Talk:2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy

message: Yes, "those guys were Spies", but did Georgia have jurisdiction over them? -- Petri Krohn 08:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spies? 

message: I wanted to format the dates in the timeline in this article and I noted that when I wanted to edit the section there is a lot more in the textarea field than there is on the page. I don't know what's wrong with the formatting of the section that would make it that it doesn't show up in the article. I don't see any html comment tags or something like that. Maybe someone who knows more about it can have a look? Thanks. BigBen212 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something messed up in the timeline 

message: Im disputing this section because of its strong POV statements, un-reliable data, sources which are not neutral. I don’t speak Russian but I can tell that those numbers are not based on any official statistics or were conformed as such. Suggestion: let’s use neutral sources or others to back up those claims (preferably in English due to the fact that this is an English Wikipedia and most of us can not conform the sources), Most of the statements used numerous sources on this article. Avoid strong POV statements and implement NPOV policy fully. Until this, the tag will remain. Thanks for your contributions and understanding. Ldingley 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point, you don't speak Russian. If you did, you would read in the source that the numbers were presented by Mr. Mikhail Tyurkin, vice-president of the Federal Migration Service of Russia. These are the number the Service believes to be realistic, possessing more information than you and me. Further, per definition there can't be exact numbers on illegal immigrants as well as on the amount of money they transfer to their homeland. So you have to trust someone, who has the most to do with this issue. You don't want to recognize the statement of an official Russian government body, blaming it to be POV. But everyone visiting your wikipedia userpage also can blame you not to be politically neutral. So why should your opinion have a priority over the opinion of the Russian Federal Migration Service? I don't see any reason. Being liberal, I suggested you to find other (even less official sources) and place them besides existing sources. This would enable the reader to compare it and to decide himself, whom to trust. But you want to limit the information, making it compatible to your single opinion. So who is totalitarian? Voyevoda 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to your user page, I may presume that you have anti Polish agenda here as stated clearly. However, I don’t claim that you have POV although you should avoid any negative comments on any nationals. I don’t trust your numbers from that article because as i said before, they are not reliable, official and conformed by others. Please provide additional sources, which are neutral and not one sided. Russia is directly involved in this dispute and it’s definitely a one sided statements. I can ask Georgian users for additional info and im sure they will get different numbers which are recognized by their own institutions. But Wikipedia has NPOV policy, that’s why please insert the numbers from the sources which are recognizable fro many users who don’t speak Russian and can understand this numbers and statements. Also do not make any personal attacks and inappropriate comments. I’m not totalitarian and i don’t want people to read only my comments. That’s why the tag will remain until the group of people will decide on how we should carry on. Until this, that section is disputed. Thanks for your contributions and I appreciate your efforts. Regards. BTW I lived for a short time in Karlsruhe too :)Ldingley 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Background information" section disputed

message: I have a problem with the Background Information section of the article. For example the following line: "Unofficial estimations amount the annual monetary transfers to Georgia to a total of 2 billion dollars, exceeding the annual US help of 1.5 billion dollars." does not specify what "annual monetary transfers" are exactly. I'm assuming it's monetary remittance from Georgians living in Russia sent to relatives living in Georgia, but the sentance is not specific on that. One could assume, for example, that the  $2 bln ammount is total currency exchange or economic trade between the two countries.
Also the words "the annual US help" are ambiguous: what does "US help" mean exactly: help from US government, help from US humanitarian ogranizations, or is it, again, monetary remittance from Georgians living in the US sent to relatives living in Georgia?
Whoever (or someone else) who wrote that section please "unambiguate" the information.
Also, the last two "facts" ("18% of Georgian foreign trade is being handled with Russia making it the most important Georgian trade partner." and "The Georgian share of Russian foreign trade makes up 0.5%.") are written to give the impression of how important Russia is for Georgian economy, and how insignificant is Georgia for Russian economy. Obviously, Russia is much bigger coutry than Georgia in every aspect (area, population, etc.), so the numbers will look disproportional. Also, I"m not sure where the author got that 18% figure from, CIA Worldbook page on Georgia says following, making Russia third most important Georgian trade partner:
Exports - partners: US 16.1%, Turkey 15.5%, Russia 12.3%, Turkmenistan 11.3% (2005)
--Berkut 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with you. I've fixed one figure incorrectly estimating the number of Georgian citizens of Russia at 400,000 instead of 197,934 (2002 All-Russia census). The entire section is somewhat out of context here though the demographic data should obviously be somehow mentioned in the article. --Kober 05:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The elections have nothing to do with the recent crisis. Don't believe to everything what you are told by mass media tightly controlled by Mr. Putin's adminitration. I'd humbly suggest to read this --Kober 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "mass media tightly controlled by Mr. Putin's adminitration" who told me that you engage in removing all mention of these elections from Wikipedia. Such attitude is unacceptable. We should have a separate article on the subject, not suppress the data. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the article called Georgian local elections, 2006. Why do you think I'm trying trying to remove all mention of these elections from Wikipedia? --Kober 09:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background info section 

