Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Page protected (prior title redacted)

Maybe now they will start actually discussing, and following discussion comments, and explaining, instead of just editing away on a completely biased source, such as the ISDP. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How about Due to HistoricWarriors unwarranted reverts of sourced information this article has been temporarily blocked. It always takes two.

Seeing how you even label an edit that changes "over 2,500" to "2,542" (of course sourced) as "Yet another NPOV edit", I am not even that unhappy about the article being locked for a bit, so I can have a break from seeing such stuff in the history. --Xeeron (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please watch your language/sarcasm, though you do have a point. To all editors of the page, please make your edit summaries descriptive. "NPOV edit" means nothing, and labling an edit with that summary does not make the edit itself "NPOV". —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To HistoricWarrior007, announcing my page protection in this way is not productive, and can be viewed as disruptive. If you read my protection summary the protection is over the long drawn out editwars I see in the history. Yours is not the only one. I just think you all need a short break to list issues here and try to resolve those issues here without going in and reverting each other. Talk here is better then talk through edit summaries. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Xeeron, I have very clearly stated my case on the talkpage. I've said it is a biased source, you then claimed that it was written by PhDs, to which I countered that PhDs also deny the Holocaust, and you should view the source on its own, not based on who wrote it, to which you responded by making the edit anyways. You don't counter-argue on discussion page, but rather just edit away to fit your POV. One has but to look at the discussion page to see which side prevails, and yet you still make your edits, without discussing them first. How can anyone work with you as an editor on anything if you refuse dialogue? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, I am very tired of defending myself against accusations that are partially or fully wrong.

• I never claimed that the source was written by PhDs (had you checked the links I gave in the above section, you would know why: Only one of them hold a PhD). I said "Its three authors are (...) working in the field" which is very different from what you alledge. One does not get wisdom by holding a PhD, but having worked in the field does give the authors credentials.
• I did not, as you claim, "responded by making the edit anyways" to you countering "that PhDs also deny the Holocaust". A look at the history reveals that you wrote that response after I reverted your revert, not before.
• Alledging that I "refuse dialogue" is absurd, seeing how I have the forth highest number of edits on this talk page, considerably more than you do, and even a quick glance at the talk page reveals that I engage in a lot of discussions here.

Either deliberately or by bad research, you try to portray me in a bad light here by stating wrong facts. --Xeeron (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore Xeeron, you claim that I have made Ad Hominem attacks on you, and when I ask you where I have made the attacks, you don't bother showing me. When you made an Ad Hominem attack on me, I clearly stated where you made it. As for the 2,542 number, if you would have bothered to read the discussion page Xeeron, you would have seen Offliner correcting that 2,500 and me AGREEING with Offliner. And yet you chose to ignore that, just so you could get yet another Ad Hominem against me. Your strategy is not open debate on the discussion page, but sneaky edits and Ad Hominem attacks, hoping that I would make a mistake, like I did with this topic's title. Good job, you can now be proud. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is stuff from this talk page's archive. I don't claim that everyone else here is an angel, but you asked for proof (does also include attacks on other editors):

---

Also, sniping doesn't show clear intent for murder, especially since no one saw the crime taking place. A Car Bomb does show intent for murder. Way to prove yourself wrong Xeeron. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am truly wondering if pro-Georgian editors have mastered the art of reading my posts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, it appears that you are unable to understand basic military tactics. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Grey Fox, once again I shall repeat: reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is your guys' plan to sipmly be superbly annoying until we tire of it and get the name changed? Because you seem to be absolutely inept at proving that "2008 South Ossetia War" is POV. And Xeeron, South Ossetia War in terms of searching IS equal to South + Ossetia + War, it's basic search engine principles. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Partly in response to me posting (not for the first time): "South Ossetia war" search is not equal to "South" + "Ossetia" + "war" search. Xeeron (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Narking still has trouble either reading or dating HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation on the stellar job you did at nitpicking Xeeron, you must really be #1 in that area. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again Xeeron - you excel at missing the intent, but successfully nitpick! Good job! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am just amazed at how desperate the pro-Georgian editors are at nitpicking to find those non-existant victories. "But they didn't sink the boat in combat, they sank it in the harbor - those Russians, clearly defeated!" Hahaha, cute. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that is not an actual quote used by anyone.

If you fail at reading comprehension, you shouldn't be here Grey Fox. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And I didn't say anything about you in the previous quote - reading comprehension is your best friends sometimes, you should try it once in a while. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, who here fails at reading comprehension? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So then putting up a neutrality dispute, and then making seven edits, without discussing most of them here, in a span of two hours, would be quite unprofessional, right? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Directed at Kober.

Thing is, pro-Georgian editors are used to getting their way on Wikipedia. Thus it is frustrating for them to find an article where Russia is placed in a positive light, even though Russia's actions in this case deserve award, not blame. (…) The challenge before pro-Georgian editors now, is to spin the undisputed truth into propaganda. It's easy when it's disputed, but with undisputed truth, it's impossible, hence the frustration, despite this article lacking Russian POV. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have said that the users, like Kober all of whose edits (commenting on edits here, not editor) just happen to lean Georgian, due to a miracle, crave that this article needs to have a pro-Georgian POV, but the article lacked that until Kober's edits were made. Furthermore, unlike Xeeron who actually discusses his edits, to an extent, Kober doesn't feel the need to do so and then acts surprised when his edits are reverted. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, you cannot edit, just because the majority of Google's hits say so. If you want to undo an edit, argue it here. We've been over this so many damn times, with the title, with the casualty box, that quite frankly most editors have gotten it by now. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to me undoing an edit of 68.167.1.235 that, without giving any justification at the talk page or edit summary, changed the name mentioned in the first line. I had written “old version has more than twice as many google hits” in the edit summary.

