to weak and and succumbed to the bolsheviks while Poland withstood this Hunnish invasion" (referring to the Polish-bolshevik war). Here's a link (in Polish) [11].

Thank you very much for the explanation. --Kober 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is about the pipeline[edit]

If this article does not mention the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline then the reader will never understand why the US is involved in Georgia and why the conflict with Russia is happening.

Removal of the Moscow rally passage[edit]

Elk Salmon, please explain your reasoning more clearly. All the news media reported that the rally was held against the crackdown on ethnic Georgians and the murder of Polytkovskaya. See for example this website. --Kober 08:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you, guys, trying to suppress the data without even discussing your reasoning on the talk page? Here're the references ([12], [13], [14]) and a relevant photo gallery. --Kober 10:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If you insist on relevance of this Politkovskaya rally, please reword the paragraph. As it currently claims, implicitly, this rally against "anti-Georgian hysteria" has been the biggest opposition rally held recently. It is clearly POV, none of the references actually said nor imply this. (Igny 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC))
I'm ready to find a suitable compromise, but Elk Salmon keeps removing the whole passage. I'm getting sick of fighting over this article. Still it is a suppresion of the data. See how Regnum describes the event:
A picket has been held today in central Moscow to commemorate reporter, Novaya Gazeta columnist Anna Politkovskaya killed at the entrance of the apartment blocks where she lived in Moscow on October 7.Besides, participants of the picket, at which several hundreds people gathered, protested against increasing tensions in Russia-Georgia relations and against increasing ethnic extremism. The picket was held under slogans “Stop campaign against Georgia,” “Ethnic cleansing is the way for Russia’s collapse,” “Murder of Politkovskaya and pursuit of ethnic minorities is Fascism” and so on.[15] --Kober 14:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not my job to rephrase. Me is removing vandalism. This is not an article about Politkovskaya. If you want to mention about small 500 people pro Georgian picket so do it. But no mention about Politkovskaya. Elk Salmon 10:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant photo[edit]

In my opinion, that sign on the "school" is irrelevant. If the fact was denied by officials, why some strange photo should be left in place? I was bold and removed it. Feel free and tell me why I'm wrong. --Akral 14:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Although officials deny it, the fact was documented by Georgian and international media sources. See, for example, BBC photo gallery. I think the image is relevant and should be reincluded in the text. All the best, --Kober 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the photo is relevant. It shows the eagerness of low level officials to score points on the anti-Georgian campaign. Quite often this results in absurd decisions which may be later overridden (or denied) by Kremlin. (Igny 16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC))
This may have been a deliberate provocation. I repeat for the umpteenth time: BBC's coverage of Russia-related affairs is not friendly. If you insist on using their materials, the article will quickly degenerate into a slur. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This may have been a deliberate provocation sounds like your personal opinion. Do you have anything to back it up? (Igny 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC))
Igny, this paper located in the front of a window and could be putted there by everyone. This photo is irrelevant, because of no proofs that it was no provocation. Elk Salmon 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It is hard to argue here because we don't know the facts. However my POV is that it was an act of some overzealous low level official rather than a deliberate provocation. I believe in stupidity of a local bureaucrat and I don't believe in cleverness of some provocateur. Besides noone actually claimed it was a provocation, Russia just flatly denied this instruction, possibly after realizing it was a mistake. The picture is relevant to this conflict, and if you find some notable person claiming this was a provocation you are welcome to add his comment of this picture. (Igny 03:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
This paper is not on the board inside the school. It's not even on the window. It could be easly posted there by photograph and then quickly removed. The picture is OR. Elk Salmon 07:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Are not your claims about provocation and conspiracy theories OR? Please don't remove the image unilaterally.--Kober 07:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Igny. From what I can see here, any mention of the school incident and opposition protests in Moscow is removed as "irrelevant". Elk Salmon, please note that the sign could not be put by everyone for one simple reason: The school has its own guards consisting of Russian military personnel. So, guys, I would ask you to stop pushing your conspiracy theories and be more cooperative, please. --Kober 04:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Igny and Kober. This argument has gone too far. That picture was featured all over the world, including here in Canada. I understand that its not suitable for some Russian users here but it is very relevant to the topic and removing it will only indicate POV pushing. Ldingley 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide any source that will back up the statement that paper is official. It is not located on official board that present in every russian school. Elk Salmon 12:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Kober and Ldingley own the article?[edit]

