Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Georgian War

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ETST (talk | contribs) at 11:59, 30 December 2010 (→Article Title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


New material added/sources

These edits by Reenem added a bunch of new material to the article which is not well sourced. The sourced used are:

  1. A blogger reporting on the sea battle, who mainly bases his blog on the interview with a Russian seaman, which the blogger himself assesses as "It’s a bit of a questionable story."
  2. An longish text on a webpage that seems to be hosting various military related texts/books. The text used as source is written in very bad English and contains dozend of photos, which are very obvious copyright violations (several of the other books hosted on the site look like copyright violations as well).
  3. A youtube video. Actually, the video is the best source out of the three, being uploaded by AssociatedPress, but is misquoted in the article. The full video description reads: "A Russian convoy of troops were engaged in an intense firefight, presumably with Georgian soldiers at a bridge in Achabet, South Ossetia Monday. (Aug. 11)". Reenem made out of that: "A joint Russian-Ossetian convoy was also ambushed by Georgian troops on a bridge in Achabet, but fought it off." Neither the ambush, nor the fighting off are mentioned in the description by AP, or apparent in the video (which is basically some soldiers standing around, shooting at an invisible enemy).

This does not hold up with the rest of the, very well sourced, article. --Xeeron (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But these bloggers also made a point of providing physical evidence with their photographs, and sourcing their materials with books. Even if they violate the copyright, we just cite them as sources, we don't actually use those pictures on our pages. And it is obvious that they did fight it off: the APC is shown blasting enemy positions and infantry then counterattack, and the fact that we even have the video proves that the column was not wiped out.--RM (Be my friend) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

We can not link to them is they violate someone else's copyright, check for yourself at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. About the firefight specifically, the AP author was very cautious in his decription, and correctly so. There is nothing in the video that sheds a light on which side attacked (and especially nothing that would allow us to speak of an "ambush"). There is not even proof who was the other combatant. For all we know, this might have been an instance of mistaken identity and friendly fire. And finally, the video does not show whether the attackers won, or whether the convoy retreated. Writing about an ambush that was fought off is pure speculation (and WP:OR to boot). --Xeeron (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map inset - comment

