Talk:Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia/Archive 1

Deletion discussion

Why is this article considered to be deleted? It has sources and is a stub at the moment. Samogitia (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it violates WP:POVFORK. Offliner (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I need some more users to proove that it violates WP:POVFORK. This article is objective and puts facts linked to the real sources. Do you question sources? Samogitia (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia also violates WP:POVFORK, what do you think? Samogitia (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the articles you have provided as a source? It looks like you are citing whatever you have about the South Ossetia war. Just search (Ctrl+F) to find out that there is no such words as genocide of Georgians in your references. Taamu (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the articles, that I have provided as a source. Samogitia (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you are serious, for one, actual genocide have individual stories. Also, your ratios are very much off. There were 17,500 ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia, according to estimates. British estimates. Here's linky: http://www.pcgn.org.uk/Georgia%20-%20South%20Ossetia-Jan07.pdf The amount of civilians killed/missing is 228, as reported by Georgia. Here's linky: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE51K1B820090221 Now these are British and Georgian numbers, so they're probably skewed against Russia, but the case here is so crystal clear that even with these skewed numbers, I can prove that your article isn't serious. You take 228 and divide that by 17,500 and multiply by 100: thus you get 1.30% That is not enough to qualify for ethnic cleansing, much less genocide. When Nazi Germany committed genocide, they took out 90%, or over 70 times then your number. Here, large number of Georgians fled. The idea of genocide, is that you're not supposed to allow the civilian population to flee. Read up on what actual Genocide is. This is Wikipedia, not CNN. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum: the 228 number also includes those killed in Georgia Proper. Thus the number is below 1%. That's not a genocide! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Article 2 of this convention (1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." So, estimated (by you) 1% of population is a part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Samogitia (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So if person "A" gunned down 50 Georgians in Gori, at the rate of one a day, and then left, he would be committing Genocide? I don't think you still quite understand what Genocide is, good try. Because according to your definition, the DC Sniper committed Genocide in Washington. You are interpreting the "in part" words as way too broadly. According to that definition, the Bloods and the Crips are committing Genocide in LA on a daily basis. And my estimates were under 1% of the population. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Both sides have been accusing each other of genocide, in an obvious attempt to paint the other in a bad light in the media. If you read anything about the war, it becomes clear that what happened was not a genocide, but a normal war. Of course, in any war civilians get hurt, but talking about a genocide because a few hundred South Ossetians or Georgians got killed is belittling those that were targeted in an actual genocide. The worst that happened in that war was some ethnic cleansing, which without doubt is bad, but it is not genocide. --Xeeron (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

This article doesn't have enough data to stand on its own. Therefore it should be merged with the 2008 Georgia-Russia Conflict, or a similar article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. As I've said in the AfD discussion, this article is an unnecessary POV fork from 2008 South Ossetia war. All of the information here is present in that article as well, so there is not much to merge. All that is needed is a redirect. Offliner (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Shortening of the 2008 South Ossetia war article is being discussed elsewhere, not expansion. Oppose. This is a valid standalone article, see the recent deletion discussion for discussion. Colchicum (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since all of this material is already present at 2008 South Ossetia war, merging this article there would represent an expansion of 0%, which is not that bad. If you don't want to merge there, how about Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war? Any reason why you cannot expand that instead of this POV fork? Offliner (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is again your personal opinion vs. the entire deletion discussion. It is fun to see how desperately you guys are trying to get rid of this. Your question has already been answered, yet you prefer to ignore this. Colchicum (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This is a stub IJA (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Also I have added information regarding ethnic cleansing of Georgians in the 1991-1992 conflict, therefore it would not make sense merging this article into the article about the 2008 war. IJA (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that your clearly "unbiased" addition conveniently forget to mention the 100,000 Ossetians that were "ethnically cleansed". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"*People flying from the war are indeed humanitarian impact of the war, people forced out or prevented from returning well after seizing of the hostilities are not directly related to the humanitarian impact of the war. Also expanding scope of the article beyond 2008 explaining how ethnically mixed territory of pre 1991 became divided between almost pure Ossetian and almost pure Georgian enclaves in 2008 is important and does not fit the Humanitarian impact article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)"