Kober, please don't accuse me of revert warring. Having scanned your recent contributions, I see that they are limited to owning this article and several related entries. On the contrary, I made only two edits on the subject in several days. If you persevere in fending off any attempts to NPOV the article, I'll have to report you and both of your friends for tendentious and disruptive editing. Please take care, Ghirla -трёп- 08:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Noone owns this article and don't threat me please. Igny explained very well why the image should be kept and Irpen neutralized the caption. So far you have failed to prove that the image is not relevant to the article and it is a mere provocation by BBC and Georgian media. What you are doing here is just a suppression of the content you disagree with. --Kober 08:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Girla, as usual you are not civil and present only threats and inappropriate attacks on other users who do not agree with your political views. Im tired of your senseless accusations, slanders, un-productive and disruptive behaviour. This should be noted by other visitors of this article and proper action should be taken to end this attacks which are carried by you against Kober and me on a regular basis. You have gone too far and made lots of efforts in downgrading us both instead of working with us to fix the problems. As of now I don’t see any reason to continue communication with the person who does not respect other people and their opinions. Ldingley 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

Thank you Alex. Correct decision, indeed! --Kober 14:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

As requested by User:Ldingley, I have protected the page, so you guys can cool down a little bit and discuss the argument. I will unprotect the article in a few hours - it is a current event after all. In fact I myself wanted to link Benukidze's interview that might be relevant. Please find the solution fast abakharev 14:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bendukidzes interview? Is it this one Alex? [16] Ldingley 16:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is 1:20am local time for me. Around 7am I will unlock the article so please use the time to discuss the real issues. I do not think in 6 am Ghirlandajo would suddenly support Georgian POV or Kober the Russian one, but you could find compromise on many questionable facts. So rather than concentrating on the behavior of your opponents please concentrate on small workable fragments of the text abakharev 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The main reason for edit wars was an unjustified removal of the school incident-related photo published by all major international news media sources, including BBC. So far Salmon and Ghirla have not provided any valid reason for the elimination of the image. The fact that they did not trust the Western media, cannot be considered to be a valid argument. On the other hand, Irpen did a great job, changing the caption into a more neutral one. Comments are welcome. --Kober 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the photo can be kept. I remember reading some explanation from the Russian Ministry for Defence that with the withdrawal of the troops they would have to significantly scale down the school and so it would probably be closed for the locals, but they agree to teach children until the endof the school year. The immediate bun on local children was a misunderstanding or something - tommorrow I will find the references. I have no problems with the photo abakharev 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Alex. I appreciate your constructive comments here. --Kober 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Alex thank you very much for your help and involvement. The lock will prevent rv wars on this article. I don’t think dispute can be solved in few hours. But your intervention will help to cool things down. Thanks again. Ldingley 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This incident was reported here. Later Russian officials denied this here, calling this a misunderstanding. See also this and this. In particular, korrespondent says "Учителя школы в Тбилиси сообщили, что в среду, 4 октября, в здание не пустили около 80 учеников." An attempt to explain the event by a misunderstanding here and by security concerns here. Clearly the sign in the window provided by BBC was not the only proof of the event. See also RIAN. (Igny 16:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
Thanks. Can you please provide sources in english and preferably from a neutral source. Thanks again Ldingley 16:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That was actually my point. I provided links to Russian news, supposedly with pro-Russian bias. None of them denied that the incident (a temporary repulsion of Georgian children from Russian schools on 4th of October) actually took place, none of them called this incident a provocation, some reported the sign in the window too. Later Russian officials tried to explain this incident by a misunderstanding (the break in school activities was a scheduled break, or it was due to security concerns, or because of evacuation of Russian families, or some other BS), they didn't deny that the incident actually occured either. (Igny 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
