Jump to content

Talk:South Ossetia war (1991–1992)

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

Numbers

[edit]

The article says that "23,000 ethnic Georgians fled South Ossetia". This is nonsense. That is about the number of Georgians that lived in South Ossetia before the war. And we know that most stayed.

Also I think it should be mentioned that many Ossetians were driven from Georgia proper during the conflict - despite the fact that there was no fighting where they lived. Roffel (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

This edit lengthened the background out of proportion. Additionally, it introduced several sentences copied word for word from dansk, without proper attribution. Was this copied over from some other article? --Xeeron (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Army, militia, irregulars

[edit]

Looking at the sources, during the conflict, neither side possessed something akin to a modern army. It seems as if the more organised units were akin to militias, while a significant part of actors were even less organised. Quote a lot of the fighting seems to have been done by armed individuals. I suggest not using the word "army" in here, unless refering to the soviet/russian one. --Xeeron (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In December 1990, troops of the Georgian and Russian Interior Ministry (MVD) were dispated to South Ossetia.

[edit]

I haven't found any confirmation for the claim that Russian Interior Ministry Troops were dispatched. Is the source [1] really 100% reliable? It's only a dissertation, not really a professor-level academic work published in a respected journal. Also, what does the dispatchment of Russian troops mean? The source doesn't explain this. Offliner (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch, according [2], is "the act of sending off something". What is unclear about that? They were send to South Ossetia (implying that there were elsewhere before).
It is funny that you critize the DK source and replace it by the crisis group one. Not only is a disseration more scientific than an NGO report (a dissertation is read and evaluated by the supervisor, the NGO report is not), the crisis group source also cites the source you replaced extensively, basing large parts of its treatment of the conflict on it. So what you did is replacing a secondary source with a tertiary one that cites the secondary one. --Xeeron (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what dispatchment means. But what was their goal? Were the Russian troops sent in to fight against the Georgians or what? Also, why is this notable? All of the others sources used in this article do not mention the sending of Russian interior ministry troops at all. Offliner (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ministery of the interior troops were sent to do their job: Keeping order. It is worth remembering (and this aspect is woefully missing from the article here & over at South Ossetia) that the USSR still existed and did not go out of business over night. There tried their best to contain the multitude of conflicts popping up all over their territory. --Xeeron (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source, also reporting about MVD troops. What is described as their task there is exactly what you would expect: Preventing trouble. --Xeeron (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can put it back if you mention this info as well. Offliner (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a third and a forth source mentioning the MVD troops. They shows that the dissertation is not questionable in its assertion, I will add it back. --Xeeron (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is a master's dissertation. That's just.... next thing we'll have blogs quoted as analysis. Oh wait! That already happened. The other source calls them Soviet MVD forces. Wasn't your wording about Moscow sending MVD forces? But if the Soviet MVD forces were there, then how did Moscow send them? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look it up, Moscow was the capital of the Soviet Union, so it makes sense that the captial decides where the troops go. --Xeeron (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear, let me rephrase: if the forces were already in the region, how could Moscow send the forces to the region? Did the Soviets have a time machine? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe I dont understand your question? Time machine? While I am no expert on MVD troops in the late soviet union, it is very likely that they had their bases somewhere in the northern/southern caucasus, but not actually in south ossetia. --Xeeron (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that if the MVD troops were already in South Ossetia before the 1990's, then Russia couldn't send them there in the 1990's! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? They could alway send more. --Xeeron (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But has there been actual proof of MVD troops being sent there? If so, I'd like to see a military order stating that. Mere proof that MVD troops were there is not enough, because they were there already, and didn't have to be sent there to be there, since they already were there. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

understanding civil war

[edit]

Since we are at the topic of sources, I don't like this new source. It seems to be written as a compilation of civil wars, with SO only being one chapter. Furthermore, it contradicts other sources, eg. speaking about the demonstrators "After marching about 120km", were other sources state the more likely use of busses and cars. This source also states that there was "no history of conflict between Tblisi and South Ossetia", which is simply wrong. When conflicting with other sources, I will remove this. --Xeeron (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree about this. The authors of that article, such as Professor Pavel Baev are very respected and known experts. If I have to choose between a dissertation by an unknown young reseracher, and a chapter in a major book written by professors and respected experts, I'd choose the latter. Offliner (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously disagree that the sentence "There was no history of conflict between Tblisi and South Ossetia" is wrong? Have you read Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–1920)? Do you really believe the demonstrators marched 120km? --Xeeron (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably they meant that there was no conflict between Tbilisi and South Ossetia in recent times. Offliner (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet troops

