Talk:Russo-Georgian War

2008 South Ossetia war???

Why "south ossetia"? Was it fought only in South Ossetia? Wasn't it mainly between Russia and Georgia? Didn't it involve other parts of Georgia?

Google search: 2008 russia georgia war - 9,320,000 results 2008 south ossetia war - 585,000 results

So, the current title not only does confuse about what and where has happened, but is used 20 times less often, than "2008 Russia Georgia war".

Current article title is clearly a Russian POV.--78.48.225.28 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, more scholarly articles are using Russo-Georgian War or some other similar derivative. The current title of the article was created by wikipedians at the start of the conflict, at a time when it was confined to South Ossetia and involved solely the Georgians and South Ossetians. I would challenge anyone to find a scholarly source that terms the war the 2008 South Ossetian War, those articles that you do find will use wikipedia as a source for the title of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here comes the flash mob! Haven't we been through all of this before already? Come on guys, we have better stuff to do. Furthermore, at no point in time was this a war that involved only Georgians and South Ossetians, as the Russian Peacekeeping Battalion was hit very early in the war, and when you hit a part of the Russian Peacekeepers, and by extension the Russian Army, you involve Russia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspecting others in what you did, aren't you? I'll raise the WSSing issue later, when I have time for it. Unfortunately I am not one of those 300 hundred "warriors" from "Commission under the President of Russia to counter the attempts of falsification of history to the detriment of Russia" to work on it full time.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You should read the sheer number of pages on discussion of the title before proposing your own changes, that have been already proposed multiple times here. I have yet to see anyone argue that it's Russian POV. So do tell, how is it Russian POV? Is the name Kosovo War, US POV? Vietnam War? Korean War? First Chechen War? Second Chechen War? Damn, there's so much POVed names going on. Or, are we biased, because we don't adhere to Google Hits? Do you know how many wars were named after Google Hits? It's zero, nada, zilch, nil. Please read this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move and this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Google_hits_yet_again and this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move.2C_part_2 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people, and if you actually had the courtesy to browse through the talkpage, you would actually find lots of discussion on this issue. But naming the war after the region, where the main battle was fought, has yet to be declared POV by anyone, congratulations, you are the first.

Also, the Berkelian, that's the newspaper published by UC Berkeley, you know, the #1 Public University in North America, they're calling this war, the 2008 South Ossetia War. Additionally, there has been a vote on the issue, and despite an entire Cabal trying to rig the vote, people still preferred this title. Oh right, I still haven't presented that evidence, thank you for the reminder! For instance, see here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Article_name_vote. Finally, we even had an administrator come in and explain that there are valid arguments for both sides, (although I've yet to hear a valid argument aside from "Bang we haz moar Google Hits" and since there is no consensus on this article, we won't be changing the title. No wars are named after Google Hits, and Wikipedia Editors cannot establish precedence, no matter how desperately some people might want to do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Google hits just demonstrate which term is more commonly used. So, again, what is the reason of using this CONFUSING title, besides that it pleases some Russians and is in line with Russian propaganda, please?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings same person with different IP. How is this confusing? How is this Russian propaganda? You can yell that it's Russian propaganda all you want, (BTW Russia called it Gruzinsko-Osetinskaya Voina, Georgian-Ossetian War), but unless you actually show us how it's Russian propaganda, your posts on the matter are pointless. We're academics here, not New York Times Readers. Just saying something, without any proof whatsoever, isn't going to fly here. All Google Hits demonstrate is which term the Corporate Media uses most often, but that doesn't mean that it's the most often used terms by the ordinary folks, who cannot produce 1,000 Google Hits on a whim. If you read any of my links, you'd know by now that the reason is that's how most wars are named, either attacker-defender format, or via location where most of the fighting took place, i.e. Vietnam War, Korean War, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Dagestan War, Iraq War, want me to keep going? And in the Vietnam War, there was some fighting in Cambodia, but most of the fighting took place in Vietnam. Same thing here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, you are Spiegel and Uwe Klussman reader. But back to the point:

