Talk:South Ossetia/Archive 2

geo vs clio
Is there any evidence that most "regional" articles have a geography section first, followed by a history section? To pick some random examples Karelia: clio 2nd, geo 4th. Honduras: clio 2nd, geo 5th. Sudan, clio 1st, geo 8th. There's exceptions too, for example Tierra del Fuego: geo 1st, clio 2nd, but this probably has to do with the geographical importance of the place. Basically I think the proper question to ask here is "are potential readers coming to this article more interested in the history or the geography of the place" - and I think the answer is the former.radek (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At least all Russian regional articles have geography first. For example: Novosibirsk Oblast. Offliner (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

New pictures
Cominf.org has agreed to release the pictures at under the Creative Commons license. I've already uploaded some to Commons, but if you think others could be used somewhere as well, please upload them too. We can use the pics to make this and other South Ossetia -related articles look prettier. The OTRS ticket is #2009081010067736. Offliner (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the word "separatists"
Regarding this edit: do we really have to repeat the attribute "separatist" all over the place? It should be already clear to the reader from the first mention, that the South Ossetian authorities are "separatist" (although it's unclear if they are anymore, since SO is independent). There is no obvious benefit from repeating the word "separatist" so many times. Offliner (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There were parts of South Ossetia not controlled by Kokoyev, there were Ossetians not supporting him, and there was another South Ossetian government. It is absolutely necessary to disambiguate between them. Colchicum (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit summary "Separatist? How can it be separatist, if it is already separated?": The fact that seccession succeeds does not change the fact that those who drive and argue for seccession are seccessionist. Republicans dont stop being republicans the moment the king is killed either. Furthermore, seccession might succeed in the future, up till now it only is a de-facto one, not a de-jure one, in the eyes of the world (-2 countries). --Xeeron (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oxford English Dictionary: separatism - the advocacy or practice of separation of a group of people from a larger body on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or gender. Now, let's take this: separatist authorities of South Ossetia. It looks like there is another larger body (i.e. Ossetian authorities) that controls SO and consider SO to be a part of Georgia. Do you think it sounds paradoxical? Taamu (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Separatism implies that they are trying to separate. However, they have already been separated from Georgia. South Ossetia is De Facto part of North Ossetia, and De Jure has its status disputed. There is no real way they could separate from Georgia anymore. Thus calling them separatists shows an incorrect use of grammar of the English language via the past-present tense. I'm not upto date on all the Wikipedia rules, but I'm sure there's one saying that you cannot use incorrect grammar for POV pushing. If you are arguing that South Ossetians are separatists, who are they trying to separate from? Because if they are trying to separate from Georgia, that means they haven't separated from Georgia yet. Then why the invasion? You're invading a part of your country? That just makes no sense. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They are still trying to separate de jure. So no past tense. And those who tried to separate de facto still believe that separation is the right way (in contrast to those who would like SO as part of Georgia), so separatist still describes their political views in the most important SO political question. --Xeeron (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to separate de jure? Who said so? I guess South Ossetians got their de jure "separation" when Russia recognised SO independence. Probably they want worldwide recognition, but it's not a primary goal. How can you say separatist still describes their political views? It's a POV. In terms of grammar wording separatist authorities of South Ossetia sounds wrong. Taamu (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How else would you describe them but separatists? During the last ~20 years this has been, now it still is, and will for the forseeable future remain the one defining policy that they pursue? --Xeeron (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would describe Ossetians as Ossetians, not Ossetian Separatists. Separatists are people who are trying to separate. They are unhappy with the status quo. Ossetians are happy with the current status quo. Separatists implies that they're going to separate. They have already done it. The only recognition Ossetians honestly care about, is Russia's, because North Ossetia is part of Russia. Did they have a right to separate? Well the question is, if Georgia can declare independence from the USSR, why can't autonomous regions within Georgia declare independence as well? But it doesn't matter. The separation is finished. Ossetians won't take any more Georgian lands. Pursuing a policy of status quo, doesn't make you a separatist. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They want to preserve the separation of South Ossetia from Georgia, while other people want to have a unified country. --Xeeron (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't you understand? They are de facto separated. I have provided the meaning of the word "separatist" from Oxford English Dictionary. According to it (and English grammar) we cannot say separatist authorities of South Ossetia. Taamu (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Xeeron, can you give me an example of other separatists who fully control their country? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont even have to leave the region to name 2: Abkhazia now and Chechnya after the first war. --Xeeron (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job, but my point was to name separatists who fully control their country, not in the Caucasian Region. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough the first time. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Somaliland is another example of a de-facto independent nation. I don't see them being called "separatists" anywhere in their article. Offliner (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to go further into history, take the confederation at the start of the american civil war. Or, more recent, Transnistria. --Xeeron (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point yet again Xeeron. So aside from Russia-related states, no states are dubbed separatists. Another bias exposed. As for the Confederacy, well you see the reason that they were called separatists, is because they fought a war for separation and lost. If you fight a war of separation and win, you don't get called a separatist. And thus I expose another anti-Russian policy. Thank you Xeeron for assisting me in this matter. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you claim that only Russian related states are dubbed separatists and in the next sentence explain why the confederacy were separatists. In any case, I am glad to have helped you on this matter. --Xeeron (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(Re-Indent) My claim was that only Russia-related states that won their wars of Independence, in the early 1990's are dubbed separatists. The Confederacy lost. Separatists are those who do not have De Facto control of their region, and if you cannot name any examples, aside for the Russian ones which clearly carry an anti-Russia bias, the word separatists should be removed. No one calls Albanians in Kosovo "separatists". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one does? Except those more than 100.000 webpages. You see an anti-Russian conspiracy theory everywhere, but in fact, it is simply the right English language word. --Xeeron (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another low blow at me? From Xeeron? That's factually inaccurate? Why am I not surprised? Oh right, cause he does it all the time. First off you have to Google "Kosovo Separatists" in quotes, to avoid articles such as this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7255400.stm which states "Kosovo - tool kit for separatists". When you actually use quotes you get less then 2,000 hits. But Xeeron manipulating Google to achieve his ends and to insult me? That never happened before, except throughout the entire first vote, or was it second vote, in an attempt to change an article's title. Also Xeeron, we use English Google, not German Google.


 * Anyways, here's the thing: when I Google "Ossetian Separatists" in quotes, I suddenly get over 160,000 hits. Removing the years 2009 and 2008 however, only gets me under 8,000 hits. So either there was a conspiracy against Russia by major press companies to call South Ossetians separatists, even though it was never done before and had no precedent, or in 2007 Ossetians weren't separatists, but as soon as 2008 and 2009 hit, they miraculously were visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past and transformed into separatists. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Being lectured by you on the use of Google is enlightening indeed (I mean, you got a "PhD in online research" to help you with adding the quotes to google searches ... how should I compete with that, when I had to rely entirely on myself when figuring it out), just how is an article calling Kosovo a "toolkit for separatists" proving your point? Since you have lectured me on math (2+2= ?) before, can you also tell me the difference between "no one" and 1,650? Actually, that is a rethoric question: 1650 is not "no one". And no matter what Google version and what specification you use, unless you show me a google result with 0 hits, it is not no one either.


 * Furthermore, let me give you a third explanation for your "micaculously" increasing hits from the year 2008 onwards. Maybe, just maybe, the press didn't care enough about that tiny faraway place to report about it till the 2008 South Ossetia war put it to the frontlines? --Xeeron (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Never said I had a PhD in Online Research Xeeron. Don't you hate those pesky things called facts. As for the "micaculously" or miraculously increasing number, that we both agree took place after Russia's complete, total and utter military triumph over a army trained by the Western Corporations, maybe, could it be, that said corporations tried to invent all kinds things to demonize Russia, including, but not limited to, branding Ossetians, "Ossetian Separatists" - even though the have De Facto control of the very region they're claimed to be trying to separate from? You cannot control a region and claim to be separating from it. Logically that just makes no sense. "I am separating from my house!" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this article still has the word "separatists" in it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

From Taamu's definition: "separatism - the advocacy or practice of separation of a group of people from a larger body on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or gender." How can one practice separation, without being part of a larger body? South Ossetia was De Facto separated, no one contests that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither was all of the claimed South Ossetia de facto separated (parts where under Georgian control and thus not separated), nor was South Ossetia de jure separated (no country had recognised it), nor is South Ossetia universally de jure separated now (only 3 countries have recognised it since the war). To claim that separation from Georgia is not or was not the defining policy issue of the South Ossetian people is not backed up by reality. --Xeeron (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And you don't think place "De Facto" South Ossetian Authorities, makes in more NPOV? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Both words need to be used. The readers should be informed that (a large part of people in) South Ossetia tried to separate and that most of South Ossetia was controlled by a de facto government (of separatists). --Xeeron (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If both need to be used, why did take the words "De Facto" out repeatedly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Ossetia&diff=314106047&oldid=314065999? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Both need to be used and I reverted your edits which removed all mentioning of "separatist" for exactly that reason. Had you only inserted de facto, instead of replacing, I would not have reverted. --Xeeron (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * De Facto Separatists? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Kosovo
The United States, European Union, and most of the other countries with an exception of Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, and Venezuela, consider the territory of South Ossetia a part of Georgia and do not recognize South Ossetia as an independent state.

This is not neutral. Imagine if we wrote "most countries" in the case of Kosovo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.202.47 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Fixed! I'm only watching one article, 2008 South Ossetia War; if you want my help with other articles, ask me on my talkpage! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Paranoia...
It's simply paranoid to stick to such terms as ethnic Ossetians, ethnic Georgians and such stuff. Everyone who is slightly familiar with the situation in South Ossetia, knows that in this article, "Ossetians"/"South Ossetians" refers to Ossetian separatists, and that "Georgians" refers to Georgians/ethnic Georgians and other citizens of Georgia who supported Georgia(though, in the same paranoid sense, saying "citizens of Georgia, [for example an ethnic Armenian citizen of Georgia and, i cite this so as not to be wrong meaning there is at least one ethnic Armenian citizen of Georgia], who supported Georgia" is wrong, as in the Georgian paranoid sense, South Ossetia is Georgia, and thus, how can one support South Ossetia and not Georgia, if South Ossetia is a sub-group of Georgia? The whole thing is silly. Even in the "referendums" organized by South Ossetian "separatists" not everyone voted for independence, thus, we should think that not every "ethnic Ossetian" is a separatist, thus the term "ethnic Ossetians" in this article is wrong as it may imply differently. Or, perhaps, that "South Ossetian separatists" is a discrimination against those poor South Ossetians who did not vote for independence.)...