---

--Xeeron (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this list helpful? (Igny (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, HistoricWarrior said above I did not back up my claim that he attacks me (or others for that matter), so I had to bring some form of proof. I know the list is basic, but I didnt want to waste more time by making it pretty. --Xeeron (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When I changed the biased title, "Russia-Georgia War" to the neutral title "Caucasian Conflict" and pointed out that majority of Google is invalid, becuase majority of Google will bring up whatever the Mass Media says, such as that there are still WMDs in Iraq, an argument I made in this very discussion section, you and Narking both spat on that, just to have your biased "Russia-Georgia" title, anything to show that Russia's evil, Georgia's good, following Saakashvili's line. You have done everything in your power, including inciting an edit-war in order to keep this "report" http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/pp/08/0808Georgia-PP2.pdf in the article. The report is pure propaganda, it fails to cite sources most of the time, and yet you still refer to it as "credible", merely because it shows Russia in a poor light. When most of the editors pointed this out, you ignored them, said something on the talk page which was instantly repudiated, and edited the biased "report" back in. You Xeeron, even went as far as to lie in the edit summary, saying "RV removal of sourced material/removal of sources from passages that are now not properly sourced" when another editor, Offliner, has stated that they were properly sourced, and they were indeed properly sourced. Why lie? Just to get your POV across? Why not discuss? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually HistoricWarrior007, I believe the consensus in the media, and most goverments, is that there are no WMD in Iraq. WackoJackO 14:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WackoJacko, the point I made about the WMDs, was to counter Xeeron's point that "Google hits trumps all". If you Google "Iraq has WMDs" vs. "Iraq does not have WMDs" most Google hits were in favor of "Iraq has WMDs" thus Xeeron's argument that "whatever has the most Google Hits is correct" fails. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is interested can check here that I did not lie: You removed several sources lines and removed a source from several other lines. --Xeeron (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This stops

Obviously you all have failed to read my comments and suggestions below about being civil. There are issues among all of you with edit summaries that either are plain misleading or don't state the full story. You guys are dragging out old issues. You all seem to mistrust everyone else.

With that noted, I'm going to try to poke you all to discussing the actual issues on the content of the article. Could you all please list parts of the article that you object to. Keep each bullet point to less then 100 (preferably less then 50) words and sign the bullet point with your name. Try to avoid duplicate issues and limit yourselves to 2 or 3 each. I'll place a demo:

• Paragraph X has a poor source, (short description why the source is poor). ~~~~.

Finally this is a blanket warning to all editors on this talk page, any further attacks or talking about the editors and not content may result in blocks for both disruption and violation of our norms of civility. I know this is an extreme measure, but as this is a touchy subject, I expect all of you to be extremely careful with your dealings with other editors from this point on. This goes for all of you. If you have not attacked or discussed other editors, great job, please don't start. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the article

• Problem 1 (sign)
• Problem 2 (sign)
• Problem 3 (sign)

• Problem 1: an article, that is a blatant violation of WP:WEASEL, that is extremely biased, and the only thing the editors are arguing for in the article is that its writers have good resumes, (so if I have a good resume, can I break WP:WEASEL in almost every paragraph and still be cited on wikipedia - not likely). Solution: delete the ISDP article. It has fewer then a single citation per page. That's not science, in the UC System (University of California System) we call that fiction.

• Problem 2: Bias in the introduction paragraph: instead of putting Russia-Georgia War, or Georgia-Russia War, thus accusing one side of provocation, why not place something like the German Wikipedia used, the Caucasian Conflict (and yes Conflict should be capitalized, it's a title) and let the reader decide who is to blame.

• Problem 3: This article claims that ethnic Georgians were expelled from South Ossetia. This is not true, because Lokshina, an HRW worker, who was cited by pro-Georgian editors in this article when her writing fit their points, went to South Ossetia, after the war, and confirmed that Georgians were living in Tskhinvali, citing some of them by name. How can they be expelled and still live there? http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/yes/south-ossetia-aftermath-of-war

"Some ethnic Georgians did choose to stay despite the conflict. Those in Tskhinvali are mostly elderly people who have been living here for years. Misha, 69 years old, used to teach science at South Ossetia's only university. A former boxer, he runs five miles a day and puts many youngsters to shame. During the war in the early nineties, his wife and kids left for Georgia proper and never came back. But Misha could not even imagine moving - Tskhinvali was his home. Until this August, Misha has been visiting his family in Tbilisi several times a year. Now, he has no idea if he will ever get to do this again." It's a very nice entry.

• Problem 4: Svoboda News, translates to Freedom News, see Pravda during USSR, claimed that "Even with Russian Intervention, Kokoituy will be ousted" and also claimed that "Georgians are only attacking military targets in South Ossetia". Solution: remove this biased and discredited article from our encyclopedic entry.

• Problem 5: Editors just editing away, without initially discussing their edits. I am guilty of this too. Solution: Discuss edits on the Wikipedia page, and allow 24 hours after the last word, prior to making the edit. This not being done, was the main reason I contacted nixeagle.

I have stated all this before, multiple times. And yet no counter-arguments resulted but the edits, contrary to this were made anyways. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Historic, again can we try to list the problems without referencing other editors? For example, your problem 1 can be simply stated as "article has weasel words". If you wanted to elaborate more you can point out a few examples in the article that violate that guideline. The same goes for the rest of the list of problems. I encourage others to point out what they see as problems as well, but stick to content only. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not referencing any editors directly, merely suggesting that since this is a recent war related article, that editors discuss their edits and reach a consensus, and let that consensus hold for 24 hours, prior to making the edits. Why don't you think that's a good idea? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys need to get away from talking about each others edits and talk about the content. Your points about the content can be summarized much shorter if you drop out the portions referencing editor actions. As far as your point one, it would be helpful to other editors if you would give specific instances of problems rather then just saying it fails WP:WEASEL. Your Problem 4 is a good example you should follow for your future points, though other editors may not agree that the source is discredited, or may believe that it helps to show that point of view as part of making the article speak from a neutral point of view.