• Was it fought only in South Ossetia?
• Wasn't it mainly between Russia and Georgia?
• Didn't it involve other parts of Georgia?
• The current title not only does confuse about what and where has happened, but is used 20 times less often, than "2008 Russia Georgia war" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was World War 2 fought in Antarctica or on Rapa Nui? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see, how an example of a more broad name applies here? Wouldn't it be easier for you to state, that this war wasn't fought in Russia and all of Georgia? Now, how does it make Russian term "south ossetia war" less misleading?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming a war after the location where most of the fighting occurs is misleading? And your proposed name, that portrays Russia, the defender in this war, as the attacker, isn't misleading? Wow. Just wow. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither this war, nor war in 90th was fought within SOAD borders. Most of the fighting was between Tskhinvali and Georgian villages, bordering it from North, East and South (outside SOAD borders).--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was fought mostly in South Ossetia. Vietnam War was fought mostly in Vietnam. More South Ossetian Servicemen died than Russian. In fact it was roughly twice as much. To claim that Russia would have achieved as stunning a victory, in such a short time period, as they did, without the help of Ossetia's Army, is to bullshit. According to pro-Georgian editors, their were no battles in Poti and Gori, there were just "occupations and bombings" of those cities. Irrespectively, most of the fighting still took place in South Ossetia. The current title isn't used 20 times less often. It's used 20 times less often by the mass media, but here's a hint: not all of us work for Fox News/CNN/Sky News. Furthermore, upon looking at the war naming conventions that are generally accepted, you will find that the extreme majority of wars are named either by locations, or in the attacker-defender format. No wars are named by Google Hits. Nil. Zero. Zilch. Nada. All of these arguments that you are making, have already been made, multiple times, and have been rejected. If you would have actually bothered to read the discussion archive, you would know this. Nor is this the Russian Title; the Russian Title is Georgian-Ossetian War. This title is 2008 South Ossetia War. Last time I checked those two titles aren't the same. The term was obtained per WP:MilHist which requires that unnamed wars are to be named after the location where they took place. Thus it was legitimately named. We don't need Saakasvhili's propaganda department renaming these wars. If you have anything new to add, please do so. If you are going to parrot failed arguments, please stop. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No it was not. There were not only fights outside SO administrative borders, but naval battles as well as capturing of upper Kodori Gorge. It was a full blown Russia-Georgia conflict, which was fought wherever possible, focusing only SO confuses the reader.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the point: that's what we call it. Jellyfish aren't really fish, a Bomberbeetle doesn't have actual bombs, and you can try suing the local zoo for calling Hippocampus a seahorse. It's a name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So your point is? Should we name this article "Jellyfish"? It's a name, after all.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now arguing against facts, Mr. IP. There was a single Naval Engagement. There was no Battle of Tbilisi. If this was a full blown Georgia-Russia Conflict, then Russians would have, at the very least attacked Tbilisi. Seriously, we don't need Saakashvili Central here. Once again, see the previous arguments. Here, I'll post the discussion for the IP:

*There was a single Naval engagement just because Russian fleet is overwhelmingly superior to Georgian.

*Tbilisi could have been only the very last target, as after invasion in the western part of Georgia, Georgian government pulled all troops back to capital. Friench officials have mentioned, that according to French intelligence, Tbilisi was indeed a target.