message: User:Berkut deleted the word "paraded" from the image caption with this comment:
:I object to using the word "padare": the word conjures up the image of public humiliation, anyone have a source that considers act(s) pictured as that?
The words "paraded" and "public humiliation" where used by BBC news. Here are some sources:
* Russia Imposes Sanctions on Georgia, audio stream of report by BBC reporter Matthew Collin at National Public Radio
* Russia spurns Georgia despite 'spies' release (The Australian): "...where they were paraded outside in handcuffs before the media. "
-- Petri Krohn 06:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parading of officers 

message: I don't think that characterization of the Moscow Helsinki Group as a "Russian human rights organization" is appropriate. For the last decade, Mrs. Alekseyeva's establishment has been better known as a mouthpiece of anti-Russian rhetoric. It derives its funding from the same sources as the Saakashvili administration does - from the bellicose Bush administration. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources for such bold claims? Ldingley 14:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also please avoid any political retheoric here and calling respected Human Rights Watch organization as anti-Russian just because their ideas do not match yours. Thanks Ldingley 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not respected within Russia, as best I know. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Girla, its respected for numerous reasons (in EU, N. America and rest of the world), one of which are their activities, history, reports, etc. Many things are not respected in Russia, human rights is one of them. Ldingley 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your revolting accusations are not relevant to the dispute. If you want to learn more about countries not repsecting human rights, I advise you to read Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, Extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow not relevant? is this photo which you posted relevant to the topic? I can post thousands of photos of butchered Chechen children (which were massacred by invading Russian troops) but it’s not going to help this case as your photo does not support your equally. Let’s be more productive and co-operative and stay on topic. Thanks. Ldingley 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ldingley, you seem to be unable of holding a civil discussion. Both Chechnya and alleged disrespect for human rights in Russia (and alleged respect for them in the U.S.) are off-topic. It was you who chose to open these cans of worms. Since my comments are not appreciated but removed by my opponents (repeatedly), I see no point in my presence on this page. Therefore I leave it to the mercy of three Georgian editors. Good luck. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which three Georgian editors? Im not Georgian and you know that very well. Also please avoid this kind of statements :"holding a civil discussion." Im ready for any dicussion which my Russian friends here (icluding you) so dont accuse me of being not civil. I also dont see a point of me being on this article too. Ldingley 16:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Ghirla, Chechnya is right next to Georgia and the USA is located on the other continent. Obviosuly, when we talk about Russia's treatment of Georigia, we compare it Chechnya, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and etc.  Sosomk 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dimts,  it does not matter if Chechnya has or has not been an independent country. The point is that human rights has been violated in Chechnya very strongly, and it’s not only the Moscow Helsinki group’s POV it’s what almost everybody outside the Russia thinks (This POV is based on very strong evidence by the way).Eizengrim 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights watchdog 