The whole world is, at the least, slightly aware of the situation and, refering to "Georgians" and not "ethnic Georgians" suggests that South Ossetians are thus not Georgians as much as "ethnic Ossetians" suggests that Ossetians were a nation oppressed by Georgians/ethnic Georgians. Both suggestions are simply paranoid, as it's just terms we use to refer to the two sides. Just by saying "ethnic Ossetians" we don't imply a nation in another state and that its cause for independence is right, as that by saying Georgians, we do not imply that Ossetians are or were not Georgian citizens, or citizens of Georgia (however, a lot are now citizens of Russia, too, thus, giving Russia a pretext or a just cause (depends on whose side you like) for the war).

When people say that the Nazis were Germans, they don't imply that in Austria there were not Nazis, just because they don't say ethnic Germans, or that there were not Nazis from other "ethnic identities" (well, not Jews, obviously - but, just think of all those collaborationist puppet-states)... It's just the simple fact that the Nazi Party was a German party, in common sense. Not every German citizen was a Nazi, neither all ethnic Germans were Nazis. Yet, the whole ideology was about the superior German race, ethnic Germans if you prefer, but, everyone simply refers to Germans, not ethnic Germans and such...

So, my point is "stop being paranoid". Two sides; 1. Ossetians/South Ossetians 2. Georgians

- South Ossetia is Georgian territory according to Georgia, thus its citizens (at least these who were so before the war, so as not to imply any "ethnic" Russians who moved there after the war) are Georgian citizens. - South Ossetia is independent according to South Ossetians (separatists) and their "government", thus its citizens are not Georgians.

There is no real confusion on what side "South Ossetians" and "Georgians" refer to. No real need for "ethnic ..."; after all, not everyone is of that exact ethnicity... Heracletus (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with parts of the analysis, I agree with the conclusion. I tried removing "ethnic" from the article, but it was reverted fairly quickly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I had problems understanding what you are arguing for, but if you say "Two sides; 1. Ossetians/South Ossetians 2. Georgians", you are oversimplifying. Who is an "Ossetian"/"Georgian" according to that definition? Are those people who had to leave Georgia (proper) after the first war "Georgians" simply because they lived there? Are the people who fled from SO after the second war "Ossetians" because they lived in Ossetia? Obviously not. Ossetians fled from Georgia to Ossetia (or Russia), and Georgians fled from Ossetia to Georgia. There is a difference between being Georgian and living in Georgia. --Xeeron (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heracletus, say "hi" to Xeeron. Now you know what hysteria I have to deal with. As he said Xeeron: "There is no real confusion on what side "South Ossetians" and "Georgians" refer to. No real need for "ethnic ..."; after all, not everyone is of that exact ethnicity..." - i.e. you don't need the word "ethnic", unless you are trying to provide ethnic struggle. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Image placement
I'd like to make this article look nicer by placing some relevant images in each section. The problem is that the map images make the right side column so large that this is not possible, unless one aligns the section images to the left, which is not recommended per WP:MOS, since it sandwitches text between two images. A possible solution is to remove some of the maps (there are no less than 6 maps in this article!) such as the topographical map which I think is a bit unnecessary. Maybe it can be moved to the gallery instead. Also I think "File:SouthOssetia region detailed map.JPG" could perhaps be removed. Offliner (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. The map shows exact location of the Georgian enclave and that it is a clear carve out from the country.


 * He isn't talking about removing images; he just wants to move the images to the gallery. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Info box
please remove the info box, s ossetia is not a country..it's need to be neutral like Kosovo thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kosovo has a very similar infobox, the only difference being formatting; the information contained is essentially the same. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see any similarities, it has a country info box and not the info box of Kosovo type. Iberieli (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the problem?
 * Kosovo has Infobox Country
 * South Ossetia has Infobox Country or territory (redirects to Infobox Country). Taamu (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron at undoing my edits again! With no real argumentation.
Basically I want to say that "as a result of the 2008 South Ossetia War", South Ossetia was recognized. Meanwhile Xeeron is insisting, against all facts and common sense, for the wording "after the 2008 South Ossetia War".

Now he states: (Undid revision 315465719 by HistoricWarrior007 (talk) No OR, stick to what the sources say.)

Indeed Xeeron, stick to what the sources say:

1. Russia: "''The Georgian leadership, in violation of the UN Charter and their obligations under international agreements and contrary to the voice of reason, unleashed an armed conflict victimizing innocent civilians. The same fate lay in store for Abkhazia. Obviously, they in Tbilisi hoped for a blitz-krieg that would have confronted the world community with an accomplished fact. The most inhuman way was chosen to achieve the objective – annexing South Ossetia through the annihilation of a whole people.

That was not the first attempt to do this. In 1991, President Gamsahourdia of Georgia, having proclaimed the motto "Georgia for Georgians" – just think about it! – ordered attacks on the cities of Sukhum and Tskhinval. The result then was thousands of killed people, dozens of thousands of refugees and devastated villages. And it was Russia who at that time put an end to the eradication of the Abkhaz and Ossetian peoples. Our country came forward as a mediator and peacekeeper insisting on a political settlement. In doing so we were invariably guided by the recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity.

The Georgian leadership chose another way. Disrupting the negotiating process, ignoring the agreements achieved, committing political and military provocations, attacking the peacekeepers – all these actions grossly violated the regime established in conflict zones with the support of the United Nations and OSCE.

Russia continually displayed calm and patience. We repeatedly called for returning to the negotiating table and did not deviate from this position of ours even after the unilateral proclamation of Kosovo's independence. However our persistent proposals to the Georgian side to conclude agreements with Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the non-use of force remained unanswered. Regrettably, they were ignored also by NATO and even at the United Nations.

It stands quite clear now: a peaceful resolution of the conflict was not part of Tbilisi's plan. The Georgian leadership was methodically preparing for war, while the political and material support provided by their foreign guardians only served to reinforce the perception of their own impunity.

Tbilisi made its choice during the night of August 8, 2008. Saakashvili opted for genocide to accomplish his political objectives. By doing so he himself dashed all the hopes for the peaceful coexistence of Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians in a single state. The peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have several times spoken out at referendums in favor of independence for their republics. It is our understanding that after what has happened in Tskhinval and what has been planned for Abkhazia they have the right to decide their destiny by themselves.

The Presidents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, based on the results of the referendums conducted and on the decisions taken by the Parliaments of the two republics, appealed to Russia to recognize the state sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Federation Council and the State Duma voted in support of those appeals.

A decision needs to be taken based on the situation on the ground. Considering the freely expressed will of the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples and being guided by the provisions of the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration on the Principles of International Law Governing Friendly Relations Between States, the CSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other fundamental international instruments, I signed Decrees on the recognition by the Russian Federation of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence.

Russia calls on other states to follow its example. This is not an easy choice to make, but it represents the only possibility to save human lives.''"

In short, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize, based on that speech, without any Original Research, that had there been no war, Russia recognition would not have followed. Thus, it is implied in fact, that Russian recognition is a direct result of the 2008 South Ossetia War. No question here;

2. Nicaragua: "Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega announced on Tuesday during ceremonies for the 29th anniversary of the founding of the Latin American state's army that "Nicaragua recognizes the independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia and fully supports the Russian government's position.""

In other words, Nicaragua is recognizing South Ossetia for the reasons that Russia did. Since Russia recognized South Ossetia as a result of the 2008 South Ossetia War, Nicaragua, is recognizing South Ossetia for the same exact reason.

3. Venezuela: Since I already had to make an argument, here you go: "''Now going back to the 2008 South Ossetia War; the result of the war was Russia's Recognition. Unlike the Kosovo War, or the 1991-1992 South Ossetia War, the result here was direct. Russia clearly stated that the recognition came as a result of Saakashvili's actions on August 7th and throughout the war. Venezuela stated that they are recognizing South Ossetia "jointly [with Russia and Nicaragua]". When you recognize a country jointly, that means you agree with the others' actions and reasoning, but you needed a bit more time to study the issue. A year isn't that much when it come to International Recognition; Luxembourg, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are still working out their differences over the Benes Decrees. Russia recognized South Ossetia as a result of the 2008 South Ossetia War. Venezuela agrees with Russia's reasoning. Thus Venezuela recognized South Ossetia as a result of the 2008 South Ossetia War.''"

Xeeron, all of this was already discussed, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Dear_Colchicum The articles for recognition, very clearly point out, to anyone with a shred of common sense, that the main reason that South Ossetia was recognized as an Independent State, is because of the 2008 South Ossetia War! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What you claim is common sense does not play a role here (as is what Colchium claims on another talk page). Either you can find a source that says that SO was recognized because of the war, or you leave your WP:OR statement out of the article. Regarding the source you cite above:


 * "The Presidents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, based on the results of the referendums conducted and on the decisions taken by the Parliaments of the two republics, appealed to Russia to recognize the state sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Federation Council and the State Duma voted in support of those appeals."