*It's clear, that you need Putin's Central here, but I hope it will not work.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had over one hundred pages of debate on this, we have had two votes on it. Get over it. Thank you. This was already discussed here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_2#Article_name and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_3#Name_change and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Google_hits_confirm_most_popular_names and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Media_call_it_Georgia-Russia_conflict and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_War_in_Georgia and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#name_change.3F and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_now and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Article_rename and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamed (this one actually started by the Devil's Advocate on August 12th, 2008) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_7#Requested_move (although it's crossed out) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_8#Needs_to_be_renamed and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_10#Article_rename and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_rankings_on_Google_News (after being defeated, the Devil's Advocate waited a whopping two weeks to bring it up, again) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_of_article and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_13#.22South_Ossetia_War.22.3F and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_14#Title_consensus (where the Devil's Advocate waited two more weeks, before getting slaughtered in the name change debate, I am beginning to see a pattern...) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#New_Title_consensus (yup, Devil's Advocate strikes again) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Rename (Where the Devil's Advocate waited a whole *gasp* three weeks) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_19#Rename (I wonder who suggested it? Could it be, the Devil's Advocate? *inserts eerie music*) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_22#Specific_options (where there is a whole vote on it!) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23#To_Those_Opposing_the_current_title and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 - where the whole damn archive is dedicated to yet another vote! And here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#The_title_and_the_lead and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#It_Appears_that_Kober_did_violate_the_moving_convention (where editors are getting sick and tired of it, but the Devil's Advocate marches on!) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 (yup another vote, illegally started, for those who missed the first two: attractions include editors who have never watched the article, but miraculously, three of them appear and vote to change the title, on the exact date that it's proposed!)

Now, IP - we have been more than patient here. If you are unable to offer any new arguments, and you continue to spam this page with cluelessness, you will be reported. A full-blown war would have involved a lot more than two Iskanders, and would last for more than nine days. That much is obvious to everyone, and I'm not going to babysit every user who claims that 2+2 is really 5. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, please stop talking about your self in plural.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bit early for new move request, I would wait until 2010. Although its pretty obvious that despite wikipedia's promotion of current fringe title it still fails google books=2 scholar=14 in competition with title like "August War" google books=13 scholar=146 or "Russo-Georgian War" google books=6 scholar=59. Just moving article away from current fringe title is horrible pain, because there is always notable bunch of editors that will rush to its defence and accept no alternatives.--Staberinde (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should actually try and get new arguments, before moving for a request. The "Google Said So" Argument is getting old. Not a single war was named after Google Hits, and Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming. We can only follow it, like we did in this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming."

That's exactly what I have argued ever since I joined this title dispute here, because this is what wikipedia is currently doing by using title that is clearly used only relatively small minority of reliable sources, while there are clearly several more popular titles in use. Google books and Google scholar are just most easily avaible methods for evaluating usage of title in large number of sources easily. If you have better alternative method for evaluating which title is most widely used in reliable sources, then please explain it to us.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, Google Books and Google Scholar are not the most easily available methods of evaluating usage, as, believe it or not, but some books, especially military books that name wars, aren't published on Google Books and/or Google Scholar!

Second, searching for 2008 South Ossetia War is incorrect, as others can simply call it Third S. Ossetian War, and still be correct about the naming. As thus, the proper Google Search is Ossetia War. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000 for Ossetia War. One million Google Hits. That's quite popular to me. Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 6,550. Google Books: Books 1 - 10 of 926 on Ossetia War.

Third, I have already explained this multiple times, see all the links above, but here's the summary: wars are either named after the location where most of the battles took place, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, First Chechen War, Dagestan War, Second Chechen War, or in the agressor-defender format. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, obviously Google Books and Google Scholar are not 100% ideal. Best solution would be gathering all reliable English language sources together, and then let a committee of neutral professional encyclopedians to evaluate them. Unfortunately that is not a realistic option. Also you failed to propose better alternative for evaluating usage of titles in large number of reliable sources.

Second, "Ossetia war", google books=2 scholar=18 is only marginally better than "South Ossetia war". "2008" and "August" are included in search because there is also 1991–1992 South Ossetia War. Also we need to search for source using exactly term "South Ossetia War" not for source that includes words "war", "ossetia" and "south", because it is useless as these words may all appear on separate pages.