message: Ghirla, could please explain why an obscure Russian website is supposed to be more neutral than the CIS factbook? Additionally, Strana.ru is not verifiable for non-Russian speaking Wikipedians. --Kober 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some people think that CIA is directly responsible for this "espionage controversy". Espionage is their profession, after all. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ))LOL:)) Ok, guys we don't have American troops in Georgia and we don't plan to have them either. Russia is our powerful neighbor and we would like to cooperate in the process of moderation. Sosomk 15:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that some people think something is not a valid reason to discount the credibility of a particular source. --Kober 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we would like to have more balance POV, maybe we should use neither of those, since there is a growing histeria about the Westerrnization of Georgia. Strana.ru is not more accurate than CIA factbook, however, some might argue that CIA factbook is more acceptable for the English laguage encyclopedia. Well, we can use some type of British source to get more balanced POV. Sosomk 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Rephrasing: The fact that some people do not trust a source is not a valid reason to discount the credibility of the source. -- Petri Krohn 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, CIA Factbook is not a spying factbook. CIA stands for Central Intelligence Agency. Sosomk 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not use the official Georgian statistics? They say that trade with Russia makes about ~16% of the trade. (17.6% of its exports and 14% of its imports). mfa.gov.ge bogdan 16:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, we can do that, if we don't get attacked by some users blaming us for not being neurtal.Sosomk 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something very wrong with that document, or at least with the "exports" column. I'm counting 16 countries among "others" with export values between 38500 and 39000 thousand USD. That's way too many to be random. Also, the total is off. 16*38500 is 616000 but they say that the total for "other countries" is just 293000. --Itinerant1 17:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, many numbers in the "imports" column are in the magical 38500-39000 range too. --Itinerant1 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right, there's a mistake in that report. Probably, it should be xxx instead of 38,xxx. :-) bogdan 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or more likely, x-38,718.  bogdan 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strana.ru vs CIA factbook 

message: Do we really need that many? We don't have to reference every sentence. I'm going to remove some from the timeline since most of it is not controversial / disputable... Óðinn 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Where is the proof that it added to the espionage scandal. The situation was not even mentioned there. Publically, at least. The references that are used currently in no way assert any connection. Óðinn 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It more intensified Georgian-Russian dispute and separatist support by Moscow is number #1 issue for Georgia. According to your reasoning we should also remove Kodori crisis and the rest of Russian blockade of Georgia. As for references I can say the same of ones which were inserted by your countryman (including Russian news agencies and strange statistics). Ldingley 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia concerning the Sochi meetings. --Kober 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. And at which point do they link the two events? Kodori crisis is mentioned in the background, not the timeline; and the Russian blockade is a direct result of the dispute. Abkhazia and South Ossetia might be #1 problems for Georgia, but that doesn't imply its inclusion into the article that talks about a different issue entirely. It's not a #1 problem for Russia either Óðinn 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since there is still no rationale for including the passage, I'm removing it. If even the Georgian Foreign Affairs Ministry doesn't claim the connection between the two events, why should we? Óðinn 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The event took the place amid the current crisis, and everything related to the  conflict zones is directly relevant to any article about Georgia-Russia relations. Even Mr. Lavrov claimed that the espionage scandal was "provoked" by Georgia and its "patrons" in NATO to dicredit the Russian "peacekeeping" forces in the conflict zones and demand their withdrawal as a preliminary to military solution to the conflicts. --Kober 04:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putin's Sochi meeting 

message: I still have a general concern about the passage in the article quoting President Saakashvili as allegedly describing Russia as "a wild tribe of Huns." If this were true, certainly all news media would have caught that phrase. So far, the article cites only a Russian news website which can hardly be considered neutral. I failed to find any other source claiming the same. Hence the tag. --Kober 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your bias about what's neutral and what's not is irrelevant. As far as you're concerned, anything originating in Russia is not neutral. In fact, anything critical of Georgia is not neutral either, like the BHHRG. Óðinn 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that anything originating in Russia is not neutral and I used many Russian sources in the article. The British Helsinki Group's bias is well-known and is even discussed in the main BHHRG article. Btw, you have not yet addressed my concerns.--Kober 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you would only use the Russian sources that were critical of the Russian government. The rest are, of course, not neutral and - what's the expression you used - are full of Kremlin propaganda? Anyway why should anyone address your concerns? If you beleive that Saaksashvili's statements are blatantly not true, find a source to disprove it. I took time to refute your allegations. Without resorting to tagging, I might add... Óðinn 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There cannot be a source for what he did not say. What I’m asking you is to provide any other source supporting Regnum’s claims. --Kober 20:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was all over the news in Russia. I can give you a dozen articles.http://www.day.az/news/georgia/58236.html. Besides, if that wasn't true, Georgian media would have a field day.Óðinn 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article at Day.az comes from Lenta.ru which in its turn cites Regnum. Not very convincing, IMHO.--Kober 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for the explanation. --Kober 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tribe of Huns" 

