Talk:Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia

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

Your thoughts on why this article speaks of Georgians only?[edit]

Were there no cleansings of Ossetians in South Ossetia? I think the picture I added shows there were. Why do we discuss only one ethnicity, and totally ignore the other? FeelSunny (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is a classic POV Fork. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, anyone knows any reasons?FeelSunny (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do know there was ethnic cleansing of Ossetians in South Ossetia. So why isn't this article renamed to Ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia? Then we could add information about both sides committing these crimes in the same article and the title would actually make sense. LokiiT (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has any good sources where we could get information from I'd gladly help contribute. I'm having a hard time finding relevant information since everything seems to be focused on this most recent war. LokiiT (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It seems to me everyone who could have present any reasons is now tempblocked, so I'll get back to the article (editing and discussing) after all this Eastern European fuss is over.FeelSunny (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What events do you refer to as 'ethnic cleansing of Ossetians in South Ossetia'? Alæxis¿question? 17:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the picture speaks for itself. If it does not, and you speak Russian, please see here. Unfortunately, there's no article in English WP, and I beleive we should also create it, as well as including some main points about the Zarskaya road massacre in this article. Plus, 100000 refugees amounts to an ethnic cleansing, I presume? If you think otherwise, see here [1], page 3. The HRW, which pro-Georgia prefer. Please also refer to the "I.Kochieva, A.Margiev. Georgia. Ethnic cleansing in regards to Ossets." FeelSunny (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, surely I know about Zarskaya road massacre. I also know about many Ossetian refugees from Georgian proper (I added this info to the article about the first war about a year ago). HRW doesn't call it an ethnic cleansing though and even iа it was one it was not in South Ossetia where there have never been so much Ossetians. Alæxis¿question? 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need an article about Zarskaya road massacre. Offliner (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alæxis, but then we definitely need an article called Ethnic cleansings in Georgia instead of this POVed article. There we could explain matters which regard to Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, and Georgia. Overall, there are more than a million of former Georgian SSR nationals living now in Russia alone. There are many Georgians, Ossets, Abkhazians, Armenians, Russians who once lived in Georgia, and who were expelled during 90ies and 2000s. We could make a more comprehensive and non-POVed article then.
As to the South Ossetia, of course, one should not be given to read an article which tells half of the truth - as this article is. Again, 100 000 refugees amounts to an ethnic cleansing (remember, Ossets are quite a small nation). Even if it regards to the 1991-1992 Georgia in the whole. And no matter, if there were 15 000 or 50 000 driven from South Ossetia by Georgians, anyway it is a cleansing. You may use words "pogroms" or "forced evacuations" HRW uses, but what HRW speaks of is an ethnic cleansing: "Georgian paramilitary groups committed acts of violence against Ossetian civilians within South Ossetia that were motivated both by the desire to expel Ossetians and reclaim villages for Georgia, and by sheer revenge against the Ossetian people. As a consequence of this violence, between sixty and 100 villages in South Ossetia are reported to have been burned down, destroyed or otherwise abandoned." So calling an article "Ethnic cleansing of Georgians" is a POV-forking like creating an article "Arsenal defeats from Leeds" instead of "Arsenal games with Leeds" (sorry for the analogies I use, I only want to explain the principle).
So - either an article about "ethnic cleansings in 1990-2008 Georgia" in the whole, or an article about "ethnic cleansings in 1990-2008 South Ossetia" in the whole. I prefer the former. But anyway, we should not restrict the article to explanations about a certain ethnicity sufferings. FeelSunny (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kommersant[edit]

South Ossetia's president Eduard Kokoity has publicly acknowledged in his words that he and the forces under his command or with whom he is working are engaging in what, according to the New York Times editorial, "can only be called ethnic cleansing" of Georgian people in South Ossetia. [8] The newspaper was quoting an interview with Kokoity in Kommersant[9]