Third, these are all statements of anonymous wikipedia editor, you need to provide a "reliable source" that backs up your claims about war naming, especially that claim about "agressor-defender format" (I have been asking a source to that for months). Obviously original research by wikipedians does not count as reliable source.--Staberinde (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You have? I think I posted this link multiple times, don't know how you missed it: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lists_of_wars. You take a look at the war titles, and who the attacker was and who the defender was. We already agreed that 2+2=4 isn't original research, nor is 2+2*2=6 original research. You look at war titles, you look at who the agressor/defender was. It's so simple that Geico...errr a caveman can do it! And the reason that I didn't give it much attention, is because it's mostly irrelevant, as after World War II, most wars are named after the location. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon a further inspection of the wars, I have found that out of the wars on that list, since World War II, as we are living in 2009 and that's past 1945, 135 out of 176 Wars are named after location. The ones that aren't, are famed exceptions, such as the Israeli-Arab Wars, the War on Terrorism, India and Pakistan going at it, retarded names like Shifta War, Sand War, Dirty War, Clean War (sorry had to make that joke), names after predominant insurgencies, names of operations, there's also the Football War, War of Attrition, and The Troubles. These inapplicable names account for 29/41 wars. Furthermore, if one looks at the historiography of naming conflicts taking place in post-USSR space one will find that all wars are named exclusively after location. Nagono-Karabakh War, War in South Ossetia, War in Transnistria, War in Abkhazia, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Ingushetia Civil War, 2008 South Ossetia War. Additionally, if one was to look at Yugoslavia, that experienced rabid nationalism and an economic fallout, errr Free Speech and Democracy, you will find the same pattern: Slovenian War, Croatian War of Independence, War in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo War, Insurgency in Presovo Valley. Anyways, my evidence is overwhelming. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CIRCULAR.--Staberinde (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be such a big issue (Frankly, I'm dumbfounded, but alright), let me be naive and ask: would it be agreeable to add a short section "Terminology" similar to the one given at Vietnam_War#Terminology? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, adding a Terminology/Etymology section and creating a new article on the etymology of the war, like Vietnam_War#Terminology and Etymology of the Vietnam War, sounds good to me, and is certainly much better than going through another huge article move discussion that'll likely end after fervent debate with no consensus. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde, there's a whole section dedicate just to you: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Staberinde_gets_busted_using_the_.22Kamikaze.22_Tactic. Enjoy :D Seb and Laurina, while I admire your constructive edits, I really don't think the naming/renaming is a huge issue. If it becomes an issue, than I concur with you guys, that an etymology section would be the best way to go :D. And thank you both for your constructive contributions! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so big issue, that's why I actually said that I don't think that its time for new page move request yet, as too little time has passed from previous one. But unless usage of "South Ossetia war" starts dramatically rising in reliable sources in near future, I would say that new move request is pretty much inevitable, no matter who starts it, as keeping such article under relatively rarely used title is pretty ridiculous.--Staberinde (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest dare to offer you one more possible name for this article: The "5 day's war" - its short, neutral and do not hurt intersts of any participants of the actions.--Yegor (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe what is best here is the most commonly used name for the conflict. It is most certainly not the "5 days' war" and Im sure I've never heard it referred to as such, in any of our citations or otherwise. Outback the koala (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, why don't we all just get over these childish games. I mean, after dozens of votes, can we get reasonable again, and stop these moving attempts? Every argument for the move mentioned above was discussed extensively in previous votes. Every one. None was convincing enough. This article has the name which is a result of a consensus of WP editors, and the one confirmed time after time. Which you could see easily, would you bother reading archives named by HW007 above. So please, let's all go and do something useful instead. WP proposes many other articles which actually need your attention.FeelSunny (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to resurrect this old section, but please don't claim there is a consensus for the current name, there clearly is not. --Xeeron (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'd claim there were elections, and this option was like Obama winning over McCain. Time and time again. Despite - as we all know - the results were influenced by the EE mailing list. FeelSunny (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

More like Bush winning over Gore. I heard of no single mail from the EE list ever mentioning the vote. However, the open canvassing of the other side is well documented in the talk page history. --Xeeron (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was just a coincedence about EE list members. And, as I see, you still wage the same war over the long-forgotten canvassing case?:)FeelSunny (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Check above who started the discussion about the name, check who brought up the vote and who brought up undue influence on the vote. Hint: Not me. In either case, it is hard to forget HistoricWarrior's canvassing, since some people around here seem to bring up the canvassed vote with good regularity (btw, you are wrong about the "dozens", too).

