Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Abkhazia and North Ossetia as combatants.

Is there enough references to list Abkhazia, North Ossetia, and others as actual Combatants?65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As of my readings so far there is no reliable documentation that any group other than the Cossacks have committed any irregular forces to the South Ossetian conflict. To be sure they are probaly present, but there is no sourcing at this time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/09/russia.georgia1 I would also keep an eye to a second possible wiki if the Abkhazian front opens up, as appears might happen.75.216.27.164 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No capital after a colon, even in headings

It is not normal usage to have a capital letter after a Colon_(punctuation) (even Wikipedia confirms it!), except for very special cases like quotations. We should not have a capital letter after colons in headings. The MOS rule about starting a header with a capital letter does not apply since the headers already start with a capital letter before the colon. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Two escalations?

We have a header "escalation of hostilities" and another "escalation" and it looks strange (two escalations only days apart, yes I know the one is about hostilities before official war, but the two escalations still sound strange). I say let's change the first heading to "towards the war" or something. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Use spacings in headings

The MOS says spaces in headings and between the heading and the next paragraph are optional, and I would wish to change the current headings to have spacings in order to make editing easier and make headings stand out in the edit window while we edit. This change will only be visible in the edit window. Anyone who prefers the current style? NerdyNSK (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reuters article good for reference

This Reuters article looks like a good reference for various points in the article. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Effects on 2008 US elections

It looks like the war may have effects on the 2008 US elections based on what journalists write on NYTimes. Journalists interpret McCain response as more hawkish and Obama's response as more dovish. If voters are likely to get affected by this, perhaps we should add a small sentence in the article. NerdyNSK (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia declared war!

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5911562/Georgia-declares-war We need to put this on there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Old news. Please read the article. What the Georgian President has been trying to do is gain legal powers in order to handle the invasion from Russia. Throughout the day Georgia has been asking for a ceasefire. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive now! It's going nowhere!

This page is getting WAY out of hand! Look at the size of it! Unless this page is archived soon, i will request an Administrator to do so.

Automatic archiving was set up, so it should have been taken care of. BalkanFever 01:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We can't archive after 12 hours. People can't respond that fast. I've changed it to 3 days (which may still be too little). Superm401 - Talk 09:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We're getting about 300kb/day right now. That's too much for some ISPs to handle, particularly those in the regions related to the subject. At this stage of the game, anything that takes longer than a day to respond to is old news and only serves to increase load times for those with questions or suggestions. Kafziel Complaint Department 09:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we compromise on 30 hours? Superm401 - Talk 09:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think 30 hours is probably a reasonable target, but I also don't think we need automatic archiving right now. This is a current event with a lot of traffic; we can archive it manually when people start saying they're having problems with the load times, or when we see there are inactive discussions piling up. I have no problem helping with that. Kafziel Complaint Department 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've disabled it. Superm401 - Talk 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

US Embassy

I think it would be good to add somewhere that American persnnel at the embassy are being ransferred out. http://georgia.usembassy.gov/wm-080908.html

That's not true. It says family members are being removed, which is a big difference. Superm401 - Talk 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job.

Just wanted to say that some of the recent upgrades, edits, and new content seem really nice. Good job people. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

International community reactions - 6.1

Why did you erase reactions of governments/presidents and left there only some? I think a lot of people are interested more about international reactions to conflict than conflict itself. I found some informations in discussion instead of main page what I think is wrong.

There should be as much (important) statements of each states as possible. For saving place there could be split some similar statements together as actually now is with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. At least there should not miss statements of countries in region (for example Turkey could come into conflict, Kazahstan too and Ukraine wanted to go to NATO as well as Georgia...). But I would prefer much more states, so man can compare which countries are on "which side".

For future could be also good to have basic structure: state flag(s) and name(s) - date - statement, because we can expect more statements in next days and not only the last statement is important if you want to analyze development of international situation during war.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.98.170 (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to a page with all of the reactions. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry did not see that link, that is enough... 77.99.98.170 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is nothing more boring that reading international reactions, especially when all Russia-aligned countries support Russia and all US-aligned countries support Georgia. Reading the statements of just the 3-4 main actors is enough, all the rest is only useful for political analysis and is better treated by a separate article. Detailing the EU, US, NATO, and Russia and China reactions is enough in the article, the rest should go to the specialist page, which is linked from the main page. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree since I have seen link:-) However still think there could be useful to put there dates or build them to sentences such as "United States – After the GMT 4:00 8 August...", because expect more statements... 77.99.98.170 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC - UN Estimates of Refugees

The BBC reports here:[[1]] that the UN is contradicting the Russian figure of 30,000+ refugees and believe there are between 4,000 and 5,000 refugees that have been evacuated to Russia. It names a further 2,400 as internally displaced. This article also quotes Mr. Putin saying that 'Georgia was committing "complete genocide"'. Furthermore, the English in the Humanitarian Impact section needs to be proofread and corrected, specifically the final sentence: "In Gori, where large of smoke are rising above the town, Russian warplanes hitted apartments instead of a military base, and there were civilians trapped inside buildings on fire. Journalists referred to the situtation in Gori as "chaotic"." Additionally, the Timeline section is misleading because it says on July 14th "US and Georgian forces started a joint military exercise at the Vaziani military base near the Georgian capital" ... This exercise has clearly been completed because there are only 130 American military advisers in Georgia now, but the article seems to imply the exercises are ongoing. I think the July 14th section should be deleted since it has nothing to do with the conflict. This yahoo.com news report: [[2]] contains the same quote from Mr. Putin, I think it should be added to the Russian reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This sentence: "The US embassy in Georgia organised an evacuation convoy to leave for Yerevan on 10 August and a second one scheduled for 11 August and calls American citizens in the region to join them, while it also issued a travek warning." should be moved from the Escalation section to perhaps the International Reaction section properly under the US subheading. The evacuation does not contribute to the "escalation" of the conflict and is therefore misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful images to add to the article

In this talk header let's concentrate on finding useful images to add value tothe article. Let's start with Image:040 South Ossetia war.JPG which is a pic of Georgians during the 2004 conflicts. We already have one such pic (which is obviously better), but in the absence of other pics I wonder whether it would be useful for the reader to add a second pic as well. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The header map still has room for improvement as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Pics from the 2004 conflicts are only tangentially relevant to this, and s similar pic doesn't add that much more information. Beneficial to the reader would be current pics, so if anybody finds free ones, they should be uploaded. Alas, most are copyrighted. BalkanFever 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ballistic Missiles?

One of the CNN articles out today mentions the use of ballistic missiles against the civilian population of Georgia (Something akin to SCUDs I'd guess). I haven't been able to confirm this anywhere else. Can anyone confirm this?

It came from an "Senior Unnamed Bush Admin. Official". [3] LCpl (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an anonymous source, so he's most likely talking out of his you know what. I believe reports that say Russia missed their target and ended up hitting apartment buildings are true, but those types of attacks are pointless and obviously unintended. What would Russia gain aside from other countries condemning them? They already occupy the city, their intent is clearly to cripple the Georgian military and their ability to fight back. Unless this can be confirmed, or at the very least a be given a credible named source, I think it should be ignored. LokiiT (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

POV in wording of article.

There seems to be a lot of Russian POV within the article. Any ideas why this is happening? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made some suggestions above (subheading: BBC - UN estimates of Refugees) for improvement but they haven't been implemented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, most of the sourcing in this article is Russian centric. Russians have a far better mechanism to inject information into the International media. If it helps, you can reference some English language Geogian sources: civil.ge, georgiatoday.com, messenger.ge, rustavi2.com, eurasianet.org. There may well be bias in these sources as well, but I have always felt that given two opposing views, the intelligent reader can find a truth somewhere in the middle.75.216.27.164 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


I plan on removing... The word "surprise" from, "Georgia launched a surprise military operation"65.68.1.90 (talk) :02:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another example from this sentence in the article: "According to The Guardian, Georgia was given tacit support by the US in the mistaken belief that South Ossetia could be quickly retaken within 48 hours.[28]" The person whom added this sentence might not fully understand the definition of "tacit" which is a rather ambiguous word but means, in this case, that Georgia believed they had America's support without specifically being told by America that the support was in fact there. Also this sentence is plagiarized from the article itself, with one difference, the word "belief", appears as "believe" in the article, which is a grammatical error by The Guardian.

14th & 29th of July in Timeline65.68.1.90 (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This sentence in Humanitarian Impact: "Russian premier-minister Vladimir Putin promised to spend 10 bln rubles ($400 million USD) to reconstruct the infrastructure and facilities in South Ossetia. The sum may increase after a thorough estimation of losses is provided." Should have the figure in US Dollars and Roubles in parenthesis.

Another sentence in the Background section: "Additionally, since 2002, the US Army has been providing large amounts of support and training to Georgia, officially to help their involvement in the War in Iraq, but many Georgians see the support as assisting their effort to regain South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[26][27]" US Army military advisers were originally invited into Georgia to train the Georgian military in dealing with Chechen militants in the Pankisi Gorge not the Iraq War. The Iraq War began in March of 2003.

