Talk:Russo-Georgian War

2008 South Ossetia war???

Why "south ossetia"? Was it fought only in South Ossetia? Wasn't it mainly between Russia and Georgia? Didn't it involve other parts of Georgia?

Google search: 2008 russia georgia war - 9,320,000 results 2008 south ossetia war - 585,000 results

So, the current title not only does confuse about what and where has happened, but is used 20 times less often, than "2008 Russia Georgia war".

Current article title is clearly a Russian POV.--78.48.225.28 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, more scholarly articles are using Russo-Georgian War or some other similar derivative. The current title of the article was created by wikipedians at the start of the conflict, at a time when it was confined to South Ossetia and involved solely the Georgians and South Ossetians. I would challenge anyone to find a scholarly source that terms the war the 2008 South Ossetian War, those articles that you do find will use wikipedia as a source for the title of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here comes the flash mob! Haven't we been through all of this before already? Come on guys, we have better stuff to do. Furthermore, at no point in time was this a war that involved only Georgians and South Ossetians, as the Russian Peacekeeping Battalion was hit very early in the war, and when you hit a part of the Russian Peacekeepers, and by extension the Russian Army, you involve Russia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspecting others in what you did, aren't you? I'll raise the WSSing issue later, when I have time for it. Unfortunately I am not one of those 300 hundred "warriors" from "Commission under the President of Russia to counter the attempts of falsification of history to the detriment of Russia" to work on it full time.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You should read the sheer number of pages on discussion of the title before proposing your own changes, that have been already proposed multiple times here. I have yet to see anyone argue that it's Russian POV. So do tell, how is it Russian POV? Is the name Kosovo War, US POV? Vietnam War? Korean War? First Chechen War? Second Chechen War? Damn, there's so much POVed names going on. Or, are we biased, because we don't adhere to Google Hits? Do you know how many wars were named after Google Hits? It's zero, nada, zilch, nil. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Google_hits_yet_again and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move.2C_part_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people, and if you actually had the courtesy to browse through the talkpage, you would actually find lots of discussion on this issue. But naming the war after the region, where the main battle was fought, has yet to be declared POV by anyone, congratulations, you are the first.

Also, the Berkelian, that's the newspaper published by UC Berkeley, you know, the #1 Public University in North America, they're calling this war, the 2008 South Ossetia War. Additionally, there has been a vote on the issue, and despite an entire Cabal trying to rig the vote, people still preferred this title. Oh right, I still haven't presented that evidence, thank you for the reminder! For instance, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Article_name_vote. Finally, we even had an administrator come in and explain that there are valid arguments for both sides, (although I've yet to hear a valid argument aside from "Bang we haz moar Google Hits" and since there is no consensus on this article, we won't be changing the title. No wars are named after Google Hits, and Wikipedia Editors cannot establish precedence, no matter how desperately some people might want to do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Google hits just demonstrate which term is more commonly used. So, again, what is the reason of using this CONFUSING title, besides that it pleases some Russians and is in line with Russian propaganda, please?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings same person with different IP. How is this confusing? How is this Russian propaganda? You can yell that it's Russian propaganda all you want, (BTW Russia called it Gruzinsko-Osetinskaya Voina, Georgian-Ossetian War), but unless you actually show us how it's Russian propaganda, your posts on the matter are pointless. We're academics here, not New York Times Readers. Just saying something, without any proof whatsoever, isn't going to fly here. All Google Hits demonstrate is which term the Corporate Media uses most often, but that doesn't mean that it's the most often used terms by the ordinary folks, who cannot produce 1,000 Google Hits on a whim. If you read any of my links, you'd know by now that the reason is that's how most wars are named, either attacker-defender format, or via location where most of the fighting took place, i.e. Vietnam War, Korean War, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Dagestan War, Iraq War, want me to keep going? And in the Vietnam War, there was some fighting in Cambodia, but most of the fighting took place in Vietnam. Same thing here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, you are Spiegel and Uwe Klussman reader. But back to the point:

