Jump to content

Talk:South Ossetia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chimel31 (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 29 September 2022 (→Incorrect and poorly visible map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:WP1.0

Map of bases

LeontinaVarlamonva, Per WP:OTHERCONTENT the existence of other unsourced content is not a good argument for restoring unsourced information. If you see something that has no source please tag it with {{citation needed}} tag and remove it if no sources are found. Note that I'm sure there are Russian bases in SO and my problem with this map is the lack of sources. Alaexis¿question? 11:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That page you send me to says other content can't be used "solely" as reason for some action but can be weighed as part of argument. your argument was that map was not sourced, but you left other maps that don't bother you intact, and that is problematic to me because it holds different contributors/contributions to different standards based on what I think are varied preferences. I don't care for or against this map, but worried about how content is selected for removal--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, LeontinaVarlamonva I re-added the map with a source. There is much more information in the source than simply military infrastructure. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the source. It appears that it's a personal site of Jelger Groeneveld (there is no About section and his name appears at the bottom). Per WP:RSSELF "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I googled his name and found his articles for Georgian sites such as civil.ge and gip.ge. According to the latter, he's a "Board member International Security & Defense division, D66 liberal democratic party." [1] I wouldn't say that this makes him "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" which makes using his site problematic.
There are plenty of reliable sources discussing this, for example Helena Rytövuori-Apunen writes about Russian bases in SO and Abkhazia in Power and Conflict in Russia’s Borderlands: The Post-Soviet Geopolitics of Dispute Resolution, pp 59-60. This a well-researched topic and there is no need to use questionable sources. The article 4th Guards Military Base contains some information as well. Alaexis¿question? 20:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I've placed the map in question above.) I reverted the map with source, as the source cited seemed to have everything but military infrastructure. I found military infrastructure on a different page on that site, here, but it also doesn't align with the map in question. It notes two main military bases, the 4th military base mentioned by Alaexis, as well as one in Java/Dzau. On the map, it has in addition the "Avnevni military camp", and two "shooting range"s, one in Bazuani and one in Dzartsemi, but the text doesn't explain what these are and whether they count as bases. Also on the map is the "Nogkau military infrastructure", which is labelled a military base in one of the images. There are also a "Kvaisi military compound" mentioned in an image, but it apparently was not important enough to go on the map, and/or was considered by the author as part of the border guard station. The Georgian Foundation For Strategic and International Studies classifies the Tskhinvali and the Java bases as a single 4th miltary base (similar to how the Wikipedia article on the base currently does). It seems highly unlikely Russia has set up 24 military bases in South Ossetia. CMD (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can call it "border guard station" or "green men with flowers" but on the ground these are military bases, walled and controlled by military personnel, and most of them are not only 1 building but complex of buildings and barracks. Chipmunkdavis "the source cited seemed to have everything but military infrastructure" is a false claim. I am not counting labels for Russian military infrastructure but real bases on the ground, so Java Base and Tskhinvali Base are two military bases - not one, the first is in Tskhinvali and the second few km away in Java.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 08:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There website you cite, for which I specifically provided the more relevant page above, does not support your claim that border guard stations are military bases. I have further not seen any source describe border guard stations, or green men with flowers, as military bases. If you have such sources, they would be useful, as the map should be based on what reliable sources say. CMD (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since there is such return, I will rework the map, no problem. I won't mind extra-work, just not to let to hide from the reader how big is Russian Military presence there. I think the term "Russian Military Facilities" for general name is acceptable and this will include everything i.e. FSB Bases, 4th Military Base, Depots, Ranges. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This map really doesn't tell the reader much about the size of the Russian military presence, so if that's the aim it's not going to work. In terms of numbers, that's best conveyed through text or a list as the GFSIS does. In terms of spread, it's more reasonable to assume the Russian military operates throughout most of South Ossetia rather than in siloed bases. On the specific map, any map treating border posts and full on military bases as the same thing is not going to be much use to anyone. It would still be useful to get more sources on the matter. I note this sputnik article from 2015 says the size of the military presence is around 4,000 people, which is around 1000 less than the occupied website but a similar ballpark (probably similarly reliable though). It notes Dzartsemi as significant alongside the Tskhinvali and Java sites, and one airbase. CMD (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty amazed that with such expert levels here, leading EUMM and Amnesty report sources (f.e. "Georgia: Behind barbed wire: Human rights toll of “borderization” in Georgia") haven't been found to corroborate and cross-verify the number of compounds (the politically correct word here) represented in sites or self made maps. It is obvious public military sources cannot be found on the matter, apart from a few press photos of the 4th military base, and training grounds. No need to point that out. Any site mentioned in the discussion has corroborated, sourced and referenced data to draw a very reliable picture, that each and everyone can independently verify - the core of wiki. The fact that that is a discussion says more about the motives than the actual content, regardless the strict interpretation of sourced material and whether that could qualify for wiki standards. That being said, some justified points have been made along the way. Java and Tskhinvali compounds indeed belong to the same 4th Military Base, just two different locations, but organization wise they are one and the same "base" (with 2 sites so you will), which validates 2 icons on a map due to the size of both sites - irregardless of the exact choice of words for the accompanying legend. As for the so called border guard stations, the mentioned Amnesty report calls them "militarized border guard bases" - quite a hybrid! Anyone with a proper level of expertise knows what they are, but as the discussion proves, it is hard to find the proper references for that, which is quite obvious due to the natur of what these structures are. So there. I leave it in the middle what the conclusion here should be. I can see others have more expertise. tagging contributors LeontinaVarlamonva Giorgi Balakhadze for attention. Mail me if you want to know more. --Labrang (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Labrang, are you personally affiliated with the site https://occupied.eastwatch.eu/? Alaexis¿question? 06:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that https://occupied.eastwatch.eu/ is not a reliable source. If you think otherwise and plan to use it, let's raise it at WP:RSN. Alaexis¿question? 11:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis I've noticed your last edits & comment on Russo-Georgian War (diff). Again, I will underline that these maps have quite enough reliable sources and they are not "poorly sourced". Also, even in that article (like in many other places in wiki) there are much worse sourced maps (e.g. File:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg) that remain untouched. So, if it is not ulterior-motive or bias please let's be constructive. I agree to update the maps to better represent source data and fix terminology, but there is nothing more to carp.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 23:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I'm replacing them with other images related to the presence of Russian forces in Abkhazia so I'm not trying to hide it. The only source that has been provided for the map contents is the https://occupied.eastwatch.eu/ site which is not a reliable source (we can raise it at WP:RS if you want). I have no problem with a map as long as it's built using reliable sources and there is no OR. Alaexis¿question? 05:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most maps used on wiki, are only sourced with {{own work}} and that's it. And there are no questions. So, my maps with the source "occupied.eastwatch.eu" are acceptable, bearing in mind that the website provides sourced info, not just owner's imagination. Also, since this is a very specific topic you can't find many sources directly providing coordinates for Russian Bases in Georgia but there are many many news agencies that report these bases in respective settlements and I think it is nonsense to provide separate source for each base. OpenStreetMap, Satellite Images, occupied.eastwatch.eu, News all prove existence of all these bases.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 07:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other maps are irrelevant. If you think that something is not accurate you can suggest removing or changing it. I don't agree that it's an obscure topic, I've already provided examples of scholarly sources dealing with it. OpenStreetMap, being a collaborative project like Wikipedia, is certainly not a reliable source (WP:UGC). occupied.eastwatch.eu is a self-published sources whose author is not "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" so it's also not reliable per WP:RSSELF. Alaexis¿question? 08:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about News Agencies reports? Satellite Images? Photos? They have their power right? (In combination all of these have power). But, instead being truly neutral and accepting the facts (Russian Bases in Georgia) that exist like so for years, you do your best to undermine my works isn't it? I am sure, you won't agree with me until I go to Abkhazia or Tskhinvali, meet Russian Occupational Forces, their Generals and publish their live interview pointing to all these bases and accepting their existence.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"If you think that something is not accurate you can suggest removing or changing it." - if one agrees to you, half of all Wiki maps and data are not accurate and deserve removal. But they don't.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example in Abkhazia article, this "Embassy photo" File:Embassy of Russia in Sukhumi.jpg - "poorly sourced" (I just see some flickr user calling it embassy). This "abkhazians photo" File:Apsua Holding Apsny Flag.jpg - "poorly sourced" (user Apsuwara calls them abkhazians, I don't agree, they can be Russians in Voronezh), this "border photo" File:Российско-абхазская граница.jpg - "poorly sourced" (user DILIN calls it border on psou, but I think it can be a movie decoration), this "agepsta photo" File:Agepsta.jpg - "poorly sourced" (user Sergei Kazantsev calls it Agepsta, but it can be Dombay-Ulgen or maybe K2?)--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 10:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LeontinaVarlamonva was right, you left other maps that don't bother you intact, and that is problematic... it holds different contributors/contributions to different standards based on... varied preferences.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 10:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely notice double standard here, holding different content to different standards, in particular anything that is not favorable to Kremlin line of thinking. I already see this on a different page (Talk:Russo-Georgian War) where there is also effort to "clean up" things that Kremlin would not like, usually very particular things that did not bother anyone for years. Crusade against this one map seems to be a similar, that's my personal observation.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If you believe that it's not the Russian embassy or not Agepsta range you can do the same thing that I have done: tag them, give other editors a chance to verify sourcing and/or replace images and remove if nothing helps. Alaexis¿question? 13:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis this is not WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I just showed you that according to your "words" half of the wiki images and works do not fit. And just because one user thinks so, others will not remove half of wiki graphic sources. You are using this strictest approach only to justify removing the map.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 05:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Wikipedia's images are actually fine. Even looking at your examples, sure, there source provided for commons:File:Embassy_of_Russia_in_Sukhumi.jpg is just a user claiming that this is the embassy, but in fact if you go the embassy's site you can easily see that it's indeed the old embassy building ([2]). On the other hand, in this case there is no reliable source for the presence of all these bases (other than the well attested ones in Java and Tskhinvali). Saying that there are other bad maps out there *is* the otherstuff argument. Alaexis¿question? 13:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis yes there is a reliable source (with tons of linked textual and graphic sources supporting it), just because it is against your agenda doesn't make it unreliable. As I said, I am updating the maps in accordance to 2021 data, and if you go to their locationsclearly soldats don't have website, you can easily see that they are indeed the Russian Military/FSB/GRU bases. I just argue in advance so that you get used to this fact. Btw, even looking at my examples, there was not only embassy example, so rest of them are "poorly sourced"? I can continue, this "Pitsunda photo" File:Pitsunda.JPG - "poorly sourced" (user Антон Буслов calls it Pitsunda but it can be Kobuleti or any other seaside place), this "view from pitsunda" File:Ridge view from pitsunda cape.jpg - "poorly sourced" (author Olga Kozina calls it 'view from pitsunda cape' but it can be any place in Canada or somewhere else.) --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 15:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained that it's a self-published source and thus not a reliable one, but feel free to request feedback at WP:RS. Alaexis¿question? 18:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit mission on navbar of "country that claims sovereignty over breakaway territories"