The fact remains. Today is October 11 and Georgians kids are still out from that School. Also, in none of the English language sources I could find that Russia officially denied this act. The only ones i see are Russian sources. Its the same case as of Solana. Solana two days ago conformed that reports by Russian media about his comments on Kosovo independence precedent will be used on Abkhazia was false. He made an official statement issued by EU. Same can be presumed of this incident too. That’s why it would be preferable if we have neutral sources. Ones again, today is October 11 and those kids are not back in school. Denial is one thing, the reality is another. Ldingley 17:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this source (Azerbaijan news), Russian Embassy in Georgia denied reports of the order to expell Georgian children and fire Georgian teachers at school N9. According to Ivan Volynkin (Embassy attorney), embassy is investigating the details of the incident at school N9, and tries to determine whose initiative that was to deny the Georgian children and teachers access to the school. I think this source is neutral. (Igny 19:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Elk Salmon, most users agree that the image should be kept. The caption explains quite clearly that Russian officials have denied the info, but controversy still continues. Please refrain from unilateral decisions.--Kober 09:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
1. No consensus was reached. 2. No source has been provided for 22 hours after request. Please withstand of OR then. Elk Salmon 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Dozens of sources have been provided. See for example Russian media coverage of the incident in Igny's post above. If you don't want to accept them, it's your own problem. Also I'd strongly suggest you to stop accusing me of vandalism. This is considered a personal attack.--Kober 11:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No any source have been provided to prove that paper is official. You constantly reposting same photo with highly possibly faked paper without any sources. Until that photo is unrelevant for the article. It is could be considered vandalism. Therefore nothing wrong in accusing. Provide the source to prove that paper is official and have not been posted there by photograph or provocateur. Elk Salmon 12:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how else to explain you anything. The photo was published by all major media agencies in the context of the Russian-Georgian tensions. I'm afraid you'll have to prove that this is a provocation. Have you got sources for that? Your reasoning is entirely based on your personal opinion while many users here (including our Russian colleagues) have provided a number of sources which you don't want to accept. --Kober 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You just ignoring sourcing request. Provide a source to prove that paper is official and not faked. There was only sources back up the fact of existence of the paper. Not its origin. An official papers are always posting on the official board inside of Russia's schools. Elk Salmon 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm tired of repeating myself. The sign was put inside the school yeard which is guarded by military personnel and all Georgian TVs showed an interview with a high-ranking officer who told journalists that they had received an order not to let Georgian children and some teachers into the school building. So far you have failed to provide just ONE source claiming that the "paper is fake." --Kober 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Salmon, how about you stop deleting the valuable information from the article with POV pushing tactics and leave the photo which is very relevant to this crisis. I say this again, today is October 13 and Georgian kids are still out of School. None of them were allowed back. You have failed to present reliable, neutral sources on claims that Russia has denied this action. Please don't quote me some Pravda or Izvestiya newspaper. I have every reason to remove the photo which shows Russian students holding the sign that Russia does not want war or Saakashvili. Its definitely a POV photo. Also refrain from using the word vandalism for restoring content which contradicts your POV (which is obviously present). I think Alex should keep this page locked. Ldingley 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Kober, posting images with unknown origins with claims is pushing POV. You have to prove an origin first then claming. It is not an official school board. It's just a window. Therefore it's not should be proved that it's a fake. It should be proved that it's not a fake. Within the crowd of journalists and onlookers anyone could post it.
     I say this again, today is October 13 and Georgian kids are still out of School. None of them were allowed back.
     You have failed to present reliable, neutral sources on claims that Russia has denied this action.
I hope you here not just because you pushing personal pov. Me was denied nothing. And personally me is not responsible for anything what any Russians are doing around the world. So your comment was inappropriate. Elk Salmon 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to arguments[edit]

