Talk:Russo-Georgian War

Rape?

As much as I tried to find the word rape in the references provided with regard to Russian/Ossetian actions, I failed. Where did you find the accusations of raping people by Ossetians? (Igny (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

It is in the new HRW world report I added (in the part on Russia), currently the second ref in the section:

"Russian forces in Georgia failed to protect civilians in areas under their effective control and prevented Georgian authorities from policing these areas, creating a security vacuum. Ossetian militias and armed criminal gangs looted and burned homes and killed, raped, beat, and threatened civilians in these areas." --Xeeron (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't say he who "fails to protect" you becomes a "rapist". Can't say either the source you provided confirms Ossetians and not "criminal gangs" raped anyone. However, you may well think that "all those freaking Russian bastards and their friends are rapists". Noone can deny your right of doing so.

It's like, say, "American soldiers and criminal gangs looted, killed civilians, raped, organised drug trade and kidnappings after the Saddam removal". Speaks nothing. Complete buffoonery instead of a report.

What did HRW, have to save on paint for printing the report, to not make two comprehencive messages, one about Ossetian militia, and one for "criminal gangs"? Ask yourself, what were the reasons behind this?

PS. Just to make sure you understand what you say when you accuse Ossetians like you did in the text of the article: Ossetians and Georgians actually had common faith, huge share of interethnic marriages. Ordinary people live together in peace, here, in Moscow, in South Ossetia, in Georgia. Some Ossetians even fought for Georgia and vice versa in this war. Georgian army killed many ethnic Georgians during Tskhinvali offencive, and you may see it in the list of names of victims. Basing on a source that does not explicitly accuses Ossetian militias in raping anyone, you should not make any assumptions and accuse them either, that's what I think. FeelSunny (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read up on the meaning of the word "and". This article might be of help. When the report says "A and B did X", then "A did X" as well as "B did X" are reported as true. --Xeeron (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

But the report said A and B did X, Y, and Z. It is not clear who did what. It is similar to saying armies A and B took cities X and Y. Which army took which city? Did both take both? In any case, such an implicit association between Ossetian military and criminal gangs sounds like biased POV to me. (Igny (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Take a look at the page I linked above or at this excerpt:

Truth table

The truth table of p AND q (also written as p ∧ q or p & q in logic, p && q in many programming languages, or p$\cdot$q in electronics):

p	q	∧
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	F
F	F	F

Venn diagram

The Venn diagram of "A and B" (the red area is true)

(end of excerpt)

According to the source, both did it. --Xeeron (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that Armies A and B took cities X and Y means that both armies participated in taking both cities? How about I and my wife vacuumed the house and washed the dishes before guests arrived? How about I and my son ate a steak and formula milk at dinner? (Igny (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes. If you want to express that only one army participated per city, you should say Army A took city X and Army B took city B. --Xeeron (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard anyone saying something like Armies A or B took cities X and Y? (Igny (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Xeeron, this is playing words once again from your side:) When someone tells "American soldiers and criminal gangs looted, killed civilians, raped, organised drug trade and kidnappings after the Saddam removal" he may only claim that Averican soldiers killed civilians, but that gangs organized drug trade, for example. The way you decode this phrase is only up to presuppositions you have concerning American soldiers and criminal cangs. That's why a sentence like this in a serious reporty is just a buffoonery. See Igny's previous post and feel free to consult a WB source on Formal Logic/Sentential Logic/Formal Semantics. Pay attention to the example with "Dogs bark" and that you must say "both dogs bark" (if there are two dogs) or "every dog barks" (if there are multiple dogs) to explain all dogs in the set bark.FeelSunny (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What you quote is not in the link you gave. Also, read my response to Igny above. --Xeeron (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Xeeron, you're going to like it:) Formal logics was half invented by Russians, and is now studied in MIT by many bright minds. So... Imagine you're one of them, and...

follow this link. It has the same examples explained in a more simple language and more extensively. Most humans would be able to get through this language. If you can not, please use the document search for the phrase "every dog barks" and just read further.

Not convinced yet? I really like working with you, for I work part-time as a university teacher:))

Give some rest to your mind and just try to imagine another example, like - a prison director makes a tour for visitors. He shows them 20 cells in a prison block and says, "People in these cells are guilty of murder, rapes, thiefts, and bribery". Does it mean that every person in the cells is guilty of bribery? Does it mean that every person in a cell is guilty of murder?

Another example. A boy is standing at the window. Mother asks him, "What is going there on the street right now"? A boy replies, "There are lots of people, they are walking in pairs and alone, and move towards the subway station and back". Does the boy mean every person on the street is "right now" walking to the subway station? Or every one is walking alone?

Another example: A boy - the cute one from the previous example - replies (to the same question), "There are Russians and their bears, they wear ushankas, drink vodka, dance gopak and balet, play balalaikas, eat raw meat and shoot Kalashnikov rifles". Q: How stupid should the mother be to ask him then, "Do bears actually wear ushankas, shoot Kalashnikovs, drink vodka and dance ballet?" What would you answer to such a mother?

Still not convinced? I think I'll have to unveil the secret.

(intrigued?:)

The "Ossetian militias and armed criminal gangs" is a set of people/ groups of people (a "set" is identical to the A and B "things" from the gorgeous picture you provided). Let's call "Ossetian militias and armed criminal gangs" a "OMAACG" set. This "Big One" set perfectly includes another sets: 1) people that raped, 2) people that looted, 3) people that murdered etc. That is clearly stated in the source. Formal logics would read as: (people that raped) and (people that looted) and (people that murdered) are included into (Ossetian militias and armed criminal gangs).