I suck at grammaticals. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, me too! p.s. "grammaticals" isn't a word ;)

Carl Bildt: "The principles at stake"

Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt talks about the conflict and its wider implications:

"We live in a world in which principles and rules are important - if we are to preserve peace and avoid descending into a “hobbesian” chaos of numerous conflicts.

Evidence point at the recent escalation towards war in the Caucasus was triggered by the separatist leadership in South Ossetia when they launched their offensive Thursday morning. They might have had their own motives for trying to provoke a war between Russia and Georgia.

And then the one step of escalation followed the other – and suddenly there is war.

Russia is now justifying its large-scale aggressive action – including air attacks across the territory of Georgia – with an alleged constitutional duty to protect citizens of Russia wherever they happen to be located.

This is an extremely dangerous argument that runs contrary to key principles of international law as well as to the brutally learnt experience of European history.

Responsibility for the protection of the citizen and inhabitants of any state rests with the state concerned.

Every state has a responsibility to protect. But no state has the right to unilaterally intervene military in another state with the pretext of protecting its citizens.

In this case it should be noted that Russia has been handing out passport rather freely to the inhabitants of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There is little doubt that this has been part of a deliberate policy of gradually increasing Russian influence over these parts of Georgia.

The argument now used by the Kremlin to justify its intervention is not new in the history of Europe.

We have seen powers before claiming that the violations of the rights of holders of their passports or their nationality – by a previous Germany in Eastern Europe or a previous Serbia in former Yugoslavia – justify them sending their armies into these countries. We have seen the wars that have followed the application of that principle – and that is why it has repeatedly been made clear that it runs contrary to international law.

There are holders of Russian passport in numerous other European countries today. In many cases this is the result of historical circumstances. But in a Europe of increasingly open borders and accelerating integration – the Europe we seek! – we will increasingly see the holders of one passport living and working in another state.

Their rights should be protected like the rights of all others. With the European Court of Human Rights we have the most comprehensive trans-national system for the protection of human rights of any part of the world. This applies to Russians in other European countries as well to the very many non-Russians living in Russia.

A Europe in which we would accept the right of Russia to intervene in any country where there are holders of Russian passports – or the right of any other nation to intervene in the same way – would be a Europe sinking down again in the chaos and conflicts of the past.

That’s why this conflict now is not only about South Ossetia and Georgia - it is about principles fundamental to the peace and stability of all of Europe. And the defence of these principles should be the duty of each and everyone of us."

Carl Bildt: "The principles at stake"

Hapsala (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You've posted this on the wrong talk page (that and the link itself would have been sufficient) try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_South_Ossetia_War

Or put it in his bio or something. Maybe we could find a way to link to it.  ?? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloomberg is reporting [4] that Russia is deploying elements of the Black Sea Fleet as a naval blockade and has already turned away one ship. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be included, under August 910th. oops!

Image:Tskhinvali battles.png

I have a problem with this map - at least for the moment, South Ossetia is still part of Georgia, so labelling the south side of the border as Georgia is misleading. It ought to carry the name of whichever Georgian province it is. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that's what the international community says. Anyone who can edit the image should replace "Georgia" with "Shida Kartli". Although, technically South Ossetia is (mostly) in Shida Kartli as well. South Ossetia is not an administrative division like Abkhazia. BalkanFever 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a note at the bottom to clarify. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the uploader on commons to change it. Waiting for his reply. BalkanFever 02:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Attack on Airport and By SEA

Russia has brought 6,000 troops into Georgia and a further 4,000 troops by sea and is preparing to attack Georgia at dawn, a Georgian Interior Ministry official said early on Sunday.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA423150.htm

w need this in the article , NOW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculation, oppose. My mistake, hide. It took NATO years to come to Bosnia's aide, so don't hold your breath.

I have added this to the section on August 10th, since the reference dates itself as August 10th GMT. I have noted the source, the Georgian Interior Ministry, and used the word "claimed."Christiangoth (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Claimed, I live right next to the coast, soldiers came, I say them! They are killing people for gods sake!!! Please hide 65.68.1.90 (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=!%20NET-65-64-0-0-1 90.189.91.27 (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Theri lining people up!! Why isnt nato doing anthing? This is my country!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 :Are you joking? What do you want from nato? Thousand of Osetians were killed. Note that Georgian had not such death toll of innocent people. Georgian soldiers are still on S Osetia territory. The conflict can't stop immediatly. Russian peacekeepers are trying ti stabilize situation in region.

I believe you when you tell us that you see them and what they are doing. However, until this information is independently verifiable we can not put it up as a confirmed fact, and so we must use the word "claimed." My prayers are being offered up to God almost endlessly for both sides of this bloody conflict to find peace, and my heart goes out to those that have already lost their lives, and their families. Christiangoth (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Russia_plans_to_move_naval_ships_toward_Abkhazia_US/articleshow/3347607.cms its not just the Georgian Interior Ministry. "Parts of the Black Sea Fleet are moving towards Abkhazia"75.216.27.164 (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10georgia.html?em75.216.27.164 (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting this as well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552012.stm

Removal of International reactions

I believe the reactions of neighboring countries are more important then that of England Estonia, Latvia and etc. VartanM (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How about limiting it to current Permanent Security Council Members? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, maybe add the EU and UN ... also CIS if they have an official reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

EU and UN already in a section. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Escalation

Reuters is reporting [5] that Russia has begun using strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an anonymous source. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dmitry Medvedev is the president of Russia

Article says: Dmitry Medvedev, the South Ossetian secessionist envoy in Moscow, claimed that...

I have removed the incorrect part. It now reads "Dmitry Medvedev claimed that..." However, I believe that the passage used to contain another name, not Medvedev, and that someone changed it. However, the source of the statement is down (civil.ge) and so it cannot be verified who said what. BalkanFever 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Dmitry Medoyev Colchicum (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Aha! So someone tried to correct what they thought was a typo. I've fixed it now. BalkanFever 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Dmitry Medoyev and Dmitry Medvedev... Wow :-) Great typo ;) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You might check Google/Yahoo cache 65.68.1.90 (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Financial market reaction

Could this section be moved up a little? Ostap 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved it below the humanitarian impact. NerdyNSK (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Name change

Now with Abkhazia launching an offensive in the Kodori Valley, shouldn't the title of the article be changed? How about 2008 Georgia War? --Tocino 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go with 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict or 2008 Georgia-Russia War as was proposed above under section "Media call it Georgia-Russia conflict". Ostap 04:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't call the Iraq War the Iraq-United States War even though the two sides were once fighting each other. This war is in Georgia and Georgia only, and most likely it will stay that way unless Saakashvili invades Russia. --Tocino 04:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, its not up to us to decide. What do the sources use? The user above said that these were being used in the media. We must use what sources use. Ostap 04:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "Russian Invasion" is being used a lot. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer, "The Russian invasion of Georgia" ... 65.68.1.90 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But Georgia started the war by launching a surprise attack against South Ossetia. --Tocino 04:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really not up to us to decide who started the war here and now. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But just calling it "Russian invasion of Georgia" is not reflective of the entire situation. --Tocino 04:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's not get into a debate about who started it, please. If we rename the page, it's not going to have the word "invasion" in it. I'd like to hear from other users: keep this title (for the time being) or a new location? BalkanFever 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Georgia-Russia..." isn't too good IMO, since the Ossetians (and I guess Abkhazians now/soon) are (directly) involved in these events, and that should be reflected BalkanFever 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that one country has gone into another without their permission in order to conduct war against them. I stand by my suggestion. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I propose "Georgian invasion of South Ossetia." Seriously though, "2008 South Ossetia War" is fine.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The war is spreading to Abkhazia though, so just saying South Ossetia War doesn't really represent reality. --Tocino 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, no arguing about invasions. Stop. Read WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. I too think the current title is fine. BalkanFever 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, to completely ignore the word "Invasion" because of a POV is not justified. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what do people think about the title 2008 Georgia War ? --Tocino 04:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Up to this time there was only artillery and air bombardment of Kodori valley. So in my opinion the main fighting still happens in SO so I wouldn't hurry with renaming the article. Alæxis¿question? 05:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Patience, people. BalkanFever 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm misspelling this I think. But how about the "Caucusus War" ? (prefer the other though ;) ) 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See Caucasus War. Also, Armenia and Azerbaijan aren't involved. BalkanFever 05:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We should use whatever reliable sources use, if it can be determined. For now I guess we should probably stay with what its at. Ostap 05:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. How about the "Second Caucuses War" ? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Good point. It would be an orginal work of sorts. I withdraw it. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Russia has bombed outside Tbilisi and in Poti also which is way from South Ossetia. Narking (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it really does need to be changed. OK, I vote The Georgia War. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support renaming if a full-scale operation began in Kodori gorge (which seems likely) or if Russian ground forces moved outside of South Ossetia (which isn't likely imho). I don't know how to name the conflict in this case considering that there are not 2 but 3 or even 4 sides. Alæxis¿question? 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't change it. Unless everyone agrees. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking it that everyone is in agreement? And, that a simple copy and paste will work? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no agreement. Simple copy and paste won't work. Alæxis¿question? 06:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Nobody has agreed here, and a copy-paste will not work. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can move pages, and for good reason. BalkanFever 06:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks... And, I am not going to. Rather someone else did it anyway.65.68.1.90 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Russia-Georgia War is quite appropriate and is a name used around though in terms of sounding good Russo-Georgian War seems most appropriate. I have been thinking South Caucasian War, but not sure if that works. Certainly this is no longer about South Ossetia and so some sort of name change has to be made. In the intermediate period Russia-Georgia War seems sufficient and if some other name gets coined later on it can be changed. Georgian war is ridiculous though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste does not move page edit history, which is why we anonymous users can't do it. Anyway, I support either the current name or "2008 Georgia War," but not "Russia-Georgia War". --71.112.145.102 (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We anon users would thus have to login huh? But, then nobody would know where we are from. But, I haven't moved pages in years. I hate edits... 65.68.1.90 (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if you log in you shouldn't move the page, because there is no consensus. BalkanFever 06:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't do it. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