Some facts: On October 4th and 5th

  1. someone denied Georgian pupils and teachers access to school N9
  2. BBC and gazeta.ru reported the sign posted in window of school N9.
  3. various media alleged that Kremlin ordered to expell Georgian children from several Russian schools in Georgia
  4. Georgian media reported reaction of Georgian officials, in particular a pledge to reallocate all the children to Georgian schools
  5. various media reported that Russian officials denied the order to expell Georgian children and fire Georgian teachers from schools
  6. Russian officials called the incident a misuderstansing, provided different explanations to what actually happened at school N9.
  7. As of October 13th noone called this incident a provocation.
  8. Russian officials said they would investigate the origin of the initiative which led to 1.
  9. Russian officials say that the Georgian children are back to school, but concerns remain that the Russian schools will soon be closed after Russian military pulls out of Georgia. Some say that a suggestion to move the children to other schools was misinterpreted as an order to expell.

I think I can provide sources to back up each of the above claims. Please post your opinions (with reference to the list of claims if needed). Which of the above facts do you oppose and why? My POV is that the photo is very much relevant to the conflict. (Igny 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

The only thing i can say is that I agree with you. That photo is relavent. Ldingley 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Not one of facts above telling origin of the paper. Elk Salmon 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What is exactly your point? Didn't you read the fact 1 above? My guess that whoever denied the access to school N9 for Georgian children, that very same person posted the sign. The attorney of Russian Embassy in Georgia said they would investigate this incident, so what do you want from us? Go to Georgia and look for that mysterious origin? If Russian Embassy decides to disclose the results of their probe, we would add them here, but don't hold your breath. (Igny 00:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

Nevertheless, BBC is a reputable publisher and the fact that it published a photo makes it notable, unlike if it was published by some blogger. At the same time the event is indeed strange. A while ago I ammended the caption to say "BBC published a picture". Other media use BBC images but the caption needs to say that this was a BBC photo. As such, I will revert this edit.

Elk, I suggest you leave it as is because the current caption is entirely factual. It does not say that the sign was posted. It says that BBC published a photo. You can't deny that. Let's just leave it as is. --Irpen 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Eastern European reactions to the conflict[edit]

Estonia's parliament has passed a declaration "In connection with the situation of the relationship between Georgia and Russia" (17. Oct 2006. 10:58 (local time)) 73 deputies of all factions voted in favour, 1 (Centre Party member) against. It has been reported that the declaration “supports strengthening democracy in Georgia and condemns the endeavours by the Russian Federation to surpress Georgia's intentions by using economic sanctions and threats of [using] force.Constanz - Talk 13:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the reaction of each political dwarf is relevant. I'm not aware of Estonia being a party to this conflict. That's what WP:NPOV is about: you should not pack the article with biased opinions unless the have a direct bearing to the question. Why the UN resolution condemning Georgia is not mentioned at all, while Estonia's reaction is given so much prominence in the text? Why Estonia's opinion is more important than that of UN? Only because it is routinely Russophobic? These are the questions that remain unanswered. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Add the UN opinion then, what/who prevents you from doing so?? Y'know, Baltic opinion may be worth mentioning just because these countries have experienced similar 'troubles' with their huge neighbor. As for routinely Russophobic - well, the particular declaration meant supporting Geogia's democratic government and merely disapproved of the Russia's measures to solve the conflict. The UN? Hailing it too much is a double-edged sword I dare to say. After all, we know which nasty regimes have been/are also proud members of this organisations. One should mention UN opinion anyway.Constanz - Talk 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Constanz, I wish you were as prompt in reporting the scandals rocking your own country as you are in airing Russophobic statements all over Wikipedia. When I try to do your job here, my edits are reverted and well-sourced data is purged. Please take care. In my experience, nobody using Wikipedia as a vehicle for tendentious editing has succeeded as yet. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1.Refrain from personal assaults, otherwise you will be blocked again.
2.What's the relevance of an old commie president of Estonia to the article or dispute here? Your link only shows your POV and interests.Constanz - Talk 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Which "POV and interests"? Could you elaborate your accusations? Thanks. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were interested in Arnold Rüütel's failures (I agreed with you with my edits, he was a miserable choice in 2001). I had a fear that you liked to point out our failures, being also somewhat wary of Estonians editing here. Could you also elaborate where have I behaved like a Russophobe, and why did you delete my notifies on your talk. Feel free to answer to me on my talk page (while please do not resort to such language and 'threats' this time).Constanz - Talk 13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The UN resolution is mentioned in a proper place, but it hardly contains any condemnation. --Kober 11:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Talking about schools...[edit]

