Talk:2007 Georgian demonstrations

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 2, 2013, November 2, 2017, November 2, 2021, November 2, 2023, and November 2, 2024.

Georgia (country) Low‑importance

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Background

This article can be helpful for the section. Also, I think the article suffers from serious POV issues. It should also mention Badri Patarkatsishvili's controversial role in the event.--Kober^Talk 14:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lack of info is not POV. It just needs to be added... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imedi

How about some primary sources?

"Now Company News Corp will be the only owner of the complete share package of the TV Company Imedi." Óðinn 06:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not quite accurate. That day the Imedi manager held a briefing and explained that Badri remained a co-owner.--Kober^Talk 06:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, your edits seem to downplay the protests. No need of "ad-hoc" in the very first. Who assisted the protests financially is less important. We should not highlight the fact more than the media does. Also Georgian government uses the fact as a slur. Kober, please do not engage in edit wars. You can add all the details in the main body of the articles. Tamokk 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I also participated earlier in these protests. I'm not trying to donwplay them. But the intro should be informative. You're trying to suppress the info you don't feel comfortable with. Who assisted the protests financially is less important? Are you kidding? --Kober^Talk 07:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not kidding. See the news articles, none of them except the pro-Georgian government ones spotlight the fact. Yes the intro should be informative but not selectively so. Tamokk 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but Civil Georgia can hardly be regarded as a pro-govt source. It is affiliated with a certain moderate opposition organization and is well-known for its credibility. Please don't mislead the reader.--Kober^Talk 07:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did not mean Civil Georgia, I meant the pro-gov sources. Civil.ge naturally extensively covered the event, dedicating number of articles to it. Your reference is just one of those many articles, about this one particular issue. Please don't meslead the reader yourself. Tamokk 07:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamokk, what do you want? Did Badri finance the rally? Was the council ad-hoc (it was not a structured organization or functioning political party, I guess)? Then why should we suppress any mention of these facts? --Kober^Talk 07:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will mention all those facts, but not unbalanced in the first sentence. Tamokk 07:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But you insisted on removing them at first.--Kober^Talk 07:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes initially they said that they just wanted to unblock the Rustaveli avenue, but soon the state of emergency was declared and people were intentionaly prevented from protesting, and Georgian officials were open about this. Tamokk 07:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it is described in the article. I'm not following your logic. --Kober^Talk 07:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic protests were dispelled to unblock the avenue, and Saakashvili said to save the Georgian nation. Also the actions of police were bit too violent just for unblocking the avenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamokk (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by your logic Georgia "will become great and democratic only when it joins Russia". :)

Your latest post is simply ridiculous. I know that the police acted excessively violently and that is mentioned in the text. --Kober^Talk 08:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I was there and I witnessed how some opposition leaders directly called for violence and tried to provoke the police in the preceding days when the government showed patience and did not interfere in the demonstrations. That's why I got dissapointed in these protests and left them.--Kober^Talk 08:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No not democratic, just great. Tamokk 08:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, I would appreciate including some of your photos, if you took them... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not unfortunately, but I will try to obtain some good shots.--Kober^Talk 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HRW

I removed the HRW comment as the organization represented by the unknown spokesperson is hardly involved in Georgian policy isssues, and that the comment adds very little to the article. --Camptown 10:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Sweden's reaction present then? It is also in no way involved in "Georgian policy isssues". HRW is a respectable organisation and I don't understand why was its position deleted. Alæxis_¿question? 10:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Carl Bildt is one of the key persons in creating ties between Georgia and the European Union. --Camptown 10:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so?

"Human Rights Watch condemned the police attacks on peaceful protesters." (ref) http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/11/08/georgi17284.htm (/ref). --Camptown 18:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

“In an emergency, the Georgian government can restrict some rights, but it can’t send the police in to beat up peaceful protesters,” said Cartner. “The government should investigate all reports of police beatings and prosecute those found to have used excessive force on demonstrators.”

