|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Georgian–Ossetian conflict article.|
|A news item involving Georgian–Ossetian conflict was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 6 July 2008.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:|
- 1 Article change
- 2 "Alleged" Chechen Incident
- 3 answer
- 4 The merge
- 5 Request to delete a part of text
- 6 Abkhazian involvement - time to change the title?
- 7 Cited text removed, uncited text inserted - needs checking
- 8 information war around Georgian–Ossetian conflict
- 9 ethnicity and religion
- 10 The 2004 flare-up, first paragraph
- 11 Crisis Group
- 12 Georgio-Ossetian conflict
- 13 Request to fix NPOV violation
- 14 It has been suggested that 2004 South Ossetia clashes be merged into this article or section.
- 15 Pluralize Title?
- 16 Factually inaccurate and bias view points.
- 17 removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I was bold to change a bit this article. Now we have this article for the overall conflict and 1991–1992 South Ossetia War for the 1991-1992 war. Much like Georgian-Abkhazian conflict and War in Abkhazia. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Alleged" Chechen Incident
Kober, would you kindly justify ignoring the Euronews article that clearly states "Four Chechen gunmen killed in South Ossetia"? Óðinn 05:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Óðinn, would you kindly justify ignoring the Euronews article that clearly states that the "Chechen incident" was just the Tskhinvali regime's accusation?
- I believe the "incident" is given an undue weight. Skirmishes in the region, wars of words and exchange of accusations occur on a daily basis. --KoberTalk 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Accusations were made regarding the perpetrators of the incident. When you have 4 dead bodies, it's really hard to call the incident itself "alleged". As for "undue weight", elimination of the Chechen saboteurs who happened to have come from Pankisi is hardly a daily occurrence.Óðinn 08:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There are thousands of Georgians in S.O. as well as peaceful Ossetians who did not fight against Georgia
If the same logic is applied to Georgia then we'll see that there were many Ossetians and other peoples who didn't fight against Ossetia and also not all Georgians did it. Since Georgian side is not called something like 'Georgian imperialists' (not that I'm proposing it) the 'separatists' shouldn't be used either imho. 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- You arguments don't hold any water. It is the Georgian state that is involved in the conflict. Furthermore, the term South Ossetia has recently been revived by the Gov't of Georgia to apply to the provisional administrative entity headed by Dmitry Sanakoyev. Therefore, it needs to be clarified which "South Ossetia" is involved in the conflict with Georgia. Also, you've removed "North Ossetian volunteers" without any obvious reason. --KoberTalk 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- And I'm also wondering since when is the term "separatism" a slur? If you want, we can change it to "secessionists".--KoberTalk 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait with it. Wait to the end of the latest war for the merge. To obscure right now. Apperently, this is not just another part of the conflict but a real war. Just wait. We could always do it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystal Blue Moon (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Request to delete a part of text
Georgian military attacked a Russian base in Tshinval with artillery and missiles on August 8. Several Russian soldiers were reported dead or wounded. Georgia argued that the Russian peacekeepers were not a neutral force, supporting this with claims that 60% of South Ossetian funding comes from Moscow.
from paragraph August 2008 flare-up in violence not only needs citation, but is completely misleadingto the public that often don't pay attention to such details as "citation needed" added at the end. thus I propose to delete this until someone provides a citation.
Moreover if anyone provides a citation from rusian paper saying that indeed Georgian forces attacked a Russian base Please change the text to "According to Russian press Georgian military attacked a Russian base in Tshinval", not stating this as a fact, because this statement is very far from what Georgian side reports.
- I can't read Russian, but I think the next source documents the attack as well as the casualties. Regardless, I think we can keep the statement with the cite needed (which people do notice) for now. Superm401 - Talk 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Abkhazian involvement - time to change the title?
The BBC is reporting that the Abkhazians are intervening, and Russian airstrikes are hitting parts of Georgia outside of South Ossetia, should we change this article's title to Russo-Georgian war, or simply Georgian war? FOARP (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Cited text removed, uncited text inserted - needs checking
I noticed 188.8.131.52 has made a series of edits without edit summaries. Some removed cited paragraphs, one of which I have just verified as Ok, while others added uncited stuff. These may all be Ok as I am not following this topic in detail any more, but maybe someone could check them. The lack of edit summaries makes it difficult to keep a proper watch on this article. -84user (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
ethnicity and religion
- Request for clarification in the article. The article is currently mainly a list of historical events, rather than an analysis: what are the ethnic, and also the religious differences in the parties involved in the conflict, and do these have a bearing on Russia's involvement? (e.g., are the S. Ossetians related Russians through Slavic ethnicity or Orthodox religion?) What is the relation to N. Ossetia in the Russian state? These basic questions are not answered in the current version of the article. Also is Russia's involvement on the opposite side of the US/EU's stance a parallel reaction related to the latter's recognition of Islamic Kosovo (from Slavic/Orthodox Serbia)? Thanks. --Santaduck (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The 2004 flare-up, first paragraph
Regarding the paragraph:
[begin text] When Mikheil Saakashvili was elected President in 2003, he made his goals clear to return the two breakaway regions of Georgia under central control. He chose NATO, especially the U.S. as his key allies in foreign policy, in exchange he received financial and material support from western countries. U.S. advisers started to train Georgian forces to make them professional in unequal style fighting against militants under the aegis of "War on Terrorism". Georgia became the third largest participant of U.S. coalition in terms of numbers after U.S. and U.K.. Georgia received free weapons from U.S., Israel, Germany, and Baltic states. The country's military budget, replenished with U.S. aid increased steadily since Saakashvili's entering to office. In this situation, tensions between Georgia and its breakaway republics was on the rise. In May 2004, following the success in another poorly-controlled province of Ajara (the Ajars are closer to ethnic Georgians), President Mikheil Saakashvili’s government turned their attention to South Ossetia. Saakashvili offered humanitarian aid to both the Georgian and Ossetian population and promised to give the region broad autonomy. [end text]
This paragraph markedly stands out from the prior text of the article for three significant reasons: (1) the text is grammatically incorrect in the extreme; (2) the statements have a strong feel of partisanship - an editorial style, even inflammatory, rather than encyclopedia-neutral; and (3) the text is unsupported by references (the referenced article for the only footnote, , has no relevance to the bulk of the paragraph). These three elements caused me to scrutinize the information for its validity.
