Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

Blogs aren't analytical sources

When analysts write blogs, they don't commit the same resources that they would commit to scholarly articles. In order to be a published, a blog needs to be checked for spelling, and occasionally grammar. In order to be published, an actual analytical source needs to be checked for content; blogs are never checked for content, therefore blogs don't qualify. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree if we talked about a blog stating facts about the number of Russian tanks. They might get that wrong. But a blog stating facts about Marko Attila Hoare's analysis, written by Marko Attila Hoare. Very unlikely that he wrongly reported about his own analysis. --Xeeron (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, blogs are not a reliable source. If he has published the same opinion in an academic paper or journal, then we can include it, but not if the only source is his blog. This is because the stuff people put into their blogs is usually nowhere near the quality of published sources. (What professors tell you in a bar would be even less reliable.) Also, the text has not been checked by anyone, as is the case in peer-reviewed journals. Since there is no lack of good, peer-reviewed sources for opinions about the war, I see no reason to use this blog opinion here. Offliner (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron - you said you won't engage in a revert war over Felgenhauer. You are doing that now. Also, it's a blog, not a book. Perhaps Russian editors should start inserting information from Russian Blogs, say from Russia Today, by guys who have PhDs. How about I insert the one where Cornell gets called Saakashvili's lipstick artist? And then use your argument to justify it. After all, a guy who has a PhD cannot be wrong interpreting himself in a blog, eh Xeeron? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources. Everyone knows that. If he's writing about something he had published, then find that published article and use it instead. LokiiT (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Except that data isn't in a published article. It's in a blog, because if that data was in a published article, few credible sources would consider publishing that guy again. But blogs you can get away with running your mouth like a madman. Granted, maybe the Jamestown Foundation, who publishes a guy, Felgenhauer, who stated that between 1990 and 1994 the Russians were in Afghanistan. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
To get down to the point, I included this part in the article. I personally like the comparison of the Clear Field to the Storm, where they, Croats, attempted, and succeed, to cleanse all ethnic Serbs from Croatia. Well, we can cleanse this part from the article, of course:)) FeelSunny (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither Offliners quote, nor Lokii's assertion are true in wikipedia policy. If you bothered to read the policy (the relevant part is not all that long), you would note the policy's concern about pseudonymous publishing (does not apply here) and the sentence "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable" (applies here).
May be, i.e. not must be. Also, you're using a blog as an analytical source. That is the problem, it's not correct for the section that it's being used in. Analytical statements are used as published papers that are well-researched. Not Blog posts done overnight. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Offliner and Lokii, I am also saddened by the way you try to (ab)use a not applicable policy to purge a POV you don't like, without even checking what is removed. The sentence removed was: "In early August 2008, Marko Attila Hoare, British historian and a researcher at Kingston University, London, compared the operation of Georgian forces to the Operation Storm of Croatian army in 1991, calling them a way to "liberate itself of the [..] imperialist occupation" This source used is Hoare's blog.
What do you mean by saying "the text has not been checked by anyone"? Is there any reason to doubt that he wrote what is written on his blog? This was checked by the editor who included the text and could have been easily checked by you as well. --Xeeron (talk)
You can be a professor and write a blog overnight. Blogs aren't held to the same rigorous standards as published articles are. You are using these in "statements by analysts". Imperialist Occupation? Ossetians were Imperially Occupying Georgia? Ok, now I've heard it all. And Xeeron, stop putting Pavel "Russians were in Afghanistan from 1990 to 1994" Felgenhauer in. His statements have been throughoutly discredited, and he is a true Vlasovite. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
They are not. You should also check the section above. --Xeeron (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are not allowed as sources in WP without very good reasons, period. There are enough opinions and analysis about the war published in reliable sources. Can you please demonstrate why it is necessary to use this blog instead of all those reliable sources? What I meant with "not checked" was (obviously) "not peer reviewed." If you disagree with the removal, take it to WP:RSN. Offliner (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to argue that this piece is unneeded, please do. This is what you should have done from the start. I have yet to see such an arguement being convincingly made. Your RSN comment is invalid for the reason I already stated above (which you ignored in your comment): His blog is a credible source when sourcing his statements. There is no fact that would need peer review being included in the article. So stop the wikilawyering. --Xeeron (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
From[1]: "Are blogs reliable sources? In many cases, no. Most private weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy.
Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available."
Is this article about the blogger and his views? No. Is the blog hosted by a university, newspaper or employer? No. Are peer-reviewed sources with similar opinions available? Yes. And no, it is not my job to demonstrate why his view is not needed in article. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who inserts it to prove that it is. Offliner (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, you misquote a wikipedia policy. WP:BURDEN says:
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."
It does not say that I have to demonstrate why his view is needed in the article. The source does "unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article" because his own blog is a credible source for his statements.
Let me help you (and this discussion) along by pointing out what you should do to get the statement removed:
  • Successfully argue that the blog author is not a notable analyst OR
  • Successfully argue that he holds WP:FRINGE views OR
  • Successfully argue that the inclusion of the material makes the part POV biased OR
  • Successfully argue that the material is not needed because similar views are already present OR
Stop trying to remove it on wrong interpretation of policies and start putting some arguements forward why it does not improve the article. --Xeeron (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." And Xeeron's quote: "let me help you (and this discussion) along by pointing out what you should do to get the statement removed". So did I miss the part were addition and removal became synonyms? Also, a blog isn't considered a published source, anymore then Twitter or Facebook. You have to prove Xeeron, why a blog is a credible source. Offliner does not have to disprove anything until you prove that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read my above post HistoricWarrior (especially the part of BURDEN I quoted), since you make the same mistake as Offliner, except, after I pointed it out. --Xeeron (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I read WP:Burden. It says that the burden's on you - the person trying to add information to the article. A blog is not a publishable source. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"Stop trying to remove it on wrong interpretation of policies and start putting some arguements forward why it does not improve the article." My interpretation of policies is correct. Published reliable sources are preferred; blogs are to be avoided. I already told you why it does not improve the article: there are enough opinions published in reliable sources. It is up to the inserter to prove why this opinion is needed. If you disagree about policies with me, take it to a noticeboard to get an outside opinion. They will tell exactly the same thing as I. Offliner (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Treaty Interpretation Rules

First off, the people who interpret a treaty, are the ones who write it. Not allies of the ones who write it. This treaty was written by Sarkozy and Medvedev. The British had no say in it. Georgia had no say in it, as Saakashvili was just shown the final treaty and asked to accept it. The treaty was heralded as a talk between Russian and the European Union. However the EU's representative for the treaty was Sarkozy. Not the House of Lords. Thus only Sarkozy can say whether Russia broke the treaty terms or not. Representatives of organizations have different opinions. The British and the French generally have different standards of interpretation. For instance Britain calls the Iraq War legal, France calls it illegal, using the exact same documents. By signing with Sarkozy, Medvedev was yielding to French, not British interpretation. If Britain was the EU representative, Russia would not have signed the treaty.

According to Xeeron's and Kouber's logic, "Who signed the peace threaty (btw Sarkozy did, as representative of the EU, hint GB is part of that), is irrelevant, the house of Lords can issue reports without HistoricWarrior's approval." Well Medvedev signed the peace treaty (or threaty) on as representative of the Russian Coalition that won the war, hint LDPR is part of that.) So I guess we should also state what Zhirinovsky thinks about the treaty, he has as much credibility on this as the House of Lords. And while the House of Lords can issue reports without my approval, those reports still have to be accurate. Svante Cornell can fantasize about millions of Russian troops flooding Georgia, and he doesn't need my approval for that, but it's still grossly inaccurate.

Contrary to Xeeron and Kouber, commons sense states that who signed the treaty is extremely relevant. United Russia spokesperson, I forget which one, stated that if Poland chaired the EU, Russia wouldn't sign the treaty, err I mean threaty. The same could be said of Britain, with whom Russia is not on the best of terms.

When interpreting a document, be it a treaty or threaty, one looks for the original meaning of it. That's the legal concept accepted in Universal Jurisprudence. Who better, to interpret the confusing parts of a document, than its writer? No one! This is common sense so basic, that it doesn't even need to be mentioned, but with Xeeron's and Kouber's POV, even the most basic common sense needs explaining. Troops still don't fly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As per the Six Point Peace Plan, points 5 and 6 state:

5. Russian armed forces to withdraw to the positions held before hostilities began in South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers to implement additional security measures until an international monitoring mechanism is in place. Sarkozy: These measures affect only the immediate vicinity of South Ossetia and in no instance the entire territory of Georgia.

6. The opening of international discussions on the modalities of security and stability of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

In other words, if Russia recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, they get to keep their troops there, it's not a violation. Russia's and Nicaragua's recognition qualify as an international mechanism. Which means they no longer have to be peacekeepers. In addition, South Ossetia definitely qualifies as the immediate vicinity of South Ossetia. Sarkozy was mainly worried about Russia occupying Georgia Proper, as such occupation might threaten French Interests, he didn't really care about Russia being in South Ossetia or Abkhazia. The House of Lords may have cared, but I don't recall anyone even remotely asking the House of Lords for anything in this war. Certainly not the French or Russians. Thus it's irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia, not the mouthpiece of the House of Lords. Shall I go and write Zhirinovsky's comments on the Independence of Ireland? If not, why are putting the House of Lords here? The language is crystal clear, there's really no need to make stuff up.