”

Imho "Human Rights Watch condemned the police attacks on peaceful protesters." is a legitimate summary of these words. If you don't think so please offer your version. Alæxis_¿question? 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, the statement was done by Holly Cartner, a spokesperson in New York, but there is not yet any "official" condemnation by the HRW. As HRW is a respectable organization, condemnations are usually attached to various reports. So time will tell. Anyway, to start an article that deals with protests and riots in a former Soviet republic with a statement done by a Holly Carner does not seem very serious. --Camptown 20:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Ms Cartner is not a spokesperson but an "Executive Director [of] Europe and Central Asia Division".

You don't want to have HRW position either in the beginning of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2007_Georgian_demonstrations&diff=170582366&oldid=170536525) or in the international reaction section (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2007_Georgian_demonstrations&diff=170524087&oldid=170492348). I'm sure it has to be in the article somewhere so I'll restore Feargod's version. I will not object if you move these words elsewhere in the article. Alæxis_¿question? 20:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but don't forget that there are currently 34 "Directors" within the HRW. And Holly Cartner is far from being the most prominent of them. As a matter of fact, she is not even a board member of section (Europe and Central Asia Division) she is working for. I trust you will add her frequent comments about President Putin's "worsening human rights record", "increasing state repression" in Russia etc etc in the article covering the Russian government. --Camptown 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less agree with HRW in that case also. I think that the situation with human rights in Russia is adequately represented in the articles about Human rights in Russia and Politics of Russia so I don't think I'll add anything there (as this is not in my immediate sphere of Wiki-interest). Frankly, I don't quite understand how is this related to the subject of this article. Alæxis_¿question? 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis, Camptown is abolutely correct. I understand that you specialize in selecting exclusively negative info on Georgia; I've seen this many times before, but the HRW note does not belong to the introduction. Would you ever agree to place the HRW report on crackdown on Georgians in Russia in the lead section of Politics of Russia? --Kober^Talk 05:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I've written it sufficiently clear that I don't care whether this info is in the lead or not as long as it's present in the article (see my 20:42 post). The HRW position on the 2007 Georgian demonstrations belongs to the article about 2007 Georgian demonstrations => the HRW position on the 2006 deportation of Georgians from Russia belongs to the article about 2006 deportation of Georgians from Russia. Wow, it's already present there! Alæxis_¿question? 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeladze's resignation

To Pocopoco:

1. Ambassadors are not members of the government. Your interpretation of Mikeladze’s resignation as a split within the government of Georgia is a blatant original research. And the passage was inserted in an absolutely inappropriate section.

2. Your source for the alleged reason of Mikeladze’s resignation is an obscure website which cites “www.resistancegeorgia.blogspot.com, an anti-Saakashvili blog” as its source. There’s little doubt that such a source cannot be considered valid. Itar-Tass is a state-owned news agency of the Russian Federation and it can hardly be considered impartial when it comes to Georgia. Furthermore, your sources also say that the Georgian MFA has not given any official explanation, but you have obviously "forgotten" to include it for the sake of NPOV.--Kober^Talk 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resistancegeorgia.blogspot.com

