Talk:Georgia-Russia relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. |
 |
Georgia-Russia relations is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the country of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Image
I fully agree that the problem of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is the biggest one in Rus-Geo relations. However the image is clearly pov (aside from other issues) and cannot be used as the only illustration. Alæxis¿question? 07:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Being the only illustration is not a big deal. You can add others whenever you want. If you consider the image to be a Georgian POV, try to find a Russian POV pic to balance it. I don't have any objection to it.--KoberTalk 07:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can't agree with you here. If you see an article with POV illustration you are not obliged to find another one that would present the opposite POV. Alæxis¿question? 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Update to Missile incident (experts opinion)
Got this link here: [1]. News released after experts have finished the study of material. Anyone who can read russian (or georgian) better could update the article. Suva 08:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] explanation
The paragraph in question has nothing to do with the section it was inserted to (post-independence relations). As this article is only about post-1992 relations I don't think it should be here at all. Alæxis¿question? 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Georgian Embassy rally.jpg
Image:Georgian Embassy rally.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Moscow rally 8.10.06.jpg
Image:Moscow rally 8.10.06.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Drone Affair
I read a Russian article about the MiG-29 video (couldn't find the same information in the English language). The Russian ministry of the interior says that the video is a bad fake, and here are their reasons:
- The UAV is equipped with a look-down camera, and can't see much higher than the horizon. Any pilot recognizes this, and if he didn't want to be videotaped, would not approach the UAV from below.
- In the video, the airplane launches the missile from the wing extremity. The MiG-29 design doesn't mount weapons on the end of the wing, only in the middle.
- The propellant in Russian short-range air-air missiles apparently doesn't produce a smoke trail, like it does in the video.
- The location in the video is hard to recognize. The Abkhazian coast has a wide sandy beach which isn't seen in the footage. Also, two roads are seen parallel to the water which are not present in real life.
(And the delay of the release of the video itself raises suspicion to its authenticity. It's like someone took the time to render it before releasing.)
Date: Apr. 29 2008
Commentary: I'm suspecting that distrust of Russia in the western world is obligatory. I've looked and couldn't find a single article in news.google.com or cnn.com discussing the video's veracity. But all the news on the subject are the same tone of supposed Russian aggression and involvement in internal affairs of Georgia. This kind of "silence" in the English-speaking news sources, and the readiness of people to believe a sloppy video, are troubling. I've given up on objectivity in the news (English or Russian), but I hope wikipedia would not go the same way. And I'm not trying to take sides -- I do feel for the Georgian situation (just like I feel for Serbia).
140.211.139.171 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pov in section "military buildup in abkhazia"
I believe that section is POV as it only shows the Georgian POV. The number of peacekeepers are being increased from 2k-3k, I hardly see this as a "military buildup". Russia says that this is in line with the agreements it signed with Georgia. Also, Russia claims that Georgia is increasing it's military along the border with Abkhazia. I will make these modifications and add references when I get a chance. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "military buildup" refers not only to Georgia's view of the increase of Russian "peacekeepers" number, but also Russia's blubber regarding a "Georgian-NATO invasion". And the section begins with Russia's accusations. You have a strange ability to see a "Georgian POV" in the texts actually tilted towards a Russian POV. --KoberTalk 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New article with info from relations page
I've created a new article for the recent tensions titled 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis. I included information from this page and added other information. Any improvements that can be made to the article would be welcome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poorly organised
In fairness, this article is a bit of a mess, no? A lot of the sections contain only links. It's got a major "TL;DR" factor too. It could do with some streamlining and better organising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.15.69 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