Article repeatedly uses source named "Crisis Group", with some more charged accusations against SO regime relying solely on said "Group". Would anybody be so kind to clarify what "Crisis Group" is/was and correct links accordingly? Asks questions (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's International Crisis Group (there's a link to that article in the notes section). Imho their reports that are used in this article are more or less impartial. What so you mean by accusations? Alæxis¿question? 05:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've never seen anything like that in the media... Alæxis¿question? 20:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the media they usually call it the "conflict between Georgian and South Ossetia". If you search for it on Google, you find the country prefix "Georgio" à la "Anglo", "Franco" and "Russo" spread around. E.g. http://www.worldreports.nl/int-affairs-articles-08-08-13-georgio-russian-war.html. I'd like to se a register of such prefixes, I'm pretty sure "Georgio" can be used. For obvious reasons, the national prefix (or denonym or whatever) of Georgia isn't very established among western, English-language journalists. - SSJ ☎ 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Request to fix NPOV violation
The following sentence clearly breaks the wiki NPOV rule and should be changed or removed:
"According to Russian propaganda, the whole city, including the town's central hospital, university and some of its schools were also destroyed (which was a lie)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested that 2004 South Ossetia clashes be merged into this article or section.
- The fighting is a notable event. It's described in 2008 South Ossetia war background as well: Emboldened by the success in restoring control in Adjara in early 2004, the Georgian government launched a push to retake South Ossetia, sending 300 special task force fighters into the territory. Georgia said its aim was to combat smuggling, but JCC participants branded the move as a breach of the Sochi agreement of 1992. Intense fighting took place between Georgian forces and South Ossetian militia between 8-19 August 2004. According to researcher Sergei Markedonov, the brief war in 2004 was a turning point for Russian policy in the region: Russia, which had previously aimed only to preserve the status-quo, now felt that the security of the whole Caucasus depended on the situation in South Ossetia, and took the side of the self-proclaimed republic.
Just found this discussion after Xeeron made the merge! Why was no mergeto tag placed on the 2004 South Ossetia clashes page? I did not even know it was proposed! I have reverted the merge as I oppose it. Outback the koala (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate on why? There is zero content in 2004 South Ossetia clashes that is not present here in the section. Not to mention that 2004 South Ossetia clashes has been unsourced since its creation almost a year ago. You should also be careful with the revert, the move has had 3 people argueing for it here on the talk page without opposition for several months. As to why there was a merge tag only one one page, don't ask me, I wasn't the one to put it there. --Xeeron (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough that you didn't place the tag. Irregardless, I think that the clashes are notable enough to have their own page - yes the current page is lacking in content, we should really work to expand it and provide citations. I guess the current version of the page has been there for a year, and likely it wont expand given you have already merged all of the content. I guess now I have no choise but to support the merge IF page recreation could occur at a later date. I'll just go ahead and undo my undo of the merge. Shame though. Outback the koala (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously, expanding on the article at a later date (and recreating a separate article) is always a possibility. The section on this page needs quite a bit of work (the one source present is a short piece not even directly about the clashes). If someone does a great deal of working digging up some sources and expanding this, I don't have any problem with recreating a separate page once this section gets too long. --Xeeron (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Factually inaccurate and bias view points.
"U.S. advisers started to train Georgian forces to make them professional in unequal style fighting against militants under the aegis of "War on Terrorism". Georgia became the third largest participant of U.S. coalition in terms of numbers after U.S. and U.K.. "
There are several things wrong with this, most notably 'Georgia became the third largest participant of U.S. coalition in terms of numbers after U.S. and U.K'
While the US and the UK where the largest contributors, there are three countries that sent more men besides the US and UK.
South Korea: 3,600 Italy: 3,200 Poland: 2,500
Australia also committed 2,000 men- tying with Georgia who ends up in 6/7th place, Not 2nd.
"U.S. advisers started to train Georgian forces to make them professional in unequal style fighting against militants under the aegis of "War on Terrorism". "
This is also inaccurate, and the term "under the aegis "is a negative term. While it is true the US (among many others) send military advisors to Georgia to train them in counterinsurgency, this did not make them superior to the South Ossetia rebels as Russia armed and trained them as well.
I think the entire phrase needs to be reconstructed to the tune of;
"NATO, and Israeli advisors assisted in training of several Georgian regiments in counterinsurgency tactics in accordance to the Cooperative Archer agreement of 2007. Georgia eventualy became the 6th/7th largest contributor of troops in the multi-national force in Iraq." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)