Eventhough this is a blog. I believe it qualifies as an expert blog and should be allowed as a source in this article. Wikipedia does allow expert blogs to be used as sources. It is run by Anna Dolidze a notable lawyer and civil liberties activist in Georgia (and she's actually kinda cute too, we need a better picture of her in her article :). I believe we should be a bit more flexible with sources as the independent media in Georgia is currently being repressed so there may not be as many good sources for what's really going on in Georgia. I want to include the within the article that there was a death from these protests and it was reported in the Georgian times but was shortly removed from the Georgia times probably due to pressure from the Government. Read about it here. Pocopocopocopoco 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pocopo, please don't mislead the reader. All Georgian internet resources operate freely. Only some TV programs are currently closed and I don't think you or any other non-Georgian speaking user has ever watched them. So there's definitely no lack of info on the situation in the country. Political blogs are not acceptable as relaible sources even though sometimes they are run by beautiful women. As for the casualties, your assumputions are false. The info on that guy's death was removed from the Georgian Times because the family did not confirm it. Stop this unhealthy propaganda against Georgia! --Kober^Talk 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down the rhetoric. Even if it is as you say and internet media resources operate freely, we still should be able to include the resistancegeorgia blog as a source. Political blogs are acceptable as sources under WP:RS as long as its an expert blog. An example is juancole.com which is used throughout wikipedia as a source and is an expert blog on the middle east. Dolidze is an expert on human rights in Georgia and her blog should be allowed in articles related to human rights in Georgia. I'm also sceptical when you say that internet sources are operating freely. imedinews.ge/english is down probably permanently and I used to visit it on occasion. Even if the other sources are up they must have been impacted by whats going on and they likely have to walk on eggshells or suffer the same fate as imedi. A perfect example of this is the mass arrests that are going on in Tbilisi that occurred yesterday and possibly today that have been reported in the resistancegeorgia blog but only get minor passing reference as opposition allegations in civil.ge. Pocopocopocopoco 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's a big difference between an expert blog and the blog operated by opposition group activists. There are myriads of such human rights experts in Georgia and we cannot use any blogger as a source in the article. Second, there are no mass arrests in Tbilisi and these are just allegations which have been quickly picked up and exaggerated by the Dolidze-Kakabadze family blog. Imedi and its website were closed because of Patarkatsishvili's inflammatory appeal on Nov. 7 (although I think this is a mistake of the Georgian government). I'd suggest you keeping your scepticism and assumptions to yourself, and sticking to NPOV sources.--Kober^Talk 05:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to be NPOV. Just the article. Pocopocopocopoco 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal argument against the use of the blog as a source under wikipedia rules. Even if the blog looks unacceptably partial to someone, what we want to reference by it seems to be saticfactorily verifiable.

P.S. What kind of liberal-democracy you have in Georgia kober? Advanced :) Only government or oligarch controlled TV stations. Spies everywhere around. Tamokk 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your program regarding Georgia's future, you're not the right person to criticize Georgia's level of democracy. I find your comments bordering on trolling and would strongly advice you to refrain from provocative posts.--Kober^Talk 08:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this blog can not be consider as a source. Georgia is a new democracy, and for sure Russia is not helping.Geagea 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how new would you specify? (I remind you that Georgia's been independent for almost 20 years.) What does Russia has to do with that blog? The only intention of my "provocative posts" is to challenge the political POV here present. Tamokk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.20.177 (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Geagea. Tamokk, independence and democracy is not the same. Chaos and violence filled most of the two decades of Georgia's independence. Take Russia as an example: it has always been independent, but never democratic.--Kober^Talk 06:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you that one of the main features of democracy is elections. In Georgia you can hardly even find a local government, even at the level of a village, which is not dominated by one political party (btw this is not the case in Russia). Georgia is probably as much more democratic than Russia as Afghanistan is more democratic than Iran. Those people who call these countries democracies will soon run back to their Ranchos and sit there. Anyway, the only thing I ask you is to keep your thoughts away from your editing activities. Tamokk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.20.177 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

Reactions from France, Britain, Germany are available [1] [2]. Can anyone add? Tamokk 06:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Valeriya Novodvorskaya

I'm inviting Russian-speaking users to watch this interview with Valeriya Novodvorskaya. She's much more credible expert than certain politically motivated bloggers cited here.--Kober^Talk 06:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resistance georgia blog in external links