• Was it fought only in South Ossetia?
• Wasn't it mainly between Russia and Georgia?
• Didn't it involve other parts of Georgia?
• The current title not only does confuse about what and where has happened, but is used 20 times less often, than "2008 Russia Georgia war" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was World War 2 fought in Antarctica or on Rapa Nui? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see, how an example of a more broad name applies here? Wouldn't it be easier for you to state, that this war wasn't fought in Russia and all of Georgia? Now, how does it make Russian term "south ossetia war" less misleading?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming a war after the location where most of the fighting occurs is misleading? And your proposed name, that portrays Russia, the defender in this war, as the attacker, isn't misleading? Wow. Just wow. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither this war, nor war in 90th was fought within SOAD borders. Most of the fighting was between Tskhinvali and Georgian villages, bordering it from North, East and South (outside SOAD borders).--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was fought mostly in South Ossetia. Vietnam War was fought mostly in Vietnam. More South Ossetian Servicemen died than Russian. In fact it was roughly twice as much. To claim that Russia would have achieved as stunning a victory, in such a short time period, as they did, without the help of Ossetia's Army, is to bullshit. According to pro-Georgian editors, their were no battles in Poti and Gori, there were just "occupations and bombings" of those cities. Irrespectively, most of the fighting still took place in South Ossetia. The current title isn't used 20 times less often. It's used 20 times less often by the mass media, but here's a hint: not all of us work for Fox News/CNN/Sky News. Furthermore, upon looking at the war naming conventions that are generally accepted, you will find that the extreme majority of wars are named either by locations, or in the attacker-defender format. No wars are named by Google Hits. Nil. Zero. Zilch. Nada. All of these arguments that you are making, have already been made, multiple times, and have been rejected. If you would have actually bothered to read the discussion archive, you would know this. Nor is this the Russian Title; the Russian Title is Georgian-Ossetian War. This title is 2008 South Ossetia War. Last time I checked those two titles aren't the same. The term was obtained per WP:MilHist which requires that unnamed wars are to be named after the location where they took place. Thus it was legitimately named. We don't need Saakasvhili's propaganda department renaming these wars. If you have anything new to add, please do so. If you are going to parrot failed arguments, please stop. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No it was not. There were not only fights outside SO administrative borders, but naval battles as well as capturing of upper Kodori Gorge. It was a full blown Russia-Georgia conflict, which was fought wherever possible, focusing only SO confuses the reader.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the point: that's what we call it. Jellyfish aren't really fish, a Bomberbeetle doesn't have actual bombs, and you can try suing the local zoo for calling Hippocampus a seahorse. It's a name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So your point is? Should we name this article "Jellyfish"? It's a name, after all.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now arguing against facts, Mr. IP. There was a single Naval Engagement. There was no Battle of Tbilisi. If this was a full blown Georgia-Russia Conflict, then Russians would have, at the very least attacked Tbilisi. Seriously, we don't need Saakashvili Central here. Once again, see the previous arguments. Here, I'll post the discussion for the IP:

*There was a single Naval engagement just because Russian fleet is overwhelmingly superior to Georgian.

*Tbilisi could have been only the very last target, as after invasion in the western part of Georgia, Georgian government pulled all troops back to capital. Friench officials have mentioned, that according to French intelligence, Tbilisi was indeed a target.

*It's clear, that you need Putin's Central here, but I hope it will not work.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had over one hundred pages of debate on this, we have had two votes on it. Get over it. Thank you. This was already discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_2#Article_name and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_3#Name_change and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Google_hits_confirm_most_popular_names and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Media_call_it_Georgia-Russia_conflict and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_War_in_Georgia and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#name_change.3F and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_now and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Article_rename and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamed (this one actually started by the Devil's Advocate on August 12th, 2008) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_7#Requested_move (although it's crossed out) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_8#Needs_to_be_renamed and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_10#Article_rename and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_rankings_on_Google_News (after being defeated, the Devil's Advocate waited a whopping two weeks to bring it up, again) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_of_article and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_13#.22South_Ossetia_War.22.3F and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_14#Title_consensus (where the Devil's Advocate waited two more weeks, before getting slaughtered in the name change debate, I am beginning to see a pattern...) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#New_Title_consensus (yup, Devil's Advocate strikes again) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Rename (Where the Devil's Advocate waited a whole *gasp* three weeks) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_19#Rename (I wonder who suggested it? Could it be, the Devil's Advocate? *inserts eerie music*) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_22#Specific_options (where there is a whole vote on it!) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23#To_Those_Opposing_the_current_title and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 - where the whole damn archive is dedicated to yet another vote! And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#The_title_and_the_lead and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#It_Appears_that_Kober_did_violate_the_moving_convention (where editors are getting sick and tired of it, but the Devil's Advocate marches on!) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 (yup another vote, illegally started, for those who missed the first two: attractions include editors who have never watched the article, but miraculously, three of them appear and vote to change the title, on the exact date that it's proposed!)

Now, IP - we have been more than patient here. If you are unable to offer any new arguments, and you continue to spam this page with cluelessness, you will be reported. A full-blown war would have involved a lot more than two Iskanders, and would last for more than nine days. That much is obvious to everyone, and I'm not going to babysit every user who claims that 2+2 is really 5. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, please stop talking about your self in plural.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bit early for new move request, I would wait until 2010. Although its pretty obvious that despite wikipedia's promotion of current fringe title it still fails google books=2 scholar=14 in competition with title like "August War" google books=13 scholar=146 or "Russo-Georgian War" google books=6 scholar=59. Just moving article away from current fringe title is horrible pain, because there is always notable bunch of editors that will rush to its defence and accept no alternatives.--Staberinde (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should actually try and get new arguments, before moving for a request. The "Google Said So" Argument is getting old. Not a single war was named after Google Hits, and Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming. We can only follow it, like we did in this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming."

That's exactly what I have argued ever since I joined this title dispute here, because this is what wikipedia is currently doing by using title that is clearly used only relatively small minority of reliable sources, while there are clearly several more popular titles in use. Google books and Google scholar are just most easily avaible methods for evaluating usage of title in large number of sources easily. If you have better alternative method for evaluating which title is most widely used in reliable sources, then please explain it to us.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, Google Books and Google Scholar are not the most easily available methods of evaluating usage, as, believe it or not, but some books, especially military books that name wars, aren't published on Google Books and/or Google Scholar!