It seems to be your strategy to bully every new editor who questions the title (and the amount of new people posting about this should be some indicator of the current title's quality) into shutting up by citing that rigged vote. --Xeeron (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron and other editors, how is this productive to the discussion? There have been discussions in the past, yes, but this is a discussion that is active NOW. So lets all try to stay on topic.

In response to user:Yegor, I think that although name may not do justice to the geographic location of military conflict (not all the fighting was in SO, there was also naval conflict and fighting in the Abkazia area (in this sense in agree with 78.48.225.28 who started this thread)), but I also think we just can't pick the name of a war ourselves! I think in real life its called case law, and in this case the president is set; the present name being the most legitimate and other commonly used names continue to floating around. Similar to the First World War, which also could go by the Great War, War to end all Wars.... Is this line of thought faulty? To all editors, your thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with you Outback, but you will soon find out that others disagree (try mentioning the word "google"). The problem is that "2008 South Ossetia war" is not the most legitimate, it just happens to be the last name that this article was moved to. And wikipedia is very strongly biased in favor of the status quo, so changing it is close to impossible. --Xeeron (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, stop wasting everybody's time.FeelSunny (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

CASUALTIES !!!!

SOURCE: [1]

Please fix it !

Statements by politicians and analysts removed

I have boldly cut the massive "responsibility" section down. Some of you may oppose this, but I really think we have to do something. I believe the easiest solution is to just remove the statements by analysts and politicians (since it's difficult to come up with an objective criteria for which statements should be included and which not.) Everything is still available at Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war however. Offliner (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that overdue move. That section had been much too big for a long time. --Xeeron (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that it was very good move.--Staberinde (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

+1 Kouber (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Peacekeepers?

Using the word "peacekeepers" for troops belonging to belligerents is nothing but propaganda. That's aggression, not peacekeeping. Any possible true peacekeepers could only belong to a side other than Georgia, Russia and the puppet governments.

I thus propose replacing all lowercased uses of this word by "troops", "contingent" or equivalent; everywhere except for proper names of actual units (ie, uppercase uses). KiloByte (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Peacekeepers" is a qualitative term, it denotes a group of lightly armed men who are not qualified for full scale military engagements. Thus, it's not POV to call these men "peacekeepers," as it allows to differentiate them from regular troops. Indeed, it would be POV and incorrect to portray them as regulars. --Illythr (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Illythr, I'd like to see your source for that definition. It appears to me that KiloByte has both a valid objection and a simple remedy. --Crusher1 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you specify whether you want to see a source detailing the armaments of the Russian-Georgian-Ossetian Joint Control Commission or the general notion that peacekeeping contingents usually don't have heavy artillery, fighter-bomber wings or guided missile cruisers at their disposal? And no, it's not a remedy, since, as I said, equating a dedicated peacekeeping regiment with a fully war-capable army would be factually incorrect (at least, for this particular conflict). I think KiloByte has confused the prewar JCC battalion with the regular Russian troops who entered the area on August 8 - as naming the latter "peacekeepers" would indeed amount to propaganda. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to Illythr and other people coming and asking the same question after watching Fox. In the case with South Ossetia, the country hosted international peacekeeping force, greeted in 1992 by all sides, i.e. both Georgia, and S.Ossetia. That is why we call them PK force, not belligerents' servicemen. There were 3 batallions of PKs in S.O.: Ossetian, Georgian, and Russian batallion. The latter, as Tagliavini's comission states, was attacked during unfortunate Georgian assault on the city on 07-08.08.08. The Georgian assault force included men from the Georgian PK batallion, and it stripped them of their mandate, of course. Actually, Mamuka Kurashvili, who was in command of the G. PKs, was also in charge of the storm of Tskhinvali. This, however, does not make Russian peacekeeping force in the country a "belligerent troops". They remained there under their mandate, they were to protect the city and its' civilians, and they did. That is why we still name them peacekeepers.FeelSunny (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the names

