Talk:August Uprising

Hi

So what kind of information are you all looking for when it comes to Russian History?

66.85.43.78 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bela Kun?

Does anyone have access to the French-language source that cites a role by Bela Kun in the suppression of this uprising? He is mentioned nowhere further in this article, nor is his role in this incident noted in the main "Bela Kun" article. So either his role was unimportant, and his name should be removed; or it was important, and should be expanded, both here and in the "Bela Kun" article.

For now, I will assume the former, and remove his name.

Besides, how likely can it be? The Bolsheviks triumphed here, while otherwise Kun has a perfect record for screwing up anything he touched! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doprendek (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

== Rewriting of history ==

This article amounts to gross rewriting of history, characteristic of the nationalist agitation that came with the post-1991 regimes in the Soviet Union. This subject has already been thoroughly analyzed by Russian scholars during the 1970s, most notably in Trifonov's article "The Smashing of the Menshevik-Kulak Revolt in Georgia in 1924" in the Voprosy istorii scholarly journal.

To start, contrary to what this article states, the anti-Soviet revolt in 1924 did not involve large numbers of casualties or even participants, as it lasted for only a few days. Trifonov's scholarly article describes clashes in the town of Ozurgety: "On August 29 the rebels laid siege to the town of Ozurgety. Their detachment, numbering some 200, took the station of Suspa...The rebels plundered cooperatives, requistitioned horses and provisions from the peasants, and drafted the population by force into their detachments."

Concerning repression, the Soviet authorities limited themselves to executing a handful of the ringleaders of the revolt, while permitting the rank-and-file participants to return safely to their homes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifonov's article, which you are copy-pasting here, was authored by a Soviet historian and published in 1977 and is not supposed to be neutral on the issue. The very beginning of the article speaks of itself [1]:

Organized with the assistance of international imperialism and the leaders of the Second International, the Menshevikkulak revolt in Georgia in August and September 1924 was the last major outbreak of armed counterrevolution in the Transcaucasus, a vain attempt to split the Soviet system from within and to tear Georgia from the united fraternal family of peoples of the USSR.

Your "rewrite"—including elimination of any mention of Russian role in the 1921-24 events in Georgia, downplaying the independence of Georgia in the 1918-1921 period and characterization of the 1921 Red Army invasion of Georgia as something occurring at the request of Georgian people—reminds me very much of the modern Russian nationalist agitation and nostalgia about the irretrievably lost past.--Kober^Talk 02:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifonov was a long-time Professor at Leningrad University and wrote an article for a scholarly journal Voprosy istorii specifically on this subject. His work is entirely based on primary sources, including contemporary newspapers, government officials, and even the Mensheviks themselves. He established himself as an authority on the rebellion, as his article is by far the most comprehensive account of what happened. All of the other sources in this article make just very cursory, superficial references to the rebellion, without having done their own original research. Your insistence on excluding this source actually violates NPOV policy. This cannot stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the sources used, for example, what does Amy Knight's biography about Beria have to do specifically with the August 1924 clashes? She did not specifically research the subject the way Trifonov did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained that Trifonov's article can only be used as an example of Soviet propaganda. You cannot copy-paste it here as if it was the only and the most neutral treatment of the subject in question. It is not the source which presents the 1924 events in a neutral manner. A quick look at his terminology and manner of writing is illustrative of this. His Soviet-era credentials proves nothing. Regarding Amy Knight, you will have to prove why this author should go. Beria played a critical role in suppressing the uprising.--Kober^Talk 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Trifonov did not write a political pamphlet, but an academic article for a scholarly journal. So it's not an example of propaganda. He makes many reasonable arguments, such as how the anti-Soviet bandits had scarce popular support, and he cites convincing evidence to support them. Whether Trifonov is neutral or not is not relevant, because all historians have their own points of view, as the whole point of their jobs is to research primary sources and use them to argue about historical events. And every western historian who has written about Russia relies on the secondary works of Russian historians, including scholars trained during the Soviet power, for their information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.4.153 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And you are wrong about Beria. Trifonov states very clearly that the key leaders who extinguished the bandit revolt were G. Ordzhonikidze, M. Tskhakaia, F. Makharadze, and M. Orakhelashvili. Other important figures were E. Kviring. The primary source accounts of these men are the most important sources of information about what actually happened. This makes references to a biography of Beria totally inappropriate, as Knight did not do original research on the August 1924 bandit revolt, but focuses particularly on the life of a single man. Beria was a relatively unimportant figure during the Russian Civil War.