Second, searching for 2008 South Ossetia War is incorrect, as others can simply call it Third S. Ossetian War, and still be correct about the naming. As thus, the proper Google Search is Ossetia War. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000 for Ossetia War. One million Google Hits. That's quite popular to me. Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 6,550. Google Books: Books 1 - 10 of 926 on Ossetia War.

Third, I have already explained this multiple times, see all the links above, but here's the summary: wars are either named after the location where most of the battles took place, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, First Chechen War, Dagestan War, Second Chechen War, or in the agressor-defender format. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, obviously Google Books and Google Scholar are not 100% ideal. Best solution would be gathering all reliable English language sources together, and then let a committee of neutral professional encyclopedians to evaluate them. Unfortunately that is not a realistic option. Also you failed to propose better alternative for evaluating usage of titles in large number of reliable sources.

Second, "Ossetia war", google books=2 scholar=18 is only marginally better than "South Ossetia war". "2008" and "August" are included in search because there is also 1991–1992 South Ossetia War. Also we need to search for source using exactly term "South Ossetia War" not for source that includes words "war", "ossetia" and "south", because it is useless as these words may all appear on separate pages.

Third, these are all statements of anonymous wikipedia editor, you need to provide a "reliable source" that backs up your claims about war naming, especially that claim about "agressor-defender format" (I have been asking a source to that for months). Obviously original research by wikipedians does not count as reliable source.--Staberinde (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You have? I think I posted this link multiple times, don't know how you missed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars. You take a look at the war titles, and who the attacker was and who the defender was. We already agreed that 2+2=4 isn't original research, nor is 2+2*2=6 original research. You look at war titles, you look at who the agressor/defender was. It's so simple that Geico...errr a caveman can do it! And the reason that I didn't give it much attention, is because it's mostly irrelevant, as after World War II, most wars are named after the location. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon a further inspection of the wars, I have found that out of the wars on that list, since World War II, as we are living in 2009 and that's past 1945, 135 out of 176 Wars are named after location. The ones that aren't, are famed exceptions, such as the Israeli-Arab Wars, the War on Terrorism, India and Pakistan going at it, retarded names like Shifta War, Sand War, Dirty War, Clean War (sorry had to make that joke), names after predominant insurgencies, names of operations, there's also the Football War, War of Attrition, and The Troubles. These inapplicable names account for 29/41 wars. Furthermore, if one looks at the historiography of naming conflicts taking place in post-USSR space one will find that all wars are named exclusively after location. Nagono-Karabakh War, War in South Ossetia, War in Transnistria, War in Abkhazia, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Ingushetia Civil War, 2008 South Ossetia War. Additionally, if one was to look at Yugoslavia, that experienced rabid nationalism and an economic fallout, errr Free Speech and Democracy, you will find the same pattern: Slovenian War, Croatian War of Independence, War in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo War, Insurgency in Presovo Valley. Anyways, my evidence is overwhelming. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CIRCULAR.--Staberinde (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be such a big issue (Frankly, I'm dumbfounded, but alright), let me be naive and ask: would it be agreeable to add a short section "Terminology" similar to the one given at Vietnam_War#Terminology? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, adding a Terminology/Etymology section and creating a new article on the etymology of the war, like Vietnam_War#Terminology and Etymology of the Vietnam War, sounds good to me, and is certainly much better than going through another huge article move discussion that'll likely end after fervent debate with no consensus. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde, there's a whole section dedicate just to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Staberinde_gets_busted_using_the_.22Kamikaze.22_Tactic. Enjoy :D Seb and Laurina, while I admire your constructive edits, I really don't think the naming/renaming is a huge issue. If it becomes an issue, than I concur with you guys, that an etymology section would be the best way to go :D. And thank you both for your constructive contributions! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so big issue, that's why I actually said that I don't think that its time for new page move request yet, as too little time has passed from previous one. But unless usage of "South Ossetia war" starts dramatically rising in reliable sources in near future, I would say that new move request is pretty much inevitable, no matter who starts it, as keeping such article under relatively rarely used title is pretty ridiculous.--Staberinde (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest dare to offer you one more possible name for this article: The "5 day's war" - its short, neutral and do not hurt intersts of any participants of the actions.--Yegor (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

CASUALTIES !!!!

SOURCE: [1]

Please fix it !

Moving Over from my Talkpage - naval stuff

Do you know who had inserted this ridiculous text? Offliner (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the comment (though likely incorrectly inserted) is germane. Anybody/source asserting a naval blockade by the Russians of Georgia during the August 2008 conflict should cite some source facts rather than merely making an assertion. If we only go with the rule that you merely have to cite a source, any number of insertions into the overall article should be considered valid and not removed. However, I believe that the purpose of the Wiki process is to ferret out the "truth". To do so we need facts and not undocumented assertions. An article in an apparently reputable publication which reflects the author's opinion is only that, the author's opinion - unless some provable facts are cited.Moryak (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was incorrectly inserted. If one questions a source, it should be done by providing a counterpoint, or questioning the original source, not by writing "THIS QUOTE IS INCORRECT". One has the "Dubious-Discuss" and the "Citation Needed" tags for this purpose. Prior to attaching such tags, one must make an argument on the discussion page. On the other hand, it looked to me like an honest mistake, so I'm not going to go after the culprit. We all make mistakes, and what I've let slide in the past, is much more egregious, than the newbie mistake presented above.