Gamarjoba, I have no time actually to engage in any (edit) conflict whatsoever, but can't let this issue pass w/o at least addressing it, and would like to remind the WP:QUO (I am not obsessive about referring to codes of conduct, but might be helpful in this case). As can be seen in the edit history of the page, user Saturdayopen has repeatedly counter-reverted reverts on their edit, which edit has been objected by various others (3 times by now). Saturdayopen defends the edit by referring to this page saying "No other article in this [page] has the topic [navbar] of the country that claims sovereignty over it". As Giorgi Balakhadze rightfully points out, it was Saturdayopen self who has removed such navbars from other pages as well. Noteworthy, Saturdayopen engages in the same counter-reverting as here. See for example Republic of Artsakh (2x counter-reverted). On the substance itself, the topic Navbar is, considering the overwhelming global recognition SO is an inseparable part of Georgia, relevant enough to include and relevant enough to maintain a WP:STATUSQUO on the basis of multiple objections against the edit. Best, --Labrang (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Labrang --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 08:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox in question (Template:Georgia (country) topics) does not currently belong on this page, as this page is not included in the navbox. Navigation templates should meet WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, and it doesn't seem any editors have thought this page worth including on the Georgia (country) topics template so far. If there is consensus here that the navbox helps navigation from this page, the page needs to be added to the template as well. (The same would apply to the other pages mentioned above, although I haven't checked the other templates in question.) CMD (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of South Ossetia

The chosen flag of the breakaway republic is shown alone. This is misleading as only certain countries recognise South Ossetia. As most nations recognise it as part of Georgia, there should be two and not one flags there, one that of the breakaway state and the other, that of Georgia with some explanation of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:64A5:EF00:C580:AF4D:288B:DF31 (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You kind of have a point, but you also kind of don't. The glaring issue that I see here is that Georgia doesn't actually recognise the existence of a "South Ossetia" region, let alone the sovereignty of the self-declared South Ossetian republic. This is distinct from Georgia's position on Abkhazia, wherein Georgia actually recognises the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia", which they consider to roughly correspond to the self-declared Abkhazian republic. So, when it comes to South Ossetia, there's really nothing on the Georgian side to directly compare to the existing self-declared state. Georgia formerly possessed a "South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast", but this political region was disintegrated in the 1990s by the Georgian government. In the present day, Georgia possesses the "Provisional Administration of South Ossetia", which is a temporary designation for the status of South Ossetia after it is returned to Georgian rule; after this point, Georgia will presumably disintegrate the territorial unit once more (unless otherwise indicated). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mutiny of ossetian soldiers in ucraine war

The Foreign Policy reports, that there was a mass mutiny of 300 ossetian soldiers in ucraine and that Bibilow lost his reelection therefore. Restive Caucasus Sees Signs of Discontent with Putin’s War--5glogger (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an interesting discussion is going on Republic of Artsakh talk page about the sensitivity of the terms applied to political entities with limited recognition, wanted to check here:

1) is there a perceived difference between "self-proclaimed" and "breakaway" terms applicable to South Ossetia?

2) is there a prevailing opinion that "self-proclaimed" would be a neutral enough term to use for South Ossetia?

3) is there an appetite for an RfC to allow choosing a unified, more neutral terminology such as "partially recognised state" or a state with limited recognition"?

Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the Abkhazia talk page, the terms "breakaway state" and "self-declared state" have clearly different meanings, even though they are often used interchangeably. Both of these two terms definitely apply to South Ossetia, although there is debate as to whether South Ossetia qualifies as a true state or rather as a quasi-state (i.e. something that is similar to a state but is not quite there yet). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and poorly visible map

The map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#/media/File:Asia_location_South_Ossetia_(with_Georgia_and_Abkhazia).png is way too zoomed out, the dark green spot is entirely invisible, even on a laptop, let alone a phone, although the map is called "Location South Ossetia", which is precisely what it does not show.

And because there are no "light grey" zone visible in Georgia under the whole greyish hash that is over all of Georgia, viewers will think that you meant "hashed grey", and so it looks like South Ossetia (for those who found the dark green spot) is in the same hashed grey zone as Abkhazia, which is terribly confusing and wrong. There is just no way that the viewers can know that the whole hashed grey zone represents all of Georgia, especially since there are over 16 unnamed countries in this picture, Georgia being only about 3% of the whole picture! Or even worse, the viewer will think that the only visible light grey zone is Abkhazia while it is actually Crimea.

I suggest to have Georgia fill out the whole picture dimensions. Maybe add a light background color rather than a hash over the whole of Georgia, and the neighboring country names, or at least Russia's. Adding the capital Tbilisi's location and the only 2 main roads in all of Western Georgia would also help locate occupied South Ossetia, which is just west of the Caucasus mountain road.

I suppose Wikipedia has standards for maps, but the dark blue spots that represent the seas and lakes are actually all that you see in the picture. They pop out so visibly that you'd think they are the highlighted zones for the picture if you don't know the geography for this region (and if you do, you don't need the map). A light blue color for the seas, maybe with a wavy pattern rather than a color as solid as the colors used for land, would make the highlighted land mass zones stand out immediately, especially if they are identified by flashy colors like red.

A bit of work, so I hope there is a standard editable wikipedia world map that can be used to easily highlight and locate this area. The large focus also makes the map obsolete if Crimea and the DPR/LPR self-proclaimed republics and also occupied Russian territories are present, as occupation lines move quickly... Chimel31 (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Ossetia&oldid=1113062009"