It wasn't well after the ending of the hostilities. It started when the hostilities were ongoing. A single fact check would prove both Colchicum and Bakharev dead wrong. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Historic Warrior, maybe you should create an article about ethnic cleansing of Ossetians if you believe there is enough information and references to do so. IJA (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not going to be your little pawn in yet another pathetic attempt to use Wikipedia to have Russians and Georgians going at it. It's been well known that a certain country's policy has been to destabilize the Caucasian Region, and that Russia wants stability. I looked at your talk page, and you just happen to be from that certain country. So now you're trying to use Wikipedia as one of the hate mechanisms to spread hate of Georgians vs. Ossetians and Russians, by calling emigration that happens in any war, ethnic cleansing. I have provided countless similar examples, I have taken apart every argument that supports the creation of this article and I am not going to create the Ossetian version of such hate mongering. By the way, feel free to explain to me how 28,700 become 17,500 after 23,000 are ethnically cleansed at your earliest convenience. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH IJA (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you have quite grasped the concept of what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is, and until you do, please stop saying it every time. Repetition still won't make basic facts and math original research. And this article remains a joke, especially after your edits, and your faulty accusation that I used a fake quote. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but this is your own work, your the one doing the maths here and wanting to interoperate what you have "found out"/ "worked out" as a way to justify editing the article, this is Original Research. Have you got any sources to back up what your saying? Also it was a fake quote because that quote does not appear in the source, however don't worry, I took the liberty in correcting that for you ;) IJA (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I'm using basic subtraction. That's not Original Research. In many articles involving numbers, editors very often use basic mathematical operations to calculate data. That's not OR. Saying that 2 + 2 = 2 * 2 is not original research. Saying that Earth is the third planet from the Sun is not original research. Also, the quotes don't appear in the actual articles, but when I use the article's information I place it in quotes. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Numbers "Genius" - more proof that this article is a joke

According to the USSR's 1989 census: 28,700 Georgians lived in South Ossetia. According to this article: 23,000 Georgians fled from South Ossetia. According to UK's data, after 23,000 of 28,700 Georgians were ethnically cleansed, 17,500 Georgians were still living in South Ossetia. So, according to math: 28,700 - 23,000 = 17,500! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No responses? No sources? Then I guess this article is a joke. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm origional research; please read WP:Original Research for details ;) IJA (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You should feel free to read it too. I have stated facts. Fact #1: 1989 population of Georgia was 28,700. Fact #2: article says 23,000 were "ethnically cleansed". Fact #3: currently, a British sources estimated the pre-war population at 17,500. Those are facts. That's not original research. Learn the difference, become a better wiki-editor ;) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Borisov's Statement

I'd like to see a Russian source for it. He didn't give the interview to that magazine. And I think the interview was in Russian. Sounds to me like he's being sarcastic, and the people who made this article, kept it, and believe that 28,700 - 23,000 = 17,500 are quoting his sarcasm as a reality. The equivalent would be Stephen Colbert saying "Bush - great president or greatest president?" and Fox News quoting that as an actual, non-sarcastic statement. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this origional research again? I think it is. IJA (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. It's me asking for a credible source. Borisov said that in Russian, so I'd like to see the whole interview, because it sounds like he's quoted out of context. You don't get to use the original research defense where it's not intended. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless I see an actual quote from Borisov from a source that he actually gave the interview to, I am going to have to delete it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Mark Ames describes how Matt Siegel performed his journalistic duties, in this article: http://exiledonline.com/how-to-screw-up-a-war-story-the-new-york-times-at-work/

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

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

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

So where did that quote come from? Why was it only quoted by the New York Times? Why didn't anyone else pick up on it? To me it just looks like Siegel pulled that quote out of his ass, considering that Borisov was busy commanding the troops to make actual interviews or press releases. Indeed not a single interview shows Borisov making that statement. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Sfetcu also cites Wikipedia, which cites the NY Times. And the NY Times has still no released a source on how they got the information. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as has been discussed in the original article where this article was forked from, and as per WP:Fringe I am removing Borisov's quote. Wikipedia requires such a quote to be referenced extensively in a major publication. The NY Times cited it once, admitting that it's from a second-string correspondent; that doesn't qualify as extensive referencing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To address some of the editorial concerns: I find it interesting how pro-Georgian editors would rather edit war, than use the discussion page. The Age cites the NY Times, and the source in the NY Times comes from a second string correspondent, who has been ruthlessly criticized as inept. http://exiledonline.com/how-to-screw-up-a-war-story-the-new-york-times-at-work/ Also, it is removed per WP:Synth. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

