Talk:Russo-Georgian War

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

• Be neutral (scrupulously so)
• Be verifiable.
• Be collaborative

Don't

• Don't complain about the title. We've been over this and this page is staying at this location for now. See a recent discussion.
• Don't be original.
• Don't edit war
• Don't soapbox.
• Don't randomly stick tags everywhere. {{sofixit}}, if you please.

Put new text under old text.

The article does not mention the attacks on reporters

Russian and Ossetian troops opened fire on journalists on Thursday, excusing themselves by saying they did not know there were journalists in the car. [1][2][3][4][5][6]

I think the article should mention this issue. Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The video about Turkish journalists (discussed below) recorded 10 Aug, not in Thursday. For information about journalists in this war see Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Also, please add new sections at the bottom of the page. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Allegations of media bias

This section is biased and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Aside from Kremlin and Russia Today allegations, it has links to "Antiwar.com" and to a guy who runs a blog. This view of "media bias" is held by a small minority and does not deserve such a big section. I think it should be removed. Does anyone else agree? Ostap 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all that is written sources, which specializze on popular scandals.--Woozeefy (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the section either has to go or be further expanded to cover allegations that the Russian media is in turn being biased. A Russia Today reporter, for example, has resigned saying he was filing reports that Russia Today refused to broadcast. Of course, that would make the section even bigger. I accordingly don't see another solution besides removing the section.Bdell555 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, moved here:

Allegations of media bias

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin accused foreign media of pro-Georgian bias in their coverage of the ongoing conflict between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia. "We want television screens in the West to be showing not only Russian tanks, and texts saying Russia is at war in South Ossetia and with Georgia, but also to be showing the suffering of the Ossetian people, the murdered elderly people and children, the destroyed towns of South Ossetia, and Tskhinvali. This would be an objective way of presenting the material," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said. Current Western media coverage of the events in the separatist republic is "a politically motivated version, to put it mildly," he said.

On August 11, 2008, the government funded Russia Today TV channel accused CNN of presenting video footage made by Russia Today in South Ossetia as pictures of bombed Gori.

Blogger James Poulos at The Guardian remarked that "As Russian columns advance into Georgia proper, columns in the American press fill with dire warnings and withering contempt for anyone so puerile as to ever trust a Russian... The anti-Russia lobby is giving the pro-Israel lobby a run for its money, hyping the settling of scores among two European, Orthodox Christian countries as more dangerous to the peace and security of the west than any clash of civilisations or jihad ever was... The anti-Russian reaction obscures the basic particularity of the Georgian situation, and all the history that informs it."

Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, a anti-interventionist advocacy website, stated that "The anti-Russian bias of the Western media is really something to behold: 'Russia Invades Georgia,' 'Russia Attacks Georgia,' and variations thereof have been some of the choice headlines reporting events in the Caucasus, but the reality is not only quite different, but the exact opposite. Sometimes this comes out in the third or fourth paragraph of the reportage, in which it is admitted that the Georgians tried to 'retake' the 'breakaway province' of South Ossetia. The Georgian bombing campaign and the civilian casualties – if they are mentioned at all – are downplayed and presented as subject to dispute."

What? Practically all of Russia's media is much more biased than this section claims the western media to be. This stuff here is only propaganda by Russia Today and RIAN (Russian state agencies) plus some bloggers' claims. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, too. This article needs a MAJOR cleanup overally. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. Balance it by adding and editing, not censoring. These claims are notable. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is so "notable" with the Russian propaganda websites whining about the world "bias" towards its enemy, and some bloggers writing something, to give this more space than the HRW report of village burning campaign which got zero space in the article?

Add it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Add it." or what?

And so, it was reinstated again. This is SO STUPID. So we've got:

1. RIAN (Russian propaganda outlet)
2. Russia Today (Russian propaganda outlet)
3. a blogger
4. some dude who allgedly hates interventions but don't care about Rssian interventions.
5. CNN - USA propaganda (add by --Ieee2008 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
6. BBC - USA propaganda (by British)
7. *.ge - Georgian propaganda
8. *.uk - British propaganda
9. times - yellow press
10. lenta.ru - yellow press
11. guardian - yellow press
12. HRW - USA propaganda
13. Condoleezza - pure USA propaganda
14. "Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog" - Anti-Russian PR at wiki.

Yes, it's all MUST-BE MATERIAL IN SERRRRRIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA (ANYONE CAN EDIT).