I also would appreciate it if you would not in the future attempt to insert words into my mouth with things such as "Why don't you think that's a good idea" which implies that I don't think reaching a consensus is a good idea. Thanks :) I'm here to help you guys, please work with me. You guys are not going to get to anything resembling a stable version of this article unless you discuss the actual content in a clear way and come to some resolution. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have redacted the title of this section so we don't have the implication that any one user is at fault for my action. :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

3 Day page lock

I have locked this page for 3 days, the article is currently the subject of a long and drawn out editwar. Let me state now that the behavior on all sides has been very disruptive. I'm not going to attempt to pin blame on any one side. Lets all remember first off that this topic in itself is controversial.

Noting that the current debate seems to be over if a source is or is not reliable. Please discuss that here before the page goes unprotected. I am asking that this discussion happen civiliy without reference to who is on what side, or Ad hominem attacks. I will be monitoring the discussion, checking in at least daily. Therefor I am asking you guys nicely to adhere to our civility rules.

You guys may request the page be unprotected either by posting to my talk page, or here, however early unprotection should not be done until there is agreement on the status of this source and other active issues. Please take this break from editing the page as a chance for a breather and a chance to discuss future changes.

When the page becomes unprotected, multiple reverts to the same section of the page (over the same content, even if the edits are slightly different), regardless if the person doing the reverts is different will result in my considering those edits disruptive. —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the history, not everyone has been disruptive to the same degree. You guys are all trying to edit an article about a recent war, which of course is a sensitive topic. I'm asking you guys to try to work together to find a version of this page that you all can be happy with. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be more then happy to hear Xeeron's and Narking's arguments as to why we should include ISDP. Saying they have PhDs isn't enough, as Holocaust Deniers have PhDs too. You discuss the argument, not the person who wrote it. And I'd like to hear Xeeron's and Narking's arguments as to why they don't want NPOV in the title, such as "Caucasian conflict" and would prefer the biased version instead. Saying "it has most hits on Google" is irrelevant, because then the Western Media, six companies, if they all agree, get to name any war they want, because what they publish will always attract the most hits on Google, due to their sheer power of the media control. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While we are discussion this, could someone explain to me how the ethnic Georgians were expelled from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, if according to Lokshina, they still live in South Ossetia? "Some ethnic Georgians did choose to stay despite the conflict. Those in Tskhinvali are mostly elderly people who have been living here for years. Misha, 69 years old, used to teach science at South Ossetia's only university. A former boxer, he runs five miles a day and puts many youngsters to shame. During the war in the early nineties, his wife and kids left for Georgia proper and never came back. But Misha could not even imagine moving - Tskhinvali was his home. Until this August, Misha has been visiting his family in Tbilisi several times a year. Now, he has no idea if he will ever get to do this again." http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/yes/south-ossetia-aftermath-of-war So I don't get it, this article, or rather Xeeron informs me otherwise, and yet somehow I believe that Lokshina is right. Hence no expulsion. Again, Xeeron, Narking, Kober, you are welcome to discuss. In fact I encourage you to discuss before editing! Otherwise this wouldn't be locked. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the section above on that topic (Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Explusion of ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia and Kodori Gorge) or the article itself for several sources. --Xeeron (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, thank you for finally discussing your edits. However the source I cite comes from Lokshina, an HRW worker in the area, which trumps the sources you cite. Lokshina furthermore gives hard core facts, some of them by name, that clearly proves that no expulsion took place. If the Georgians were expelled, they cannot "choose to stay" as Lokshina point out. Thus the expulsion is invalid and should be removed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AFAIk Loshkina was a member of the HRW fact-finding mission on the ground, right? Here are quotes from the final HRW report published after months of the thorough investigation of the humanitarian problems in the conflict area:

Human Rights Watch’s observations on the ground and dozens of interviews conducted led

us to conclude that the South Ossetian forces sought to ethnically cleanse this set of Georgian villages: that is, the destruction of the homes in these villages was deliberate, systematic, and carried out on the basis of the ethnic and imputed political affiliations of the residents of these villages, with the express purpose of forcing those who remained to leave

and ensuring that no former residents would return.

[1]

South Ossetian forces over a period of weeks deliberately and systematically destroyed ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia that had been administered by the Georgian government. They looted, beat, threatened, and unlawfully detained numerous ethnic Georgian civilians, and killed several, on the basis of the ethnicity and imputed political affiliations of the residents of these villages, with the express purpose of forcing those who remained to leave and ensuring that no former residents would return. From this, Human Rights Watch has concluded that South Ossetian forces attempted to ethnically cleanse these villages. Approximately 22,000 villagers, the majority of whom had fled South Ossetia before the conflict started, remain displaced... To the extent that a number of these prohibited acts were committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against the civilian population, they may be prosecuted as crimes against humanity.

[2]

--Kober^Talk 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Kober - that happened in certain areas, not South Ossetia as a whole, which is the impression you are trying to give. The equivalent would be me saying that Georgia attacked every single South Ossetian city with Grads. Reread the article. It also say may be and also to the extent meaning that the HRW is not sure. Some places were destroyed, others were not. Also, where does HRW get the 22,000 number, I'm just curious. Do you know? Also, the way the quote is stated, is that it says that Russians were guilty of harassing Georgian civilians. There is NO HRW PROOF of it. The only crime that Russian soldiers were "guilty" of is proving South Ossetian militias - transportation.

Also, let's step back here for a second. What will Russians say when they read this article? Out of the 15,000 Russian soldiers that entered South Ossetia, not one has been reported for rape, murder, etc. And yet here they are blamed. In the next war, the message that soldiers get is this: "doesn't matter how well we behave, they will always find something". Is that the message that we want to spread? Cause that's exactly what that quote in the box is doing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to make clear that it was the Ossetians who conducted the alleged expulsion of Georgians, and also that not all Georgians were expulsed (or whatever the verb is.) I suggest changing the sentence in the infobox to: "Expulsion of most ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia and from the Kodori Gorge by South Ossetian militias." Offliner (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior, your rhetoric is misleading. First, Wikipedia does not require its users to know where the credible and neutral sources such as HRW get their data (although, as a native to the area, I do better know what actually happened there than you). Second, neither you nor me is the right person to argue that "There is NO HRW PROOF of it". We are editing encyclopedia. HRW is a credible and neutral source and we should accept it as such. If you have an equally respected source putting the HRW data in question, feel free to provide. Third, the HRW does say that "these villages account for most of the areas in South Ossetia that had been controlled by Tbilisi prior to the war"; so I don't quite understand your accusations of me trying to give "some impressions" not supported by the cited source. Fourth, who cares what "will Russians say when they read this article"? We are building what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If the information is based on credible and neutral sources, Russians' misgivings about it are irrelevant. And last, regarding the Russian invovlement in the process:

"In most cases, Russian forces had moved through the Georgian villages by the time South Ossetian forces arrived. In other cases, Russian forces appeared to give cover to South Ossetian forces while they were committing these offenses... With a few exceptions of looting and beatings of civilians, Russian forces did not participate directly in the destruction of villages and attacks on civilians but, aside from a brief period in mid-August, did not interfere to stop them", etc., etc. [3]

Can you now say what makes our article's reference to the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Georgians unreliable and unsupported by the credible and neutral sources? --Kober^Talk 08:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with adding "most", since there is evidence that at least some Georgians were allowed to stay. However, "South Ossetian militias" is problematic: 1) It is not clear that non-militia South Ossetians were not involved. 2)Several sources state that Russian troops allowed the South Ossetians to conduct the explusion 3) It were definitely not South Ossetian militias in the Kodori Gorge. --Xeeron (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Expulsion of most ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia and from the Kodori Gorge" is also acceptable to me, since the box is only about the result and the blame game is discussed in other chapters. Offliner (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the wording suggested by Offliner can be used. --Kober^Talk 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the HRW very clearly states that Georgians were expelled only from areas that were previously controlled by the Georgian Government. Why not just use that, instead of a blanket statement, the way it is right now? Something like "Expulsion of Georgians from territory previously de-facto held by the Georgian government within South Ossetia and Abkhazia". I don't think that's too unreasonable. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) How about "escape followed by expulsion of most ethnic Georgians..."? (Igny (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

"...from erritory previously de-facto held by the Georgian government within South Ossetia and Abkhazia". Works for me! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

First, "de-facto held by the Georgian government within South Ossetia and Abkhazia" does not make any sense as these areas had been under both de facto and de jure control of Georgia. Second, there is not much room in the infobox to elucidate all details regarding the displacement of ethnic Georgian population. I think the HRW's description of the process as "ethnic cleansing" is the best option, but I'm ready to accept Offliner's suggestion as a compromise. I hope my impression that certain users are intentionally obstructing a compromise solution is wrong.--Kober^Talk 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally do not like "ethnic cleansing", even if it is used in some sources, because that what was done in Holocaust or in Rwanda. So expulsion or forceful displacement sounds better to me. From ethnic cleansing: It is sometimes used interchangeably with the more connotatively severe term genocide. (Igny (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Well there is the question of de jure right now, as Russia did recognize South Ossetia as an independent country. So it's not as clear as you make it out to be. How about "land held by the Georgian government within South Osseita and Abkhazia?" Land, territorry, etc. The statement, as it is, makes it look like Georgians were expelled from all over South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, and that is simply not true. And "ethnic cleansing" I wouldn't say that, because that is provacative towards the Russians, and because, although not a single Russian soldier was accused of rape, here you are still implying that. It's a slippery slope, because people often end up doing what they are accused of, and should there be another war in the Caucasus, I'm sure none of us want that, but should there be another war, the Russians might go "shit, we'll be accused of everything under the sun anyways, might as well get it done". Again, I'm sure none of us would want that, especially over a Wikipedia Article, but should that happen in the future, I will recite this very post. Cheers. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "most" implies that some Georgians may actually remain in South Osseita. So your assertion that it "makes it look like Georgians were expelled from all over South Ossetia" is not correct. Please also note that the compact Georgian settlements have ceased to exist since the war. Regarding Abkhazia, I don't really get your point because we do specify the affected area - the Kodori Gorge. The rest of your post is, regrettably, empty rhetoric and I fail to see any solid argument there. --Kober^Talk 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Because no one knows the amount of Georgians that left, and the amount of Georgians that stayed. However, we do know that territorry wise, Georgians left primarily from Georgia-held territorry before the war. This is factual, not a mere assumption. And considering Saakashvili's claim that the Georgians initially captured Tskhinvali wholly, I somehow doubt he's a credible source. Doesn't he only have seven days in power left anyways? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are being ridiculous. What have Saakashvili or his statements to do with the HRW report? And what "seven days" are you talking about? Is it the latest headline at LDRP website or what?

"we do know that territorry wise, Georgians left primarily from Georgia-held territorry before the war"??? Who are these "We"? What I know comes from the sources extensively cited in this discussion (to say nothing about my wartime experience). The UN Refugee Agency's report contains a detailed timeline of the Georgan population's displacement. I fail to see any signs of the civilians' flight before the war. In fact, it says that the first influx of IDPs occurred on August 8.

You see, I rarely post anything without citing a source. Now it's your turn to provide a source for your claim that most Georgians left before the war. Try to counter my arguments with credible sources. I'm really getting tired of your propensity towards politically charged chatting. This is not how Wikipedia should work. --Kober^Talk 05:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Troop Counts

One of the predominate issues I'm seeing on this article is what exact troop count to put on the page. A suggestion for you guys may be to express the counts as a range, using multiple sources to say X says count for country A is B and Y says the count for country A is C. I have a feeling that you guys are not going to find a "definite" troop count so soon after the event. I'm not saying you guys must do this or anything, but this is a valid option and one that I do not see mentioned in the talk as far as I can see. Other solutions may exist, but you guys need to agree to something you all can live with.