At least while (let us hope) the conflict stays relatively confined to the South Ossetia region, "South Ossetia war" is the most appropriate title. Regards, Ben

Maybe someone would be willing to do a News search of various titles and see what is most popular at present? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I laugh whenever I see the article "2008 South Ossetia War": I laugh because it is ridiculous to call this war a South Ossetia War, since the whole of Georgia has declared a state of Georgia-wide war, the Russians have bombarded cities far away from Ossetia, and Abkhazia also got involved. It is a full-scale war in all of Georgia now, and the article title should reflect that. BBC organises its articles under the heading "Georgia-Russia conflict". I propose to move it to 2008 Georgia War, War in Georgia (2008), 2008 War in Georgia, 2008 Georgia-Russia War, or 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict. As for the possible argument that the war is "for" South Ossetia rather than "in" South Ossetia, the NATO war (or bombing) in Serbia, which was fought for Kosovo, is named 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia rather than "NATO Kosovo bombing" or something like that, ie the article considers where fighting (bombing in this case) took place (all of FRY Serbia) rather than for what region the fighting was for. Since here we have a war being fought all over Georgia, let's name it accordingly. NerdyNSK (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian escalation of the conflict has resulted in a widening of the overall war. If this Wiki's intent is to encompass the overall conflict, than a renaming is in order. If the Wiki's intent is only to monitor the South Ossetian conflict, than a new Wiki should be started addressing an Abkhazian front or a Georgian-Russian war. I believe that sources represented here clearly show a war of Russian agression against Georgian sovereignty and any future name should reflect this aspect, i.e. the Russian invasion of Afhganistan.75.216.27.164 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, Russian sources call it "South Ossetia War", so if you really want to stick to reliability and neutrality, you should remember this as well. Otherwise the title would be biased by western view on conflict. Moreover, up to the moment Russians did not cross the line that separates full-scale war from support operation and did not declare a war with Georgia, so technically it's not even war (and we're calling things de jure here; for example, South Ossetia is called region of Georgia, although de-facto it's independent state). Calling this "2008 Conflict in Georgia" would be fine, although that includes POV as well: the conflict is still mostly in South Ossetia, and whether South Ossetia belongs to Georgia is a big fat question for the conflicting sides. So, to my mind, the only neutral title is "2008 South Ossetia Conflict/War", because up to now the conflict is mostly progressed in South Ossetia (be it part of Georgia or not), and there's no rule to include in war's name every single region involved at every single phase of the conflict -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    It's only Georgian POV. We must not use somebody's POV. For example, Russia calls all this "Peace enforcing operation". And what? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    That's exactly what I'm talking about. We must not use Georgian POV nor Russian POV, that's why "South Ossetian conflict" is a correct name. Both sides agree that most of the action takes place at South Ossetia (though opinion differ on whether South Ossetia is a part of Georgia), both sides agree that there's a conflict taking place. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    May be, 2008 War in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Hmm, it looks like we talk that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not Georgia, it is by de facto, but de jure... I'm in doubt :( --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Skynews report on Gori bombing

According to the following Skynews Report from Gori, Russian bombers actually hit Georgian military facilities (including munitions warehouse) and it was the ensuing blast that hit civilian apartments. See http://news.sky.com/skynews/video?videoSourceID=1576830 Russian journalist Artem Drabkin (who is currently working for ITN), who also was in Gori shortly after the bombing, also had reported in a Russian forum that bombers hit the munitions warehouse (that is located almost in the center of town, in violation of safety regulations) and apartments were hit by exploding munitions from that warehouse. See http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1663299.htm (in Russian), http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1663266.htm (in Russian)

I suppose it is worth mentioning in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.192.171 (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, there are numerous reports from various news agencies citing that stray bombs struck apartments in Gori. I think we should be a little more dicretionary. A single Russian media source does not outweigh numerous reports from other media sources and thereofore does not warrant mentioning, otherwise integrity of the article will erode. If more sources appear supporting this claim, then mention is warranted.75.216.27.164 (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

SkyNews isn't a Russian source. Here's what is written there:
So it's clear that military installation (that was surrounded by residential apartments!) has been hit. However it's not clear whether these buildings were hit by stray bombs or by the blast of Georgia's munition warehouse. Alæxis¿question? 06:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree these apartments have been hit. My understanding of numerous previous articles is that Georgian Barracks were hit and additionally apartments in Gori center, which is not close to the Barracks. No one puts army Barracks next to civilian housing. Anyway, I am only stating that we need more sources to contradict the previous reporting. As I said before, if additional sources support this claim, then it should be mentioned.75.216.27.164 (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Information about the military budget of Georgia

I suppose "Background" demands such economy information.

According to Georgian sources http://www.newsgeorgia.ru/geo1/20080705/42268795.html planned military costs at 2008 - about 0,99 billions of USD; all state budget incoms - 3,8 billions of USD. It looks like delirium. Is it possible to have military charges on 25 % of budget?!!! We need impartial sources, like SIPRI and so on: it should be dynamics data for 3-5 years. --Niggle (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. North Korea spends even greater share, probably :) Here's another (Georgian) source telling about GEL 1395 million military spending (that's about USD 1 billion [9]).
The CIA World Book gives 2005 data - 0.59% of GDP. Now it's 4.65% (Military of Georgia) so (given the magnificent growth of Georgian economy in last several years) the rise in military expenditures is really huge. Alæxis¿question? 07:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/georgia/army.htm while impressive, the rise is concurrent with Nato mandated minimum of 2% of GDP for MEP. the figure of 4.65% seems high, but the recent economic surge in the Georgian economy may account for that. It is no where near the 25+% seen in the Soviet Union prior to its demise.75.216.27.164 (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"GDP" is not the same as "Incoms of the state Budget". If information in page Georgia - News is true, that means Georgia planned to spend on war the quarter of all public incoms (taxes, international loans, etc). I don't belive it is possible. It's provocation. --Niggle (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


This blog has a screenshot of the cracked site. I wonder whether we can copy it without having problems with copyright. NerdyNSK (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda and POV, has no place here.75.216.27.164 (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV to show to the world what ridiculous things Russian crackers do :) NerdyNSK (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is great eye candy, it does not add anything to the article, we know Russian's are disrupting the internet. Save the space for quality maps and pictures.75.216.27.164 (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • POV is in the interpretation of facts, not in showing facts to the world. It is a fact that the site was cracked. Showing the screenshot adds informational value to the article, since it exposes the propaganda and information warfare methods of the Russians in a visual way, and it also enables people to see for themselves how weak and amateurish this propaganda is. Wikipedia also carries lots of propaganda in the propaganda and Nazi propaganda article, but this does not make the articles POV. We could add the screenshot (if copyright allows it) in a Propaganda or Information Warfare section. Simply republishing propaganda is not POV, it is showing the real truth (the crime Russian information warfare crackers did, if you want) to the world. NerdyNSK (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    how weak and amateurish this propaganda is
    Well, sorry for not bringing you strong professional-quality propaganda, like the one you grew used to, lol ;) To me the pic is fun enough. That's not propaganda, that's just declaring own point of view. I see nothing wrong with that, except for cracking the site, but who can blame them for that... -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, within an article that adresses specifically Russian information technology warfare or Russian propoganda. But here it only serves as propoganda to reinforce Russian intent against Georgia. I stand by my statement that the article states and describes the propoganda adequatly and we know it is being used therefore screenshots are not warranted.75.216.27.164 (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, we cannot state here that deface of Georgian sites made by Russians (and deface of South Ossetian sites made by Georgians). We can't prove that and this is a POV. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good observation, and I saw on various sites that they simply say "hacked[cracked] by anti-Georgian hackers[crackers]". Of course suspicions are high enough to make some of us say non-PC things in the talk page, but I agree let's keep the article only to what the references say. NerdyNSK (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Georgia has not pulled out