Pocopo, You've failed to prove why this blog run by political activists is so important to the article, and I've never suggested adding any pro-gov't links there. If you want to load the article with external links, you can add the official websites of Georgian opposition parties. Again, political blogs with well-established agenda are not acceptable sources for decent encyclopedic articles.--Kober^Talk 17:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your accusations of spamming. Read WP:LINKSPAM to learn what qualifies as link spamming. I never said it was "so important" to the article but external links aren't usually "so important" to the article but represent further reading. Like it or not, Dolidze has become a notable figure in the opposition. [3][4][5]. Show me the policy that states that external links must only be official sites? Just because a site has an agenda doesn't mean that it must be excluded from the external links as long as the other side is also added (which I added from the link you provided above). By your reasoning, abkhazia.com should be removed from all the Abkhazia related articles as it's a site with an agenda. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia.com is an institution representing one of the sides involved in the conflict. It is not a political blog. Your comparison is absolutely irrelevant here. According to WP:LINKSPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed." And this is exactly what you are trying to do. Yes, Dolidze has emerged as a moderately notable figure in the opposition although she claims that she does not really care about any opposition party in Georgia. But this does not qualify her blog as a reliable source for the subject, and makes her very biased especially given the aggressive language of that blog.--Kober^Talk 05:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what evidence do you have that I'm trying to promote the website? Frankly I couldn't care less if the website gets promoted or not but I believe its a worthwhile addition to the external links. Your repeated assertions that I am spamming is an WP:ATTACK. External links do not have to qualify under WP:RS only WP:EL and this blog qualifies. As mentioned, being a biased source is not reason to exclude it from the external links as long as the external links are balanced with both sides. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making article about current event always must be carefully. All media doing it evry day. They have many sources, and they have to check them and provied an article about the current events. They have more instruments to check the source to comper them with each other, to sent reporter ect. I am sure that they will be glad to informs us about killing of demonstrators in Tbilisi. not because they hate Georia but because they like sensation. No media report it, so we as wikipedia should not do it. therefor I agree the resistance georgia blog in external links. Geagea (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I sketched a new section. I suggest to include in it all the human rights issues, concerns of those bloggers etc. Tamokk (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues I can think of right now include:

Using excessive force by the riot police (also afaik some non law enforcement elements were allegedly detected violating the protesters) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamokk (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beatings, arrests, intimidations
taping of private conversitation
Media control

Tamokk (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think we should also add electoral issues, that a snap election has been called with no real independent media, intimidation of opposition figures, and insufficient time for the opposition to prepare for the elections. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Girgvliani Murder Case and Badri Patarkatsishvili

The story is that the murder occured near Patarkatsishvili's estate and that Patarkatsishvili saw Girgvliani being driven away on his remote camera system as they drove by his estate. This is supposed to be the spark that initiated him to fund the opposition. I will look up the source for this when I get a chance. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loool... Is this a fairy tale or what? Patarkatsishvili had his reasons and interest to fund the opposition. Do you really think that the guy with such a marky past was so moved by the murder scene that he decided to change the government? Are you really that naïve? --Kober^Talk 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the last person that should make suggestions of naïveté in others. It's a well know fact that the current Georgian government was perfectly happy accepting Badri's support until he started asking too many questions about that murder trial. Besides, is there anyone in a power position today in the former Soviet Union that doesn't have a murky past? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe in that if you want. You seem to have an oversimplified vision of power struggles in politics, and I'm not going to destroy it. But the only thing I would ask you is to bring more sources (other than blogs operated by political activists, of course) when delivering lectures about the history and politics of my own country, and when making your assertions like "it's a well know fact that..." --Kober^Talk 05:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article I was looking for was on imedinews.ge and that looks like it's been fubar'd for good. It's also on the resistance blog but you'll probably revert that on site. Anyhow, there's plenty of stuff (not as good) on civil.ge plus other wiki articles and I will add it when I get a chance. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patarkastishvili has spoken why did he support the protests. We can only write what he said, not what he thought, or why he thought, that's unencyclopedic. Tamokk (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian backed or not Russian backed

It's a POV to say that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Russian backed as Russian has been commended in many UN resolutions of it's peacekeeping role and facilitator toward a peaceful resolution of the Abkhaz conflict. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Or are you trying to offend Georgians? --Kober^Talk 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit is not the endorsement of the words 'Russia-backed'. If you eventually decide to remove or keep it I won't object.

ps. Russian presence is the guarantee of the peace in the region, imho. Alæxis_¿question? 05:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHOs are scarcely of any importance here. There're plenty of sources for the disruptive role Russia plays in the conflict regions, including Poco's favorite blog(s).--Kober^Talk 05:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are ad-hominem arguments like "are you trying to offend Georgians". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UN resolutions

Resolution 1524:

The Security Council,

.
.