• Please do note that I don't have an opinion on what you guys should do, but I am expressing an option that I do not see expressed before on this talk page that may resolve the dispute. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that ratios matter quite a bit in war. Most sources agree that there is a 1:1 ratio. Occasionally you get a crazy source that makes the ratio either 2:1 or 1:2 for either side. No one really had a problem with troops numbers until an edit was made saying that Russians outnumber the Georgians 2:1 (that's just Russians, not Russians and Ossetians combined). Even more problematic is that the source was early on in the war, prior to Der Speigel's expose, and a source from authors that generally take a biased slant against Russia. Prior to that edit, no one had any problems with the numbers. Also, Svante Cornell's article directly contradicts Solzhenitsyn's article on Nagorno-Karabakh, and somehow I believe that Solzhenitsyn trumps Mr. Cornell. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok thats fine, I suggest though that you guys do some work on this topic on this talk page rather then the reverts over it. I'm sure there is something that is reasonable compromise. :) I'm planning on allowing the protection to expire as it does not seem like folks are taking advantage of the lull in editing to discuss improvements and future changes here. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I will note that there is *some* discussion, I should not say there is none, but I don't think a further extension is going to help matters. What I was/am hoping is that you guys can come to some sort of agreement on some of the long standing issues while the article is locked from editing. I am/was hoping that without worrying about who did what on the article you guys might be able to talk about the general issues without saying X edit was bad. I think there still is time for some of this. :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading ISDP fiction, I propose we don't include this gem of propaganda in the article

http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/pp/08/0808Georgia-PP2.pdf

That's the link: quick summary is that big bad Russia invaded poor little Georgia, for no real reason, other then Georgia wanting to enter NATO, and that Europeans should all be terrified of big bad Russia, which is much worse then the economic crisis. Here's what the article considers a fact: "Russia gradually increases its number of ground troops in South Ossetia, outnumbering the 9,000 Georgian troops by nearly two to one". So 6,000 = 9,000 * 2? Wow. And the entire article is exactly like that. I'm going to remove it from our encyclopedia, there's no place for Yellow Journalism here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, are some editors purposely using biased sources. Found another one: http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/Article/459894.html

Here's the quote: Депутат парламента Грузии от президентской партии «Национальное движение» Петр Мамрадзе не видит ничего особенного в том, что в течение четверга Тбилиси принял два прямо противоположных решения относительно Южной Осетии. Он полагает, что даже военное вмешательство России в конфликт не сможет продлить дни «режима Кокойты»

Translation: Kokoituy is so unpopular in South Ossetia that even Russian Military intervention won't be able to support him. I mean really? Too bad reality says otherwise.

Another quote: "Выступал госминистр по делам реинтеграции. Очень четко было сказано: единственная цель - это уничтожить все огневые точки и бандформирования. Никакого другого задания и цели нет."

Translation: The Georgian minister of Re-integration said that the only aim of Georgia is to destroy the military of South Ossetia" which doesn't explain why the Georgian were using Grads against Tskhinvali, or mowing down Ossetians trying to escape to Russia. Where do you people find these sources? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The ISDP report is amazingly biased. It basically just describes the Georgian version of events without questioning it at all. Another reason why we shouldn't use that report as a source too much, is that it was written pretty early, in August, before certain facts about the conflict came public. Offliner (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the report lacks references in support to many of its claims. It is no more than a treatise on Georgia's point of view. (Igny (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Re: Offliner's number comment "why not use exact number" - I'm sorry, you were right. I thought the number came from ISDP, not the other source posted, which meant that the number was most likely wrong. But after checking the other source, I realized that's where the number came from, so I have no problem with it. I'm going to be cracking up about ISDP's math skillz for a while. 6!=18. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is amazing. The isdp report is a scientific paper, compared to the mere news reports we have as the majority of other sources. Its three authors are (check their CVs [4], [5],[6]) authors working in the field. They work at in sweden, have been educated there and from their names might also be swedish nationals. Regarding credibility, this is wastely superior to short news reports (often even without given author). You remove it simply because you don't like their message, with a rediculous justification. They say it was about 2*9000 Russian soldiers there. Some guy here on the talk page (you) claims it is 6000, without giving any sources at all. Guess what, go to sweden, get a Ph.D. in Peace and Conflict Studies, write about that topic from some years, publish a douzen acadamic papers and I might consider taking your word over theirs. Till then, stop removing sourced material from the article. --Xeeron (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Having a PhD does not make what you say the truth. There are Holocaust Deniers who hold PhDs. Should we deny the Holocaust? As for the 6,000 sources, that was given by most major newspapers. I got the 6,000 number FROM THIS VERY ARTICLE, before I started working on it, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. And just for the record Xeeron, I have done a research that obliterated a book written by an author that holds a PhD, and won several debates against people holding PhDs. Having a PhD doesn't mean you never err. Let's recall this quote by Bill Gates: "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer". Should we abide by this quote, because in terms of personal computers, no one served more PCs then Gates? These people's writing is the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers in point of honesty, that is they are about as honest as the Holocaust deniers. As for the ISDP being a "scientific" paper, it quite frankly doesn't qualify, due to the lack of footnotes, or citations of other sources. Saying "a source within Russia tells us so and we think he's a military expert" doesn't qualify as a scientific citation, and is extremely laughable. If this paper was shown to people holding a B.A. in humanities and the fact that the authors held the PhDs was removed, this B.A.s would call it "a complete piece of crap". Oh wait, that's what I did, and that's exactly what happened. Evil me, always out to get the truth. For these reasons, Wikipedia has standards, where you attack the edits, not the author. The reverse also applies. You have to prove the credibility of their writing, not just say "everyone we must accept this, because these people have PhDs and umm, I love what they say!" Frankly Xeeron, I thought you knew about Wikipedia's standards, I am quite surprised to find you so very biased here. Just like Rupert Murdoch, you don't question where they got the 18,000 number from, you like, so you don't question it, but merely rely on the fact that they have PhDs. That alone is not enough, and will never be enough for a true encyclopedic article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And Godwin's law strikes once again. Sorry, neither the Holocaust, nor Bill Gates (who, btw, did not earn a PhD) have anything to do with the discussion at hand (though I find it a bit funny to be compared to Rupert Murdoch).