message: In my opinion, that sign on the "school" is irrelevant. If the fact was denied by officials, why some strange photo should be left in place? I was bold and removed it. Feel free and tell me why I'm wrong. --Akral 14:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Although officials deny it, the fact was documented by Georgian and international media sources. See, for example, BBC photo gallery. I think the image is relevant and should be reincluded in the text. All the best, --Kober 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the photo is relevant. It shows the eagerness of low level officials to score points on the anti-Georgian campaign. Quite often this results in absurd decisions which may be later overridden (or denied) by Kremlin. (Igny 16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may have been a deliberate provocation. I repeat for the umpteenth time: BBC's coverage of Russia-related affairs is not friendly. If you insist on using their materials, the article will quickly degenerate into a slur. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may have been a deliberate provocation sounds like your personal opinion. Do you have anything to back it up? (Igny 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Igny, this paper located in the front of a window and could be putted there by everyone. This photo is irrelevant, because of no proofs that it was no provocation. Elk Salmon 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is hard to argue here because we don't know the facts. However my POV is that it was an act of some overzealous low level official rather than a deliberate provocation. I believe in stupidity of a local bureaucrat and I don't believe in cleverness of some provocateur. Besides noone actually claimed it was a provocation, Russia just flatly denied this instruction, possibly after realizing it was a mistake. The picture is relevant to this conflict, and if you find some notable person claiming this was a provocation you are welcome to add his comment of this picture. (Igny 03:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  This paper is not on the board inside the school. It's not even on the window. It could be easly posted there by photograph and then quickly removed. The picture is OR. Elk Salmon 07:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are not your claims about provocation and conspiracy theories OR? Please don't remove the image unilaterally.--Kober 07:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Igny. From what I can see here, any mention of the school incident and opposition protests in Moscow is removed as "irrelevant". Elk Salmon, please note that the sign could not be put by everyone for one simple reason: The school has its own guards consisting of Russian military personnel. So, guys, I would ask you to stop pushing your conspiracy theories and be more cooperative, please. --Kober 04:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Igny and Kober. This argument has gone too far. That picture was featured all over the world, including here in Canada. I understand that its not suitable for some Russian users here but it is very relevant to the topic and removing it will only indicate POV pushing. Ldingley 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you provide any source that will back up the statement that paper is official. It is not located on official board that present in every russian school. Elk Salmon 12:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not relevant photo 

message: Kober, please don't accuse me of revert warring. Having scanned your recent contributions, I see that they are limited to owning this article and several related entries. On the contrary, I made only two edits on the subject in several days. If you persevere in fending off any attempts to NPOV the article, I'll have to report you and both of your friends for tendentious and disruptive editing. Please take care, Ghirla -трёп- 08:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone owns this article and don't threat me please. Igny explained very well why the image should be kept and Irpen neutralized the caption. So far you have failed to prove that the image is not relevant to the article and it is a mere provocation by BBC and Georgian media. What you are doing here is just a suppression of the content you disagree with. --Kober 08:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Girla, as usual you are not civil and present only threats and inappropriate attacks on other users who do not agree with your political views. Im tired of your senseless accusations, slanders, un-productive and disruptive behaviour. This should be noted by other visitors of this article and proper action should be taken to end this attacks which are carried by you against Kober and me on a regular basis. You have gone too far and made lots of efforts in downgrading us both instead of working with us  to fix the problems. As of now I don’t see any reason to continue communication with the person who does not respect other people and their opinions. Ldingley 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Kober and Ldingley own the article? 