Georgia is not pulling out of South Ossetia. They're pulling their troops out of the capital to allow humanitarian workers in.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They are pulling their troops because the city is in ruins. And because it is rather difficult to fight with russian army then with civilian Osetins. Georgians were asked to allow humanitarian workers in earlier, but they didn't accept them. 90.189.91.27 (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All POV. We do not know why Georgians are pulling out other than reason stated in the abovementioned article. No citation for Georgians disallowing humanitarian workers to enter conflict zone. Could it be they do not want humanitarian workers to die under Russian artillery bombardments?75.216.27.164 (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't know why Georgians are pulling out. But Russian bombed Georgian military bases but not Ossetian city Tskhinval. Ossetians reports that Georgian fire prevents them to safe civilians and journalists. http://osinform.ru/news/7669-gruzija-ne-daet-jevakuirovat-iz.html 90.189.91.27 (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia says it has withdrawn its forces from breakaway South Ossetia ... "They have been withdrawn, completely," Georgian interior ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili told Reuters. But Russian peacekeepers said that Georgian forces were still present in South Ossetia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/10/2330349.htm?section=justin
Well according to Russia this is not the case. It's most likely some sort of misunderstanding or mistake, but for now the evidence suggests there has not been a complete withdrawal from South Ossetia. There may be one coming but if the Reintegration Minister's reasoning is considered that too may be to allow in humanitarian workers. Since these are two different officials, which I hadn't noticed at first, the Interior Ministry statement can be put back in until there's further information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, Russians suffered huge losses and failed to make any progress. That's why Putin immediately arrived in North Ossetia and produced his fiery speech. Within hours, larger and large amounts of Russian hardware began to inavde Georgia. He apparently instructed his generals to launch a new offensive at any cost. Tskhinvali is razed to the ground. That's why Georgian forces had to retreat to the nearby hills and continue to fight. BBC's source is its bureau in Moscow and the information is inaccurate. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No sources for your information, if you have any please post. Both situations should be represented equally in the article or not at all. Part of the problem with this conflict has been a lack of good source intelligence from war correspondents within the conflict. As I stated above, propoganda through media manipulation can be expected as part of war. All sourced data should be conveyed equally until a better information source presents itself, if it does.75.216.27.164 (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Interior Ministry was misunderstood it seems. According to Bloomberg Georgia is pulling out, but they have not pulled out yet despite reports saying they have. They said this is a temporary ceasefire and given the comments of the reintegration minister it is most likely to let in humanitarian workers so they can evacuate wounded civilians.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this matters is cleared up. The head of the National Security Council of Georgia has said "practically" all troops have been withdrawn as a token of good will.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Say cracking, not hacking

Saying hacking when meaning violation of law through computers or the Net is POV. The correct NPOV term is cracking. A hacker is an expert who knows lots about technology and is being creative with it out of curiosity and enjoyment. Hacking does not necessarily imply breaking into computer systems. Hacking is surely not about breaking the law or causing harm. Criminals who use computers or networks for personal gain, for breaking the law, or for causing harm are called crackers. Hacker and hacking are words commonly used in contexts where there is no question of legality, such as "I am hacking the software code" means "I am writing/modifying the software code". Hacking does not even imply relation with computer security, although a huge percentage of hackers know a lot about it. Hackers find employment as software consultants or security consultants in businesses and the government and they are the people who gave us marvellous software products such as GNU, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD (the kernel of which is in MacOS X) and others that are making their existence known to most people through products such as Asus Eee (GNU/Linux OS). If you want to know why many times you read "hacker" or "hacking" in newspaper articles that refer to criminals, it is because the media (when they first had to write about criminals who used computers or the Net to realise crimes) had no idea how to refer to such people, and they stole the word hacker from the hacker community and changed its meaning to refer to criminals (who were never part of the hacker community). It was ignorance on the part of the journalists that made the word hacking so ambiguous now. However, by continuing using the word in the journalist's way, we add to this injustice by making our readers assume that whoever is described a hacker is a criminal, while this is not true (many computer experts self-identify as hackers). NerdyNSK (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'll fix it but you can do it yourself ;-) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! NerdyNSK (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Maps

We can search for relevant or useful maps here (most are CIA public domain), and also consider whether it would be useful to use Image:Geo civil war map.jpg (example caption is "Georgia Civil War: 2008 was not the first time Russia intervened in Georgia"), Image:ICG Map of Western Georgia.JPG (example caption is "Abkhazia in Western Georgia"), Image:LocationGeorgia.png (caption: Location of Georgia), Image:Ossetia01.png (caption would be "Ossetians live in North Ossetia, which is in Russia, and in South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia. South Ossetian rebels want to unite with North Ossetia"), Image:Ossetia05.png (caption: Map of the South Ossetia region of Georgia), Image:Un-georgia.png (caption: Map of Georgia), Image:Flag-map of Georgia.svg (caption: Georgia's aim is to keep Abkhazia and South Ossetia within its sovereign state). NerdyNSK (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Misleading introductory phrase

The introductory phrase that starts the article says: "The 2008 South Ossetia War is an armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetian separatists which began in August 2008". This is misleading because it makes it appear as a simple conflict between Georgians and Ossetians, while in reality it is a conflict that involves: Georgians, Ossetians, Russians, and Abkhazians. We should change the introductory sentence to reflect the truth. NerdyNSK (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, use of a word "separatist" is Georgian POV. Georgian sources call them "separatists", Russian and South Ossetian calls them "volunteers" (добровольцы) and "militiamen" (ополченцы). Let's neutrally call them "soldiers". Because they are soldiers in fact. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Webster's defines "separatist" as: One that favors separatism; an advocate of independence or autonomy for a part of a political unit. If they are advocating autonomy, they are separatists. It has nothing to do with POV, and there are no implicitly negative connotations to the word. Kafziel Complaint Department 09:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
With the same logic we could call the bin Laden terrorists soldiers as well. Not everyone who has a gun is a soldier. I am not sure it's NPOV to call any armed person a soldier. A soldier, I think, is a member of organised armed forces of recognised nation who has the legal right to use force in a military setting and gets orders from a legitimate government. Let's call them fighters (but not freedom fighters) or simply armed persons, or some other name if you really feel like changing the name. I don't see anything POV in separatism, however, so for me I have no problem with using the word separatists (the above Webster definition I think is correct). NerdyNSK (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide Reports

The sources of the Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide reports within the "Humanitarian Impact" section seem to be on the biased and unconfirmed side. And, a large portion of the article seems to have been written by Pravda. Anyone else agree? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a "Biased and/or Unconfirmed Reports" section. Because I don't want to be the guy that pulled something as serious as that. Or, the guy that let something as serious as that be claimed without unbiased confirmation.65.68.1.90 (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I plan on moving,

"Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed Moscow had reports of "ethnic cleansing" in villages.[128] South Ossetian authorities say Tbilisi's actions amount to genocide. Vladamir Putin echoed this, characterizing Georgia's actions as "complete genocide."[129]"

out of "Humanitarian Impact" and into "Combatant Statements". Anyone disagree? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


No confirmation of Russian bomb hitting civilian building in Gori

Hello, Currently article says that a Russian bomb hit a civilian building in Gori on 9 August. I think that is not true, Russian aircraft bombed an arms depot and exploding shells from the depot hit nearby civilian buildings. On photos it can be seen the building was not destroyed by a direct hit. I suggest it is mentioned that the target was the arms depot in Gori and civilians suffered from the exploding depot shells. 87.116.97.139 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 



  I was checking carefully attack on Gori and other BBC coverage.

{{editsemiprotected}}


It is necessary t include the videos about the attack on Gori, declarations of Georgian President and international leaders. Georgian President declarations Attacks on Gori


This article is slightly pro-Russian POV. Alexandre 10/08/2008 13:00 UTC

Unfortunately it is very pro-Russian... Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Whether the word "war" should be used

There is some dispute on when "war" should be used. However, a war or act of war can be done without declaration. There is no requirement of declaration of war to make a war. Sometimes guns can be fired accidentally but you can't air strike civilian target of Gori and still claim that it is not a war. This is generally accepted that, when no declaration of war or ultimatum is make before act of war, this is a crime against jus ad bellum. No war can be just if it has not been announced nor threaten. However, that is still a war, just unjust war.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the war thing..However Russian def. min. told just now that if apartment blocks were targeted , they would be razed to the ground and not only just a small portion on fire [10] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The term "state of war" has been used by one of the parties, so the word "war" in the title is perfectly fine. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 10:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I must stress that this is not related to whether "state of war" is used. Russia act as such. Ossetia combatant act as such. Georgia act as such. So be it no matter anybody have proclaimed a war.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Bombs kill civilians, fires destroy buildings, tanks entered the region, and missiles were fired. What else do you want to call this a war? A nuclear weapon? :) NerdyNSK (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this reasoning. -- 91.77.90.51 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

the same stupid discussion was going on regarding the 2006 Lebanon War, and there weren't two opposing countries, and even no state of war declared, and still, see its name --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the Russian intervention, I would suggest this be called a civil war. On some levels it is, just one in which foreigners are involved. But, a blockade is an act of war, not to mention the various military strikes. The scope of the war will become clearer in time, but I don't think there's any real doubt that it is a war of some type. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Combatants in infobox