This article does have a problem with its sources. Just look at the amount of Georgian and (more numberous) Russian sources that are used despite coming from one of the belligerents and therefore very likely biased. Look at the amount of news as source, including some less than AAA grade sources. The reason you do not say anything about those, but chose to revert a paper by three scientists has everything to do with your personal POV and nothing with the quality of the source. --Xeeron (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The scientific papers, which I am used to, always provide references. Do these three "scientists" have the list of references somewhere else, in a separate file may be? Could you point me in the right direction? Also was this treatise peer reviewed? (Igny (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

I really cannot see how the ISDP paper would be "scientific" in any way, other than that it was written by people with PhDs. I have three complaints about using the paper as a source.

• 1) It was written very early (in August), in less than 3 weeks after start of war. This is not enough time to conduct meaningful research. The paper was written in hurry, and it shows. It was also written before certain facts came public, such as OSCE blaming Georgia for starting the conflict, and Georgian politicians admitting that is was Georgia that planned and started the war (although Russia was ready for war too.)
• 2) The paper is so obviously biased and one-sided in its blame-game, it makes me think if the writers even tried to accomplish a balanced, neutral discussion of the subject, or if they just wanted to get a certain POV across as quickly as possible.
• 3) The institute is financed by the US government and the Smith Richardson Foundation, whose purpose is to "to advance U.S. interests and values abroad."

Still, I'm not against using this paper as a source in the article. But if at all possible, we should be using something something other than this. I'm sure that no one will disagree with me that the paper isn't very balanced, or that it was published very early. So if possible, why not use something more balanced instead? Personally, I would also prefer material published by more reputable sources than the many US-funded, "value promoting" political research organizations, which I've personally often found quite biased in matters such as these. Offliner (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As no one has responded to my concerns and defended the source, I take it that everyone agrees with the points I made above. Because of the concerns for the reliability of the ISDP paper, I suggest the following changes:

"After the end of their excercise on August 2, the Russian troops remain by the Georgian border instead of returning to their bases." - This must be changed to "ISDP claims, that ..." The reason for this that 1) the reliability of the source is in question (see the 3 points above), 2) they do not name a source for the claim: who exactly said this? The Georgians, the Russians, or maybe Saakashvili himself (again)? 3) The claim is not supported by other sources.

For this claim to stay in the article in the long term, another source must be found for it. If the claim is true, other, more reliable sources must have made the same claim (and perhaps they also mention where it originally came from, which would be essential information.) I suggest changing the line to "ISDP claims, ..." for a few weeks. If no other source for the claim is found during this time, the claim should be removed from the article.

"Due to the gradual increase in troops, by the end of this day, Russian forces in South Ossetia outnumber the Georgians two to one." - This should be simply changed to "According to ISDP, ..." Offliner (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with putting "According to the ISDP ..." into the article, but I disagree with most of your reasoning used to arrive at that conclusion.

• It has been proposed that it was written to early (about 3 weeks after the conflict started) to be meaningful, but there has been no reason given why that would be to early. The article is full of sources that date MUCH earlier, noone complained about these.
• Claiming that "the source is too POV" without backing this up is nothing, but your personal opinion. There has not been a sliver of reasoning been given why the author should be more biased than the douzens of Russian and Georgian sources we use. And even then, one has to differentiate between opinion (which should always be marked, but especially when the opinion is POV) and facts (which can't be POV).
• The constructed link between the source and a Georgian POV is ridiculous. So this is a piece by an author from sweden working at a swedish institute, which gets money from a host of different institutes (http://www.isdp.eu/cacisrsp/aboutcaci%2526srsp/sponsors). One of these institutes has as mission "The mission of the Smith Richardson Foundation is to contribute to important public debates and to help address serious public policy challenges facing the United States. The Foundation seeks to help ensure the vitality of our social, economic, and governmental institutions. It also seeks to assist with the development of effective policies to compete internationally and to advance U.S. interests and values abroad. This mission is embodied in our international and domestic grant programs." The US is backing Georgia. See how flimsy the connection is? You are going around 4 courners and picking out the only one out of several reasons at two courners.

Lastly, I have to say that I feel personally let down. When the Moscow Defense Brief was first brought up, I thought about putting it up for discussion. It is written by a national of one of the sides at war, and one who is very close to the military at that. It is beyond doubt that all the military info MDB has come directly from the Russian army. The feelings of the author show at times, e.g. addressing the Georgian troops as "pretty toy soldiers". Not a fact, but an opinion - a clearly anti-Georgian one. Yet, I felt that MDB could still be used for the interesting facts it reports. Very soon it has become the "super source" of this article, with 2 douzens of inline uses. If there were any efforts to find neutral or pro-Georgian sources, there were not noticable to me. A few months later, I bring a source who's authoring institute is by far less close related to one side than the MDB. Not only does this source get attacked right away, there immediately begins an effort to purge the source from the article (notice the reverts of the source alone, even at places where nothing else was changed). A lot of people measured with two standards here: No complaints about POV at all as long as it was a Russian source, tons of talk page drama once it was a source that was related (by the longest of connections) to Georgia.

I have given up on some people editing here, but I had hoped that there was a possibility to work together to reach a compromise with others. This whole affair left me with the feeling that for many people here, the goal of rendering the article closer to their personal opinion of the war comes before making the article better. --Xeeron (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The MDF is a primary source, so is HRW. This treatise is a tendentious mixture of reports of others without references. It qualifies as a secondary source, however my main complaint is that it lacks references. Many sources have been discredited before and a lot of statements were overruled later. I could easier construct a better criticism if only this paper cited the sources, so that I could know what to argue with. However in this instance, I can not simply because what is supposed to be a secondary source is being cited here as it were the primary. For all I know, this treatise might have used some anonymous blogs as the source of ingenuity. (Igny (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

My three complaints were directed against Xeeron's claim, that the ISDP report is somehow better than other sources, since it's "scientific" and "more neutral." I've tried to argue, that it is actually neither. Yes, I do support using Moscow Defense Brief, and object to using ISDP. Here's the reasoning: the MDB article talks about military action, which is mostly a neutral thing, not about the blame game. There is not much in the MDB article that would be disputed by other sources. The only problematic claims could be

1) that Georgia started the war (but this is indeed now the most widespread point of view in the international media. It is only disputed by Georgia itself, and early international opinions, which almost all seemed to endorse the Georgian position, but the opinions changed later as we know), 2) the claim that Georgia had concentrated up to 16,000 troops in the South Ossetian border before war. This claim is partly supported: Spiegel says that 3 Georgian brigades began the ground assault on Tskhinvali. All sources confirm that a major Georgian artillery onslaught was launced on August 7, which probably implies the presence of an artillery brigade near the border. The list of killed Georgian servicemen confirms, that all the units mentioned in the MDB article took casualties. Since we know, that outside South Ossetia the Georgians only withdrew without putting up a fight, it is reasonable to assume, that most of the deaths in the list occured in South Ossetia. Other than those two, it's difficult to find any claim in the MDB article that would be in danger of being disputed by other reliable sources.