I do find it hilarious that both Xeeron and Kouber find Russia's statement that "we will intervene if you attack South Ossetia and/or Abkhazia" not significant enough to be placed in the introduction, but a House of Lords report on a treaty in which the House of Lords has no say in, and never had a say in, is somehow significant. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior, the claim that only those who write a treaty can interpret it is absurd. What if Sarkozy and Medvediev both happened to die, would no one be left who could interpret it? Other people have done interpreting since forever, there is even a whole business of analysts, lawyers, politicians, diplomats, etc who do nothing else. Finally how come that the House of Lords can't interpret the treat, but you do it right here? Enough hypocrisy?
As to the peace plan, I could point out that there already is an international monitoring mechanism in place, thus rendering that phrase obsolete, but that of course would be *my* interpretation. The one that counts is the sourced one we have in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
They're not dead yet, are they? If they both die, I'm sure they can designate those who can interpret the treaty. And I'm one hundred percent sure, it won't be the House of Lords. Sarkozy's interpretation of what Sarkozy meant is a lot more credible then the House of Lords' interpretation of what Sarkozy meant. Also, the French would never had the British interpret their treaties, to even assume that, is absurd beyond belief. I didn't interpret the treaty Xeeron. I merely stated basic facts. If I say 2 + 2 = 4, I am stating a fact, not interpreting a treaty. It's pretty damn clear that a recognition by more then one nation, is an international mechanism is, that doesn't need interpretation. That's a definition. As for your interpretation Xeeron, it's bullshit, because you don't get to call any phrase of a treaty "obsolete". There's a reason that phrases are part of a treaty, and I don't think that Sarkozy and Medvedev are sitting and talking going "let's place this obsolete phrase here, so we can confuse Xeeron". In addition, and international monitoring mechanism can change over time. But, you sir, are hilarious "I don't like this clause, ergo it's obsolete". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I love how you go on and on forever about interpretation and then casually state that whatever you say is a fact. Did some fairy powder you with "HistoricWarrior is always right" dust this morning? Sorry, it is not a fact, it is your opinion. One that I strongly disagree with and one that runs into the face of numberous sources that say otherwise.
Can you do something without being insulting? Even the most basic tasks? Or does insulting others add to your credibility? 2 + 2 = 4 is indeed my opinion. It also happense to be the law, and it's not subject to appeal.
  • If they both die, I'm sure they can designate those who can interpret the treaty This is so funny! Can you enlighten us on the methods of that designation? Do Sarkozy and Medvediev reach down from heaven (being dead and all) and tell us as ghosts who is allowed to interpret the treaty? Do they write down in their testament " ... Carla gets my house ... I nominate person X to be the only one who is allowed to interpret the six plan peace treaty that I once signed" (10.000 more lines for each of the other treaties he signed in his live follow)? Do they create the official post of "interpreter of the six point peace plan"? You should apply, lol.
Once again, the basic concept here is this: if the people who wrote the treaty are alive, it is reasonable for them to be treaty interpreters, rather then for an institution that has been anti-Russian in the past and is the current base for Chechen-Government in exile. Just really basic stuff, nothing complex. Seriously, stop it with the insults Xeeron, and the insults are rather pathetic. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is a little task for you. I'll quote a line, and you tell me the meaning of the word I highlight: "Russian armed forces to withdraw to the positions held before hostilities began in South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers to implement additional security measures until an international monitoring mechanism is in place." --Xeeron (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Until, that implies that the additional security mechanism is not yet in place. Once again, basic grammar rules. Good luck selling that as my opinion, and do try to do it without insults this time, Xeeron. In addition, I would take your posts more seriously, if you actually knew the real definitions of the words you highlite. Because until implies that there is no current international mechanism. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you failed at the task. Until means the troops can stay in a period of time between now (the time of signing) and the time when international monitoring is in place (after the time of signing). And it implies that the additional security mechanism were not yet in place when the treaty was written. Seeing how you critizise others for their English, one would hope that you know the difference between present tense and past tense. --Xeeron (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my point. If it is in the future, then it is not yet in place. Good job Xeeron! You finally got it, I am so proud of you! Although I wonder, where did I fail? In addition, "after the time of signing" could be right after the treaty was signed, or several years after the treaty was signed. If they wanted it to say "right after" I am sure that Medvedev and Sarkozy are both capable of writing "right after". If they were purposely vague, then the treaty is open to different interpretations, i.e. Medvedev's vs. Sarkozy's. I still don't see where the House of Lords comes in. Also, Wikipedia records our chats for future generations, and I would tone down the personal attacks if I were you, Xeeron, because you might not want to hold the record for "most personal attacks in a single article on Wikipedia". That's not a very good record to hold. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It was in the future when the treaty was signed. However since now we are several months after the signing of the treaty, it is not necessarily in the future anymore. In fact it is not, since there is an international mechanism in place now. You are right about the wikipedia records though, which is very helpful whenever I need to prove that you lie about my edits (contrary to what you say, not "every edit made" by me has been "anti-Russian"). --Xeeron (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a whole business of predicting which candidate would win, a Democrat or a Republican, but it doesn't mean that those predicting who would win, get it right. The business of treaty interpretation works in a similar way: armies of lawyers and politicians differ on a treaty's interpretation. However, when you have the original writer of the treaty, he is the best person to interpret it, and all other interpretations should be treated as jokes. Unless the House of Lords gained telepathic abilities to read Sarkozy's mind, Sarkozy is the best interpreter of what Sarkozy meant. This is basic stuff, not complex at all. Sarkozy interprets what Sarkozy meant. House of Lords do not. It's really simple, and also, 2 + 2 = 4! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear HistoricWarrior007, I already asked you a question related to the peace plan, but you didn't answer me. Can you explain what are the Russian troops doing in Akhalgori and how the Russian occupation of that region fits into the first sentence of the fifth point of the peace plan? As you probably know, there weren't any Russian troops there before the beginning of the hostilities. Moreover, there weren't hostilities at all there - it is a region largely populated by Georgians and it was never under the control of Kokoity, there's even no direct road between Tskhinvali and Akhalgori. So could you explain please, how the 5th point isn't violated, when the Russian troops were expected to withdraw to their previous positions?
Also, the 6th point peace plan was a ceasefire plan the sides in it being Russia and Georgia. Sarkozy was a mediator between them - he was not a side in this plan. He was representing the EU, as part of the French presidency of the EU. So, it appears that the most important interpreters of this plan are indeed Russia and Georgia (together with the EU). According to the first the plan is respected, according to the latter - it isn't.
Now let's examine the position of Sarkozy and the EU. On 1 September 2008, just e few days after Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the EU held an exceptional European Council, for the first time after the Iraq crisis in 2003, but unlike the previous time, now the EU was united around its position - to remind Russia that it should "implement immediately" the 6 point peace plan (which means that according to the entire EU, to all the 27 members, Russia wasn't respecting, nor implementing it yet, which means that the unilateral recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia isn't the solution envisaged by the peace plan - otherwise there wouldn't be an exceptional European Council at all). You can watch Sarkozy describing the EU position after the European Council:
"Chacun en Europe demande la mise en oeuvre intégrale du plan en six points qui a été signé par toutes les parties au plus haut niveau... [les] résultats concrets que nous en attendons dont l'application intégrale, immédiate de l'accord en six points..."
You can watch Sarkozy explaining in detail the 5th point of the plan on a press conference in Tbilisi on 12 August 2008:
"Les forces militaires russes devront se retirer sur les lignes antérieures au déclenchement des hostilités... et dans l'attente d'un mécanisme international, les forces de paix russes, pourquoi nous les appelons les forces de paix russes? Parce que c'est la dénomination des forces militaires russes, préalablement à la crise installés sous mandat intérnational en Ossetie du Sud quand nous parlons du retrait des forces militaires russes, c'est-à-dire celles qui sont arrivés après le déclenchement de la crise et nous précisons les forces de paix russes, c'est-à-dire celles qui étaient antérieures à la crise en Osstie du Sud, elles mettront en oeuvre à titre provisoire des mesures additionnelles de sécurité."
And the English translation of the above: "The Russian military forces would have to retreat behind the initial lines where the first hostilities started... while we are waiting for an international mechanism, the Peace-keeping forces of Russia, why do we call them as such, because it is the denomination given to the Russian army forces prior to the crisis, the army that was established in South Ossetia under international mandate; and what we mean by the retreat of the Russian military forces, we mean by those who arrive after the start of the crisis. The peace-keeping forces of Russia, that is the Russian troops that arrived before the crisis in South Ossetia - would implement on a temporary basis additional security measures (to enforce Peace)."
Have those military forces retreated? No. They continue to occupy South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but those are not the peacekeepers envisaged by the 5th point, those are regular Russian military forces, with heavy armament, without any international mandate. Furthermore the total number of Russian forces in these two Georgian regions was increased more than three times, which is in direct contradiction to the withdrawal envisaged by the 5th point. But let's continue examining Sarkozy:
"Je comprends parfaitement le souci de garantir son [de la Géorgie] intégrité territoriale qui me semble d'ailleurs garantie par l'esprit de ce texte. Et j'appelle chacun où qu'il se trouve à respecter la lettre et l’esprit..."
And again, English translation of the above: "I understand perfectly well the issue with its [Georgian] territorial integrity, which appears to me to be guaranteed by the spirit behind this text. And I here call for all, wherever they are, to respect this letter and the spirit behind it"
So, according to Sarkozy himself, the spirit behind this text implicates the territorial integrity of Georgia.
And finally you can watch Sarkozy answering a question on the press conference held in Tbilisi on 13 September 2008: "Il y a un texte, il y a un engagement, il y a une date, il y a des rendez-vous... Le 15 octobre il ne doit plus y avoir un seul soldat russe qui soit sur des positions - qui ne doivent dépasser où il se trouvait avant le 7 août. C'est clair et c'est simple."
"There's one text, there's one engagement, there's one date, there're meetings... The 15th October there shouldn't be even a single Russian soldier on a position where he wasn't before the 7th of August. It is clear and it is simple."
This is what Sarkozy is saying, it is clear, and it is simple, and it reveals very well his position concerning the document he signed himself. Care to disprove what he ment in the 5th point of the plan? Kouber (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be in effect, until Russia recognized South Ossetia as an independent country, and signed a treaty amending that with South Ossetia. The sixth point allows such an amendment. Two sides disagreeing on an even that took place after the treaty was signed, is perfectly normal. If Russia broke any laws here, the ICJ would have found Russia guilty by now. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no "this treaty stops working once Russia recognizes South Ossetia" part in the treaty. --Xeeron (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The sixth point of the treaty says "until an international mechanism is in place". It doesn't say which international mechanism. Russia and Nicaragua, two nations, both recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, is an International Mechanism, because it was done between more than one nation. It's very simple, but you can keep trying to keep on asserting your ridiculous comments.
Dear unsigned, your comment makes no sense. The sixt point of the treaty does not say "until an international mechanism is in place" (have a look at the article or However point five says "The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation must withdraw to the line where they were stationed prior to the beginning of hostilities. Prior to the establishment of international mechanisms the Russian peacekeeping forces will take additional security measures." There is an international mechanism in place, yet Russia's troops have not withdrawn to to the line where they were stationed prior to the beginning of hostilities. --Xeeron (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well HW007, you argued that The House of Lords is not allowed to interpret the treaty. What I did is to show that the interpretation of Sarkozy himself (as well as the one of the entire EU) is exactly the same, but since he's a mediator, he's not telling it with these words, as it wouldn't be diplomatic to do so. Here's one more confirmation of my words: "Совет ЕС вновь призвал российские войска «отойти на позиции до августа 2008 года», говорится в итоговом заявлении по Грузии Совета ЕС на уровне министров иностранных дел." Kouber (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You do not understand one thing, Kouber: OSCE comission on Serbia can not rule out anything on US military bases in Kosovo, as long as US does not see Kosovo as a area of responsibility of the OSCE comission on Serbia. EU Council comission on Georgia can not rule out anything on Russian forces in S.Ossetia and Abkhazia, for both states have nothing to do with Georgia. No matter what EU comission thinks about it:) FeelSunny (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, both so called "states" are still part of Georgia according to the Entire World, no matter what Russia and Nicaragua think about it. The EU was a mediator in signing a cease-fire treaty between Georgia and Russia, and only the latter considers it fullfilled. Neither the EU, nor Georgia consider this treaty fullfilled by Russia. Kosovo is Kosovo. We're not writing an article about Kosovo, do we? Kouber (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually Russia is a Great Power. Hate to break it to you, but their opinion matters quite a bit. The treaty said "until an International Mechanism..." Russia's recognition is an international mechanism. Thus Russia is not breaking the treaty. Also, Russia covers about 1/6th of the landmass of the entire World. Nicaragua's recognition shows that other states besides Russia would have recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And had it not been for economic threats from certain countries, Belarus would have recognized the two republics as well. I'm surprised why Russia didn't respond to threats against Belarus, with their economic counter-threats, but that's a whole other story. Kosovo is used here as a comparison, as Abkhazia and Kosovo find themselves in similar situations. Also, it's not the entire World against Russia and Nicaragua as you present it. Most countries in the World just flat out don't care, although only Switzerland had the guts to publicly and politely admit that they don't give a shit.
"The Government of Switzerland called for a political solution to the conflict in Georgia in accord with international principles: Both Georgia's right to sovereignty and the democratic will of the people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have to be respected. A government spokesman also stated "Switzerland regrets that a solution has not yet been found that meets the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Accords and the Charter of Paris. The Swiss government has not yet discussed the issue of independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. (Let me know when they do.) It also did not mention the territorial integrity in the context of Georgia."
In the US, where I live, there's a movement against Bush's former pro-Georgian policies, because the economy is more important than confronting Russia. And we get Russian News here, so we actually know who attacked. What exactly has the European Union done to Russia, except for rough talk, in regards to the recognition? Oh right, they passed a resolution saying "some of us say Russia bad". Look, I'm just being honest here, in most countries, this isn't the main issue, it's not even in the top ten. And right now, in the US, there are three main issues: economy, healthcare reform and catching bin Laden. The rest is on the backburner. In all honesty, this year Obama's "Crowley remark" received more media attention, than the entire country of Georgia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Kouber, on both so called "states" are still part of Georgia according to the Entire World: aha, you're cool. Georgia is cool and supported by the Whole Entire World. Micha may go chat about this with the presidents of the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia.FeelSunny (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear HW007, in the 5th point of the peace-plan there are two sentences:
  1. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation must withdraw to the line where they were stationed prior to the beginning of hostilities.
  2. Prior to the establishment of international mechanisms the Russian peacekeeping forces will take additional security measures.
The first sentence was never fulfilled by Russia - Russian Armed forces are still occupying territories they didn't previously control (see Akhalgori, for example). Moreover, Russia is continuing its military buildup in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is in direct contradiction to the first sentence of the 5th point.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what you and me think about that. The sources do matter. And the sources are saying that the EU and Georgia are still waiting for Russia to fulfill what it signed. In the meantime, you can go writing articles for economy, healthcare reform and catching bin Laden, in case the current topic is no more interesting for you. Kouber (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually my argument is correct, as per the sixth point. Recognition by two sovereign countries is indeed an international mechanism. The sixth point said "until an International Mechanism is in place". Russia's recognition was that international mechanism. You don't get to ignore the part of the treaty that you don't like. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The sixth point is about the international discussions, not about any mechanism. So, your agument is not correct. The 5th point isn't fullfilled by Russia, hence Russia is violating the peace plan. Kouber (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
My bad, it's in the fifth point, here let me bold the mechanism part for you: "5. Russian armed forces to withdraw to the positions held before hostilities began in South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers to implement additional security measures until an international monitoring mechanism is in place. Sarkozy: These measures affect only the immediate vicinity of South Ossetia and in no instance the entire territory of Georgia." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Name and Google hits

I don't know why it seems different editors are citing different results but it still suffers the same problem of being a complete Google search. I have always looked at the Google News search results since those don't give results more than a few months old and the most common name in the media is almost always the name used in the history books. Here are the results I got:

Georgian War (War in Georgia) - 718 results
Russia-Georgia War (also Russian-Georgian War, Georgia-Russia War, etc.) - 710 results
Five-Day War - 506 results
August War - 319 results
South Ossetia War (War in South Ossetia, South Ossetian War) - 22 results