He has been ruthlessly critizied as inept on the site which put this up to describe themself: "The eXile was a biweekly dish of political gossip (often surprisingly incisive), grim reports from the country’s underbelly and amphetamine-fueled vitriol against Middle America. It was also heavily laced with pornography, satirical graphics and outrageous club reviews penned by a series of fictional correspondents. This was the paper that created the “Death Porn” column, a compendium of the week’s most gruesome crimes illustrated with police photos. Its most recent issue hailed the early arrival of “snapper season,” complete with photos of naked provincial girls taken from the “Dyevscovery Channel.”

In one of their most famous pranks, the editors made a cream pie mixed with horse sperm and threw it in the face of New York Times bureau chief Michael Wines. The journalistic offenses Wines had committed are long forgotten, but the memory of the pictures of him licking cream off his fingers lingers on. Former editor Matt Taibbi, posing as a sports promoter, once persuaded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to sign up as a motivational coach for the New York Jets. And, in the later, darker years, The eXile chronicled Mark Ames’ epic odyssey to celebrate the paper’s ninth anniversary by sleeping with nine whores in nine hours, armed with a pocketful of Viagra, $450 in expenses and a digital camera. (For the record, he failed.)"

Yes you read that correctly, these guys threw a cream pie mixed with horse sperm at a NYT employee. I don't even need to spell bias to express how their opinion of the NYT should be treated.

Oh and did you read the second page of that link you posted? Let me quote for you: "And he gave us much greater access to the ethnic Georgian villages behind Russian lines that had been torched in reprisal attacks". So even this guy does not disagree with those facts (and neither, by his words, does the Kremlin tour organizer), his critizism is about the alleged biased reporting.