The ISDP report is different. It makes extremely heavy accusations, many of which are now disputed by other sources. Just take a look at the "conclusions" section of the paper. It is clear that the nature of this paper is completely different than that of the MDB article. Offliner (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please list those "heavy accusations" and give a proof that it is "amazingly biased". Btw, simply saying that it backs the Georgian claim on how the war started, while the MDB brief backs the Russian claim started wont be enough. As a second point, please argue why we should not use the factual descriptions in the isdp that are not opinions. --Xeeron (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I could make a big list, but that would feel like wasting time, since everyone can see for themselves where the report contradicts the general view, and since most of those claims aren't used in the article at the moment anyway. My only demands are the three I listed above. "After the end of their excercise on August 2, the Russian troops remain by the Georgian border instead of returning to their bases" - this is a very heavy claim, and it is unclear who actually said that. Because the source is unknown, and because no other source that I know of confirms this, it is not a fact, but a claim. This line has to be sourced using another source, or removed. This is the only thing I want to argue right now. Other than that, I'll just wait until someone inserts another ISDP claim into the article and argue against (or for) that specific claim then. Offliner (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A source is not wikipedia. If you removed all sources from this article that do not have sources themself, you'd be left with almost nothing. Lots of the stuff in MDB is not confirmed by other sources (and MDB does not quote sources either), yet you were happy to include it in the article. What is the difference here?

Leaving the troops close to the border makes sense both from a perspective of Russian leaders in the build up to the war, as well as from a ex-post point of view: It is a good explanation for the swift advance of Russian troops. By Russia's own version, its troops where in South Ossetia after considerably less than a day (check the NYT quoted in the article). Calculate in the time needed to give the orders, they cant have been very far from the border. --Xeeron (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense to have troops near the border when there is a threat of war, and any responsible leader would make sure to have them near. Still, the ISDP claim is suspicious, as it seems to imply, that the Caucasus Frontier 2008 exercise was a preparation for "invasion." And it is indeed ISDP's main message, that all Russian actions during 2008 were preparations for aggression and invasion. This implication makes the claim potentially controversial. Therefore, another source must be found for it. The difference between most of MDB's claims and this one is, that most of MDB's claims are not controversial because they are not about the "blame game," like this one is. For this reason, MDB's claims regarding the military action are not in such a dire need of confirmation as ISDP's claim is. Offliner (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote, it is interesting to note how the ISDP paper lists every possible event that could be seen as provocation by Russia, but fails to mention the massive arming of Georgian military, and how Saakashvili promised (and made it his chief goals) to bring the separatist republics back to Georgian control. It also seriously downplays the 2004 Georgian attempt to reconquer South Ossetia, and doesn't bother to mention the attempt made in 1991-1992. It mentions the Russian military exercise, but does not mention the Georgian one, although they were held simultaneously. Do you now understand why so many people here think that the ISDP report is one-sided at best? Notice also, how the ISDP paper itself confirms my concerns about it being written too early: it says that its claims are "initial conclusions", and that the chronology "might need correction" when more evidence emerges. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Caucasus conflict"

Looking at this edit, I was left wondering where the name Caucasus conflict comes from, why you might think that it is deserves a prominent place than all the others (especially the one it replaced) and when you were going to share those insights with us. --Xeeron (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was chosen for NPOV purposes. Any other name can be viewed biased, this one is completely neutral. Same with the article's title. I am surprised I didn't notice the previous name earlier, when it was sneaked in. If you can come up with a more NPOV name, we can use that too. And it seems most of the editors agree that it was a good change. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, "it seems most of the editors agree that it was a good change". Did they email you in private so other's would not notice?

I also would still like to see your reasons: Who uses it? Why is it called caucasus war, when the biggest part of the caucasus was totally peaceful during that time? Why didn't you even bring a single source (that is really sloppy editing, a single source could be found for the most absurd of names)? --Xeeron (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to removing the "also known as..." line from the lead completely? As it has been said, the line is redundant since we have a whole "naming" section which lists the different names for the conflict. Removing the line would be an easy way to solve this dispute. Offliner (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest going the other way: Removing the naming section and taking those names that deserve mentioning into the first line. As long as there it is simply a list of names used somewhere without additional explanation, the naming section is pretty much wasted space. If anyone ever gets around to write a proper ethymology section, we can bring it back. Most other war articles I know of use the first line solution for multiple names. --Xeeron (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not when people come up with 6 different ways to name the war. Hence let's go back to basics, where we had the 2008 South Ossetia War, and then the naming section. That way the reader decides, rather then the article telling the reader what to do. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron's solution doesn't solve the problem of having to agree on which names "deserve mentioning in the first line." Offliner (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the naming section has only 4 different names (Russian-Georgian War, Russia-Georgia War and Russo-Georgian War are mere variants), so even if none is excluded, we could put all of them in one line. --Xeeron (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And then you'll have everyone complaining about the order being biased. Just leave it as it is. It's NPOV at the moment, let's ensure that it stays that way. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I removed that all together. If you have a problem, discuss it here. I have made this argument a million times, it has never been contradicted: the way that it is, after my edit, is NPOV and lets the reader, not the writer, decide. If you have a suggestion that's more NPOV, please make it. Otherwise stop edit-warring on this. And no, other articles with multiple names do NOT cite seven names in the introduction, or a name twice, just because they like it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You say "It's NPOV at the moment" and an hour later change the article. You restart an edit war, yet tell Kober to "stop edit-warring". How is listing those 4 names in the first line (instead of a bullet point list in a section below) POV? Please explain your edits. --Xeeron (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I put up my suggestion in the article. So if anyone thinks that a name was unfairly not mention or the order is wrong, please speak up. Also, for HistoricWarrior's information: First Indochina War (an example with 7 additional names in the intro, my suggestion has 4). --Xeeron (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Some new sources