Just because the map inset was viewed by readers to be an excellent graphic does not make it correct. Specifically, the graphic depicts a Russian "blockade" of the Georgian coast. This assertion is not proven by any authoritative information. Either the author needs to provide proof or the depiction of the "blockade" MUST be removed. This is the second request to correct the graphic. The first request for corroborating proof of the asserted "blockade", a maritime action that has a specific definition in international law with criteria not met in this case, went unheeded.Moryak (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4497216.ece --Xeeron (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article that makes assertions without proof citing unnamed sources is neither authoritative nor very convincing. The article also contains number of assertive statements by the President of Georgia that weren't true either.Moryak (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Times is a reputable secondary source (unlike the president of Georgia or you, I might add), unless you find a reputable source, or better, several reputable sources that explicitly state that no blockade took place, there is no need to continue discussing this. --Xeeron (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia criteria still states that information must be verifiable. I am asking for verification - not assertion - in accordance with Wikipedia guidance. Some people ask "Show me the money?", I ask "Show me the proof of a blockade?". What specific units conducted the alleged blockade? Where? When? What specific ships were affected by the alleged blockade? I have not seen any addressal of the answers to any of these questions. If the alleged blockade occurred, the answers to these questions should be available.Федоров (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask that, but you'll have to search the answer yourself. WP:Source guides what can be used as a source (I suggest you read the relevant section, not only the title), and whether or not you personally agree with Times is not of any importance. --Xeeron (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blockades happen all of the time without actually being legally declared a blockade, similar to how both Georgia and Russia were at war with each other while at the same time neither declared war. Now would you state that the war didn't exist because legally there was not a state of war between the two countries?XavierGreen (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, yes, the Georgia-Russia interaction in August 2008 was an "armed conflict" and not a "war". Many discussions of current events are sloppy and imprecise in their understanding and use of words. However, words do matter - and "blockade" has a specific definition which does not apply in the case of the graphic noted.Федоров (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you note the article blockade there are mutiple definitions given, what you are refering to is a legal definition while in reality there is more than one definition. For example a blockade can also refer to Close patrol of a hostile port, in order to prevent naval forces from putting to sea, is also referred to as a blockade. Something that happens extremely frequently in any conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken. Regardless of varying definitions, I still challenge the statement that there was a blockade of Georgia - where is the proof? A self-serving assertion is neither proof nor verifiable fact.Федоров (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A review of the literature supports questioning whether a "blockade" ever existed. The reported "battle" at sea occurred just south of Sukhumi. The Georgians have/had no naval bases that far north. Poti is farther south. And yes, Russian forces did enter Poti where they sank basically inoperative Georgian naval ships at their moorings but there is no verifiable information that the Russian Navy "blockaded" any Georgian port. The text below Wikipedia edit box explicitly states that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Moryak (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, when the georgians sortied they were repulsed no? Did they ever leave port after their sortie? There were russian ships off of the coast of Georgia for the length of the war preventing them from sortieing.XavierGreen (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Russians never stopped the Georgians from leaving port. The Russians engaged the Georgians when the Georgians were heading north toward Sukhumi and approaching their ships southwest of Sukhumi. Interestingly, the Georgians never acknowledged the occurrence of the action in which one of their units was sunk by a missile. There is no confirmation that the Russian Navy remained anywhere but off the coast of Abkhazia for the duration of the armed conflict. There is no verifiable confirmation of the Russians ever blockading the Georgian coast during the conflict.Moryak (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heres a source stating that russian vessels were off the coast of georgia during the conflict, enforcing an exclusion zone off the coast of georgia. [[1]] Heres a chinese source stating there was a blockade [[2]]XavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not that there are statements and reports, though I wonder how British and Chinese sources are likely to be authoritative since these types of reports tend to be echoes of others rather than authoritative reporting. The real issue is = what is the truth and can it be verified. Earlier I cited the historical example of Herr Goebbels, who believed and successfully practiced the theory that convincing repetition of falsehood created the perception of truth. I still adhere to that example. As in American politics, you can easily hear totally contradictory statements of seeming fact, however only one of the versions logically can be true. Repeating, where is the verifiable confirmation that there was a Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast during the August 2008 conflict?Федоров (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can say the same of you, what evidence do you have that there was not a blockade? This russian source states that a full trade blockade had been in effect since 2006! [[3]] Russian ships were off the coast of georgia, and prevented the georgian fleet from sortieing out of port. The only reasoning i have seen stated that russia did not enact a blockade is because russia was not in a state of war and enacting a blockade would be an act of war, a moot arguement unless you want to argue that russians did not invade georgia in 2008 and that the russian black sea fleet stayed in stevaspol for the length of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A challenge to prove negatives is a weak gambit. (Please prove that you do not beat your wife, have never driven through a red light, etc.) The article you cite is a western writer's (Washington Times) opinion and likely also an imprecise use of the word "blockade". It refers to closed transit across land borders and not blockade of maritime trade. Georgia would be the first to say that there is no blockade of its ability to trade by sea. The ports of Poti and Batumi have been and are functioning. The Washington Times article has no bearing on whether there has been a sea blockade of Georgia.Федоров (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge material from Public investigation of the Ossetian War?

It seems to me that the contents of Public investigation of the Ossetian War might more appropriately be incorporated into this article. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 04:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that we should do that. As mentioned in its header (and I mostly agree with the list), the article has multiple unresolved issues. The South Ossetia war article is a very VERY touchy one (I just can't overemphasize, how much). Just one wrong addition like that, and we'll be hearing cries "Russians!" - no, I mean - "Wolves!" - no wait, it's actually - "POVed and unencyclopedic!" all over the place =D. I'd rather enjoy the relative calm that seem to have established lately. Anyway, if you still see some merit in adding the information from "Public Investigation" article, I suggest improving that article directly first (i.e. adding sources, wikifying, etc), and then bringing it to editors' attention once more. How about that? ETST (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed — especially with regard to proper sourcing of the information in question. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome =). ETST (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent references to Mikheil Saakashvili

Per WP:SURNAME, I believe it would be appropriate to change references in this article (after the first reference) to Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili to say simply "Saakashvili" (or, sparingly and where appropriate, "President Saakashvili"). Right now, he is repeatedly (and, I believe, unnecessarily) referred to throughout the article as "Mikheil Saakashvili" or "President Mikheil Saakashvili". Owing to the sensitivity of this article, I thought it wise to bring up this naming issue here on the talk page first, just in case someone might be aware of an important reason to make an exception to the general style guideline on personal naming conventions. I do understand that routinely referring to people by their surnames alone is not customary in Georgia, but we're talking about the English Wikipedia here. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very thoughtful of you to ask first =). But personally I'm not aware of any good reason for keeping references the current way, and I'm pretty sure that in this case nobody would object, especially since there's a guideline supporting your change. I think, that as a general rule, you should be wary only about adding/changing factual information in the article (e.g how many died, who did when and what to whom, etc). Mere technicalities, like how someone's name is presented/spelled, are unlikely to be of the holywarring folk concern here (and with everybody else you'll be able to come to an agreement). Good luck editing =). ETST (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Nekrassov, Olga Konskaja film "Russian Lessons"

I think you should watch documentary film "Russian lessons". Atleast half of that info here is wrong.