Kober and Co, why don't you report this episode, if you are so concerned about the purported oppression of Georgian boys in Russian schools? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and report it if you find it so relevant, but don't remove the content you disagree with. The incident you are talking about is a criminal case and has nothing to do with politics. And please note that the article is authored not by Kober and Co, but quite a few Wikipedians including our Russian colleagues. --Kober 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you want this information suppressed because it does not suit your POV? Having been monitoring the article for quite some time, I've got impression that all anti-Russian information is included into the article, while all the data opposing Georgian POV is treated as "irrelevant". As established by ArbCom, this is a hallmark of tendentious (and disruptive) editing. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't want to suppress any info, but we cannot discuss all criminal incidents here. Should we also list all ethnic Georgians murdered by neo-Nazis in Russia?--Kober 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see statistics comparing how many foreigners are murdered in the country by ethnic Russians and how many Russians are murdered by foreigners. The last time I reviewed it, more than 50% murders in Russia were committed by "ethnic criminal groups". The Council of Europe does not vociferate about it, you may be sure. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A criminal is a criminal, no matter what their beliefs or ethnic background, but murdering and torturing people on an ethnic basis is somewhat a different thing.--Kober 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm not very sure whether this criminality analysis really concerns the article here. To turn to 'political dwarves' again, the high percentage of crimes 'committed by "ethnic criminal groups"' (Estonia's non-natives) has not been a succesful argument while solving our problems with Russia. The Council of Europe does not vociferate about it either.Constanz - Talk 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who is the majority in Tallinn, Russians or Estonians. This is a moot point. My Russian friends from Izborsk are enregistered as ethnic Estonians, for instance. The "ethnic criminal groups" active in Russia represent a tiny portion of the population, however. You should compare the percentage of Georgians in Russia to the percentage of Russians-Ukrainians in Estonia, to feel the difference. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you suggest that a small minority group Georgians are attributed for half of the crimes? I didn't get your point, I'm afraid. No matter, unless verified, 'the ethnic criminal groups' business remains completely irrelevant here, just like complaints that members of 1/3 of Estonia's population is behind 50%+ crimes (when dealing with Russia-Baltic relationship).Constanz - Talk 09:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually,crimes are often commited by "ethnic criminal groups" (especually in the EU).Don't believe me?Ask any German,Briton,Italian,etc.In Germany policemen even learn Albanian.And does anybody know why?Dimts 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Because they are not fully integrated into the larger society and prefer to stick together. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
if true, then may-be one reason is also adventurism of the immigrants. Didn't succed in one's own country, and found a new place. Rottlessness etc. But what's the relevance here, with no clear facts provided? Constanz - Talk 09:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec, if Georgia seceded from Russia, why can't Abhazia and Ossetia use the same logic and secede from Georgia? It has been a part of Russia or Russian Empire, or USSR, or whatever else the Russians will raname their land, what is it with the Russians changing names - St. Petersburg, Petrograd, Leningrad, anyways why does Georgia have to use military to keep these entities within it's borders, while complaining of Russia's use of force? Furthermore, I hope this doesn't happen, but if a war between Russia and Georgia does break out, the only way Georgia's military will be able to survive, is lots of funding from the USA, which means my tax dollars. Also, the Chechnya-Russia-Georgia relations are not at all described in this article, could anyone care to comment what role the Chechen crisis played? Could it be that Georgia supported the Chechen rebels, and Pres. Putin wants a little revenge for the support? Ok well maybe not so little. As for Estonia, it's kinda funny, that's like Djibouti saying: "we believe that the Russo-Georgian conflict is unfounded" why is that even mentioned in the article? If UK and France was to say that, it'd be a whole different ball game. that's like Djibouti saying: "we believe that the Russo-Georgian conflict is unfounded" why is that even mentioned in the article? Point I am making is, since I'll be a USA taxpayer for a long time, why should my tax money even think about going towards this conflict. I mean Russia's big, and it has so many countries to pick on, why pick on Georgia? Is it the only ex-soviet state that has oil? If you think so, see Kazakstan. It's just not making too much sense. Thanks, User ABC.