3. Commends and strongly supports the sustained efforts of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative, with the assistance of the Russian Federation in its capacity as facilitator as well as of the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General and of the OSCE, to promote the stabilization of the situation and the achievement of a comprehensive political settlement, which must include a settlement of the political status of Abkhazia within the State of Georgia[6]

There are more similar resolutions. Hence to be neutral, "Russian-backed" must not be added. It also doesn't really add any additional content to the article as these de facto states were added for the purpose of illustrating the conflict between Okruashvili and Saakashvili. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UN diplomatic language does not necessarily reflect the reality. You know this perfectly well and please be honest. If you want to apply highly refined diplomatic and "politically correct" language to Russia, I'd ask you to do the same in Georgia's case. UN resolutions don't call Abkhazia "de facto independent republic", and let's remove this definition from all Abkhazia-related articles. --Kober^Talk 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you or I honestly think, what matters is sources and NPOV. I have removed the de facto de jure stuff from this article per your concerns. If you want any other articles to have the de facto de jure stuff removed, I would suggest that you get a consensus in talk and I might even support you. Also, putting aside the fact that it's a POV, how does saying Russian backed actually improve this article? By that same token could the article on the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria be called Georgian backed as Gamsakhurdia recognized it and offered moral support and perhaps more? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording by the UN wrt Abkhazia and South Ossetia

I don't want to get into a whole debate about how they should be worded however I will add below from the U.N. report called Nations in Transit 1999-2000: Country Report of Georgia:

The status of the de facto independent territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain unresolved, resulting in ongoing hardships for over two hundred thousand internally displaced persons

The point wasn't about getting into a debate on how the UN words things but on what is POV and what is NPOV. Calling these territories Russian backed can be considered a POV due to an origanization like the UN commending Russia for it's conduct with respect to these territories. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An origanization like the UN officially titles Abkhazia as "Abkhazia, Georgia". Are you ready to apply this definition to all Abkhazia-related articles?--Kober^Talk 05:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that relevant to the discussion on whether "Russian-backed" should be added in front of these republics? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, could you please give an answer to a few simple questions: Does Russia support Abkhazia and SO? Yes or no? If yes, is it verifiable in sources? If yes, why should not we mention that in the article? Just because you don't like it? --Kober^Talk 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia supports Abkhazia and SO but also acts as a facilitator for a peaceful solution as well as a peacekeeper. There are sources that support all of this and I have mentioned a few above. We don't need to add Russian-backed to the article as it is POV, if we add something to the article to the effect that Abkhazia is Russian-backed we also need to add that Russia acts as a peacekeeper and a facilitator for a peaceful solution to the conflict. All of this is irrelevant anyway (as I mentioned above as well as the edit summary) because Abkhazia and SO was added to the article to describe the conflict between Saakashvili and Okruashvili hence there's no need add any of this to the article as it doesn't improve the article in any way. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-backing of Abkh and SO is not POV, but a fact of life. You even acknowledge it yourself. Do not see the need to hide it. (PaC (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And after such a stubborn edit-warring, Poco calls for a compromise? --Kober^Talk 05:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position hasn't changed, leave out "Russian-backed". I've offered sources and good reasons as to why. All you guys said in response was "Well it is Russian backed". Am I wasting my time discussing things with you and Papa Carlo? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You still have to prove why we should leave out "Russian-backed". The refined diplomatic language of the UN resolutions (several articles of which are directly dictated by Russia) points to Russia's peacekeeping role, but even this eulogy does not exclude the Kremlin's support to Abkhazia. And you seem to agree with what we said: "Well, yes, it is Russian backed (but I don't want/I don't like to mention it)". Futhermore, we can reference this statement. But I think it is not going very helpful since noone, including you, has ever doubted in Russian support to the separatists.--Kober^Talk 05:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this article needs an urgent attention of our democracy activists.--Kober^Talk 05:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser complaints in RFC