You are just wasting my time. Please refer to WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV to understand how Wikipedia works in such cases.--Kober^Talk 04:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically, you argue that the above source cannot be used because its findings challenge your biases. You insult the distinguished scholar Trifonov as publishing "Soviet propaganda". This is not a valid justification, and the changes will stay. Trifonov was a prominent Russian historian who wrote a comprehensive article about this specific specific topic in Russia's prestigious academic journal Voprosy Istorii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules state:

"All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view". Your insistence on deleting my additions violate this rule. Trifonov's account of the conflict represents a prominent interpretation of the August 1924 anti-Soviet events in Georgia

Wikipedia's rules also state that "academic, peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." Trifonov meets the criteria, as he was a noteworthy Russian historian from Leningrad University. And Voprosy Istorii has long been Russia's leading academic journal for history. With his article about the August 1924 anti-Soviet events, Trifonov established himself as an expert on the topic.

Then Trifonov's account should presented as an example of Soviet version, not an unquestionable truth, something you are insisting on. Moreover, you are vigorously removing other sources presenting opposite and majority point of view. That's not how Wikipedia works. --Kober^Talk 05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires airing all main viewpoints, not saying that Soviet historians are not AI

yeah, I also don't suspect 1924 Bolsheviks of humanism. However, given that this is a little known issue with few scholarly sources, it makes sense to consider Trifonov about as authoritative with his claims of lenient suppression as the competing viewpoint of mass repressions against Georgian upper class. Both claims should be aired, with attribution, rather than trying to push one or the other. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to you dated from 1 May 2011.--Kober^Talk 06:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that English-language and Georgian post-1990 revisionist literature represents a "majority point of view" is false and not verifiable, as a significant number of sources in Russian, Georgian, and other languages support Trifonov's view of the conflict.

Your allegation of sourced material by English-speaking historians like Amy Knight (who did not do original research on this topic) having been removed is false. The version that you reverted actually contains the viewpoints of several observers. By contrast, the version that you support engages in censorship by keeping out the views of Trifonov and other scholars. At the same time, you insist on special rules for citing Trifonov while citing English-speaking historians and post-1990 revisionism as absolute truths.

You have deleted sourced information by Trifonov by invoking the "referenced info" line, which is contradictory. If your allegations about the deletion of sourced information has indeed happened, then the proper thing to do would be to restore them rather than deleting the additions of other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.53.163 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your view of "English-speaking historians" and "Georgian post-1990 revisionist literature" is irrelevant. Allegations of "post-1990 revisionism" betrays your blind adherence to the Bolshevik view of the events. Your version is a verbatim translation of the official Bolshevik version, which cannot be neutral. Again, Communist historians may be cited, but only to illustrate a Soviet POV, not as the Truth.--Kober^Talk 20:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for the sources "in Russian, Georgian, and other languages" that "support Trifonov's view of the conflict". --Kober^Talk 20:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Amy Knight and the other sources cited in this article did not do original research on the conflict, whereas Trifonov did. Your accusations of bias are really strange given your use of the term "Soviet propaganda" as a slur and insult against a leading scholar on this topic. Your insistence on special rules for citing scholars that you disagree with while at the same time citing your favored sources without attribution and as absolute truths shows a double standard. The version I submitted contains various views of the conflict, whereas your version conforms to the post-1990, state-sponsored revisionism of the nationalist regime in Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.53.163 (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"Amy Knight and the other sources cited in this article did not do original research on the conflict"? Please consult WP:SOURCE. "My version" is actually based on multiple sources, published in Georgia, Russia, and the West. Just have a look at the references section. "the post-1990, state-sponsored revisionism of the nationalist regime in Georgia"? Did you take this phrase from one of Putin's recent interviews? I did not know that, say, the British historian D.M. Lang published in the 1960s, was sponsored by the "post-1990 nationalist regime in Georgia". It's simply ridiculous to assume that a Soviet author, whom you falsely illustrate as "a leading scholar on this topic", is the only reliable and NPOV source on the atrocities committed by the Soviet state.--Kober^Talk 21:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Accounts of the revolt:

"[В Грузии в августе 1924 г. кулаки, вдохновляемые агентами империализма — меньшевиками, при финансовой поддержке из-за границы подняли антисоветский мятеж.] - Maksim P. Kim - a prominent historian with Russia's Academy of Sciences.

[В конце августа 1924 г. контрреволюционные элементы, главным -образом меньшевики, спровоцировали антисоветский мятеж в Озургетском и частично Санакском уездах Грузии] - scholarly study about the peasantry in Russia, published by Academy of Sciences.

Also see the work of Georgian scholar Maklava V. Natmeladze authoritative history of Georgian social classes, available in both Georgian and Russian.

