Talk:Red Army invasion of Georgia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

Why was not the article titled with a much more neutral Soviet-Georgian War? Why is that so tempting to load the article titles with strong terms such as "invasion", "massacre", "murder or "martyrdom". If the term is proper and referenced, introduce it in the articles themselves but please do not POV titles. Could we move it? As the redir has no history, this can be done by user's agreement without any help of admin tools. --Irpen 00:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well. I did not mean to POV the title and I don't think that it really contradicts NPOV. The current title was chosen because most scholarly works and encyclopedias (including Britannica) use the word "invasion". The Soviet-Georgian war is used infrequently.--Kober 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

While I find the article a good work, I also must object to the title. I also think Soviet-Georgian War would be better; one has all the article to clearly show who started all this. After all, we don't have Persian invasions of Greece, but Greco-Persian Wars, and I could go on and on.--Aldux 17:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I do see a point, except that Greco-Persian Wars were a very long and complex series of conflicts of which the Persian invasion of Greece was a part of. On the other hand we have Islamic conquest of Persia, Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent or Umayyad conquest of Hispania etc. I think the current title is accurate.--Eupator 18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

When I raised this, it seemed to me such a no brainer that I was sure that no one could possibly object and we would resolve this without a formal WP:RM and Also, from what I know of past WP:RM's, the voting will by all likelyhood yield the non-POV X-Y War rather than the X invasion of Y. So, please consider whether your preference for the POV title is so strong as to force multiple editors to waste their time at the formal vote. --Irpen 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But you don't mind X conquest of Y?--Eupator 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Eupator is absolutely correct. Since the conflict is rather underreported on the net and Googling is not supposed to be very helpful here, I’m quoting some scholarly works using either "invasion" or "conquest". Note that I never considered naming the entry "conquest":

• "Early in 1921 the Soviet Army invaded Georgia, and a Soviet regime was installed in Tbilisi." Britannica

• "The Moscow government did not intend to respect Transcaucasian independence for long… From February to April 1921 the Red Army invaded and conquered Georgia." Britannica again

• The most comprehensive Western work on Georgia’s modern history, A Modern History of Georgia (1962, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson) by David Marshall Lang has the whole chapter titled “Red Army invasion of Georgia”, pp. 234-6.

• Again a chapter about The Invasion of Georgia in Kowalski, RI (1997), The Russian Revolution, p. 175. Routledge (UK), ISBN 0415124379

• ”…Lenin feared the outcome of the Soviet invasion of Georgia.” Debo, R. Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1918-1921, p. 363

• “The Soviet invasion of Georgia spurred the crisis with Turkey which Moscow had feared.” Ibid.

• “In February 1921… in spite of this, the invasion of Georgia went ahead.” Erickson, John (EDT). The Soviet High Command: A Military-Political History, 1918-1941, p. 124

• “The decision to invade [Georgia] was made secretly by Lenin, Stalin and Orjonikidze; at that time Trotsky was in the Ural area. On 21 February 1921 Trotsky requested an explanation for the invasion of Georgia” Brackman, Roman. The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life, p. 163

• ”In February 1921 the Red Army invaded Georgia in order to oust the Menshevik government there.” Pethybridge, RW (1990), One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forward: Soviet Society and Politics in the New Economic Policy, p. 254. Oxford University Press, ISBN 019821927X

• A Russian one: “К началу 1921 года в Азербайджане на штыках 11-й армии уже была установлена советская власть, что создавало выгодные условия для осуществления вторжения в Грузию. Дроговоз И. Г. Крепости на колесах: История бронепоездов.” — Мн.: Харвест, 2002. [1]

• Вторжение Красной армии в Грузию началось атакой бронеавтомобилей бронеотряда № 55 на пограничный шоссейный мост в ночь на 16 февраля 1921 года. Ibid

...and many more. --Kober 05:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If the users Irpen and Aldux object to the title "Red Army Invasion of Georgia" why don't they also object to the titles Invasion of Poland (1939), Invasion of Yugoslavia, Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Tatar invasions, Mongol invasions, Sichuan invasion, British invasions of the Río de la Plata, 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands, 2003 invasion of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006, Occupation of Baltic Republics and Attack on Pearl Harbor? However, I can't see any POV in this title because the description is correct. A ban on words like "invasion", "massacre", "occupation" or "attack" wouldn't make articles about history more neutral but less concise and less colourful. -- Irakli 19:30, 5 November 2006 (CET)