However, this very "OMAACG" set includes another two sets (guess which ones?): the "Ossetian militias" set and the "armed criminal gangs" set. Let's call them "OM" and "ACG" sets (names here, surprisingly, are based on abbreviations).

So what do we see next? Actually, nothing. The source tells us nothing about which of the sets designated by numbers (these are 1), 2), 3) sets - for different types of criminals) are included into which set of armed people ("OM" and "ACG").

Well, actually, what I quoted was there in the first and is there the second link, just don't use the force, Luke:))

Ok, now imagine you understood the first and the second book, Xeeron.

Now a homework, if you please: can you split the sentence of the HRW report in question into clauses for us? Just like on the schemes from the second link I provided? I did the analysis above, can you, like, draw a picture?FeelSunny (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, have the people in your examples discovered the mysteries of the word or that was invented to prevent such misunderstandings? --Xeeron (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What you can say is: do you beleive after all the explanations from me and Igny that the only possible understanding of the source is both Ossetian militiamen comitted all the crimes from the list and armed gangs members commited all the crimes from the list?FeelSunny (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I believe that HRW does not deliberately use wrong or unclear grammar nor that HRW is being careless with their wording, despite knowing how essential clear wording is in such reports, this is the way I understand the source. --Xeeron (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone should send HRW an email and ask what they really meant. My own interpretation is that they don't really know which group did what. Offliner (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this discussion rather funny (given who we discussed basic logic while being on the talk page of a war), but with FeelSunny's conduct, it is much less so now. The sentence currently in the article is "Armed criminal gangs and Ossetian militia have commited looting, arson attacks, rape and abductions ..." So all readers can decide for themself what exactly that "and" does mean. --Xeeron (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So what we have now is: Xeeron admits that the wording is unclear, i.e. there are two (or multiple) possible ways of understanding the sentence. However, Xeeron claims this was not a deliberate misuse of language from the part of the HRW. He then chooses one interpretation (each of the sides is guilty of each of the crimes) as "the right" one.

Another three editors (me, Igny, Offliner) find that HRW used the unclear wording and it is not clear from the article which side did what. As a result, accusations of any of the sides in any of the crimes listed basing on this source are a unverifiable claim and as such must be deleted. Please comment if I am wrong.

What I think is that if Xeeron continues to insist that the HRW did not use the unclear wording intentionally in the report and if he beleives that the "real" meaning of the phrase was that each of the sides is guilty in each of the crimes, he should give any proof of that. Unless this is done Xeeron's thoughts are just his private thoughts which contradict multiple sources on formal logics and contradict consensus opinion of other editors.

I presume we should now remove the controversial data unilaterally inserted by Xeeron, then wait for him to present any source that may verify his claims.

Awaiting your comments.FeelSunny (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop spreading lies about what I said or did. Also, the logic pages I linked and even copy&pasted here exactly agree with my reading of the word "and", while disproving yours, so stop spreading the lie I contradicted them as well. --Xeeron (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeeronul iratus ergo nefas. I'm so sorry to think you may be distressed by what I'm going to say... But... The colorful images you've presented us, oh Xeeron, are describing logical conjunction operator "AND" (this very thing - ∧) - but not a word "and", used in the source. Quite possibly your misunderstanding of this fact led you to this inability to understand multiple other sources and examples and this persistent delusion of yours.

I propose we vote then on the verifiability of the claim that basing on the source (the HRW report phrase discussed) SO militias are definitely guilty in rapes and all the other scrimes.FeelSunny (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree to vote even though the quote shows the bias of HRW in the matter. What I propose was to point out that the findings are based on witnesses' accounts, which may be biased. HRW investigators merely conveyed the message by the angry Georgians who felt or indeed were victimized by the Ossetians. (Igny (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

What I see here, Igny, is yet another word play from another US-based non-profit organization, like Freedom Foundation or something like that, financed by some unknown US-based sources.FeelSunny (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine an investigator/reporter asks an angry Georgian about the events and gets an answer, something like "those barbarian ossetians, those gangsters came here and did this and that..." What should the reporter report? (Igny (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I just sent HRW an email asking what exactly they meant. If I don't get a reply I'd suggest we drop the whole confusing sentence, or replace it with something else. Offliner (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I would not be against placing it on the pag if they give any clarification to the source in question.FeelSunny (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the answer I received to my email (I asked if the HRW has found evidence that Ossetian militia commited all of the things mentioned in the sentence, or if some of them were commited by criminal gangs only and not by Ossetians):

Dear Sir,

In our reporting on the Russia/Georgia conflict, wherever we could, Human Rights Watch identified the perpetrator, but distinguishing between different Ossetian militia and criminal gangs was not always possible in every case.

For additional information, please consult our most recent report on the abuses committed by all sides to the conflict, “Up In Flames: Humanitarian Law Violations and Civilian Victims in the Conflict Over South Ossetia,” which is available online at: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/01/22/flames-0 Offliner (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

From their most recent report (link above): "Ossetian forces, often in the presence of Russian forces, conducted a campaign of deliberate violence against civilians, burning and looting their homes on a wide scale, and committing execution-style killings, rape, abductions, and countless beatings."