[edit]

Can you please explain this a bit more? The book I used is a very reliable source. Exactly which sources contradict this? Offliner (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, see my above doubts about the civilwar source. Second, these events (soviet troops fighting against Georgians from the start of the war) are dubious:
That makes 3 credible sources that contradict civilwar, while no other source I saw backs it up. Add that to the obvious mistakes in civilwar and you have the reason for my removal. --Xeeron (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Why is this version better? My version summarizes more things than this, such as the declaration of South Ossetian independence and events of the war (multiple offensives by Georgia that were repelled). Offliner (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summary. --Xeeron (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argumentation is wrong. My version doesn't say the war started out of nowhere, it says it started as a result of South Ossetia's declaration of indepence and the Georgian attack. Remember, that this article is about the war which started on 5 January, and concentrates on that. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article's contents (including the infobox contents), so the start date of war should be mentioned there. Offliner (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that. The declaration of independance is also in the other version, while repeating exact dates is not needed for a summary. Finally, this article, like other war articles also includes a background section, so it does not exclude events before january 5. --Xeeron (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which background info do you want to summarize in the lead then? Offliner (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the old version had the right approach there: Mentioning the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, providing a link for those who want to know more, while not getting bogged down in detail. Wikilinks take up a lot of the summary work. --Xeeron (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the lead should be expanded. Presently it summarizes very little of the article's content. I will write another version later. Offliner (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary / tertiary source

[edit]

I'm not sure if this removal of a good source is a good idea. If you look carefully, the "crisisgroup" source is not quoting "dansk" for this info. It's quoting Julian Birch instead. Offliner (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a good source (without need as the section above shows). I just restored the source. That sentence is taken almost one to one from the dansk source that you removed. --Xeeron (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, you're right about that. Offliner (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taamu

[edit]

Check page 22, where it says: "Others reported that they were not permitted to speak Georgian." --Xeeron (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Others reported that they were not permitted to speak Georgian." Who? This information should be verified. Do you have another reliable source to prove that Georgians were not permitted to speak their language? Wikipedia:V: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Taamu (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that Human Rights Watch is not a credible source? --Xeeron (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Others reported..." is not a credible source. Who? When? Taamu (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HRW reported it in 1992. And unless you try to argue that HRW is not a credible source, that is all that we need. --Xeeron (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking it out of context. Are you going to provide another source or not? If it is true, then you would probably find one more source.
P.S. HRW reported it in 1992. I was asking who were these others. Taamu (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the context of the source: "One Georgian refugee interviewed ... Others reported that they were not permitted to speak Georgian." So others refers to other Georgian refugees interviewed. --Xeeron (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Others reported that they were not permitted to speak Georgian. Olga Gobieva, who is half Russian and half Ossetian.... It is obvious that she is not Georgian. To avoid further conflicts we need another reliable source or remove this fragment locals were forbidden to speak Georgian. Taamu (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a period in between, so others need not refer to Olga Gobieva. Even if "others" does refer to Ossetians as well, where is the difference? They are "locals" as well. --Xeeron (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just your opinion, i.e. POV. Where did you see the word locals? Please provide a source that would say "Georgians were forbidden to speak their language in SO", or "Ossetians were forbidden to speak Georgian language". Taamu (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is just my opinion? That "others" refers to the Georgian refugees? That follows from basic grammar. But since you don't like "locals", I replaced it with "others" just as in the source. --Xeeron (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That follows from basic grammar. What kind of grammar are you talking about? "POV-grammar" is not English grammar. First it was Georgians -> then locals -> now others. Others? Who are these others? This information is not for the encyclopedia. It's for yellow journalism. Taamu (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about. If I say: "Some elephants do fly. Others swim." it is clear who is meant with "others": elephants.
If you want to compare HRW to yellow journalism, bring some proof. HRW's reports are used extensively in 2008 South Ossetia war (and without doubt other articles), it is a respected international NGO and I have yet to hear anyone else questioning it. You complained about me replacing "others" from the source with what grammar suggests is meant by others, so I put in the exact word used in the source. And you still complain. It seems that your problem is not with my rendering of the sentence, but with the fact that the source disagrees with your POV. --Xeeron (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my words slowly. Where did I say HRW? I was talking about your loose interpretations of HRW. First you claim that "others" are ethnic Georgians, then locals. You know, if there were such words as Olga Gobieva an ethnic Georgian... then I would say, probably you're right. But there were only: Others reported that they were not permitted to speak Georgian. Olga Gobieva, who is half Russian and half Ossetian, said: In September, October, and November [1990] there were strikes against having to learn Georgian. You couldn't speak Georgian there anymore. Not a single lesson [in schools] was conducted in Georgian all year. See, no Georgians, no locals. So, please stop this demagogy and please provide another source to prove it. I would really appreciate if you stop taking my words out of context. Taamu (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the source tells us: One side (the Georgians) tried to have everyone learn Georgian, the other side (the Ossetians) had strikes against it. And the other side (the Ossetians) also stopped people (refered to as "others" and "you") from speaking Georgian. The source does not say that it were Georgians (though it is entirely clear from the context that Georgians will have been the main targets), that is why I replaced Georgians with, now, "others", just as the source says. There is a source there, it is a credible source and the statement used in the article is not misrepresenting the source, so there is no base for your demagogy claims. --Xeeron (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be correspondence between the original text (HRW) 1) Others reported that they were not permitted to speak Georgian. Olga Gobieva, who is half Russian and half Ossetian, said: In September, October, and November [1990] there were strikes against having to learn Georgian and your loose interpretations of it 2) the other side (the Ossetians) also stopped people (refered to as "others" and "you") from speaking Georgian. I cannot see it. Please highlight in bold the link between 1) and 2). Taamu (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For you in bold.
  • In the source: Others reported that they were not permitted to speak Georgian.
  • In the article: ... others were forbidden to speak Georgian.
Short of doing an actual quotation, I don't see how you could get any closer to the source. --Xeeron (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still doubtful. Please provide another source. Thanks. Taamu (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any reasons to doubt HRW, other than your own introspection? --Xeeron (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check my comments above. Taamu (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't find any reference that discredits HRW in your above comments. --Xeeron (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to discredit HRW. But in this case (Others reported that they were not permitted to speak Georgian) it is a questionable source: Questionable sources are those... which rely heavily on rumors... Reported... Where? When? Who were these others? If it was reported where is a reference? No reference and "reported" will be "rumour". Others reported that they sighted a UFO. Will it be a reliable source if HRW say it? Probably it will (because it is HRW), but the fact that someone sighted a UFO (in reality) is questionable. Is it clear? Taamu (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HRW's publications are based on its staffers going to conflict regions, taking a look at physical damage, and conducting interviews with the people there. This is also the approach taken by almost any newspaper or other source of news. It is unfortunate that you feel that is not a reliable way of gathering information, but HRW found it reliable enough to include in their report and according to our policy, that is what counts. --Xeeron (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then Wikipedia policy contradicts itself. Taamu (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly killed "South Ossetians"