I read the original article in Kommersant and I haven't found a word about ethnic cleansings. I think we should remove this fragment. Taamu (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they have it in a (alledgedly) respected (alledgedly) NPOV source, black on white. I mean the NYT, of course.
My opinion is, Kokoity was most likely claiming that they have driven Georgian snipers, or remnant Georgia military off the occupied South Ossetian territories. As far as I understand Russian (and I do in most cases), he is discussing the frontline in Georgian enclaves. His words from the interview "(Ж) ...боевые действия перенеслись в грузинские анклавы. Что там сейчас? (К) Да ничего. Мы там практически выровняли все. Установили границу Южной Осетии." mean "We have made the border even", not "We have levelled all georgian homes to the ground" (as NYT says). This is further highlitened by the next phrase: "(Ж) Говорят, в грузинских селах были случаи мародерства... (К) Да, случаи мародерства были, но это последствия любой войны, любой агрессии. Мы все эти факты жестко пресекаем." "Yes, there were cases of marauding,... but we have nipped them in the bud". I.e. "выровняли" can well mean in Russian both "levelled houses" and "remove the breach in the frontline". Basing on the neighbouring phrases, Kokoity discusses the latter. Russian-speaking Kommersant journalists do not make a sensation of his words, as everybody knows Ossets won and Georgians lost the war. English speaking NYT journalists prefer to see the former meaning, and start a sensation - as if Kokoity was so foolish as to start the history of a state from a statement he was guilty in ethnic cleansing.FeelSunny (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basing on the original interview we should remove the loose interpretations of NYT. Agree? Taamu (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taamu, I would not argue, but I'd rather wait until the majority of editors who created this article to be either unblocked from editing, or permanently blocked. Right now, we do not constitute consensus, I'm afraid.FeelSunny (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how would you summarise Kokoyty's interview to Kommersant? Alæxis¿question? 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who dares question the New York Times, the bastion of credibility that claims that ethnic cleansing, (which according to Xeeron can occur without any deaths) is a form of genocide? Let's not forget the "Borisov quote" that Matt Siegel pulled out of his ass and attributed to Borisov, the one where Borisov allegedly said "Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves". And yet, no one, except the New York Times carried that quote. I don't know about the "braininess" of the New York Times, but if I was an Ossetian Hooligan - I'd be going "cool, free stuff" not "hey, let's go and commit ethnic cleansing!"
FeelSunny, they're not blocked, they're editing Communist Genocide article rather well. Personally, I'd like to rename this article to "Ethnic Cleansing of the WP:NPOV of the 2008 South Ossetia War". Interestingly enough, reports of looting were widespread, whereas reports of killings were unconfirmed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this rationale for the removal of the whole paragraph. Who has challenged NYT's interpretation? What are the sources that contradict, correct or comment on it? Alæxis¿question? 10:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Kokoity say that he and the forces under his command or with whom he is working are engaging in ethnic cleansing? NYT is a secondary source, original source is Kommersant, I didn't find a word about ethnic cleansing in it. Taamu (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I repeat my question: how would you want to summarise these (controversial and notable) statements by Kokoity? Alæxis¿question? 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A direct quote, where Kokoity explains why the Ossetians did what they did, and explains exactly what they did. Kokoity admitted that the Ossetian razed abandoned homes north of Tskhinval(i). Only someone on crack would call that ethnic cleansing. If someone raises my house, but doesn't harm anyone in the process, I'd just be suing them for money, not for criminal charges. Houses aren't people, unless you're working for the NYT. Let's not forget that the New York Times' Borisov quote, and the NYT's statement that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide. Kokoity never made those claims that the NYT attributes to Kokoity. But it worked for the NYT with Borisov, so they did it with Kokoity. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIFFMCG - the actual version[edit]

The conclusion of the article stated that: "Several elements suggest the conclusion that ethnic cleansing was carried out against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia, both during and after the August 2008 conflict".

The article also notes that at the time of the pillaging, "many ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia were completely empty of people".

It's also interesting that, while itself using diplomatic language, the report misquotes the HRW's diplomatic language. I believe that HRW should be quoted for HRW statements, not someone's interpretation of the HRW. The same should be said for PACE.