 * So according to that source, SO's independence was recognized because of the appeal of the presidents, based on the results of the referendums. That is very different from your sentence. Nor does one of the other sources support the claim that SO was recognized because of the war. --Xeeron (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read anything that Medvedev said? The case there is crystal clear, but it appears that I shall take this to arbitration, unless you undo your edit. Medvedev's argument is crystal clear: he cites Georgia's attack on South Ossetia as a major reason for recognition: It stands quite clear now: a peaceful resolution of the conflict was not part of Tbilisi's plan. The Georgian leadership was methodically preparing for war, while the political and material support provided by their foreign guardians only served to reinforce the perception of their own impunity. Tbilisi made its choice during the night of August 8, 2008. Saakashvili opted for genocide to accomplish his political objectives. By doing so he himself dashed all the hopes for the peaceful coexistence of Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians in a single state. The peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have several times spoken out at referendums in favor of independence for their republics. It is our understanding that after what has happened in Tskhinval and what has been planned for Abkhazia they have the right to decide their destiny by themselves...A decision needs to be taken based on the situation on the ground. Considering the freely expressed will of the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples and being guided by the provisions of the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration on the Principles of International Law Governing Friendly Relations Between States, the CSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other fundamental international instruments, I signed Decrees on the recognition by the Russian Federation of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence. Russia calls on other states to follow its example. This is not an easy choice to make, but it represents the only possibility to save human lives. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see, the referendums were tried, several times and failed, until the time that Georgia invaded South Ossetia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What I see is that Medvedev recognized Considering the freely expressed will of the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples, i.e. because of the referendum. --Xeeron (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why didn't Medvedev recognize the previous referendums? Did the previous referendums not express wht will of the Ossetian and Abkhaz people? Or was their something more, say a major invasion that swayed Medvedev's hand? I believe that you, Xeeron, are only reading and pointing out the parts that you want to show, whereas I'm conveying, in this case, an NPOV perspective. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, why did Venezuela recognize South Ossetia more than a year after the war, but exactly at the same time when a major arms deal with Russia was agreed? You can always point to convenient circumstances, but in the end, you need to bring a reliable source to back it up. --Xeeron (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not backed up? Have you not read Medvedev's statement. I think you are being blind. Thus it goes to ADR, as you are simply ignoring the argument at this point. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you going to answer my question? --Xeeron (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are going to ignore my question and ask your own, why should I? But, nevertheless, I shall: Venezuela recognized South Ossetia for the same reason that Russia did: stability in the Caucasian Region is good for Venezuela. How? The less wars Russia has to fight, the cheaper the price of weapons is, think supply and demand, pretty simple economics. Although if Russia keeps on fighting Neocons, it might actually gain in weaponry ;) Perhaps an image is in order: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/images/2008/08/26/cheney_and_saakashvili.jpg Of course Dick Cheney didn't send his aides there to nudge Saakashvili. Nope. It was all about signing books, for you see, the Vice President often visits foreign countries to sign books, tallying up a whopping zero visits, not counting this one.


 * "What was a top national security aide to Vice President Dick Cheney doing in Georgia shortly before Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's troops engaged in what became a disastrous fight with South Ossetian rebels -- and then Russian troops? Not, according to the vice president's office, what you might think -- if your thinking takes you into the realm of Cheney giving his blessing to the Georgian's military operation. To be sure, Cheney has been a leader of the hardliners in the administration when it comes to standing up to Russia -- to the point that the man who ran the Pentagon as the Cold War came to an end during the administration of the first President Bush has been seen as ready to renew that face-off with Moscow. It was Cheney who visited the Georgian embassy in Washington last week to sign a remembrance book as a demonstration of the administration's support. And yes, Joseph R. Wood, Cheney's deputy assistant for national security affairs, was in Georgia shortly before the war began. But, the vice president's office says, he was there as part of a team setting up the vice president's just-announced visit to Georgia."


 * That's from: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/images/2008/08/26/cheney_and_saakashvili.jpg&imgrefurl=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/08/georgia-war.html&usg=__xCOmMB1Rlj_3bvsRwgGssCZ8GBc=&h=331&w=250&sz=16&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=ioJJNCvnPr_X7M:&tbnh=119&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcheney%2Bsaakashvili%2BAugust%26hl%3Den%26um%3D1 - and you are welcome to read the commentary. Anyways, the point is, you have Venezuela's statement that Venezuela recognized South Ossetia jointly with Russia, and for the same reasons as Russia. Ergo it's for the same reasons. If you want to speculate, go forth and speculate. Speaking of speculation, I welcome everyone to read the fine commentary to the article, that expresses "strong support" for the Bush Administration. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How's this: http://www.rferl.org/content/Chavez_Visits_Russia_To_Discuss_Arms_Energy_Deals/1819273.html

Quoting directly: "Russia recognized the two rebel regions as independent in the wake of its war last year with Georgia"

Waiting for Xeeron to make up a different definition for "in the wake". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why make one up, when there is one around already: "If something happens in the wake of something else, it happens after and often because of it".
 * Notice how it first says after, as in my version, while it says second (and only "often", not "always") because of, as in your version. --Xeeron (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I guess Kober found the best possible solution: Why argue about the interpretation of a phrase, when we can use that exact phrase in the article as well. --Xeeron (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because that phrase doesn't express the gravity of the situation. Do I have to e-mail the Russian Embassy to state facts in black and white for you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090811/155780949.html

Quoting: "Here, again, we have two principles of international law that are in direct conflict. One is that the  territorial integrity of a state should be sacrosanct; the other is the right of people to self-determination.  For seventeen years Russia defended the territorial integrity of Georgia, losing more than 120 soldiers as peacekeepers in the region. After the attack of August 2008, and the Saakashvili’s vows to continue his campaign to reconquer Abkhazia and South Ossetia by any means at his disposal, Russia reluctantly came to the conclusion (on August 26 President Medvedev described it as “choosing the lesser evil”) that the only way to guarantee the survival of the Abkhazian and Ossetian populations on their own lands was to sign a military defense treaty with them. Recognition of their independence became a prerequisite, since such a treaty can only be signed with a sovereign state. Western recognition of Kosovo’s independence without Serbia’s approval, which took place in February 2008, merely established a convenient precedent for Russia’s actions." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you have brought about how many 3? 4? 5? different statements yet, who all stand out for the same: They do not use the language you keep reverting to. Oh, and please don't remove good sources. --Xeeron (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good sources? Only reason you like that source, is because you found one that I foolishly quoted that's completely misleading. I will do my best to triple check anything else I suggest, since you just love to capitalize on my mistakes after I extended the olive branch and foolishly thought....nevermind. Thank you for the lesson. But let's extend that source's logic: so you like it because Venezuela is buying Russia's weaponry, and you like the link that to Chavez's recognition. Perhaps you aren't aware, but some of those T-72s going to Venezuela, were unmodified T-72s captured by Russian Forces, which would not have been possible without Saakashvili's invasion. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you please write what exactly you don't like in the current version ("In the wake of the 2008 South Ossetia War...")? Alæxis¿question? 07:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "As a result" is clearer then "in the wake of". As Wikipedians, I believe that we should offer the reader clarity. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem.. ok. Alæxis¿question? 20:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I'm not going to "edit war" on this issue, since most reasonable people consider it too minor. Maybe I should give the readers more credit, and remember that not everyone voted for Bush. I could focus my energy on other articles too. How was your trip to Abkhazia? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * answered at your talk. Alæxis¿question? 17:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good explanation of why Russia recognised South Ossetia: "The main risk of action was the clarification of Russia’s position on the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia—something that Russia has tried to avoid for years, primarily due to its own experience with Chechen separatism and other potential separatism. Following the armed confrontation with Georgia, Russia’s rapid decision to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia appears to have been dictated at least as much by prag- matic considerations—in view of Russia’s inability to guarantee their security by a token ‘peacekeeping’ presence—as by any broader strategic consider- ations. Any larger and longer-term military arrangements with Abkhazia and South Ossetia could only be framed on the basis of bilateral agreements with independent states (i.e. recognized as independent by Russia). The political risk of inaction would have been nearly as high, especially for the internal situation in the North Caucasus. Among other things, with most ethnic Ossetians living in Russia, a lack of decisive action in support of South Ossetia would have almost certainly led to the eventual displacement of most South Ossetians to Russia’s North Ossetia. This would have risked the loyalty of one of Rus- sia’s most reliable and loyal peoples in the North Caucasus and could have created a domino effect in other parts of the region." http://books.sipri.org/files/misc/SIPRIPB0811.pdf Shlyovich (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What negotiation? Russia occupied the territory in 1992. There were no peacekeepers and the UN is responsible for that too. These troops trigered conflicts as musch as they could and ensured the conflict making not peacemaking. The heads of these enclaves are KGB agents and Russia wants the Soviet union back. Are you a second grade school boy or a girl that you still cannot get the real picture? Are you people blind or do not see that in Ukraine Putin's friend Yanukovich wants to bring Ukraine back to the Soviet Union and with that motto he hopes to win. 66.108.13.103 (talk)


 * The Peacekeeping Bases that were present in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were legal. They were there with the expressed permission of the Russian, Georgian, Ossetian and Abkhaz Government. They were CIS approved. If Saakashvili wants to leave the CIS, that does not absolve him of previously owned duties to the CIS, signed into law by other Georgian Leaders. Furthermore, President Bagapsh is not a Russian agent. He is a Democratically elected president of Abkhazia. The structure of the Abkhaz government resembles the Swiss-German model. It was the Abkhaz Army that started the initial push of Georgians out of Kodori Valley, with the Russian assisting, not the other way around. The Russians used Abkhazia as a friendly place to land, in order to capture Senaki and Poti. However, this was done with the expressed permission of President Bagapsh. If you were following Abkhaz elections, my dear IP 66.108.13.103, you would notice that the pro-Russian candidate lost. You'd further notice that Abkhazia offered recognition to Kosovo, if Kosovo was to recognize Abkhazia. That doesn't sound very pro-Russian to me.


 * I'm not blind, I just follow facts. And, btw, when's Russia invading Belarus? Or Kazakstan? Don't you have to invade every country to get the USSR back? And yet, I'm only seeing hostility to Ukraine, Georgia and Estonia, possibly Latvia. What do all of these states have in common? Why only these states? Could it be, because Georgia attacked Russia's Peacekeeping Base and threatened to destabilize Russia's Caucasian Region? Could be the ethnic discrimination faces by Russians in Estonia/Latvia? Could it be Ukraine's expectation to steal gas from Russia, free of charge? What was that Ukrainian quote? "If you won't give us gas [that you're not obligated to give us,] we'll steal it". My dear IP, please try looking at the real reasons, not just parts of irrelevant propaganda. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Recognized by
Is there really a need to list every single recognising state in the infobox? I suggest reforming it to the way it's done in Kosovo or Abkhasia. --Illythr (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It might have made sense when there was only 1 country, but not when there is a growing list of countries. --Xeeron (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It should simply say 'now recognised by 4 U.N member states,Abakhazia and Transnistria' or something along those lines, as with Kosovo. --Thomas Hall (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo always was and always will be ethnic Albanian land unlike S.Ossetia which is a pure Georgian ethnic land

comments
I would say that the article is not neutral and rather inaccurate. The author comments that though it is not recognized, it deserves a separate box. It could have its separate box but the question is to call everything their internationally recognized names. So It is not a republic but a breakaway region and it is ridiculous to put all the state symbols there.

Also a short comment on the history section. Before the Russian anexation of Georgia "South Ossetia" did not simply exist. There were no Ossetian settlements in that region and were artificially created later on.

You are wront, there are lots of historical books, that say about the Ossetian settlers in the region. I`ll update some info about them later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.100.105 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Image
Does File:South Ossetian performers 2.JPG really represent traditional Ossetian performers? To me, their clothes look Eastern European (specifically from the historical region of Moldavia) rather than Caucasian, and that would be understandable considering the photo is from a Transnistria-South Ossetia festival. Could someone check?Anonimu (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh, you are right - the sign behind the dancers says "the year of Transnistria in South Ossetia!" --Illythr (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ossetian language is one of the iranian languages, differetiate them from most of the caucasians. and they are primarily russian orthodoxy so their culture may tends to be more european instead of being caucasus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest removal of gallery
Galleries are not generally recommended in Wikipedia, unless they "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images"(see the relevant help page). I suggest removal of the gallery.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support.--Bouron (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Source is required or not?
There is the discussion in russian wikipedia of if source for "South Ossetia is partially-recognized" is required or not. One side say that we need source for if at least one country recognized South Ossetia. Another side want source where "SO" is called "partially-recognised". Please let me know your POV.

Also second side propose to rewrite the preambul in such way. "Republic of South Ossetia (oset. Республикæ Хуссар Ирыстон, груз. ცხინვალის რეგიონი/ სამხრეთ ოსეთი) — separatist entity in the territory of sovereign Georgia."

Please let me know how your reaction if such is proposed here.--Bouron (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Partially-recognized is not a very useful term, but I don't see where the fuss about sources is coming from. Surely 10 seconds on google will be enough to produce one? --Xeeron (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong
What's wrong Brambo with my changes?--Zolokin (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Introducing drastic changes like that without as much as a comment is bound to be reverted regardless of value, but in this case, the edit introduced nonsense into the article. Chronicle of the Second war in former South-Ossetian War? Seriously. --Illythr (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

nonsense but not in all cases you changed, or...? --Zolokin (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes sense with the initial reference to territorial claims, but not as a reference to the unrecognized state or the territory it controls. --Illythr (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's internationally recognized territory of Georgia. --Zolokin (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And? The place is still called South Ossetia in the article (unless it's a direct reference to the unrecognized government). --Illythr (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "South Ossetia or Tskhinvali Region is a disputed region and partly recognized state in the South Caucasus, located in the territory of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast within the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic" — I think it's enough? --Zolokin (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. *Shrug*, well, whatever. The section on the law should be shortened, though. --Illythr (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * should be shortened what exactly?

--Zolokin (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The section on the occupation law you added back then. It's way too long. --Illythr (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal
There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

POV infoboxes
The Abkhazia and South Ossetia infoboxes are very POV - The Kosovo model should be used for these infoboxes as in these cases there are alos two competing entities claiming to be the govenrment of the region, one which claims to be an independent state and one that claims to be an autonomous region. If no objections are raised I will create a general regional infobox and then two infoboxes below for each political entity. Dn9ahx (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and you may see Talk:Abkhazia for the split proposition. And i need one answer regarding this one. South Ossetia does not exist with that name as anything other then self proclaimed republic. South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast is de facto and de jure nonexistent anymore, and as Shida Kartli region covers South ossetia and more, as Georgia told us, this name is the best possible name for this subject. Split is unneeded and wrong here, as article South Ossetia is, only about partly recognized state, as we already have article about disputed territory, Shida Kartli. Right? -- WhiteWriter speaks 21:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Asian, European, or transcontinental?
Is South Ossetia Asian, European or transcontinental by geography? 119.236.250.27 (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit of all of those - it depends on who you talk to. Sorry, but that's not a very good answer is it?! Bazonka (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But both Abkhazia and South Ossetia appear to be lying entirely to the south of the Caucasian watershed, and to the south of the top of the ridge. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

correction 26.12.2012
In recognition of the independence of South Ossetia by several countries, its troops can not be "separatists." This forces an independent state. A peacekeeping force with a mandate confirmed by intergovernmental agreements - not "armed forces", namely peacekeeping force ... AndyWerner, ru-wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.73.18.76 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no problem in referring to the pre-August 2008 South Ossetian force as "separatist", since it was first recognized by an UN-member state after that time. The one sentence that refers to today's SO government as such, "The political dispute has yet to be resolved and the South Ossetian separatist authorities govern the region with effective independence from Tbilisi." - is left over from before that time.
 * Also, the participation of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in the 08/08/08 conflict was minimal. The force that defeated Georgia was a regular Russian army. --illythr (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

South Ossetia is recognized as Georgian breakaway region by European Union, United Nations, NATO, and every single country of this planet not including Russia, Nikaragua, Vanautu, Tuvalu, Nauru, Venezuela. i made citation from Euro parliament webcite, From UN web Cite, from BBC, and i can make lots of citations were is sad that South ossetia and Abkhazia is Georgia's Breakaway regions. and my sources are oficial sources. u are making Misinformation, i have already contacted to administrator and if he dont makes something about it i will make a complaint about it in the COURT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see No legal threats. And don't forget to sign your posts. Bazonka (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Climate section
I greatly expanded the "Geography" section of this Wikipedia page to include more info on South Ossetia's rough geography & climate. Feel free to edit as need be, since I'm still new at this kind of thing. I also added a redirect for "Climate of South Ossetia" to this new, expanded section of the article. Guy1890 (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Russian and Georgian versions
Can anyone verify the neutral points of view in the Russian/Georgian/Ossetian(?) articles? Particularly the Georgian article, which I imagine draws from a pretty narrow pool of contributors... Interlaker (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrative divisions
There is no mention of how South Ossetia is broken down into administrative divisions, which would be normal for articles about both countries and regions on Wikipedia. There are, presumably, two systems. A hypothetical Georgian system (seeing as how Georgia does not exercise control over the area), and a de facto South Ossetian one. Presumably, municipalities still exist. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
There are multiple issues with the series of recent edits:


 * Changing numbers without providing a source, even though the old number is supported by a HRW report:

Between 1989 and 1992, fighting flared in the South Ossetian A.O. and in Georgia between ethnic Ossetian paramilitary troops and Georgian Interior Ministry (MVD) units and paramilitaries.57 South Ossetia had demanded to secede, and Georgia cracked down on the renegade area by sending in troops. Approximately 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled Georgia and South Ossetia, and another 23,000 Georgians headed in the other direction. One hundred villages were reportedly destroyed in South Ossetia.


 * False references:

The Georgian government responded by abolishing South Ossetia's autonomy. This decision was supported by chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin on 23 March 1991 when he signed the treaty between Russia and Georgia.

The source says a different thing: В п. 4 протокола говорится о "передислокации частей СА с территории бывшей      ЮОАО". По сути, подписав документ с подобной формулировкой. Ельцин вслед за        грузинским руководством признал упразднение автономной области. ... Галина Старовойтова, сопровождавшая Ельцина, пояснила        корреспонденту "Ъ", что упразднение области произошло автоматически после         провозглашения Юго-Осетинской республики. So Yeltsin signed an agreement with Gamskhurdia in which the words "former YuOAO" were used. The source, a newspaper, speculates that this might have constituted Yeltsin's acceptance of the abolishment of South Ossetian AO (YuOA) and then provides an alternative explanation of the wording by Galina Starovoytova who accompanied Yeltsin during that trip (that South Ossetian AO was abolished when Republic of South Ossetia was proclaimed).


 * Non-neutral wording such as "puppet state". Alæxis¿question? 13:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are some improvements over the previous edit:
 * Puppet State
 * Puppet State isn't a non-neutral wording to refer to South Ossetia. If you will visit Wikipedia page Puppet state, you will see that South Ossetia is listed as one of the current puppet states. So I took my reference from there.
 * False reference to non-existent country:

"The territory that is now modern-day South Ossetia joined Russia in 1801, along with Georgia proper, and absorbed into the Russian Empire."


 * The wording is incorrect. In 1801 South Ossetia didn't exist. Take a look at this historical map by Russian Author that was published in 1902. The map depicts the political entities and situation at the beginning of 19th century, when Russsia began the conquest of Caucasus. The name "Ossetia" on the map applies to the area of modern day North Ossetia, while there is no "South Ossetia" mentioned. Instead the corresponding area is labeled as "Kartalinia" which translates to "Kartli".


 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Caucasus_War_(1809-1817)_by_Anosov.jpg


 * There are some verified facts added

Georgia considers South Ossetia to be occupied by the Russian army.
 * Georgia isn't the only country that has recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as territories occupied by the Russian army. Lithuania, US, EU, OSCE and NATO also consider them as occupied territories. Please read Russian-occupied territories for references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgagloev (talk • contribs)
 * Please do not edit post by other editors. Add your responses below theirs and use indentation for clarity. Please also sign your own posts with four tildes like this: ~
 * Regarding the second point, the original wording is correct: "The territory that is now modern-day South Ossetia..., along with Georgia proper" - it regards this territory as part of Georgia at the time. It is also more informative than the "which included areas populated by Ossetians" bit you replaced it with - it's clear the old sentence deals with this particular region, whereas the new one is not. --illythr (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The second point of previous editor was considered and taken into account. Now I have edited again to clear the subject. Hope the new wording is better understandable.

Georgian Kingdom Kartli-Kakheti, part of which was modern South Ossetia, was annexed by Russian Empire in 1801..


 * Zgagloev (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with stating that Georgia considers South Ossetia occupied by Russian Army, even if it's kind of obvious from the intro.
 * What I would suggest is that you make non-controvsersial changes to the article and raise more sensitive issues one by one at the talk to establish consensus and work out the wording. Alæxis¿question? 18:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have considered the previous editor's explanation about Boris Yeltsin and I agree with you the article suggested that Yeltsin recognised the fact of abolition of South Ossetian AO, not supported it. However the article doesn't say that Yeltsin supported the elevation of the status of AO to republic or the right to secede from Georgia. Instead the article said he proposed Ossetians to find common language with Georgia. It is also noteworthy that it was Yeltsin who recognised Georgia with its current borders in 1992 after the fall of Soviet Union. I think that the topic is closed and we now agree that the note about Boris Yeltsin because we don't have exact sources about his stance, shouldn't be added to the article anymore.


 * I removed the number of Ossetian refugees (100'000) because I thought it was blown-up number by Russian media. However after previous editor's note I checked the source and Human Rights Watch doesn't tend to be biased source. If you'd like to know why I think some numbers may be blown-up, you can see the example here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgagloev (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why we try to use neutral sources like HRW wherever possible. Alæxis¿question? 20:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism / CENSORSHIP by Chipmunkdavis?
There are several issues with series of recent edits made by Chipmunkdavis. See comparison


 * First, you are trying to remove some facts and to influence the readers that Georgia out of nowhere attacked South Ossetia, thus giving WP:Undue weight to South Ossetian side of story. In fact If you check the report made by an independent international fact-finding mission, you will find that Georgian attack was response to Ossetian attacks. The quote from the report


 * I have shortened the subsection about 2008 war as much possible as I could. Please don't try to jeopardize my edits again.


 * You are also trying to cover up the fact that by Six-point peace plan Russia was obliged to withdraw from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I have added new sources to verify this. Check the source.


 * I checked BBC article. Nowhere it says that there were 24,000 Ossetians displaced, so this claim needs verification. As for 15,000 displaced Georgians, I will give you the quote from BBC article "But 30,000 of the 138,000 ethnic Georgians who were displaced from South Ossetia are still homeless." I couldn't find 15,000 number that you are trying to promote. So I inserted citation tag to request the source for verification of the number for Ossetian victims. The second link you have inserted is dead and there is no way to verify it.


 * Unexplained removal of the whole subsection "Ethnic cleansing of Georgians". It contained very well sourced information. It's part of history. Removing this subsection from the article equals to removing subsection abut Holocaust from article about Nazi Germany.


 * Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia. As for citation marks, it isn't needed, because it's self-evident that the law says so.

It's evident you are trying to picture that Ossetians were the sole victims of war. That can either be classified as WP:Undue weight or much worse: CENSORING. --Zgagloev (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, these were not a part of a series of edits by me, but a reversion of a much larger sum. As for the above, Russia was not obliged to pull out of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The quote you provide is from a source discussing Russian forces in Gori, not South Ossetia. See this letter from Sarkozy, explaining Point 5, "Russian military forces should withdraw to positions prior to the outbreak of hostilities", "More precisely, these “measures” may only be implemented inside a zone of a depth of a few kilometers from the administrative limit between South Ossetia and the rest of Georgia...These “additional security measures” will take the form of patrols undertaken solely by Russian peacekeeping forces at a level authorized by existing agreements". As for the citation marks, yes they are needed, as they show that this is what the law says, not what we are saying. If you find the use of quotation marks unreasonable, then perhaps you could find another way to make it clear this is the wording of the law that would suit you? CMD (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You still failed to notice the source. The title clearly reads as Sarkozy warns Russia: withdraw from South Ossetia or face the consequences. Gori is also mentioned, but the article says that withdrawal from Gori was in process. Nobody can claim that The Guardian isn't a reliable source. Here is parts of the article


 * The source that you provided also mentions this. "Russian military forces should withdraw to positions prior to the outbreak of hostilities". The start of war is dated by 7 August, while Russian military troops entered South Ossetia on 8 August. Logically, you should have concluded that Russian military was obliged to leave South Ossetia.


 * You are trying to justify Russian presence in south Ossetia providing this citation. "More precisely, these “measures” may only be implemented inside a zone of a depth of a few kilometers from the administrative limit between South Ossetia and the rest of Georgia...These “additional security measures” will take the form of patrols undertaken solely by Russian peacekeeping forces at a level authorized by existing agreements". However this was proposal. No international measures was ever taken and Russia was called upon to withdraw from South Ossetia numerous times.
 * Russian peacekeepers were not allowed to stay in South Ossetia after the agreement was signed because their mandate was canceled. However, The source you provided clearly also mentions that Russian military troops were obliged to withdraw. Notice "other Russian forces".


 * I have provided another source.


 * "Though it was widely claimed by Georgian authorities that the war was started by Russians..." This part isn't needed because prior to this, article already mentions this claim here: "Georgia's claim that it responded to a large-scale Russian invasion has received little support from Georgia's allies, the US and NATO.". If we leave this wording here, the readers may assume that Independent fact-finding mission's report was a direct response to Georgian claims, which in fact isn't.


 * Please do not try to delete any more of key information about the war that I have added. Wikipedia's goal is that anybody can add new information from verifiable sources to existing articles, not to delete anything they don't like. Wikipedia is not CENSORED.


 * As for citation marks for "military occupation", most major powers, that include English-speaking countries and where significant part of English Wikipedia readers are from, also call Russian military presence in South Ossetia as occupation. Would be it agreeable with you if I edited article about Israeli-occupied territories and wrote "occupation" everywhere instead of occupation? --Zgagloev (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to that guardian newspaper article, I provided an actual statement from Sarkozy. I have more trust in the latter. As for the pre-war positions, Russian military forces were present in South Ossetia beforehand, under the peacekeeping agreement. Now that UK parliament source on the other hand, that's quite useful, as it's at least a few months after the war rather than when Russia was still moving forces through Gori. Russian troops actually remained in Georgia proper till at least 2010, as far as I'm aware, I'll try and find that. I wouldn't want to link it to the treaty without a source though.
 * The whole independent fact-finding mission is a summary of information above, the point of which is to show the summary. It deals with claims from both sides.
 * If those discussions on the Israeli-occupied territories are referencing specific laws, then yes, they should be quoted if using terms from those laws.
 * You are wrong about wikipedia's goal. Just because information is verifiable doesn't mean it gets included. CMD (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your last edit is better than your previous ones, but it still lacks some key information.
 * The notice about Nicolas Sarkozy is too important to be omitted. I have added the clarification that statement comes from The Guardian. "However, according to The Guardian, French president Nicolas Sarkozy called upon Russia to pull out its military from South Ossetia too under a ceasefire deal." I hope you won't object to such wording anymore. I agree that personal statement is more important than newspaper announcement, but I want to emphasize that newspaper statement was made after several days after the personal statement, so it suggests that some developments had occurred between the statement and news announcement which may had influenced Sarkozy to make such announcement regarding Russia.
 * I split the paragraph about the aftermath of war into two. The first new grouping talks about Russian withdrawal, the second one about war crimes and human casualties. This will help with readability. Is this agreeable with you?
 * Independent fact finding-mission also talked about Ossetian and Russian fault in the war. This is key information and should be included also. Some key specific details should be included about Ossetian and Russian fault. "However, the report also noted that all parties played a role in the buildup of tensions in the months prior" is too generic. Why did Georgia attack South Ossetia? This is important to be included too. Did Georgia attack Russia? When did Russia attack Georgia and actively engaged in fighting? The report also mentions this and should be included. This also should be included. If these details aren't included, that would suggest that Wikipedia is biased and supports Russian side in the conflict, solely blaming Georgia for the conflict.
 * I propose to include the following information from the report. Why did Russia attack Georgia? Did have Russia right to intervene? The main reason Russia intervened was that it needed to defend own citizens in South Ossetia. The mission had a statement regarding this this was not a valid reason. --Zgagloev (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sarkozy's opinion is not key information, especially not when passed via the guardian without an exclusive interview or anything like that. This is a summary page, and shouldn't go into that much detail. The 2008 section takes up almost 1/3 of current history, which is WP:Recentism and very out of proportion. The "all parties played a role" statement was generic because the alternative is digging more and more into the details even more than is done already. The entire section of the report dealing with the use of force are just a long series of "no justification", and I suppose we can add something short like "no parties use of force remained within justified boundaries", but it'd be a lot to go through each party. This includes the why Georgia, as the report gives three claimed reasons, 1) protecting civilians, 2) neutralising attacks, and 3) halting Russian movement into South Ossetia. Noting it was to stop attacks would be in sufficient, especially in light of the fact that Georgia had called a unilateral ceasefire shortly beforehand. Again it'd be a lot. Frankly, I think we should remove the bit about Erosi Kitsmarishvili as well. CMD (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone with "disproportionate and unjustified", instead of the justified boundaries idea. CMD (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I second your motion to remove the bit about Erosi Kitsmarishvili, because it is not the key information of 2008 war. It would also be very selective, because then all other statements by other politicians should be included as well. --Zgagloev (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are other sources that claim that Russian military had to withdraw from South Ossetia. Here is the list.
 * There is similar report to support the article by The Guardian, though it does not specifically mention South Ossetia.
 * Here is a news article by Spiegel. The title is "Sarkozy Closes in on a Deal: Russia Agrees to Withdraw from South Ossetia".
 * Another published study by UK parliament also mentions that Russian withdrawal was not satisfactory.


 * Another article about the position taken by Sarkozy regarding Russian presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia from 2011. Here's the actual excerpt from the article. "He said Russia had flouted the truce he brokered to end its five-day war with Georgia by building up forces in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia instead of withdrawing to pre-conflict positions."
 * Here is the saying by U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker.


 * I couldn't find any source that approved the presence of Russian military in South Ossetia after the war ended. Though several sources mentioned that legal loophole in six-point peace plan allowed Russian military to remain in South Ossetia. but they didn't approve of that. That suggests it's only approved by Russian side. --Zgagloev (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I also propose to add this bit about the report from Russia-Georgia war to summarize the key points of the report. In my opinion, it's also important information therefore shouldn't be omitted. The current article only mentions the part where Georgia's claim that the war was started by Russia, is answered. This proposed description of the report responds to Russian claims why they attacked Georgia and started invasion. Russians had two reasons: to protect their citizens and to respond to an aggression against their peacekeepers. If you agree, you can add it.
 * The mission claimed that Russian citizenship, conferred to the vast part of Ossetians may not be considered legally binding under international law and as a result, the interests of these people shouldn't have been used as a reason by Russia for starting military actions, in defense of Russian citizens living abroad. However, the report noted if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, then Russia had the right to defend its peacekeepers, using military means proportionate to the attack. The mission did not have facts to substantiate the claimed attack on the peacekeepers.
 * --Zgagloev (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Aside from the hyperbolic early news stories, the other sources do not suggest Russia had to withdraw from South Ossetia. Instead, they say Russia should return its military to the status quo ante bellum. It is this that Russia has not done, rather than a complete withdrawal. I'll add that in using the Sarkozy source you provided. I don't have a source on hand, but I believe Russia claims that it subsequently signed separate deals with Abkhazia/South Ossetia allowing it to station troops there. I don't think this reasoning is significant enough to include in the 2008 war section though.
 * We already say that the use of force for all parties was unjustified. Why is it important that we display specific arguments about why Russia thinks its force was justified? CMD (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the newest story. John Kerry again mentioned Russian troops. "And, he denounced Russia's continued military presence in the breakaway Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in violation of the cease-fire that ended the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict."
 * The bit about Eduard Kokoity is needed to explain why these people still remain displaced. South Ossetian authorities don't allow them to return. --Zgagloev (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That newest story doesn't affect the situation at all. We already know that Russia has more military in the territories than it did pre-war. The text says this. As for Kokoity, I'm not sure it's necessary to include, as we've already noted the villages were destroyed, but that current wording is concise. I'd prefer a secondary source which notes the systematic exclusion from return, rather than one statement. CMD (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813010358/http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN019224.pdf to http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN019224.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511110424/http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/geo/geo_geography.htm to http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/geo/geo_geography.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Confirmed as correct x 2. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

North Ossetia
Historical Ossetia in the North Caucasus did not have its own political entity before 1924, when the North Ossetian Autonomous Oblast was created.[36]

Do you think this is needed in this article? How is this relevant to this article? If it stays we should clarify that this is a position of Georgian historian. Alæxis¿question? 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamsakhurdia details
In November, 1990, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, "a fiery Georgian nationalist", according to Robert D. English, "rode to power on a wave of chauvinist passions" in Georgia.

Why was this removed without comments or discussion? This is relevant to the description of subsequent events. Alæxis¿question? 23:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional government
Since June 2004, serious tensions began to rise as the Georgian authorities strengthened their efforts to bring the region back under their rule, by establishing an alternative pro-Georgian government for South Ossetia in Tbilisi

Why was this removed, also without comments or discussion? That was quite an important initiative on part of Georgia and it was considered seriously at that time. Alæxis¿question? 23:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

2008 war section
I've reverted this section to the previous version as a lot of information was removed without justification: about the shelling of Tskhinvali by Georgian forces, about Russian peeacekeeper casualties, EU fact-finding mission. Let's discuss changes one by one here, clearly the article needs improvement. Alæxis¿question? 23:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article in its entirety is a violation of NPOV since it is written from the Russian and SO point of view. It must be completely rewritten. It is unimaginable that Wikipedia allows such articles to stay untouched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflegon (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120501075332/http://www.ceiig.ch:80/ to http://www.ceiig.ch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080820170805/http://www.crisisgroup.org:80/home/index.cfm?id=4887 to http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4887
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213142423/http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2009/CDL(2009)004-e.asp to http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2009/CDL(2009)004-e.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090806222452/http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=3128 to http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3128&l=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120506021701/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/ap/48687607.html to http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/ap/48687607.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC
Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia. CMD (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article1/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Maps in the History section - NPOV
There's a problem with the maps in the history section of the article. The latest addition is problematic at least for WP:OR reasons: the provided source only supports the claim that the term "South Ossetia" wasn't used before 1920 and does not support other claims in the caption. There's a bigger WP:NPOV problem with captions of his and one other map] in the article. The caption of the latter map reads: Fragment of the historical map by J. H. Colton. The map depicts Caucasus region in 1856. Modern South Ossetia is not labeled. Modern North Ossetia is labeled as "Ossia". This is of course true - South Ossetia is not labelled on this map, but to write this and then repeat that before 1920 this name wasn't used is like writing that the name "United States" wasn't used before the late 18th century in the article about the US. [[User:Alaexis|Alæxis¿question? 20:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC )
 * Alæxis not labeling particular map and nonexistence of geographical term at all, are two separate things.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  00:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the last map is more important because it shows artificial creation of South Ossetia on historical regions, showing their respective parts in different colors. (it shows creation, not just modern South Ossetia)-- g. balaxaZe   ★  00:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're writing about 'artificial' creation in 'historical' regions without a source, this is an example of WP:OR. Alæxis¿question? 05:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is also written that by the population of Georgia (not only ethnically Georgians) creation of the SO was artificial, and I agree with this. And yes, this part of Georgia is historical land of the country. This can be proved by many historical monuments of Georgian culture which you can find there, many medieval monuments and settlements. Also, many historical maps prove, that before Russian's policy, there was no single example of existence of another political entity on this part of Georgia.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  08:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Artificialness" is in the eye of the beholder - you say it's artificial and someone else might say it made total sense given the ethic composition of this land at the time of its creation. In these matters we should stick to what reputable sources say, otherwise this is WP:OR and non-neutral POV. For now I'm putting citation tags in the caption. Alæxis¿question? 09:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing about artificialness, I just told you that in the article we have sentence Since it was created after the Russian invasion of 1921, South Ossetia was regarded as artificial creation by Georgians during the Soviet era and that I am agree with them (but I didn't change anything due to this). Now about "historical lands" why do you need extra source when it is already clear. Sometimes we have facts which are clear even without written sources. As I told you before, on this part of Georgia in history you won't find any political creation (except Georgians). So historically (you can count centuries) these areas were always Georgian territories.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  17:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "historical lands", I don't think anyone has come up with a solid and broadly accepted definition of what it is (I myself can think of at least two). I saw words "X is a historical land of Y" much more frequently in propaganda than in academic writing, which is why I believe that we should not use such terms here. Finally, I don't think it adds anything new to the article, it's clear from the history section that modern SO was part of various Georgian entities before the incorporation into Russia. Alæxis¿question? 10:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your words are true in case of many countries but this world consists some very old nations and statehoods and one of them is Georgia. In case of Georgia "historical lands" mean its simpliest comprehension that this part of the country was under Georgian statehood since one of the first Georgian political entities (e.g. Iberia) and permanently populated by those people who formed modern Georgian nation (Kartlians). Georgians are autochthons of that area. It will be hard or even impossible to argue this. It is a fact and period.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  08:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, before you write false claim, first point your mouse to the line and you will see that using of term South Ossetia starts from 1922 with percentage of 0.0000000122%, in 1921 the same number is just 0 (zero, many zeros).-- g. balaxaZe   ★  00:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that the claim is false - my objection is that mentioning it multiple times and framing it the way it was framed amount to POV. Alæxis¿question? 05:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A google search result is not a source, it is OR, and image captions are just meant to reflect content in the article body - for these reasons I have reverted Giorgi Balakhadze's edit. This is not a comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claim made in this content, just that it is invalid content in its currently presented form. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * why do you think that it is not a source, since we always look to Google NGRAM when it is needed to determine how widely used a name is or not. Also this source proves the artilce's info that before 1922 (creation of SO) that term truly was not used and was made in 1922.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  11:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is so obviously not a source that I'm not going to take the time explaining why. What on earth would make you think a user generated url leading to an automated search result derived from a limited dataset could ever be suitable as a source? As part of a content discussion it might have a place, but not as an actual reference for article content. You need to find actual sources that say South Ossetia as a term has no history back further than 1922. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I think your removal of the "Palm Sunday procession in Tskhinvali, April 2009" photo was wrong - there is related content in the article, the mention that Christianity is the majority religion. So the image illustrates that content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Palm Sunday procession
How is that image not related to the demographics section? It shows the (most) important event of the dominant religion in the region? What do you suggest to replace it with? Alæxis¿question? 02:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://archive.mid.ru/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heritage.org/research/russiaandeurasia/wm2031.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79681/section/15
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902001442/http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/1543_type82912_205752.shtml to http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/1543_type82912_205752.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/08/31/afx5374521.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/13/sossetia.independence.ap/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://portal.coe.ge/enews/EEVlEuyFElfTRjjwgP.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Update from June 2017
We read:

Eduard Kokoity, the then president of South Ossetia, later stated that South Ossetia would not forgo its independence by joining Russia: "We are not going to say no to our independence, which has been achieved at the expense of many lives; South Ossetia has no plans to join Russia." Civil Georgia has said that this statement contradicts previous ones made by Kokoity earlier that day, when he indicated that South Ossetia would join North Ossetia in the Russian Federation.

Shouldn't this article be updated? MaynardClark (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.mid.ru//bdomp/ns-reuro.nsf/348bd0da1d5a7185432569e700419c7a/be2d70933881fb75c32579270040e8a1%21OpenDocument
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iasps.org/eng_editor/socor_show.php?lang=&main=&type=6&article_id=356
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af25400a-739d-11dd-8a66-0000779fd18c%2Cdwp_uuid%3Df2b40164-cfea-11dc-9309-0000779fd2ac.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140624083638/http://www.smr.gov.ge/docs/doc216.pdf to http://www.smr.gov.ge/docs/doc216.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2009/CDL%282009%29004-e.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Date of indepedence
Did South Ossetia declare independence on November 28, 1991, as the main Wikipedia article on the country claims, or on September 20, 1990, as is frequently cited in scholarly articles and in this Wikipedia article Georgian-Ossetian_conflict? It is also worth noting that September 20 appears to be the day chosen by the South Ossetian state as its independence day.
 * It was formed as South Ossetian Democratic Soviet Republic (which was meant to be a part of USSR) on 20 September, 1990. And later it declared full independence at 21 December, 1991, as USSR ceased to be. This dates are noted in the source article of this page (which is this), so I don't understand where they got this November 28 date from. So I fixed the dates in this article. Sawbaræg (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Name of the state of South Ossetia
People insisting through repeated reverts that the article should give "Tskhinvali region" as an alternate name for the state of South Ossetia should note that this article is about the STATE of South Ossetia but the name "Tskhinvali region" is an unofficial name by Georgian authorities who specifically deny that the state of South Ossetia exists. It is then not logical to claim that "Tskhinvali region" is an alternate name for the state of South Ossetia. Using "Tskhinvali region" as a name for the STATE of South Ossetia implicitly claims that Georgia has recognised South Ossetia as a state under different name which it has not.

If the Georgian state recognises that the state of South Ossetia exists, as a part of Georgia or not, and makes a law that its name is "Tskhinvali region", then the name can appear next to South Ossetia, but no such recognition exists and no such law either. "Tskhinvali region" is a purely unofficial placeholder and not based on any law.

The article covers the meaning and usage of the name "Tskhinvali region" and other name used by the Georgian authorities, as defined on their government www site. Drieakko (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw your edits and I disagree with you Tskhinvali Region is quite formal name of the occupied area and it is used formally not only in Georgia but in UN as well. Please change your edits in accordance to this.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  11:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a reference that verifies "Tskhinvali region" is an official, alternate name for the state of South Ossetia. But as of now, anywhere that I see "Tskhinvali region" used, it is used by those that deny the existence of the state of South Ossetia or by those who want to take a neutral stand regarding the existence of the state of South Ossetia. Thus it hardly can be said to be an alternate name for the state of South Ossetia as it contains the idea that the state does not exist.Drieakko (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article is about partially recognized state of South Ossetia, while the Tskhinvali region is a non-neutral term which applies to Occupied territories of Georgia and, in my opinion, shouldn't be presented in this article. Sawbaræg (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Historical maps of the article
There is one logical question about historical maps. What is their purpose here? I am guessing what editors wanted when they added them. Recent edits show that there is some kind of competition, some editors add maps when all Kartli is united and some show when Georgia was disintegrated and many of its parts were under other entities influence. This can be non-stop flow of different historical maps, the main idea and fact is that South Ossetia was created in 1922 and that is all. If we will let to continue these map battles nothing will change. One can always add a map of Kingdom of Iberia when there was no single Ossetian entity even in the whole Caucasus.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

stop accusing other editors of vandalism in your edit summaries and discuss rationale for your cluttering of the article with user-made historical maps. Consider this your last warning.--KoberTalk 15:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the maps are useful in showing the changes in this region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundo Vargas (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a historical atlas and there is no need to add dozens of maps to illustrate the ever-changing borders in the Caucasus. You can chose a couple of those that best fits the context, but most of these maps are redundant and should go.--KoberTalk 15:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 5 Maps (Not dozens!) The maps show the changes in the Caucasus during the Middle Ages.

The maps show Crucial changes : 1) Khazars 2) Birth of Alania (Free State) 3) Maximum splendor of Alania 4) Kipchaks and fall of Alania 5) Maximum splendor of Georgia Edmundo Vargas


 * All these "splendor"-showing maps belong to a historical atlas, not to this article. Deal with it! --KoberTalk 16:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This article talks about the history of a region / country. In any article that talks about the history there are maps. Edmundo Vargas
 * Yes, but not myriads of them. --KoberTalk 17:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the main article about SO and I don't think we need so many medieval maps of Alania that was after all located mostly on the northern side of the Caucasus range. There are other articles which could use these maps, like History of South Ossetia, Alania etc Alæxis¿question? 20:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have seen any other Wikipedia article with this many maps - including the two in the infobox, there are currently 16 of them! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to address a question to, why was my map removed from the article page? It is important to represent it in the article, because, as it is said, «Ossetians claim to have been residing in the area since ancient times and that present-day South Ossetia is their historical homeland» and this map is urgent to show how Ossetians do it, as they claim Dvals to be a branch of Ossetian people called Туалтæ. And this version is backed by Vakhushti Bagrationi's claims that Dvals were assimilated into Ossetians and now speak Ossetian language. Also it is important, because it was made by B.A.Kaloev, who was a Doctor of Historical Sciences and therefore can be noted as a reliable source. Sawbaræg (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There are many "doctors of historical sciences" in the area, many "-oevs" and "-shvilis" who would challenge the particular historiographic point of view, many modern maps representing or misrepresenting the region's ethnic makeup, and many conflicting claims around. We cannot include all of them in the article. This is the article about a disputed political entity, not Ossetian irredentism in general. So, "your map" is clearly redundant.--KoberTalk 06:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Migrations map
, could you add the source to the map you've inserted? I understand it's from one B. A. Kaloyev's book, could you add a full reference? Alaexis¿question? 14:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I added a reference with the exact page in the article. Sawbaræg (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

About POV pushing and political prejudices
Dear, right now this article is an actual POV which only represents Georgian point of view on that subject. According to Wikipedia rules any articles about some controversial topics should represent all points of views on that subject to make it neutral and explain the particular reason of conflict between the researchers. This is why I'm trying to add the map which shows the settlement of Ossetians in South Caucasus, which is taken from scientific book. As you didn't explain why you see this edits as controversial, even though they have a reference on actual scientific book, and noting your previous words in this discussion (exactly: "the main idea and fact is that South Ossetia was created in 1922 and that is all") I should assume that you have some political prejudices and they are the reason of your desctructive actions. So now I want you to either explain why this book isn't reliable source and why this map shouldn't have it's place in this article or stop vandalizing my edits, otherwise I will have to request some arbitrary decisions on that topic. Same goes for, since you words (Exactly: "We cannot include all of them in the article") clearly go against the rules of Wikipedia. Regards, Sawbaræg (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128064202/http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/breve_contenu.php?id=279 to http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/breve_contenu.php?id=279
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402232546/http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/reuters/russian-treaty-with-rebel-georgian-region-alarms-west/41332340 to http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/reuters/russian-treaty-with-rebel-georgian-region-alarms-west/41332340

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.president.gov.ge/en/PressOffice/News/SpeechesAndStatements?p=2777&i=31
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105192500/http://southosetia.euro.ru/en_about.html to http://southosetia.euro.ru/en_about.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722072818/http://www.commersant.com/p863466/r_538/foreign_relations/ to http://www.commersant.com/p863466/r_538/foreign_relations/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140621061138/http://www.scribd.com/doc/24546385/%D0%9E%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%A2%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%98%D0%99-%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%9F%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%A1 to https://www.scribd.com/doc/24546385/%D0%9E%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%A2%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%98%D0%99-%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%9F%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%A1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Name Change
This page needs to change the name to South Ossetia-Alania. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the old name is still much more popular and so should remain the article title. Alaexis¿question? 20:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Moreover, both old and new names are official. See this source, which states that names Republic of South Ossetia and State of Alania "shall be equal". Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Old citation needed tags
Should that Roki tunnel one at the end that says that South Ossetia gets a third of it's income from the Roki tunnel also come off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocopocopocopoco (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * National Anthem of South Ossetia - Республикæ Хуссар Ирыстоны Паддзахадон Гимн.ogg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gubernias del Caucaso.png

Protect This
Why is this not protected? 78.71.227.34 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Protection policy for a bit more information about which pages get protected and why. CMD (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Map of bases
, Per WP:OTHERCONTENT the existence of other unsourced content is not a good argument for restoring unsourced information. If you see something that has no source please tag it with tag and remove it if no sources are found. Note that I'm sure there are Russian bases in SO and my problem with this map is the lack of sources. Alaexis¿question? 11:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That page you send me to says other content can't be used "solely" as reason for some action but can be weighed as part of argument. your argument was that map was not sourced, but you left other maps that don't bother you intact, and that is problematic to me because it holds different contributors/contributions to different standards based on what I think are varied preferences. I don't care for or against this map, but worried about how content is selected for removal--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I re-added the map with a source. There is much more information in the source than simply military infrastructure. --  Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  19:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the source. It appears that it's a personal site of Jelger Groeneveld (there is no About section and his name appears at the bottom). Per WP:RSSELF "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I googled his name and found his articles for Georgian sites such as civil.ge and gip.ge. According to the latter, he's a "Board member International Security & Defense division, D66 liberal democratic party." I wouldn't say that this makes him "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" which makes using his site problematic.
 * There are plenty of reliable sources discussing this, for example Helena Rytövuori-Apunen writes about Russian bases in SO and Abkhazia in Power and Conflict in Russia’s Borderlands: The Post-Soviet Geopolitics of Dispute Resolution, pp 59-60. This a well-researched topic and there is no need to use questionable sources. The article 4th Guards Military Base contains some information as well. Alaexis¿question? 20:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (I've placed the map in question above.) I reverted the map with source, as the source cited seemed to have everything but military infrastructure. I found military infrastructure on a different page on that site, here, but it also doesn't align with the map in question. It notes two main military bases, the 4th military base mentioned by Alaexis, as well as one in Java/Dzau. On the map, it has in addition the "Avnevni military camp", and two "shooting range"s, one in Bazuani and one in Dzartsemi, but the text doesn't explain what these are and whether they count as bases. Also on the map is the "Nogkau military infrastructure", which is labelled a military base in one of the images. There are also a "Kvaisi military compound" mentioned in an image, but it apparently was not important enough to go on the map, and/or was considered by the author as part of the border guard station. The Georgian Foundation For Strategic and International Studies classifies the Tskhinvali and the Java bases as a single 4th miltary base (similar to how the Wikipedia article on the base currently does). It seems highly unlikely Russia has set up 24 military bases in South Ossetia. CMD (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can call it "border guard station" or "green men with flowers" but on the ground these are military bases, walled and controlled by military personnel, and most of them are not only 1 building but complex of buildings and barracks. "the source cited seemed to have everything but military infrastructure" is a false claim. I am not counting labels for Russian military infrastructure but real bases on the ground, so Java Base and Tskhinvali Base are two military bases - not one, the first is in Tskhinvali and the second few km away in Java.--  Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  08:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There website you cite, for which I specifically provided the more relevant page above, does not support your claim that border guard stations are military bases. I have further not seen any source describe border guard stations, or green men with flowers, as military bases. If you have such sources, they would be useful, as the map should be based on what reliable sources say. CMD (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, since there is such return, I will rework the map, no problem. I won't mind extra-work, just not to let to hide from the reader how big is Russian Military presence there. I think the term "Russian Military Facilities" for general name is acceptable and this will include everything i.e. FSB Bases, 4th Military Base, Depots, Ranges. -- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  09:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This map really doesn't tell the reader much about the size of the Russian military presence, so if that's the aim it's not going to work. In terms of numbers, that's best conveyed through text or a list as the GFSIS does. In terms of spread, it's more reasonable to assume the Russian military operates throughout most of South Ossetia rather than in siloed bases. On the specific map, any map treating border posts and full on military bases as the same thing is not going to be much use to anyone. It would still be useful to get more sources on the matter. I note this sputnik article from 2015 says the size of the military presence is around 4,000 people, which is around 1000 less than the occupied website but a similar ballpark (probably similarly reliable though). It notes Dzartsemi as significant alongside the Tskhinvali and Java sites, and one airbase. CMD (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am pretty amazed that with such expert levels here, leading EUMM and Amnesty report sources (f.e. "Georgia: Behind barbed wire: Human rights toll of “borderization” in Georgia") haven't been found to corroborate and cross-verify the number of compounds (the politically correct word here) represented in sites or self made maps. It is obvious public military sources cannot be found on the matter, apart from a few press photos of the 4th military base, and training grounds. No need to point that out. Any site mentioned in the discussion has corroborated, sourced and referenced data to draw a very reliable picture, that each and everyone can independently verify - the core of wiki. The fact that that is a discussion says more about the motives than the actual content, regardless the strict interpretation of sourced material and whether that could qualify for wiki standards. That being said, some justified points have been made along the way. Java and Tskhinvali compounds indeed belong to the same 4th Military Base, just two different locations, but organization wise they are one and the same "base" (with 2 sites so you will), which validates 2 icons on a map due to the size of both sites - irregardless of the exact choice of words for the accompanying legend. As for the so called border guard stations, the mentioned Amnesty report calls them "militarized border guard bases" - quite a hybrid! Anyone with a proper level of expertise knows what they are, but as the discussion proves, it is hard to find the proper references for that, which is quite obvious due to the natur of what these structures are. So there. I leave it in the middle what the conclusion here should be. I can see others have more expertise. tagging contributors  for attention. Mail me if you want to know more. --Labrang (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you personally affiliated with the site https://occupied.eastwatch.eu/? Alaexis¿question? 06:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think that https://occupied.eastwatch.eu/ is not a reliable source. If you think otherwise and plan to use it, let's raise it at WP:RSN. Alaexis¿question? 11:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've noticed your last edits & comment on Russo-Georgian War (diff). Again, I will underline that these maps have quite enough reliable sources and they are not "poorly sourced" . Also, even in that article (like in many other places in wiki) there are much worse sourced maps (e.g. File:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg) that remain untouched. So, if it is not ulterior-motive or bias please let's be constructive. I agree to update the maps to better represent source data and fix terminology, but there is nothing more to carp.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  23:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As you can see I'm replacing them with other images related to the presence of Russian forces in Abkhazia so I'm not trying to hide it. The only source that has been provided for the map contents is the https://occupied.eastwatch.eu/ site which is not a reliable source (we can raise it at WP:RS if you want). I have no problem with a map as long as it's built using reliable sources and there is no OR. Alaexis¿question? 05:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most maps used on wiki, are only sourced with own work and that's it. And there are no questions. So, my maps with the source "occupied.eastwatch.eu" are acceptable, bearing in mind that the website provides sourced info, not just owner's imagination. Also, since this is a very specific topic you can't find many sources directly providing coordinates for Russian Bases in Georgia but there are many many news agencies that report these bases in respective settlements and I think it is nonsense to provide separate source for each base. OpenStreetMap, Satellite Images, occupied.eastwatch.eu, News all prove existence of all these bases.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  07:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Other maps are irrelevant. If you think that something is not accurate you can suggest removing or changing it. I don't agree that it's an obscure topic, I've already provided examples of scholarly sources dealing with it. OpenStreetMap, being a collaborative project like Wikipedia, is certainly not a reliable source (WP:UGC). occupied.eastwatch.eu is a self-published sources whose author is not "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" so it's also not reliable per WP:RSSELF. Alaexis¿question? 08:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How about News Agencies reports? Satellite Images? Photos? They have their power right? (In combination all of these have power). But, instead being truly neutral and accepting the facts (Russian Bases in Georgia) that exist like so for years, you do your best to undermine my works isn't it? I am sure, you won't agree with me until I go to Abkhazia or Tskhinvali, meet Russian Occupational Forces, their Generals and publish their live interview pointing to all these bases and accepting their existence.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  09:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "If you think that something is not accurate you can suggest removing or changing it." - if one agrees to you, half of all Wiki maps and data are not accurate and deserve removal. But they don't.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  09:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For example in Abkhazia article, this "Embassy photo" File:Embassy of Russia in Sukhumi.jpg - "poorly sourced" (I just see some flickr user calling it embassy). This "abkhazians photo" File:Apsua Holding Apsny Flag.jpg - "poorly sourced" (user Apsuwara calls them abkhazians, I don't agree, they can be Russians in Voronezh), this "border photo" File:Российско-абхазская граница.jpg - "poorly sourced" (user DILIN calls it border on psou, but I think it can be a movie decoration), this "agepsta photo" File:Agepsta.jpg - "poorly sourced" (user Sergei Kazantsev calls it Agepsta, but it can be Dombay-Ulgen or maybe K2?)-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  10:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * was right, you left other maps that don't bother you intact, and that is problematic... it holds different contributors/contributions to different standards based on... varied preferences.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  10:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely notice double standard here, holding different content to different standards, in particular anything that is not favorable to Kremlin line of thinking. I already see this on a different page (Talk:Russo-Georgian War) where there is also effort to "clean up" things that Kremlin would not like, usually very particular things that did not bother anyone for years. Crusade against this one map seems to be a similar, that's my personal observation.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If you believe that it's not the Russian embassy or not Agepsta range you can do the same thing that I have done: tag them, give other editors a chance to verify sourcing and/or replace images and remove if nothing helps. Alaexis¿question? 13:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * this is not WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I just showed you that according to your "words" half of the wiki images and works do not fit. And just because one user thinks so, others will not remove half of wiki graphic sources. You are using this strictest approach only to justify removing the map.-- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  05:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of Wikipedia's images are actually fine. Even looking at your examples, sure, there source provided for commons:File:Embassy_of_Russia_in_Sukhumi.jpg is just a user claiming that this is the embassy, but in fact if you go the embassy's site you can easily see that it's indeed the old embassy building . On the other hand, in this case there is no reliable source for the presence of all these bases (other than the well attested ones in Java and Tskhinvali). Saying that there are other bad maps out there *is* the otherstuff argument. Alaexis¿question? 13:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes there is a reliable source (with tons of linked textual and graphic sources supporting it), just because it is against your agenda doesn't make it unreliable. As I said, I am updating the maps in accordance to 2021 data, and if you go to their locationsclearly soldats don't have website, you can easily see that they are indeed the Russian Military/FSB/GRU bases. I just argue in advance so that you get used to this fact. Btw, even looking at my examples, there was not only embassy example, so rest of them are "poorly sourced"? I can continue, this "Pitsunda photo" File:Pitsunda.JPG - "poorly sourced" (user Антон Буслов calls it Pitsunda but it can be Kobuleti or any other seaside place), this "view from pitsunda" File:Ridge view from pitsunda cape.jpg - "poorly sourced" (author Olga Kozina calls it 'view from pitsunda cape' but it can be any place in Canada or somewhere else.) -- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  15:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already explained that it's a self-published source and thus not a reliable one, but feel free to request feedback at WP:RS. Alaexis¿question? 18:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit mission on navbar of "country that claims sovereignty over breakaway territories"
Gamarjoba, I have no time actually to engage in any (edit) conflict whatsoever, but can't let this issue pass w/o at least addressing it, and would like to remind the WP:QUO (I am not obsessive about referring to codes of conduct, but might be helpful in this case). As can be seen in the edit history of the page, user Saturdayopen has repeatedly counter-reverted reverts on their edit, which edit has been objected by various others (3 times by now). Saturdayopen defends the edit by referring to this page saying "No other article in this [page] has the topic [navbar] of the country that claims sovereignty over it". As Giorgi Balakhadze rightfully points out, it was Saturdayopen self who has removed such navbars from other pages as well. Noteworthy, Saturdayopen engages in the same counter-reverting as here. See for example (2x counter-reverted). On the substance itself, the topic Navbar is, considering the overwhelming global recognition SO is an inseparable part of Georgia, relevant enough to include and relevant enough to maintain a WP:STATUSQUO on the basis of multiple objections against the edit. Best, --Labrang (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with --  Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ   ★  08:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The navbox in question (Template:Georgia (country) topics) does not currently belong on this page, as this page is not included in the navbox. Navigation templates should meet WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, and it doesn't seem any editors have thought this page worth including on the Georgia (country) topics template so far. If there is consensus here that the navbox helps navigation from this page, the page needs to be added to the template as well. (The same would apply to the other pages mentioned above, although I haven't checked the other templates in question.) CMD (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

mutiny of ossetian soldiers in ucraine war
The Foreign Policy reports, that there was a mass mutiny of 300 ossetian soldiers in ucraine and that Bibilow lost his reelection therefore. Restive Caucasus Sees Signs of Discontent with Putin’s War--5glogger (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Flag of South Ossetia
The chosen flag of the breakaway republic is shown alone. This is misleading as only certain countries recognise South Ossetia. As most nations recognise it as part of Georgia, there should be two and not one flags there, one that of the breakaway state and the other, that of Georgia with some explanation of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:64A5:EF00:C580:AF4D:288B:DF31 (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You kind of have a point, but you also kind of don't. The glaring issue that I see here is that Georgia doesn't actually recognise the existence of a "South Ossetia" region, let alone the sovereignty of the self-declared South Ossetian republic. This is distinct from Georgia's position on Abkhazia, wherein Georgia actually recognises the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia", which they consider to roughly correspond to the self-declared Abkhazian republic. So, when it comes to South Ossetia, there's really nothing on the Georgian side to directly compare to the existing self-declared state. Georgia formerly possessed a "South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast", but this political region was disintegrated in the 1990s by the Georgian government. In the present day, Georgia possesses the "Provisional Administration of South Ossetia", which is a temporary designation for the status of South Ossetia after it is returned to Georgian rule; after this point, Georgia will presumably disintegrate the territorial unit once more (unless otherwise indicated). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutral term to characterise the legal status
As an interesting discussion is going on Republic of Artsakh talk page about the sensitivity of the terms applied to political entities with limited recognition, wanted to check here:

1) is there a perceived difference between "self-proclaimed" and "breakaway" terms applicable to South Ossetia?

2) is there a prevailing opinion that "self-proclaimed" would be a neutral enough term to use for South Ossetia?

3) is there an appetite for an RfC to allow choosing a unified, more neutral terminology such as "partially recognised state" or a state with limited recognition"?

Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As I noted in the Abkhazia talk page, the terms "breakaway state" and "self-declared state" have clearly different meanings, even though they are often used interchangeably. Both of these two terms definitely apply to South Ossetia, although there is debate as to whether South Ossetia qualifies as a true state or rather as a quasi-state (i.e. something that is similar to a state but is not quite there yet). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * South Ossetia (orthographic projection with inset).png