Now unto the problem: Fedorov stated that the map is incorrect because it includes the Russian Blockade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg However, the way the map portrays the Russian Blockade, is that the blockade doesn't extend all the way to Batumi. A proper naval blockade covers the entire country. What the map presents, is a partial naval blockade.

The IP presented evidence, which is most likely questionable, that on August 9, At 16:40, Russian navy blocked Moldovan ship “Lotus-1,” carrying wheat, from entering the Poti port" and "August 11, At 20:25, Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia was notified that Russian Black Sea Fleet prevented cargo ships “Castor” and “Asha” from entering the Poti port. This, if true, certainly signifies the Naval Blockade of Poti; nevertheless, there are no sources confirming the Naval Blockade of Batumi that I could find. The Report of Xinhua states: MOSCOW, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) -- Russian warships had arrived at Georgian Black Sea coast to prevent weapons from landing by sea, Interfax news agency quoted a Russian navy source as saying Sunday. "The crews were assigned the task to not allow arms and military hardware supplies to reach Georgia by sea," the source told Interfax. The Black Sea Fleet comprises missile cruiser Moskva, patrol boat Smetlivy, three large amphibious ships and logistics ships, the source said. Meanwhile, the Abkhaz law enforcement agencies confirmed that several Georgian warships attempted on Saturday to approach the coast of Abkhazia. But the attempts were curbed by ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet."

In other words, we have a possible blockade of Poti, and no blockade of Batumi. As such, I believe that we should clarify, on the map if necessary, and definitely in the text, that no Russian Naval Blockade of Batumi existed, and as such, no Russian Naval Blockade of Georgia existed. At best, there is a partial Russian Naval Blockade. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most sources don't go into detail about the blockade and don't give more info other than that it existed.

1. The Russian Black Sea Fleet left Sevastopol on the evening of August 8 and established a de-facto sea blockade of the Georgian coast. [2]
2. The Black Sea Fleet, among the most combat capable in the Russian Navy, was used to blockade the Georgian coastline. [3] Offliner (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Федоров or Moryak, any counter-arguments? 68.164.150.133 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there was a vessel on the 24th of August that docked in Batumi. Aside from that, I don't see any issues here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some rejoiners.

- Units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet were observed leaving Sevastopol. However, that in and of itself does not mean they deployed off the Abkhazian-Georgian coast. The Russian Black Sea Fleet has been known to move ships between Sevastopol and Novorossiysk - closer to Georgia. The armed conflict was ongoing in South Ossetia. It would be prudent for Russia to move naval forces to Novorossiysk. - Reports of the Russian at-sea engagement with possibly one Georgian unidentified sunk generally refer to small ships, not large combatants, and are described to take place off the Abkhazian coast just south of Sukhumi. - As I have noted elsewhere, the stated blockade actions (turning away ships) by the Russian Navy have no source citations and provide no proof. If the "blocked" vessels can be identified why can't the Russian naval ships that allegedly stopped them? - Also, the term "blockade" has a very specific definition in both military usage and in international law. Information cited does not match that definition. - I view as insufficient the mere assertion of an alleged action. If this were an acceptable approach than any single unproved assertion published by an established newspaper or made by an established media outlet should be accepted as fact. We all know where such uncritical acceptance leads. Федоров (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet, even Russian media has reported, that they have entered "one Abkhaz port" and even sank Georgian vessel: http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/10/sank/ (in Russian)

According to Georgian officials:

• August 9, At 16:40, Russian navy blocked Moldovan ship “Lotus-1,” carrying wheat, from entering the Poti port
• August 11, At 20:25, Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia was notified that Russian Black Sea Fleet prevented cargo ships “Castor” and “Asha” from entering the Poti port

source --136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's your source? Good one! "At 11:00, a Russian motorcade consisting of 30 armored vehicles led by the Commander of the 58th Army General Anatoly Khruliov was destroyed by Georgian armed forces at the northwestern entrance of Tskinvali." Umm - really? So how come most of the people in the destroyed motorcade survived? Isn't a destroyed motorcade supposed to be destroyed, and therefore unable to return back to base? "[August 8th] 05:30 additional column of Russian troops entered Georgia through the Roki Tunnel, passing Java, crossing the Gupta bridge and advancing on the Dzari bypass road. Georgian artillery and military aircraft conducted targeted attacks on the Gupta bridge and the moving Russian column (Georgian aviation has made no operational flights since then). Soon after that, two more columns of Russian troops entered the Roki Tunnel and advanced south by the Geri-Dmenisi road." No operational flights since August 8th? Oh boy. I am not even going to comment on this one. "At 15:00, Georgian forces declared a 3-hour ceasefire to establish a humanitarian corridor. The Russians used the ceasefire to advance towards Tskinvali by the Dzari road and towards Dmenisi by the Geri-Dmenisi road." Humanitarian Corridor, eh? How come most of the civilians who tried to use the humanitarian corridor were shot? Part of Georgia's "Humanitarian" efforts? Not to mention, we aren't going to count IP sources as legitimate. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

1) That's very offtopic here. 2) I wonder what makes the destroyed motorcade "survive"? The fact that Russian government obviously lies bout number of casualties? Destruction of the Khrulev's motorcade is mentioned in very pro-russian, Alexander Kokh's report.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Entering one port" or "sinking one vessel (unnamed)" does not consitute a naval blockade.

