Talk:Russo-Georgian War

Article name vote

Offliner suggested this above and I agree that this might be the best way to end the endless discussions. Below are alternatives of the title with support or oppose sections in alphabetical order (if you miss a name, feel free to add it). I suggest letting be poll run for a month. Then we can implement the alternative with the highest support - opposition. To prevent sock puppets, I propose that only editors that have a minimum number of edits (how about 50?) at the time the vote starts, be counted.

To keep the voting section clean, I'd like to ask everyone to discuss below, not in the support/oppose sections.--Xeeron (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I urge the people here to read the discussion on the title, prior to voting. Please realize that all those supporting the change, just want to make Russia look like a bully, instead of letting the reader decide. They only have the Google Hits argument, which is trumped by the NPOV argument, as the title they want to change it to, Russia-Georgia War, contains an inherent anti-Russian bias. In his desperate hopes for the change, Xeeron has placed the discussion after the vote, not before it. I strongly urge everyone to read the discussion, to take note of how the people in favor of changing the title by sheer force, rather then intellectual prowess, without any facts to support their claim, desperately try to get it passed. In war, the attacker is always mentioned first. Georgia attacked a Russian Peacekeeping base, not the other way around, those are facts. These "wikipedians" don't want our article to have an NPOV title, as it is right now, but want to force their title upon us. The current title is the most relevant and neutral title anyone can find, and the people seeking to change it, won't even bother counter-arguing this point, because they know they cannot. They merely hope to rally as many of their buddies as possible into the vote. These are the facts. You will see them try to counter-argue my post, but neither one of their counter-arguments will mention a title that is both, less biased and more relevant then the one above, because no such title exists. And they are changing it to "2008 Russia-Georgia War" to fit the bias that has been instilled into them. Look at the voting, prior to vote. Read the discussion. Do independent research. Please vote for what your mind, heart and spirit tells you, after doing the proper research. Don't be fooled into doing what your friends what you to do. That is all that I ask. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing about this vote is that it's a huge waste of everyone's time and energy. It isn't going to go anywhere, and I think that is crystal clear by now. I mean, look, whereas the first time people started to argue over the name there was some semblance of creative discussion, people trying to defend their decisions with actual logic, thought processes and all, this time it's just a straw poll. Basically, consensus failed so now its become a popularity contest with each side trying to recruit as many people they know will vote in their favor to "win" the contest and have the name changed.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% agree with you, Life is like a box of chocolates FeelSunny (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 August war

Support

1. weak support --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. very weak support --Kober^Talk 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. weak support – Närking (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. weak support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. weak support - I saw this name used in strongly pro-Russian and strongly pro-Georgian sources, thus eliminating the POV-issue the other names seem to raise. Don't like the month-name-war thing, though. --Illythr (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. weak support--Staberinde (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose, imprecise -- Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - does not look prceise enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose – ambiguous, imprecise. --Zlerman (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose -- FeelSunny (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Imprecise, not a common name. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose This title will make it hard for the reader to find this article. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose There's no indication at all of who the sides of the war were; Outsiders will not necessarily remember the war date, thus it will be very hard for them to recognize the article. --Darwish (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Darwish. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose No context LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose: ambiguous, no context. -- Wesha (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose could be anywhere anytime, it's not a popular neologism and will mean nothing to the average reader--who is neither Ossetian, Georgian, or Russian. PetersV       TALK 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Caucasus war

Support

1. sign here

Oppose

1. Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose --Kober^Talk 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, imprecise - Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - never saw it referred in that way -- (Clarification: it was referred as the Caucasian Conflict in Germany, and an armed conflict is war.68.167.2.102 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
9. Oppose --FeelSunny (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose Too vague, implies that conflict took place all over the Caucasus region Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Worse than the current title. Very hard to find by outsiders, which consist most of the article readers. –Darwish (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose The Caucasus spans many different countries and there have been various wars in that region recently. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose: excessively broad -- Wesha (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose--Staberinde (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong Oppose per Lokiit, this hardly narrows the scope. PetersV       TALK 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Five–Day war

Support

1. Weak support -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. weak support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose--Kober^Talk 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose--Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, not an established name, imprecise, duration is contested. - Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - used mostly in Russian media, POV-pushing Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Ostap 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose.Geagea (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose --FeelSunny (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Per Colchicum: "not an established name, ... duration is contested". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose This title will make it hard for the reader to find this article. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Not a widely established name internationally as the Israeli-Arab Six Day War; very ambiguous for outsiders. --Darwish (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose: not an established name -- Wesha (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong Oppose could be anywhere anytime, per Wesha and others. PetersV       TALK 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Georgia–Russia conflict

Support

1. Weak support -- officially, the war was not declared by any of the sides. Though I rather support "war" name, as more medias referred to the conflict like this.FeelSunny (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support good name for the article, readers should be able to find the article with this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support easy to find and recognize by readers. --Darwish (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose--Kober^Talk 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Misleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose Makes no sense to omit the the name of the region this war was fought over. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Weak Oppose: It's mainly Ossetian-Georgian conflict. Russia came to help Ossetia, not started it all. -- Wesha (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Georgia–Russia war

Support

1. sign here
2. Support good name for the article, readers should be able to find the article with this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support' easy to find by international outsiders. --Darwish (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose – Närking (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Misleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose: there was no official declaration of war. -- Wesha (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Russia–Georgia war

Support

1. Weak support (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
2. Support --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support --Kober^Talk 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support – Närking (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Ostap 04:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. SupportBiophys (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support.Geagea (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support good name for the article, readers should be able to find the article with this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong Support The most used name internationally and for people who are not experts on the Russian/Gerogian affairs. Usually in such cases of naming belligerents in the title, people name the stronger country first. --Darwish (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support, per Ijanderson and Darwish. Why hide the fact the the major belligerents were Russia and Georgia? Martintg (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Support This names when and who, per Darwish07 and others. The title should reflect something that is logical for the average reader. Also, one does not have to "formally" declare war to have war or to be able to describe a military conflict as "war." PetersV       TALK 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. dima (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support --Yakudza (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose - the war included not only Russia and Georgia but South Ossetia militias; still my second choice after "2008 South Ossetia war" Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose – this version does not mention one of the main protagonists, South Ossetia. --Zlerman (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Alex Bakharev. Additionally, Russian-Georgian conflict also included the Abkhazian independence which is only tangential to South Ossetian war. NVO (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong oppose -- this version is actually only made to present Russia as agressor, right? We've discussed the option before - the side that started the conflict, comes first. Get real already.FeelSunny (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Misleading as Georgia and Russia were not the only parties. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose as per all above arguments. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose per Zlerman and FeelSunny. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose per my above argument, it makes no sense to omit the region that this war was centered around. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose: there was no official declaration of war. -- Wesha (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose --Tavrian 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Support

1. Extremely strong support HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support for now (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
3. Support -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong Support --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - the war was centred around South Ossetia although Abkhazia was also important. I think it is precise enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support – unambiguous, concrete, precise. --Zlerman (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, this title is accurate and does not paint aggressors. --Tavrian 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, neutral title easy to understand. --ellol (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support: defines the place unambiguously. NVO (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong support -- unambigous. Supported by medias. The place denotates the conflict perfectly. There are no argues about order of naming the conflict sides. Another advantage is this is a perfectly neutral option. FeelSunny (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. The only option offered that is not misleading, biased, or a neologism. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support as per Zlerman and FeelSunny --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong support per FeelSunny and Black Falcon. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong support This is not the appropriate name as more parties and territories were involved however it is the best way for the reader to find the article --XChile (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support The best of the options in my opinion. Not perfect, but at least it acknowledges that this was a war about South Ossetia and it doesn't push a POV about who the aggressor was. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support: there was no official declaration of war, so I would rather call it 2008 South Ossetia conflict, but this gives a better context than the alternatives. -- Wesha (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Weak support Taamu (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support as the best of the options listed here. It would be preferable if Abkhazia was mentioned in the title as well, though. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Kober^Talk 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose.Geagea (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose the war/ conflict took place in regions other than S Ossetia, such as Gori, Tbilisi, Abkhazia, black sea and other parts of Georgia. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose A very vague name; hardly recognizable by outsiders. --Darwish (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose, per Ijanderson. Martintg (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose The war was not confined to South Ossetia, it involved Abkhazia as well. I oppose the canvassing campaign by HystoricWanker007. Colchicum (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

His username is HistoricWarrior, not HystoricWanker. Mine is Russavia, not RuSSavia. You need to stop with the childish name-calling Colchicum, and you have the nerve to call others a troll? --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When one goes personal, he shows his argumentation is too weak to rely on it. FeelSunny (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Ostap 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war for independence

Support

1. Weak support (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose --Xeeron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose -- Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose--Kober^Talk 18:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose – Närking (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, 0 Ghits -- Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - POV Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Ostap 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose--Geagea (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose -- South Ossetia did not start war for independence, so it's not their war for independence.FeelSunny (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Not neutral, not an established name. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose S Ossetia had already declared independence previous to this war/ conflict, the 2008 South Ossetia war for for Russian annexation would be more appropriate than this title. Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose POV title. --Darwish (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per FeelSunny and Black Falcon. --ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Opposte The war wasn't even initiated by South Ossetia. They started on the defensive. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose: POV. -- Wesha (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose It wasn't even the Ossetians' war. PetersV       TALK 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong oppose. The occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia led to creation of two completely dependent protectorates with puppet governments. dima (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 War in Georgia

Support

1. Support Appropriate name for this article as this is where the war took place Ijanderson (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Offliner (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose ETST (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose That was a war "by" Georgia "in" South Ossetia. FeelSunny (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