message: Thank you Alex. Correct decision, indeed! --Kober 14:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Some facts: On October 4th and 5th
 someone denied  Georgian pupils and teachers access to school N9
 BBC and gazeta.ru reported the sign posted in window of school N9.
 various media alleged that Kremlin ordered to expell Georgian children from several Russian schools in Georgia 
 Georgian media reported reaction of Georgian officials, in particular a pledge to reallocate all the children to Georgian schools
 various media reported that Russian officials denied the order to expell Georgian children and fire Georgian teachers from schools
 Russian officials called the incident a misuderstansing, provided different explanations to what actually happened at school N9.
 As of October 13th noone called this incident a provocation.
 Russian officials said they would investigate the origin of the initiative which led to 1.
 Russian officials say that the Georgian children are back to school, but concerns remain that the Russian schools will soon be closed after Russian military pulls out of Georgia. Some say that a suggestion to move the children to other schools was misinterpreted as an order to expell.
I think I can provide sources to back up each of the above claims. Please post your opinions (with reference to the list of claims if needed). Which of the above facts do you oppose and why? My POV is that the photo is very much relevant to the conflict. (Igny 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing i can say is that I agree with you. That photo is relavent. Ldingley 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not one of facts above telling origin of the paper. Elk Salmon 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is exactly your point? Didn't you read the fact 1 above? My guess that whoever denied the access to school N9 for Georgian children, that very same person posted the sign. The attorney of Russian Embassy in Georgia said they would investigate this incident, so what do you want from us? Go to Georgia and look for that mysterious origin? If Russian Embassy decides to disclose the results of their probe, we would add them here, but don't hold your breath. (Igny 00:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to arguments 

message: Estonia's parliament has passed a declaration "In connection with the situation of the relationship between Georgia and Russia"  (17. Oct 2006. 10:58 (local time)) 73 deputies of all factions voted in favour, 1 (Centre Party member) against. It has been reported that the declaration “supports strengthening democracy in Georgia and condemns the endeavours by the Russian Federation to surpress Georgia's intentions by using economic sanctions and threats of [using] force.”Constanz - Talk 13:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the reaction of each political dwarf is relevant. I'm not aware of Estonia being a party to this conflict. That's what WP:NPOV is about: you should not pack the article with biased opinions unless the have a direct bearing to the question. Why the UN resolution condemning Georgia is not mentioned at all, while Estonia's reaction is given so much prominence in the text? Why Estonia's opinion is more important than that of UN? Only because it is routinely Russophobic? These are the questions that remain unanswered. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add the UN opinion then, what/who prevents you from doing so?? Y'know, Baltic opinion may be worth mentioning just because these countries have experienced similar 'troubles' with their huge neighbor. As for routinely Russophobic - well, the particular declaration meant supporting Geogia's democratic government and merely disapproved of the Russia's measures to solve the conflict. The UN? Hailing it too much is a double-edged sword I dare to say. After all, we know which nasty regimes have been/are also proud members of this organisations. One should mention UN opinion anyway.Constanz - Talk 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constanz, I wish you were as prompt in reporting the scandals rocking your own country as you are in airing Russophobic statements all over Wikipedia. When I try to do your job here, my edits are reverted and well-sourced data is purged. Please take care. In my experience, nobody using Wikipedia as a vehicle for tendentious editing has succeeded as yet. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.Refrain from personal assaults, otherwise you will be blocked again. 2.What's the relevance of an old commie president of Estonia to the article or dispute here? Your link only shows your POV and interests.Constanz - Talk 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "POV and interests"? Could you elaborate your accusations? Thanks. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you were interested in Arnold Rüütel's failures (I agreed with you with my edits, he was a miserable choice in 2001). I had a fear that you liked to point out our failures, being also somewhat wary of Estonians editing here. Could you also elaborate where have I behaved like a Russophobe, and why did you delete my notifies on your talk. Feel free to answer to me on my talk page (while please do not resort to such language and 'threats' this time).Constanz - Talk 13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The UN resolution is mentioned in a proper place, but it hardly contains any condemnation. --Kober 11:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern European reactions to the conflict