I do not think you can take other editors' comments out just because you do not like them Poco. Put them back.(PaC (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry if your and Kober's feelings were hurt that I requested a checkuser. The Request for Comment on whether Russian-backed should be added to this article is not the appropriate place to complain about it. Please pick a more appropriate forum. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more time Poco. DO NOT move other users comments out of discussion especially when explicitly asked not to do it! Let other readers decide whether or not they are relevant. And yes I do believe that you falsely accusing Kober of sockpuppetry right after you failed to prove your point on this issue is relevant to this discussion. Cheers. (PaC (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

One more time PaC. Do not clutter the RFC with complaints about my checkuser request. It is not appropriate. We are asking a third party about the content of this article and the checkuser request is not part of the content of the article. Don't waste the time and make things more confusing to the helpful 3rd party that is trying help us with the content of this article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What really is not appropriate is your moving other editors comments out of discussion when you do not like them. Please discontinue this disruptive behavior at once.(PaC (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Should Abkhazia and South Ossetia have "Russian-backed" in front of their descriptions

This is the two versions of the article that are in dispute, please see the discussion here, please read the subsections as well. To summarize:

The reason for leaving out Russian-backed is that its a POV and that it doesn't reflect that Russia has been commended for it's peacekeeping role as well as it's role as a facilitator for a peaceful solution.
The reason for putting in Russian backed is that it is and that the UN resolutions commending Russia are just diplomatic language.

This RFC will have implications on a number of different articles in Wikipedia as it is used in other articles.

Also, totally unrelated, could you comment on whether the blog http://resistancegeorgia.blogspot.com would be suitable in the external links of this article:

The reason for adding it is that the blog is run by a notable civil liberties activist in Georgia Anna Dolidze.
The reason for leaving it out is that it is inflamatory and is a blog. Note that if it were added, another link would be added with it that shows the other sides opinion.

The discussion is here Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the description "Russian-backed" is essential since the Abkhazia and South Ossetia conflicts are a major point at issue in the Russo-Georgian relations. It is not POV, but a completely verifiable statement. Here’s a few sources for that (more are available if needed):

The International Crisis Group is a credible organization which is normally regarded as a third-party source and extensively used throughout Wikipedia pages. It published an extensive report on Abkhazia in 2005; there’s a special section “Russian Factor” on pp. 7-8. It contains several passages in support of the disputed statement. Most importantly, “

Abkhazia does not deny it is aided by Russia but public opinion is divided on how far this should go. Some say, “Russia is the one and only country that helped us in time of need. Our future development is dependent on Russia’s goodwill. Especially since Putin came to office he has shown the courage and foresight to assist us”. But others fear that Russia’s commitment is superficial, that Abkhazia is a pawn in a broader political game with Georgia and the U.S., and that if Georgia and Russia became allies, Moscow might “sell out” Abkhazia.
— ICG, p. 8

The Russian support is not denied even by Abkhaz officials. For example, a Russian online media outlet Regnum published, in 2006, an interview with the Abkhaz foreign minister Sergey Shamba who declared that “Abkhazia is de facto under Russian protectorate.”
Mainstream media sources such as Radio Free Europe, Kommersant, and Reuters also use the term “Russian-backed”. [7], [8], [9].
It should also be noted that User:Pocopocopocopoco himself does not deny that these entities are Russian-backed. Just prior to this RFC, he attempted to get rid of his opponents, falsely accusing them of sockpuppetry.