Regarding SYNT, read either Marting's edit summary or my reply to Offliner at his talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron? Reading selectively? Forgetting to read this line "This article first appeared in The Nation"? Nope, I'm not surprised Yes Xeeron, you see, if you had actually paid attention to the entire article, and done a bit of research, you'd know several things; first off you'd know that Mark Ames was in Tskhinvali. The eXile is dirt-poor. They cannot afford money to send Ames to Tskhinvali. That means that someone else had to do it. If you would have researched further, you'd notice that the excellent magazine, The Nation paid Mark Ames to cover the war for them. Ames can write quality articles. However there are different standards of writing, when one is writing for The Nation, vs. the eXile. As for the article in question, everything except the title was published in The Nation, and than Ames simply copy-pasted it to the eXile and came up with a new title. Ames' articles written in The Nation are at the very best journalistic standards. Ames' articles written for the eXile, are not. However, it is silly to claim that copy pasting an article from The Nation to the eXile, while changing its title, somehow lowers the article's quality. And when you critique the eXile due to your ignorance, instead of the article itself, you simply prove my case. I can take the Moscow Defense Brief's article, change its title, and copy-past it on the eXile. Would that the MDB's article, the article itself which you so boldly chose to ignore, less valid? Of course not! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it talked about villages being torched. It doesn't talk about people being killed. Ethnic Cleansing requires the removal of people by force. If there are no people, as the article has documented, than the mere burning of abandoned homes, does not constitute ethnic cleansing. Most Georgians left voluntarily, because of a warning received by the Georgian Army. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Xeeron, we know that you are proficient in Ad Hominems. However, in your bashing of Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi, you have miserably failed to point out what's wrong with the article. It's an old debating tactic, where, if one cannot argue against the argument, one launches an Ad Hominem on the person making the argument instead. But that's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Nice try Xeeron, no cigar. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Like so many other discussions this is becomming obsolete quick, since this goes down the well known line of you making up untrue assertions (ad hominem by me against Mark Ames????) and me having to defend against that. Or you making incorrect statements (I claimed the articles quality is low) and me having to correct that (I said the guy is biased against NYT). If you have any new points to make, please do so. --Xeeron (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love to, here's something from a few lines above: "And, in the later, darker years, The eXile chronicled Mark Ames’ epic odyssey to celebrate the paper’s ninth anniversary by sleeping with nine whores in nine hours, armed with a pocketful of Viagra, $450 in expenses and a digital camera. (For the record, he failed.)" Xeeron, caught lying, once again. So what else is new? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you don't know what a quote is. --Xeeron (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you quote something, that means you agree with it. Otherwise why would you quote it? To pollute Wikipedia with needless information? Your little game of "well I only quoted it, so it's not really my statement" fails epically. If you quote something, you are responsible for that quote. Not Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse, but you, Xeeron. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Even with Xeeron's modified version, I think it may still be WP:SYNTH. The purpose of that quote seems to be to say "look, Russians confirmed the ethnic cleansing" - which is not true. They admitted that Ossetians were looting and doing atrocities, but that per se is not ethnic cleansing. If you want to include all kinds of stuff about the violence, such as this quote, you need to rename the article to something like Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia on ethnic Georgians. However, I still strongly believe that the whole article should be turned into a redirect to Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war - all of the content is there as well, and is discussed there in a more balanced way. Offliner (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It pretty much is. Not to mention it's still WP:Fringe, as the only source is the original article from the NY Times, that hasn't been confirmed by a single, other source. You're right, time for that statement to go. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The versions on the article says exactly what one source says, so it can't be synth. The fact that you doubt the source is not relevant for determining WP:SYNTH. --Xeeron (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Violence by ethnic Ossetians against ethnic Georgians" != "ethnic cleansing." It is synth because you are picking one quote from the article, one that does not discuss ethnic cleansing, and putting it into an article about ethnic cleansing. From that source, you can include "There is growing evidence of looting and "ethnic cleansing" in villages in the area of conflict between Russia and Georgia" if you want, but not more than that. Material from sources like HRW should be strongly preferred, however, over lone journalist articles. What exactly is the role of the Borisov quote in this article and why is is relevant to an article about ethnic cleansing? Offliner (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is titled "Looting and 'ethnic cleansing' in South Ossetia as soldiers look on" and in the article, Borisov is quoted as evidence for that. The connection is made by the authors of the article, not on this article, therefore it is not synth. In fact, it is beyond me how you can possibly see a lenghty, unchanged quote from an article about ethnic cleansing as WP:SYNTH in a wikipedia page about ethnic cleansing. --Xeeron (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is not quoted as "evidence for ethnic cleansing." Why do wish to include this in the article? What would the role of this quote be here? Why do you insist on using this quote from one journalist's article, when there are major works by organizations such as HRW available on the subject? Offliner (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I never advocated using this instead of HRW, but it seems everyone is fixated on removing this, instead of adding some other sources to the article. I have yet to see someone who wants this removed add a HRW source to this article, nor add much at all. And the context of the article is clear: It is talking about ethnic cleansing (again, check the title: "Looting and 'ethnic cleansing' in South Ossetia as soldiers look on") and it is using that quote to show that such attack were admitted by the Russian authorities. --Xeeron (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring, on something that you promised not to edit-war about in other articles, maybe you could add an HRW source? Oh wait, we have an HRW source here! Also, the Australian newspaper is citing the NY Times, which is supposedly citing Borisov. There are no other sources, except for the NY Times, stating this. Here ya go: "# 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." [14]." - maybe you could read the article first, instead of commenting away on things you haven't read? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I return the compliment: Please read my comment "I have yet to see someone who wants this removed add a HRW source to this article" before commenting on it. Oh look, the source was added by Samogitia and not anyone who want this removed. Great work shooting yourself in the foot there. --Xeeron (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Xeeron, you have mastered the Ad Hominem attack tactic. Too bad there are no Barnstars to be given out for that mastery. Also, you seem to have been too busy attacking Ames, and attacking me to actually counter-argue the main point: there are no primary sources for the Borisov quote, and the only secondary source is the NY Times. It clearly fails WP:Fringe. It was not referenced extensively, it was included in a single piece of the New York Times. Again, Borisov didn't say it in English. Let's see a Russian source. Or any source that's not the NY Times. Or even any article in the NY Times, citing that quote, but that wasn't written by Siegel? Anything? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kober can you please stop removing the dubious tag until my concerns have been addressed. It's very simple: find me a single valid primary source that quotes Borisov. Otherwise that quote should be removed, as per WP:Fringe. The panic here is hilarious, you are even edit-warring over removing the dubious tag; if it's such a valid source, what are you so scared of that you need to edit-war over User:Kober? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A Faulty Accusation from the IJA