message: Kober and Co, why don't you report this episode, if you are so concerned about the purported oppression of Georgian boys in Russian schools? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and report it if you find it so relevant, but don't remove the content you disagree with. The incident you are talking about is a criminal case and has nothing to do with politics. And please note that the article is authored not by Kober and Co, but quite a few Wikipedians including our Russian colleagues. --Kober 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you want this information suppressed because it does not suit your POV? Having been monitoring the article for quite some time, I've got impression that all anti-Russian information is included into the article, while all the data opposing Georgian POV is treated as "irrelevant". As established by ArbCom, this is a hallmark of tendentious (and disruptive) editing. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't want to suppress any info, but we cannot discuss all criminal incidents here. Should we also list all ethnic Georgians murdered by neo-Nazis in Russia?--Kober 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see statistics comparing how many foreigners are murdered in the country by ethnic Russians and how many Russians are murdered by foreigners. The last time I reviewed it, more than 50% murders in Russia were committed by "ethnic criminal groups". The Council of Europe does not vociferate about it, you may be sure. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A criminal is a criminal, no matter what their beliefs or ethnic background, but murdering and torturing people on an ethnic basis is somewhat a different thing.--Kober 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm not very sure whether this criminality analysis really concerns the article here. To turn to 'political dwarves' again, the high percentage of crimes 'committed by "ethnic criminal groups"' (Estonia's non-natives) has not been a succesful argument while solving our problems with Russia. The Council of Europe does not vociferate about it either.Constanz - Talk 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who is the majority in Tallinn, Russians or Estonians. This is a moot point. My Russian friends from Izborsk are enregistered as ethnic Estonians, for instance. The "ethnic criminal groups" active in Russia represent a tiny portion of the population, however. You should compare the percentage of Georgians in Russia to the percentage of Russians-Ukrainians in Estonia, to feel the difference. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you suggest that a small minority group Georgians are attributed for half of the crimes? I didn't get your point, I'm afraid. No matter, unless verified, 'the ethnic criminal groups' business remains completely irrelevant here, just like complaints that members of 1/3 of Estonia's population is behind 50%+ crimes (when dealing with Russia-Baltic relationship).Constanz - Talk 09:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Because they are not fully integrated into the larger society and prefer to stick together. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if true, then may-be one reason is also adventurism of the immigrants. Didn't succed in one's own country, and found a new place. Rottlessness etc. But what's the relevance here, with no clear facts provided? Constanz - Talk 09:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but this page is not a political chat room. We cannot discuss all aspects of Russia-Georgia relations and Chechnya crisis in this article. As for the secession, you should know the history and demographics of these regions to understand why they should be within Georgia. If Abkhazia wants to be indpendent, the current masters of the region and their patrons should allow 300,000 Georgians to return to their homes and then hold a democratic referendum. I'm afraid the results results will be disappointing for those who support the partition of Georgia. Thanks, Kober 10:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, repeated comparisons of Estonia or any other nation to dwarfs and barking dogs are highly offending and sound xenophobic. Kober 10:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have probably forgotten that 300,000 Georgians constituted the democratic majority in Abkhazia. Do you think they will vote for independence (read: annexation by the "democratic" regime of Putin)? Or are going to claim that they have no right to live in their native Abkhazia and take part in the decision of their homeland's fate?--Kober 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, I'd ask you to stop your xenophobic attacks ("butchers", etc.). Judging from your contributions, it seems to me your main job here is to slam Georgia. I'll consider to return to the discussion with you only when you learn to chose words. Please remember that this site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and the talk pages are thought to help to improve the encyclopedic content not to give an outpouring of someone's anger against other nations.--Kober 14:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I don't really think that Saakashvili needed to rig the elections. Can you provide sources for your claims? Unfortunately, the Georgian opposition is too week to have a popular support. Yet I don't know why the Georgian electoral system is so relevant here. Secondly, I'm sorry but I'm not here to enlighten you about Abkhazia. You should have a look at easily available info about the ethnic composition of pre-war Abkhazia. Thirdly, when the US and Western Europe turned a blind eye to the Soviet occupation of Georgia (and not only of Georgia, of course), they soon received the "evil empire" in the midst of Europe. I hope they remember that perfectly well. Thanks, --Kober 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you mean "Georgian occupation of Russia"? If I recall correctly, the tough Georgian guys (Stalin, Beria, etc) starved half the Russian (and Ukrainian, see Holodomor) population in concentration camps. It's hardly surprizing that neither Russians nor Abkhazians want to tolerate their rule any more. They've just had enough of it. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Georgian occupation of Russia"? Don't be ridiculous. Both Stalin and Beria served to Soviet Russia when Georgia was an independent nation recognized by both Moscow and the West. In Georgia, Soviet rule was established through a military invasion and the Red Terror and you know this very well. If you don't, you will learn more about it when I've finished a series of articles on those events. I don't think the Ukrainians, Baltic nations, Romanians, Poles, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, etc. blame Georgians for ethnic cleansing and repressions organized by Stalin, a Georgian, who, according to Britannica, "surprisingly turned out to be a great Russian nationalist. During the 1930s and '40s he promoted Russian history, Russian language, and Russian national and cultural heroes, and he held the Russians up as the elder brother for the non-Slavs to emulate."   