No "and", no "criminal gangs". This is as clear as you can get it. --Xeeron (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand it right the HRW people just used the phrase composition like "American soldiers and criminal gangs raped" in the initial report intentionally, and not by mistake/ misunderstanding? I can beleive to a HRW editor that never came to Ossetia at all distinguishing between different Ossetian militia and criminal gangs was not always possible in every case - so he just decided to speak of them as if they were one?? Do we consider this source reliable?FeelSunny (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that it was the HRW editor who was raped. The distinction had to be made by those women getting raped (and/or by other witnesses being around). --Xeeron (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"I very much doubt that it was the HRW editor who was raped." - what do you mean? I said that an editor from the HRW just decided not to make too much effort when he wrote the report, and not bother making difference between two different groups. No matter what he heard from the HRW staff in the field, he just put the two groups actions in the initial report as if they were one. That is what is wrong about HRW. The report may be called either a mistake or an intentional lie. As far as they say that "distinguishing between different Ossetian militia and criminal gangs was not always possible in every case" - this (the report statement) well amounts to intentional lie. That is why I ask if we should trust the source without asking any questions. I mean really, people, Ossetian militia are quite official, they wear uniform and they have papers issued by Ossetian authorities. Taking them for "criminal gangs" is possible (especially when there is a war in the region, and civilians try to save themselves), but claiming them have committed something and not veryfying this information, when you're sitting somewhere in the US - that's just wrong. FeelSunny (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"what do you mean?" - I mean that the women that were raped (or possible witnesses) are the ones who had to determine who raped them. As to your assertion that the sentence is a lie or untrue if it was not possible to distinguish in every case, that is wrong. As long as there is one case where it is known that the rapers where militias and one case were it is known that the rapers were criminal gangs, the whole sentence is correct (even if there are additional cases where both might be the offenders). --Xeeron (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is the woman who determines who it was. Surely it's HRW editor who decides what to insert in the report. And we're discussing the report here. If the woman was not sure, but the report was, that is a mistake or a lie on the part of an editor.

As long as there is one case where it is known that the rapers where militias and one case were it is known that the rapers were criminal gangs, the whole sentence is correct (even if there are additional cases where both might be the offenders). I agree. But were there 2 cases like the ones you describe, that was known to the HRW, when they created the initial report? The editor absolutely does not claim that. That's why I say it looks like they accused militias of rape in the report without having sound proofs for that, just mixing them with criminals.FeelSunny (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing "was not always possible in every case", so it was possible is some or even most cases. --Xeeron (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, FeelSunny, I think this case is clear enough. The current sentence is an almost exact quote from HRW's latest publication. Yes, they are almost surely basing their claims on interviews of eyewitnesses and victims, and those persons may well be biased. But we have to live with that. In another section, we have the sentence: "the BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes during its attack and occupation of Tskhinvali, including possible deliberate targeting of civilians." Again, that evidence is mostly eyewitness accounts. Offliner (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind using the sentence as it is. However, the way they use people's words is just wrong. They are biased, if their report is. It's not about witnesses, for witnesses do not write IHT reports.FeelSunny (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Georgian Casualties

I remember there was a Russian estimate for Georgian casualties in the info. box and an Independent Estimate. Furthermore, any military historian will laugh and laugh and laugh at the killed to wounded ratios on Georgian casualties, (i.e. 1 to 10), which reminds me of a sniper, shooting at James Bond from a distance of 10 ft, aiming at his forehead and nailing bond in the shoe. I mean really? I think the article could only benefit from the inclusion, or rather re-introduction of those estimates. 68.165.233.75 (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why has this topic in the edit been largely ignored? 68.167.1.235 (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like everyone but Georgians just forgot the matter. I'll try to find some info on that.FeelSunny (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the russians lost 75. BTW, I somewhere read that Kokhoititis life guard was the only unit left of the seperate militia forces after the georgian rush in South Ossetia. Notice, that georgian special forces were allready heading towards the Roki tunnel after captured nearly all villages around the capitol when the regulars were still advacning against Tskhinvali. That means, georgian SF's meat ossetian resistence in every village and slaughtered them or, the ossetian militias left the region before the attack began, what I really doubtfull, because it was a surprise attack. So, anyone with informations about that topic ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.51.146 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The highest reported casualties for Russians were 85, not counting wounded. However highest reported casualties for Georgians were in the thousands. Furthermore the current Georgian army shrank from 40,000 to 2,000. So what happened to 38,000? Also, the only FORWARD unit left was Kokoituy's Guards, and that was also after the merger, i.e. units merged into it, usually when fighting units tend to merge. Also, The Ossetians had reserves, only Saakashvili & company were stupid enough to fail to deploy reserves, the Ossetians and Russians had plenty. Also, the Ossetians were ordered to retreat, to defend Tskhinvali, instead of defending the left flank leading to the Roki Tunnel. At least that's what I read in the military press at the time. No, I don't have the sources, at least cannot remember off the top of my head, which is why we're not putting that in the article, but I figured you might want to know. Also, FeelSunny, thank you for looking for that info, let me know when you find it. 68.167.1.235 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Shortening "pre-war clashes"

I think the pre-war clashes section could be shortened somewhat. How about replacing the whole section with a short summary such as "In early August, clashes and shelling on the South Ossetian conflict zone resulted in the deaths of x Ossetians, y Georgians and z Russians. Both sides blamed each other of starting the the violence." Then maybe a mention of the JCC talks, Ossetian speculation that Georgians are about to attack, and Defense Brief speculations on how many troops the Georgians had concentrated on the border. Argumentation for this shortening: it is not so important what exactly happened in the clashes, on which day how many people died and how. Important, in regard to the war itself, is only that such clashes happened, not the details. Besides, the pre-war clashes are covered in detail in another article, Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to sure about this one. Summarizing the pre-war clashes in total takes away from the aspect of escalation. At least something like "with violent clashes leading to deaths happening almost daily" should be added to convey the fact that the region was far from peaceful in the first week of august.

Popov's and Medoyev's statements should be kept and moved to the subsection above. And finally, now only allegations against Georgia are present, so the sections needs to be balanced in terms of POV. --Xeeron (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the summary is still far from perfect. I still definitely think that the old version was far too detailed. We don't count the deaths of individual soldiers during the main war, so we probably shouldn't do that here either. But maybe I took away a bit too much. It seems silly that the shooting of an unmanned spy plane receives more space than the pre-war clashes which cost lives. Or maybe the spy plane incident should go as well? Offliner (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need Popov's statement, since it's just a reiteration of the Russian claim made earlier? Offliner (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil war in lead

The lead was claiming the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War was a civil war. I have removed the mention to "civil war" as it misrepresents that conflict. Yes, Ossetian South Ossetians were fighting against Georgian South Ossetians, but by dubbing it a civil war, it omits the fact that the Ossetians were also fighting against Georgian Georgians (who were allied of course with the Georgian South Ossetians). Instead of trying to qualify things, it is best simply to state the facts as the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, otherwise it gets messy and makes it harder for people to understand. If I saw "Civil war" and followed that link which says in the lead: "The 1991–1992 South Ossetian War was fought as part of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict from 1991 to 1992 between the Georgian government forces and ethnic Georgian militias on one side and the forces of South Ossetia and their allies on the other." I would be confused as hell. Simplify is the answer. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Georgian-Ossetian conflict from 1991 to 1992 (First South Ossetia war) was a civil war: South Ossetia was a part of Georgia and (successfully) tried to secede. It is important to say so because that is not clear from the name alone. Also see my last post on the previous section on this topic. --Xeeron (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So tell me Xeeron, was the Second Chechen War also a Civil War? 68.167.1.235 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to read up on that to be sure, but from what I remember, it was a civil war. --Xeeron (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. A civil war is when fighting occurs all over, not primarily limited to one region that is seceding. No one called Kosovo a civil war, and you would have to call Kosovo a civil war as well. 68.167.1.235 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So the american civil war was not a civil war, because the fighting was "primarily limited to one region that is seceding"? No. And what Kosovo war are you talking about? The one where NATO planes hit Belgrade or the fight of Kosovo rebells before that? --Xeeron (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So if my planes bomb your capital, that's Civil War? Also, in the American Civil War, the greatest and most important battle occurred in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, which was the turning point in a state that hasn't seceded. In addition another battle was Perryville, Kentucky, again in a state that hasn't seceded. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued as a result of the Battle of Antietam, which again occurred on Maryland, Union Soil, by most accounts. Get your facts straight. The difference between a Civil War, and a regional war, is that a Civil War extends to most of the country, whereas a regional war is limited to a specific region. A regional war is crucial to the region, such as Russian Total Victory here finally stabilizing the Caucasian Region. However this war was limited to Northernmost Georgia. Hence it's a regional war. If Puerto Rico decided to secede from the US, (it won't, but just for the sake of the argument,) and US sends in troops, would you call that a Civil War? 68.167.1.235 (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to ask me about some more wars, please facilitate a list so I wont have to go through them one by one. Btw, here is what the wiki article on civil wars says:

James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, states that "a civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies".

The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term 'civil war'. They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements:

• The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
• The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
• The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
• The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."

So lets see:

Aiming to take power in a region? Check

In possesion of a part of national territory? Check

Exercising de facto authority? Check

Some amount of recognition? Check

Legal Government obliged to recourse to military forces? Check

This discussion finally over? Check (or so I hope ...) --Xeeron (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or so hopes the person whose argument contradict each other. Tell me Xeeron, how can a non de facto government be obliged to recourtse to the regular military forces, except in the case of countering an invasion, and since it is an invasion, it cannot be a Civil War. In the US Civil War, the South declared war on the North by attackin Fort Sumpter, thus justifying calling it a Civil War. In our case, the South Ossetians did not attack the Georgian Peacekeepers, or at least there is no clear proof of them doing so. I hold no grudge against the Georgians, the common people that is, who are stuck with a leader against their will, (see Martial Law Declared 2007), but I do think that this leadership should be shown in all of its "splendor". I don't see why you are trying to support him so vehemently, under the clever guise of "just wanting to get the truth out", I've yet to see your support for South Ossetia on controvercial points. And no one called the First or Second Chechen Wars a Civil War. 68.167.1.235 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, with all due respect, you rule once again:))))

I just went by and saw this discussion, and before I get involved too much, I just want to say your position contradicts common sence. Nobody calls Chechen wars "civil", and nobody calls Georgia-Ossetian-Russian war that. One reason is there is no one "split" nation, which is a must for calling a war "civil".FeelSunny (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you even have an idea which war we are talking about? If no, READING the section you are posting in would help. In case you did know, you are flat out wrong (check the first sentence: "civil war" is right there). --Xeeron (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read your argue before posting, Xeeron. However, my dear it is you who does not have any idea of what civil war was there in Georgia in early 90ies. Go check Zviad Gamsakhurdia and zviadists if you do not know such basic things about Georgia. If you do not like to read much, here is a quote from your own source: In December 1991 the political civil war in Tbilisi began between opposition forces and the government of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who was ousted. Shortly after pro-Gamsakhurdia forces (the so-called Zviadists) started an armed rebellion in Western Georgia and simultaneously the situation in Abkhazia worsened and war was expected. Now can you see what was the "civil war" you are talking about? I said, NOONE calls SO-Georgian conflict that. So next time before claiming me being "flat out wrong" first go read your own sources.FeelSunny (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it back to 1991-1992 South Ossetia War, because to call it a civil war is to obfuscate and misrepresent the conflict. SO did not regard itself as a part of Georgia, but as a part of the Soviet Union - it's own parliament voted to stay within the Soviet Union - for all intents and purposes it regarded itself as independent of Georgia. Also, note the name of the article, 1991-1992 South Ossetia War, this would basically take into account points such as this, and to attempt to simplify it by calling it a civil war (without any evidence of such) in the lead misrepresents the long-running conflict in this region. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

@FeelSunny, the source you also quoted from starts with: "The disintegration of the Soviet Union plunged the former Soviet Republic of Georgia into political chaos and civil war. One of the first areas of conflict was South Ossetia, an autonomous region within Georgia during the Soviet period and the scene of a bloody conflict in the period 1989-92."

@Russavia: South Ossetia was defacto and dejure part of Georgia, they fought to become independent, even the South Ossetians view it that way: "As the Chairman of the Supreme Council of South Ossetia (now president), Ludwig Chibirov, puts it: "...this is the second time in one generation that we have been the victims of genocide by the Georgians; in that way our demand for independence should be seen not as idealism but as pragmatism" (From conversation with Chibirov, July 1995)." --Xeeron (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, I'm not going to discuss it anymore. The matter is quite obvious. Please go read Georgian Civil War and just stop this useless disruptive edits. The Georgian Civil War is this very the conflict your source describes. 1991–1992 South Ossetia War is another event, and it was not a "civil war". That's why there are two different articles for these two events in Wikipedia. Creating some weird hybrides like "1991–1992 South Ossetia War|civil war" from your part is absolutely wrong. Leave the original name of the article be as it is. FeelSunny (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You link to an article that says (in its very first sentence!) "The Georgian Civil War consisted of inter-ethnic and intranational conflicts in the regions of South Ossetia (1988-1992) and (...)" to prove that there was no civil war in South Ossetia. Your arguement makes no sense at all. --Xeeron (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, could you repeat your argumentation on why you think it is important to call it a civil war? I don't think I fully understood. At the moment, 1991-1992 South Ossetia war sounds like the most neutral option to me. People can read more on what it really was from the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War article itself. Offliner (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Civil wars tend to be a lot nastier that "normal" wars between two nations, mostly due to the fact that the two sides battling live very close to each other, so simply going separate ways is not an option. Had the war been a "normal" one, it is likely that the South Ossetian victory in the 91 war would have resolved the issue for good. However, a substancial amount of Georgians remained in the territory claimed by SO as their state. There also exist Georgian refugies who previously lived in South Ossetia. Seeing how SO (anyone who lives there will have to excuse me) is basically an economically worthless piece of mountains, only because of the political pressure to "avenge" the refugies or "liberate" the Georgians living there would Georgia have done something as dumb as attacking SO (and by proxy, Russia). --Xeeron (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Xeeron, but this was a part of a period of a civil war, but the conflict did not make up to a whole civil war, can't you see? The Polish–Soviet War was a part of Russian revolution, but it was not a civil war or a revolution itself. And noone calls Polish–Soviet War a civil war, though prior to the conflict both sides were parts of the same state, just like in Georgia. Why do you continue this stupid argue?FeelSunny (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, what are we going to do with you? First off, if South Ossetia was "De Facto" part of Georgia, then there would have been no war in the 1990's. You don't need to send an army to reclaim an area that you "De Facto" control. Do you even know what "De Facto" means? The very fact that you have to fight to get it, means that you don't "De Facto" control it! Also Civil Wars aren't a lot "nastier" then normal wars. WWII was the "nastiest" war in the 20th century, and it wasn't a civil war. Also, if you would have read about "Misha the boxer" by Lokshina, you wouldn't be making silly claims about Georgians living in South Ossetia as refugees. Refugees live in trailers, they don't have permanent homes. Georgians living in South Ossetia have permanent homes, they don't fit the definition of refugees. Saakashvili's attack on South Ossetia resulted in more Georgian refugees then ever before. Your pro-Georgian bias is shining bright Xeeron. Also Saakashvili launched a direct attack on Russian Peacekeeping Base, even though he could have bypassed it. Clearly his reasons weren't motivated by "vengeance vs. Ossetians" alone. 68.167.1.235 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So far to support your views you have only presented one source that does not explicitly call 1991–1992 South Ossetia War a civil war. Unless you find reliable sources that clearly support your views, and clearly name this conflict a "civil war", please refrain from reverting other edits back to your own version. Stop edit warring.FeelSunny (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"You wouldn't be making silly claims about Georgians living in South Ossetia as refugees" Guess what: I did not. I expect it is too much to ask that you read my post before replying to it. Also, FeelSunny, you live up to your reputation of linking articles without reading them. Prior to the Polish-Soviet war, Poland was a new state set up by the (western) victors of WW1. Prior to that, it was an area occupied by the central powers. Prior to THAT it was part of the Russian empire, which by 1919 had already ceased to exist. --Xeeron (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I forgot, you wanted more sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. From German photographs, over Marxist webpages, to the BBC, all call it civil war. I didn't even need to leave the first page of Google search results to find all these. --Xeeron (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I know what you want to push in this article, Xeeron:)) I found this post in one of the forums, it's not yours, I'm sure, but it's logic fits your actions pretty well: "South Ossetia is NOT independent. Russia needs to stay out of the conflict. What happened in Georgia was a CIVIL war. This should have played out on its own. Russia is NOT a peacekeeper but instead is biased and should be removed from South Ossetia immediately. Putin is pissed off because of Georgias plans of joining NATO and dropping CIS like a bad habit. Putin wants to keep South Ossetia under his wing that way he can build his Natural Gas Pipeline through South Ossetia without Georgians permissian. Russia is a BULLY and needs to repect Georgias sovereignty. Putin is too occupied with becoming the new OPEC."