You might be kidding. All these sources were published in the Soviet era and represent the Soviet view of the events. An alternative vision of such a sensitive topic could not be published in the Soviet Union. Those who dared to challenge the version (or engage in "nationalist revisionism" according to your and modern Russian censors' vocabulary) were punished. Does that come to a surprise to anyone more or less familiar with the Soviet history? So it appears your are quite ready to discard all authors published from the 1920s to the 2000s in different countries as POV and accept those who all followed the same official Soviet line as NPOV. That's not serious.--Kober^Talk 21:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the sources you cited are by Lang and Knight, who are not experts on the topic. Knight's source is about a biography of Beria, not about the 1924 revolt, while Lang offers a broad overview of Georgian history not specifically about the 1924 revolt. They did not do their own original research on the topic, but instead referred to other secondary sources. Trifonov, by contrast, did his own original research and his account is by far the most detailed, authoritative source found in this article. These facts alone make Trifonov preferabble to the other insufficient sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.53.163 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires airing all main viewpoints, not saying that Soviet historians are not AI

yeah, I also don't suspect 1924 Bolsheviks of humanism. However, given that this is a little known issue with few scholarly sources, it makes sense to consider Trifonov about as authoritative with his claims of lenient suppression as the competing viewpoint of mass repressions against Georgian upper class. Both claims should be aired, with attribution, rather than trying to push one or the other. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to you dated from 1 May 2011.--Kober^Talk 06:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that English-language and Georgian post-1990 revisionist literature represents a "majority point of view" is false and not verifiable, as a significant number of sources in Russian, Georgian, and other languages support Trifonov's view of the conflict.

Your allegation of sourced material by English-speaking historians like Amy Knight (who did not do original research on this topic) having been removed is false. The version that you reverted actually contains the viewpoints of several observers. By contrast, the version that you support engages in censorship by keeping out the views of Trifonov and other scholars. At the same time, you insist on special rules for citing Trifonov while citing English-speaking historians and post-1990 revisionism as absolute truths.

You have deleted sourced information by Trifonov by invoking the "referenced info" line, which is contradictory. If your allegations about the deletion of sourced information has indeed happened, then the proper thing to do would be to restore them rather than deleting the additions of other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.53.163 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your view of "English-speaking historians" and "Georgian post-1990 revisionist literature" is irrelevant. Allegations of "post-1990 revisionism" betrays your blind adherence to the Bolshevik view of the events. Your version is a verbatim translation of the official Bolshevik version, which cannot be neutral. Again, Communist historians may be cited, but only to illustrate a Soviet POV, not as the Truth.--Kober^Talk 20:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for the sources "in Russian, Georgian, and other languages" that "support Trifonov's view of the conflict". --Kober^Talk 20:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Amy Knight and the other sources cited in this article did not do original research on the conflict, whereas Trifonov did. Your accusations of bias are really strange given your use of the term "Soviet propaganda" as a slur and insult against a leading scholar on this topic. Your insistence on special rules for citing scholars that you disagree with while at the same time citing your favored sources without attribution and as absolute truths shows a double standard. The version I submitted contains various views of the conflict, whereas your version conforms to the post-1990, state-sponsored revisionism of the nationalist regime in Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.53.163 (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"Amy Knight and the other sources cited in this article did not do original research on the conflict"? Please consult WP:SOURCE. "My version" is actually based on multiple sources, published in Georgia, Russia, and the West. Just have a look at the references section. "the post-1990, state-sponsored revisionism of the nationalist regime in Georgia"? Did you take this phrase from one of Putin's recent interviews? I did not know that, say, the British historian D.M. Lang published in the 1960s, was sponsored by the "post-1990 nationalist regime in Georgia". It's simply ridiculous to assume that a Soviet author, whom you falsely illustrate as "a leading scholar on this topic", is the only reliable and NPOV source on the atrocities committed by the Soviet state.--Kober^Talk 21:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Accounts of the revolt:

"[В Грузии в августе 1924 г. кулаки, вдохновляемые агентами империализма — меньшевиками, при финансовой поддержке из-за границы подняли антисоветский мятеж.] - Maksim P. Kim - a prominent historian with Russia's Academy of Sciences.

[В конце августа 1924 г. контрреволюционные элементы, главным -образом меньшевики, спровоцировали антисоветский мятеж в Озургетском и частично Санакском уездах Грузии] - scholarly study about the peasantry in Russia, published by Academy of Sciences.

Also see the work of Georgian scholar Maklava V. Natmeladze authoritative history of Georgian social classes, available in both Georgian and Russian.