It is definitely a war, not a conflict despite what some media might have called it. Conflict seems to have broader meaning. It is not a Five Day, even though this title may be popular in Russia, not August, as too vague. I am actually against Russia-Georgia title, since Georgia did not attack Russia, it attacked SO when the war started. But if the current version loses, this is my second best variant. (Igny (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I was somewhat surprised by the number of google hits for "August war". This seems to be more popular than I thought. Therefore the weak support. --Xeeron (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Every name has its problems. I don't think "August war" is a name that will stay. "Caucasus war" sounds OK, but is not in widespread use. "Five-Day war" is not 100% correct, since the war took longer. However, since major warfare phase took 5 days, and because Prof. Charles King uses this title, it seems the second best option to me. "Georgia-Russia" conflict is not exact enough, it could refer to the wider conflict instead of the war. "Russia-Georgia war" has two problems: it ignores the fact, that the separatist republics took part and that Russia was not the aggressor. "South Ossetia war for indepence" is not correct, since South Ossetia did not start the war. "2008 failed Georgian conquest of South Ossetia" would be better, but not very neutral. "South Ossetia war" is the best option for now. I doesn't mention Abkhazia, Russia or Georgia, but it doesn't have to. South Ossetia was the main battleground. Also, these is no hurry to change. In a year or two, we should check again, if "Five-Day war" or "August war" has clearly become the common name used for the war, and then consider switching. Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Until Russia withdraw from Georgia I thought the "The Russian invasion to Georgia" can be the best name. But now I think that "The Russian-Georgian war" is o.k. The name fie day war is only a poor attempt to compare the war to the Israely Six-Day war, which have nothing in common. Geagea (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaegea, so you don't think that Russia has withdrawn from Georgia yet? It's March 9th. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Google hits info

• "August war" Georgia (I added that to make sure it is the right war): 59,700
• "Caucasus war" Georgia: 6,850
• "Five-Day war" OR "Five day war" Georgia: 33,600
• "Georgia-Russia conflict" OR "Georgia Russia conflict": 11,900
• "Russia-Georgia war" OR "Russia Georgia war": 143,000
• "South Ossetia war" Georgia: 23,600
• "South Ossetia war for independence": 0

--Xeeron (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

About "Russia-Georgia war" Despite what some editors may think here, the order Russia-Georgia versus Georgia-Russia has little to do with who attacked whom, or who started the war. It seems to me that journalists just prefer to list the stronger country first. For example, if Mexico attacked US, that would likely be called US-Mexico rather than Mexico-US war.(Igny (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Did you add -wikipedia to your searches? Also "South Ossetia war" does not need Georgia in the search. But "August war" has to mention Ossetia in my opinion. (Igny (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

The reason August war gets so many hits is that many articles use it to refer to the war in the sense "the war that took place last August," especially in the article titles, where anglophone media often use shorthands. I don't see much evidence, that they are actually giving the war the name "August war." I suspect than in next August, they won't use "August war" anymore, at least not as much. Offliner (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did the searches with the exact phrases above, you can copy&paste them into google. So "the war that took place last August," would not trigger a hit, since I searched for the exact phrase "August war", but Igny is right about excluding wikipedia. --Xeeron (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that the anglophone media uses "August war" as abbreviation of "the war in last August," not as a name for the war. Take a look at what's currently on BBC's frontpage. For example: "Police break up Malaysia protest." Here "Malaysia protest" is an abbreviation for "the protest that took place in Malaysia today." They are not naming the protest "Malaysia protest." This is the same phenomenon as with "August war." Also note, that if "August war" were a name, it would be "August War" (with capitalization.) If you take a look at the Google hits for the term, its called "August War" only in the article title, where every word should begin with a capital letter. But in the article text it is called "August war," thus implying that it is not a name, but a shorthand description like I said. Offliner (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely strongly supporting the current title, and therefore, opposing any changes to it. The Russia-Georgia War title is incorrect, because the attacker goes first, and in this war, Russia was not the attacker; the US Ambassador to Russia said that Russia launched a counter-attack! Therefore, Russia, according to the US Ambassador's statement cannot be first in the title name. This is just like calling a dog, a cat! If the title is changed, I will leave the article's editorial page. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The attacker doesn't necessarily go first. See Soviet-German War and so on. Otherwise the order Georgia-Russia would be even more wrong, because for sure Georgia didn't attack Russia. Colchicum (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia articles, the attacker goes first, 99.999% of the time. That's a military history rule and it's not up for debate. You can't go around changing military history rules to fit your definitions of propaganda. And Georgia did attack Russian soil, because just as an embassy, a military base is considered the soil of the country that the base belongs to. If Cuba attacked Guantanamo, I guarantee you that Americans would view this as an attack on the US. If Serbia attacks Camp Bondsteel, would you not see that as an attack on the US? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool down your personal attacks a bit, HystoricWarrior007. Where are your glorious military history rules written down? This is disingenious. We have WP:RS, WP:V etc. There was no Russian military base in S. Ossetia at the time of the attack, there were peacekeepers, pretending to be international. Wake up, before August 26 even Russia officially considered South Ossetia part of Georgia, it couldn't legally install military bases there without the consent of Georgia. Guantanamo, on the other hand, was voluntarily leased to the US by Cuba. So you insist that there were illegal military bases in S. Ossetia, right? Colchicum (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's use common sense. A peacekeeping base is the equivalent of a military base, which is the equivalent of an embassy. You may want to check out Israel's quick reaction to Israel's attack on UN Peacekeepers, remember how many time Israel apologized? Do you think Israel apologized because they just love the United Nations Colchi cum? And umm, if you were to read the peace treaty of 1992 between Russia and Georgia, you will find that there was actually Georgian concent to a Russian peacekeeping base. Reading is really a wonderful thing. Also, in my post, no where did I mention your name, why take it as a personal attack? The base that was "voluntaraly" leased by Cuba to US, was leased when US Mafiosos took control over Cuba, but just as you don't know about the 1992 treaty, I can see that history is irrelevant to you when editing historical articles. Thus, I insists that there was a legal Russian military presence in Georgia, via a peacekeeping base, that was mercilessly shelled. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just read intro to Guantánamo Bay (Igny (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Just read it a bit further. Colchicum (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what should I have read? It was leased by Cuba voluntarily. A contract, you know. It doesn't matter that Cuba now regrets about this. Georgia has never agreed to Russian military bases in S. Ossetia. What is your point? 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For your convenience, the Cuban-American Treaty to have been procured by the threat of force in violation of international law. [2] So not voluntarily. (Igny (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Your argument only makes your opponents want the change more. Just make the case that in WP articles the winner goes first, and you would see how your opponents quickly change their mind. I myself do not think that the war in one of your cases would be called Serbia-US in the case of the Serbian attack, unless Serbia wins.(Igny (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Also I believe that your opponents want the change not because they want to accuse Russia of attacking but because the current title gives too much weight (in their opinion) to South Ossetia, which Georgia will likely always consider as its territory. And it does not look good for Georgia to emphasize that it attacked its own territory. Trying to diminish SO's role by removing it from the title, that is likely the goal of the proponents of the change. (Igny (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Btw, instead of Russia-Georgia war maybe the proposal should be Russo-Georgian war like Russo-Swedish, Russo-Persian, Russo-Turkish etc. wars.--Staberinde (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As I generally consider simple Google hits to be worst solution(especially as wikipedia and its mirrors disort the picture themselfly too) I tried to test few in Google Scholar:
"Russia-Georgia war" 2008 august - 22
"Russo-Georgian war" 2008 august - 16
"South Ossetia war" 2008 august - 1
--Staberinde (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar, well thing is, my Iraq example, where you google scholar: "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" vs. "Iraq does not have Weapons of Mass Destruction" with quotes or without, you still get that Iraq was WMDs. Google Scholar is just like Google in the case of political issues. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That comparison makes no sense at all. Nice try though. Ostap 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify as to how it does not make sense? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Because its a statement, not a term or title. You cant do such things with statements as then put in context meaning may be radically different. If we look at "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" then lets replace it with "..." for shortening and lets look at context in few answers. I see among others "Bush argued that ..." and "If ..." and "the issue of whether ..." and "mislead the country into believing that ..." . In our case we are simply looking which title is used more oftenly for war. Situations would be somewhat comparable only if there would be serious doubt if war took place at all.--Staberinde (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Titles can be statements. Calling this war Russia-Georgia War, is the same as stating that Russia attacked Georgia. Hence the current NPOV title would be the best. Also, wikipedia prefers NPOV over Google Scholar in controvercial articles. Precedence also helps. You guys are just pushing Rupert Murdoch's title. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch's title. lol. "Calling this war Russia-Georgia War, is the same as stating that Russia attacked Georgia." What makes you say that? Ostap 01:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Rupert Murdoch states that Russia was the attacker, that kinda gave it away. He furthermore went ahead and equated Russia to Al Qaeda. Shall I find the quote? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note how under Article Policies, NPOV comes second and Google Scholar isn't even mentioned!!!HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that wikipedia should use title that reliable sources use, and editors of wikipedia are NOT reliable source (fortunately). If you base your NPOV argument on claim that there is some sort of widely recognized standard for putting invader first at title, then you should provide reliable source that backs this claim. Your own opinion has very little value considering that finding historical counterexamples (like various Russo-Swedish, Russo-Turkish, Russo-Persian wars) is not really that hard. Also I would like to make a FRIENDLY note that bolding your stuff does not give it extra value. Thank you for your attention.--Staberinde (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, do you read what is written prior to what you write? Wikipedia Editors did not come up with this title. Post WWII - that's how wars have been named. Now I could go back to pre-WWII, like you do, or heck why not pre-Roman Empire war naming while we're at it, and title this war The Savage Georgians vs. The Noble Russians. However, we have to name wars based on how military historians name wars after WWII not how they named wars several centuries ago. All this was discussed in the previous 100 pages in the archives on title changing, that none of the editors wanting to change NPOV to POV bothered to read. The only addition was the year 2008, that was the only part that was original research. If you want 2008 removed, I have no problem with it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to read 100 pages of archives for searching something that may, or may not be there. If it is now standard to name wars with agressor as first, then im sure you can provide reliable source for that claim with minimal effort, especially if you have already posted it before.--Staberinde (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007 has violated Wikipedia policy on voting by mass canvassing and posting POV announcements on improper article talk pages. Please see evidence below on this page.--Kober^Talk 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Five comments, four didn't show up, and it was on one page, singular, nor plural. Don't be so zealous at trying to discredit me. Staberinde, to show that the attack goes first, you have your own examples, Russo-Turkish, Russo-Swedish, Russo-Persian Wars. I can come up with many more. Person who declares war, is labeled as the attacker. Russo-Turkish provide an especially good example. Also, interesting how many people who haven't ever edited this article showed up and voted for Russia-Georgia War. And I already apologized for it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have any actual source. Only thing you can provide are historical examples that fit your claim. As it is possible to provide counterexamples of cases then agressor is not the first one in title, we can only reach to conclusion that order of countries in title has no relevance and there is no POV pushing. Your personal opinion that agressor always goes first has no value if you don't have reliable sources which prove that it is widely accepted standard among historians.--Staberinde (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

From [1]:

An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event (such as Battle of Gettysburg, Siege of Leningrad, Attack on Pearl Harbor, or Doolittle Raid). If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations; see also the section on capitalization. Non-neutral terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid" should be used with care.