I agree with Eupator and Irakli, the title is very suitable for the topic as it is used throughout scholarly books and articles (Lang, Allen, US Congress Report of Soviet Invasion of Georgia, Suny, etc). It would be same to claim that the action taken by Germany against Poland was not an invasion and we should not call it Nazi invasion of Poland. Almost in every book which focuses on this topic, this term and title appears as correct description of actions taken by Soviet government during against independent Georgia and her democratically elected Government. Let’s avoid politics here Irpen and concentrate on Encyclopaedia style. Not more to say, this article is great with very helpful references and sources. Amazing work indeed, cheers to Kober! Regards Ldingley 17:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well-Referenced

I'd like to say that this was suprisingly well-referenced in comparison to other articles I've been reading recently. I am going through and tweaking grammar here and there - no offense intended to author/editors, but portions of the text scan as being written by someone whose primary language is one of the Slavonic languages. Some of the verb tense agreements are different between the two language groups; I will try to keep as true to meaning as I can, and welcome any corrections if I adjust tone too far in one direction or another. The Dark 19:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Ghirla, please stop adding some strange tags to the article. The Russian-Georgian war was a non-encyclopedic article and actually reflected Georgian POV. If you agree that ethnic conflicts in Georgia are Russia's proxy wars as stated in that article, you can restore it again. --Kober 15:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian Nationalist Pushing