You might be kidding. All these sources were published in the Soviet era and represent the Soviet view of the events. An alternative vision of such a sensitive topic could not be published in the Soviet Union. Those who dared to challenge the version (or engage in "nationalist revisionism" according to your and modern Russian censors' vocabulary) were punished. Does that come to a surprise to anyone more or less familiar with the Soviet history? So it appears your are quite ready to discard all authors published from the 1920s to the 2000s in different countries as POV and accept those who all followed the same official Soviet line as NPOV. That's not serious.--Kober^Talk 21:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the sources you cited are by Lang and Knight, who are not experts on the topic. Knight's source is about a biography of Beria, not about the 1924 revolt, while Lang offers a broad overview of Georgian history not specifically about the 1924 revolt. They did not do their own original research on the topic, but instead referred to other secondary sources. Trifonov, by contrast, did his own original research and his account is by far the most detailed, authoritative source found in this article. These facts alone make Trifonov preferabble to the other insufficient sources.

You are incorrect about the work of historians during the Soviet era. They had diverging views and disagreements about various issues. And this "punishment" you speak of amounted to criticism by a historian's colleagues, which is what's supposed to happen.

"E.N. Burdzhalov provoked a storm of protest from more orthodox historians in 1956 in a celebrated article he challenged this picture of Bolshevik unity under Lenin's guidance during the early stages of the Revolution...Nevertheless, he was eventually able to publish two major volumes on the February revolution, in 1967 and 1971.

"The majority of the sources you cited are by Lang and Knight, who are not experts on the topic." Says who? Please consult WP:SOURCE on verifiability. "Knight's source is about a biography of Beria, not about the 1924 revolt, while Lang offers a broad overview of Georgian history not specifically about the 1924 revolt." So what? Have you ever consulted WP:SOURCE? " They did not do their own original research on the topic, but instead referred to other secondary sources." Again, please see WP:SOURCE. "Trifonov, by contrast, did his own original research and his account is by far the most detailed, authoritative source found in this article." "authoritative"? Says who? WP:OR on your part? "You are incorrect about the work of historians during the Soviet era. They had diverging views and disagreements about various issues". Oh, really? Including on the 1924 rebellion in Georgia? Prove it.--Kober^Talk 21:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, stop making false allegations about my removing certain sources. The version I submitted contains various views of the conflict, including the post-1990 nationalist literature and the works by English-speaking historians by Lang and Knight and others. But you have deleted the sources from my version that have a different view. Yet, here you are accusing me of bias. But how can I be biased when the version I submitted contains Knight, Lang, etc and other sources I disagree with? You make aggressive anti-Soviet remarks and you follow this by removing any hint of a critical look at the nationalists' side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.53.163 (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Trifonov was a Professor from a leading Russian university who had his scholarly article consisting of original research about the 1924 revolt published in Russia's leading historical journal. None of the other sources cited here are of comparable quality.

You made a misinformed generalization about Soviet historians not being allowed to debate issues and required to conform to a specific version of events, which I showed not to be true.

Amy Knight is an expert on Lavrenty Beria and other issues that she has specifically researched. She is not an expert on the 1924 revolt, but instead relies on secondary sources that other scholars did for her information. Same thing about Lang. It's an appeal to authority fallacy to make claims about the revolt by citing them.

Your accusations of me engaging on the Talk Page are frankly inappropriate and a distraction from the main issue at hand, which is your wholesale deletion of sourced information and attempts to censor different points of view on the conflict. I meant that Trifonov is the most authoritative source compared to the other inferior sources by people who did not do their own original research on the topic. I may have certain opinions about the quality of sources, but I did not remove any and all references to Amy Knight and the post-1990 nationalist revisionists because of concern about keeping consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.53.163 (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Beyond your tirades, you failed to address none of the issues raised by me in my previous post. Again, I feel ok with citing Trifonov in the article provided he is included as an illustration of an official Soviet version. What you actually did was rephrasing the whole text based on a near-verbatim citation of the Soviet text and removing the passages that did not meet your pro-Bolshevik point of view, citing just one non-neutral source published by a Russian author in the Soviet Union. Plus you keep accusing me of "nationalist revisionism" in the best traditions of Soviet/Russian censorship. That's pretty much illustrative of your own bias.--Kober^Talk 22:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"You made a misinformed generalization about Soviet historians not being allowed to debate issues and required to conform to a specific version of events, which I showed not to be true." No, you have shown nothing. Your personal view are irrelevant.

"Amy Knight is an expert on Lavrenty Beria and other issues that she has specifically researched. She is not an expert on the 1924 revolt, but instead relies on secondary sources that other scholars did for her information. Same thing about Lang. It's an appeal to authority fallacy to make claims about the revolt by citing them." I'm tired of asking you to review WP:SOURCE.