Second, loading the external link section by adding links to blogs are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, especially when they are not used to reference something in the main text. There’re many other and more credible sources which can be used to represent the same side’s opinion.--Kober^Talk 17:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, you are still confusing having reliable sources with being NPOV. I'm sure that you can pull out a ton of reliable sources that say that these republics are Russian backed, I can also (and have) cited sources that show that Russia's peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts are being commended internationally. These are two separate POV's and either they both get put in the article or neither gets put in the article. Since it's irrelevant to the article, neither should get put in the article. Also, external links don't need to reference something in the text, they are there for further reading. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time Poco. DO NOT move other users comments out of this discussion especially when explicitly asked not to do it! This is not cluttering. As I said before I do believe that you falsely accusing Kober of sockpuppetry right after you failed to prove your point on this issue is relevant to this discussion. The very issue discussed here. Your removals of other editors comments really looks like an attempt to mislead a third party. This is not an appropriate way to request a comment.(PaC (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Poco, please don't edit my posts, and don't remove the sentences you feel uncomfortable with. It is considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Comment: the expression "Russian-backed" should be used if "Rose Revolution" is similarly described as "U.S.-backed." --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Marvin Diode. If you mean a general international sympathy to the Rose Revolution, then it was supported not only by the US, but also by the EU. Furthermore, Georgia is an internationally recognized and the UN member state, while Abkhazia is not. Hence, any political and military support to it can be considered as an infringement on Georgia's sovereignty. So, I don't think that the comparison between the Rose Revolution and Abkhazia cases makes a sense. --Kober^Talk 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, support means support. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources that refer to the Rose Revolution as US-backed. There are also plenty of sources that refer to the color revolutions as US backed. There are also plenty of sources that refer to Mikheil Saakashvili as US backed. Examples:

National Interest online, a US publication, pro-Georgian, in an article written by Anna Dolidze who is anti-Saakashvili but pro-Rose Revolution:

Inside Track: Georgia's Path to Authoritarianism

The situation in Georgia today is far from the promise of the U.S.-backed Rose Revolution

Reuters online, based in London

Georgia kills two Russian officers in disputed clash

Relations between Moscow and the former Soviet republic have been tense ever since Saakashvili came to power in a U.S.-backed "Rose Revolution" in early 2004.

Reuters again reprinted by Defencenews.com

France Cool On Georgian NATO Membership

Relations between Russia and the former Soviet republic have been tense since Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili came to power in a U.S.-backed “Rose Revolution” in 2004.

The Guardian based in Britain.

The mythology of people power

The glamour of street protests should not blind us to the reality of US-backed coups in the former USSR

The formulaic repetition of a third "people power" revolution in the former Soviet Union in just over one year - after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003 and in Ukraine last Christmas - means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country's control over the western hemisphere.

In terms of the other stuff you said about Georgia being a member of the UN and Abkhazia isn't, it's irrelevant to the issue of whether we should write Russian-backed or US backed in front of the de-facto republics or the Rose revolution respectively. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He-he, I have to say it's a good point )) Alæxis_¿question? 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, for a person who was so nervous about cluttering this RFC you sure wrote a lot of irrelevant stuff here )) (PaC (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you very much for your comment Marvin Diode. Do you have any thoughts as to whether resistancegeorgia.blogspot.com can be added to the external links? It would only be added as long the opposite view is also added to the external links. Please see the reasons for and against at the begining of this RFC. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem, Pocopo, to have missed edit warring and, after a month long remission, now you are trying to incite another disruptive round. Where have you been that long? --Kober^Talk 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, WP:AGF, I was waiting for the RFC above to complete which it did when the bot removed the template. Since nobody was able to respond to the fact that many reliable sources have US-back rose revolution, I assumed we were all in agreement. If you disagree, please take it to the next level of mediation like I did. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was you who failed to prove that the Russian intervention in Abkhazia can be compared to the US supprt to the Rose Revolution. Furthermore, you still keep adding POV linkspams to the article.--Kober^Talk 15:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's not comparable (and I think it most certainly is) it's not the reason to not to have words 'US-backed' in the article. Alæxis_¿question? 15:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, welcome back! Are you saying that the US sent in their army and allied with international terrorists (e.g., Basayev) to change power in Georgia? That's exactly what the Russians did in Abkhazia. The US military officials are not appointed to the Georgian government posts, while Russian citizens hold key defense and security offices in Abkhazia.