It is tragically unfortunate that due to a number of patently false statements made by the Georgian Government in the course of the 2008 August conflict and even since (see previous highly illustrative comment by Historic Warrior) it is extremely difficult blanketly to assume that statements by the Georgian Government are true. Therefore, references to a Russian naval blockade of Georgia - whether those made by the Georgian Government or those that are echoes of the Georgian statements in other publications - cannot be credited as true. Only if there is information of persuasive credibility can a naval blockade be said to have occurred. As noted in previous posts, if the blockaded ships can be named why cannot the Russian Navy ships alledgedly responsible for the blockade?Moryak (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What I think should first and foremost be noted, is that the actions of Russia's Navy have been largely ignored, or relegated to a secondary concern by the authors of this article, and since "all it takes for Propaganda to triumph is for Good Men to do nothing" - Russian Naval Actions are not represented properly in this article. And no one has presented any evidence, let alone legitimate evidence, of a Russian Naval Blockade of Batumi. We have proof of a single ship sunk, and it's either the Tbilisi or the Grigoriy Torelli. However there was a single engagement, with no more then five shots fired by both sides; to call it a battle is laughable. As per the Russian blockade of Poti, one could argue that Russia's Navy was simply supporting Russia's Army in the Battle and subsequent occupation of Poti. Furthermore, Russia could not have blockaded the Abkhaz Ports, simply because Georgia cannot claim blockade of ports that it cannot reach via land. The purpose of a blockade is to prevent resources from reaching the interior of the country, and as such, Georgia cannot claim blockade of Abkhaz ports, as supplies dropped in those ports have no chance of reaching Georgia's interior, as they are controlled by Abkhazia, that was at war with Georgia during this time period.

On the other hand, Offliner's sources are credible, and cannot be ignored. They claim that a blockade existed. However they do not tell us the extent of the blockade. Perhaps a compromise is in order, saying something like "Russia's Black Sea Fleet Blockaded the Georgian Coastline near Poti to aid Russia's Army; however the Russian Blockade did not extend to Batumi. What do you Wikipedians, think? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• HistoricWarrior, which of Offliner's sources do you consider credible and why? Perhaps a reason why Russian naval actions have not been represented properly in this article is because there weren't many and those that occurred were of very short duration and limited spacial extent.Федоров (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Moscow Defense Brief has pretty much been viewed by experts in both, Russia and NATO, and hasn't attracted virtually any criticism. Generally, if a publication stays in the mainstream of the military for as long as MDB has, and hasn't been discredited or properly criticized, it's considered valid. Additionally, no one has disproved anything the MDB said about this war. I don't know enough about the second source to comment on it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• If a publication merely repeats a statement made by an untrustworthy source - in this case the Georgian Government - does it make that statement true or credible? I think not. This is the case with many items used in Wiki entries in general, particularly regarding near current events where there is not extensive reporting. The best that should be said in such instances in the actual article text is: such and such source says "x". Then the reader can form his/her own judgment whether they wish to accept the statement. Insertion of information with a disembodied footnote leaves the impression that what is said is accepted as credible fact.Федоров (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"You know the source is truly independent when it is attacked by both sides" - famed quote by speaker whose name I forgot. The MDB wasn't quoting the Georgian Government. The Georgian Government reported the blockade on August 9th, the MDB reported it on August 8th. I'm wondering, do you have any sources that state that the Russian Navy wasn't blockading the Georgian Coastline? Such as the location of the Russian Navy during August 7th - August 16th? The Russian Navy cannot be in two places at once. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought our issue was credibility not independence. There are more than enough independent voices who don't get it right. In the case of this reporting I believe that when the Ukrainians watched Russian Black Sea Fleet ships leaving Sevastopol they assumed they were heading for Georgia and so reported. I'd have to rummage about to find a Ukrainian report. However, an assumption isn't a fact.Федоров (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is credibility and verifiability, both of which the MDB meets. For instance Felgenhauer's claim of 1,200 tanks is easily disproved by other sources. Do you have any sources that disprove the MDB's claim about the Russian Navy? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just edited the alleged order of battle for the Russian Navy off Georgia/Abkhazia. In my edit I cite a couple of sources which explain where some - the largest - of the ships that left Sevastopol went. It was not to the Georgian/Abkhazian coast but to Novorossiysk and the Russian coast.Федоров (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Statements by "analysts"?