Here's the article that was cited: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1996/Russia.htm

Here is the exact quote from that article: "Between 1989 and 1992, fighting flared in the South Ossetian A.O. and in Georgia between ethnic Ossetian paramilitary troops and Georgian Interior Ministry (MVD) units and paramilitaries.57 South Ossetia had demanded to secede, and Georgia cracked down on the renegade area by sending in troops. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled Georgia and South Ossetia, and another 23,000 Georgians headed in the other direction. One hundred villages were reportedly destroyed in South Ossetia. Also the North Ossetia-Georgian border went largely uncontrolled, providing an almost unhindered access point for weapons, fighters, and ammunition. in both directions."

Here is the edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia&action=history

Please note that IJA is calling my quote a fake. Here's the quote I put in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia&diff=309188742&oldid=309188623

"Between 1989 and 1992, fighting flared in the South Ossetian A.O. and in Georgia between ethnic Ossetian paramilitary troops and Georgian Interior Ministry (MVD) units and paramilitaries.57 South Ossetia had demanded to secede, and Georgia cracked down on the renegade area by sending in troops. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled Georgia and South Ossetia, and another 23,000 Georgians headed in the other direction. One hundred villages were reportedly destroyed in South Ossetia. Also the North Ossetia-Georgian border went largely uncontrolled, providing an almost unhindered access point for weapons, fighters, and ammunition. in both directions."

Maybe IJA will explain who that quote was fake? Or perhaps this is also Original Research? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You Cannot Have it both ways

The title of the section states that Georgians were ethnically cleansed from South Ossetia, but a part of the very same section, edited in by Kober via "RV Ignorance" states that Georgians moved from one part of South Ossetia to another. So how can they be cleansed from South Ossetia if they moved to South Ossetia? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia?

I've checked out the four articles cited. The first one doesn't mention ethnic cleansing. The second mentions Ethnic Cleansing in a commentary from a random poster, in the comments section, where anyone can write anything. The third source talks about Georgian demonstrators holding "no the Ethnic Cleansing" signs. I can write about protesters holding "We love to tie-chewing presidents" signs as well. It's not a scholarly source. The fourth, it's my favorite - that's the one that accuses Georgia of ethnic cleansing. Here's the quote: "The above facts are mentioned to explain that Russia’s alternatives under the circumstances were nil. Russia was presented by Tbilisi with a military attack against its own soldiers, the destruction of defenseless cities and an incipient ethnic cleansing (or worse) on her own doorstep. One must wonder what delusions of impunity were preying on Georgia’s leadership and its consultants when they prepared and launched their military attack." Once again, this article proves itself to be a joke. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Times Article Cited = Saakasvhili's mouthpiece

"The article stated that 100,000 people were displaced, but failed to mention that these people were ethnic Georgians who left their houses and property because of the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Russian military and the South Ossetian militia. Now these displaced people’s homes have been burned and destroyed in order for them to not come back."

Actually there has been no proof of the Russian military carrying out ethnic cleansing. The accusation made by Georgia in the UN was that the Russian Army failed their duty as an occupying power to prevent Ossetians from destruction of ethnic Georgian villages. If the Russian Army was actually involved in ethnic cleansing, civilian casualties would be in the thousands, not below 250, and most likely below 70.