I'm sorry but this page is not a political chat room. We cannot discuss all aspects of Russia-Georgia relations and Chechnya crisis in this article. As for the secession, you should know the history and demographics of these regions to understand why they should be within Georgia. If Abkhazia wants to be indpendent, the current masters of the region and their patrons should allow 300,000 Georgians to return to their homes and then hold a democratic referendum. I'm afraid the results results will be disappointing for those who support the partition of Georgia. Thanks, Kober 10:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, repeated comparisons of Estonia or any other nation to dwarfs and barking dogs are highly offending and sound xenophobic. Kober 10:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One question,Kober.How do you know that the results will be dissapointing for the de-facto goverment of Abkhazia?Thousands of Abkhazians died in the war for independence.Then why did they fight for independance in 1993?To reunite with Georgia 15 years later?Where's the logic?!I'm afraid the results will be dissapointing for Tbilisi.But I'm sure the "democratic" regime of Saakashwilli will proclaim such elections "illegitimate".Dimts 12:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You have probably forgotten that 300,000 Georgians constituted the democratic majority in Abkhazia. Do you think they will vote for independence (read: annexation by the "democratic" regime of Putin)? Or are going to claim that they have no right to live in their native Abkhazia and take part in the decision of their homeland's fate?--Kober 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They have the right to live and make decisions of their homeland's future.I'm not arguing on that one.But have forgotten the ethnic majority of Abkhazia (Abkhazians).Are you sure they would want to reunite with Georgia (important:and maybe even get cleansed by Saakashwilli's butchers).Let's not forget the rights of Abkhazians.Dimts 13:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'd ask you to stop your xenophobic attacks ("butchers", etc.). Judging from your contributions, it seems to me your main job here is to slam Georgia. I'll consider to return to the discussion with you only when you learn to chose words. Please remember that this site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and the talk pages are thought to help to improve the encyclopedic content not to give an outpouring of someone's anger against other nations.--Kober 14:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me yet again.I didn't call the people of Georgia "butchers".I do not have anything against Georgians.Under the word "butchers" I've described Saakashwilli's henchmen who are doing all what they can to start a new full-scale war in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.I hope I've cleared the problem.

P.S I don't understand what's the deal with the large amount of pro-Saakashwilli propaganda in Georgia related articles?!Shouldn't it be NPOV?Dimts 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It can't be NPOV, cause Saakaashivili rigged the elections. Note: Georgia did not have any of these problems with Shevarnadze, cause that guy knew how to stay neutral. Saakaashivili it seems wants glory, and wants American tax dollars paying for it. After the defeat of the much tougher Cechechen rebels, does anyone really think that Georgia will hold off Russia without American and/or European aid? I mean the Georgians couldn't even beat the Abhazians, and the Russians are much tougher. I also like how Kober avoids the questions he/she is asked, and claims everyone who doesn't agree with his/her 'neutral' POV as xenophobic. Also, Dimts has a good point - if the ethnic majority of Abhazia isn't Abhazians, why did they call it Abhazia? Usually names exist for a reason. Also, Kober you seemed to brilliantly avoid answering any questions, such as, umm, why should American/EU dollars go for defense of Georgia?