Currently some parts of that section leaves pretty questionable impression. "Mexican TV Journalist" and "economist by training" don't explain sufficiently what makes those persons notable or competent analysts on this topic.--Staberinde (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So what do you propose and what do you think should the principles be for choosing what to include there? Alæxis_¿question? 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, first question could be actually, if this article needs such section at all? If there is general agreement that this section deserves being in main article of war, then I would assume that only analysts who are clearly notable should be included. Maybe those few problematic cases I mentioned are actually somehow exceptionally notable, but currently article definitely fails to demonstrate that.--Staberinde (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility section exists, is because there are still books out there, like the Guns of August, that try to contest the responsibility of the war. The EU Report admitted that it was not the final version. And it didn't want to hear my country's side. So the Responsibility section is vital! The reason for mentioning Raul Fajardo, is because you need a non-European and non-American viewpoint. Here you have a Latin American JOURNALIST who traveled to South Ossetia, and recorded what he saw with an unbiased eye. That is very rare! So this testimony is also vital! Kotlyarov's claim shows that it was possible, even for economists, to figure out who started this war, while the EU Report took a year to figure it out, and the authors of the Guns of August still cannot get it right!Soslanx (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I totally did not suggest removing whole "Responsibility section", I have been talking only about "Statements by analysts" part(which I also used as title on this talk page section), that seems to consists of pretty random list of different statements. I am pretty sure that large number journalists from all over the world have visited area of conflict after war, I still don't see what makes Raul Fajardo exceptionally notable analyst. And I hope that you can come up with better reason for including Kotlyarov, because current "to show that even X can figure it out" could be as well used for including some totally random blogger.--Staberinde (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Analysts are an integral part of the section, because they provide a viewpoint that is non-governmental, nor those of organizations with massive budgets. You don't get to exclude everyone who doesn't have a million or more per their research! And if you don't think Fajardo is notable, perhaps you can find us another, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST, who visited South Ossetia, and isn't from any of the involved countries. And Kotlyarov isn't a blogger, he's an economic expert studying the issue. There's absolutely nothing wrong with his inclusion.--Soslanx (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

For adding independent analysts into such article their notability needs to be established. This article should include only most important about conflict, for example it doesn't include majority of international reactions or protests related to war. For having some random economists or journalists here you need very good reason.--Staberinde (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the choice of statements seems pretty arbitrary to me. I don't know who is Kotlyarov, however the point he made is valid imho, and is also made by other analysts. This is a quote from an article by International Relations and Security Network news and analysis section:

“ On the Georgian side, the escalation of the conflict can be traced to two major issues. First, in the last year or so, Saakashvili has been under intensifying pressure from within Georgia to deliver on the socio-political and economic reforms promised by the Rose Revolution. To this end, he has attempted to divert attention and boost his ratings through nationalistic rhetoric and actions. An all-out invasion of South Ossetia could be placed within that context. ”

It could easily replace Kotlyarov's words in the article.

However I'm not ready to present a set of general principles as to what should we include in this section and so I'm willing to read others' opinions. Alæxis_¿question? 21:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

First you said you didn’t want to talk about International Relations, now you do? Can you just clarify your argument please? Because that’s a whole other section.

Uninvolved Latin American JOURNALIST, taking testimony of the people in South Ossetia seems damn notable to me, and a damn good reason to include it. As for Kotlyarov, I honestly don’t see why you don’t like him. He is a very notable economist. It is important for the reader to know what Russian economists think about the war, especially those who study my region.--Soslanx (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Alaexis, that link doesn't seem to show any specific article ;). Now Soslanx, I simply used International Relations as an example to demonstrate that not everything ever said about this war gets included here in this article, but only the most important information. Anyway I still don't see what makes that journalist particularly notable, unless he is like only journalist who has visited the area (which I doubt), or is exceptional some other way. About Kotlyarov, I don't have any dislike about him, I practically don't even know anything about him, for all practical purposes he may be totally nice and intelligent person. But my(or yours) personal opinion about him doesn't establish his notability as analyst of this war. Btw, typing "journalist" in full capital letters doesn't make your comments any easier to read.--Staberinde (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx, link corrected. Alæxis_¿question? 08:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, I support adding those Kotchikian's conculsions there.--Staberinde (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The notability of these journalists is very questionable. Fajardo, for example, is still trying to push the genocide theory, which doesn't seem adequate at present. We should try to decrease the number of dubious quotes in the article. Kouber (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since you aren’t getting my arguments, I will phrase it as clear as I can:

1. Raul Fajardo is:

An Independent

Journalist

From a neutral country

That is not part of the EU, NATO, CIS, SCO

Who visited South Ossetia

And made neutral observations about the country

Ten people out of billions, is very unique. Can you find at least ten people like Fajardo, i.e. that meet all of the above criteria, to prove that he is not unique to our article?