"I meant that Trifonov is the most authoritative source compared to the other inferior sources by people who did not do their own original research on the topic." Says who? --Kober^Talk 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read WP: Source, and your actions are in violation of it. You insist that every single sentence from Trifonov's article must be attributed solely as Trifonov's opinion or in your words "Soviet propaganda POV", which is inappropriate. Russian historian's arguments about how the rebels lacked popular support needs to attributed. But Trifonov's details about the battles and tactics need no such attribution. For example, this fact from Trifonov needs no attribution: "On August 29 the rebels laid siege to the town of Ozurgety. Their detachment, numbering some 200, took the station of Suspa" . If it does not need attribution, then you need to present another author's facts stating something completely different or specifically refuting Trifonov.

Wikipedia policy states,

in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed

Knight, Pethybridge, Lang are all inferior sources compared to Trifonov not because one side is right and the other is wrong, but simply because Trifonov did extensive research in the form of a journal article, while all of the other authors focus on broader or different subjects, and make only cursory references to the 1924 revolt. Similarly, on the topic of Lavrenty Beria's career and life, Amy Knight's source is far superior compared to Trifonov's article on the 1924 revolt. Trifonov's is a secondary source that utilizes primary sources while all of the others are more like tertiary sources that summarize others' research. And according to Wikipedia's policies, secondary sources like those of Trifonov are to be preferred over tertiary sources. In the case of Amy Knight, she devotes no more than 2-3 pages about the revolt - hardly an authoritative source to base this article on. This would be okay if there were not higher quality sources. But since Trifonov's comprehensive article exists, such high reliance on Knight is inappropriate.

Further illustrating my point, the best source for the Russian Peasant War of 1773-75 would not be Cambridge's 1000-year history of Russia the way you are using Lang's history on Georgia, but rather an academic work like this that specifically focuses on this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

POV Problems

As shown above, this article inappropriately passes off undocumented claims like that of Bezirgani's 12,000+ executions without any kind of attribution or consideration for alternative views. It's unfortunate that I had to spend so much time researching this myself when the person who added this material should have presented all of the relevant information. And the consensus appears to be, as I explained above, that Bezirgani's work is rubbish.

Claims are made about killing of prisoners. But the cited source for this is the daughter of the rebel leader Cholokashvili, which violates Wikipedia's policies about the use of primary sources as well as attribution.

Also major problems with the biased language and omissions in the article:

independence of Georgia - which is disputed. Some argue that Georgia was in fact a vassal of Western European countries during the nationalist regime of 1918-21.

The loyalty of the Georgian population to the new regime proved not easy to obtain. - which is, again, disputed, as some sources state that the Georgian Bolsheviks had considerable popular support and helped to lead resistance against the nationalist regime: [The toiling masses of most of the districts of Georgia rose up during October and November 1919...The Bolsheviks stepped up preparations for the overthrow of the Menshevik regime, the last stronghold of counterrevolution in Transcaucasia. An armed uprising that came to cover all of Georgia began in Lori, Gori, Borchali. Dusheti. Racha, Lechkhumi and other districts on the night of Feb. 11–12. 1921.]

Red Army invasion - which is a controversial remark. Some argue that Georgia was engaged in a civil war-like situation in the 1918-21 period, especially in early 1921, culminating in an an armed uprising in Lori, Gori, Borchali. Dusheti. Racha, Lechkhumi and other districts on the night of Feb. 11–12. 1921. Georgian insurgents themselves were also involved in driving out the nationalist regime.

This is all elaborated in а book about the Civil War in Transcaucasia.

Given such conflicting opinions, it is preferable to use neutral language and avoid taking sides with claims like "Red Army invasion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.140 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In short, you want the article to be based on Russian perception of the 1924 events and of the historians the Russians consider to be "revisionist". You assertion that "independence of Georgia - which is disputed. Some argue that Georgia was in fact a vassal of Western European countries during the nationalist regime of 1918-21" betrays your heavy pro-Soviet POV and anti-Georgian prejudice. So far you have failed to demonstrate why the sources used in the article should be discarded as non-reliable. Just because Russians don't like them? Again, Soviet view should be included, but only as a Soviet POV, not as the unquestionable truth. --Kober^Talk 08:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As for invasion, the "civil war-like situation" does not itself exclude the fact of a foreign invasion, which is documented in several sources cited in the article.--Kober^Talk 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is a sock of an indef banned user User:Jacob Peters. Basically, just revert on sight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)