Thanks, User ABC

Firstly, I don't really think that Saakashvili needed to rig the elections. Can you provide sources for your claims? Unfortunately, the Georgian opposition is too week to have a popular support. Yet I don't know why the Georgian electoral system is so relevant here. Secondly, I'm sorry but I'm not here to enlighten you about Abkhazia. You should have a look at easily available info about the ethnic composition of pre-war Abkhazia. Thirdly, when the US and Western Europe turned a blind eye to the Soviet occupation of Georgia (and not only of Georgia, of course), they soon received the "evil empire" in the midst of Europe. I hope they remember that perfectly well. Thanks, --Kober 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe you mean "Georgian occupation of Russia"? If I recall correctly, the tough Georgian guys (Stalin, Beria, etc) starved half the Russian (and Ukrainian, see Holodomor) population in concentration camps. It's hardly surprizing that neither Russians nor Abkhazians want to tolerate their rule any more. They've just had enough of it. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"Georgian occupation of Russia"? Don't be ridiculous. Both Stalin and Beria served to Soviet Russia when Georgia was an independent nation recognized by both Moscow and the West. In Georgia, Soviet rule was established through a military invasion and the Red Terror and you know this very well. If you don't, you will learn more about it when I've finished a series of articles on those events. I don't think the Ukrainians, Baltic nations, Romanians, Poles, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, etc. blame Georgians for ethnic cleansing and repressions organized by Stalin, a Georgian, who, according to Britannica, "surprisingly turned out to be a great Russian nationalist. During the 1930s and '40s he promoted Russian history, Russian language, and Russian national and cultural heroes, and he held the Russians up as the elder brother for the non-Slavs to emulate." [17] I hope you don't consider Britannica a Russophobic source along the lines of BBC. Your "sickening", which figures in your edit summary, comes probably from your apparent despise towards everything you disagree with. I'm assuming good faith again and won't report you for your repeated insults and disrespectful comments. --Kober 08:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Kober, your routine threats are getting annoying. If you have to "report" me, please do. This would be fun. Hollow threats and blackmail ("shut up or I will report you") are quite disruptive. For my own part, I've had enough of your "repeated insults and disrespectful comments" and leave the page in disgust. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have never insulted you and I don't remember to have blackmailed you. You're welcome to discuss any issue with me but I cannot take seriously your Georgianophobic theories and phrases like "Georgian imperialism" and "Georgian occupation of Russia". I usually use a great number of credible sources to support my claims, and it is your problem if you don't trust them. Your groundless accusations of disruptive editing, entering anti-Russian alliances with other Wikipedians, historical revisionism, etc. are offending indeed. --Kober 08:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Kober,I forgot to mention YOUR xenophobic statetment.You called the Georgians in Abkhazia the democratic majority.And what about Abkhazians?!You don't take them for people?Are they cannibals,in your opinion?Do you think they're working for Osama bin Laden?Or maybe they're ploting to take over the world?Dimts 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don’t put words into my mouth and reread my posts. Have I ever said that Abkhaz are cannibals or work for Bin Laden? I just stated the fact that Georgians formed a majority of Abkhazia's population before being ethnically cleansed. There’s nothing xenophobic about it. Your attempts to discredit me are simply amusing. And please stop wikistalking me. Kober 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I AM NOT trying to discredit you and I am not stalking you.Your post is located in this section (read:it was a reply to my post).Dimts 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Kober, if I ever have to fight a war, I sincerely hope that you would be the opposing general. Your knowledge of military history is so appalling, that you shouldn't even bother commenting on it, until you read more books on what it is. You claim, and I qoute: "Thirdly, when the US and Western Europe turned a blind eye to the Soviet occupation of Georgia (and not only of Georgia, of course), they soon received the "evil empire" in the midst of Europe". Umm, due to people like you, I kinda want to go back in time and ask the Red Army not to liberate certain parts from Nazi Germany, let Hitler extreminate them. The Western Europe couldn't do anything against the Red Army, and the US and USSR had those thingys called nuclear weapons, ever heard of those? Well should US challenge the USSR's hegemony against Gerogia, (which BTW Moscow NEVER recognized as an independent country, unless it was one of those governments that lasted about a month,) and risk proviking another war with the USSR, or should they sit back behind the Iron Curtain waiting for the USSR to mess up; they did the latter, and it worked. The US and Western Europe couldn't challegen the Soviet Union's hegemony in that area - Duh! If you knew even a bit of military history, even the amount of Baldrick (character in Blackadder IV) you would not have made that statement. I'm sorry, but when you say something that re-interprets a fact, say 1+1=3, which is what you just did, I kinda tend to respond. As for the Encyclopedia Britannica, again Kober here you have to read history, the UK and USSR were at odds, and Churchill even called Stalin the devil, (although he later called Hitler worse then the devil, which is theologically impossible, but Churchill...) so I would think Britannica would be slightly biased against Stalin, just a tad. Furthermore Stalin's ethnic clensing affected everyone, and killed more Russians than any other people! His 5 year plans were a great help, but his purges were mostly hurting the Russians, see that one thingy called statistics. Also, the West (Western Europe and US) 'recieved' the 'evil empire' because they chose to fight it, it was Churchill who made the first 'war' speech, and Truman who cut rations of food to the USSR, while Stalin was just fortifying his borders. Of course Stalin then broke a ton of promises, and declared the West and 'evil empire' and so it began... The sad part is that the Soviet, British and our boys (American troops) got along really well, (not counting crazy Patton) and we could've built a better world, but 'unilateralism' and no one willing to compromise, leads to Cold Wars.