2. Ivan Kotlyarov:

Find out something about the guy that you are trying to remove. Ignorance never helps in editing Wikipedia. He is a notable economist, who wrote about the war, because he focused on my region. How notable do they have to be for you? Do they have to win the Noble Peace Prize?--Soslanx (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Check yandex search results or google for Kotlyarov. It looks like he's hardly notable. Besides, almost the same point is made in the article I've found. Alæxis_¿question? 20:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

SoslaxSoslanx, in wikipedia notability is established through reliable sources. I agree with Alæxis, there isn't much that would indicate Kotlyarov's notability as analyst. Also you can't invent some personal criteria and decide by it if someone is notable. Fajardo probably would qualify if we had section "statements by journalists", but currently among "analysts" he seems to be clearly problematic, especially considering how strong claims he makes.--Staberinde (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde, my name is Soslanx, not "Soslax". Alaexis, if you read the statements by analysts you will notice that most have fancy resources. It's refreshing to have someone who is acting on his own initiative, analyzing. Plus, as your source verified, his comment is verifiable. The criteria is verifiability, and Kotlyarov meets that. Staberinde, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Additionally NPOV is encouraged. Fajardo is perfect for NPOV. This is a person who visited my country, and wrote about it. He had no bias before going. He doesn't serve any interests. Georgia named the action "Operation Clear Field". Do you know what clear field means? Would you call a field clear if it had people? I am not inventing any criteria. First "Soslax", now you are charging me with inventing criteria? Please stop the Ad Hominems. What does an analyst do? He analyzes. So according to you, a journalist cannot analyze? A journalist cannot publish analysis? Funny how you accuse me of inventing my own criteria, and try to come up with your own, such as arguing that a journalist cannot analyze? The definition of analyst? It's someone who analyzes!

You asked me how Fajardo was unique. I gave you the criteria that made him unique. You turn around and accuse me of "making my own criteria"? Fajardo is verifiable. He is NPOV. That's all it takes to get him into the article. And his claim has been verified by the title "Operation Clear Field", i.e. a field with no people on it. Or are you arguing that a clear field can have people on it? A journalist can be an analyst; in fact most journalists are required to analyze and to have analytical skills. Kotlyarov is also verifiable, not only as a source, but also via other sources, as has been posted by Alaexis. From your links Staberinde: Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. Is Alaexis' source not reliable? If not, what's wrong with Kotlyarov? Why are you establishing your own criteria of notability, whilst accusing me of inventing a criteria of my own? The main principle for inclusion is verifiability, and both have been verified. How are they not reliable? You linked to a page, I read it, read some other Wiki rules, and I don't see your argument. It's not clear enough. Can you specify what you mean? And please, call me Soslanx. Thank you in advance.--Soslanx (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I think that all the useful info from this section could be incorporated elsewhere, particularly to 'Background' section (though I don't have time and will to do this myself). If you think otherwise, could you formulate the criteria for inclusion of analysts and their opinions? Alæxis_¿question? 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I apologize for misspelling your name, it was not intentional, and I have corrected it in my previous comment. Anyway I think that Alæxis makes good point, there is no good way to determine proper criteria for individual analysts, and in the end it brings only endless arguments about what qualifies as proper analyst like currently with Fajardo, (also I didn't ask what makes him "unique", I asked what makes him "notable analyst") "journalist from uninvolved country who visited area" doesn't convince me, while for you it seems to be sufficient.--Staberinde (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde, thank you very humbly for fixing the typo. Just because two people cannot agree on a criteria, does not mean that it should not exist. Otherwise all Wikipedia articles that are controversial would be blank. The analyst section exists for a reason and I think it is a damn good reason. A lot of people could not agree on the title, does that mean that the article should be without a title? We will rarely agree what is proper to include. I firmly believe that a journalist who visited the country on his own accord, is not sponsored by anyone and analyzes the actual news, is crucial to include. You clearly disagree, instead preferring to have quotes from fancy organizations. According to you someone who has no millions behind him is not notable. I disagree with that. Just because my country cannot hire a fancy legal team does not mean our views should be excluded. You are ok with including the EU analysis, but not ok with including an actual journalist analyzing the news without an agenda? --Soslanx (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Who says that Fajardo has no agenda? We don't know practically anything about him except being some Mexican journalist. I would note that source which is used for including him www.georgiatimes.info doesn't look as particularly reliable source but more like some imposter of Georgian Times, and that would be already sufficient grounds for removing his statement on its own. Also I don't understand why you brought up EU analysis as mistreatment of your country, considering that it confirmed Georgia starting the war. Also all combatants positions are already represented in article.--Staberinde (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you have a journalist from the neutral country of Mexico visiting South Ossetia and reporting. What agenda do you see there? When you ask “who says that Fajardo has no agenda” without providing any sources, you sir are doing original research. As for the websites being used, how about RIA News? http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090811/155785964.html Or Moscow Top News? http://www.moscowtopnews.com/?area=listByTag&id=31 Or any of the other 422,000 Google Hits for Raul Fajardo Georgia? Like this interview transcript? http://armoredd.com/home/archives/2511 Is it so hard to do a simple Google search before bashing Fajardo? And even if not all of them are about Fajardo, he is still a significant voice..