I am not going to push for another name vote as I am fairly there is no way a certain editor will change his mind. However, I figure the best chance is to appeal to the admins who have the power to change the name. To that end rather than trotting out more Google News results which a certain editor refuses to accept, despite rules clearly establishing that a Google search can be used when it is not a blind web search, I figure it should just be noted where the term "Russia-Georgia War" pops up. That it is used widely in mainstream media can be of little doubt when looking at these articles:

The Financial Times

AFP

However, since a certain editor apparently believes all Western media are biased against Russia and therefore pushing this title to smear them I figure we should perhaps look at another source:

Press TV

Surely, no one thinks Iranian state-owned news media is biased against Russia, especially since Iran openly endorsed Russia's actions and has even made signals that it could recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, as if that isn't enough we have this:

The Moscow Times

RIA Novosti

So not only is Iranian state-owned media calling it the Russia-Georgia War RIA Novosti, Russia's state-owned media, is calling it that. The Moscow Times could best be said to be opposed to Russia also agrees. So when you have both sides in Russia calling it the Russia-Georgia War, Iranian media calling it that as well as countless Western media outlets there is no rationale behind the claim it is not a neutral title. This is the one name I notice popping up regularly in mainstream publications of all major countries, including Russia, with others popping up rarely or only in certain regions. I implore those who have the power to do so to change this title already. Do not say "we need to wait a little longer" because that has been said for over a year with absolutely no change in the dynamic, that of South Ossetia War being used by hardly any sources with Russia-Georgia War the clear choice, and with no change in the opinions of certain editors. Lastly, yes I am referring to Historic Warrior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the logics in the certain naming. The major part of the war (like, 70%) was focused around the South Ossetia, the major issue solved in that war were security and safety of South Ossetian people. The other developments of that war are less important. Russia did not use even an 1% of its military might in that campaign. It's certainly not a war fought by Russia (rememver of the World War II and Soviet war in Afghanistan as token Russia-fought wars); it's an incident in which some of the Russian troops took active participation. ellol (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the fighting on land may have been in South Ossetia, but considering some 30 people died in a naval battle off the coast of Abkhazia you should not be so quick to say it is all about South Ossetia. I also scarcely see the logic of saying it was not a war fought by Russia. Russia's intervention was crucial. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev actually said it was an operation to "punish the enemy" meaning Georgia. There is no denying the result either, Russia recognized both separatist states. At any rate, policy is clear that the most popular English name should be used on the English Wikipedia. The only exception is if the title affects neutrality and considering the parties this would supposedly be biased against also use the title there is no objection on neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my argument, but the argument you invented yourselves. I did not say the conflict was ALL about South Ossetia. I said the major part of the conflict (like 70%) was about South Ossetia. ellol (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would propose a vote on the ban of change name proposals for a period of, say, one year. These discussions waste too much of my time. I would prefer we stop these discussions for some time, just to spare time and efforts of us all.FeelSunny (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It amazes me that the two Russian users who commented here insisting on keeping this name are not compelled by the fact a news source owned by their own government uses the name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, Wikipedia is not a news source. (Igny (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia may not be, Russian editor #3, but major news sites are considered reliable for a number of things and in displaying that the name Russia-Georgia war is not biased against Russia there is no better a source to use than a news source owned by Russia's government. If it was biased against Russia why would they use it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Er... DA, say, do you understand your way of throwing ad hominems looks stupid? Do you understand that calling me Russian does not prove me wrong, but shows that you lack any real arguments? Just get over this, dude. Go do something useful, really. PS. BTW, in what country do people like you live?:) FeelSunny (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not using it as an insult. However, it seems the only people who object to this are Russian or unusually pro-Russian for whatever reason. It is then ironic that they would be suggesting a name used by Russian state-owned media is biased. The only logical reason someone who is Russian would consider a named used by their own media, private and state-owned, to be biased is if said Russian is biased. After all, most Russian editors who come on here saying Russia-Georgia War is a biased name are Russian apologists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not using "Russian" as an insult:) Man, I mean it, get out of WP, and PC altogether. I did lately. It's not easy, but it pays.FeelSunny (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said Russia-Georgia war was biased. In fact, if you look up the old votes, you'd see that that title was my second best choice. One of the reasons why it was second was a number of clear and persistent attempts by certain editors to eliminate South Ossetia from the title, lead, infobox to the maximum extent possible. I understand that a failed attempt by Georgia to attack its own territory and its own people was a shameful episode in Georgia's history, but you really can not erase it by moving South Ossetia to a less prominent position in the article and portray the conflict as simply Russia's interference in Georgia's affairs. (Igny (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