I hope you don't consider Britannica a Russophobic source along the lines of BBC. Your "sickening", which figures in your edit summary, comes probably from your apparent despise towards everything you disagree with. I'm assuming good faith again and won't report you for your repeated insults and disrespectful comments. --Kober 08:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kober, your routine threats are getting annoying. If you have to "report" me, please do. This would be fun. Hollow threats and blackmail ("shut up or I will report you") are quite disruptive. For my own part, I've had enough of your "repeated insults and disrespectful comments" and leave the page in disgust. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never insulted you and I don't remember to have blackmailed you. You're welcome to discuss any issue with me but I cannot take seriously your Georgianophobic theories and phrases like "Georgian imperialism" and "Georgian occupation of Russia". I usually use a great number of credible sources to support my claims, and it is your problem if you don't trust them. Your groundless accusations of disruptive editing, entering anti-Russian alliances with other Wikipedians, historical revisionism, etc. are offending indeed. --Kober 08:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don’t put words into my mouth and reread my posts. Have I ever said that Abkhaz are cannibals or work for Bin Laden? I just stated the fact that Georgians formed a majority of Abkhazia's population before being ethnically cleansed. There’s nothing xenophobic about it. Your attempts to discredit me are simply amusing. And please stop wikistalking me. Kober 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please people, stop talking nonsense. You all seem to have forgotten history. Russia and Georgia have been friends since 1770s when Georgia (Kartl-Kakheti) invited them to protect them. The friendship was not without difficulties as Russia deceived and mistreated Georgia on several occasions. Yet Georgia never retaliated, never dismissed the alliance (except for a few years when Georgia declared independence after the civil war in Russia), they never forgot that Russians fought and died for them against Turks and Persians. And the Russians should never forget that Georgians fought and died in WW2 against the German Nazis. The countries shared religion, the Georgians willingly studied Russian language and literature, while the Russians were fascinated with Georgian culture and deep history. I am from Russia and I have several friends from Georgia who recognize the importance of this alliance, noone can argue with the fact that if not for Russia, Georgia would be part of Turkey or Iran now and the fact that Russia would never accept this scenario. If not for Russia, Georgia might never enjoy independence. Yet now both Russian and Georgian politicians forgot about the long friendship of their nations. They both engage in manipulating public opinion, making "populist" decisions, sowing seeds of hatred, hiding behind the "national interests" and blaming each other. And what surprises me most is that people from both nations readily pick up the stones and throw them at each other. Here, I have said what I wanted to say. (Igny 17:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking about schools... 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Georgian Embassy rally.jpg

message: :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) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Moscow rally 8.10.06.jpg

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5397102.stm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  MkativerataCCI (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2371309
** In Emzar Kvitsiani on 2011-03-18 05:19:55, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:07, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:53:04, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?ChapterID=744&CountryID=10&ReportID=242&keyword=
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:53:15, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L02779287&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-2
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:15, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:53:39, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600219.html
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:53:40, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4241380.html
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:53:48, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-10-01T221806Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-270181-3.xml
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:53:59, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 6 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/10/01/georgia.russia.reut
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:54:10, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 7 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-10-02T013930Z_01_L02850052_RTRUKOC_0_UK-GEORGIA-RUSSIA-SAAKASHVILI.xml&WTmodLoc=World-C1-Headline-9
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:15, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:54:18, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 8 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF_21/forum21.html
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:54:40, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 9 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://politicalworld.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/the-rift-between-georgia-russia/
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:54:42, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 10 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.police.ge/en/curview.aspx?newsid=28866&categoryid=1#
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:04:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy on 2011-06-13 17:54:49, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 11 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Georgian–Russian espionage controversy. 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/20090201062518/http://perepis2002.ru/ct/html/TOM_04_01.htm to http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/TOM_04_01.htm
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) 16:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified