Talk:Russo-Georgian War

Georgia's Poor Performance

I don't understand, Georgia bought all this expensive cutting edge military technology from the United States, and then they launched an attack without even bothering to learn how to use it first. The Russians on the other-hand using dusty old cold-war era equipment (much of which is in barely operable condition) still somehow easily manage to come out on top. I guess this proves that the training of militaries is still an crucially important factor, even in 21st-century conflicts. The Russians were far better trained so they won, despite inferior equipment 64.222.123.55 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting commentary. Please consider joining Wikipedia to improve articles. Outback the koala (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

64.222.123.55, sounds like you are really disappointed about the results of the war or you just trolling us, bad mood to write something into Wiki. I think, that Russia is not poor country to make some modern tanks, jets, etc for most dangerous region in it's territory (I mean Caucasus). 80.90.120.7 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is also an interesting comment. Please consider joining Wikipedia to improve articles. Outback the koala (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Russia had T-90s, but chose not to use them. Russia's equipment is far from ancient, the MiG-29s patrolled the skies, and that's a new fighter. The problem when going against Russia, is that Russians are one of the best counterattacking armies. They are also quite good city fighters. Fancy equipment never wins wars on its own, you need experienced officers, but more importantly, you need to fight Just Wars, not wars of agression, as those will never win the people's hearts and minds. When will people realize that bombing other people (or in this case shelling them with rocket launchers,) will never win their hearts and minds? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Retarded. When will people realize that there never was something like a genocide attempt of Ossetians from Georgian side and that "rocket launcher attack" on a cleared city by the way, were far less dramatic than the bombing raids against Gori which killed at least 60 people. There are not even evidances about the claim that more than 20-30 Ossetian civilians were killed accidently during war, not to talk about a phantom mass-attack against Tskhinvali, in which all apartments which were not damaged during the wars in the 90s, still stand. Propaganda and brainwashing is not to underestimate, ok. Nationalism andretarded supporting of massmurderers like Kremlin also, but please people, come to mind ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Arguments made by persons who choose not to sign their comments say much about their author. Regarding the statement that Tskhinvali was a "cleared city" - what makes you think so. There was no reason for the inhabitants to have moved prior to the nighttime rocket barrage ordered by Georgian authorities who somehow thought that this action would "unite the country". Mighty strange way to make friends.Федоров (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NYT successfully made another error

In the Order of Battle, (ORBAT) NYT claims that 3 infantry battalions of the 135th infantry regiment were used. However, Russian regiments used only 2/3rds of their infantry battalions, meaning that out of the 3 infantry battalions, only 2 were used. The reason here is that unlike SPRI-trained Saakashvili units, the Russians actually like to keep a reserve, to prevent a retreat from turning into a rout. So from each of the 5 Russian Regiments that fought, (135th separate, 503rd and 693rd from the 19th and 70th with 71st from the 42nd,) two battalions were used, totalling ten Russian mechanized infantry battalions, of 500 each, or 5,000 men, amounting for half of Russia's forces in Georgia, as would be logical. (SpetzNaz, VDV, Recon Bats, Arty Bats, Tank Bats and Support Bats made up the other half.) One of the infantry battalions of the 135th was already stationed near Tskhinvali as peacekeepers. 2 - 1 = 1, so that means logically only one more battalion of the 135th infantry regiment could enter. Not according to the New York Times, who boldly claimed that two battalions entered, and 2 + 1 is not the equivalent of 2. 10 battalions from 5 regiments fought, and 10 / 5 is 2. According to the "Tanks" reference, 1,500 men were ready to go, which is the equivalent of 3 battalions in numbers, but part of the 1,500 also included a tank battalion, and 2 arty battalions, two recon companies and support units, which makes it possible for only two battalions to be part of the 1,500 men force. I should remedy this situation in the article's ORBAT, any objections?

I have no idea where you are taking that information from, but you kept MDB as the source for the army setup. Yet MDB contradicts your edit, so I reverted. If you want to use information that is not in MDB, you have to add the source you are taking that information from as well. If "tanks" has a list of units, use the tanks list, if they don't leave MDB, but don't come up with unsourced numbers by yourself. --Xeeron (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How does MDB contradict my edit? MDB said ten mech inf battalions, that's what I have. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

MDB says: "Russia had six regimental tactical groups (135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division from North Ossetia (...)"

You put into the article: "Two Mech Inf Battalions of the 503rd Motorised Rifle Regiment of the 19th Motorised Rifle Division", "Two Mech Inf Battalions of the 693rd Motorised Rifle Regiment of the 19th Motorised Rifle Division"

That is not in the source given and as such a wrong attribution. --Xeeron (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

First, you stated that MDB contradicted my edit. Your quote: Yet MDB contradicts your edit, so I reverted. I asked where exactly MDB contradicted my edit. Let me post text from MDB: Later that day, three tactical battalion groups from the 135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division Xeeron, what is 3 divided by 3? Does it equal 2, as the NYT alleges? If three tactical battalion groups come from three motorized rifle regiments, that means that one tactical battalion group came from one motorized rifle regiment. This isn't complex math, it's basic stuff. As the war progressed, more tactical battalions came in, raising it to "Two Mech Inf Battalions" of each regiment. That is exactly what I wrote.

Second, don't change your argument, without admitting that you were wrong, yet again, but at least you're not insisting that we still place Svante Cornell's 2 to 1 ratio into the article, so there's some improvement. Initially you stated that MDB contradicted my edit. That you were dead wrong about, and an apology would be nice. Now you changed your argument to "not in the source given and as such a wrong attribution". The regimental tactical groups are in the source given: By the evening of August 10, Russia had six regimental tactical groups (135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division from North Ossetia, the 70th and 71th Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 42nd Motorized Rifle Division from Chechnya, and mixed from the 104th and 234th Paratroop Regiments of the 76th Pskov Air Assault Division), units of the 45th Reconnaissance Paratroop Regiment and the 10th and 22nd Special Forces Brigades, as well as significant artillery and air-defense forces. Two Chechen companies from the Zapad and Vostok Battalions and regimental tactical groups of the 98th Ivanovo Airborne Division, deployed to the battle zone too. The total number of Russian forces in South Ossetia reached about 10,000 men and 120 tanks. That's 120 tanks, not 1,200 tanks. Thus, part of the edit comes from the source. Additionally saying Regimental Tactical Group means that the entire regiment did not move in. Thus, according to the MDB, units of the 135th, 503rd, 693rd, 70th and 71th motorized rifle regiments moved in. I merely clarified what the units were, as I have access to later data, which would be tough to cite, as access is restricted for the time being, but within a few months, it won't be, and you'll see that my numbers were correct.

Allow me to make it crystal clear. MDB: six regimental tactical groups fought or in other words units from six regiments fought. My clarification: units X and Y from six regiments fought. Xeeron's rebuttal: you contradicted the MDB! Please, show me where I contradicted the MDB. Either back up your claim, or withdraw it and admit that you were wrong. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Two Mech Inf Battalions are not in MDB. When you have some "restricted" data, come back to edit here once it is unrestricted and can be quoted in Wikipedia. Till then, your edit contradicts the MDB, which talks of regimental tactical groups, not Mech Inf Battalions. --Xeeron (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What an update is, and McDermott

An update is when the same editor, uses better information, to update his sources. An update is not replacing RIA Novosti's material with McDermott, who with all due respect has no idea what he is talking about. Russian Intelligence was stellar during the war, accomplishing all of its tasks, and losing very few men. Yet according to McDermott, they performed poorly. Then what does it take to perform well? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Russian Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C³I) performed poorly during the conflict. The communication systems used were obsolete, resulting in one case where the commander of the 58th army was reported to have communicated with his forces in the midst of combat via a satellite phone borrowed from a journalist. Due to the absence of satellite-targetting, precision-guided munitions could not be used (US controlled GPS was unavailable since the war zone was blacked out). Furthermore, the Russian defense minister had failed to authorize the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, which lead to the use of a Tupolev Tu-22M3 long-range bomber on a reconnaissance mission, where it was subsequently shot down. Nevertheless, most of the reconnaisance was performed by the 3 Russian reconnaisance battalions, so the need to use a strategic bomber for it was questionable. American researchers working for the Heritage foundation praised the comprehensive and systematic planning of the Russian general staff, stating that, the operations "were well prepared and well executed" and that the Russian offensive achieved a strategic surprise.

Absense of GLONASS? Then how were the Iskanders launched? How were the Tochkas launched? Russia couldn't authorize use of unamanned aerial vehicles, because none were active in the Caucasus Military District. The TU-22M is not designed for a reconnaisance mission, anymore than the B-52 was, . This is why, you DISCUSS new sources before placing them into the article, as is required, as has been required for as long as this article existed. You don't claim an update of RIA Novosti (Russian) with McDermott, (American), this is just plain silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger McDermott speculated that the (compared to earlier Russian conflicts) high level of criticism in the media after the conflict is part of "an orchestrated effort by the government to “sell” reform to the military and garner support among the populace.

There was 90% for military reforms after the war, without any criticism. Clearly according to McDermott, more was needed! Come on! United Russia has 315 out of 450 seats. Next party, the Commies, have 57. Military reforms were supported by all of Russia's major parties. United Russia also controls the upper house. The above four parties, enjoy the support of over 90% of the Russian voters. They were all pro-reform. Just look at the election table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_legislative_election,_2007#Official_results. There were no real critics of the reform. The parties may have had different ideas and emphasis on what should be reformed, but you didn't need any scandals to reform the military. You don't need to garner more than 90%. Here's CNN's poll on the war: http://digg.com/politics/92_of_CNN_readers_Russia_s_actions_in_Georgia_justified Here is a Gallup Poll on the war, by Georgians: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110602/georgians-look-toward-russia-respect-admiration.aspx HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Critique of McDermott with citations that show he gets his facts wrong

The war did not "jeopardize" Russia's relationship with the EU. There was an initial scuffle, but by 2009, the article's publication date, Russia and EU were getting along rather well. They still are.

McDermott states that, and I quote from http://www.usamhi.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/09spring/mcdermott.pdf: "within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs with 1,550 soldiers and more than 100 vehicles". Ahhh, panic, the Russians, they are coming! Help! Get some vodka! So let's see here, according to McDermott, who would never make stuff up, within a few hours of operation the 104th moved in, so they have to be in South Ossetia before nightfall on August 8th. According to the Russian Commander of the 104th Pskov Regiment http://artofwar.ru/k/krjukow_w_n/text_0150.shtml at 1 AM on August 9th, (that's the one that comes after August 8th,) they were still crossing the Roki Tunnel and instead of a whole regiment, it was a single battalion.

McDermott boldly continues: "A key factor in the speed of the Russian military victory was the opening of a second front in Abkhazia". Yup, that's definite Bush-like thinking - want to speed up the war, open up a second front, that'll speed things up! Works so well with Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean right after the US invaded Iraq, the Afghanistan victory was sped up! Oh wait, it had the exact opposite effect. For this war, the Abkhaz Theater of War had little to do with the Ossetian Theater of War, and it was opened up by Abkhazia, not by Russia. Georgia had a maximum of 3,300 men in Abkhazia, if you think that these men could have turned the tide of war, you are mistaken, just read the Battle of Tskhinvali. Oh wait, the Jamestown Foundation also argued about Iraq having WMDs.

According to McDermott, capturing the military base at Senaki enabled Russia to control all heavy traffic movement accross Georgia. According to reality, Google Maps, any maps, here's one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg whether one controls Senaki or not, one still does not control the Gori-Tbilisi road. Nor the Batumi-Tbilisi road. And that's just the first two pages, I don't want to waste my time. The entire VDV Regiment in on August 8th, that's just hilarious. Unfortunately this is an encyclopedia, not a comedy club.

This guy reminds me of someone. Oh wait, it's the Jamestown Foundation, a notable part of the anti-Russian lobby. From Pavel Felgenhauer, who boldly claimed that Russia was going to lose this war, and after Russia won, claimed that Russia provoked Georgia, to Svante Cornell who spoke of Russia outnumbering Georgia's army two to one and wrote a book about Russia using 1,200 tanks, (150 according to US Satellite Data, Russian Satellite Data, European Satellite Data, and any sane military analysis.) Xeeron, stop trying to insert Jamestown Foundation into this article. They are completely clueless, be it Felgenhauer's claim that Russia will lose this war, Svante Cornell's with 1,200 tanks, or McDermott's claim that the entire 104th fought on August 8th, despite the 104th's commander repudiation of that "fact". Xeeron, this article is about facts, not Jamestown Foundation's Fiction. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest nor any need to discuss your rant/OR above. Of course, you would prefer to only have Russian state owned RIA and Moscow based CAST as sources in the article, but it does not work that way. And aggressively attacking any author who's position you dislike wont help either. A further note: Stuff like "has no idea what he is talking about" is close to slander. You should be careful with that. --Xeeron (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I will point it out again: McDermott made up something, and dubbed this a "fact". According to McDermott, the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th. According to the commander of the 104th of the 76th VDV, in an official report, his regiment's avanteguard battalion, (that's the one that enters first) did not enter South Ossetia until August 9th. This is not a "Russian owned source" - that is an actual report. And if you want, I can find anti-Russian articles on the website that published the report. Russian VDV commanders do not lie in their reports about battles when they win and everything goes according to plan. That is a fact. Do you understand the difference between propaganda and an actual report written by the commander?

Also, McDermott claimed that by controlling Senaki and overseeing the road, Russia divided Georgia in half. However I used a map, you do realize that Google Maps are not a pro-Russian source, right Xeeron? According to maps, any map, Russians had no control over the Batumi - Tbilisi Road, and thus Georgia was never divided in two, contrary to what McDermott said.

Every single source that I have provided was dead on accurate. Every pro-Jamestown source you provided was contradicted by reality. Be it Svante Cornell's "2 to 1 ratio in favor of Russia", the "Russia is attacking with 1,200 tanks" article, or Felgenhauer's claim that "it will be tough for Russia to fight this war". I don't care where the sources come from. I do care that you are putting sources into the article, parts of which contradict reality. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with that point, Jamestown is well known for having a partisan goal (since its inception it was supposed to be actively anti-Soviet/Russian, and it still seems to be regarded as such) so it’s articles on the topic it’s partisan over wouldn’t make any better primary sources than something in Daily-Kos or MoveOn.org would in a topic covering Iraq or Afghanistan. More so in this case since it’s published blatantly false information (Tank and numbers claims that have been established as false) and positions such as the idea of a Russian first strike that are considered fringe ideas (given that third parties such as the EU’s commission and NGOs and western goverments say the opposite). Freepsbane (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this indeed seems to be the case, then we should no longer consider Jamestown to be a reliable source. And if we do that then we shouldn't use it the article at all. We must stick to what is verifiable - and if two sources are being contradictory, with one clearly seeming to be on the WP:FRINGE then lets stay with the generally accepted sources. Good research, HW007, on this one. Outback the koala (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your flimsy "research" betrays your desire to remove non-Russian sources here and shows why OR does not really have a place on wikipedia.

• Your research: You call McDermott "US Military"[1]
  • Fact: "Roger N. McDermott is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent at Canterbury (U.K.). He is also a Senior Fellow in Eurasian Military Studies with the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, D.C." [2]
• Your research: "According to McDermott, the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th." [3]
  • Fact: "Within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division’s 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs with 1,550 soldiers and more than 100 vehicles" Notice that he does not specify which operation that was and when it started. Also take a look at who is McDermotts source for that statement: Mikhail Barabanov. [4]
• Your research: "Russian VDV commanders do not lie in their reports about battles when they win and everything goes according to plan." [5]
  • Fact: We have no idea what that commanders plan was, and consequently no idea whether all went according to that plan. Further, Russia has been fighting a public relations battle with Georgia over the exact timing of events in the war, giving them every incentive to only "report" what is helping their side. [6], [7] Stating that someone does never lie is just absurd.
• Your research: "According to maps, any map, Russians had no control over the Batumi - Tbilisi Road, and thus Georgia was never divided in two, contrary to what McDermott said" [8]
  • Fact: There exits only one big highway in Georgia, running from Tbilisi-Gori-Kutaisi-Senaki-Poti-Batumi. Russia occupied Gori (through which the highway runs). Russia also had units at Senaki (through which that highway also runs). They definitely had control over the east-west movements in Georgia.[9], [10]

I am sick of you putting (wrong) statements in other peoples' mouth and I and also sick of reading page upon page of your poorly done OR. --Xeeron (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Xeeron, if you wouldn't mind sourcing these facts, it would be helpful in establishing whether or not he is a reliable source. This is all well and good but I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not without confirmation of somekind. Who knows what is WP:TRUTH? Outback the koala (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your research refers to HW's post here, the other quotes to the McDermott paper. But I'll add links for your convenience. --Xeeron (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, from looking at these sources/diffs provided I will give my analysis;

• McDermott is likely not US Military himself, he may admittedly be a bit bias toward the US standpoint, but we have other sources in the article that are equally as bias toward the Russian or Georgian viewpoint. On that point Xeeron is right for inclusion. (Although you only provided the disputed source as a ref, I will concede this point)
• On the 2nd point raised, I have no idea what is true; because you only reference the very report we are discussing as an argument as fact. We don't know if the disputed source is fact! That's what this discussion is about.
• On the third point, yes Xeeron I think is right, we have no way of knowing what the commanders plans were and whether real life events went well to these afore mentioned plans.
• Lastly, you are both right. No Georgia technically was not cut completely in half, But they did occupy the highway later on; cutting the country in half communicationally and militarily. From a purely military standpoint the country was essentially cut in half.

If you could clarify the second point further, it would mean alot toward seeing if McDermott is factually correct. Outback the koala (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please reread HW's sentence: "According to McDermott, the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th." As I pointed out above, McDermott does not write that. --Xeeron (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I misunderstood. Thank You. I think the operative word that may have confused HW in the original was 'operation', which one? I dont know. In that case, it seems that the article is factually correct as far as I can see. The other objection that HW007 raised above that I picked out was the overall note - Freepsbane commented on it as well; the idea that Jamestown is inherently anti-Russian. But I don't understand the connection to McDermott. At all. I read over HW statements, but I can't seem to follow what he is trying to say as far as the connection between the two. What does he mean by 'anti-russian lobby'? -Is there such a thing? Might be just me, but if this could be clarified for me, I would really appreciate it. Outback the koala (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive walls of text by block-evading IP sock of User:HistoricWarrior007

I'd actually like to hear HW's response, unfortunately he was banned by a very immature administrator who prefers fiction over facts. As to the first point, HW pointed out that McDermott was Jamestown Foundation, and that Jamestown Foundation writers were previously wrong about the war, and that Jamestown is US based. Yes, we have corrupt lobbyists, can you name a country that doesn't? According to the reference cited, http://www.usamhi.army.mil, the web address belongs to the US Military, which made HW wrongly assume that McDermott is US military. Just because the website belongs to US Military, does not mean that every comment published on it is US military, and HW should know better. However the Russian military commander's report, if he is indeed the commander HW makes him out to be, is more important than a statement of an expert who was never present during combat, if indeed he can be called an expert. Jamestown Foundation was the same foundation that yelled "Saddam has WMDs" and "Russia will lose the Second Chechen War", so anyone associated with the foundation is instantly questionable. Nor does McDermott correctly cite Barabanov, as Barabanov writes that one regiment was mixed from the 104th and 234th Paratroop Regiments of the 76th Pskov Air Assault Division whereas the 234th is absent from McDemott's paper, showing his research to be very sloppy. As to the second point, if Russia was doing PR, the commander's report would be published all over the news. Instead I did not know about it until HW cited it here. Russia is clueless when it comes to PR; they failed to mention that MiG-29s ruled the skies, a major PR blunder; but no one is so clueless as to write a report for PR purposes and forget to use it for PR, as Xeeron alleges. HW is pro-Russian, but in a different way; the information he cites and debates has been credible thus far, but he is only placing pro-Russian information into the article. However, Wikipedia cannot ban HW for something that HW is not doing, (not placing responses to Russian information,) and I think HW has a lot more information, than he's telling us. Nevertheless, the quick counters when he tried to edit the ORBAT, albeit his edits were unsourced, might show why he is being cautious. And the unjustified ban, justified HW's actions. As to whether the Anti-Russian Lobby exists or not, I was able to find this review in under 2 seconds on Google: http://us.macmillan.com/russophobia, http://www.russiablog.org/2009/03/make_hay_while_obama_is_there.php As to the third point, that McDermott did not mention: the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th. On top of page 66 McDermott's document states: Within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs. Within a few hours is in essence the same as on August 8th, what else could "within a few hours of the commencement of the operation" mean? The operation was in full swing by noon of August 8th. Are the few hours greater than 12? "76th's (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment" is the exact same thing as "104th of the 76th VDV". "Suburbs of Tskhinvali" would be in Tskhinvali, where else could the suburbs of Tskhinvali be? As to the fourth point, a glimpse at a map shows that HW is correct. There is no way that Russia controlled the section of the Batumi-Tbilisi Road, and thus Russia did not control the entire Georgian Highway, if indeed that is a single highway. Finally a bit about me should be known: I am a military historian; we are following these debates closely to determine whether or not historians should come out of their "Ivory Towers" and enter "Wikipedialand". I am arguing the negative side, and I want to sincerely thank FPaS for his contribution to my side. Until the recent ban of HW, the other side was winning. However, even military historians have their orders, that they must carry out. I only have one other edit on Wikipedia, and that is restoring "The Air War" in the Battle of Tskhinvali. My apologies for being blunt. Finally, HW, if you want a job amongst real military historians, let me know - I wonder what you could do with proper training. I'll be watching your talkpage. 68.164.118.203 (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "There is no way that Russia controlled the section of the Batumi-Tbilisi Road", when the map clearly shows Russia controlling 2 cities that the highway passes through. I can only asume that you are not looking at the correct map, or that you have no idea which of the roads pictured on the map actually is the highway. PS: As with everyone else posting, I want to encourage you to create an account, since it is much harder remembering whom you are talking to when posters are only identified by some numbers. --Xeeron (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Considering the amount of edits I made, this being my 3rd edit, I think you can keep up with me. As to the map, I am looking at this map, that has been at the top of the article for quite a while, at least since August 7th: This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for August 7, 2009. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg Here is the quote that I made, which you are questioning: There is no way that Russia controlled the section of the Batumi-Tbilisi Road, and thus Russia did not control the entire Georgian Highway. The US Satellite photos confirm that the Russians were not in Ajaria, unfortunately they are classified. Thus there is no way that the Russians controlled the Batumi-Keda-Khulo section. Additionally, no Russians were present south of Tbilisi, and the mountains prevented any clear view from the north of the Khulo-Vale-Abkhalstike section. The road forks at Abkhalstike, and if one takes the southern fork, followed by the northern fork, it is again protected by mountains, and then by the Georgian defenses around MtShketa, which the Russians did not cross, until the road's section reaches Tbilisi. My argument stated that the Batumi-Tbilisi section was not controlled, and I just proved it. Because the Russians did not control that section, they did not control the entire road, as a section was not controlled. Should you find that map not credible, by viewing maps.yahoo.com (of Georgia) I recommend that you take the A306 south-east, go past A308 and take the A303 north-east, pass by Lake Tba Paravani, hang out by another lake next to Tsalka, admit that US Military Historians are usually correct, unlike our assorted lobbyists, and take the A301 north to Tbilisi. http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=41.638626&lon=43.671242&zoom=9 Zoom in and out to get the names. How do you think US supplies got into Tbilisi without losing anymore Hummers to the Russians? That might be one of the roads they took. And the designations, A301, A303, A308 show that Georgia has more than just one highway. 68.164.118.203 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC) As I thought, you are talking about the wrong road. What you are talking about (labeled A306 and A303 on your yahoo map link) is *not* the highway. The only well maintained east-west road in Georgia is the highway (labeled M27 on yahoo). Clearly McDermott knows this, since he talks about "severing the main highway". This shows again the dangers of conducting WP:OR on the talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I'd like to begin by thanking Laurinavicious for the greeting on my talkpage. Those are always appreciated. As to the argument presented above, I fully agree that conducting WP:OR on the talkpage is dangerous, so I would ask Xeeron to cite a McDermott source that states that M27 is the main highway and the only well maintained east-west road as Xeeron alleged earlier. As to his implied accusation of me employing WP:OR - I ask Xeeron to tell where exactly I employed WP:OR. I merely outlined existing routes on maps that are both valid sources. I would also like to know how exactly Xeeron knows that McDermott is talking about M27, because McDermott did not say it. Is Xeeron conducting WP:OR while accusing someone else of doing so, in the very same post? Additionally, the full sentence reads: severing the main highway and railway at a second location, enabling de facto Russian military control of all heavy traffic movement across Georgia. I just outlined a route for you that showed how a part of heavy traffic can move across Georgia. You responded with a partial quote, while ignoring therest of the quote. There have been no sources presented, except Xeeron's original research, which violates WP:OR, to show that the Batumi-Tbilisi road cannot contain what the average reasonable person would call heavy traffic. This is the difference between real historians and the lobbyist historians of the Jamestown Foundation. Real historians use exclusionary words, such as "all" or "none" with extreme caution, and are always able to back them up by facts. Real historians cite roads, such as "M27", not simply designate "major and minor routes". McDermott's research is sloppy; no real historian is going to assume that all heavy traffic movement was across M27, a single route. That is an extraordinarily poor assumption. It means that heavy trucks carrying everyday goods from Batumi to Tbilisi had no direct route. No country, that has over a million people, can survive with only a single route taking up all heavy traffic, which is what McDermott is implying if Xeeron's original research is to be considered. 68.164.118.203 (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Well, what 68.164.118.203 says (Welcome btw) about these routes seems reasonable. Now I do doubt the yahoo maps is a RS; but we could easily find a Georgian transportation related source if we want, I would assume. This has changed my view of this discussion; Frankly I feel like I'm a little out of my league. That being said, another discussion here should not become confined to less than a few editors. We need outside views on this discussion. While its visible here on the talk page, I think its unlikely we'll be getting comments from uninvolved editors. Maybe a RfC (Request for Comment) would be helpful here. The topic would be on whether McDermott is a RS and if he is factually correct. Thought? Outback the koala (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Nice try, but when I paraphrase or quote McDermott, my words statements are backed up by a source, unlike yours. You (without any basis) assume that there has to be a second highway. So that is your opinion vs McDermotts. And incidently this are 2 quotes from a casual google search of the road that you assume you know more about than McDermott (first and second hit for a google search about "A303 tbilisi road"): "The infamous A303 road from Tbilisi to Tsalka and beyond. My map marks it as a "main road, asphalted", but I think that may have only been the case when it was built in the 1960s."[11] "The A303 is a very bad road" [12] This has gone on for much to long really. People try to discredit McDermott with nothing but made up OR, based on stuff like personal assumptions how much roads a country must have. Even a most basic google search shows that McDermott's view is consistent with what others write, while the OR is not. But then, the point seems to be, once again, to push out a source disliked by some editors. --Xeeron (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you Outback the Koala for your interest, and for the warm welcome. As to Xeeron's claim that my statements are not backed up by a source, I find that slanderous. I took Yahoo! Map, and the map from the top of the article, and simply highlighted a possible secondary path. I fail to see why Xeeron thinks this is not backed up by a source, or why a Yahoo! Map is my opinion. Nor do I assume without any basis that I know more than McDermott. Xeeron tries to mistakenly present mere highlighting of the road as an opinion, while it remains a fact. If I open a book to a page, highlight a sentence, and say "read this", I have not engaged in original research. The A303 exists as a road, and forms a section of a possible path for heavy traffic; that is not my opinion as Xeeron alleges, that is a fact. As to Xeeron's source that calls said road, infamous, the source reads: The infamous A303 road from Tbilisi to Tsalka and beyond. My map marks it as a "main road, asphalted", but I think that may have only been the case when it was built in the 1960s.. In other words the source admits that the road was asphalted, while the author states that he merely thinks, I think that it is no longer asphaulted. However such thoughts did not prevent the author from marking it as his main road. Thoughts are opinions, not facts. The fact here is simple: a secondary road exists, and whether it is asphaulted or not, the road enables heavy traffic travel; since the road was not controlled by the Russians, there is no way that the Russians controlled all heavy traffic as McDermott and Xeeron jointly allege. As to me assuming that a country with over a million people, Georgia's population is 4,385,400, has more than one major road that enables heavy traffic - that is not merely an assumption; that is an obvious fact, as modern countries with over a million inhabitants cannot function with only a single major road. The road may be terrible, bad, infamous, but as long as the A303 can sustain heavy traffic, all heavy traffic cannot be controlled by the Russians as Xeeron and McDermott allege, as Russians did not control the part of A303 leading from Batumi to Tbilisi. This is not a battle of opinions, as Xeeron mistakenly portrays it. That is a fact. In a book published in 2008, by Tim Burford, http://books.google.com/books?id=qQ6R4Fg6rh4C&dq=A303+road+tbilisi+-uk&source=gbs_navlinks_s, the A303 recieves a reasonable description: http://books.google.com/books?id=qQ6R4Fg6rh4C&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=A303+road+tbilisi+-uk&source=bl&ots=Zsb4tHKMFL&sig=1vRjpeT6gQl9w6b56XrEYOIHW1c&hl=en&ei=5mOtS8zNFouIswOCq4X4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=A303%20&f=false on page 246, which reads: It's odd that in both Britain and Georgia, it's the A303 that goes from the capital to the country's finest ancient monuments, from London to Stonehenge and from Tbilisi to Vardizia. The Georgian A303 starts as Chavchadze Avenue... the book goes on to point out that the A303 is rough but nowhere does it say that A303 cannot sustain heavy traffic, and it repeatedly calls A303 a road. The book confirms that most traffic goes from Tbilisi to Akhalkalaki via Borjomi. By saying most, instead of all it implies that some heavy traffic goes from Tbilisi to Akhalkalaki via A303. The problem with McDermott's argument is that he used the word all instead of most. McDermott's writing just does not add up, as McDermott portrays irreconcilable events, as facts. For instance, on page 66, McDermott writes: Within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs. That means that within a few hours, the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment had to fly to Tskhinvali; there is just no other way to get from Pskov to Tskhinvali within a few hours. If the 104th Airborne Regiment had to fly to Tskhinvali, that means that the 104th Regiment had to land in Tskhinvali. That's over 2,300 kilometers. Please note that all I did was to state the obvious: that only by flight can a few thousand kilometers can be covered in a few hours by an entire VDV Regiment; the Regiment has Anonas, whose top speed is 32 kilometers per hour. It cannot cover over 2,000 kilometers, without flying, in a few hours. And the only way that infantry can go from air to ground is by landing. No original research here, although I am sure Xeeron will try and claim it anyway. If the VDV of the 104th Airborne Regiment is landing, they would come into range of the Georgian anti-aircraft guns, that surrounded Tskhinvali. You can see Tskhinvali partially surrounded by Georgians on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tskhinvali_battles.png. And even if that was not the case, the range of a Buk-M1 is 30 kilometers. According to McDermott, the Russians failed to suppress Georgian anti-aircraft guns. Furthermore, an Su-24 was shot down on August 11th. My question is this: why did the Georgians fail to shoot down the transport planes, or helicopters of the 104th Airborne Regiment? Why let them make a perfect landing? No amount of incompetence would allow an entire Airborne Regiment to land; and yet there is no record of such an engagement. The reason? Because such an engagement did not exist. The 104th Airborne Regiment was flown into North Caucasus, and reached Tskhinvali, on August 9th, by road, not by air, as was written in the report by the commander that HW presented. I checked, and that was an actual commander's report. http://artofwar.ru/k/krjukow_w_n/text_0150.shtml, which shows that McDermott is capable of simply making things up. I also looked up Xeeron's edits, and he consistently defends Jamestown Foundation, irrespective of whether they are correct or not, irrespective if they get their facts correct, or simply make them up. When Svante Cornell of the Jamestown Foundation, http://www.jamestown.org/media/experts/ claimed that Russians outnumbered Georgians by a 2:1 margin, and HW called Xeeron out on it, Xeeron rushed to the defense of the Jamestown Foundation's "Scholar". Here, Xeeron is continuing his quest, choosing to use a report published by yet another Jamestown Foundation "Scholar" about the 104th Airborne Regiment over a report written by the actual commander of the 104th Airborne Commander. Xeeron even went so far as to claim that the commander's report was written for PR purposes, without providing any credible confirmation for his statement, and thus violating WP:OR, something Xeeron repeatedly accuses me of doing. 68.164.118.203 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am closing this debate. There is obviously no prospect of it turning into anything constructive. As an outside neutral observer, I can see no hint at any prima facie convincing case that a renaming would be required under our policies. On the other hand, I see no willingness to discuss the matter constructively from the side of the opponents either. No new arguments that haven't been exchanged numerous times are coming forward. Any new proposal at renaming can be brought forward later only if it comes with fresh, new ideas, and if it is proposed by somebody other than those who have been squabbling over it for months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I know suggesting a new name will only focus discussion on that title and its merits so I am hoping we can at least agree the current title is inappropriate and in need of changing. The rules on naming an article are clear: it must reflect the scope of the subject. It does not matter where most of the fighting was because ultimately there were significant battles and military actions taking place outside the vicinity of South Ossetia. If the only combat outside South Ossetia was in its vicinity, airstrikes, or sporadic activity it would be one thing. However, we can not neglect the existence of an entire other offensive in Abkhazia and the coastal regions of Georgia not to mention a naval battle that took place in that area. If NATO forces had invaded Serbia proper or tried to liberate Vojvodina it would not continue to be called the Kosovo War.

My request is simply that we reach a decision that the current title needs to be changed. What it is changed to would be something for a later discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have tried to initiate this debates literally dozens of times, always with the same arguments on both sides. I would advise against rehashing it now. Latest instantiation seems to have been this one: Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Archive 31#2008 South Ossetia war???, where you will find a list of links to some 26(!) prior threads on the same issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at those discussions most of the people arguing against a change have since had warning or sanctions against them for POV-pushing and edit-warring on this same general subject, almost always in Russia's favor. There is no limit on the number of discussions and certainly not if it violates conventions or rules. If you want to avoid further discussion and change the title yourself that's fine, but as long as this title stands it will always be challenged, if not by me then someone else, because it uses a non-notable name when countless better alternatives exist.

Unfortunately early on this title was subjected to a constant edit war and locked in with this title. It was never meant to remain the title, only to be there until a more common name emerged. There are many names more common than this one now and they represent the scope better than this one.

Also is that "advise against rehashing it now" meant to be some sort of threat? You cannot sanction me for discussing a legitimate subject. Also I am tired of people saying "now is not the right time" because that is what has always been said whenever a discussion is started. I was told to "wait a few months for a common name to emerge" over one and a half years ago and after being told several times to wait a few months and after a common name did emerge still I was told to wait. I am sorry, but this is getting absurd. One thing which can not be disputed by anyone with any sense or objectivity is that this current name is not common or accurate. It misrepresents the entire subject and violates nearly every rule on naming an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? This has been discussed ad nauseam. I personally favour the present title, and I doubt anyone has changed their positions, clearly not you either. Please, this is ridiculous. (although I do not mean to put down your position in any way, because it certainly is a legitimate argument, I simply disagree with it, respectfully) If the discussion goes ahead, and ends in 'no consensus' for change (again), a 1-year or 2-year break on this topic should occur. Enough is enough. Outback the koala (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you favor the present title? Saying "it is accurate enough" is not a good reason when it is not as accurate as more common names. Admins reviewing other names have not found them to be biased in any way either. The claims Historic made were vacuous and have no basis in reality, let alone in Wikipedia. You cannot just say you like the title, but you have to give a substantive reason. What reason do you have that overrides the fact only a handful of news reports use this title now and the dozens of recent reports that use other names come from a wide group of organizations including Russian news of numerous persuasions?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My unchanged opinion is: The current title is bad, there are better titles out there, but I am not willing to spend time discussing this vs a (predictable) concerted effort by a group of pro-russian editors to keep the current one. Seen it all happen before, numerous times and it is simply not important enough to warrant spending my time. --Xeeron (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Speak of the devil, and he doth appear" - I guess you should memorize that saying, Xeeron, since here I am, a genuine "pro-russian editor" =). Looks like I'm starting to have a sixth sense about these Devil's Advocate rename proposals - I have opened this talkpage for the first time in several months, and what do I see? His two-days-old rename proposal (FACEPALM). Quite predictably, I also hold no positive emotions about this (yet another) waste of time. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder, what makes Devil's Advocate do it repeatedly? Is it a high level of fanaticism, or he just likes to troll people that much? But of course, he will answer that "This current name is not common or accurate. It misrepresents the entire subject and violates nearly every rule on naming an article." (FACEPALM #2) and, of course, he just can't stand that, so my question was rhetorical. In any case, I also seen this all happen before, and I'm not even going to argue with Devil's Advocate, unless he finally has a brand-new argument up his sleeves (which I doubt). ETST (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a rather useful policy page for this matter on moving a page:

There are many reasons why you might wish to rename a page:

• The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate
• The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that it is not the common name of the subject or it is overprecise
• It needs to be disambiguated in some way to avoid confusion with an existing, similarly named topic, or it exists at a disambiguated name but should not because it is the primary topic
• It is an article at a descriptive name and the scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed
• It is an article that has been created as a subpage of a Wikipedian's user or user talk space for development purposes and it is ready to be posted to the mainspace
• It is a talk page and discussion on it is ready for archiving (there are other methods; see Help:Archiving a talk page)

These are the reasons for changing a title. The two bolded portions are most significant as it concerns this article's title.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How has the scope of the article changed? It is about the 2008 South Ossetia war, completely and utterly. Outback the koala (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. No one wants to discuss it with him anyway, it's useless. And you're probably inexperienced in those "rename discussions", so take care about your mental health and avoid them, while you still can =). Just ignore him, and maybe he'll go away. Personally, I think that the only editor, with whom one could still seriously argue about article rename is Xeeron (since he, unlike Devil's Advocate, is an article's vet). But even Xeeron and I have nothing new to say to each other already. So we all will be better off doing some real work. ETST (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, yes I was only marginally involved in the last discussion. Thanks for giving me a heads up. Outback the koala (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's what Devil's Advocate calls "violating nearly every rule on naming an article.". Two out of six rules at the very best. Till today, I had somewhat different understanding of "nearly every" (FACEPALM #3). Anyway, that was no different from what you've been telling before, and I'm not going to repeat all the counter-arguments. You can reread them all under the link that Future Perfect has kindly provided. I'm growing tired of this, so go on, do what you want, Devil's Advocate. Propose polls, votes, whatever (That's what you want, aren't ya? Wikipedia is not a democracy still didn't sink in?). Just don't forget to notify me in time, so I can turn it down. ETST (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromise title

Let us be honest, this name is definitely not the most common or even fourth-most common name. It is also not the most descriptive title out there. However, as discussion on the other more popular names out there seems to have little chance of persuading certain editors I am going to suggest what I think would be a sufficient compromise. If the article were renamed as the 2008 South Ossetia and Abkhazia war it would accommodate concerns about the current title not reflecting the scope of the article. Though it would not be a common name, neither is the current one, I and probably other editors here would at least feel more comfortable with that title than the current one. Surely no one would suggest it would be biased either. I think It would be a suitable placeholder until it becomes more clear to everyone which title is established in English usage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you're saying, but frankly, that title is worse. "Let us be honest"? Okay then, let's try that. Why do you need so much to change the article's name? I really can't understand that. I consider current title to be the best imaginable POV compromise between "Russia-Georgia war" and "Operation to enforce Georgia to peace". And you don't see me arguing for the latter, do you? Once, you stated, that your reason for the change is so that users can find the article easily. And now you propose a new "sufficient compromise" title, and expect them to type in the browser that much longer? And it's even less common name than just plain "South Ossetia war", too. Just what kind of compromise is that? Honestly, I don't know what else to say. The arguments on "scope of the article", "easiness of search", etc - they still remain in the same places of the same previous discussions. I can understand that you don't agree with them, and it is your right. But, please, recognize other people's right to disagree with you, too, and realize that their disagreement has as much ground in current Wikipedia rules, as yours one. This discussion is getting us nowhere, again. ETST (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea of compromise is that it is not what either side wants the most. Also, admins already ruled, and I can provide the link, that Russia-Georgia War was a neutral title. It is not about a POV compromise, or even common name because as I said there can be little logical dispute about which title is more commonly used in English sources. However, what I proposed would at least address the issue of the article's scope. Russia did not justify its actions in Abkhazia or on the coast because of South Ossetia, but because they claimed Abkhazia was going to be attacked by Georgia as well. To call this the South Ossetia War is to neglect the reality of what happened with Abkhazia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats true. and although, We shouldn't forget about the Abkhazian Front during the war, I'm not sure. ETST does make a very valid counter-argument. Has this title come up in previous discussions? Outback the koala (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. The current title has two problems: Not getting the scope of the war right and not being a commonly used name. The compromise version proposed above does not better the second point, but at least would get the first one right. So, while I don't think it is the best name, it is somewhat better than the current name. --Xeeron (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, on your own accord or not, but now you're knee-deep in this discussion, so let me, a FSB Web Brigade Colone- whoops, I mean, a totally unbiased editor, be your opponent again =D. Actually, I'm quite surprised, that you did voice support for this new title, since I thought your primary concern about current title was that it's not common. If you're interested, later I can try to explain what are the other problems (besides the ones I stated below) that I see with that new title, and maybe you will be able to dismiss my concerns. But right now I'm occupied with Devil's Advocate, so, if you'll excuse me, I'll spare the serious talk for the later. ETST (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, that I did. If you want to know my position in more detail, click on the talk page archive links above. I can already see all the usual technics being applied, which undoubtably will lead to the usual result: none. No need to go into detail for me, nor to make up conjectures about what my possibile possition is and even less to create time wasting walls-of-text. I am not trying to achieve anything here, so go change or not change the title however you please. --Xeeron (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me answer for Devil's Advocate. As far, as I'm aware, this specific title haven't appeared previously. But the same could be said about just any other title that anyone can make up in their head. This specific proposed title has so much problems, that I don't even know, where to start. Anyway, the whole idea of inventing a whole new title isn't actually new, there was a couple of such titles and they were outright rejected in previous votes (but he'll probably try and use it to organize a whole new vote anyway =D). ETST (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"The whole idea of compromise is that it is not what either side wants the most." I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say here, and what that has to do with our discussion. Maybe, compromise is not what either side wants THE MOST. But still, it is something, that either side WANTS, isn't it? So what exactly do you WANT? First, you talk about "common name" and "easiness of search", and now it seems, you're all for the "scope of the article". Will you, please, settle on something already?

"It is not about a POV compromise, or even common name" Maybe now "it is not about a POV compromise", but despite your pretense, it's still about "common name". Just as I have already pointed out, what you're trying to do now is some kind of a trade between "easiness of search" and "scope of the article". But the current article name is also not only a "POV compromise", but a long-established compromise between "easiness of search" and "scope of the article", too. So, what exactly makes you think, that your new proposed search/scope ratio is better? Personally, I don't believe so. Proposed title doesn't "address" your imagined "issue of the article's scope" (which somehow is rarely brought up by anyone but you). It trades in favor of slightly more descriptiveness in the title, but, in return, it literally sinks the title into the bottoms of "common name" lists. The proposed title is not used anywhere. It's a complete disaster.

"there can be little logical dispute about which title is more commonly used in English sources" Well, I guess, it would be surprising, if you would call the arguments, that you disagree with, correct and "logical". But in fact, "logical disputes" about "more commonly used title" and about pros and cons of different methods, which one can use to try and measure "сommonness of title", do exist in reality. They all can be found in the talkpage archives and, since they're not going anywhere, you can refresh your recollections of them in your free time.

"To call this the South Ossetia War is to neglect the reality of what happened with Abkhazia." Somehow, I do not need to claim knowledge of "the reality of what happened" and to accuse someone of "negligence" in order to make my point. Need I remind you about the difference between "the reality" and the Point of View?

"Also, admins already ruled, and I can provide the link, that Russia-Georgia War was a neutral title." Looks like I really had needed to remind you about POV. Somehow, I'm not even interested in your link, since if you have read the rules, then you know that no admin (or any other kind of an authority figure whom you can persuade in correctness of your opinion at your leisure) can legally make verdicts establishing presence or absence of a NPOV dispute. I really don't understand, what you were trying to achieve by saying that.

Pity, but it looks like the "honest" approach didn't work. You haven't stated your reasons for changing the title. And when you will, then, no doubt, they will miraculously change from what they were the last time to something accommodating your latest most strongly-looking argument. Everything goes just as usual. ETST (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)