Hi, it seems like to me that User:Ghirlandajo is trying to implement his POV agenda. I realize that the relationship between two Post-Soviet countries is getting tense ("War in the Caucasus? The dispute between Georgia and Russia has all the makings of a tragic conflict." Newsweek International (Oct 16, 2006)) and Russian users should try to maintain the neutrality. The events are well documented by the multiple sources. 192.240.93.66 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The link Russian-Georgian war come to the same article. I will remove it, because it is not necessary 192.240.93.66 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Russian-Georgian war redirects here beacuse its original version was unencyclopedic and not very neutral though many concerns mentioned in the article were valid. --Kober 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by unencyclopædic? Was User:Ghirlandajo the one who deleted it? I don't know about Wikipedia's encyclopædic codes, but both Rousseau and Diderot would have a heart attack if they saw some of the articles here:) 192.240.93.66 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was basically unsourced and dealt with many aspects of the current Russia-Georgia relations which cannot be discussed in the article titled as Russian-Georgian war. Although the article was strongly pro-Georgian, it was me who deleted that article. (I edit from Georgia, btw)--Kober 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sir, I hope everything is going well in Tbilisi. By the way, Jeff Kober is an American actor. Probably you don't know him, b/c he is pretty old now, but old-timers like me remember him well :)192.240.93.66 19:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I have never heard of that actor.:) Everything is going OK out here in Tbilisi except for sudden changes in weather.Do you have any particular interest in Georgia?--Kober 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is obvious: vandalism is committed by some users who still have strong Nationalist POV with the article which is completely neutral and has tons of reliable sources and references. This article matches all of those references which are of scholarly research and is available for citations. Please consult sources and references of the article, instead of damaging the valuable encyclopaedic data on Wikipedia. 192.240.93.66 Can you please register and join us here on Wikipedia? Thanks. Ldingley 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did I argue that the article is bad? Kober put a lot of quality work in it. I only spoke about the problem with the title. --Irpen 10:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo is writing on his user page: "I have never been abroad, therefore my opinions sometimes tend to be Russia-centric. Please don't take offense, I am just strong in my convictions." Excuse me Ghirlandajo but I take offense in your Russia-centric views. It is pure POV. -- Irakli D 10:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Irakli D, Please don't troll. --Irpen 10:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of argueing against me you better stick to the subject which is Russian nationalist pushing. That's why i was quoting from Ghirlandajo's user page. It shows that he is a pusher. -- Irakli D 07:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Red Army invasion of Georgia → Soviet-Georgian War — As clear from the comments by neutral parties above,the title is a piece of hopeless original research with POV connotations. The article should be moved to Soviet-Georgian War, per example of Soviet-Polish War (which is a featured article, by the way). Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support as nominator. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, there is no need for POV words in the title. --Irpen 09:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I have already explained my reasoning. Ghirla, you need to prove that the title is a "hopeless OR". I would also ask you to stop throwing groundless accusations around and be more respectful. Most scholarly works refer to the conflict as the Red Army invasion and I have listed them above. The Soviet-Georgian war is used only by ONE Russian source, http://www.hrono.ru. We have several articles titled "invasion" and I don't remember you, guys, questioning their neutrality. Please be careful about your own bias.--Kober 10:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please be careful in accusing others as well. Again, you confuse two things. Now, the fact that the Soviet army invaded Georgia in this conflict can be stated in the article's text and references are handy. Other articles titled such have their exceptional reasons. Invasion of PL title was argued because PL was invaded from two sides, so it could not be called under an "XY war" title. A totally different issue is whether the "R.A. invasion of G." is the most widely accepted name of this war by such a margin as to trump the normal rule of sticking to neutral terms in the article's titles. The authors here and there say that Soviet army invaded Georgia. This is true but so is true that, for instance, Nazi Germany invaded the USSR. Nevertheless, the article about that war is not called the "German invasion of Russia". Neither the Operation Barbarossa has a POV title. The normal title would in no way prevent you from using the I-word in the text. The reader will read the article, will see the facts, will notice that they are referenced and will be able to conclude who invaded whom from the info the in the article. No need to invasion the title. It is an unnecessary POV. --Irpen 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • We have French invasion of Russia (1812), not French-Russian war of 1812. --Kober 11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • First, the stable title was "Napoleon invasion..." and it was just moved yesterday[2]. Again, there is a complication there as Napoleon's Grand Army was multinational and this was not a French invasion. Insisting on the POV title really puts you in an unfavorable light as an editor. Nothing prevents you to express things in the article itself rather than load its titles. --Irpen 11:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm insisting on an accurate title not on a POV one. If I meant to load it with POV, I would have chosen Soviet occupation of Georgia as the 1921 events are generally known in Georgia.--Kober 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Whataever you say, the XY-war is the WP standard. It is broken either because of the event's complication or, in rare articles, because of POV-pushing or poor style. Too bad if this move vote fails because it will add to the poor style titles list an article about Georgia. This would be an embarassment to the Georgian editors, not to me. Anyway, you want invasions and massacres in titles? Welcome to the club. --Irpen 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
            • The "XY-war" is neither a "WP standard" nor is it "exceptional" to use the term "invasion". Actually, WP has the articles Invasion of Poland (1939), Invasion of Yugoslavia, Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Tatar invasions, Mongol invasions, Sichuan invasion, British invasions of the Río de la Plata, 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands, 2003 invasion of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006, Occupation of Baltic Republics and Attack on Pearl Harbor. In August users discussed to change the title of the article 2003 invasion of Iraq into Liberation of Iraq(Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Requested_move_4_August) but it was opposed by the majority because "Invasion is neutral". -- Irakli D 12:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A better title could be selected, but to call military occupation a war is not correct. Basically what happened was that Bolsheviks occupied Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia one by one without meeting any serious resistance, as the forces were not equal. But there was no actual war between RSFSR and Georgia, as well as the other two countries. All 3 Transcaucasian republics were occupied and incorporated in Soviet Union as Soviet Socialist Republics. So in my opinion the title should accurately reflect what happened at the time. Grandmaster 10:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to change a concise title into a title that has its origin in the soviet-stalinist vocabulary. Reminds me of George Orwell's Newspeak in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. -- Irakli D 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the first ever edit from this account. I would appreciate removal of trolling from this page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is obviously a blatant sock, I concur... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Since it is so obvious, I urge a checkuser on this issue. If we determine which user disrupted the poll by sockpuppetry, he should be permabanned from editing Wikipedia per current guidelines. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do not bite the newcomers. This user has been anonymously contributing for a while and he is an active user on German Wikipedia.--Kober 18:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think, I have written more articles about Georgia for Wikipedia than user:Grafikm_fr and user:Ghirlandajo have written together all their lives. Excuse me that I have done that in the German Wikipedia (de:Benutzer:Irakli). I hope this is not a bullying of German people by a kind of Russian-French axis. -- Irakli D 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The Polish-Russian war was quite distinct in its origins from the invasion of Georgia in that both Poland and Russia were expansionist at the time and (assuming I am understanding the political backdrop correctly) began a war over territory that both held claims on. The Georgian incident was not a war in the traditional sense of two belligerent nations fighting each other. The Dark 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my level of opposition after the Google-fu results that "Soviet Invasion of Georgia" is at least five times as common as "Soviet-Georgian War" (with the latter having zero non-Wikipedia English references). The Dark 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. This title is POV and OR. A move to a more neutral, and WP:NC compliant, title is necessary. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OR? Prove it. --Kober 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It gets about 20 hits on google [3] and the first 2 are from... WP!!! Any other questions? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • How many hits does the Soviet-Georgian War get? I have already said here that the conflict is underreported on the Internet. Scroll up and have a look at the list of references and citations. --Kober 18:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Soviet-Georgian War gets 4 hits [4]. The first 2 are WP, the third is on a Russian TV program, and the fourth is in Russian, which I don't read well enough to translate. The Dark 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, and one of them refers not to the Soviet-Georgian war, but to a war veteran from Soviet Georgia:).--Kober 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
            • S-G War is a descriptive title. In the absence of the prevailing terminology, the descriptive titles are the best solution because they are neutral and do not imply any POV. --Irpen 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Irpen, it's only you and your friends who say that "invasion" is not descriptive. You didn't read Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Requested_move_4_August. There you will find the statement "Invasion is neutral". -- Irakli D 10:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Please avoid grouping people and generalizing arbitrary. This reflects poorly on you and the position you are trying to argue. --Irpen 10:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Instead of argueing against me you better stick to the subject. The question is wether "invasion" is a neutral word or not. In Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Requested_move_4_August a majority said it's neutral. Why do we discuss questions over and over again that have already been decided on Wikipedia? -- Irakli D 07:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
• Strong Oppose As I have mentioned before this title is used in numerous scholarly works of well known Historians (Lang, Allen, Suny, etc). This article is under attack only because of some Russian users who have political reasons behind it. This is completely unacceptable for encyclopaedic studies. I already suggested to review the references and sources provided in the article to confirm the title which is used throughout historical documents and books which focus on Soviet invasion and aggression against Georgia in 1921. Nazi invasion of Poland has same parallels as Soviet invasion of Georgia. I want the users to know that this article is compromised due to latest Russian-Georgian conflict. If anybody here will allow this NPOV to be tampered, than we should rename Invasion of Poland (1939) into Liberation of Poland (1939). In terms of historical and academic terms this title is the only one which is widely used in many research materials and books (please see references). Ldingley 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Grandmaster.--Eupator 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - this was not a war. And, I believe, opinions here should be sought from not only active editors, but readers as well. Soneone who engages in random edits here is not therefore more credible opinionwise. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral but where's the POV? Both "Red Army" and "Georgia" are accepted translations of self-designations and neither side denies that the invasion occurred. —  AjaxSmack  03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Elk Salmon 16:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you be so kind as to explain your vote at least in a few words?--Kober 16:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grandmaster. -- Clevelander 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

References and Sources for Soviet Invasion of Georgia:

1. The Georgian Republic, by Roger Rosen, Jeffrey Jay Foxx, p. 18: "...Soviet invasion of Independent Georgia...."
2. Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, by Stephen F. Jones, p. 71: "..... After Soviet invasion of Georgia...."

1. A modern history of Georgia, Lang, David Marshall 3 Edition, p. 217 "Title:: Soviet invasion of Georgia and collapse of the Menshevik Government" —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

One and two is not a proof that this is good for a title. These are simply sentences that say that invasion took place. They can be used for references inside the article, they do not prove that the "RA I of GA" is the most widely accepted name of the event. There are two different things, to say that invasion took place and to say that the most common name of the event is the "RA invasion of GA". Example: Operation Barbarossa was an invasion. It can be called such inside the article but the most common name for the event is "Barbarossa", not the "Nazi invasion of the USSR" and the article is called as such. Another example, plenty of source, including the Ukrainian government sites, talk about Liberation of Kiev as well as of Ukraine from the Nazi occupation. Still, the articles are called Battle of Kiev and Battle of Dnieper. Within the text, the word Liberation can be used as such usage is sourced, but no one tried to push strong words in the titles.

Example 3 is meaningful, unlike the other two. So, you have 1 ref to support the title and not three.

Also note that many articles are called by decriptive titles, particularly, the articles about the rather obscure events where there is little literature and little refs to establish prevailing usage. This is one such article. Descriptive titles should be as neutral as possible. See, eg. Evacuation of East Prussia which is neither Liberation of EP nor Soviet plundering of EP or occupation (POV words).

Finally, the claim that SGW is the "Soviet terminology" is simply false. Soviets did not present this as any kind of war at all but rather as an expulsion of Mensheviks, that is an intra-party struggle and part of the Russian Civil War. --Irpen 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, more sources are listed at the top of the page. Some of them have entire chapters titled "Red Army/Soviet Invasion of Georgia". They state that the invasion did occur and you seem to agree with them. Then, why do you find the title POV?

Again, I have never suggested titles like Occupation or Conquest despite the fact that these terms are also used by scholars (e.g., Blank, Stephen. "The Soviet Conquest of Georgia." In Central Asian Survey, 33-46. 12. 1993.). "Invasion" is a neutral name and is even used for such a controversial topic as the 2003 invasion of Iraq.--Kober 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red Army invasion of Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091027084336/http://www.geocities.com/kartulisite/history/geohist.html to http://www.geocities.com/kartulisite/history/geohist.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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Army invasion of Georgia. 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/20120803102741/http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22536 to http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22536

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)