Now I see your logic behind calling it a "civil war".

And, what I like most about you, Xeeron, is you have a wonderful persistency in your mistakes. Let's look at your "sources".

1) The BBC tells "Georgia accuses Russia of arming the South Ossetian authorities - who have been trying to break away since the civil war in the 1990s. Moscow denies the claim." Nothing about "civil war in Ossetia in 1991-1992". It's about Georgian civil war, you must have missed this. So + 0 points for providing nothing.

2) The "randbild.de-beta" (sounds reliable:)) tells of civil war in 1990(???)-1992. Don't you claim it's "1991-1992"? Anyway - the source is just a blog. Blog of a fotographer, having his contacts in huge letters on the 1st page: Timo Vogt, Fotograf, +49-5863-******, ***[at]randbild[punkt]de. Do you still consider blogs to be reliable sources?:)))) - 1 for providing a non-reliable source.

3) We're not going to discuss source that tells it's "defending Marxism", right? Why don't you just go and write an article about politics based on sources that underline they are "created to defend neonazism" or "neocons" then? I think reliable source should be at least not biased. Defending "-ism" is biased. So - 1 again for providing a source that is "created to defend Marxism".

4) Eurasia.net - wow. A really interesting source. Would it be their opinion, that would be almost enough to claim "some sources say SO war of 1991-1992 was actually a civil war". But, to my dissapointment, these are just words of another fotographer: "Jonathan Alpeyrie is a war photographer for Getty Images." I mean, I adore Getty, I'm even their client for the last two years, but I never knew they were a think tank, did you? A reliable server, but another fotographer that does not count. + 0 again.

Total: - 2 points.

1991–1992 South Ossetia War (Georgian-Ossetian conflict)
Part of the Georgian Civil War
Location of South Ossetia within Georgia
Date January 5, 1991 - June 24, 1992 Location South Ossetia, North Georgia Result Division of the region into Georgian- and Ossetian-controlled parts Territorial changes South Ossetia becomes a de facto independent republic, but internationally recognised as part of Georgia
Belligerents
South Ossetian Separatists North Ossetian Volunteers Russian Forces	The National Guard of Georgia
Casualties and losses
2000	600

Now back to the point. See what sources do not consider 1991-1992 SO war to be a civil war: Radio Free Europe [5], openDemocracy.net (featuring an article of the English professor of Caucasus studies) [6], The Guardian [7], and - finally, that's what your beloved BBC thinks of the war:

"In the twilight of the Soviet Union, as Georgian nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia came to prominence in Tbilisi, South Ossetia too flexed its separatist muscles. Soviet forces were sent to keep the peace in late 1989 following violent clashes between Georgians and Ossetians in the capital, Tskhinvali. Violence flared again as South Ossetia declared its intention to secede from Georgia in 1990 and, the following year, effective independence.

The collapse of the USSR and Georgian independence in 1991 did nothing to dampen South Ossetia's determination to consolidate the break with Tbilisi. Sporadic violence involving Georgian irregular forces and Ossetian fighters continued until the summer of 1992 when agreement on the deployment of Georgian, Ossetian and Russian peacekeepers was reached. Hundreds died in the fighting. [8]

Nothing about it being a civil war. Only about "effective independence" and "sporadic violence". Just a conflict of two very clearly named ethnoses. Ethnic war is not a civil war.

Plus, Ossetians did not consider themselves to be citizens of Georgia in 1990. Know why? Because according to the Soviet constitution, which was the supreme law on the territory, they, as an Autonomous republic inside Georgian SSR, in 1990 had the right to secede from Georgia, if the GSSR decides to withdraw from the USSR. Ossetians just did what the law granted them right to do. That's it about "one nation, one President" (see Gamsakhurdia).

So I named 4 sources, all reliable, all Western, all mainstream. All clearly describe war in 1991-1992and not the civil war.

To make it more clear, that is what 1991–1992 South Ossetia War article infobox (to the right) says.

Can't you see a part is not a whole? And that there is no such thing as 1991-1992 Civil War in South Ossetia? That everyone says it's a conflict of ethnic nature? The page never mentions "civil war" (but in a sentence about "part of"), and mentions "ethnic" and ethnicities (not nationality) more than 10 times on one screen of the text.

Xeeron, stop edit warring. Noone considers this to be a civil war in 1991-1992. There just was no "society" of Georgians and South Ossetians by 1991, that's it. And that was done by Gamsakhurdia with his frantic Georgian shauvinism [9] another one Western, reliable source. Not neocon enough for you, maybe. And not mentioning any "civil wars" in SO, of course.

Well, I think it's all clear now. So stop edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeelSunny (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was going to let your first hypocritical "edit warring" comment slide, seeing how you and I did both the same thing. But mentioning it trice in one post? When I have not even touched the issue in the article since the last time you accused me? When the last person who reverted was you? You are really trying hard to drag this down to a personal level.

About your actual points: You contradict yourself. Saying it was described as "sporadic violence" first and then "All clearly describe war in 1991-1992" a few sentences later. So if it was part of the georgian civil war, but not a civil war, what was it, according to you? --Xeeron (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and since you didn't like my first batch of sources, here are some more: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] Highlights here include the chicago tribune and Amnesty international. Feel free to give case by case reviews again (I still have some 125,960 google hits to chose from if you dislike these as well). --Xeeron (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, you really gotta learn to check the dates on the sources. You first sources dated in August, about the same time that all of these sources were reporting 2,000 civillian casualties. Were there 2,000 civillian casualties? Nope. Also, Civil War means just that, a country or a region fighting PRIMARILY amongst itself. In the above listed case, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, and backed the so-called "pro-Georgian" forces. Now if I throw in some mercenaries into region A, to create trouble, and then I invade region A, on behalf of country B, then guess what, it's not a civil war! Our job as Wikipedians is to inform the reader, not to say what Rupert Murdoch's thoughts on the matter are. Also, everyone, from Russia Today to CNN, Fox News, BBC, Sky News, to Al Jazeera reported 2,000 civillian casualties. Why is it that our info. box doesn't say that. I too could get what, 131,000 hits for that. It is because we get more information as time goes on. None of the sources you provide are expert about the Caucasian Region. And the number of hits quite frankly, doesn't matter. People trying to change past wars, in order to gain propaganda victories in the current wars is the very definition of Revisionism, and is, quite frankly frowned upon by the intellectual community. Yet it is exactly what you, Xeeron, are doing. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a Horse Race coverage of a plethora of media reports on subject X. Therefore, I must respectfully ask you to stop being a Revisionist, or we can take this matter to arbitration. But you don't get to redefine what a civil war is, nor to revise a war that was already written about a decade (or more) ago, just to fit your political needs. 68.167.1.235 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Box

Why is it that Russians are still considered to be the attacker in the Casualty Box. The US Ambassador to Russia called waht the Russians did a counter-attack, or in other words response to an attack, thus stating that Georgians attacked first. Furthermore a plethora of claims have been made, including one by Bush's Sec. of State, claiming that Putin provoked Saakashvili into attacking first. Nearly all of Independent Journalists, including Ames of the Nation, (whose paper got kicked out of Russia for reasons unrelated to this article) stated that Georgia attacked first. HRW reported that the first civillian casualties were caused by Georgia. Der Spiegel stated that Georgia attacked first. More and more people are starting to see that it was Georgia that invaded first. Why is then Russia, on Wikipedia, treated as the attacker? The columns should be switched, with Russia being the defender and Georgia being the attacker. It's a miracle that this hasn't been done already! 68.167.1.235 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW it's really an appaling POV example. To put it clear, all sources eventually came to conclusion Georgia was an attacker in this conflict.FeelSunny (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, we should start rearranging the infobox.FeelSunny (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly didn't even know that the order of the columns had any meaning, that the left column would mean the attacker and the right the defender. But if that is the case, then they should almost definitely be switched. No one except Georgia itself disputes the fact that the Georgians attacked first and fired the first shots. Offliner (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Switched. Offliner (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! (I'm working hard these days and have too little time to edit)FeelSunny (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Another question is why Russia comes before South Ossetia in the inforbox. What do you think, should it be like that? For Russia, AFAIK, intervened when both Georgia and South Ossetia started fighting.FeelSunny (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Imo, the listing should either be alphabetic or in descending order of importance. --Xeeron (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not in order of starting the military action?FeelSunny (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually South Ossetia should be listed as first, Abkhazia second and Russia third, if military doctrine is to be followed. You have to list powers in order that they have entered the conflict, if such an order is unquestionable. Listing the most powerful countries first will often lead to debate as to who is the most powerful. In this case it's crystal clear, however the rules must be uniform. First the Georgians entered South Ossetia, then Kodori Valley, then launched an attak on the Russian Peacekeepin Base, thus it's Georgia v. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Russia. 68.167.1.235 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If that is the rule in military topics, we should follow it. However, Russia entered the fighting before Abkhazia, therefore, according to your rule, it should be Abkhazia last. In any case, the infobox needs to be consistent: If you change something, change ALL entries, not just one, while leaving the others. --Xeeron (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another problem might possibly be determining whether Russia or South Ossetia entered first. If we count the pre-war clashes, it is clearly SO, but for the actual war, it is quite hard to estimate, given that both South Ossetian and Russian troops were defending the same city. --Xeeron (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We are focusing on this article, not every article on Wikipedia. Yes, they should all be uniform, but we're not the only editors. For instance, in the 30 years war, France played the dominant role, but it is not displayed on top. Also, in order to attack the Russian Peacekeeping Base, Georgia must have crossed into South Ossetia, therefore South Ossetia should clearly be first. Also, Georgia entered Abkhazian Region (Kodori Valley) at the begining of the war, I believe prior to firing on the Russian Peacekeeping Base. 68.167.1.235 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that here, in the article, we give a very clear timeline: G attacks SO, then SO fights for it's capital, G attacks R PK base, A declares war, then R enters the war. The order of netering the war is quite clear: G, O, A, R. That's what I think must be the order they should be presented in the infobox.FeelSunny (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Map of areas under Georgian control in SO

Was inserted in a completely wrong way:

1) The name does not mention it's a georgian view of the areas they control. I seriously doubt it was not done intentionally.

2) The source gives two maps: one by georgia, one by international (russians, ossetians, georgians) peacekeeping force. The latter is not used and is not even mentioned. That amounts to a clear POV. I would propose rather insert international map than the one made by one side of a conflict. However, I do not mind inserting both images in the article.

These are the main reasons I deleted the present image. The way it is, it just hinders adequate understanding of the conflict by the reader.FeelSunny (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the map, it clearly states that it is "Tbilisi's". Also, rather bring in that other map than deleting the only detailed map of South Ossetia in the article. It is very helpful for the reader, the only thing it might hinder is a certain POV. --Xeeron (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So it was you who inserted this BS map in the beginning? I do not have enough time to waste to correct other users mistakes/ lies, I just point them out. The image as it is contradicts the source and is biased. The image includes the text comments too, and they tell of nothing of "Georgian version"FeelSunny (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to know who inserted it first, check the history, however my capability of to read written words after clicking on an image are quite unrelated from the question of who inserted it. How about you stop taking guesses on it and instead bring that other map you mentioned? --Xeeron (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

Is there are reason why we have so few photographs in the article? I think we could use some more. Offliner (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Added some. Offliner (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work on making the article prettier. Just, what is that "KP.RU" about? We should use photos without advertisement (or whatever that is). --Xeeron (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

POV

This is getting out of hand. Currently we do have the following pictures/maps in the article:

1. File:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg - Takes a (mildly) pro Russian POV by asserting Russia only entered SO after Georgia
2. File:Caucasus-ethnic en.svg - neutral
3. File:Operation Clear Field.jpg - Inserted at the wrong place with a wrong caption, clear pro Russian POV
4. File:Georgian rocket launchers.jpg - Caption makes this pro Russian POV as well
5. File:Ryzhenkova Solidarnost 2.jpg - Another pro Russian POV
6. File:"Convoy' heading to Tskhinvali.jpg - Mildy pro Russian or neutral
7. File:Zemo nikosi tanks.jpg - Neutral
8. File:Georgian-war-pics.jpg - Pro Georgian
9. File:Caucasus breakaway regions 2008.svg - Neutral
10. File:'On the outskirts of Tshkinvali'.jpg - Pro Russian
11. File:University of Tskhinvali after the war.jpg - Pro Russian
12. File:Dfnsindust-georgia.jpg - Neutral
13. File:A rally in Tskhinvali after the war.jpg - Pro Russian

Notice something? There is just one pro Georgian picture/map left (two counting the one FeelSunny is currently trying to remove), compared to ~7 pro Russian (South Ossetian) ones.

This is not restricted to pictures: I am not inherently pro-Georgian and I prefer to have the article neutral, but with most ardent pro-Georgian editors left and pro-Russian ones still present, I need to devote more and more of my time to countering POV edits, so I have less and less to actually improve the article. --Xeeron (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

3 - This should be given a better caption. 5 and 10 - Killed Georgian soldiers and a destroyed Georgian tank. If anything, they are pro-Georgian, since they show how ruthlessly the Russians killed Georgians. 6 - Also more like pro-Georgia, since it shows the Russian army attacking with a huge force. 11 - Perhaps, but we don't really know who destroyed the university, might also be neither's fault. 13 - Maybe so.

In my opinion, we should just tweak the captions a bit to make them more neutral, and maybe add another pro-Georgian pic (whatever that means.) Offliner (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss individual cases (e.g. I think 11 depicting civilian SO buildings destroyed is pro Russian/SO), but this is only an example for the broader picture. Take 3: This was inserted at the wrong place (pre-war clashes, that is the first week of august right before the war), with an unclear caption in bad English. That is somewhat pro-russian POV, since it suggests that this was Georgia's beforehand plan used in the actual war.

I moved the picture up to the correct place (background, since it is a 2006 plan) and inserted a more descriptive description in proper English. A day later I come back to find the picture at the old location with the caption "Georgian military 2008 plan of operation in South Ossetia" (One editor moved, another changed the caption). That is, even worse than before in terms of POV and factually wrong. So not only did someone push their POV into the article, in doing so they also made the article worse of from an editorial point - now being wrong. It sucks having to waste time on this again and again. --Xeeron (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is a bit crude way to prevent that... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xeeron here. Some usefull pictures are to be found at [15]. One remaining and important result of the war is the ethnic cleansing of Georgians from South Ossetia, so why not show Georgian refugees from there? Närking (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1 pic of a SO refugee and 1 pic from a Georgian refugee in the article to keep things balanced? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Losses

There exist two figures for the casualty box regarding Russian casualties. The fist one is 71 killed, 356 wounded, and 5 captured. You can find this figure at the website of Moscow defense brief. Look for "the august war between Russia and Georgia". Another figure would be 71 dead, 341 wounded, and 6 captured. However, the other figure is 48 killed, 157 wounded, and 6 captured. Since the figure was suddenly lowered, I believe the last one to be strongly inaccurate. However, Offliner keeps telling me that community consensus puts the figure at 48 dead. Can someone tell me if this is true?