Now, I don't care what name you think it should be changed to but it seems pretty clear to me that South Ossetia War loses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been lots of wars in Georgia, quite a few Russian wars in Georgia, many wars that have lasted five days (and a fair few that were predicted to last only five days but didn't), lots of wars in August (summer: good for battles, winter: bad for battles), but only one (so far) South Ossetia War. Meowy 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
DA, don't you have anything else to do? Do you enjoy to stir the pointless discussions here? (Igny (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
Devil's Advocate - you again? 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: and here: and here: and here: and here: and here: and here: and here: and here: (this one actually started by the Devil's Advocate on August 12th, 2008) and here: (although it's crossed out) and here: and here: and here: (after being defeated, the Devil's Advocate waited a whopping two weeks to bring it up, again) and here: and here: and here: (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: (yup, Devil's Advocate strikes again) and here: (Where the Devil's Advocate waited a whole *gasp* three weeks) and here: (I wonder who suggested it? Could it be, the Devil's Advocate? *inserts eerie music*) and here: (where there is a whole vote on it!) and here: and here: - where the whole damn archive is dedicated to yet another vote! And here: and here: and here: (where editors are getting sick and tired of it, but the Devil's Advocate marches on!) and here: (yup another vote, illegally started by Kober, 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!)
You started your campaign to change the name on August 10th 2008. It's been almost a year. We are trying to tell you something: we are sick and tired of your constant repetitive arguments. They have all been destroyed multiple times. All you will do is waste our time, yet again. Stop! We aren't changing the title. You don't get to revote, you don't get to argue your case again. You call yourself the Devil's Advocate. In the courtroom, you don't get several hundred chances to get it right. You either win or lose. And when you lose, you can appeal. But you cannot appeal indefinitely. Please, stop it with your silliness. No article has had this many "suggestions" to get the title changed. More than half of those came either from you, Kober or Xeeron. Also, Google News, is not a valid source for title changing. Next you'll be citing Fox News, right? And if you are defeated here, when should we expect you next? In a few weeks? Months? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
While it is clearly undesirable to keep discussing the name change over and over again, equally it would not be correct to rule out any discussion ever again. Might I suggest that if new evidence, such as the name usage in recently published academic works has come to light and if someone else proposes review, the change of name be discussed in (say) three months time? Greenshed (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If a substantial amount of scholarly articles, that are deemed neutral by both sides, all call this war the exact same name, and the name is the most neutral and explanatory name, we can discuss the name change, even if that happens tomorrow. The problem is that the current arguments in favor of changing the title have been obliterated multiple times, and I don't consider the Associated Press a scholarly source. In addition, this war focused primarily on the Caucasian Region, a constant stand-off point between Russia and U.K. for instance see Crimean War. Most of the commentary I've seen regarding name changing, comes either from British, or British-allied sources. If you are suggesting that based on a few new sources we redo over 150 pages of discussion, I would disagree. It has been over a year since the war started, the current name is by far the most neutral and explanatory name that one could come up with. Virtually all others have been tried. In scholarly works, precedence is not to be overturned by a few, biased, single articles. I don't want to set a time line for the renewal of the Title Wars. Also, I've been in debates regarding this war, and when I called the war "The South Ossetian War" no one asked "what war are you talking about?" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"South Ossetia" has always been, and continues to be, the least used of the names. However, on wikipedia, a determined opposition can always block the move, that is why I don't see the title change anytime soon.

Regarding "academic sources", here are the latest Google scholar numbers:

Whether you use normal google, google news or google scholar, the gist stays the same: South Ossetia war is, by far, the least used of those names. --Xeeron (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we already discuss all these points? Xeeron, the links are right above you. Look them up, not that hard. Perhaps a reminder is in order: "The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins." Wasn't that what you said Xeeron? You already know I will use previous discussions so you know it's a pointless issue, because all of your argument were previously defeated. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
They weren't defeated. I talked to the editor who closed the previous discussion and he/she didn't buy your arguments on neutrality, which was most of what you argued. Everything else was just seen as not enough. I think important facts were being overlooked, but unfortunately the only way to get this name changed is to have a discussion on it and for an admin to then approve the move. This means I will keep bringing it up until an admin finally recognizes that the current title is against every naming convention and that opposition to a change from a certain bloc of editors is not enough to override that basic fact. I don't care which of the more popular names mentioned above is chosen. In the end all of them are better than the current title. Look at all the reports on the first-year anniversary of the war and how many use "South Ossetia War" and you'll see that it is hardly used at all. It doesn't even merit a mention on this article let alone being the official title.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I see this discussion? Important facts? You're currently asking to rename a year old article based on Google News. Once again, Google doesn't name wars. Wars are named by military conventions, not by clever propagandists who don't know the first thing about military affairs and think dropping bombs on people's heads will get them to be greeted as liberators. Neutrality was one of my main arguments. The other, the one you love to pretend doesn't exist, is military naming conventions, where 90% of the facts are on my side. You may keep coming, and I'll still be here. In addition, when most of the sources were written, people thought that Russia was the attacker, and few articles mentioned the Georgian - Ossetian Wars of the 1920's, or the secessionist movements going on the the former Soviet Union. Wars are named by scholars, not by a bunch of ignorant loudmouths, who can yell the loudest/produce the most links. Wars are either named after location, or in the attacker-defender format. That's how ninety percent of wars are named and how 100% of wars should be named. Also, I Google South Ossetia War, without quotes, I get over a million hits. I Google South Osetin War, I get under 2,000 hits. Seems like it's damn well known. It's also the most neutral and descriptive title anyone could come up with. But you are the Devil's Advocate, you will keep on attacking till you get your way. So for an eternity. Good to know. So I will see you in six month? A year? By all means, no rush necessary. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion happened on the admin's user talk page so you are free to look at it. No consensus was chosen because none of your arguments were considered strong enough. The admin's comments suggested to me he did not consider South Ossetia war to be the most descriptive, but didn't think it was enough to override the lack of consensus he/she saw. You are not allowed to dictate naming conventions for Wikipedia either and the only conventions that matter on Wikipedia are common name, descriptiveness, and neutrality. The first two clearly work against the current title and the last was not considered by any objective third party to be against the proposed change. Honestly there should not even be any resistance to a change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the current title is the most descriptive and neutral that we could find. So 2/3 work for me. And you should check out WP:Google. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"Most descriptive" is complete nonsense since the war included Abkhazia and areas outside both separatist territories. Also emphasizing South Ossetia does create neutrality problems because it makes it seem like it was just about protecting South Ossetia from Georgia. As I said before the run-up to the war was about South Ossetia and Abkhazia with either one a possible flashpoint mainly because of Russia's action in those regions. Your claims about name order were not taken seriously, mainly because naming conventions on Wikipedia are clear that name order is meaningless. Also we should check out what the rules say about using Google:

Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.

I have always pointed to the type of hits and how I searched. You're the one who uses hit numbers alone to make a point.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, don't we all agree that the current name is quite inadequate? IMHO all other options such as Russia-Georgia War, Georgia war, August war, Five-Day War, etc. are much better than what we have now. Kouber (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The question itself looks quite provocative, taking into account the votes results.FeelSunny (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, this discussion again. Anyway I would suggest August war. It overwhelms current title in google scholar 13 vs 82 making it clearly more widely used, and no nonsensical counterarguments about painting Russia as "agressor" (which seemed to be main reason why some editors took opposing stance against "Russia-Georgia war") or whatever can be used against it without looking like total moron as its as neutral as you can get.--Staberinde (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, baby, the ashes of Micha are beating on their hearts... Think we all may have some rest from waging this naming war, maybe, on Fridays, or in the last week of the month, what do you say? FeelSunny (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I provided countless wars named either with the aggressor first, or via locations. In fact that's over 80-90% of how all wars are named. But you are welcome to call it nonsensical. Also, wars aren't named due to Google Scholar hits. This has already been discussed. And August War isn't descriptive at all, we've been over this a million times. I'm sure it's mentioned in the links above at least several times. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted picture reverts

Stuff like this really drains my will to edit here. --Xeeron (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like just a honest mistake by HistoricWarrior007. Offliner (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Three times in a row? I suggest using the preview function. --Xeeron (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask why those images were deleted in the first place? While here the ones that were left: says battle, but no one is firing, looks like just your average advance. I would rather have a South Ossetian girl, then a burnt tank. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
For instance, here we have Georgian refugees: Where did the refugees from South Ossetia go? Tskhinvali's population shrunk significantly during the war, and yet no refugees? The images now show a pro-Georgian bias. Where is the Russian counter to this? Or this? Or the refugee image shown earlier? But instead the burnt tank and the oil pipeline images were kept, where even the House of Lords said the war was not over oil. We have many neutral images here to take out, we have images that pair up. If they take up too much space, I can find images that both sides agree are neutral and delete those images, such as this one: - taken in Sevastopol! And if some images were deleted, you find their replacements. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Because some images were deleted due to unknown reasons, remarkably most of them from the South Ossetian side. Here's a refugee image,1020,1267652,00.jpg I am still looking for something that might be the University of Tskhinvali after the war, here is a Russia military convoy heading towards Tskhinvali and here is a search link to the Dubovoi woods images: Now I am going to try to figure out how in the World those images got deleted from wiki commons. Maybe I should ask RT for the images, and someone can ask Georgia for the Dubovoy Woods image. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You can look for deletion logs for these files to determine the reason, which in most cases is the license/copyright problems. See for example here.

Here is the discussion that led to the deletion of all those pics: [2]. In short, the permission given by the ministry did not allow commercial use, but that is a requirement in Wikipedia. If you see good pics anywhere, send the copyright owner a message similar to the ones listed here and maybe they will agree to release the pics. I once managed to get initial permissions from and Arkady Babchenko, but WP voluenteers handling the permissions wanted a more formal response, and when I asked for it, I got no reply anymore. Offliner (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Offliner. That is honestly all I asked for and I am sorry if I made any hot-headed comments earlier; that certainly clears it up. Let me see what I can get done on resolving the matter. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we should pay some attention to the deletion of the bulk of pro-Ossetian pictures which were published under "free use" license by Russian MFA. The vote count in the discussion was clearly in favor of keeping them. Their deletion makes a great damage to corresponding articles, and makes them POVed. Again, we should not let it go like this. FeelSunny (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
We can always appeal the decision. Let's do it, I like the picture of the refugee of Alagir. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

news coverage

Seems that the centenary has upped the topic in the news again. Here are 3 pieces:

Don't think they need to go into the article, but it is interesting how different the evaluations still are. --Xeeron (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Right wing is still right wing, and Guardian keeps on criticising Georgia. Seems like nothing changed? You should compare them to arab, chinese or south american newspapers, i.e. the rest of the world to see "how different the evaluations" are. See here for Arabs: [3], for Chinese: [4], for South America: [5]. Those medias are quite respected, but they are really different from any of the three articles you presented. FeelSunny (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the first article differs insofar as my malware heuristic blocked it (just how "respected" are those links you presented?), so I didn't get to read it. The second purely focuses on Moscows decision to recognize SO/Ab and the third is written by someone who whines about Europe having valid strategic interests while the author himself has no idea of the topics he writes about (He implies they are not doing anything in Kongo, when in fact Kongo is the location of the biggest (and most expensive) UN mission world wide). At least the mouth piece of the chinese communist party (check the wiki article on it: "state-run publication", "a monopoly, being the only official English-language national newspaper in China", "The paper largely reflects the foreign policy of the Communist Party") made some sense, I dont recommend wasting time on the other two links. --Xeeron (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you open this: [6]? If not, perhaps you should consider changing the malware blocking software you have? Here's an exempt of their self-description: In 1975 Saudi Research & Publishing Co. (SRPC) launched the first Saudi English-language daily newspaper, ArabNews. For more than a quarter of a century ArabNews has been breaking cultural barriers and unifying Arabs and non-Arabs alike in responding to their need for information. ArabNews has evolved successfully into the well respected, leading paper it is today. This site is clear.
With regards to the other links, I did not have any doubts you would find them biased / not valid / not knowledgeable etc. But come on, China Daily is Chinese, and I intended to show you Chinese, not some fansy-Murdoch-owned-oh-so-independent-The-Times-Fox-News-Sky-WSJ.
As to the Miranda Global, you're just factually wrong: 1) Zaire draws much less attention form the West than it deserves, and 2) UN is not Europe, or the West. FeelSunny (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It might not draw enough attention, but it is definitely wrong to say it draws no attention. Furthermore, the UN pays for that mission. You should check who pays the UN instead (hint: mostly the west). --Xeeron (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This guy just told you Europe paid much more attention to a less humanitariously important mission, all b/c of the oil politics.
On UN: You should check who pays the bills of "the West that pays for UN". Hint: mostly China. That does not make China the West, neither UN. UN is a world. US is only 300 million people, and the whole West is less than 15% of the world's population. Earth is big. FeelSunny (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Err, no. China does not pay anything for the west. What China does is engaging in a gigantic currency speculation to prop up their economy (buying tons of dollars to hold the yuan exchange rate down). That one will fall on their feet once the dollar devaluates. Or rather, has fallen on their feet already. That doesn't make their loans to the US taxman "payment" though. Credits do have to be repaid, money you pay to the UN is not repaid. And you are dead on about only 15% people living in the west. Compare that to the proportion of the UN budget, including the most expensive peacekeeping mission, in Kongo, paid by those 15% of people (hint: way more). --Xeeron (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's buying dollars, man. US produces too little to pay for their lifestyle. US makes hillarious debts. China and other BRIC pay for them.
You can not pay UN with money you do not own, man. If Barack takes 10 dollars from Hu, and gives them to Ban, that means Hu pays Ban, not Barack . Barack is just an intermediate. Face it.
It's China who paid to the brave US army since the 90ies, as well as to the State Dept brave guys in Ukraine and Georgia, as well as to the US Navy, and US Air Force. President's salary - all paid by China, as well as all senators' wages. These are little Chinese toy makers who pay salary to them. And to the good old Ban too.
Eisenhower warned them to not beleive military complex. They chose to not beleive Eisenhower. Here they are where he thought they would be.FeelSunny (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh so you can't buy dollars, "man"? LOL. I'll leave the discussion at that, but you get plus 10 "this is so 60's" points for bringing up the military industrial complex. Minus 5 points for linking to an empty page though.--Xeeron (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Aha, you can not buy dollars. Because you buy with money, and you sell for money. And dollars - ta-da - they are money. And not an additional value goods. Ever heard of a VAT for currency exschange, huh? :))FeelSunny (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This interview is filled with so many pro-Russian clichés that it does not strike me as the first eyewitness account. (Igny (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
I love that accent aigu in Igny's post:) Frankly, there were so many pro-russian or anti-Western POVs on war in South Ossetia, that just are not reflexed in the artile.FeelSunny (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a great interview. I hate how the guy gets quoted out of context in the title: "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." I.e. he is not calling what happened in South Ossetia a genocide. He is saying that a genocide would have occurred, had the Russians not intervened. In short, he is saying that no genocide took place, due to Russian intervention. And yet he gets quoted for genocide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Fajardo Arcticle would be a great addition in the Media War section. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good interview

I think this interview has a good summary of the legal aspects of the war, as well as of the media coverage. It's interesting that the US and UK blocked all of Russia's Security Council proposals, which demanded Georgia to stop the attack. (According to Professor Petro, this means that Russia's reaction was appropriate and proportionate, because the international community failed to act, and therefore unilateral action was necessary.) The Security Council stuff was dropped from the article long time ago for size reasons, but I'm starting to think that some if it should be brought back, but I'm not sure in which form. I also inserted Petro's analysis of Western media coverage and how it changed over time (this is another thing that was lacking in the article.) Offliner (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very important to see what these proposals were - do you have some links to the Russian propositions?
As to the other parts of the interview, I'd hardly believe that the Russian action had some humanitarian arguments, given the amount of Georgian refugees and demolished villages after they took the control of the areas. I find also some wrong facts cited, such as that the Russian peacekeepers were shelled shortly after 18:00 GMT, as according to many sources the clashes between Georgian forces and Russian peacekeepers (as well as first casualties) took place a couple of hours later.
I would just laugh at the other justifications... the first to violate the Sochi agreements was Russia years before 2008, also by entering into Georgia, Russia violated the international law. The movement of Georgian forces into South Ossetia didn't represent such a violation. That's the big difference. South Ossetia is not a neutral territory - it is part of Georgia. Kouber (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but your opinion on whether or not something is factually correct or accurate is irrelevant. You're pulling a bit of a heroicwarrior here. Is the source reliable? Are the claims attributed? Does the interviewee have any well documented biases? Is the information new and relevant? Those are the only criteria to look at when adding content to an article. We don't need to ask the question: "Do pro-Georgian editors agree with the content"?LokiiT (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, but when there're factological mistakes (and there are links proving it), the entire reliability of the source becomes very questionable. On the other side, I am also interested to see the Russian overruled proposals. Kouber (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a peer-reviewed publication, not even a thesis, this is an interview and is reliable only as a source concerning "Professor Petro"'s opinion, for what it is worth (not much). Colchicum (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we remove all non-peer reviewed analyses from the article? LokiiT (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Even pro-Georgian ones? Oh no!FeelSunny (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
He has talked about this in peer-reviewed academic journals as well, such as The Fordham International Law Journal:
Before intervening, Russia desperately sought international support for an immediate ceasefire. When that failed, Russia asked that international forces be sent to the region to rebuff the Georgian aggression. Russia reacted unilaterally only when all those efforts failed and the ethnic cleansing of the population of South Ossetia appeared imminent.
As to Colchicum's comment, that his comments are "not worth much": he is a well-known expert on Russia, has published many books and articles and recently had a column published about the South Ossetia war in New York Times. Offliner (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess that was one of the "desperate efforts": "Ambassador Churkin says Russia will not withdraw its forces". Nice, Russia was so desperate that it wanted the Security Council to legitimate its occupation and bombing all around Georgia. Kouber (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Another quote out of context? Is there a competition I'm missing? "Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin says all Georgia has to do to end the bloodshed over South Ossetia is pull back all its troops and agree to a non-aggression agreement with the region. However, Ambassador Churkin says Russia will not withdraw its forces until it is certain that the people of South Ossetia are save from what he views as the genocidal plans of the Government of Georgia." I.e. just like NATO's statement that Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO, the same exact logic is used by Churkin, so those who think Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO, should also think that Russia will pull its troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The justification doesn't worth much. The important thing is that Churkin wanted Georgia to withdraw, but insisted that Russia will not withdraw. It isn't fair and it definitely isn't a "desperate effort". I don't see how that logic fits into the NATO statement. The people of Georgia expressed clearly their will to join NATO at a legitimate referendum, so the statement of NATO reflected exactly this. Kouber (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Where did Churkin want Georgia to withdraw from? There were Georgian forces North of Tbilisi on August 16th? Active, non-routed Georgian forces? Russia has made it abundantly clear that they're not going to withdraw from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, until it is certain that the people of South Ossetia are save from what he views as the genocidal plans of the Government of Georgia. Saakashvili started a war that killed civilians with rocket launchers, and now you're arguing that life isn't fair to poor Misha? Awwww. Treat all civilians with respect next time, and then you can argue about fairness. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you just cited it above. Look at your own quotes HW007: "Vitaly Churkin says all Georgia has to do ... is pull back all its troops... However, Ambassador Churkin says Russia will not withdraw its forces..." The statement was made on 10 August, not on 16. Saakashvili didn't started a war, instead he gave orders to neutralize Ossetian firing points, as Russian peacekeepers weren't able (or didn't wanted) to do it. Both Ossetian and Georgian civilians are important, and I am reminding you that Georgian civilians were dying because of Ossetian firing. The operation of Saakashvili became a war only when the Russian peacekeepers started to correct Ossetian artillery fire (see Galavanov for an example) and received orders to open fire on Georgians. So the one who actually started the war was Russia, not Georgia. Kouber (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Saakashvili didn't start the war? Who fired on Ossetians in Tskhinvali? Who attacked the Russian Peacekeeping Base, which, was an actual peacekeeping base? Who tried to collapse the Roki Tunnel? Stop trying to minimalize Saakashvili's actions Kouber. Also "neutralize" South Ossetia? Well by that logic, Russia "neutralized" Georgia pretty damn well. Are you still on Russia starting the war? The rest of the World, including the US, moved on, and stated that Georgia stated the war. But you seem to be stuck in a fantasy World, where Russians attack their own peacekeeping bases, start wars, and kill Ossetians. I like reality better. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Who fired at Georgians in their villages? Who attacked Georgian peacekeepers checkpoint, which was an actual peacekeeping checkpoint? Who injured and killed Georgian policemen?... I do not minimalize Saakashvili's actions, but you have to admit that these actions came as a response to Ossetian attacks. Perhaps Saakashvili's decisions were foolish to some extent, but they weren't criminal, they didn't violate the international law. The Russian attack on Georgia, however, represented such a violation. I am reminding you once again that South Ossetia is not a neutral territory - it is (and then was indisputably) part of Georgia.
So, if you want to blame somebody for starting the war, you have to discover who was first, haven't you? The same applies to the Russian peacekeepers actions, as an explanation of why there were casualties among them - as you can see, they were given orders to fight Georgians and they clearly took a side in this conflict, in direct contradiction to their peacekeeping role. Kouber (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes Andrei Illarionov, who has a grudge against Putin for being fired due to lack of skill at his job. And looking at that website, I have to agree with Putin, Illarionov has no skill. In the links you cited, it looks like Georgia did nothing to Russia until 2008, and Russia just kept on provoking "poor little" Georgia. Are you seriously going to blame Russia for this war based on acts that were done in 2002? Oh right, you're the guy citing Svante Cornell, nevermind. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good article from him as well. It has analysis about how Georgia conducted the media war and it even has some pieces of info that are new to me, such as "Georgia cut off water supplies to Tskhinvali already in July", and "Georgian hackers shut down Ossetian news sites early on 5 August". Offliner (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, funny how some people fumed about Svante Cornell and then don't have any qualms about a guy who worked directly for the Russian state. It is obvious that he is looking at this from the Russian perspective, not the Georgian and not the outside one.
To make this clear, I am not against Russian or Russia-related sources per se, but it is telling that there are plenty of such sources (used as non-biased when included in the article; MDB & Russia in foreign affairs are other prime examples), while the amount of Georgian sources used in analysis, background or responsibility is miniscule. --Xeeron (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Petro linked the Russia'a actions to the responsibility to protect. Yet, Wikipedia has not such link yet. Are there other academic sources which are linking the two? (Igny (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
I like good sources, be they Russian or non-Russian. Please tell me Xeeron, which biased source did I insert into the article? MDB is unbiased, it's used by military experts everywhere, NATO and Russian alike. Also, when Russian sources claimed genocide/ethnic cleansing, I was never for putting those sources in. I want quality sources irrespective of who they belong to. A source that thinks 19 = 37 x 2, isn't a quality source. It just happens that most quality sources support Russia's claims. And if we were talking about the First Chechen War, it would be the other way around. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic, I think this part of the interview should be included: "The overall perceptions [the average] American has of Russia is far less judgmental than that of the media or the policy making elite, since most people see little connection between Russia’s problems in the Caucasus, and their own lives...Sadly, while the facts regarding Georgia’s aggression are somewhat better known today, Western pundits and politicians remain ignorant of the history of the region and it peoples, and hence of the deeper roots of the conflict."

First of, it's true. Petro most likely conducted the study amongst his college students, for the first part of the statement, and anyone who watches America's TV channels, most notably CNN, can confirm the second part. I had a copy of the Times delivered, on August 8th, showing pictures of Georgian women in blood, (which were later proven fake, but no apology was given by the newspaper). I have unsubscribed from the newspaper that day, but previously I received it on a regular basis. Either way, living in the US, I can say that both statements are true. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron's fringe fantasies continued, Here's Roy Allison:

"Flag of the United Kingdom Roy Allison wrote in International Affairs that there is strong evidence that the Russian invasion of South Ossetia and then deeper into Georgia was indeed planned and even expected rather than spontaneous and improvised. However, the exact timing of the intervention during August–September may not have been of Moscow’s choosing, if for example South Ossetian forces were impatient to instigate a conflict in July–August to give Russia a pretext for intervention and could not be effectively controlled. Regarding the events of August 7/8, Allison states that "Moscow’s insistence that its forces did not cross the Georgian border until Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinvali were in severe jeopardy has gained quite wide acceptance internationally. The Georgian claim has, however, been strengthened by the release of telephone intercepts (lost for a month in the chaos of combat) indicating that at least part of a Russian armoured regiment had crossed into South Ossetia by late on 7 August." In the light of the Russian occupation of uncontested Georgian territory, its claim to realize the peacekeeping function assumed in the Sochi agreements is described as "increasingly surreal". Russia's goals in the war are described as manyfold: Restoring the security of its peacekeepers and 'citizens' in South Ossetia, the establishment of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as military protectorates, a weakening of Georgia's strategic position (as a mean to disuade NATO from offering a MAP to Georgia and to diminish the attractiveness of the energy transit corridor from the Caspian) and bringing down the government of President Saakashvili.[273]"

NATO already offered a MAP to Georgia. In an article, that you, Xeeron, cited earlier: from this I get: "We will begin talks immediately with the aim of signing Accession Protocols by the end of July 2008 and completing the ratification process without delay. During the period leading up to accession, NATO will involve the invited countries in Alliance activities to the greatest extent possible, and will continue to provide support and assistance, including through the Membership Action Plan (MAP). We look forward to receiving the invited countries' timetables for reform, upon which further progress will be expected before, and after, accession in order to enhance their contribution to the Alliance."

So in July 2008, Georgia and Ukraine go on MAP. In August, according to sources cited by Xeeron, Russia invades Georgia, in order to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from going on MAP. Xeeron, I'm not entirely sure you're aware of this, but July actually comes before August. In other words, Russia cannot attack Georgia in August, to dissuade the European countries from offering a MAP to Georgia in July. Dude, do you at least bother to read your own sources? Do you think Wikipedia's a joke or something? At this point in the debate, I am using your own sources and common sense against you. Are you sure you want to keep going? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A more appropriate section title for this would be: HistoricWarrior's POV crussade continued: Here is more crappy OR. Read up on the topic. --Xeeron (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, your little quest to promote the fringe theory that Russia intervened in Georgia because of NATO, is a big joke. I'm glad France and Germany aren't caught up in this pathetic quest. In that statement, I have quoted from your links Xeeron, and merely highlighted the dates and the appropriate wording. It's not original research. Do you have an actual counter-argument Xeeron, or will you accuse me of original research anytime I bust yet another fringe theory of yours, that you want to use Wikipedia to promote? Had Russia not intervened, there would be chaos in the Caucasian Region, and Russia would be destabilized; that's not my original research, that's the most common view on the war. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not helping this article any bit having to spend time replying to your fantasies. You seem immersed in a world different from reality. Would you have any real interest in the topic, other than pushing your extreme POV, you might have noticed that Georgia does not have a MAP. It is as simple as checking the wiki pages on the topic. Your POV driven attempts to paint only peer-reviewed source in the analyst section as fringe are ridiculous. --Xeeron (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ad Hominem against me, check. You cannot live without making an Ad Hominem against me, can you Xeeron? Here's NATO's quote, that you, Xeeron, cited earlier: "During the period leading up to accession, NATO will involve the invited countries in Alliance activities to the greatest extent possible, and will continue to provide support and assistance, including through the Membership Action Plan (MAP)." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and you can read further: "MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership.". Furthermore you can refer to Sergey Lavrov's words on 8 April 2008: "We will do everything possible to prevent the accession of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO.". Indeed, Russia did everything possible by attacking and occupying Georgia. In the same article you can also find the key sentence you're looking for: "At a summit in Bucharest on Thursday, NATO members decided to postpone offering Georgia and Ukraine the chance to join the alliance's Membership Action Plan (MAP)". By the way, in its chapter of The Guns of August 2008 book, David J. Smith accuses the West and particularly Angela Merkel for her words that "Countries that are enmeshed in regional and internal conflicts cannot become NATO members", as she, according to Smith, was confusing cause and effect - "As long as the resolution of conflicts in Georgia was a prerequisite for its membreship in the alliance, Russia was not going to allow the conflicts to be resolved." Kouber (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Or you could simply check the wiki-article Georgia-NATO relations where all this is explained, like I did right after reading your first post here and like you should have done before posting in the first place. In your haste to continue your POV crusade against all analysts you disagree with, you should spend a small amount of time for basic research of the topic you are discussing. --Xeeron (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That's very interesting, because in the Pavel Felgenhauer section, Xeeron was arguing exactly the opposite. So looks like Felgenhauer has to go either way, good arguments for removing Felgenhauer Xeeron and Kouber. Also, if Russia is doing "everything possible" - why is there no invasion of Ukriane? In addition, if Russia wanted to bring down the government of the tie chewer, why not just attack Tbilisi? Today we know NATO was going to intervene, and under 5,000 Georgians vs. over 25,000 Russians is not a good match for Georgia. An Iskander could have also removed Saakashvili. Yet Roy Allison alledges that bringing down the regime of Saakashvili was somehow a Russian objective in this war. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a lot of economic pressure towards Ukraine and there will certainly be some issues with Crimea in the future, just sit and watch. In Crimea 2/3 of the population are Russians, just like 2/3 of the population of South Ossetia were Ossetians. Sounds familiar, no? Believe me, in the future Russia will try to destabilise this country too, in order to protect its citizens, or to liberate Crimea from the genocidial plans of Yushchenko, etc. The main difference between Ukraine and Georgia is the public support for joining NATO. While in Georgia 77% of the population approved their support for NATO (and thus Russia had to react quickly), in Ukraine there's no such support yet, so the situation there isn't that urgent.
As to the regime change you can refer to this statement, made on 10 August 2008: "Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Rice that his country wants to see Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili thrown from office in order to smooth the way for peace in Georgia." Kouber (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
So you've pretty much just completely discredited yourself as an objective editor to this article. Nice to hear your opinion is in line with the most hard-lined neo-cons and anti-Russians. One could have already guessed that, but you admitting it is icing on the cake. As far as Russian "destabilizing Ukraine" goes, even if that was their objective, they would have no reason to intervene. I don't know if you've noticed, but the political situation in Ukraine is already as destabilized as it could possibly be outside of an armed revolution, and that's without Russia's help. The US backed orange revolution has failed on its own, which although is most likely pleasing to those in Moscow, is not at all their doing. They couldn't have constructed such a complete failure even if they tried. The upcoming Ukrainian election will be their true victory for democracy.
"Eighty-five percent of Ukrainians in May told Gallup they disapprove of the job performance of their country's leadership, up from 75% in 2008 and 73% in 2007. The 4% of Ukrainians who approve is not only the lowest rating Gallup has ever measured in former Soviet countries, but also the lowest in the world." - Yeah, as if Russia needs to do anything other than sit back and watch. LokiiT (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this answers the question of HistoricWarrior007 "why there is no invasion of Ukraine [yet]". The future will show. Anyway, I thank you for pointing out that objective editor = pro-Russian editor, I didn't know it. Kouber (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the suggestion of an invasion is completely absurd and baseless, and is only promoted by fear mongering neo-cons who need justification for forcefully spreading western influence into the former Soviet Union. LokiiT (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Damn, Kouber just invented a new debating tactic: take the argument of your opponent and rephrase it in such a manner, so that it means the exact opposite of what your opponent said. Oh wait, that's the tactic that got made fun of in kindergarten, whoopsie. The reason I asked "why is there no invasion of Ukraine" - is to show the sheer silliness of the argument stating something like this: "Russia no like NATO, Russia invade Georgia but not Ukraine to prevent both from joining NATO". That's something that a first grader, or Sarah Palin would say; it's not an actual argument, nor a statement by an actual analyst. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, indeed all I did is to cite an analyst. Kouber (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
When you insert something into an article as popular as this one, you actually have to explain why that particular source should be including. Merely citing people's credentials is not enough. If analysts get around 90% of their predictions correctly, then they are true analysts. If they're "majoring" in oil politics and commenting on military affairs, then they are jokes. You don't have an accountant explain to you how to win a legal case. You don't have a lawyer doing your accounting. Yet in this article there are "analysts" who get their predictions incorrectly, and they are still considered "analysts" because their editors, who want them published, say they are! To quote Jon Stewart: "Well of course the CEOs think their companies are doing ok!" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
At least be smart if you are not civil. I admit that English may not be your native language, but the fact that the verbs to dissuade and to prevent are very different in meaning should be immediately obvious to everyone. Leave your own fantasies/original research for other forums. Colchicum (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahh the person calling my hystericwanker, lecturing me on civility. Anyways, back on topic: Dissuade: "to deter by advice or persuasion; persuade not to do something" Perhaps, Colchicum, you can explain to me how I can deter something that has already occurred? Please, use your stellar English skills when doing so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And Allison's bias comes out: Mr. Allison still view the World in Black and White, in NATO and non-NATO terms. Here's his paper with a certain Svante Cornell: For instance, Mr. Allison believes that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has been largely ineffective. It has been so ineffective, that Mongolia, Iran, Pakistan and India hold observer positions while ASEAN is an honorary guest. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is so "ineffective", that it stabilized the borders of its members. In addition Mr. Allison heavily relies on reports from the Jamestown Foundation, which is already over-represented in this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Pavel Felgenhauer

From the Article:

Flag of Russia On 14 August, 2008, Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, biologist by training, observer of Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta and regular contributor to U.S. based think-tank Jamestown Foundation speculated in a Novaya Gazeta article that "Russia's invasion of Georgia had been planned in advance, with the final political decision to complete the preparations and start war in August apparently having been made back in April."

Felgenhauer is not a "Russian military analyst". He does not have a military history degree. He does not teach, nor do military researches. He is a regular contributor to the Jamestown Foundation, but since when does that make you a Russian military analyst? I am not against him being included, but first off, the flag should be American, not Russian, as the article was written by Felgenhauer as an employee of/contributor to The Jamestown Foundation, which isn't Russian. I guess credentials don't matter anymore.

Here is a gem by PF:[tt_news]=1348&tx_ttnews[backPid]=184&no_cache=1 (yeah guys, Russia is definitely losing the Second Chechen War according to Felgenhauer, whoopsie, I guess he called that one wrong.)

And from 1999: Only one prominent writer, the Moscow-based independent defense analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, has called attention to its importance, in the English-language "St. Petersburg Times." In that article, Felgenhauer called Putin "an irrational warmonger--a leader who..." (Yeah Putin, stabilizing and increasing the living standards of Russian citizens in the Caucasian region, you irrational warmonger you!)

I don't think Felgenhauer, writing for the Jamestown Foundation, qualifies as a Russian source. In addition, Felgenhauer speculated that: "Russia's invasion of Georgia had been planned in advance, with the final political decision to complete the preparations and start war in August apparently having been made back in April". Felgenhauer bases this claim on the fact that "in April Russia understood that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually join NATO". It's great that Felgenhauer understood what the rest of the World missed, because France and Germany were willing to VETO Georgia's membership. As would Spain and Greece. Here is an article that Felgenhauer apparently missed: "France will not give its green light to the entry of Ukraine and Georgia," Fillon told France Inter radio."France has an opinion which is different from that of the United States on this question." "We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think it is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia, and we want to have a dialogue on this subject with Russia," Fillon said.

It is hard to believe that France alone would go against the US, without any backing. The reason here being is that France and Germany would much rather find a middle ground between the US and Russia, then take the side of the US. Russia and France aren't threats to each other, and, outside Kosovo, don't have conflicting interests. Same can be said for Russia and Germany. Even more can be said of Russia's relationship with Greece and Spain. Perhaps Felgenhauer can explain this article for me:,Authorised=false.html? which states that, well here, I'll quote: "Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, on Wednesday pulled back from the country’s goal of putting Georgia and Ukraine in Nato’s membership action plan (MAP) after opposition from some of the alliance’s European members. MAP status for Georgia and Ukraine – often seen as a staging post to joining the alliance – was a high-profile goal for President George W. Bush at Nato’s Bucharest summit in April, but the US was unable to win the backing of some countries, such as France and Germany."

Meanwhile, Russia did NOT threaten military action outright: Responding on April 11, 2008, the head of the Russian military, general Yuri Baluyevsky stated that if Georgia joins NATO, "Russia will take steps aimed at ensuring its interests along its borders and these will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different nature". This could be a hint of Russia giving nukes to Serbia, something which would be bad for France. It is impossible to imagine France and Germany risking relations with Russia over Ukraine and Georgia. Not to mention that any referendum held to join NATO in Ukraine, where the people vote, will not win. Yet to Felgenhauer it's imminent. I heard someone wanted to shorten the article, just offering my two cents. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamestown Foundation is generally a leftover cold war propaganda tool. Funding from Washington, links to the CIA etc... I think such commentaries from sources like that are best left out of the article since it's beyond doubt that they're pushing an agenda. We wouldn't use commentary from Peter Lavelle would we? It's just not encyclopedic. The facts are important, opinions not so much, and agenda driven opinions least so. LokiiT (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I removed it. The only thing it "added" to the article, was the statement that Russia started preparing in April. That is incorrect. If Russia can prepare this well in four months, we should all fear Russia and tremble in our boots. Russia has been preparing ever since Chechnya invaded Dagestan on August 7th, 1999. (Note to self: take Biden to the beer summit on August 7th.) Also, France and Russia signed the peace treaty, France and Germany were opposed to Georgia's NATO entry; according to Felgenhauer, Russia wasn't trusting France, and then Medvedev signs the treaty? "Hi, we don't trust you, can we sign this crucially important treaty with you guys?" Also, if anyone didn't catch the Balance of Power reference, it was a reference to Talleyrand, who used France to prevent Europe from falling under Russia's sway, now it's being used to prevent Europe from falling under America's sway. Those damn Frenchmen, wanting to be all independent and Democratic. Air Force = Ground Force argument in 3...2...1 HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not starting a revert war over this, because the whole section will shortly be revamped anyway, but I have to point out that you can not remove sources based on your OR here on the talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not my OR. It's the truth. Russia started the build up on August 7th, 1999. That's way before Felgenhauer's April 2008 claim. You don't like it, well tough. Also, I quoted two sources, both Western, to prove my point, and a direct statement by the French Foreign Ministry that completely obliterates Felgenhauer's claims. Plus the analyst section doesn't need to be re-vamped, it's fine as it is, with the exception of Mr. Cornell. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've just read an article, where Felgenhauer claims that Russians haven't left Afghanistan since 1989. Yup, now this guy is officially a joke. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, I thought you aren't starting a revert war over this. Thanks for showing us yet again, that you are not a man of your word. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
And I did not start one over the removal of Felgenhauer alone (though I still disagree). But it seems that my non-action was taken as the silent approval to remove more analysts who are not pro-Russian. It is not, therefore I reverted your second removal and the first one right with it. --Xeeron (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm, you placed Felgenhauer back into the article, several times. That's starting an edit war. Now you're trying to weasel out of it, saying that you placed Felgenhauer and a blogger. Well it's irrelevant, because you still placed Felgenhauer back in the article, and have done so several times, starting an edit war, that you said you wouldn't start. An edit war over Felgenhauer and a blogger, is still an edit war over Felgenhauer, when you said you wouldn't. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Felgenhauer is not credible. I don't care about POV. I could say the same about you, a person who only inserts and fights for anti-Russian analysts. So stop it with trying to weasel out, trying to revert him back in, stop it with the "wikilawyering" and "you only place biased editors in, bawwww". I haven't placed RT into this article. You fought to keep Cornell. I place credible sources, like MDB, and remove retarded ones, like Felgenhauer. And if most of them happen to be anti-Russian, maybe Russia was *gasp* correct? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok seeing how this is still relevant, I went through your initial post, which, unsurprisingly, turns out to be less than solid in claiming that Felgenhauer is less than solid.

    • You said about this source: "yeah guys, Russia is definitely losing the Second Chechen War according to Felgenhauer, whoopsie, I guess he called that one wrong."
    • The source says: "As long as senseless and hopeless attempts to 'return Chechnya to the political and legal space of Russia' continue, Russia will never become competitive, and no one will consider her to be a 'solid and predictable business partner.'"
  • Who is russian?
    • You said: "I don't think Felgenhauer, writing for the Jamestown Foundation, qualifies as a Russian source."
    • The wiki article Pavel Felgenhauer says: "Dr. Pavel E. Felgenhauer is a Russian"
  • Georgia joining NATO
    • You asserted that "in April Russia understood that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually join NATO" (my emphasis) is not true: "It's great that Felgenhauer understood what the rest of the World missed"
    • Georgia–NATO relations says (talking about the NATO summit in April 2008): "Instead NATO countries assured the Georgian side in a special communiqué that they would eventually join the alliance once the requirement for membership were met." (my emphasis)

To summarize, you wall of text is half-backed WP:OR by yourself, is misrepresenting the sources and is in no way proving Felgenhauer wrong. --Xeeron (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said that Felgenhauer isn't Russian. I said that Felgenhauer the Vlasovite shouldn't be considered a Russian source. Reading comprehension rocks. Also, Felgenhauer's claim rests solely on the premise that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually join NATO, based on the August promises. I have cited two sources, proving that wouldn't happen. If the French Foreign Ministry states that they'll veto Georgia's admission into NATO, if the pro-NATO Australian newspapers concurs with that, then there's no reason to worry about for Russia. To claim that Russia started militarizing in April because some NATO leaders made a statement, that directly contradicted reality, is moronic.
Once again Xeeron, since you missed this: Tue Apr 1, 2008 1:13pm EDT: PARIS (Reuters) - France will not support bids by the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine to become members of NATO, putting it at odds with the United States, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said on Tuesday: "France will not give its green light to the entry of Ukraine and Georgia," Fillon told France Inter radio. France has an opinion which is different from that of the United States on this question....We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think it is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia, and we want to have a dialogue on this subject with Russia," Fillon said. So you have some NATO leaders, vs. a direct statement by the French Prime Minister. Geez, I wonder, who will Russia trust more? And Xeeron, I'm not the one rebuffing Felgenhauer, Fillon, the French Prime Minister is. If this is my WP:OR then I want Carla Bruni next to me this very second! Souce:
You know what's hilarious Xeeron? You quoted a Wikipedia Article, that Kober helped edit, against the word of a French Prime Minister, and then you accuse me of WP:OR. Meanwhile on Russia and Chechnya, from what you copied from the source: "The source says: "As long as senseless and hopeless attempts to 'return Chechnya to the political and legal space of Russia' continue, Russia will never become competitive, and no one will consider her to be a 'solid and predictable business partner.'"" No one right? However a "very pro-Russian" website, CIA World Factbook, begs to differ: CIA states that Russia has $476 billion in exports and $302 billion in imports. This was done after Russia returned Chechnya to the political and legal space of Russia. So apparently $778 billion is just money that the World can spare on an "unpredictable business partner". Either that or Putin bribed the CIA. Or Felgenhauer is wrong. I wonder, out of those three, which one is it? Now I don't know what Xeeron will say, but I'm going with Felgenhauer being dead wrong. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No matter how you try to twist the words, Felgenhauer almost literally repeats what the NATO (including France!) did decide. It is not Felgenhauer's word against some French one. It is your interpretation vs the identical versions of both Felgenhauer and NATO. Obviously I trust NATO and Felgenhauer, not your interpretation.
Furthermore, what you say about Russian trade is irrelevant. You claimed he was saying Russia lost in Chechenia, in fact he was talking about business relations.
Finally, your statement that a Russian analyst working in Russia is not a Russian source is ... ridiculous. --Xeeron (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
My initial claim was that Felgenhauer was wrong about Chechnya. I have proved that conclusively. Also, France said that they will not admit Georgia into NATO. That's what they said. Directly. Felgenhauer said the exact opposite. I'm not twisting anyone's words. Read the damn links Xeeron. Also, The Jamestown Foundation, for who the Vlasovite wrote the "article" is not a Russian Source. Here's Felgenhauer: "В апреле на саммите НАТО в Бухаресте, в котором Путин принимал личное участие, стало ясно, что присоединение Грузии и Украины к альянсу, хоть пока решение отложено, неизбежно." "In April at the NATO summit in Bucharest, in which Putin participated, it became obvious that Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO." Here's French Prime Minister, in April: "France will not give its green light to the entry of Ukraine and Georgia". So Felgenhauer says they will join NATO, and France says they won't. Hmm, Felgenhauer or Fillion, I wonder who knows French Foreign Policy better, the person who thought the Russians were in Afghanistan from 1990-1994, or the French Prime Minister. Of course according to Xeeron, I'm twisting their words and they're both saying the same thing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me correct that sentence for you: "FelgenhauerNATO said the exact opposite." You see, NATO says: "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."[7] Please let me repeat that sentence, since you do not seem to have understood it in my previous post. NATO said: "these countries will become members of NATO." That is exactly what Felgenhauer refers to and the total opposite of what you claim, so: Felgenhauer - right, you - wrong. This case is closed really. --Xeeron (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you with your English Xeeron. The quote says "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO." Do you know what aspirations are? That doesn't mean that NATO is welcoming Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, that means that NATO is saying "hey, Ukraine and Georgia want to join, let's take a look". Also, Xeeron, when you quote, try not quoting out of context. Here's the whole statement: "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia."
"MAP is the next step on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries' applications for MAP." In other words, if Georgia and Ukraine pass MAP, they join. If Georgia and Ukraine won't pass MAP, they won't join. So what is this MAP? Well let's get a NATO release on MAP, which stands for Membership Action Plan: From the article: " The nine NATO aspirants that are participating in the MAP are Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(*). Croatia is expected to present its first annual national programme in autumn 2003. After the Prague Summit, the MAP will continue to serve both aspirants and those countries invited to begin accession talks with the Alliance...The MAP gives substance to NATO’s commitment to keep its door open. However, participation in the MAP does not guarantee future membership, nor does the Plan consist simply of a checklist for aspiring countries to fulfil. Decisions to invite aspirants to start accession talks will be taken within NATO by consensus and on a case-by-case basis."
Macedonia was given the same promises that Georgia and Ukraine were given. Yet Greece vetoed Macedonia's membership, like Greece said they would. Today France is saying they'll veto Georgia's and Ukraine's membership. In other words, and I'm quoting NATO here, so don't you dare say this is my original research Xeeron, MAP doesn't guarantee membership. Or take the case of Albania. In 2002 Albania applied for NATO membership. Albania was admitted in 2009. Your press release says that these countries "will" join NATO. It doesn't give the exact date. Will when? In seven years? In 100 years? When NATO falls apart? Saying that Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO is like a kid saying "yeah mom, I will clean up my room". On the one hand you have a direct veto statement from France. On the other you have vague NATO promises. Direct veto threat vs. vague promises.
And even if Georgia was to join NATO, the MAP program takes a while. The fastest that the program ever worked, is two years, on countries with near perfect NATO records, which Georgia doesn't have. Yet Felgenhauer asserts that once Putin heard that Georgia and Ukraine were placed on the MAP program, he instantly decided to attack poor little Georgia. Never mind France's direct veto threat. Never mind that no direct promises from NATO were given. Never mind that a country previously on the MAP program never made it into NATO, due to a single veto. Felgenhauer ignores all those facts.
Does Putin not know what MAP is? Does Putin not know how MAP works? The assertions in Felgenhauer's paper are flat out ridiculous. And why the rush? Russia and China are friends; the MAP will take at least two years, why attack before the Olympics in China? And just for the record, Russian mobilization in the Caucasian Region started in August of 1999, which is way before Felgenhauer's suggested date of April 2008. Yes, mobilization continued in April 2008. And it continues to this day. But aside from Felgenhauer, I've yet to see actual evidence, not "Putin pissed that Georgia + Ukraine go on map, I Felgenhauer good, I read Count Vlad's mind, Russia mobilize, hurr, durr" evidence, but actual evidence.
Remember all those lovely promises that Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO: well not anytime soon according to CFR, a very powerful lobby group in the US. "Robert E. Hunter, who was U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the Clinton administration, says he does not expect NATO foreign ministers to enlarge the alliance to include Georgia or Ukraine at the next meeting in December. Given the strong Russian objections to the enlargement, "I don't think anybody wants to run the risk of giving the Russians a pretext to do what they did against Georgia. Nor do people want to pretend that Ukraine is anywhere near ready to join NATO. Nor are NATO countries ready to give a security commitment to Ukraine." He expects efforts will be made to enlarge ties short of NATO membership, however." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your wall-of-text detailing the workings of MAP is irrelevant. NATO said: "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."
No dancing around with English, no walls-of-text, that is 100% clear and exactly what Felgenhauer related to. Whether you trust NATO to keep their word or not is not important. Felgenhauer did, there is a direct quote from NATO that backs his statement, and your case against him is dead. --Xeeron (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron - really, you gotta learn to stop quoting out of context, and then accusing me of "dancing around with English". That makes you a hypocrite. The entire quote stated that the only direct action would be Georgia going on the MAP plan. Also, the word "will" means in the future. The far future, the near future, we don't know. But wait, we do - because France said they'll veto, it won't be the near future. Now Felgenhauer's claim stated that Russia started mobilizing in April 2008 because Putin feared Georgia's entry into NATO. However, no state has joined NATO via the MAP plan in under two years. You can take one line that's quoted out of context, bold it all you want, accuse others of "dancing around with English" - but it still won't change the fact that Georgia and Ukraine must first get passed the MAP plan, which will take at least two years. In addition they must also get past France's veto. Felgenhauer quoted NATO out of context, although coming from you, someone who consistently tries to quote other Wikipedians out of context, including me, I'm not surprised that you're supporting his out of context quotes. NATO says "once Georgians get past MAP, they will join NATO". You and Felgenhauer both quote only the "they will join NATO" part. That's called quoting out of context. It's like someone saying "if you give me a million dollars, I will give you a million dollars", but the only part that Xeeron or Felgenhauer would quote is "I will give you a million dollars". You are trying to place a source into Wikipedia that quotes out of context. But this coming from you, I'm not one bit surprised, Xeeron, not one bit. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"in April Russia understood that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually join NATO" --Xeeron (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
But there are nothing, no sources pointing to April 2008. Russia didn't start preparing in April 2008, and besides Felgenhauer's "I said so" statement, you have no proof. It could have been April 2009. Again, where is the actual proof that Russia acted on NATO's decision to eventually include Georgia? Here's the whole statement: "On 14 August, 2008, Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, biologist by training, observer of Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta and regular contributor to U.S. based think-tank Jamestown Foundation speculated in a Novaya Gazeta article that "Russia's invasion of Georgia had been planned in advance, with the final political decision to complete the preparations and start war in August apparently having been made back in April."" - so please Xeeron, show me a credible source that stated that Russia made the political decision? It's sheer speculation by Felgenhauer, nothing more. It's very easy to say after the fact "see I predicted that". Aside from Felgenhauer's "just trust me, there are WMDs in Iraq" type statement, there has been no proof that the final decision was made in April.HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's think, first of all, why are we promoting a fringe theory supported by one man in the article on such a scale? Felgenhauer's ideas definitely depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view, are a novel re-interpretation of history and are not referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. FeelSunny (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the a full government (and like 95% of a full state) is behind this makes the FRINGE claim absurd. WP:FRINGE is for people who claim to have been sexually abused by aliens, not for disagreeing political-historical points of view. --Xeeron (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Noone behind Pavel is behind the theory in April Russia understood Georgia and Ukraine are going to enter NATO and started to plan the South Ossetia war.FeelSunny (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the final decision was made on August 5th. or BBC's version: - nobody really believes Felgenhauer's silly claim that Russia, in April, decided to provoke Georgia, on the verge of the Chinese Olympics, when the MAP would have taken at least two years, and there would be a change in the American Administration. Which 95% are you talking about Xeeron? 95% of Svante Cornell's "colleagues"? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this will focus the discussion on more fruitful endeavors. If it is conceded that everyone including Russia knew that Georgia and Ukraine were to enter NATO, then it can be seen that it still remains to be proven that Russia's subsequent actions were based on this knowledge. Even if everyone was all in agreement that yes, there is an obvious connection, and all felt that the one thing proves the other, it would still be an opinion, and an unscholarly non-notable opinion at that.

Inclusion of a statement from a scholar to that effect is a whole other thing, and I will not get involved in that discussion yet, other than to say that for the most part, such statements should be a reflection of a wide consensus, and not a single scholar's idea. Anarchangel (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently User:Kober just wants to settle it with good old fashioned vandalism and edit-warring: as he didn't really bother contributing to this discussion, but just placed Felgenhauer back into the article. Unless there's actual discussion from user:Kober I must consider this edit of his vandalism. Any editor, please feel free to undo it. I'll lead by example. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please follow WP:CIV. Unsubstantiated vandalism claims are certainly against the policy. One should also add references to Latynina and Illarionov here. BTW, I would like to avoid filing an SPI request...Biophys (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This coming from a user who suggested that I was a sock puppet account? Really Biophys? Back on topic - show me any proof that shows that the final decision was made in April. Any proof? Anything? If not, then it's not worth quoting. Felgenhauer's whole article rests on the April claim. Nothing backs that up. According to Illarionov there were UFOs in South Ossetia. You certainly know how to select your sources Biophys, except I like sources that are credible, like the MDB, instead of UFO sources that fit your POV Biophys. Also, when you add something, that has been removed due to discussion, that is vandalism, pure and simple. So once again, if you want to put Felgenhauer back in show me a credible source that the Kremlin made the final decision in April. We don't place mere speculation under statements by analysts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
He is a "prominent military analyst", according to the most hostile media [8]. So, it belongs there. I did not tell that you are a sock (please read my words). Fine. I might file a request then.Biophys (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Biophys, I asked for an actual reliable source that confirms Felgenhauer's statement. You have failed to provide that. Instead you come up with an article about Felgenhauer. MI-6 recruited Russian spies - ZOMG! Really? Did you also know that the Sun is a star? Felgenhauer is a true professional, I'll quote his "stellar" results: "This venture did not get us a single secret document and cost $60,000". Biophys, wikipedia is not a joke. Also, quoting for your article: "Pavel Felgenhauer, a prominent Moscow journalist and military analyst, confirmed the existence of Truefax yesterday but cast doubt on Tomlinson's version of events as it applied to him. He told The Guardian he was commissioned to write an article on Russian biological warfare strategy in 1992. He says he received £400 from Truefax for two articles." He was an expert on Russian biological warfare strategy in 1992. However, the article in question, has absolutely nothing to do with biological warfare. Secondly, biological warfare evolves very fast, so Russian strategies must have changed as well. Either way, this has nothing to do with my point. I shall repeat it for you: how did Pavel Felgenhauer know that the final decision was made in April? Where are other supporting sources for this? Are we just supposed to trust Felgenhauer, the same man who said that Putin couldn't remove Saakashvili if he wanted to, the same man who stated that Russians were in Afghanistan throughout the 1990's, based on his mere word? So here we have a person, who received 400 pounds from Truefax, who engaged in a media war against Russia, and we're taking his mere word on this? Just because you like his POV Biophys, doesn't mean that facts aren't important. They are. I want to see actual facts, confirming Felgenhauer's point. If Felgenhauer wrote an article in April, saying that the final decision has been made, based on interviews with Russia's leadership, it's one thing. What you have here is a joke. After August 5th, when it was obvious to everyone that Russian can intervene, because they did so, Felgenhauer writes an article, saying that the final decision was made in April, after Putin attended the NATO summit. Did Felgenhauer read Putin's mind? How did he know? Saying "trust this guy, he has credentials, he must know" is akin to the logic used in 2003, against Hussein, where we were all told, by guys with more credentials than Felgenhauer can ever imagine, that Hussein had WMDs. So to sum it up Biophys: how did Pavel Felgenhauer know that the final decision was made in April? Did Putin whisper it into his ear? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another article by Felgenhauer: "Of course, today Russia is too weak to seriously exploit the new rift in the West. But many in Moscow are happy to see it happen: The dream of a "multipolar" world seems to be materializing. France, Germany, China, Russia, the Vatican -- i.e. all, or almost all, world centers of power with the exception of Washington are joining forces to prevent the U.S. war machine from rolling Hussein out of office." Yes - fear the might of The Vatican, against the US War Machine.

And here's Felgenhauer completely ignoring the US Civil Rights Movement: "I lived for almost 40 years under a totalitarian regime, and I know from first-hand experience what life without freedom means. Anti-war protesters in Western Europe and America do not know and could not care less." Yeah, you anti-war protesters that marched with Martin Luther King Jr. You clearly know nothing of the oppression poor, poor Pasha had to face.

"Only by military means can millions of Iraqis be released from total servitude, and Hussein destroyed along with his Baath party that has ruled Iraq since 1958. If there ever existed such a thing as a "just war" then the coming U.S.-led invasion of Iraq could be the most righteous of them all." - yeah so if you're one of the people who lost a loved one, after all a million Iraqis died, remember - the US fought a "just war" according to Felgenhauer.

Felgenhauer's analogy, Hussein is Hitler: "It's easy to envisage a similar scenario in 1944: After the liberation of France and Belgium, the war could have stopped at the borders of Hitler's Reich. A ceasefire could have been signed (the Germans were at the time actively trying to start negotiations to organize such a ceasefire). A UN inspection team could have been deployed to destroy Hitler's ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. Hitler and his party would have continued to rule in Berlin and would surely have played games with UN arms inspectors, using underground factories and so on. Western pacifists, the Vatican and all those that today adamantly oppose the liberation of Iraq by force would surely have liked an outcome that would have left Hitler in power and saved many German lives and German cities. The Germans were in fact liberated against their own will -- the majority continued to support Hitler to the bloody end." - yeah, all those 100 million Americans, such as, dare I say it, Barack Obama, you Hitler Appeasers you. Felgenhauer the military analyst knows it all.

"If Chirac and other French politicians had had their way, Hussein could have made tens of nuclear bombs by 1990." - How does he know? Oh I get it, according to Biophys, Felgenhauer is a military analyst, so we must trust him blindly. Well Hitler was a military analyst too. See, I can also do grotesque analogies.

And this is the guy, whom, according to Biophys, Xeeron, Kober, et al, we should trust, like the Nazis trusted Hitler, because "Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst" and he's damn good at lying and bullshitting. To quote Jon Stewart: "Don't these idiots know we're recodring this stuff?"


Now, we can remove Felgenhauer from this article, or I can post more embarrassing stuff about him. Your choice, because I have the time, and I have the library of his stuff, oh boy do I have the library. Like for instance Russia and Ukraine are about to go at it, according to Felgenhauer: How's your hero doing now Biophys, Xeeron, Kober, Kouber, et al? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let's post this analysis by Felgenhauer: "трудной будет для наших недеформированных ВС задача эффективно воевать на чужой территории, за непроходимым зимой и труднопроходимым летом Кавказским хребтом." "It will be tough for the Russian Army to defeat the Georgian Forces." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And here's Xeeron the flip-flopper. From the Felgenhauer argument:

"Georgia–NATO relations says (talking about the NATO summit in April 2008): "Instead NATO countries assured the Georgian side in a special communiqué that they would eventually join the alliance once the requirement for membership were met." (my emphasis)"

And from the Allison argument:

"It is not helping this article any bit having to spend time replying to your fantasies. You seem immersed in a world different from reality. Would you have any real interest in the topic, other than pushing your extreme POV, you might have noticed that Georgia does not have a MAP. It is as simple as checking the wiki pages on the topic. Your POV driven attempts to paint only peer-reviewed source in the analyst section as fringe are ridiculous."

And recently, Xeeron undid my edit on Felgenhauer. So according to Xeeron the intelligent, despite Georgia not having a MAP, Felgenhauer's unsupported claim that Russia attacked Georgia because Russia feared that Georgia might join NATO, despite Georgia not having a MAP, which takes at least two years to complete, was the reason that Russia attacked Georgia on the eve of the Chinese Olympics. When I tried to remove Felgenhauer from the article, Xeeron, who earlier stated that he won't start an edit war over this, placed him back in, for the fifth time. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kober, do you think that you are king, or somehow above the Discussion page? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Histeric, do you think that you are czar, or somehow above Felgenhauer? --KoberTalk 18:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Kober, we aren't in kindergarten, you may stop with the name calling. Personally, I think everyone who can think rationally is above Felgenhauer, whose argument is: "Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO, this pissed off Putin, so Russia went ahead and invaded Georgia, and the only proof I have of this is my ability to read Putin's mind". Nevermind the fact that Russian and China have warm relations, which would be severely damaged had Russia invaded on the eve of the Chinese Olympics. Nevermind the fact that Georgia and Ukraine weren't even on the MAP plan, which takes at least two years to complete. Nevermind the fact Felgenhauer offers NO PROOF to support his theory, and all FACTS point to his theory being dead wrong! Nevermind the fact that Felgenhauer goes out of his way to hurt both Russia and the United States. For instance, on Russia, Felgenhauer predicted that the Russian forces will have a tough time dealing with the Georgian forces. The Russians routed the Georgians in 5-8 days. He also published a paper, about the Iraq War, calling all those who voted against the Iraq War, 100 million Americans, President Obama amongst them, "Hitler Appeasers". The Iraq War killed over a million Iraqis, destroyed US prestige internationally, but hey, the oil and arms Neocon lobby made a killing, literally and in profits. So to answer your question, yes I am above Felgenhauer, an "analyst" who betrays his countries for profit and continues to do so. I also think that every single editor in this article, including you, is above Felgenhauer. How does that make me a Czar? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the original topic, of removing the disgrace that Felgenhauer is, a point that opposing editors don't want to debate, Xeeron and Kober would rather make Ad Hominems against me than actually engage in intelligent debate, here's an argument that discredits Felgenhauer's whole theory:

"Pavel Felgenhauer’s conspiracy theory has several major wholes in it. First of all, it relies on the false assumption that contingency plans constitute decided actions. This is the same mistake made by those who supported the various conspiracy theories surrounding the August 1991 party-siloviki putsch against Gorbachev and Yeltsin. More or less normal contingency plans for instituting emergency rule and martial law were loosely interpreted as plans to implement them at a soon-to-be-determined time and place.

Second, the entire Russian ‘plan’ would have been undone, if Saakashvili had agreed to sign the agreement proposed by Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia to reject the use of force to resolve Georgia’s self-made‘frozen conflicts.’ It was Saakashvili’s willingness to use force that allowed him, if he indeed was, to be sucked into using force. This means that he was as complicit as the Russians were in the frozen conflict’s thaw and devolution into violence. Both sides were spoiling for a fight and to one extent or another were doing their best to bait the other side into flagrantly breaking the ceasefire by way of a major incursion. In other words, it is unclear who entrapped whom. As usual a certain ilk of ‘analyst’ is willing to entertain this possibility in relation to the Russian side; for that ilk the Russians are always entirely to blame, and the West and whomever the present administration has designated an ally are not.

Felgenhauer mentions Russia's April tranfer of unarmed troops to Abkhazia to make repairs of the Abkhaz railroad for transport of Russian military equipment and the shooting down of the Israeli-suppled recon drones. He neglects to mention that if the railraod repairs were preparation for war, what were the recon flights for?

He mentions the Russian 58th army's maneuvers, but neglects the American-Georgian military excercies being conducted at the same time. One is seen as preparation for war, the other is ignored. Clearly both were intended as general preparation in the even of war. It is possible that niether or both were part of mobilization for an already planned attack. Felgenhauer neglects the fact that Georgian forces stepped up their activities and moved heavy artillery closer to Tskhinval during their maneuvers with U.S. forces. In RFERL writer Brian Whitmore's rehash of Felgenhauer's material he mentions that "(a)t center stage in the Russian maneuvers was...Russia's 58th Army, the very unit that would later play a key role in the incursion." This supposedly revealing 'coincdence' is intended to be further 'proof' that Russia had decidec on war. Omitted from Whitmore's piece is that any maneuvers in Russia's North Caucasus would include the 58th Army which is the nucleus of its military presence there and has been fighting Chechen separatists and Caucasus jihadists for years. American taxpayers might wonder why their hard-earned money is funding pro-Georgian propaganda by the "independent" organization "funded by the U.S. Congress"?!

Felgenhauer’s reliance on the conspiracy theories surrounding the Chechen jihadists’ long-planned invasion of Dagestan in 1999 further undermine his interpretation. The Russian did not need to goad jihadists like Shamil Basaev and global jihadist and al Qaeda operative Khattab to attack Dagestan. The Chechen and foreign jihadists had been conspiring with Dagestan jihadists’ for well over a year to establish an Islamic jamaat/caliphate in several Dagestani villages and months before their attack were declaring their intention to do so. The same conspiratorial approach surrounds that period’s Moscow and Volgadonsk apartment bombings, for which both Basaev and Khattab took responsibility by acknowledging that Dagestanis had carried it out.

These conspiracy theories are similar to those surrounding the Bush administration and Mossad and 9/11 and deserve about as much credence. That is why no semi-serious, no less serious analyst pays them much heed.

Dr. Gordon M. Hahn –Senior Researcher, Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program and Visiting Assistant Professor, Graduate School of International Policy Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, California; Senior Researcher, Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group; and Analyst/Consultant, Russia Other Points of View – Russia Media Watch, Dr Hahn is author of two well-received books, Russia’s Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007) and Russia’s Revolution From Above (Transaction, 2002), and numerous articles on Russian politics."

So a loser who cannot get his war predictions correctly, vs. a person who was published by Yale Press. Yale wins again or Shitversity! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Borisov Again

Vyacheslav Borisov admitted that "now Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves."

That comes from a single source, the NY Times. How did the NY Times get that information? From another discussion: Unless I see an actual quote from Borisov from a source that he actually gave the interview to, I am going to have to delete it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google Search, found 16 references, they are: Wikipedia, New York Times, World War Four Report (I'm sorry did I miss WWIII?), Prairiepundit, Wikipedia again, Godlikeproductions, Free Republic, IISS, Blog, Georgian Daily,, Sfetcu, Wikipedia Again, a website citing Wikipedia, Jorgen Modin, and Neither of these sources had access, even remotely, to Borisov. Neither of these sources had taken Borisov's interview. Where did the quote come from? Well NY Times doesn't cite the original interview, World War Four cites the NY Times, prairie pundit cites the NY Times, Godlike Productions cite the NY Times, Free Republic cites the NY Times, IISS cites the NY Times, Townhall blog cites the NY Times, Georgian Daily cites the NY Times, The New Age source also cites the NY Times, Sfectu has his own account, Modin cited the NY Times, and all Wikipedia sources also, either directly or indirectly cited the New York Times.

So where did the quote come from? According to Sfectu, Borisov said it on August 13th. Matt Seigel printed it on August 14th. However, I cannot find an interview that Borisov on August 13th. Nor can I find Borisov giving an interview on August 14th. To me it looks like Matt Siegel just pulled that quote out of his ass.

Mark Ames describes how Matt Siegel performed his journalistic duties, in this article:

"On the long ride down to Gori via South Ossetia, Siegel loudly and busily counted up the burned houses in ethnic Georgian villages, excitedly telling everyone, “This is what my New York Times editor wants,” running up and down the Hyundai minibus aisle. When we’d pass through Ossetian villages, he was back in his seat, on the phone loudly reporting figures into his cellphone.

When we got to Gori, we saw that it wasn’t bombed to the ground, as we’d expected. Frankly, I was shocked: after what the Russians did to Grozny during the two Chechen wars, I couldn’t believe that they wouldn’t bomb an enemy city into rubble first and ask questions later. But the fact was, compared with the ruins of Tskhinvali, Gori looked like Geneva. Siegel wasn’t interested–or, rather, his Times editor wasn’t–so he went running around looking for evidence that the Russians had dropped a cluster bomb. He thought he found that evidence–we all saw the bombshell–but apparently it wasn’t rock-solid enough for the Times editors."

And that's just one example. For those who think that Mark Ames is pro-Russian, bear in mind that his newspaper in Russia was shut down by Russian authorities.

So where did that quote come from? Why was it only quoted by the New York Times? Why didn't anyone else pick up on it? To me it just looks like Siegel pulled that quote out of his ass, considering that Borisov was busy commanding the troops to make actual interviews or press releases. Indeed not a single interview shows Borisov making that statement.

Correction: Sfetcu also cites Wikipedia, which cites the NY Times. And the NY Times has still no released a source on how they got the information.

There are no other sources confirming it. Not one source, aside from the New York Times. I believe having this quote in violates WP:FRINGE Speaking of the New York Times, how are those tapes doing? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's WP:FRINGE: "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it."

Well the NY Times is the only source. We are presenting that quote, as if it actually originated from Borisov. However Borisov did not give interviews or press releases on August 13th or August 14th. In addition, half of the links flashing Borisov's statement come from Wikipedia. Thus Wikipedia is becoming the primary source for Siegel's fringe theory. Also, there are no independent second sources of any reliability and quality confirming the NY Times. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying that the Ossetian militias committed crimes after the war. Although it's suspicious that Borisov's quote cannot be confirmed from other sources, it is likely to be correct. For example, here he admits that "there are hooligans anywhere -- we cannot control everything." Offliner (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
"There were only two or three cars of Ossetians that came down. I personally confiscated their assault rifles, kicked them in their behinds, and told them that I will have them executed if they come again," Borisov said. "There are hooligans anywhere -- we cannot control everything." That's very different from Ossetians running around killing poor Georgians. There was massive property damage, no one questions that, but the quote makes it look like there's systematic killings. Got a similar quote of Borisov talking about killings or murder? Here's Borisov again: "We are not going to shoot, we are not going to kill" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Update - just corresponded with NY Times and they ignored my text, but pointed out that Siegel was a stringer correspondent, a point that was already made by Mark Ames of The Nation. A stringer correspondent is someone who is hired due to a lack of journalists in the field, and does not usually produce quality articles. Peter Finn, a senior correspondent who saw the same data that Matt Siegel did, has not found any such claim. I've also interviewed soldiers whose shall remain nameless, and the actual quote was "now the Western Press will say that Ossetians are running and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves". Looks like Siegel proved Borisov right. I realize that the latter part of my statement may fall under WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. However the comment about Peter Finn, and Mark Ames, and the NY Times on Matt Siegel, is by no means original research, and shouldn't be treated as such. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:Fringe Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.

Also: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. "

Now let's take a look at Borisov's quote: "Vyacheslav Borisov admitted that "now Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves."

Before that we have another quote: "A Russian lieutenant said on 14 August: "We have to be honest. The Ossetians are marauding." I take no issue with this quote, because, although the quote is anti-Russian, there was substantial proof of property destruction on the part of Ossetians, and property destruction is a part of marauding. I am just saying this, because I know that at some point in time, there will be a pro-Neocon editor whining about me taking out all anti-Russian sources.

So let's go back to Borisov's quote: "Vyacheslav Borisov admitted that "now Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves." First off, there have been no records of mass killings of Georgians. There were records of property destruction but there were no records of mass killings of Georgians. Out of 17,500 - less than 70 died. The standard rule of warfare, is that you aren't supposed to inflict more civilian casualties, than military casualties. Georgia's lowest count of military casualties is 2,200. By contrast, Georgian civilian casualties are 228. Now if one looks at only those who were killed, one would notice that the 228 number referred to "dead or missing", in other words we don't know how many were killed and how many were missing. You also have to apply overall casualties, when dealing with above stated rule, not just those killed. In other words, there were no reports of Ossetians deliberately killing Georgians on a massive scale, as the quote by Borisov suggests.

The quote only appears in a New York Times Article. There are no secondary sources, as all of the people who are quoting it, are citing the New York Times, or this Wikipedia Article, which is also citing the New York Times. Wikipedia rule states: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." I do not dispute that the NY Times is a major publication. But was the idea referenced in a serious manner? Not really, it was a quote from a second-string correspondent. And it wasn't referenced extensively. In fact, it was only printed in a single article. So the quote clearly fails the test of being "referenced extensively". Nor are there any debunking sources. The quote clearly breaks WP:Fringe.

But it doesn't stop there. Our article makes the fringe theory appear extremely notable. So notable that roughly half of the citations of the quote come not from the NY Times, but from Wikipedia. In short, our article is an engine driving that fringe theory forward, and Wikipedia is one of the two primary sources for it, the other being the NY Times. There are no other well-known, reliable and verifiable sources that discuss the idea. Furthermore our article presents this fringe theory as a fact! I have not seen a clearer case of WP:Fringe than the one regarding Borisov's quote. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the same point is covered by the previous quote, and because of the concerns you presented about Borisov's quote, I think we should remove the latter. Offliner (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The NYT is well-known, reliable and every article citing a primary source is a secondary source (of course one could argue that the NYT is already a secondary source, in which cases the citations become tertiary sources), so neither of your points applies. --Xeeron (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
For those who didn't read the definition the first time: "an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication" - a single citation in a single publication by a second string correspondent is not referenced extensively. The reason for extensive referencing is so that a single opinion, or a single quote, doesn't ride the coattails of the NY Times, and doesn't get more credibility than it's due. According to your logic Xeeron, every single opinion written in the NY Times, every single second string correspondent's quote in the NY Times becomes unquestioned, which is just plain silly. New staff and second string correspondents make mistakes. If something is a mistake, it's only referenced in a single article; if it's not a mistake, it's referenced extensively. Wikipedia shouldn't publish said mistakes, and, oh look, we have a policy that allows us to stop POV editors from publishing such crap, it's called WP:Fringe. In addition, the primary source that Siegel's article cites is non-existent. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't stop reading at the word you highlight. Read on for 11 more words and you will come to the key part: "in at least one major publication". NYT is a major publication and it is also "at least one". --Xeeron (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a magical word there. It's called "and". That means that an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication. I.e. it has to meet all three requirements. When I say I have candy and cookies in my house, that means I have candy in my house and I have cookies in my house. That doesn't mean that I have candy or cookies outside of my house. Do you see the difference in the "and" vs. "or" points? Or are these two words now synonyms too Xeeron? The referenced extensively part isn't a standalone part, it's part of the rule referenced extensively in a major publication. A single quote in a single major publication is not an extensive reference on its own. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I remembered and I laughed.
Back to the point, 100% of the words in the article are also in the source. Furthermore, the source is called "Signs of Ethnic Attacks in Georgia Conflict" and is an entire article about the topic. That is extensive. --Xeeron (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Attacks do not equate to killings. Person A can knock out person B, without killing him. To call someone who punched another person in the face, a ruthless killer, is quite a stretch. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice explanation, but it has nothing to do with Borisov's quote: "now Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves." --Xeeron (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, where did the quote come from? Why didn't anyone besides Matt Siegel print it? There has been evidence of mass property destruction. There has been zero evidence of mass killings. The NHC, one of the most anti-Russian publications, found only 16 killings that took place during several months. I'm not going to reargue my case for WP:Fringe, I will simply repost it here: "For those who didn't read the definition the first time: "an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication" - a single citation in a single publication by a second string correspondent is not referenced extensively. The reason for extensive referencing is so that a single opinion, or a single quote, doesn't ride the coattails of the NY Times, and doesn't get more credibility than it's due. According to your logic Xeeron, every single opinion written in the NY Times, every single second string correspondent's quote in the NY Times becomes unquestioned, which is just plain silly. New staff and second string correspondents make mistakes. If something is a mistake, it's only referenced in a single article; if it's not a mistake, it's referenced extensively. Wikipedia shouldn't publish said mistakes, and, oh look, we have a policy that allows us to stop POV editors from publishing such crap, it's called WP:Fringe. In addition, the primary source that Siegel's article cites is non-existent." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't this is such a huge issue. The Borisov quote is clearly unnecessary, since the previous sentence says basically the same (that the Ossetians are marauding.) One editor presented concerns about the quote (and I tend to agree), so there shouldn't be much of a problem with removing it. Offliner (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)