So you're saying it wasn't biased but it is biased. South Ossetia was the direct cause of the war and saw a great deal of fighting. However, the title should not be kept simply because some editors want to minimize South Ossetia's place in the conflict. This article is move-protected so it will not be subject to changes except by admins. Other edits can still be made, reversed, or discussed by any editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you are wasting my and others' time by all this, right? It is possible that a sympathetic admin may show up and hearing your constant, non-stop pleading, may decide to change the name eventually regardless of validity or seriousness of your arguments. Is that what you're trying to accomplish here? (Igny (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't need a sympathetic admin, just one who can see through this crap coming from a particular set of users who seem to have no interest in the facts. or policy. The facts are as I said, there is nothing biased about Russia-Georgia War and it is more established than South Ossetia War. Policy on naming articles means we go with the most widely used english name as long as it is neutral. As Russia-Georgia War is neutral, best reflects the scope of the conflict, and is the most widely-used it should be the title. No one stubbornly insisting on keeping this article can provide decent evidence to support their opinion. The only reason an admin hasn't moved this article is because POV editors flood nearly every discussion of a name change so that the decision is no consensus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a big waste of time, and needlessly taking up time on the talk page. As it's been discussed already in a number of previous threads(and votes), I have to feel like FeelSunny's proposal to ban all these name change proposals is a good idea. This really doesn't seem productive at all, and frankly is exhausting to editors to make the same arguments all over again. I can see many saying(to themselves), "I've seen this before, and I'm changing the channel". And then No Editor without a vested interest will come and make any arguments for either side. Then how will we have a real WP debate at all? I hear your arguments DA, but it's redundant and not productive. What is different here from previous discussions? Outback the koala (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason we have not a decision, as I have noted constantly, is that biased editors keep flooding every discussion so that it turns into a decision of no consensus. If admins seriously judged it as the rules demand, rather than treating it like a democratic vote, they would have changed the title long ago. There is not a single decent argument for keeping this title and abundantly good reason for changing it. What I put up just goes further to demonstrate that. Nearly every objection is about neutrality which is quickly demolished by looking at the amount and type of Russian news source that use Russia-Georgia War. No other argument can deal with the fact the current name does not reflect the scope of the conflict and that it is one of the least used names with Russia-Georgia War one of the most, in particular the most throughout the world.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason we have not a decision, as I have noted constantly, is that biased editors keep flooding every discussion so that it turns into a decision of no consensus.

There was a decision. You did not like it, but it does not mean that there was no decision.

If admins seriously judged it as the rules demand, rather than treating it like a democratic vote, they would have changed the title long ago.

Wikipedia uses this rule: you name controversial wars after the location. This war is named after a location - South Ossetia. Wikipedia rules are applied to Wikipedia, your rules are not applicable when they conflict with Wikipedia rules.

There is not a single decent argument for keeping this title and abundantly good reason for changing it.

Historicwarrior creamed your arguments, and it is written in bold, on this very talkpage. Feel the full power of copy paste:

We've had over one hundred pages of debate on this, we have had two votes on it. Get over it. Thank you. This was already discussed here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_2#Article_name and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_3#Name_change and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Google_hits_confirm_most_popular_names and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Media_call_it_Georgia-Russia_conflict and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_War_in_Georgia and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#name_change.3F and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_now and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Article_rename and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamed (this one actually started by the Devil's Advocate on August 12th, 2008) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_7#Requested_move (although it's crossed out) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_8#Needs_to_be_renamed and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_10#Article_rename and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_rankings_on_Google_News (after being defeated, the Devil's Advocate waited a whopping two weeks to bring it up, again) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_of_article and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_13#.22South_Ossetia_War.22.3F and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_14#Title_consensus (where the Devil's Advocate waited two more weeks, before getting slaughtered in the name change debate, I am beginning to see a pattern...) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#New_Title_consensus (yup, Devil's Advocate strikes again) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Rename (Where the Devil's Advocate waited a whole *gasp* three weeks) and here: http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_19#Rename (I wonder who suggested it? Could it be, the Devil's Advocate? *inserts eerie music*) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_22#Specific_options (where there is a whole vote on it!) and here: http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23#To_Those_Opposing_the_current_title and here: http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 - where the whole damn archive is dedicated to yet another vote! And here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#The_title_and_the_lead and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really..2C_really_want_to.22_people and here: http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#It_Appears_that_Kober_did_violate_the_moving_convention (where editors are getting sick and tired of it, but the Devil's Advocate marches on!) and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 (yup another vote, illegally started, for those who missed the first two: attractions include editors who have never watched the article, but miraculously, three of them appear and vote to change the title, on the exact date that it's proposed!)

What I put up just goes further to demonstrate that. Nearly every objection is about neutrality which is quickly demolished by looking at the amount and type of Russian news source that use Russia-Georgia War.

You put up two sources. To claim that these two sources represent the Russian view is as laughable, as claiming that Fox News represents the full American view.

No other argument can deal with the fact the current name does not reflect the scope of the conflict

So in other words you opted to completely ignore Ellol’s argument, and hope that no one notices you ignoring it?

and that it is one of the least used names with Russia-Georgia War one of the most, in particular the most throughout the world.

Least used names? It has over 1,000,000 Google Hits.

Nc1701 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Depleted uranium?

Does anyone have any sources on whether either or both sides used depleted uranium ordnance? 99.191.74.146 (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read anything about it yet. You best check the EU report and/or the HRW reports. If there is any credible claim of DU use, it is bound to be in there. --Xeeron (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

URLs for those please? 99.22.94.58 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just check the reference section of the article. --Xeeron (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are more than 364 references at present -- more than Iraq War has! I looked through some EU and HRW sources without finding any mention of uranium, but I have no way to know if I looked at the ones you meant. 99.38.149.213 (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tagliavini, Heidi (2009), Final Report. Volume I. (PDF), Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG – CEIIG)
• Tagliavini, Heidi (2009), Final Report. Volume II. (PDF), Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG – CEIIG)
• Tagliavini, Heidi (2009), Final Report. Volume III. (PDF), Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG – CEIIG) --Xeeron (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why has the issue of depleted uranium arisen? I have not seen any mention of its use whatsoever in conjunction with the Georgia-Russia conflict.

I call upon the person(s) who raised the issue to clarify. Федоров (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that at the time of the conflict, both NATO-backed and Russian troops considered depleted uranium ordnance a tactically and strategically useful part of their arsenals. However, investment in and transport of DU ordnance has since been banned in Brussels. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen a single source which claims depleted uranium was used in the conflict. Let's stop this unsourced speculation now. Offliner (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)