I'm not sure if you have read these already, but here's something I recently found that could be used in the article: Offliner (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Five-Day War by Charles King
• Tbilisi Blues by Charles King
• The Logic of South Ossetia Conflict by Ivan Kotlyarov
• The Flipside of September 11, 2001 by Vladimir Ovchinsky
• Russia's rapid reaction by International Institute for Strategic Studies

Note that the iiss source is not up date, it claims 0 losses in the 1st brigade, while Georgia has already named 7 dead from that brigade, see http://www.mod.gov.ge/2008/list/sia-E.html. Better not to use casualty numbers from it. --Xeeron (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The only casualty information I used from it was that the 4th Brigade suffered the heaviest casualties. The casualty list confirms this:

• 1st Brigade: 6 killed
• 2nd Brigade: 33
• 3rd Brigade: 13
• 4th Brigade: 51
• Separate Tank Battallion: 22
• Naval Forces: 5
• Air Forces: 5

Maybe we should include this list to the article? Offliner (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is already linked in the infobox as a citation for Georgian casualties. We could summarize it again somewhere in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the articles by Kotlyarov and Ovchinsky: They are both part of one volume of "Russia in Global affairs". We should use the pdf of the full journal, which is online at http://www.globalaffairs.ru/docs/2008_english4.pdf when quoting them. Note that there are also several other interesting articles in that issue. A slight concern is the fact that the Russian minister of Foreign affairs sits on the editorial board. However several other distinguished European politicians are listed as well, so one can assume that his influence on editorial decisions is small. --Xeeron (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Charles King...

I don't see any need for such complexity. Another article by Charles King contains much more neutral and comprehensive text which can be used as a good summary for the 2004 events:

"Emboldened by the success in Adjaria, Saakashvili next moved against South Ossetia, the region in north-central Georgia which has effectively existed as an independent state for more than a decade. Saakashvili ordered Georgian police and interior ministry forces to close down one of the region's chief sources of revenue, a vast black market complex which sold foodstuffs and fuel smuggled from Russia. In response, South Ossetia's leadership upped the ante by announcing preparations to defend their unrecognized republic against a supposed Georgian invasion. In late July, Georgian troops and peacekeepers, who are allowed to be in the region under the cease-fire agreement, clashed with South Ossetian militiamen and freelance fighters from Russia. By mid-August, a dozen Georgian soldiers and an unknown number of civilians, both Georgian and South Ossetian, had been killed."[7] --Kober^Talk 12:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In his 2008 article King two times describes the events of 2004 as a Georgian attempt to retake South Ossetia by force. A later article from the same author should always be preferred. "Attempted to reconquer/retake by force" is a short summary of the events, and I'd prefer using that. Offliner (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"A later article from the same author should always be preferred"? Wikipedia has no such standard while it does say that NPOV language should be used especially when the narratives are conflicting. We also have a Eurasia Monitor article which says that it was SO gov't which wanted to take Georgian villages by force. The current version is NPOV and elucidates that the accusations of strating fighting were mutual. --Kober^Talk 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't give the Eurasia Monitor article much weight there. Its author was Jonathan Alpeyrie, a war photographer for Getty Images. The word of a photographer against the word of a professor. Actually, I think we should remove that source. Offliner (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Both sides accused each other of starting the violence" - from which source does this statement come from? Offliner (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that come to a big surprise to you? The sources can be easily found. I tried to bring the conflicting views in term using that wording. --Kober^Talk 14:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You should also discuss your proposals first before making unilateral deletions and other major changes to text like these: [8] Offliner (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not make any unilateral deletion. I corrected a factually inaccurate info (So autonomy was abolished in 1990 not in 1994) and added information from the readily available sources.--Kober^Talk 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The HRW report also has a good summary of the 2004 events:

As part of the anti-smuggling campaign, in May 2004 several Georgian Ministry of Interior units landed by helicopter in the three Gori district villages adjacent to the South Ossetian administrative border, and one Tbilisi-administered village inside South Ossetia. The units proceeded to set up roadblocks that restricted traffic from South Ossetia. This move led to renewed hostilities in the following months that resulted in dozens of casualties, but stopped short of warfare.[15] The parties of the JCC agreed on a new ceasefire in August 2004. Following the August 2004 crisis, the security situation in South Ossetia remained tense, with frequent exchanges of fire between the sides that occasionally resulted in deaths, and increased the rate of crime."

[9]

This pat of the report is fully corroborated by the State Department and OSCE. --Kober^Talk 14:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The following New York Times article seems to support King's 2008 assesment of the 2004 conflict: "In 2004, the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, began a push to retake South Ossetia, including an antismuggling campaign aimed at shutting down a vast market that fueled much of the local economy. Tensions nearly led to full-scale war."[10]

I don't think that the 2008 version of King and that of the NYT are quite the same. The NYT account is much closer to that of HRW and US DoS cited above. --Kober^Talk 14:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what Sergei Markedonov said about the 2004 conflict in [11], pp.161-176:

• On May 31, 2004, Georgia sent 300 special task force fighters to South Ossetia under the pretext of combating smuggling, but with without consulting the Joint Control Comission (JCC.) JCC participants branded the move as a breach of the Dagomys accords of 1992.
• A second war began in South Ossetia from August 8-19, 2004. The parties did not only use small arms in this confrontation, but also artillery. Although the warring sides had stopped fighting briefly by the end of the month, August, 2004 marked the beginning of a new wave of shellings, attacks, provocations and blockades of vital lines of communications. Offliner (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)