What happened to the volunteers and irregulars from the infobox?--EZ1234 (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They are still listed there, but just not as boldly as they were earlier. See where it says: Russia Reportedly hundreds of volunteers ? --Tocino 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think is NON NEUTRAL to have Russian "peacekeeping" is a POV from biased sources.. it can be mentioned that the Russians call it a peacekeeping operation, but to assume in the article and the infobox that this are "peacekeeping" is POV.. --76.19.149.244 (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see where. You have a point. Should it have quotes around it? Or, deleted? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It should be qualified that Russia believes it is acting in a peacekeeping capacity. But Peacekeeping forces are deffinatly not POV. I can't recall in the history of peacekkeping, except the former Yugoslavia conflict, where peacekeeping forces acted aggressivly to serve their own national interest. Irregular forces are not bound by the peacekeeping mandate and therefore should be recognized as combatants/agresssors. The only actors involved in the peacekkeping operation are Georgian, Ossetian and Russian Peacekeeping forces, NOT regular armed forces.75.216.27.164 (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy talk. This is a local warfare, so at minimum there must be some non-regional parties, not within Russia and Georgia, to endorse them as peacekeepers. They are only illegal combatants. If that is possible Japanese solider in WW2 are all peacekeeper, because they are working for peace for the Far East Asia, at least they believe they are acting in a peacekeeping capacity (or technically 大東亞共榮 in Unicode).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia is not a local party. Read the history. The original conflict is between Georgians and South Ossetians, and then Russians got involved - whether for their own interests or genuinely because they want to prevent a genocide by the Georgians. Whatever the reasons, what they're doing is peacekeeping and it is internationally recognized. Naurmacil (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


casus belli

There is no accurate source which states the casus belli - this is exhibited in an article on The Economist website "The immediate cause of the fighting is unclear as claim and counterclaim abound. But what is clear is that a conflict which has been simmering for years, has at last erupted." [1] please remove all statements of the casus belli as there is no evidence form a relible source, esspecially if a source like the Economist stated it is no clear. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalcynic (talk • contribs) 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no declaration of war (only declaration of being the state of war), so there is no casus belli. It seems no one bother the need of casus belli.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a casus belli, otherwise we would not have the article. Casus belli in this case means: "plausible casus belli for initiating military action". Whether one agrees to casus belli or not is an entirely different matter. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for misleading. The concept of casus belli is there. What I means to no combatant really care to declare this war and they don't seems care too much on casus belli.
Sorry for misleading. The concept of casus belli is there. What I means to no combatant really care to declare this war and they don't seems care too much on casus belli.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Cyberattacks

Website of Georgian ministry of foreign affairs is down due to cyberattacks and ministry is now publishing news in this website http://georgiamfa.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.54.154 (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

There's a link to "International Reactions" now. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added Azerbaijan and Armenia in a "regional community" section, because their opinions are arguably more important than, say, Poland and the Baltic countries. BalkanFever 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to say so. Azerbaijan is not part of South Ossetia and should be referred to external parties unless their stand on the side with Gerogia and a part of of Gerogia. I withdraw my originally viewpoint.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption

"Old East German T-72 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles". I'm sorry, but T-72 ISN'T "Old East German" tank. It was designed in USSR. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The particular tanks shown were owned by East Germany. I changed the caption to "East German-owned T-72 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles shown in a museum. Both types are being used by Russia during the 2008 South Ossetia War". Is that more clear? Superm401 - Talk 09:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Usually when we say a "Georgian tank" or a "British submarine" we mean a tank owned by Georgia or a submarine owned by Great Britain. For example, another picture in its caption says "a Georgian Su-25", even though Su-25 is Soviet. Should we change all captions now? Since the name of the tank is linked, the reader can go to that article and see who made the tank. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Extremely biased map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Geo_civil_war_map.jpg - this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf (talk • contribs) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I trouble you to say why it's biased? Superm401 - Talk 09:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Just read it. It is EXTREMELY anti-Russian, don't you find? Quotes about "occupied by the Russian troops and run by pro-Russian puppet regimes" et al are IMHO very non-NPOV (Poligraf (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC))
The source of the map is a Dr working for a Canadian think tank. I edited the caption to make sure the reader understands the source of the map. I think the map should stay, as it actually documents actual historical events. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not acceptable. I removed it. I suggest someone edit the image and rewrite some of the quotes. Besides that, the words were pretty small and the map far too detailed to be put as a thumb on the article. And it's irrelevant to the section (or to the article), so I don't see why it should stay. Naurmacil (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Long header

the header "10 August: continued fighting and Georgian withdrawal" is too long and I consider shortening it to "10 August: Georgian withdrawal" or something like this (if the Georgian withdrawal is really confirmed). NerdyNSK (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The withdrawal is disputed by the Russian side, and there is still fighting, so I don't think that change is wise. Superm401 - Talk 09:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Reverted to the old title NerdyNSK (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Temuri Yakobashvili is a 'he', not a 'she'!

Otherwise excellent job here..

83.86.200.194 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)sdspieg


Editorial stand on peacekeeping vs. warfare

Noone in the current situation expects the South Ossetian and Georgian forces to be acting as peacekeepers, otherwise this would not be called a war, but how about the Russian forces? I think we need a section on how the Russian peacekeeping forces are implementing their mandate on keeping peace in the current situation, i.e. we need to find an editorial approach on what is peacekeeping and what is warfare. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This section is need within this talk page. Before their mandate is justified, they must be referred as combatants, probably illegal one because they even did not made the declaration of the war.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Their mandate is de facto "justified", whatever that means, otherwise the Russians have been combatants for the last decade or more, not just a week. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That is crazy talk. Just compare what have been done by Japan in early 1937. They are peacemaker, so-call "otherwise the Japanese have been combatants for the last decade or more". Russia is attack noncombat airplane within Georgia, Is that really peacemaking?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I assume English is not your first language.
First of all, it is not crazy talk since I am not crazy.
Secondly, I use the term peacekeepers - not peacemakers. The word peacekeepers indicate that there is/was a peace to keep, the word peacemakers indicates that there is/was not peace and needs to be made. It is a fact that peace was kept in South Ossetia since the previous outbreak of armed hostilities back in the beginning of the 1990s. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The "peacemaker" is actually "peacekeeper". Thanks for pointing out. However, their existence for 10 years there cannot justify themselves as peacekeeping. This is simply self-referral without any party outside the region. An apple is an apple when the characteristic of apple is there, not simply because their hostility is there for 10 years. BTW, Japan is peacekeeping in China for 6 years, if your logics holds.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is your POV. The question now is, how will you transform that into something we can use in the article? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That is your POV. You need provide me information that Georgia have agree Russia peacekeeping mission within the land of Georgia (at least de jure) and what extend it has been. Otherwise, it is simply another Manchukuo in Chinese history.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I do not have to provide information on whether Georgia or anyone else has agreed to a Russian peacekeeping mission. It is a fact (de facto) that the Russians has acted as such, be it with or without anyones permission, approval or consent.
Secondly, the word combatants is refering to persons or parties "who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict within the law of war", ergo the Russians were not combatants but peacekeepers since the early 1990s. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If no one could give us such agreement, then de facto and self-proclamation itself is not enough. It has to be judged as case by case basis. The fact is South Ossetia is nothing different with Manchucko in any factual issue in 1931 (some modern mechanism is used in Ossetia, of course, time changes). The view of outsiders (not within those warring region) becomes very important unless it turns out to be global war (then there is no outsider). By your view of combatant, there is also unlawful combatant. They also combat without following law of war. Combat not in line with law of war does not necessarily means it is peacekeeper. If by their so-call peacekeeping mandate they can attack Gori, can they attack New York and Tokyo too?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Manchukuo was ethnically similar to the Northern Chinese. On the other hand, South Ossetia is ethnically similar more to Russia than to Georgia. So your comparison doesn't hold. The fact is that South Ossetians want the Russians to be there. They're fighting with the Russians against Georgians. The actual "Japanese" here are the Georgians, not the Russians. Naurmacil (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right that illegal or unlawful combatants exist, but that is not why I initiated this section of the talk page. I think there is a need for an editorial stand on how to differenciate whether the Russian forces are enforcing their peacekeeping mandate in the current situation or they are escalating the hostilities by their presence or actions. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So, are you argue that ethnicity should be considered and the "de-facto" and "self-proclamation" is not enough? I am talking about what is the essence of peacekeeping, and there should be very little connection between peacekeeping and ethnicity. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What you refer to as "de-facto" and "self-proclamation" is actually the same thing seen from two different POV's - and both are enough. Ethnicity in this case is not directly related to the essence of peacekeeping. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ethnicity is not directly related, but it is related. Ethnicity is the main difference between Manchukuo and South Ossetia - and thus the legitimacy of the "peacekeepers". Manchukuo does not want Japan there because of a difference in ethnicity; South Ossetians want the Russians there instead of the Georgians. So yes, the Russians do have some legitimacy here because they are welcomed by the local South Ossetians. Naurmacil (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed the order because you are responding to me. In my view, Nearly all globally recognized peacekeeping mission is not protected by close ethnicity troops. I see no exception but there might be one or two exception. 2) there is no way to tell what "South Ossetia wants" because Russia has a famous history on fixing referendum in Mongol, Poland (1946), Chechnya and many other. I can't really count it when South Ossetia is under occupations by Russia for 10+ years. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia is legitimate peacekeeper, there document signed by both legitimate sides (Russia and Georgia)

  • http://sspm-info.ru/2007/07/05/18.html (in Russian)
  • Date: June 24 1992 / Sochi
  • Title: Agreement on principles of settling of Georgian-Osetian conflict.
  • Signed: for Russia by B. Eyltsin and for Georgia republic by E.Shevarnadze

Russia is dividing two combatant sides Georgia and Osetia.

1) Please sign, 2) Is there any Chinese or English translation, 3) Is that true the scope of peacekeeping mandate includes bombing of Gori civilian target? 4) Who is the author of this website? I can't see it is *.gov.ru or something like that. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to your last response to me: What you're essentially saying is that the South Ossetians have been under Russian rule for so long, they didn't know how to stand for themselves? I find that immensely insulting. Who exactly do you think you are to pass on judgment to a whole ethnicity? Who are you to say that they have become inferior because they have been under Russian rule? I don't want to get personal and I believe in your good faith, but your line of thinking is extremely ridiculous and I wish you would think before you type next time. Naurmacil (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You *are* getting really personal. I did not saying Ossetia is inferior as I have same respect to Mongol, Poland and Chechnya so don't put you words into my mouth. I have just said there is so many referendum made under Russia occupations as an example WITHOUT degrading any ethnicity. BTW, Is Ossetia single ethnicity region?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ossetians are an ethnicity, yes. And to be honest, they're not really closer to either "Russians" or "Georgians". But there's a lot of tension between Ossetians and Georgians, because the Georgians have a history of ethnic cleansing in the region. The Russians then lent a hand to the South Ossetians, maybe because they're kind or maybe because they want a weaker Georgia. But for whatever reason, the Russians clearly have done some good and it is absolutely disgusting that the world is siding with a genocidal Georgia, mostly due to anti-Russian sentiment and also because Georgia could help the Western allies to deter Russia and to help in Iraq. Naurmacil (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Is it ok to include first-hand information from russian soldiers?

I happen to have access to unmodified, not media-influenced information directly from within the conflict. Is it ok to include this information to the article? toxygen (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if it is published in a reliable source (and not your own, otherwise OR). Joshdboz (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you post it here, on the talk page? Ben Aveling 11:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure: At least half of Georgian soldiers who was involved in first attack on Tshinvali are not ethnical georgians. Many of them are people with negroid and mongoloid apperance. Nationality of some of them are confirmed already. Many of them are people from African countries, continental Asia and even Japan. 53 of detentioned mercenaries already told they joined war for money of current Georgian goverment. More than 250 georgian soldiers already laid down their weapon and surrender to Peacemaker forces.More than 100 Georgian reservists defected from Saakashvili forces and joined Russian army to fight against Saakashvili regime.
Josh: well, you would rather use malformed information and have reference to it than use real information without reference. I understand this but given that all media manipulate information as they want I think it's better to have up-to-date information from battlefield. Not only rumors, but facts upon which military decisions are made. But if it's not convenient, no problem. toxygen (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't see us using that as for all we know, you could have written it yourself. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Right. It needs to be published in an external, reliable source before we can use it. Superm401 - Talk 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sure, that's why I was asking. But it's little bit striking how 2 different media publish 2 completely different information on the same event. In case someone is interested, I can publish the information here. Is this ok? toxygen (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, it needs to be in a third-party, reliable source. Superm401 - Talk 12:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe your information is accurate, Toxygen, but sadly Wikipedia has no means to verify independent sources. You could probably give that information to the media and hope that they make the best use of it. Naurmacil (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Ceasefire

We need to make the article consistent on the alleged ceasefires. It currently says "After agreeing to a ceasefire, on August 7 Georgia launched a surprise invasion", but later "However, by the day's end [August 7], Saakashvili ordered a unilateral ceasefire." and "Following Saakashvili’s offer [of a ceasefire], attacks on Georgian-controlled villages in South Ossetia reportedly intensified." This is not consistent. Was it a unilateral ceasefire, an offer of a ceasefire, or did both sides agree? A BBC story says "sides agree to ceasefire", but it doesn't offer details. I think more information is necessary to justify the claim that this was an actual mutual agreement.

A separate issue is who violated the ceasefire first (if there was one, and not just an offer). The intro implies it was Georgia, but they claim South Ossetians attacked Georgian villages first. The Georgian claim should probably be noted alongside the Russian view in the intro. Superm401 - Talk 12:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Both sides agreed to a ceasefire according to the BBC source. Then Georgia invaded South Ossetia, claiming that South Ossetia violated the ceasefire by attacking Georgian villages, while South Ossetia and Russia say that they did no such thing and hence Georgia violated the ceasefire with its surprise invasion.--Miyokan (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The BBC story doesn't say which officials actually agreed to a ceasefire. Superm401 - Talk 12:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
BBC source says 7 August 2008 After escalating Georgian-Ossetian clashes, sides agree to ceasefire; however Georgia launches a surprise attack. It's not necessary to say which person gave the order to agree to the ceasefire.--Miyokan (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's clearly relevant information. If it was only ground commanders, that would be very different than the president, for instance. Superm401 - Talk 12:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Poorly Written Segment

I am not an English major, nor am I uptihght, but I was reading and this caught my eye as being fairly bad:

"Near 07:23 UTC it is reported according to a source in Russian Navy commandment that there are several Russian ships is moving to Georgia by sea. They are: the Flagship of Black Sea Fleet rocket cruiser Moskva, escort vessel Smetlivy, three large landing crafts and several security vessels. The source in Russian Navy commandment stated that Russian ships does not block Georgian coast, because "Russia is not in the state of war with Georgia". Georgian National Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia stated that Russian ships entered the Abkhazian port of Ochamchira. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on this."

It should be: "Near 07:23 UTC it was reported according to a source in the Russian Navy that there are several Russian ships moving to Georgia by sea. They are: the Flagship of Black Sea Fleet rocket cruiser Moskva, escort vessel Smetlivy, three large landing crafts and several security vessels. The source in the Russian Navy stated that Russian ships are not blocking the Georgian coast because "Russia is not in the state of war with Georgia". Georgian National Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia stated that Russian ships entered the Abkhazian port of Ochamchira. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on this."

Not big changes, but changes. There are other mistakes in the article and that is common in any article, but that just caught my eye. I took out commandment even though I'm sure it is command to keep the flow, though I'm sure you could mention that the eource is in the Russian navy's Command structure the first time it is brought up. -Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.53.96 (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I also see a lot of spelling errors in the end part of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.12.186 (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


bombing of Goir

Should we have a article for the bombing of Gori like for the Al-Qaa air strike [11]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.12.186 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of bombing everything in Georgia, pretty unlimited whenever there is an Georgian. If this bombing is written then be prepare to write a lot of them.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian airstrikes in Georgia - I suggest that article --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest 2008 Russian bombing of Georgia which is akin to 1999 Russian bombing of Chechnya.

Oh, people, please no. Let's keep it all in one article and later (I think the war will not continue too long) we will divide all these to sub-articles. This is for better editing. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice if the following link will be added: http://war.georgia.su/genocide.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.151.228 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Any info is good, but there must be some description. I have looked the website and I cannot see what has happened except there are dead men. I expect some description whenever photo is provided. (where/when/who it is taken)--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I perceive the site as Russian POV, but would be useful for documenting anti-Georgian propaganda if we want to document that... Don't link without discussing though as it's too much POV NerdyNSK (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Very true. But let him explain who is taking those photo first. If the photo is "explainable" and are not manufactured by Russian army or Ossetia combatant, why not let them display?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It contains descriptions in some parts of it. For example, here http://war.georgia.su/war-crimes.htm there is description that it is "The blood massacre in Ossetian village Khetagurovo: georgian troops kills few dozens peaceful local citizens."

Why are South Ossetian casualties in a "general" section while they are listed as part of the conflict?

Quite sneaky. --Leladax (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Pictures

someone should add some pictures from the current conflict instead of the Military vehicles from other nations.--66.229.12.186 (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

* Joking aside, any information on whether it is possible to enter the conflict zone? There are still flights to Tbilisi from 2 countries. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Other sources?

In the article it says: Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs were found in Tskinvali. He also reported that a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians.[148] A South Ossetian reservist reported that were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.[148]

This information comes from Russian Today. The question is whether there are other news agencies - whose countries are not involved in the conflict - which support this information. I think we all agree that we don't know what is going in South Ossetia, but this paragraph just seems to be usual war-propaganda. -- DanteRay (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why it gives the qualifier of who said them, just as 99% of the statements here are because they are all unconfirmed.--Miyokan (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is we are lacking of verifiable sources and only those who know Russian can verify it. Lacking English source make the degrading of the verifiability.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right, the problem is the lack of verifiable sources. But I think we should be very careful with media information coming from the news agencies of both involved countries. Let's face it, the Georgian media as well as the Russian media are fighting a PR war. That's why we should use sources like Reuters here, who clearly state that most of the information is propaganda. We really should focus on this, because when someone who does not know the topic will blindly believe everything which is in the article. -- DanteRay (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't say we could trust the English sources either. The U.K. newspapers are okay, but the U.S. media is blatantly anti-Russian. Reading those news, I didn't even know the Georgians had an army. Naurmacil (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Russian POV

The introductory paragraph has thoroughly been (once again) saturated by the Russian POV. Please fix this, the examples are too numerous and obvious for me to cut and past them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
the Russian POV is still lurking ... look at specific language i.e. "surprise" (we don't know if the Ossetians were surprised or not) ... abundance of Putin quotes ... this sentence: "Russia also laid much of the responsibility for ending the fighting on the United States, which has trained Georgian troops." does not belong in the introductory paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia attacked almost immediately after they signed a ceasefire with South Ossetia. If that isn't a surprise attack, then I don't know what is. --Tocino 14:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia stated that the reason for the attack was that the ceasefire with South Ossetia (which was not signed, it was unilateral) was not reciprocated by South Ossetia forces. I'm not trying to take sides (the truth is I consider both sides wrong to kill at all, as I am a total pacifist), but I am trying to offer their explanation for that action.
Ah, yes, but they (the Georgians) claim to have been attacked by Ossetian militias first after they (the Ossetians) signed the same peace accord. We don't know who is telling the truth and should remain neutral until more information is released.
Okay, it was unilateral, the point is we don't know which side is being truthful.
This sentence "Russia claims that among soldiers killed during Georgian assault on Tshinvali (7.08.2008), there have been found black soldiers" in the Georgian Order of Battle section isn't proper English, but of course no English language sources confirm this not even RussiaToday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No matter who attack first Osetians or Georgians (they are attacking each other every day), the matter that Georgians attacked Russian peacekeepers and killed number of soldiers. That's why Russia interfere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.102.43.111 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is POV at the very start when Russian called themselves peacekeepers.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, no. They didn't "call themselves" peacekeepers. They ARE peacekeepers, or at least recognized as peacekeepers by those who have facts in their hands. Unlike you. I'm sorry if I'm not too civil, but this utter stupidity and ignorance is pissing me off. Naurmacil (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You are getting very emotional today. Please take 4-hour rest before discussion.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not emotional and never was, and I apologize if my strong words offend you. I insist on my point that you should have more facts on your hands before you debate the topic, however. Naurmacil (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia withdraws troops fully from South Ossetia, declares cease fire

According to the AP, Georgian forces are no longer present in South Ossetia and Georgia has declared a cease fire. No news yet on Russian reciprocation or lack thereof. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_south_ossetia (Signed ex post facto because I forgot earlier) Christiangoth (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1) they did not declare it, they asked for it 2) the troops are still there. In case you like Putin's sense of humor: Comments of Putin on that Georgian letter: When journalist asked Vladimir Putin about his opinion on proposes of Saakashvili to stop fire when Putin answered one word only: SPAM. toxygen (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Christiangoth has his english source to support it, Toxygen, do you have english source to support it?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
English sources simply mean they're written in English. Nothing else. American newspaper can say as much bullshit as any "censored newspaper" in Russia or China.Naurmacil (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I don't mind who write it, okay. What I mind is whether I can read it and verify it. I can't verify a Russian text by Google Translator, only few can. Google Translator simply does not work.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not our fault you can't verify a source even when using a translator. Then you'll just have to let the rest of us verify it, right? Naurmacil (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
@ Toxygen-According to the cited source, they did declare it. It was a unilateral cease fire according to the AP. If another source claims that troops are still there, then conflicting reports need to all be addressed. On that note, I checked on the entry I had made in the article on this subject, and found that it had been altered heavily. My citation had been removed entirely, and two others had been added. The new information had a mild Russian bias. I integrated my original information with the new information and adjusted it to be much more neutral. It now reports what both sides claim without making either out to sound more certainly true. Christiangoth (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has a point of view. I can't see why you're so sure of your own neutrality. Naurmacil (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
My neutrality is not at issue, the article's is. I made the article more neutral by presenting the points of view of both sides without indicating that either was true. This way, the reader is able to have available information instead of interpretations and judgments. I do not know a way to offer information more objectively than this. The article in its previous form was written in such a way as to favor the Russian account of events as true. Christiangoth (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Casualties

Any updates on Russian casualties? I see the Georgian casualties have fluctuated wildly over the past few hours. Any updates on the Russians? 71.147.53.96 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

According to Ministry of Defence site exact numbers are unknown yet and will be counted later 81.25.53.32 (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Okay, thank you. I've been updating friends in Beijing, and they wnated to know.:) 71.147.53.96 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

Humitarian Impact - In Georgia

Only the firsy paragraph of Humanitarian Impact - In Georgia is about the humanitarian impact in Georgia. The rest should be moved up to the South Osseta section. 80.4.15.12 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps deletes Georgia?

Hi,

If you go to Google Maps, you will see that there is no information whatsoever about Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. This blog has an image: http://www.lindsayfincher.com/2008/08/google_maps_censoring_the_sout.html I think this information should be added to the page.

Mercenaries

This is under Aug 10 "Russian soldiers captured group of american mercenaries on territory of South Ossetia. Group was captured near of Zare village. Beside this, Dmitry Medoyev has already reported that among the corpses in Tskhinvali several bodies of black people who fought on the side of Georgia were found."

Is this trusted information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, it was confirmed both by Russian army and later it was reported in media. You can check the reference.toxygen (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Confirmation by Russian army makes it "trusted information"? Absurd notion. Also, how do they know, that they were mercenaries? Clear POV, in my opinion. Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The reference is in Russian and the accepted spelling of the Russian President's name is Medvedev. Why isn't RussiaToday reporting this in English?
Because they're referring to Dmitry Medoyev, the official representative of South Ossetia in Moscow, not the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev.--Miyokan (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
use translate.google.com, and it was not Medvedev but Medoyev. They are 2 different people. use ~~~~ for signature please. toxygen (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Can this repeated statement be removed or incorporated with the other one, this statement about black bodies is already further down in the article.--Miyokan (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I think it belongs to 10th august events. it happened today. toxygen (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I've removed this assertion entirely. The only source cited was a Russian news agency web article (dominated by Putin clique?), and the story reeks of pro-Moscow propaganda. Were these mercenaries wearing U.S.-flag patches on their shirts? Is the U.S. the only country where black people live? More importantly, the assertion is made again later in the article, where it is properly cited as well as (now) properly prefaced by the phrase "Moscow claims...."Gbentley (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Weapons from the Czech Republic

Self propelled guns and rocket launchers (and tanks and other materiel) mentioned in the article were sold to Georgia by the Czech Republic, not by Slovakia (where some of the arms were manufactured). I fixed this in the article.

Online article says CR sold 42 self guns 122 mm, 24 self propelled guns Dana, 6 rocket launchers, 10 tanks T55, 50 tanks T72 and 12 SU-25k planes since 2000. It refers UN register on conventional weapons ([12] - registration needed). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

War Propogand and Media Manipulation

It should be pointed out that a majority of all sources are originating from Russian media or Moscow Bureau's of international media. As I am aware at this time, there are no war correspondents in the field from international media sources. IMO this article is sliding to a seriously pro-Russian POV with many recent discussion attendees and article editors using poorly cited "accusations" or maintaing and updating only aspects of the article which are Russian POV. Please link up the article which states there is a Reuters correspondent in the field, as there is no direct war correspondent footage currently available at Reuters. A photographer did enter with the Russian military on the 10th of August. Explaing the significance of "American Mercenaries" (mercenaries work for highest bidder, and why Georgia can not have Black people enlisted in their military. Also, the casualty sections make no mention whatsoever of UNCONFIRMED numbers, nor any distinciton or refernce to civilian, Regular or Irregular (who can be mistaken for civilian) forces. There are no regular updates to combatant statemnts for the Georgian or Ossetian side, but repeted updates for the Russian side. Also repeated attempts have been made to sift out Pro-Russian wording, which continues to appear. To claim the BBC is biased and, at the same time repeatedly cite Russian language and .ru sources is clearly an attempt to "usurp" the information war. I mark this article as no longer maintaining a prefessional semblance of balance, but BIASED to Russian POV.70.192.219.192 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Jakub

You are right, the problem is the lack of verifiable sources. We should be very careful with media information coming from the news agencies of both involved countries. Let's face it, the Georgian media as well as the Russian media are fighting a PR war. That's why we should use sources like Reuters here, who clearly state that most of the information is propaganda. We really should focus on this, because when someone who does not know the topic will blindly believe everything which is in the article. -- DanteRay (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We should take in mind that Reuters' (CNN, BBC, etc.) reports is based on rather Georgian or Russian media reports too. There are absolutely NOBODY from western media in South Ossetia. By the way, there are almost NOBODY from Russia at this moment (see blog post of Mikhail Romanov in Livejournal: "All Russian journalists is in Vladikavkaz now. We went out by column. We was shooted by grenade launchers. There is only Ruslan Gusarov of NTV in that hell. Alone. Without a cameraman. I'm praying for him. All details will be later. Photos too. Believe me, I have too much to tell." (in Russian). --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes that's right. But we should clearly state in the article that the information might be wrong. For example it says in the article:Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs were found in Tskinvali. He also reported that a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians.[148] A South Ossetian reservist reported that were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.
That just sounds so much like war-propaganda... (What's next ... Vesti radio reports that Georgians killed Jesus, JFK and Martin Luther King ...) ... okay, maybe it is true ... but at the moment, no one knows it. And when a user reads this hear he does not know whether this comes from a reliable source or not. So there should be some information to be very careful with such sources. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it can be propaganda. But we cannot say that only Reuters, BBC and CNN are the only reliable and unbiased sources. There are simply NOBODY from these news agencies there. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I totally agree with you on this one. I just mentioned the Reuters article because at least they clearly say that it might be propaganda, whereas some of the sources which are now mentioned in the text claim that their articles are the one and only truth. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There actually are westerners in Georgia right now. Some are actual correspondents, while others are e.g. aid workers, but still communicate with westerners news agencies. [13] and [14] both mention westerners. But this discussion is getting off track. The bottom line is all countries (including Georgia, Russia, and the U.S.) have biased media, so we have to trust no one and insist on NPOV. Superm401 - Talk 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I also aware some people is so POV that claiming "Georgia offense" and at the same time "Russian involvement". This is extremely so inclined based on the fact that Russian even (did not) declared his war and its casus belli. If it is really peacekeeping there is no point to blockage or bombing, at least unless a new peacekeeping plan is such announced. This is aggression to bomb capital of another nation.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not discuss war itself, this is not a forum. Georgia offense is a POV, but involvement is neutral term. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of propaganda from both sides, and I assure you the international media is not going to side with the Russians. The only ones who are accusing pro-Russian biases are those who're vehemently anti-Russian themselves. Editing in Wikipedia is harsh, but I'm appalled by these nonsense 'war propaganda' accusations that have caused so many prolific, talented contributors to leave Wikipedia. Before you accuse me of being a Russian robot - I hold Canadian passport and live in Hong Kong.
There's obviously propaganda, but there's a few hard facts and we can easily see there are some holes in Georgia's narrative. Georgia invaded South Ossetia while claiming that it's defending from Russian aggression - we know that Russia entered the conflict much later, after Georgia clashed with South Ossetia. This is not disputed - no one is disputing it. Yet we seem to get the impression from Georgia that they're "defending" themselves, while its more likely that they, pardon my French, got their ass kicked and are now begging for peace. What actually happened between Georgia and South Ossetia is less clear, though. On the Russian side, there are a lot of claims we can't verify - did the Georgians bomb the hospital, or did they not? Did they actually retreat or are they still clashing? Are Georgians shooting at peacekeepers? We don't know. They may be untrue. But the Russians right now are far more open and detailed in their narrative and at least refrained from the blatant lying from some of the Georgians. Naurmacil (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
1) This is POV to say "The only ones who are accusing pro-Russian biases are those who're vehemently anti-Russian themselves". Some wording (peacekeeping) is simply pro-Russian bias and that will not make one anti-Russian by pointing that pro-Russian bias out. Two wrong will not do one right. I am a Hong kong resident without Canadian passport.
2) There is no reason (casus belli) to make us accept that Russia can invade Georgia because Georgia so-call 'invaded' South Ossetia. Maybe you are supporting self-determination of South Ossetia, or may be not, it is at best civil war (not possibly disputed) and it could not possibly justified Russian invasion. Even in sometimes peacekeeping is made it is done by careful studies of weeks before deciding peacekeeping is needed. No one can dispute that. Whenever Russia attacks is before or after 8-Aug is immaterial.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I made that first claim because I studied their contributions history and their accounts seem dedicated to smearing Russia. On the other hand, what indisputably happened in the conflict is that Georgia attacked first - it started the conflict. Russian forces had always been involved in South Ossetia, and Georgia knows that. Georgia knows that Russia might react, and yet Georgia willingly started the conflict, giving Russia every reason to defend herself or her semi-protectorate. You can't put the blame on HER if she didn't even start the conflict, much like you can't blame Prussia for the Franco-Prussian war. Might she be overreacting? Maybe. Is she exploiting the opportunity? Perhaps. But could we reasonably say that Russia is to blame for a war that Georgia started? No. Naurmacil (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't made your first claim merely based on your aforesaid studies. Your first claim is far too strong. Secondly, Russia have no rights defend her so-called semi-protectorate. It is an colony of Russia? Self-defend, Georgia has provoked no hostility against Russia! Did 911-thing happen in Moscow and found something that guy is trained by Georgia? That is war making, not self defense or peacekeeping.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia had a peacekeeping mission there, and you can't expect them to be attacked and not respond. How much they respond may be criticized, but it is essentially the fault of the aggressor. Even McCain, who is famously anti-Russian and says that Putin is evil, recognizes the Russians as peacekeepers, and he says that the fault is that the Russians are not neutral peacekeepers. Naurmacil (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd that some are portraying media manipulation by the Russians, when it is Saakashvili who was trained by some US organisation in this very tactic. As to actual sources used, I suggest that users familiarise themselves with WP:RS; RIA Novosit, Kommersant, Vedomosti, ITAR-TASS, Russia Today, etc, etc are reliable sources for information, and any push by any user to disregard these sources and depend only on CNN, BCC, etc will be met with resistance by myself and hopefully other users. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, but media agencies in both countries are controlled by the government. That's a fact. They are not independant. So please don't claim that Russia Today, Vedomosti etc always tell us the truth. I don't think that we should delete all these sources, but at least, we should give a short notice, that we are not completly sure whether the information they give us is true or not. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Damn, at least Russian media is NOT dependent at all. I agree about Russia Today - its a government TV channel. But not with others. For example: http://ej.ru/?a=note&id=8288 - it's a cool critics of Russian actions by Russian journalist in Russian news site. There are no communists now in Russia, their censorship is NOTHING comparable to censorship in USA for example. You can write there everything about everything and everybody. I wonder when US people claims that all media there in Russia are controlled by "Putin clique". It's lie. (Although my name is like Russian Aleksandr I must say that I'm not Russian, not American, I live in Europe, in Western Europe, on the coast of Atlantic ocean.) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian media is NOT dependent at all. -- Go to this page, look at the map and the table below. Russia on place 144 when it comes to freedom of press. So, just rethink your statement. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I'm scared by the inability of you americans to think outside of the box. Seriously, imagine it for a second: your government too could possibly lie. And it might even be possible that you're being lied to when you're told that we Russians have no freedom of press. Try to think from that position, and I hope you'll see the catastrophical flaws in your argumens. If you're still wondering, imagine somebody saying: Russia has free press. Look at this table produced by our First Television Channel: we're the number 3 on the list of free press countries. Now, rethink your statement. Would you believe such a table? -- 81.195.27.108 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not an American. And the index about the freedom of press is from an international group, not from a news agency controlled by the government. -- DanteRay (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Though if you google "Reporters without borders", as I did just now, you'll discover that from the fourth link on there are claims after claims that it's not an international group and actually is being controlled by government. Even I was surprised. I expected them to have some kind of a shady background (well, because I live in Russia and I know they're lying - the press here is free enough), but to be this unpopular even amongst the english-speaking community... do you really think it's safe to trust these people?
Sorry about calling you american, btw. -- 81.195.27.108 (talk)
Please read the first sentence of WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That's correct. We take into account the possibility a source may be lying by giving other perspectives. No "short notice" is needed. Superm401 - Talk 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Our job isn't to determine what is or isn't propaganda here. The best way to counter bias is to use information from every single available source. It's not appropriate for us to point out that "This might be propaganda" in the main article, that's outright original research, and from the many many articles I've read on this conflict, there's propaganda everywhere to some degree, in Reuters, CNN, BBC, as well as in Russia today, RIA Novosti etc.. There is no such thing as a neutral source as far as I've seen. LokiiT (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Second. The issue is knowing who take this photo or writing that words, not the issue of this guy is lair and that gay is telling the truth, and at lesser extent whether that source is verifiable by English using reader (It could be Russian, Ossetian or Georgian writer, I don't care).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW all Russian sources may be verified by English-speaking reader using Google Translate, I use it when in doubt about some Russian words or sentences. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You can use Google Translator only when you know basic syntax of Russian or you are translating only single word. If Google Transfer works there is no need to have non-English source banner because it does degrade verifiability. BTW it is only lesser extent and when English source is not available.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you may be not see form in bottom of Google Translate page. It can translate the whole page by URL. For example, translation of Lenta.Ru homepage: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Flenta.ru&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=ru&tl=en :-) Translation quality looks very good, with some errors, but very-very good. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I will continue to use Russian sources, because they are more quickly then any other, except may be Georgian, but I don't know Georgian language, however, I use Georgian opinion from Russian-language - but Georgian in nature - sources like http://www.newsgeorgia.ru and http://www.civil.ge - they are of Georgian origin, but in Russian, which I know a little. I prefer to use these sources before any English-language, because they are faster. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Under 10 August, Ivanov is not even mentioned in the Russia Today reference [124]. “This claim of relocation rather than withdrawal has been confirmed by Russian peacekeeping spokesman Vladimir Ivanov: "Georgia did not remove its forces from South Ossetia". "Our observation posts have spotted Georgian law-enforcement units, as well as artillery and armoured vehicles," he said.[124]” should be removed since it is not referenced material. Jason3777 (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the original web page (which I saw earlier) was misplaced. I've found a replacement (Yahoo News) with the same quote. Superm401 - Talk 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have done a web search.... Jason3777 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11909324&fsrc=nwl
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War/Archive_3&oldid=1190122267"