It is clear that in our case, no such generally accepted or widely used name exists. Therefore, I think we should name the war after its main battleground: South Ossetia. I really don't understand why people would like to call this "Russia-Georgia war," since this name creates problems, such as the above mentioned "which country comes first," among others. Offliner (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear at all. The majority of the combat took place outside South Ossetia. Google searches prove "Russia-Georgia war" is the most common name, with 143,000 hits. I don't understand why some people are too scared to admit Russia and Georgia were at war. Martintg (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't argue against facts. Most of the fighting occurred in South Ossetia. Plus we have Georgian military dead and Russian military dead. I think it's clear that Georgia fought Russia and no one is denying it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because they're trying to frame it as a dispute over Georgia's overseas territories not involving "Georgia proper". Russian propaganda services have from day 1 trying to present South Ossetia and Abkhasia as belligerent nations fighting against Georgia, and even though nobody besides Russia has bought it (Nicaragua doesn't count here), its Wikipedia brigades are dedicated and thorough in pushing that counterfactual notion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually an "overseas territorry" is a territorry that's not attached to a country via land. For example Reunion is an overseas territorry of France. Also, Ossetia and Abkhazia were independent of Georgia, prior to Georgia's request for Russia's defense in the early nineteenth century. Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia (now Georgia Proper) joined the Russian Empire at different dates. The Georgians tried to reclaim the belligerent nations three times, in the 1920's, in the 1990's and in 2008. If they weren't belligerent nations, why did Georgia try to annex them by force? Am I being paid by Putin to be asking this question? If so, Mr. Putin I prefer Euros. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that "Russia-Georgia war" has the most Google hits. But that's not what I meant with "a generally accepted name for the war." As you can see from the list above, there are still many different names in use for the war. None of them has yet gained universal status, precedence over other names. Professor Charles King recently called the war "The Five-Day War" in his scholarly article, not "Russia-Georgia war" - an example of the clear fact that no generally agreed name exists yet. Therefore, we should name the article after the main battleground, as suggested in the guideline cited above. Offliner (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the combat took place outside South Ossetia?? That's something new to me, and I guess, to many people who did participate in older renaming discussions. And if we have to ask inflammatory rhetorical questions, then mine would be "Why some people are so scared to admit that it all was started by Georgia, which attacked South Ossetia, and are so eager to remove any mention of it from the title, pointing all fingers at Big Scary Evil Russia instead, in the mood of stupid western propaganda, which already have gotten it to Google results, and now wants to take it to the last stronghold of neutrality and objectivity, namely Wikipedia?" ETST (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even Russia's official news agency calls it Russian Georgian War, so why aren't Russian wikipedians here falling into line? Martintg (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why these drones aren't conforming to the state endorsed view either. What a perplexing bunch these brainwashed Russians are. In fact I'm surprised they even managed to find this page in the first place what with all the vodka they must have in their systems 24/7. Strange world indeed. But I'm rambling, I must get back to my Fox News, Glen Beck is on soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.244.35 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to know that Martintg is unaware that Russians no longer have to fall in line with their news. Geez, all these "omg USSR used to be Russia and it was ebil" attacks are just so pathetic, they are laughable. Plus, here's another Russian News Source calling it the South Ossetia War

http://www.russiatoday.ru/Politics/2008-11-20/New_website_allows_South_Ossetia_war_victims_to_speak_out.html

Here's a neutral article, calling it "South Ossetia war". And this is as NPOV as it gets. http://exiledonline.com/the-new-cold-wars-premature-ejaculation/

"As the South Ossetia war raged in early- and mid-August, the Times published an editorial labeling Georgia’s invasion as “Russia’s War of Ambition“; it also published a series of hysterical op-eds, including William Kristol’s comparing Russia to Nazi Germany (Hitler’s charred skull must be spinning in its museum case from being turned into the cheapest cliché in the hack’s analogy box), and another from Svante E. Cornell of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins–the same corruption-plagued institute that ABC News discovered was taking money from Kazakhstan’s tyrant for issuing positive reports about that authoritarian oil-rich country." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To Those Opposing the current title

Do you actually have any other reasons for opposing aside "Google said so" and "we want to make Russia look guilty by changing the title, stating that Google said so!"??? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. You've described the matter of discussion right.FeelSunny (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to re-read the lengthy discussions on this: The main counterarguements against the current title have been that it is not widely used by the media (see Google) and that it disregards the fighting that took place outside of South Ossetia. Since we have been over this discussion about 4 times now, I think the arguements are well known to everyone, lets vote now. --Xeeron (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We had, actually. The current naming holds the strongest position in the vote.FeelSunny (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Very little fighting took place outside of Ossetia. Xeeron - guess what, the Battle of Stalingrad was also not entirely fought in Stalingrad, should we rename that? All you have is the Google Argument against our arguments of the current title being the most unbiased and most relevant. But Google Hits will show everything that mass media says as a majority opinion, even if it is bullshit. For instance, Google this: Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction vs. Iraq does not have Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Google hits test, your only hope will tell you that Iraq still has WMDs. And that's the kind of test you are using here in an attempt to trump NPOV relevance. In addition, according to precedence, i.e. the Second Chechen War, well part of it was actually fought in Dagestan, Russia's reason for the Second Chechen War was the Chechen attack on Dagestan. Yet most of the fighting ocurred in Chechnya, hence the Second Chechen War is the name. Now, you are using the Google Hits Test, which will give more hits for whatever 10 CEOs say, in your attempt to trump NPOV, Relevancy, and Precedence. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For your information it wasn't Xeeron or anyone else at Wikipedia who coined the name Battle of Stalingrad. And as far as I know Wikipedia is not an international institute who decide names of wars or battles. What we should use here is the name used by media, publications etc and not invent something new. Närking (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We didn't invent South Ossetia. Nor did we invent the title. And once again, the Google-Media argument has been repudiated multiple times, please see above. South Ossetia was an invetion of Stalin, when he chopped Ossetia in two, to give a part of it to his native Georgia. Then Stalin just transferred Abkhazia to Georgia. And if we are to use precedence Narking, then the title works, because the Second Chechen War isn't called the Russia-Dagestan-Chechnya War now is it? The only invention that we came up with, was putting 2008 in the title, and no one has been against that. If you are against having 2008 in the title for clarity purposes, then we can have a vote on removing it. But aside from that, we simply followed the doctrine for naming wars established in the Post-WWII World, Korean War, Vietnam War, War in Afghanistan, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War. None of these were our inventions. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll Mr. HW don't you believe that the Abkhazians might object to that title? I think that might be the prime reason. But we should put this to rest, 2008 SO War is not correct but the media uses it so it would be just to do so and We should remind ourselves that we are here to make this article correct, clearer and easy to find every thing should be done with those intentions in which for the most part is. Thank you every one for all your hard work but the Title should stand as it is.--XChile (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

XChile, thank you for the question. During the Second Chechen War, part of the action took place in Dagestan, however, against the Dagestanis' objections, it is still called the Second Chechen War. Beslan, a terrorist act related to the Second Chechen War, took place in North Ossetia, and yet the title of the war didn't expand. Abkhazians boldly fought for their hard won independence from a corrupt regime, much like the Americans had during the American Revolution. However less then 15% of the war took place in Abkhazia, whereas over 70% of the war took place in South Ossetia. Hence the name. If it was the other way around, we would be calling this the 2008 Abkhazia War. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to interrupt your discussion, but I actually asked two Abkhazians, residing in Moscow about the title. They do not mind "2008 SO war". I also asked my friend, a Georgian girl (well, she looks a girl to me, though she is divorced and has two babies:)) - she also thinks the name is clear, though she really does not like many other things abt the article. Unfortunately I do not have friends SO nationals, mostly b/c people from SO emigrated not to Moscow, but to Northern O. Just to make it clear, many Georgians and Abkhazians that left during the wars of 1990ies, they live in Russia now, many of them in Moscow. FeelSunny (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) This, and elsewhere mentioned canvassing, is inappropriate: "we want to make Russia look guilty by changing the title". Calling it a war and naming the two belligerents is not a plot to make anyone guilty. It's ludicrous over the top Russian protectionist POV to suggest you can't name the parties to a war. The suggested title is not How did Russia happen to have all those tanks and troops ready right at the border and drove all the way to the sea and destroyed Georgia's coast guard while claiming to not even be there war. Now that could be interpreted as slanted, although it would also be an equally factual title. PetersV       TALK 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Calling something Russia-Georgia War, implies that Russia was the attacker " seems to be the only argument against Russia-Georgia war. Is this even valid? Is there anything in the naming conventions that says the attacker goes first? Is there anything anywhere that says that? If not, why are we even listening to this? Wikipedia does not create names. [2] "90% of the newspapers that used that name, stated that Russia was the attacker. " lol, care to provide a source for that figure? Ostap 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

At least in the infobox the aggressor usually comes first: [3] Offliner (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ostap, the argument is valid. If it comes first in the infobox, it comes first in the title. That would be logical. Peter, when quoting me, try not to take only the part you like, but the whole quote. Also the reason that Russia had all of its tanks in position, is simply because the Caucasian Military District of Russia is the most heavily militarized district, due to the First Chechen, Dagestan and Second Chechen Wars. Furthermore the military drove from their bases in Vladikavkaz and Grozniy, the logical bases for the Russian Federation to have, to the border. That means that the military wasn't on the border. In addition paratroopers were flown from Smolensk. I don't know what your military education was, and maybe mine is biased, but I was taught that having your bases ready to respond to a threat is a great idea! Maybe I was mistaught and the Latvian method is better. As for the Russian fleet, they too waited at the base before the attack began. It's hilarious how the Russians are blamed for being prepared. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So I may imagine a talk: "Why Russia comes first in the name, for "Georgia" starts from "G" and Russsia from "R", and "R" goes after "G", isn't it?" - "It is, but it was like that in the Google" - "Well, but does it not contradict the WP and common sense practice of placing a subject of an action in the first place and the object of an action in the second place?" - "Yes, but this was like this in the Google", etc... FeelSunny (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing

User Historic Warrior energetically engaged in canvassing other users in an apparent attempt to influence the poll by recruiting exclusively Russian (-speaking) users. Please see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. He also left an announcement on Talk:Russia#2008 South Ossetia War Article in the manner clearly designed to influence the voters’ opinion:

There's been a discussion about what to rename the 2008 South Ossetia War, and basically wants to make Russia look evil, by changing it to the 2008 Russia-Georgia War, as if Russia was the attacker (attacker goes first in Wiki Articles). Please help with the voting. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Historic Warrior has essentially disrupted the poll.--Kober^Talk 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew this poll was going on, and was going to comment at some stage, so his posting on my talk page made no difference to my voicing my opinion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You knew, but others did not. And Historic's post on Talk:Russia has clearly done its job. According to WP:Canvassing, such behavior is called Inappropriate canvassing/Campaigning/Votestacking --Kober^Talk 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A note to Historic Warrior advising him of WP:CANVASS should suffice I think. Of course, it should have been worded neutrally, as it was done on my talk page, and posted to WP:RUSSIA, but as yet, I don't see any harsh damage having been done yet? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, notifying all the main contributors and relevant Wikiprojects should not be judged as canvassing. But notify the editors selectively might be characterized as canvassing. Both sides engaged in canvassing here or both didn't, why wouldn't you check Narking's edits? (Igny (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Huh! Narking did that in an abosuletly neutral manner in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. And he has never misused Talk:Georgia (country) calling other users to arms in order to prevent Georgia from being illustrated as "evil".--Kober^Talk 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative of notifying Historic Warrior on his talk page in regards to canvassing, and have removed the message from the Russia talk page. No harm no foul I think we can say? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that five Russian (speaking) editors [9],[10],[11],[12],[13], who never edited this article before came here and backed up exactly the vote that HistoricWarrior007 cast himself and taking into account that the two leading suggestions are currently separated by exactly five votes, I can't really agree with the "no harm" part. --Xeeron (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Xeeron, all the editors I contacted, EDITED THIS ARTICLE before, the most recent one, four days prior to the vote! Stop lying. It's sad. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, I did edit this article before! :-b Like, 2000 revisions ago. Nice try to stack up your cards by limiting your history search to 1000 revisions :-b -- Wesha (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the tradition of getting your facts wrong and then accusing me, I very well know that tactic from the person who "canvassed". If you had bothered to read my post, you'd notice that I did not mention you, because I check your edits before I posted. And if you had bothered to read the tool link I supplied, you'd have noticed that it lists the 1000 editors with the highest edit count, not the last 1000 revisions. Well done on blaming me on stacking the cards when all that happened was you not reading the links I supplied. --Xeeron (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What "harm" is there in that? I am confident that every editor is capable of making a neutral decision based on his own judgement, regardless of how their attention was drawn to the vote. Offliner (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This surely didn't come as a surprise. It has happened many times before. So much for the beloved NPOV... And Igny, perhaps you should check yourself before you start to accuse someone. And since this vote clearly has been hijacked it would be of much more interest if truly uninvolved editors could come here and give their views. Närking (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, attack the man before he can defend himself. First off, the authors that I PMed have worked on this article before. For instance Kober even included Pocopocopocopoco, with whom I have worked on this article as recently as a month ago. Rather poor checking for such an accusation. Actually, if you read my PMs, Kober, they all started out with "Hello, you have contributed to the article. Currently there is a vote seeking to change the name of said article. Can you please vote as you feel is right?" Not exactly biased. Also, Illythyr didn't take a vote on the two main ones, Wesha didn't vote, Pocopocopocopoco didn't vote, Antony Ivanoff didn't vote. Those were four out of the five that I have sent to, who didn't show up. And yet Xeeron went ahead and made his attack on me anyways, why am I not surprised? Will Xeeron ever apologize? Also, Russavia probably was checking this article regularly, seeing as my "canvassing" didn't do any harm.

The only thing I did wrong was due to my ignorance, and I apologize for leaving a message on the Russia page. Russavia, thank your for the explanation. Igny and Offliner, thank you. The rest of you, thank you for not giving me the chance to defend myself, whilst continiously attacking me. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I apologize for showing the results of your canvassing? You went ahead and posted a blatantly biased message on the Russia talk page, I pointed out that 5 Russian editors who previously did not edit here came and voted in exactly the same way as you did? Where is the attack in that? In pointing out that your break of Wikipedia policy was successful? --Xeeron (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Given that User:HistoricWarrior007's apology is an admission of canvassing, I think we should strike these five votes from the poll. Martintg (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You wish. I don't care about anyone's canvassing, I came here just out of my regular habit to look through the talk page in search of interesting info about the war, not because of some Russia talk page, which existence I didn't even know about until now. Moreover, if we are to talk about suspiciously appeared editors, then I must say, that you have nearly no affiliation even with this talk page, let alone the article itself. And nothing, like notification can be seen on your talk page. Stealth-canvassing anyone? The same goes for User:Geagea, and other Kober's pals "who never edited this article before" but mysteriously showed up in the voting.

As a final accord, I want to say that no voting result, let alone the one showing approx. 1 voice advantage of one title over another (notice that, even 5 votes substracted, it's still in favor of "South Ossetia war"), will be legally binding in any way, and if someone expects opposing community to sit and watch title changing reasoned by such "voting results", then I advise him to get real. This voting idea has clearly failed, seeing how we started throwing mutual accusations and segregating editors to the ones "worthy of voting" and "second class". If continued, this will only result in anarchy, and I'm actually surprised at the level of naivety of those who suggested the idea. Did you really expect to resolve 8-months-worth-of-arguing issue like that? --ETST (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"The same goes for User:Geagea, and other Kober's pals"? I'm afraid you will have to prove that User:Geagea and other Kober's pals appeared here as a result of canvassing à la HistoricWarrior007. --Kober^Talk 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And what's there to prove? That you and User:Geagea are pals? One doesn't have to go beyond his and your talkpage, to see it. And don't try to shift the attention to "canvassing ala someone", because stealth-canvassing is an impossible-to-prove thing. It's funny though, that when Xeeron speaks about editors "who never edited this article before" and mentions me, he also forgets to mention

1. User:Martintg, who has even less edits on this talk page, than I am.
2. User:Geagea, Kober's pal, who not only have never edited the article, but wasn't even seen on this talk page before the voting started.
3. User:Domitori aka "dima", who's not only has less edits, than I am, but also demonstrates a little knowledge of the war, as seen in Key questions about the beginning of the war section, he started.

All of them were not seen lately neither on the article page, nor on this talk page, and since no "polite notification about the voting made in absolutely neutral manner in full compliance with wikipedia rules" can be seen on their talk pages, I am left wondering, how come they have appeared just as voting began? And what exactly is the thing that gives them right to vote for the title, which, in Xeeron's eyes, I don't possess? --ETST (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the ranks of people who get their facts wrong and blame me for it, you people should form a club really. In my eyes, you have exactly the same right to vote as anyone else. My beef is not with you, but with the methods HistoricWarrior used to canvass people, so your claim is simply wrong.

Regarding the three people you list: User:Domitori voted after I made my post, so short of having divine abilities, I don't see how I could have possibly mentioned him in that post. Unlike you, he also edited the article before. User:Martintg also edited the article before. That leaves just User:Geagea, and I have no idea how that user noticed the vote, since I don't know of any canvassing attempts apart from HistoricWarrior's. If you know something, tell us, instead of making baseless accusations. --Xeeron (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Ok, if your beef is not with me, but you should join yourself the club you mentioned, since you listed me among those, whom you claimed to be "the harm done with the methods HistoricWarrior used to canvass people". As I already said, I'm not, and that also makes me doubt, that other people you mentioned have voted because of someone's canvassing. Maybe you should follow your advice and provide evidence before "making baseless accusations" next time?

As I expected it beforehand, you started nitpicking at my post, that's why I had checked "South Ossetia war" and "Talk:South Ossetia war" pages edit statistics, prior to writing it. And as I check them again now, they still show me just 4 edits of "South Ossetia war" by Domitori, and something less that 2 edits by Martintg, since he is nowhere to be seen among your "top 1000 editors". So, when you say "Unlike you, he also edited the article before.", you insult my intelligence. I can do 4 edits in half an hour, if that really matters to you. And if I was abstaining from it, it's mostly because I didn't want to introduce my far-from-ideal non-native English language into the article, not because I had nothing to improve it with.

But I guess, it's not the edit count, that mattered for you, but rather evidence it presumably provided, that I have no association with the article. When I was talking about me having more edits than them, I was referring to my posts to this talkpage, which show my advantage over them in terms of edit count (~20 edits more, than Domitori, and ~30 edits more, than Martintg). Why didn't you check this statistic, before calling me a "harm" from someone's "canvassing"? Doesn't that make you - how do you call it? - one from "the ranks of people who get their facts wrong"?

Ok, I didn't mean to attack you, Xeeron, but you should understand my indignation. You alleged, that I'm a result of HistoricWarrior's canvassing, and thusly used me to base your attack on him. And after that you put me into "the ranks of people who get their facts wrong". Still, I apologize for my wrong assumption that you're against my vote, but, please, understand that judging by the view you expressed I had no reasons to expect otherwise.

Speaking of User:Geagea, I don't think he is a result of someone's stealth-canvassing, he probably just saw your notification at the end of Kober's talkpage. But I propose to settle it once and for all, whether the votes of all editors will be counted, or just the votes of editors, who substantially contributed to the article? Better do it now, before sore-losing side - which, I'm sure, will be yours =) - starts complaining either about "second class voters" or "discrimination of voters", don't you think? Of course, it's still senseless, because results of straw polls are not legally binding on Wikipedia, but at least, it will prevent someone, like Martintg, from trying to throw out someone, who's more worthy of voting, than himself. --ETST (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but for me, as I said above, every vote counts the same. Those people who followed the link here are not to blame for the way the link was posted. I didn't call you "harm", I called the fact that the vote was biased by canvassing harm. The one thing I will insist on is that you remain factually correct. I called an action harmful, not a person. That is an important distinction and I wont accept any blame for others mixing it up. Lastly, Martintg has 1 edit (and I claimed nothing more), as can be seen on the list I linked. So please check the list (your browser's search function makes this super simple) before wrongly proclaiming that he is nowhere to be seen there and using that to wrongly allege I was insulting your intelligence, since I wasn't. --Xeeron (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as I expected, you, sir, have fallen into a trap of your nitpicking. You're really a person, whose behavior can be predicted from the first sight, aren't you? First off, every non-nitpicking person would have realized, that "...calling me a "harm"..." was just a figure of speech, and you would have noted, if you tried to read carefully, that it wasn't among the reasons of my indignation. The blame I really attributed to you was that "You alleged, that I'm a result of HistoricWarrior's canvassing, and thusly used me to base your attack on him.". And you expect me to be "factually correct" after you yourself wrongly got me as an argument for subduing your opponent? And you still "wont accept any blame" for that? I, on my part, can only accept the blame for intentionally not clarifying that I understand the "important distinction". Believe it or not, but I actually wanted to insert "I realize you have never called me "harm" directly, you just were responding to Russavia's post, but..." right after "I didn't mean to attack you, Xeeron, but you should understand my indignation.", but then I thought "No, that's one clarification too much, he can't be such a nitpicker." and turns out I was underestimating you. =)

The thing I got right, though, is my "Martintg is nowhere to be seen" joke, which I was positively sure you'll take as opportunity to nitpick, and I positively couldn't miss the opportunity to catch you on it. =) Any sensible person, whose goal is not just to prove his opponent wrong, would have realized, that I couldn't be able, or at least wouldn't bother to check (twice!) for Domitori's, Geagea's, and Martintg's rank in both of lists of 1000 names (stats for "South Ossetia war" and "Talk:South Ossetia war"), without knowing about browser's search function, which could have been the only explanation for me "getting my facts incorrect", so thanks for falling into a trap for nitpickers. =)

The art of careful reading really helps, Xeeron, especially since I based my "intelligence insult" accusation, not on my "Martintg is nowhere to be seen" trap, like you "wrongly alleged". It can be hard for you to understand, but even when you "claim nothing more, than" absolutely correct facts, you still can be insulting people. Behold the example:

1. You said, I didn't edit the article. True.
2. You said, Martintg did edit the article. True.
3. You found it necessary to specifically mention and concentrate your attention on the fact, that Martintg edited the whole entire 1 (ONE! Just THINK about how MUCH that is!) time more, than me, as though it makes some really significant difference. Now that's the "insulting intelligence" part of it.

And, doing that twice, for no particular reason but proving me wrong in some tiny detail, is what people call nitpicking. Get it? =)

Ok, I can see that my accusations with hints of humor and sarcasm will lead us nowhere, so I apologize for turning this Wikipedia discussion into "who has more rhetorical skills" competition. But will you please not nitpick at me again? My objections are too straight and simple to warrant this attitude. At least, I hope you understand now, that attacking some secondary weaknesses of opponent's arguments, rather than discussing the core of argument he actually expressed, is not a constructive approach.

Returning to the topic, of course I understand that you can't speak for others, but shouldn't we be doing something like separate vote or discussion, to find out, whose votes community will accept as legitimate? --ETST (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The browser search function works just like the search function in almost any other program and can be accessed either by the pull down menues on top or by the shortcut CRTL-F. I thought that was common knowledge, sorry. Also, no detailed reply, since you don't want any "nitpicking". --Xeeron (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously my English is even less clear, than I hoped. But it's funny that you still didn't understand that I am fully aware of existence of "browser search function"; the fact, which is obvious from my 10:03, 11 March post. For your information, I can imagine plenty of ways the task of finding someone in that list could have been accomplished without resorting to "browser search function", as well as know the whole classes of applications, which due to their overload of shortcuts, have their "find" function assigned to other keys, if at all. So don't be sorry for my knowledge, since it's rather unclear, who from two of us has more of it. Still, it's sad to see, that you continue to confuse detailed reply with nitpicking, and that I am unlikely to have your apology for using me as a tool against your opponent without "getting your facts correct" first, as you constantly suggest to people around, including me. Forget it, then. --ETST (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was sorry for assuming you knew the search function, but seeing how you indeed knew it, I don't understand what you did at all. If you knew the search function, you must have known that Martintg was on the list, yet you wrote that he is nowhere to be seen. Why would you write that if you knew he was on the list? --Xeeron (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that everyone's edit should count. HistoricWarrior's canvassing on the Russia talk page was not right, but that cannot be helped now. It would be absolutely ridiculous to reject votes from people with 0 edits, and accept votes from people with 1 edit. Claiming that one edit makes any kind of difference is nothing but pure nonsense. It is also impossible to prove that someone came here because of canvassing, and that they weren't interested in the article before the canvassing took place. Offliner (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Martintg - first off with Pocopocopocopoco, it was not canvassing, it was Kober being desperate. You are just unhappy that you didn't get your way. Also, I have contacted all of the users that have edited this article before, or have looked at it, in the case of Russavia and even Kober admitted that Russavia was watching the poll. Meanwhile, some of the votes in favor of changing the title came from editors who mysteriously appearred just as voting began. Coincidence? I think not. And Kober, try proving that I left my messages in mutliple articles as you have stated. Multiple means more then one. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Next time you do such things, you will be reported for personal attacks and harassment. Consider this your last warning.--Kober^Talk 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding HistoricWarrior07's "Meanwhile, some of the votes in favor of changing the title came from editors who mysteriously appearred (sic.) just as voting began. Coincidence?" I, for one, have had this page and others regarding the "frozen zone" on my watchlist for a long time. This sort of egregious slandering implying everyone is doing it in order to deflect from one's own actions has no place here. PetersV       TALK 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall, this discussion looks completely dirty and - sorry about using the strong words - disgusting. Many opinions (most, actually) are obviously POVed, with beople accusing only those with different position towards the title and protecting those with the same position, even if they are suspicious. Stealth canvassing is extremely dangerous and should be punished with extreme severity. But it may not be proved so easily. I propose to you all to stop all these accusations, that tend to go to personal level over time. We may be accusing each other and But it's really time we should get back to the article and respect voting results. We all also should stop further canvassing, either open or stealth one.

2. What we have now in the poll are, I suppose, all interested editors. There are two main positions about the title, but the leading option is the current name. We all understand the desire of those opposing it to change the name. However, there are obviously not enough votes to change the current title under the argumentation presented by this time by those users.

PS. Re "established" article editors: Please remember, if we, for example, restrict voting to those who did, at least, 50/100 edits here, we, most possibly, would get an even bigger support of the current title. These people, after all, maintained the title to be this one during all these discussions that were here for the last months. FeelSunny (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The main issue here is that there are opposite (and many extremely POV'ed) viewpoints among numerous editors here all with your "50-100" edits. That is not necessarily the most dispassionate editorial community to evaluate what would be the best title. PetersV       TALK 19:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked this time and again. Show me an edit that I made to the article that was POV. Also, 50-100 edits was set by Xeeron, who craves changing the title as much as you do. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Peters, I just say all this discussion is really dirty. To my opinion, both sides used canvassing here, notifying users very selectively of the voting. I could have proposed excluding all editors with 50/100 edits in the article from the vote, but I am 100% sure that next day this "established editor vote" will be canvassed - openly or secretly - by the interested users. So I say again - get over this already. FeelSunny (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Key questions about the beginning of the war

According to the first declaration of war by the Russian President 2008 August 9, see http://www.mil.ru/info/1068/uios/19347/index.shtml?id=49328 many thousand people were killed by the Georgian military troops before August 9. Most of them were Russians, see http://www.mil.ru/info/1069/details/index.shtml?id=49353

Can anybody cite any document answering the following two questions below?

1. Did these thousands killed Russians have an entry permit, which allowed the stayment at the territory of Georgia?

2. What for did these thousand Russians abandoned their Homeland, going to Georgia, just in time when thousands Ossetians used to escape from that region?

Any official explanations with respect to this subject may be very important. dima (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Er... Are you aware, that "Russian citizens" is not the same thing as "Russians"? Or that majority of South Ossetians are in possession of Russian citizenship? Maybe you should at least read the article? Before voting for its title, at least? ETST (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I answer questions by ETST:

1."Are you aware, that "Russian citizens" is not the same thing as "Russians"?" - Yes.

2."Or that majority of South Ossetians are in possession of Russian citizenship?" If the victims with Russian citizenship did not have the double citizenship, then they were "Russian citizens"; by the Law, they were allowed to stay and work and live at Moscow without special permission, but I doubt about the same in Tzkhinwali.

3."Maybe you should at least read the article?" – Yes, of course.

Now you may try to answer my questions. Perhaps, you wanted me to use term "citizen of RF" instead of "Russians". I reformulate the question; may be now you will be able to answer:

Did Georgian officials representatives authorise the presence of foreighers at their country in amount 10^4 – 10^5 people? dima (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just in case: You say there are "10^4-10^5" Russian citizens in SO. 'I add - they were living on the same territory in what you (but not Ossetians) consider Georgia, for at least 100 years already. If you presume Georgia still did not give them it's citizenship, I would say most obviously reason can be Georgia is either a nazi country or a failing state. I can not see any other reasons for giving your citizenship to people that live in your country for 100 years. Even in Baltics, they give citizenship to minorities faster. FeelSunny (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They did have double citizenship, and it was clarified many times in this talkpage, as well as in the article itself. I'll reformulate my question, maybe now you'll be able to answer:

Since you have agreed, that you should at least read the article, why won't you proceed with that, before asking rather senseless questions about "conveniently migrating Russian crowds"? ETST (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than double citizenship, there are other things you should know:

1. Georgians did not give Georgian passports to S.Ossetians for many years, when they started to, Ossetians did not want to take them (quite obvious, b/c of 1990.
2. Russia gives Russian citizenship to Ossetians that still have Soviet passports/ citizenship (ask Gamsakhurdia & Shevarnadze - why?). Russian citizenship laws say that former Soviet citizens of any nationality have such rights.

PS. AFAIK, there was no official declaration of war, which is a signed document delivered to the opposing side. None was signed by Russia and none by Georgia. FeelSunny (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

<==Please do not delete or edit the following User:Domitori comment, if possible. It's going to be used as it is in the course of lectures for students, and I want them to have a chance to see it on WP without looking in the history. Thanks!==> FeelSunny (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There was "prinuzdenie k miru". I translate this into English as "war".

The Russian official declaration mentioned does not say "double citizenship", it says "Russian citizenship". For me, this is sufficient reason to believe that those thousands were just soldiers, the first part of the Russian army sent to Georgia in August 1 - August 7, which was completely destroyed by the Georgian troops by August 8; and August 9, that tall was reported by the Russian President. There was no "Erratum" from the Russian officials. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt in these data. dima (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

<==Please do not delete or edit the preceding User:Domitori comment, if possible. It's going to be used as it is in the course of lectures for students, and I want them to have a chance to see it on WP without looking in the history. Thanks!.==> FeelSunny (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you really that slow? A significant number of South Ossetians got Russian citizenship. Russia does not recognize double citizenship, in a sense that it ignores all other citizenships as if the other citizenships did not exist. To Russia all people with Russian citizenship are Russian citizens, period. For that reason, for example, Russians with American citizenship can not get Russian visa to travel as Americans. When Russian officials mentioned the toll of 1500+ civilians they cited the South Ossetian officials. So you should say There was no "Erratum" from the South Ossetian officials. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.158.7.128 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia surely does not ban a double citizenship, as, for example, Ukraine does (at least I heard it does). There are Russian nationals that are at the same time Georgian citizens. Or Israeli citizens. That simple. FeelSunny (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no "Erratum" from the South Ossetian officials. - No way. To submit an "Erratun", if some serious errors are revealed, is element of civilization. If Russian officials are semi-civilized, the Ossetians those are not civilized at all. For example, Kokoity had confirmed the total destruction of Georgian anclaves, and had declared, that the return of Georgian people there is impossible. For me, such a declaration is evidence of genocide. As for the Russian governors, they seem to prefer to kill journalists, who indicate the errors, rather than to accept, that some actions by RF were wrong. dima (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And what constitutes "evidence of genocide" to me, is a nightly artillery sneak-attack on a town with unsuspecting sleeping people. That act of Georgians was a civilized one, isn't it? Clearly, there's no excuse for those uncivilized barbarian Ossetians who destroyed some Georgian enclaves on their territory! And without apparent reason, too! What a bunch of neanderthals they are! Georgians should have succeeded in killing them all - whoops - I meant, in "putting an end to their criminal regime".

Despite my bitter sarcasm, I, unlike you, realize, that Georgians and Ossetians were doing bad things to each other for 15 years now, which of course can't be an excuse for any of their actions. But if someone has the moral right to judge them, it's neither me, nor you.

And speaking of "accepting wrongness of someone's actions". Yor are still having troubles even with reading the article, let alone knowing something about the war besides what your undoubtedly biased media told you. And your contributions to this talkpage consist only of blame-gaming forum-talk. Will you admit that, or you'll just fall in line with "Russian governors"? I don't mean to try and drive you out (not that I can, anyway, but even so), but, honestly, if you're not intending to learn something about the war, and clearly unable to contribute, what is exactly the point of your presence here? --ETST (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Unable to contribte" – statement by ETST is not supported. As for his questions, "..what is exactly the point of your presence here?", the point of my presence here is: Either the article should be renamed to Russian official interpretation of the war of 2008, or the Gerogian point of view should be presented too. (And also the South Ossetian point of view.) The most of the current content of the article should become section "Russian point of view". dima (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Let us assume for a moment that you are being serious (haha, but ok). What is your concrete suggestion? What Georgian POV is missing here? What Russian POV is over-represented here? Could you give an outline of the article as it should be in your version? Some concrete improvements for some specific parts of the article? If you can not support your claim that you are able to contribute then it is not ETST's fault. (93.158.26.174 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

To do

Just in case someone finds some time from all that arguing to make actual improvements on the article, here's a list of what probably should be done (sooner, rather than later:)

• 1. The responsibility section must be cut down by about 50% or more. It will be hard to retain balance and neutrality when we start removing stuff. Thus, discussion is needed on which statements should stay and which not.

• 2. The casualties section should be rewritten (300-400 dead is a "good starting point" for what?) and sourced better. Maybe we should even include information on which Georgian units took how many casualties. That would be good and interesting info for the military aspect. Unfortunately, no such list for Russian casualties seems to exist.

• 3. Exact and up-to-date information about international monitor missions and the number of their personnel should be added to the "international monitors" section.

• 4. The "Humanitarian impact and war crimes" section doesn't seem to actually describe the "humanitarian impact", i.e. impact of the war on civilians. Should there be more information about that? If not, the chapter should probably be renamed simply to "war crimes" or "war crime accusations."

• 5. The military equipment part of "Combatants" should be cut down by perhaps 20%. Its organization is also a bit confusing, and it might be a good idea to rewrite the whole part with more clear structure and better prose.

• 6. All claims of the ISDP source need to be double-checked with other sources. There has already been one case where ISDP's claim was simply wrong, and many people suspect that ISDP's claims are simply not reliable enough to stand on their own. Other sources must be found for the claims, or the claims should be removed.

If anyone has other suggestions, please add them to the list. Offliner (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree.
2. This Spiegel article reports that Moscow prosecuters revised the number of civil casualties down from 2000 to 134.
3. We need to distinguish between OSCE, UNOMIG and JCC here.
4. Hmm, the section mentions bombing, indiscriminate weapon use, attacks on civilian convoys, looting, arson, displaced people etc. All in all, I'd say the title is very fitting.
5. Needs more structure. Not clear to me yet what would be a good way to organise this? Split into weapons used/accessment? Split according to categories (Army, Airforce,...)?
6. In general, it is good to have multiple sources for all claims. We have discussed this before, but ISDP is not fundamentally different from the other analytical pieces we use. If we decide on standards, a double source test needs to go for all of them or none. --Xeeron (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree to cut, and to "needs discussion".
2. Xeeron, stop. 360+ names and circumstances of death of civilian casualties in Tskhinvali are available in open sources. Small team of Russian prosecutors were not supposed/ able to investigate every murder of Ossetian civilians during Georgian offencive, only most blatant ones.
3. Agree. We also should give clear links/ explanation to trilateral agreement behind JCC peacekeepers, as right now there is no separate.
4. Agree. We should add numbers of refugees from each side there.
5. Agree. Making a graphic table for the section could be the best decision. Right now it's unreadable, and it won't be without a diagram, to my POV.
6. Agree that ISDP data should not be seen as reliable source without independent confirmation of information collected from Georgian press-releases. Other than that, we may just attribute the information to "Georgian officials". FeelSunny (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) <== numbering corrected by FeelSunny (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Good idea, I'll have to think about how to do it best. Offliner (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC) <== numbering corrected by FeelSunny (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FeelSunny's numbering is off, which section are you talking about? --Xeeron (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

About the military equipment part. Offliner (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Military equipment

I wonder what kind of format the table should have, and what info should it contain? There are three kinds of important info about equipment: 1) which systems the combatant had, 2) how many of those systems they had, 3) which systems were deployed to the theatre or used during the war, 4) how many systems were lost during the war.

Would it be possible to have all that info in one table, or should we make multiple tables, or would that be too much? Offliner (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this so important? I suggest to just split this part, at least all the little details, into its own article and let it develop by itself. Just leave the summary here. But if you want to categorize the equipment the itemized list is better than tables. Like the following

• Ground forces
  • Infantry
  • Armored vehicles
    • Tanks
• Air forces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.158.7.128 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a table is better than a list, since it requires less vertical space. I will be developing the tables here: [14]. Offliner (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia together with...?

I think that it is a POV saying that it ...was an armed conflict between Georgia on one side, and Russia together with separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other. So, according to this, I can say that Georgian troops were killing olny separatists in SO (i.e. children were separatists; schools and hospitals were their headquarters)? Right? Taamu (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually that would be POV. You should say Ossetians and Abkhaz People, instead of separatists. I believe they are human beings belonging to an ethnicity, that should be named. Of course there are people here who would disagree. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it's absurd to claim that all people from SO (excepting ethnic Georgians) are separatists. Taamu (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The important thing in this sentence is who was fighting against Georgia, not who was killed. As far as I know children weren't fighting. So, Georgia wasn't in war with South Ossetia, but with separatists willing to separate this territory from Georgia (and according to some sources they were firing from civilian buildings as well, hence risking civilians' lives, but that's not the point here). I believe the term separatist clearly defines who was fighting and what were his goals. Not to mention that there are many Ossetians who lived in peace together with Georgians in one state and who aren't happy with South Ossetia being separated from Georgia (according also to my own contacts and conversations in Georgia). So, I find it misleading to say that Ossetians were fighting against Georgians, as it wasn't the actual situation. Kouber (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to find some compromise formulation. I also think that there is a slight problem with "separatist": if a foreign country attacks my homeland, and I pick up arms to defend it, I am fighting as a defender, not as a "separatist." I am not fighting for independence - I am simply fighting to defend my home and family. Offliner (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

True. But South Ossetia was (and still is, except for Russia and Nicaragua) within internationally recognised borders of Georgia, so Georgia couldn't be considered as a foreign country in that situation. Not to mention that Georgia (together with Russia) also had peacekeeping responsibilities there, and the operation of Georgian army was in response to heavy shelling of Georgian villages, it wasn't an attack on Ossetian people (there're Georgians living in Tskhinvali too). Kouber (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Georgian villages, we are talking about the word separatist. You say ...internationally recognised borders..., but does your country respect the territorial integrity of Serbia? No! It's double standards. Taamu (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My country decided to recognise Kosovo. Me personally, I'm considering Kosovo as part of Serbia and disagree with the official decision of my country... why are you mentioning that, i.e. what's the relation with the issue we're currently discussing? Kouber (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess my compromise solution, "separatist governments", is even worse than just "separatists," because undoubtedly some Ossetian militiamen fought without getting orders from their government... Offliner (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Offliner, well, worse, since you objected to "separatist authorities" as not being the people in power who necessarily fought per your revert, then certainly your "separatist governments" means, by your own logic, only ostensibly elected South Ossetian (and Abkhazian, elsewhere) legislative representatives participated in hostilities. PetersV       TALK 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Simply "separatists" should be fully descriptive and sufficient. (Edit prior to the insertion of "governments.") PetersV       TALK 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Governments" is better than "authorities," since the former is an institution and thus a better (more general) word to represent the nation of South Ossetia. "Authorities" would mean just a group of officials, not an institution. Offliner (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just say Ossetians and Abkhaz people. That way you know who's for Russia and who's not. Simply saying "separatists" is POV. I don't recall anyone calling George Washington a "separatist". Also, you cannot be an independent nation (as opposed to state) and be separatist at the same time. You cannot separate from yourself. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Ossetians and Abkhazians" sounds like a good solution. It is both accurate and neutral. Offliner (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And treats people as human beings. Oftentimes we forget that when we write these articles. We must not forget the human factor. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Taamu (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As many sources are not afraid to call the war between georgia and south ossetia as such, see for example here, why are we afraid to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.158.22.60 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also if you like google hits so much, this should give you as many references as you like. Find me respectable sources saying georgia attacked so government or so authorities. You will fail because georgia attacked so, not south ossetians, but south ossetia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.158.22.60 (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone

Currently the "change the title" lobby is playing a fun new game: it's called "bash HistoricWarrior007" aka "bash HystericWanker007". So let's clear some things up:

1. Kober, you claimed that I have posted the notice in Several Articles. I did no such thing. The only mistake that I have made was to make a post in the Russia article, instead of WikiProject Russia. To rectify that error, I will post my message in WikiProject Russia and WikiProject Georgia. That was my only mistake and my only apology. You blew it out of proportion, by resorting to lying, i.e. saying that I have posted in several articles, when I only posted it in one and even that one by mistake. It is also of note how Kober found what he thought was my POV message, but conveniently forgot to post my NPOV message. When I told Kober about this on his talkpage, he deleted my comments and threatened to report me.

2. The only editors I have contacted, are those who have edited this article. Each editor I've contacted has done more for this article then either Gaegea or Biophys. Yet the lobby didn't bother about those editors, the voting didn't go their way and they needed someone to blame.

3. Pocopocopocopoco and I have corresponded with this article as recent as 4 days when I contacted him, yet Kober went ahead and included Pocopocopocopoco anyways. I thought alerting someone who has been talking about the article in the past four days was legitimate, Kober apparently did not.

4. In Wikipedia articles the attacker goes first. This is clearly evident, via the title matching the columns. Georgia attacked a Russian Peacekeeping Base, prior to any actions that Russia took. There is really no way to argue around this. If you can show me a single Wikipedia Article, where the column of numbers and casualties does not correspond with the name in a logical fashion, I will be amazed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

200 Kilometers of Russian Tanks?!

One of the sources used by Kouber has in it's translated title, the phrase "200 kilometers of Russian Tanks". Now I'm not sure if the source is being sarcastic, but to me that seems more tanks then Russia currently has. Even if a Russian tank occupied 10 meters, that would require Russia to have 200,000 tanks. That's a bit much. Generally the Russian sources in this article, criticizing Russia, with some exceptions, are poorly written and/or cited. Another source "Svoboda News" - aka Freedom News, which means they can print whatever they want and call it news, made a brilliant prediction: "Even if Russia intervenes, South Ossetia will fall to Georgia!" I was unaware that we could use source that get facts wrong. If so, can I start my own newspaper, call it "Istina" - Truth, and print News free from complex thought, and get them published on Wikipedia? Do I get to say that Saakashvili's excessive tie-eating was a direct cause of Russian Intervention? That God wanted Georgia to suffer?

In all honesty, no matter how you spin it, bad sources are bad sources. If they fail and comprehending basic facts, i.e. if Russians say they will intervene on August 5th, and a paper acts "surprised" on August 8th - we shouldn't use these "sources" that are utter bullshit. Otherwise, we are just promoting propaganda, unworthy of encyclopedic material. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, no propaganda! We have no formal criterion, which distance should be assumed between tanks. I doubt if tanks may move keeping the distance 10meters; the distance could be 100 meters as well. Let us deal first witht the official communications. The first official Russian communication declares that somehow many Russian citizen happened to be on the territory of Georgia, and before August 9, thousands of them were killed. The Russian government claims, this was an aggression from side of Georgia. As soon as the official Russian representatives (for example, the President) declare, that those thousands victims had double citizenship, we may consider this version seriously. dima (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you know the title of an article could be a matter of artistic feeling of the author, playing with words, etc. Also, I am not pretending everything in that article is true. What I am giving is a different point of view, and I'm making it clear which is that point of view. The author of that article - Yulia Latynina, is well respected writer and journalist, as is Vadim Rechkalov.

I know perfectly well that Russia wants us to believe that Georgia destroyed Tskhinvali, but as you can see, there are different opinions on that. I disagree to include only the Russian point of view. We all saw that official Russia lied to the entire world, talking of genocide, of thousands killed, of Tskhinvali being raized to the ground, etc. and we saw that none of this was true. So, I'm considering all the official Russian statements concerning South Ossetia very questionable.

In addition, Russia (South Ossetia) is still not allowing any international non-biased investigations to be held in that region of Georgia, hence the need to show many points of view. Kouber (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Latynina respected? She's a yellow journalist. She's the Russian Ann Coulter - an airhead who says crazy, nutcase things, without much to back herself up. The problem is, that whilst Coulter is rightly written off as a total loon by the western media (with the exception of Faux News), the same western media listens to Latynina without questioning her journalism. And yes, I've read the article, and it is ALL opinion of herself. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. This is not a place for you platform your personal views. Thanks. Ostap 23:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Both Narking and Russavia critique Latynina and yet Ostap attacks Russavia and ignores Narking. That is so NPOV, eh Ostap? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, is that meant to be ironic? Russavia's comment attacked somebody (crazy, nutcase, total loon), and you criticise me for pointing out wikipedia talkpage guidelines calling it an "attack"? An attack? How is "Please read WP:TALK. This is not a place for you platform your personal views. Thanks. " and attack? Maybe you need to take a break from wikipedia. Ostap 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read WP:TALK. Did you know that it had a "Be Objective" Section? Also, the way you phrased it, the verb you used, "platform" made it sound like an attack. Maybe American English is different from English, to the extent that "platform" means something non-hostile. But to me, it came off as hostile. Also, telling me to take a break from Wikipedia, because you don't like my comments, is also hostile, and not very objective. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you that many Moscovites do love to listen to Latynina's clever talk show on Ekho Moskvy. And why not read her latest one [15] in Moscow Times. Närking (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Many Russians will listen to Eho Moskvy says and Eho Moskvy has various viewpoints, some of them rather anti-Russian. However if you want to use Eho Moskvy, Echo of Moscow, you have to gather all of the announcers from Echo, and you will find a wide variety of opinions from Echo, most heavily in favor of Russia, with Latuynina as one of the outliers. I'm perfectly fine with Echo material in this article, provided it's all of Echo material, not as was initially the case with Lokshina, where only the stuff that hurts Russia was placed in the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok first off, no matter how you spin it, 200 kilometers of any tanks, is absurd. Even if the distance was 100 meteres, that means the Russians used 2,000 tanks. A tank has a crew of 3 men, at least. So that means that out of 6,000 troops in South Ossetia, all were tankers. No infantry. And that is assuming the distance of 100 meters was kept between tanks, which as can be seen on the photo taken, was not the case. If one takes the trumped up number of 10,000 in South Ossetia, still that would leave the majority tankers. Thus it is absurd. Also, if Russia destroyed Tskhinvali Kouber, why in the World are South Ossetians fighting on the Russian side?! Why did the Russians spend money to rebuild it?! And don't you think that the North Ossetians, who wield quite a bit of power in the Caucasian Region, be extremely upset if the Russians destroyed the capital city of thier brothers? And yet North Ossetians were allowed in, and they came back, not angry at the Russians. Dima, for the umpteenth time, if you were a citizen of the USSR, you can be a citizen of Russia, this is not complicated to understand, unless you don't want to. Kouber - well respected writers and professionals, never play with the title to such a degree of inaccuracy; going from 20 to 200 kilometers, is not called artistic license.

Not only the Russian Media was playing the 2,000 casuatly number, the Western Media was going at it too. CNN direct script: "Russia invades Georgia. 2000 casualties result." I could find the same for Fox News, New York Times, Sky News, etc. Seeing how you are only blaming the Russian media Kouber, for a mistake that pretty much most of the media made, I cannot help but feel that you are biased in singling out the Russian Media. I on the other hand, have critiqued Russia Today. I was saying that both sides are overplaying their civillian casualty figures and underplaying their military casualty figures. I was the one who pointed out that the 2,000 number was applied to dead and missing. And with Russia's registration system, 2,000 out of 23,000-30,000 refugees would make sense. Also Kouber, get your facts straight. Russia is allowing journalists in. Russia isn't allowing military inside the borders, as well as "journalists" traveling with special forces, using their cell phones as homing beacons for missiles. However journalists, like Mark Ames and Peter Finn, can come in and out as they wish. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why South Ossetian military groups were fighting on the side of Russia. However, I know very well where all the guns and armaments for them came from. According to Andrei Illarionov for example, for all these years South Ossetia became the most militarised region in the world, surpassing even North Korea . And all this happened in front of the eyes of the peacekeepers. So, I guess the source of the military orders was the same as was the source of the armament.

You are right - the North Ossetians would be extremely upset if they discover that Russians destroyed Tskhinvali. Indeed, that's the reason why Russia is trying to convince everybody that it was the Georgian army who did it. Tell me, HistoricWarrior007, if Russia is so innocent, why it is still not allowing international investigation to be held in South Ossetia? It would be extremely simple and useful for all of us, trying to reach the unbiased truth by a third party independent source. So, why it isn't allowing it? Probably in order not to upset Ossetians!? I'm not talking of organised journalistic tours, as described by Jonathan Little in an article called Georgian diary (Bulgarian language, didn't managed to find it in English).

When thinking of it logically, you can also question who actually destroyed Tskhivali. As we know the Georgian army was already in the city by 10 a.m. on the 8th of August. However, bombings and explosions in the city were reported till the 11th of August. So, if the Georgian army was already there, who was dropping bombs on it? Who was firing on it with artillery? The Geogrian army itself was bombing its own troops probably?!... I doubt so. The civilians hiding in the basements cannot know whose bombs were falling. Instead, they knew it later from the T.V. and medias, where propaganda played well its role. So, it is our responsibility to show that it isn't that clear who did it.

Concerning the number of 2000 killed, it was repeated by Western medias but as a statement of the Russian authorities. I personally saw Vitaly Churkin on the T.V. asking the journalists in the UN whether two thousand killed are enough to qualify it as genocide. So, I'm not blaming neither Russian, nor Western medias, as they were all citing Vitaly Churkin. Kouber (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Georgia was not bombings its own troops. According to the article, they launched a major artillery and rocket onslaught on the city before their ground forces went in. They used 27 Grad rocket launcher systems - a very destructive and unprecise system which should never be used anywhere near civilians. OSCE monitors reported shells falling on Tskhinvali every 20-30 seconds. It seems clear that this initial barrage is where the most casualties and infrastructure damage in Tskhinvali came from. Offliner (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For me it doesn't seem clear at all. You mean that one night of firing caused more damage than three days of bombing and heavy fighting? The Russian army, for example, was also using Grad systems on Tskhinvali.

Don't get me wrong. I am not telling the Georgian army did nothing to the city, but I disagree to blame only it and continue repeating a thing that wasn't proven. Kouber (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"If one takes the trumped up number of 10,000 in South Ossetia, still that would leave the majority tankers. Thus it is absurd.", does HistoricWarrior007 type.
Sorry, but this is not absurd. From the official Russian declaration, we know, that THOUSANDS Russian citizen were killed even before the official "beginning" of the war (pardon, "prinuzhdenie k miry", as it is called in Russian official news). We do not know, how many thousands – 2 thousands or 20 thousands. We do not know wether the majority of the inviders were killed or the minority, and, perhaps, we'll never know this. Unfortunately, in Russia, there is no efficient judiciary which could catch the killers. This allows some political group to eliminate journalists, who publish the "unwanted" materials. Therefore, we cannot believe any "official" information from Russia. We have almost no true information about events in Russia, and even less – about events in Russian military forces. Therefore, we have no evidence which would allow to qualify the estimate 10,000 as "an absurd". If there was, for example, 10^5 Russian soldiers, and 10^4 among them were killed, (together with tanks or separately), we still could have the same official declarations from the Russian officials, as those cited in the references. I expect, at least at the beginning of the conflict, less than a million of Russian soldiers were killed; overvice, Medvedev and then the Ministery of Defence of RF would have to report millions of Russian citizen killed, not thousands. dima (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to tankers. Please read my post and the title above it. It wasn't about civillians. Tankers = military soldiers not civilians See the section title and last time I checked, tanks aren't driven by civillians. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dima, and all others being so sceptical about number of losses, stop for one minute and think that every one of 365 deceased civilians named by Ossetian NGOs was once a living person, had family and friends. Each of them deserved a better fate. Please think of it when next time you say that Georgians did not kill that much. the fact is that the city was bombed, bu Georgian salvo missiles, bombed as a city. And you just keep on denying this. FeelSunny (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. And all the killed Georgians didn't have their families and friends and weren't living persons?! Kouber (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Georgian civilians who were killed were living persons who were unfortunate enough to pay the price for their leader's stupidity (or miscalculation if you prefer). However, the military and the defense contractors knew what they were signing up for. My heart goes out to the Georgian civilians, just as to Ossetian civilians, but the contractors and the military had a choice to make and they made the wrong one. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone to avoid expressing personal opinions and speculations, and instead to focus on the subject: improving this article. Offliner (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I beleive every victim in this war was unacceptable. I feel deep sorrow for every civilian and military who lost his/ her life in this bloody aventure. Please do not misrepresent my words - when I spoke of Ossetians I by no means implied they are the only victims, or some "first class" compared to Georgians. Civilians are absolutely equal, whatever nation they come from. The only reason I used ethnonym was that you started to doubt the Ossetian casualties numbers as if 365 is more "acceptable" for you then 1400 or 2000 or whatever they thought casualties are in the first day of the war.

I also must mention that your way of calling those killed in Tskhinvali "invaders" is really appalling. Something comparable to calling those killed in 9/11 "parasites on the Arab world", I think. I would really advise you to consider changing your position towards those people. FeelSunny (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am slow; so, I add to the bottom of the section, in order to simplify the reading in the chronologic order. (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC) had typed: "..you just keep on denying this" - I keep denying that we have certain information about number of victims and their military status. Please keep in mind that in Russia, the military conscription is compulsory. The self-consitent interpretation of events should explain, in particular, why the international observers were not allowed to enter the South Ossetia. One reasonable explanation is, that the most of victims were Russian soldiers, and the South Ossetia is covered by 10^5 killed Russian citizen, and the Russian officials want to keep this as a secret. As for the "acceptable" number of victims, I agree with the comment above; zero would be acceptable number. dima (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Domitori, get a grip, will you? Your conspiracy theories and horrible facts about Russian compulsory conscription notwithstanding, why won't you READ the article, at last? It says "In contrast to the weak conscript soldiers used in Chechnya, Russia's force in Georgia was made up entirely of professional soldiers, according to commanders. Reuters reporters on the ground in Georgia saw disciplined, well-equipped troops.". What's the part of it that you didn't understand? And frankly, I say you (being Russian, I can), that those casualties of "10^5 killed Russian citizens" wouldn't anger me against "Russian officials" or my government, or whatever, like you suggest to make your theories look more credible. I just would have demanded from my government to continue the war, so I can finally see Saakashvili hanging on his tie. Not more, not less.

Kouber, "when thinking of it logically", one can question your interpretation of events. Georgian forces were in the Tskhinvali by 10a.m August 8th, but they were driven out mere 2-3 hours later. Your own words: "However, bombings and explosions in the city were reported till the 11th of August". So I repeat your questions: "Who was dropping bombs on it? Who was firing on it with artillery?" It's only natural to assume that it were Russians, who were in posession of the city during all those 3 days, isn't it? --ETST (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there could be various interpretations. I don't put into question what Kezerashvili said (cited later by Washington Post), but according to some sources there were Georgian divisions in Tskhinvali even after the initial "drive out" , and it is evident that there was heavy fighting for and in the city. What Kezerashvili explained as "something like hell" was a result of Russian artillery and air attacks on Georgian troops in Tskhinvali. So, I disagree with the pro-Russian presumption that Georgian attacks are causing damage and civilian deaths, but Russian ones - aren't. Even more given the extensive use of Russian air-force. Kouber (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing

In the infobox, the figure 1492, included missing. Should we mention that? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think yes, we may leave it there

1) indicating it included missing people (the city was shelled at the time, so it's only natural missing number to be big enough) and

2) that it was a preliminary asessment. Then,

3) in the footnote, we may add that it was made at the initial stage of Georgian offensive

4) by Ossetian authorities and then repeated by Russian authorities as an explanation of starting the operation. FeelSunny (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The military report I was reading from the Russian side at the time of the war, said that it was up to 2,000 casualties, meaning that 1 was killed and 1,999 were missing, or that 1,999 were killed and 1 was missing, or any number in between. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And four points above, 2 last in the footnote look reasonable for any of the two numbers we include. FeelSunny (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Focusing our energy

I wonder what this article would be like if people would focus their energy on actually making major improvements, instead of fighting each other and waging war over the article title, wordings and other minor things. Sometimes it seems that actual improvements are done by a very small number of people, while others concentrate solely on the aforementioned things. Please note, that I am not personally accusing anyone of anything. Does anyone have an idea of what is keeping people from making substantial edits? Is it just lack of time, or is there some other reason? Offliner (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Big issues catch editorial attention first. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me the article now has more information one would possibly need. However, it lacks structure and, in some places, POVs balance. That is what is being corrected now. FeelSunny (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at first people lacked information, they just added as much published speculation as possible to further their POV. Now information is all here, and its presentation becomes an issue, a huge one. And ever since the beginning the editors have lacked respect to each others' contributions, to say the least, and now most editors just resort to personal attacks and POV pushing.

Yes, very few contributed to the article's essence/structure, and I understand Offliner's position to try to change that.

Regarding the structure. One has to admit that there is a significant pro-Russian bias currently here, but that is understandable and hard to fix since (a) Russia has won the war, (b) Russia is winning the blame war. But one has to deliver Georgia's message here despite that its position is somewhat weaker, to say the least, and it would not change for the better in near future unless some new information comes out (in other words, a miracle occurs).

Regarding the content. The article has too much unnecessary details, the details about which few care now, and noone will care in near future. If only I had more time, I would suggest a significant rewrite, but unfortunately I have to leave soon (work, travel, etc) for a few months, and I am not sure if my interest remains as high as now later. (93.158.20.47 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Russia is not winning the blame war. Russia lost the Media War. The only reason that Russia isn't portrayed as the ebil empire, is because certain countries are in deep recession, and their citizens care about their pockets more then Russia, and Corporate Media feeds the beast. Also, I fail to see how this article is so pro-Russian. August 7th: Georgia attacks. August 8th: Russia counter-attacks. I'm assuming the American Ambassador to Russia also has a pro-Russian bias, because he called Russia's action, a counter-attack. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)