Futhermore the comments are written not by the Jordan Times, but by the Georgian Ambassador to Jordan, who also stated that: "The Georgian separatist regions is also in violation of all international laws and principles." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remember, "verifiability, not truth". All cited sources are perfectly consistent with WP:Source. If you think they are not, please ask at RS noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you hiding the truth using Wikilawyering isn't new. What's funny is that the article verifies as a letter to the editor by the Georgian ambassador, rather than the Jordan Times writer. As thus, it should be attributed to the ambassador, not the editor in chief of the Jordan Times. Instead of saying "Saakashvili said xxxxxxxxxx" or "the Jordan Times published the Georgian ambassador saying xxxxxxxxxx" - you are trying to say "the Jordan Times published xxxxxxxxxx" thus misleading the reader to the origins of the quote. You are doing the exact same thing with The New Age, where you are using the New Age, which cites the NY Times, which cites Matt Siegel, as saying "According to the New Age, Borisov said yyyyy" instead of citing the original source, in the case the New York "we haz da tapes" Times. When I tried to cite the original source, who was Matt Siegel of the NY Times, you undid that. It seems to me that you are more engaged in edit-warring in this article, then actually providing more sources. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the ref type to properly mark the councilor as author. --Xeeron (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that fixes one out of the numerous problems this article has. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User Biophys

In one of his edits, user:biophys made this comment: "Clear attribution has been provided already in the body of the article. This is according to all non-Russian sources and to many Russian sources as well." Really? So far I've only seen the New York Times and a source that claims that 16 deaths out of 17,500 is ethnic cleansing, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. HRW states that ethnic cleansing may or may not have occurred. Care to actually back up your statement biophys? Cause aside from Georgia's Government, Norwegian Helskinki "1 death in 1,000 is ethnic cleansing" Committee, and New York "WMDs are in Iraq, trust us!" Times, I haven't seen any other sources state that ethnic cleansing occurred. HRW states that it might have occurred. But this article presents ethnic cleansing like a fact, so HRW doesn't support this article. So show me any sources besides the trio, that aren't tied to the trio. And don't even think of removing the tag until you do. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to discuss tagging when you come off your "Norwegian Helskinki '1 death in 1,000 is ethnic cleansing' Committee" et al. diatribe. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a beautiful thing: it makes you cite your sources, and challenges them to be intellectually discussed. From the source: "The Human rights monitors found evidence of the burning of houses, attacks on civilians and forced displacement of the Georgian population as late as Friday 17 October. There is still fear and tension in the conflict zone." Nothing is mentioned about the evidence of "attacks on civilians". The source continues: "Our work was hampered by lack of access to many of the relevant sites, as Russian troops and South Ossetian de facto authorities refused to allow our monitors access. Nonetheless our monitors went to the villages in the Russian controlled “Buffer Zone” in August and September as well as to the villages in South Ossetia in September and October." So Russian troops refused to allow monitors access, but monitors went in anyways. So in essence they admitted that they broke the law, they represent: "The full records of our research will also be presented in the middle of November to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, together with our final, public report." Eh, law's flexible when you're from: "During August, September and October 2008, the Austrian Helsinki Foundation, Caucasia Centre for Human Rights and Conflict Studies, The Georgian Human Rights Centre and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee interviewed a number of IDPs and villagers from the conflict zones in South Ossetia, Kareli Region, Gori Region and Zugdidi region of Western Georgia." Perhaps there's a reason why they're only investigating Georgian claims? Do they think that Saakashvili is an innocent lamb?

But moving forth to the claim: "Between 60 and 70 IDPs and villagers from the conflict zones were interviewed." Between 60 and 70? Whoever is recording these interviews should be fired. How hard is to count to 70 without losing track? "This included people from one village in the Zugdidi region, approximately seven villages in South Ossetia and sixteen villages in the Gori and Kareli regions. Some of them were interviewed in-depth, as they were victims of, or eyewitnesses to, grave violations of humanitarian law and human rights law. Based on our material one cannot draw any conclusions about the total number of serious war crimes (like e.g. the number of people summarily executed or the exact number of houses burned). This material is non-exhaustive, and only provides an indication of the overall figures." - in other words, they don't know. But, despite the very fact that they admitted they don't know, (because if they said something is true, and later it turns out to be completely false, Russia could have tried them for libel,) they continue:

"Yet, this material strongly suggests a pattern of systematic attacks against the civilian population that continues today. The acts are seemingly aimed at changing the ethnic composition of the population in South Ossetia. During the first phase of the armed conflict (which continued for about five days from 7 August until 12 August), both parties seem to have committed war crimes in the form of indiscriminate bombings and disproportional use of force against mixed or civilian targets. In the second phase of the conflict the civilian population were specifically targeted in those areas effectively controlled by the Russian armed forces. These actions have lead to ethnic cleansing." - Erm, I don't follow. You have a possible pattern of systematic attacks, and that magically leads to ethnic cleansing. Well if a possible pattern of systematic attacks leads to ethnic cleansing, and this is found to be law, then, since this is Norwegian Helsinki Commission, would they answer for NATO's ethnic cleansing of the Serbs in Belgrade? There was clearly a possible pattern of systematic attacks against Serbia by NATO, including Norway. Is the Norwegian Government backing up the claim that a possible pattern of systematic attacks = ethnic cleansing? Also, there are no credible reports of Russians using disproportionate force. The Russians inflicted 2200 military casualties and only 228 civilian casualties. That's not disproportionate force.

"The practice of large-scale looting was accompanied by killings, rape, taking of hostages, deprivation of liberty, beatings, and threats. In several villages the burning of houses and destruction of public and private civilian property had a systematic character. The material collected describes 16 alleged cases of killings of civilians (excluding deaths resulting from cross fire, bombing and shelling at the time of large scale military operations, and accidents with unexploded ordnance), in areas controlled by Russian forces, many of which seems to be instances of summarily executions." I'd like to see actual evidence of killings, rapes, taking of hostages and beatings. Few sources corroborate those.

Now as for the killings: according to UK's article, there were 17,500 Georgians living in Ossetia before the war. The NHC article, states: "The material collected describes 16 alleged cases of killings of civilians". So 16 alleged killings, out of 17,500 = ethnic cleansing according to the NHC!

"Thus, for instance, in the village of Disevi in South Ossetia, our monitors found evidence of an on-going campaign against the few Georgian civilians remaining in the village. During a visit on 20th of October, our monitors encountered houses that were still smouldering after allegedly being put on fire a few days earlier. By our estimates, at least three quarters of the houses had been burned (apparently also some houses inhabited by Ossetians), suggesting the systematic and planned destruction of the entire settlement. There were several indications that looting was still going on in the village while we visited it, and there were credible reports that civilians, including old women, had been beaten, threatened and forced to leave the village as recently as last weekend." - There's a reason for WP:Weasel. I demand to see a primary source. Where are these "credible reports"? This isn't journalism, nor investigation, it's a joke! 16 alleged killings of 17,500 people, over a three month time period = ethnic cleansing? On what planet? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

An article is based on reputable sources represented fairly and accurately. It is not about collecting POVs, 1/2 of one side, 1/2 of another side, or in thirds or whatever. If material is missing from the article, please add it, don't just edit war and delete or tag. That is not constructive. And if anyone thinks I'm just "jumping in," I've been watching all (with limited participation) the South Ossetia related content since I got involved in the frozen conflict zone on WP—about three years now. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This coming from a person who considers Pavel Felgenhauer a reputable source. Also, please see the section below. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Bias

If you want to remove the tag, all you have to do, is show me a non-Georgian and non-New York Times source, that doesn't claim that killing one in one thousand people is ethnic cleansing, and that is actually credible. HRW says "maybe". This really shouldn't be difficult, although I laugh at the desperation of people trying to remove the Dubious Tag. You guys haven't panicked this much in any previous article, got actual and credible sources for this one?

I'll recap the sources: Georgian Government has 5 citations. New York Times is cited twice. The NHC, an organization that claims that 16 deaths out of 17,500 entitles them to claim Ethnic Cleansing, has one source. Another source talks about "reports on Ethnic Cleansing" based on Shaun Walker's ability to look into another's eyes. Another source cannot even get their picture straight (the picture's a fake, the guy's an actor). In addition, here's how that article cites the Council of Europe: "With that he must support the families of eight relatives who were also forced out of Ossetia when the militias embarked on what the Council of Europe has described as a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Georgians." Here's how the Council of Europe describes the Council of Europe: "6. There are still concerns about all acts which could contribute to ethnic cleansing of Georgians from the conflict areas and areas of occupation." Apparently the Telegraph forgot to teach their correspondents basic English, especially knowledge that the words "could contribute" do not mean "has occured". The other two sources are from the HRW, which state that Ethnic Cleansing may, or may not have occurred: "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." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Times and Xeeron

From Xeeron's recent edit: "RV: "Based on our material one cannot draw any conclusions about the total number of serious war crimes ... This material is non-exhaustive" + wrongly implies that absense of killing is absense of EC"