[edit]

Please follow this link for discussion on this image:[3]Iberieli (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove dispute tag and fact tag until sources and references are attached to the image. Otherwise, it will be removed. Iberieli (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the image is a WP:RS. If you want to dispute its authenticity, you need to provide another WP:RS which supports your view. So far, all we have are your personal suspicions and accusations, which are of no relevance to WP. "Sources and references" are already attached to the image, so the tags are unjustified. Offliner (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attributing the photo to SO sources is more than enough. If there are sources that doubt the authenticity of these photographs please provide them, we'll mention their assertions or remove the image altogether, otherwise it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alæxis¿question? 06:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a slip

[edit]

I agree with the second part of edit summary [4]. No, seriously, stuff like that needs an independent source. I suggest asking for 3O on this.radek (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1991–92 South Ossetia War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1991–1992 South Ossetia War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to South Ossetia war (1991–1992): more consise. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1991–1992 South Ossetia War → War in South Ossetia (1991–1992) – The War in Donbas (2014–2022) and the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) use this format. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Frostly (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Frostly (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative South Ossetia war (1991–1992) While war in South Ossetia is the more common phrase, there is good reason to prefer the more WP:CONCISE version. Regardless, it is better to have the primary search phrase at the start of the title rather than a date disambibuator. A basic ngram search on South Ossetia war capitalises war at about 65%. Noting that ngrams over-report capitalisation (do not distingush expected titlecase usage such as source sitles, headings and capitions) this does not meet the threshold for capitalisation (a substantial majority of sources) per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. see also this ngram and this ngram. While a basic search does not clearly distinguish between this an the latter war, the second of those ngrams in particular would indicate neither war should be capitalised. Please noet that "Avoiding War in South Ossetia" appears to be the title of a work (see Google books here, and is cited in the article). Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative as more concise; just make sure redirects for other phrasing (and capitalization) get there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Ossetia_war_(1991–1992)&oldid=1205265571"