Also if Saakaashivili didn't rig the election, why did he accuse the opposition of staging a revolution? Doesn't he know that those things only work if the vast majority of the nation, hate their leader? Not simply disagree with the policies, but HATE their leader? I mean if he really won the election, he has nothing to worry about.

Also, saying that the West turned a blind eye to Georgia in the Cold War is like saying that the Red and Allied Armies turned a blind eye to Aushwitz until 1944. That's B/S cause they couldn't do anything about it. So Kober, I think I'll be calling my representative, (yes we actually have freedom of speech in the USA, unlike that in Georgia, where you're either pro. one party or a rebel) and asking him to not support the Georgian dictatorship in its struggle to subjugate the Abkhaz people, and those of Ossetia, maybe even the Ingush people too.

User ABC

Please people, stop talking nonsense. You all seem to have forgotten history. Russia and Georgia have been friends since 1770s when Georgia (Kartl-Kakheti) invited them to protect them. The friendship was not without difficulties as Russia deceived and mistreated Georgia on several occasions. Yet Georgia never retaliated, never dismissed the alliance (except for a few years when Georgia declared independence after the civil war in Russia), they never forgot that Russians fought and died for them against Turks and Persians. And the Russians should never forget that Georgians fought and died in WW2 against the German Nazis. The countries shared religion, the Georgians willingly studied Russian language and literature, while the Russians were fascinated with Georgian culture and deep history. I am from Russia and I have several friends from Georgia who recognize the importance of this alliance, noone can argue with the fact that if not for Russia, Georgia would be part of Turkey or Iran now and the fact that Russia would never accept this scenario. If not for Russia, Georgia might never enjoy independence. Yet now both Russian and Georgian politicians forgot about the long friendship of their nations. They both engage in manipulating public opinion, making "populist" decisions, sowing seeds of hatred, hiding behind the "national interests" and blaming each other. And what surprises me most is that people from both nations readily pick up the stones and throw them at each other. Here, I have said what I wanted to say. (Igny 17:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Ingy, you are 100 percent right! I am sorry that I did not clarify earlier, that I believed that Saakaashvili Administration, and not the Georgian people are to blame for this conflict. If you were at Georgia's helm, I strongly doubt that there would be a problem.

User ABC

Igny,nobody's blaming Georgians.That whole saga is the fault of Saakashvili and his henchmen.Dimts 16:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many citations. 76.19.173.43 11:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Georgian Embassy rally.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Georgian Embassy rally.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Moscow rally 8.10.06.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Moscow rally 8.10.06.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5397102.stm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MkativerataCCI (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 10[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 11[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)