Everyone confirmed that Georgia started the war. There is satellite data, that cannot be altered, showing columns of Georgian tanks heading to Ossetia. The war took place on my soil, in Tskhinval. How did the Georgians get there? The reason I brought the EU Report being anti Ossetian is because they did not use a single Ossetian source, in a war where the majority of the civilian casualties were my people. Our views at the very least must be examined and not just through Russia’s eyes.

I disagree. The movement of troops itself does not represent an act of war. Also, it's not true that the EU Report is not using Ossetian sources - actually it does, look at the 3rd volume (pages 495 - 526). Finally, it is questionable whether the majority of civilian casualties were among "your" people, or not. And that certainly is not a criteria for choosing one source over another. Kouber (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Combatant positions are not NPOV views now are they? Why are you so against Fajardo’s NPOV? Also, please note that while Fajardo states that:

I am confident that if it had not been for Russia and the courage of the Ossetian soldiers who defended their homeland, mankind would have regretted today the genocide of the Ossetian people, the irretrievable loss of the people with a unique history, traditions and culture

some of the newspapers interpret his quote “proof of genocide in Georgia”. We are not placing that interpretation but merely Fajardo’s NPOV quote. Your lack of knowledge about Fajardo is not an excuse to remove him. And before you continue please look at WP:OR. Thank you in advance.--Soslanx (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So if Russia moved its troops to Guantanamo Bay, it would be ok with you Kouber? It is just moving troops. Look at my page, see where I am from. It is called Tskhinval. The Ossetians are my people, and there is no need for you to be insulting about it and place it in quotes. Also – when you say that “moving troops is not an act of war” – is that not original research? Which sources say that moving troops in not an act of war? According to BBC and Other Points of View, the EU Report Volume I is the actual Report. If you were to further read the EU Report Volume I, you would note that the EU Report admits that only Volume I is authoritative. You are citing Volume III. I was referring to the actual Report, Volume I. If you can find Ossetian sources in Volume I that would be great Kouber.

Which source are we choosing over Fajardo? We are not choosing one source over another. Wikipedia is not a race to get your sources in and eliminate the sources of the opposition. This is not a “Zero Sum Game”. Nor am I choosing criteria on who to include based on casualties. Once again, Fajardo is an independent journalist from a neutral country who visited my country and wrote about it. What is wrong with including him? You and Staberinde both ignore the major issue and focus on the minor points. I believe in your language it is called “nitpicking”.--Soslanx (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay is not in Russia, nor Russia has an agreement to deploy its troops there. South Ossetia, however, is part of Georgia, hence the movement itself of Georgian troops inside Georgia is not an act of war. And that's not my original research. The same rule applies for the movement and concentration of Russian troops in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. Also, since the name Tskhinvali is Georgian, the nominative case should be applied - Tskhinvali (not Tskhinval). As to the report, generally there are no sources in Volume I, that's why it is authoritative - it represents the conclusions of the Mission, based on the documents and sources presented in detail in the other two volumes (incl. Ossetian and Abkhazian ones), and based on the meetings it held (incl. in Tskhinvali and Sukhumi). Kouber (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ's sake. Kouber is ready to plunge into his de-jure vs. de-facto recognition argument. Again. Maybe we should continue this discussion of ours, then? You have failed there to provide a proof, that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia, and now you're making here this assertion too? "That's not my original research", yeah right. Sorry, Kouber, but whatever you believe about what constitutes an act of war, it is completely irrelevant to the question about including a source. You might also care to explain, what can be the point of you elaborately calling the Ossetian city Tskhinval with a Georgian name "Tskhinvali" in this discussion, and claiming that this is the proper name? This sentence is widely employed by radically minded Georgians to provoke Ossetians, by asserting that Tskhinval belongs to Georgia - the fact you can't be unaware of. Please, remember, Kouber, that Wikipedia is not a place for claiming ownership over cities and ethnic disputes. ETST (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that the act of war and the name of the city both are irrelevant to the topic, but it wasn't me that raised these questions. I really wasn't aware that commenting a name of a city can insult Ossetians, and that wasn't my intention. However, besides a purely Georgian name, Tskhinvali is also the name used in English.

Also, I am not Georgian, so I am not trying to push any ethnic dispute, nor to claim city ownership. The origin of the name, however, is undisputed.

As to our previous discussion, I wasn't aware that I had to prove something that's a geographical fact (according to 189 UN members states). Anyhow, we are risking to fall again in an irrelevant discussion, because of our different points of view, which would be counter-productive in the current situation. Kouber (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kouber, last time I pointed out that you are ignoring the major issue. You have graced our encyclopedia with three replies, none of which are relevant to what is being discussed. If you want to discuss something else, please start a new section. Nothing that you mentioned here is relevant to either Fajardo or the analyst section. If you are not here to provoke, please argue on topic, or start a new section. --Soslanx (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Statements by politicians and analysts removed

I have boldly cut the massive "responsibility" section down. Some of you may oppose this, but I really think we have to do something. I believe the easiest solution is to just remove the statements by analysts and politicians (since it's difficult to come up with an objective criteria for which statements should be included and which not.) Everything is still available at Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war however. Offliner (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that overdue move. That section had been much too big for a long time. --Xeeron (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that it was very good move.--Staberinde (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

+1 Kouber (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)