Btw, the Rose Revolution was welcomed not only by the US, but by the West in general.--Kober^Talk 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been anywhere too far lately...

Huh, the methods may differ, although one can remember that a few years ago part of your officials' salaries were paid by Soros.

So do you propose to change US-backed to Western-backed? Alæxis_¿question? 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Soros the U.S.? And why you, Russians, always emphasize and exaggerate his involvement which was not that prominent as you would like to portray? Perhaps because your lifetime leader has mentioned it more than once? And, yes, the methods differ, that's why these two things are not comparable.

No I don't. "welcomed by the West" might sound acceptable, but "the Western-backed" has a different connotation.--Kober^Talk 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, such things (when one ~~country~~ individual pays wages to some other country's officials) are rather rare and therefore memorable. I wonder actually why doesn't Wikipedia mention it. Btw I don't quite understand what lifetime leader did you write about. In case you don't know Putin is to step down this March )

What about Western-supported then? Alæxis_¿question? 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify then what you mean by "Western-supported Rose Revolution".--Kober^Talk 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't quite understand your question... I meant exactly what I wrote. If you've asked about the nature of support look at the words of your own (former?) vice-president, for example. Alæxis_¿question? 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Baramidze has never been a vice-president. Second, Russian media (traditionally Americanophobic, btw) frequently misquote Georgian politicians. Even in this report, the minister apparently speaks about the Millenium Challenge project, not the US involvement in the revolution. Try to find the same quote in English. He is said to have said that in Washington as far as I can see. The one thing I cannot understand is why you find the definition "US backed" so crucial to the subject of the article (I hope you won't ask me the same question regarding Abkhazia). Is this just a mere stubbornness or a legacy of the Cold War-era paranoia? --Kober^Talk 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, Poco continues his persistent attempts at discrediting me[10], most recently throughWikilawyering. This is simply ridiculous given his long history of edit wars, 3RR violations, and still valid concerns here. --Kober^Talk 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, you might find this useful with regard to you allegations of wikilawyering. Like I said, if you want your version, please initiate the next level of mediation in the same manner that I so patiently did. You can't just sit back and hit revert everytime and expect everyone else to do the hard work of trying to get a consensus with you. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pocopo, you are intentionally trying to get me involved in an edit war so as you could report me. It is obvious here. We both know why you are targeting me. It is impossible to get any kind of consensus with the editors with a predetermined bias and apparent national and personal grudges.--Kober^Talk 05:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really tired. I get the impression of a very paranoid person and unwarranted self-importance. First you think Alaexis is stalking you now you think that I'm targeting you and I hold a grudge. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't engage in personal attacks. This is your last warning. Next time you will be reported for personal insults and attempts to harass the opponent.--Kober^Talk 05:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of targetting you and having a grudge is considered an WP:ATTACK. Consider that your last warning. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

Until disputes are resolved or until January 7th, 2008, the page has been protected. The current version of the page is not an endorsement of content. Please remember to resolve your disputes civilly. --slakr^\ talk / 06:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50,000 protesters

actually there were at least 150,000 protesters in the Rustaveli Ave. from november 2-3. 2007 It was calculated by the scientistcs, who calculated the amount of people standing on 1 Square meter.

"by scientists"? Sounds convincing! :)--Kober^Talk 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"scientistcs": maybe you meant something connected to scientology? (joke.) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

There is an absolute dubious statement in this article. Saakashvili had made it part of his agenda to reincorporate them through peaceful means. It is going to take some solid reputable sources to back that statement up. Additionally, I have removed Georgia-Russia relations category from the article, as it has nothing to do with Russia, and everything to do with Saakashvili and gang being corrupt and the public not putting up with it, and the crackdown on the public. Nothing at all to do with Russia. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]