One video to think about this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ5eiXn7QJk —Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerEST (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I watched "Уроки русского" some half an year ago. It is indeed a very valuable work and it's a pity that it is forbidden in Russia. Kouber (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article too large

This article is well beyond the 100kb limit that normally indicates a split is necessary. The military sections are a good candidate for a split, and other sections could be easily split as well. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is aware of the problem and this has been considered many times. The subject is complex and splitting off material will create POV concerns. I believe this is one those cases when a large article is necessary. It is allowed by policy: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". Another article about a recent and controversial war, Gaza War is even longer (255 kilobytes long). But in the future, I will start working to improve the article. That includes cutting it down if possible. On first thought, I object to cutting down the military part because I think it's essential. Offliner (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on keeping this article small for a long time now, but there are also reasons why it is as large as it is. Apart from what Offliner already pointed out, consider that this article is extremely rich in sources. As a rough guess, I'd say that about one third of the total Kb number is due to sourcing. However, that should not be counted towards the total article length, since it does bloat the articles' text. --Xeeron (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with xeeron that the sources are a problem, but disagree that it creates POV because no content is/will be removed. Theyd be moved to requisite pages AND duly linked from here. Right now it takes way too long to load, and particularly for editors who have to save and return to the page, which is not to mention readers who could get scared off by it not loading. We can always discuss the necessary cuts here before splits. Gaza flotilla raid also has many splits, which aids editors who focus on only 1 section ahead of others (like i did there)Lihaas (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Illegal Weapons Sales

Found this article about the Ukraine illegally selling Georgia the Buk missile systems that shot down the Russian jets. Would it be notable enough to add into the article, or is it too controversial, or needs 100% to be confirmed? Nath1991 (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions that Georgia used Buk systems. Whether the sale was illegal or not in the Ukraine is not relevant here. --Xeeron (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, if an RS mentions it then one can mention it (although id question the source as being unbiased in this regard)Lihaas (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

The current title of the article is not the commmon name for the conflict, rather Russia-Georgian War and Russo-Georgian War are used in english scholarly sources for the conflict. The current title fails wikipedias requirements for Verifiability and No original research. Russo-Georgian War would follow currently used conventions such as the various Russo-Swedish Wars and Russo-Turkish Wars. The current title also is pov towards the ossetian view point of the conflict, as the war took place all over the territory claimed by georgia and not entirely in South Ossetia, and was primarily fought between Russian aligned and Georgian belligerents.XavierGreen (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The current title is absurd. The fact that such a title was chosen initially (when indeed it reflected the place where the war erupted) doesn't justify the status quo. We have to follow the rules. Kouber (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Not this again. The same people and the same rename proposal. I'd have thought, that after you had demonstrated so much persistence, that you even got yourselves a 6 months Moratorium on Rename Debates, you'd finally become sensible enough not to try pulling the same rename on the same article for 32nd time in 28 months (!!!). Is that really how you're gonna spend Christmas and New Year days? I mean like, really-really?? Oh well, why am I so surprised? Previous 31 times should have taught me a lesson, I guess. ETST (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More and more scholarly publications are published every week under the titles ive proposed. The the case for a rename grows stronger everyday.XavierGreen (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The terms proposed by XavierGreen are much more widely used at present. Besides, 2008 South Ossetia war doesnt apply to events taking place in this war. We should follow WP:UCN. –BruTe Talk 10:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And "Oh my" again. An instantaneous rename flashmob with the notorious "common name" argument. In under three days we already have three men, all of whom, incidentally, were strongly in support of rename in several of previous discussions. WP:CANVASS, anyone? I wonder, where had I seen it all before? Why is that people fail to understand, that a 2-year old war is too young to reasonably have any generally-agreed upon name in History? What's driving them to hasten the decision? Does it have something to do with two of them being Georgian/having Georgian friends/generally engaging in pro-Georgian tendentious editing? Why do I have to continuously waste my personal time on them? Oh well, I guess we'll never find out answers to these questions, so let's pretend that I'm interested in seeing a proof for this "most common name" claim, shall we? I'll quickly disprove it and then proceed with doing some actually useful things. ETST (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War&oldid=404981512"