The only thing that the IIFFMCG report can be quoted for, is it's very own conclusions. This is what I tried to do, but user:Kober wants an edit war instead. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I reverted not only your alleged rectification of the passage, but your unexplained renaming of the mission's name. Second, are you suggesting that IIFFMCG report is an unreliable source for the information provided by the HRW? The reliable secondary sources are acceptable no less than the primary sources. You are just nitpicking and trying to disrupt my edits which don't contradict Wikipedia policies.--KoberTalk 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I got the missions name wrong - you can revert that. Nobody's perfect. Second, I am suggesting that HRW is a lot more credible about HRW, than IIFFMCG about HRW. Both reports are reliable. Let's say we have two analysts, Alex and Bob. Both are good analysts. However, when quoting Alex, I would look to Alex's essay, not to Bob's essay. Does that make sense? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly killed "South Ossetians"[edit]

The image which alleges the massacre of Ossetians by "Georgian forces" is not supported by any reference. In fact, the image itself has non existent source and very closely resembles the image of massacred Ingush by Ossetians in Prigorodny Rayon in 1992. There must be reliable sources for such claims, otherwise, the image will be removed without proper referencing. Iberieli (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I apply the same logic to the entire article? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the source non-existent? This is the photo from cominf.org. What are the reasons you doubt the authenticity of these photos? If they (reasons) exist we should consider explicitly attributing this image or removing it (depending on reasons' strength). Alæxis¿question? 09:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact source URL is this. Offliner (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is not a NEUTRAL source, but propaganda web site of the separatists. Where are independent sources verifying that this image is of Ossetians and not of Georgian civilians killed by Ossetian militants? Or where is the source where it specifically points out that "Georgian forces" have committed this act and that those people on the photo are actually ethnic Ossetians from "South Ossetia"? This image violated NPOV policy, including OR. Wikipedia is not "Oss-inform" or should take its materials from propaganda web sites which are un-scholarly, un-reviewed, un-verified and only are intended to focus particular political interest group, in this case Ossetian separatists and their Russian suzerains. Please present neutral sources as evidence, otherwise, this image will go. Iberieli (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The South Ossetian Ministry of mass media website is a reliable source. It is not a "propaganda website", just as the website of the Georgian government or the Russian president's website aren't either. Offliner (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? All the government websites are self-published. Colchicum (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Government websites are reliable sources to reference the claims advanced by these governments, not for something that is so controversial. Furthermore, I fail to see relevance of this image to the article about the ethnic cleansing of Georgians. --KoberTalk 18:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide a legit reason to doubt the authenticity of the image, other than "I don't believe it therefore it's fake"..? There are thousands of images on wikipedia that originate from government run websites. LokiiT (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof of reliability is on those adding the content (and in this respect government websites are not much different from blogs, only if far more notable). Now, yes, there are some images around, but not that kind of images. If you have a picture of something or somebody obviously familiar and identifiable, or if it is known from independent sources that the publication of the picture involved some third-party evaluation, that's ok (but incidentally, copyright issues aside, the same is true of blogs), otherwise (as is the case here) you still absolutely need reliable sources to confirm the interpretation/caption. WP:Verifiability and all that, you know. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the picture. Please don't protest when the same logic is applied to the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are as exact as always, I am afraid. I haven't removed anything. The same logic doesn't apply to this article, because it can be sourced to e.g. the IIFFMCG report, which is perfectly reliable (and last time I checked even you agreed to that). Colchicum (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colchicum, I said the conclusions of the IIFFMCG are valid; IIFFMCG's analysis of other sources, may have errors. IIFFMCG's quoting other sources, may have erred. It's a report written by a human being that's hundreds of pages long. The conclusions were boxed for a reason, and it wasn't because Tavliani loves drawing boxes. The conclusions were discussed, and spent a meticulous time on; the analysis weren't. Not to mention the report is Euro-Centric, which doesn't make it either pro-Russian or pro-Georgian; it's a pro-European Report. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, and again, I dont care for Ossetian separatist sources. Where are independent, neutral, non-partisan, academic sources which identify this specific image as A. Ethnic Ossetians. B. Massacred during military confrontation. C. Date and Place. D. Perpetrated By. Otherwise, I can pull out thousands of images from Georgian government web sites where you can see sadistic tortures, decapitation, and images of rape victims committed by Ossetian militants since 1992. Plus, I can do the same for massacres of ethnic Ingush, where hundreds of children were skinned alive. Many photos of these crimes are available but again have not being verified by any independent organization or investigation. So dont get me started on that. And do't let me also include millions of images from Chechnya with far greater graphic detail than this image, created by Ossetian separatist regime. Iberieli (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, and again, I don't care for Georgian and rabidly pro-Georgian sources. Where are independent, neutral, non-partisan, academic sources which conclude that Ethnic Cleansing occurred? Otherwise, I can pull out thousands of sources from Russian Government websites, where you can see similar bullshit propaganda, such as the one demonstrated in this article, but with a Russian spin. Plus, I can say the same thing for New York Times finding WMDs in Iraq in 2003. See the logic? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, we have valid conclusions from flawed analysis, right? How do we know that? No, don't even bother to answer, thank you. Colchicum (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of your analysis can be flawed, and your conclusion can still be valid. You can find Russians not guilty of ethnic cleansing (valid conclusion) by either finding that no ethnic cleansing took place (valid analysis) or by finding that ethnic cleansing took place, but that the Russians weren't responsible for it, (flawed analysis, valid conclusion). Only the Sith deal in absolutes. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, re the source relability. We have a very clear definition of a reliable source, and a website of any official state agency is a reliable source. As simple as this. We all understand that our Georgian counterparts do not recognize South Ossetia as a political entity, and they, of course, do not recognize this to be an official government website. But whatever they think of it, South Ossetia is not an unrecognized state, and is officially recognized by 3 UN member states. This makes it a state with a limited recognition, just like Kosovo, for example, which our Georgian counterparts do not recognize as well. As to the Kosovo, you will find numerous references to Kosovo official websites - news, information, statistical data and the like. Even on the mother article about the partially recognized state of Kosovo. The same applies to SO.
Second, about the picture itself. It is clearly a screenshot from a videotape of Zarskaya massacre, which is described in many sources, Ossetian, Russian, and Georgian. The screenshot, among the others, is published on a reliable source page, with a commentary: 17 years since Zarskaya Tragedy. Footage made in 1992.
Third, as to why the picture is presented inside this article. Here we have a deeper problem. First of all, this whole article, as of now, is very much a POV-fork, created to promote the simple POV: Ossets are bad, Georgians suffer. Of course, the second paragraph here looks very much outside of the whole article. Because it says, actually, good and fair Georgian state cleansed 100000 of Ossets in early 90ies and later, from South Ossetia and elsewhere. And the picture is a very good illustration of how it was done. That is why the picture stays within the second paragraph.
The problem is, what should we amend: the article name, or the second paragraph. If we change the article name to "Ethnic cleansings in Georgia in 1990-2008", or just cleanse the second paragraph out of this article, making it a complete POV fork. The choise is ours, as usual.
Of course we all know that Georgian state, during Gamsakhurdia, during Shevardnadze, during Saakashvili was also guilty in many crimes against Ossets and Abkhaz, do we? So please, Georgian editors, other than promoting your government POV, consider the possibility of making this article really neutral - making it speak of all people who suffered. Georgians, and Ossets, and Abkhaz alike.FeelSunny (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread[2] on the reliable sources noticeboard so we can get some unbiased opinions on the reliability of the source. LokiiT (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a very clear definition of a reliable source, and a website of any official state agency is a reliable source - what in the world gives you that idea? It's just not true.radek (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Cleasing has been confirmed?!?!?![edit]

From the article's introduction: "The facts of ethnic cleansing against the Georgian populace in South Ossetia have been confirmed by the Human Rights Watch and have been reflected in the PACE resolutions."

From the article's body: "Human Rights Watch: "Instead of protecting civilians, Russian forces allowed South Ossetian forces who followed in their path to engage in wanton and wide-scale pillage and burning of Georgian homes and to kill, beat, rape, and threaten civilians," said Denber. "Such deliberate attacks are war crimes, and if committed as part of a widespread or systematic pattern, they may be prosecuted as a crime against humanity." However, also according to the HRW, 15,000 of 17,500 Georgians have left South Ossetia prior to the arrival of the Russian soldiers."

So the article's body states that HRW needs more information, while the introduction says that it's been confirmed. Am I the only one who sees this as a problem? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hilarious how the Dubious Tag got removed after I posted this section, and I had to put it back in. BTW, I didn't place the picture into the article, nor have I supported/endorsed its placement. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "confirmed" has been removed. I'm afraid you will need to find another pretext for disruption. Also, I'm waiting for a link to the Wikipedia guidline which would qualify the phrase "HRW reporter" as a weasel word.--KoberTalk 08:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you have the exact name, such as Denber, you should use the name, not the term "HRW reporter". The weasel part is where you hide the name, in order to make him/her/it look more credible. We already had a similar case, where the Jordan Times was presented as the actual source, whereas in reality it was Patashuri, btw props to Xeeron for fixing that. If you have actual names, you use actual names, you don't hide them behind "HRW Reporter" or "writer to the Jordan Times". Because in all honesty, I can find a drunk in virtually any city who holds a university degree, dub him "university expert" and I wouldn't be lying. In order to prevent this, we use actual names, not "HRW Reporter". Otherwise I'm dubbing Peter LaVelle, RFERL Host, which he was, and inserting him into this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, on top of everything, you might want to check which source this quote comes from: "The Human Rights Watch concluded that the "South Ossetian forces sought to ethnically cleanse" the Georgian-populated areas." I'll give you a hint; it's misattributed to the HRW. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now I know why you wanted to quickly remove Denber: http://www.hrw.org/en/bios/rachel-denber The articles she wrote are "yay Yushenko" (despite the disaster that he was for the people of Ukraine, a look at the GDP per capita chart will confirm this), "yay Saakashvili" (which should have instantaneously discredited her from providing an unbiased perspective on the war). No wonder you wanted her name removed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1991-1992 South Ossetia War and Humanitarian Impact of 2008 South Ossetia War[edit]

I see very little reason to keep this as a separate article. The information concerning the first war suggests either no ethnic cleansing, mutual ethnic cleansing, or an ethnic cleansing of South Ossetians. The second is small and could easily be incorporated into existing articles. All the information here can easily be moved elsewhere.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Border moving[edit]

After this change the article reads:


This is WP:OR - the source never uses the words ethnic cleansing and no other sources were provided. The information itself is notable, and I think it belongs to the article about the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and maybe to the South Ossetia article also. Alæxis¿question? 19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of photo[edit]

Non-independent source, with bias is not a valid reason for a removal of content when its provenance is stated clearly in the image caption. Also there's no disagreement as to whether the events purportedly shown on the photo - killing of 33 civilians in 1992 - happened (see for example this article by Gerard Toal and John O’Loughlin, p. 12).

So unless there are reasons to doubt the veracity of this particular image, it should stay in the article. As an example from the other side, we have photos by Georgians in the Occupation of Gori article and we don't (and shouldn't) remove them just because they come from one side of the conflict. Alæxis¿question? 19:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This photos from Gori is much more different than removed one, with this you can find out location as well as many other sources showing the same military base in destroyed condition. But in case of removed photo, first of all we have very bad quality of the photo to find out where it was taken and is it really from that place or not. Secondly we need other third-party source showing at least something similar or in connection with that.--g. balaxaZe★ 00:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I don't know of any policies that require this. Again, the source of the image was clearly stated in the caption. Alæxis¿question? 05:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To verify that the photo is really from that place. --g. balaxaZe★ 08:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aleaxis, I think you understand Giorgi's reasoning very well. The problem is that the caption does not even indicate that the claim of "civilians killed by Georgians" comes from the South Ossetian authorities. The source of this graphic image is the separatist government of South Ossetia, which is well known for fabricating information. Suffice to recall the claim of 2,000+ deaths and burned-alive kids in August 2008. I also remember an article in the Russian press concerning the funeral of a North Ossetian volunteer—an armed man consciously arriving in a foreign country to fight—whose death in 2008 was presented to the reader as an "act of genocide" committed by the Georgians. There were also images of Georgian villages set ablaze by the Russian-Ossetian forces and claimed to have been the neighborhoods of Tskhinvali.--KoberTalk 17:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know very well about their propaganda. That's why I try to use neutral sources where possible and why I referred you above to the article which is neither Russian nor Ossetian.
However the claim that it was civilians who were killed there comes not only from SO, here's a quote from The Caucasus : An Introduction by de Waal (2010), p. 142
So I think that the facts themselves are beyond doubt and in the absence of the evidence against this particular image there are no reasons to remove it. Alæxis¿question? 10:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia&oldid=1207143827"