Well as to the non-bolded part, yeah we have no data, which is why this article should be non-existent. As to the bolded part, are you trying to say that you can have Ethnic Cleansing without killing? But this, as you call it, "credible" New York Times source disagrees: http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/ethnic-cleansing-in-south-ossetia/ - "Kokoity’s words are a rare public acknowledgment by an official that he and the forces under his command or with whom he is working are engaging in what can only be called ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide." So one the one hand we have Xeeron saying that ethnic cleansing doesn't involve killing, on the other hand we have the New York Times calling ethnic cleansing a form of genocide. Ahh, Xeeron betrayed by the New York Times that he's trying to protect, isn't this beautiful irony? Sorry Xeeron, but you claim is original research and your edit gets reverted. But please do try to argue, I will counter with your arguments from the 2008 South Ossetia War talkpage. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I think both Xeeron and the New York Times are wrong. Ethnic Cleansing necessitates killings, and you won't find ethnic cleansing without one. However to call ethnic cleansing genocide, is also a stretch. But I couldn't resist quoting the New York Times and Xeeron contradicting each other, with both of them making silly claims. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Xeeron, good job! You flipped the quote. Why did you just tried to weasel your way out of an argument again? The initial quote was that "ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide". You've flipped it to "genocide being a form of ethnic cleansing". Did you think and hope I'd miss that? Pathetic. Just plain pathetic. Try actually arguing next time, rather than switching the facts. I can imagine Xeeron in court: "Your honor, my client is not the defendant! My client is the plaintiff!" Also, you've yet to show me an example of ethnic cleansing without mass killings. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NYT: "ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide"

Xeeron: "Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing"

So if someone says that "cars are a form of transportation", feel free to pull a Xeeron and argue that "transportation is a special form of cars". Yo, check out my transportation, it's the best form of cars out there! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't let facts get into the way of your bashing. Like, the fact that I related to the wiki article on ethnic cleansing, which has a definition that differs from the NYT one. And which is backed up by the UN, for example. As it happens, I adhere to the UN definition. All your flawed drooling about me protection the NYT, is nothing but your pathetic attempt to "score points" in some weird talk page game happening in your mind. The NYT is a respected newspaper, nothing more, nothing less. It is neither "my" newspaper, not do I have any personal interest in it. --Xeeron (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Drooling? I'm not the one changing facts to make the NYT look better. Also, the UN's definition isn't an actual example, it's a definition. I asked for an actual example, but don't let avoiding answering the actual question interfere with you well-written Ad Hominems against me. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you have been pointed to WP:SOURCE before and our stance on secondary sources. And you seem to love accusing other of "ad hominems" almost as much as conducting them yourself. --Xeeron (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Except I don't change up facts to support my side of the arguments. I'm sure you've also been pointed to WP:NPOV and WP:BURDEN - which I cite, since you've given up on debating and taken up Wiki-lawyering instead. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and non-exhaustive data is not the same as no data. --Xeeron (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to clarify, or do you expect me to read your mind? Not being Pavel Felgenhauer, I don't have that ability. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My quote: "This material is non-exhaustive". Your statement: "Well as to the non-bolded part, yeah we have no data". Non-exhaustive data is not the same as no data. No need to read any minds to see that. --Xeeron (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there's no proof of Ethnic Cleansing here, aside from Georgia's Gov't. and anti-Russian sources stating that. We have secondary source, but do tell, which primary sources are quoted? Aside from Goergia's Gov't and HRW, and HRW I have no problem with. But those facts don't back up ethnic cleansing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you have been pointed to WP:SOURCE before and our stance on secondary sources. --Xeeron (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And what does WP:SOURCE have to do with removing the quote about only 16 alleged deaths? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as much as you reply has to do with my previous sentence: Not much. A lot with the sentence I commented on though.

"We have secondary source, but do tell, which primary sources are quoted? " => "I am sure you have been pointed to WP:SOURCE before and our stance on secondary sources.". --Xeeron (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I could also argue that a secondary source presupposes a reliable primary source. At least that's how the UC System teaches regarding secondary sources. Because in order to have secondary sources, you actually need primary sources! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)