People, please keep removing this shit (I can't guard the article, besides there's this 3RR stuff). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. If you want you can create a separate article about propaganda in this war and place it there. This article is already too big. Let's focus on facts.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no place about it anywhere. Article about "propaganda in war" citing official propaganda outlets like some neutral observers? "Blogger James Poulos"? "A dude who wrote "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 And the Israeli Connection" for all people? Come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Add it? Look at this Associated Press report. Count the number of inconsistencies in Russian communcations that we'd have to add. "Russian at first denied that tanks were even in Gori but video footage proved otherwise", [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov "denied that Russian troops were anywhere near [Poti]" vs We have seen more and more Russian troops coming into the area all day etc etc. A person could probably fill a page detailing apparent bias in Russian sources. This section needs to go.Bdell555 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captinobvious, you seem to have some serious neutrality issues here. We can't disregard Russian media. I've seen some outright lies on my own American television over the past few days, there's propaganda coming from both sides. Where did all these anti-Russians come from who are hellbent on removing their point of view and think their own media is completely objective and trustworthy? It's not good, and unfortunately I can't put any serious effort into this article. LokiiT (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So find someone other than Russian propaganda, "blogger" and a conspiracy nutcase. Until then, get out with this. (Btw, this whole "genocide by Georgia" non-stop hate campaign thing in practcially ALL the Russian media, not only these government-run... and then they dare to whine about "bias"? oh, boy) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of quotation marks and the biased, if not ad-hominem ("Attack the attacker"?) term "conspiracy nutcase" hardly looks like a serious argument to me. True neutrality stops to exist the moment you discard sources simply based on the position they hold or held in the past, and in a conflict where every single reporting party has at least an emotional involvement, all you get to hear could be considered "propaganda" anyway - be it reporting what you want people to think or not reporting what you don't want people to think.

I vote for reinstating the "conspiracy nutcase"'s quotation, since it provides an opposing to the popular one view from a western source which at least appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Whether you like it or not, this is a viewpoint that also exists and deserves representation.

Also, why do I get the impression that the possibility of both parties not quite having a clean record as far as "ethnic cleansings" or "genocides" - which, I want to add, is a very questionable term to apply to lootings - in this war is outright discarded or ignored by the bulk of the posters - or at least the bulk of the posts, since some people appear to have an extraordinary urge to demonstrate presence - on this talk page? Can we please cut down on the black-and-white worldview? --87.170.212.163 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=231738472&oldid=231738034 - and again reinstated, with the reason "This should stay" (almost as good as "Add it.").

"This should stay" WHY again? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A better question is why not? Are you afraid of people finding out that their media might not be telling them the whole truth? Because that is the truth. Neither side is fair or objective in the least. The most neutral articles I've seen have been blogs and opinion pieces that wouldn't qualify as reliable sources. You accusing Russian media of being "propaganda" just because you don't like it is meaningless. Do you know for a fact that there was no genocide? Were you there? Then give the ol' flapper a rest and stop pretending that you know what's going on. None of us do, and that's why we report what both sides are saying. LokiiT (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I stopped watching Russian news reporting on the conflict after the channels began officially labeling the conflict "Genocide in South Ossetia," leading with it as the title of their programs and freely throwing the term around as if it were a synonym for "conflict." Genocide is something much more serious than what is happening in South Ossetia. 81.211.3.174 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC) (from Moscow)

I told you "why not" (look above). Now, you tell me "why yes" - why the Russian propaganda and opinion of "blogger" and a conspiracy nut are supposedly essentional for a self-declared encyclopedia? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Do you know for a fact that there was no genocide?" Yes - HRW found no evidence while finding evidence of atrocities by South Ossetians. If there was "genocide", they would have something more to report than about Ossetian militiamen who were captured by Georgians, beaten and released(!). The whole story was pure Russian BS. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Add it" referred to "the HRW report of village burning campaign which got zero space in the article". -Colfer2 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

9/11 is a good example. Yes, one can create a separate article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but such materials should NOT be included in main 9/11 article.Biophys (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some mainstream media have questioned the simple vision of the Georgian conflict. Charles King in the Christian Science Monitor: “The emerging narrative, echoing across editorial pages and on television news programs in the US, portrays Georgia as an embattled, pro-Western country struggling to secure its borders against a belligerent Russia…. Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html

Adjpro (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another mainstream western source talking about the Georgian/western propaganda campaign. LokiiT (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html "Russia illegally attacked Georgia and imperiled a small and feeble neighbor. (...) Russia has massively overreacted to the situation in Georgia. It has hit targets across Georgia, well beyond South Ossetia, and has killed both Georgian military personnel as well as civilians. The international community is right to condemn this illegal attack on an independent country and United Nations member." - Hey, but isn't it excatly what Karasin was whining about? Hey, world, it's peacekeeping! operation! Horrrrrible Georgian genocide! "So far at least, Russia's aims have been clear: to oust Georgian forces from the territory of South Ossetia, one of two secessionist enclaves in Georgia, and to chasten a Saakashvili government that Russia perceives as hot-headed and unpredictable." - as you see, the article is absolutely outdated. And you're trying to hard. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain and dog, Could you clarify what you think I'm trying too hard to do and what is outdated? In my mind, I am trying to work with people on this list to come up with a good entry. Noting that media may be simplistic does not seem to suggest anything about Georgian genocide. I appreciated your comments asking for entries to be better written, but what you just wrote is too flip and self-involved to be understood.

For some reason, what I wrote in response to Lokiit above did not come through. I rejected LokiiT's use of the word propaganda, because it implied dishonesty -- the article he cited only suggests "PR."

Thank you

Adjpro (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch says there is "a massive Russia propaganda machine" at work here. What I don't understand is why editors who apparently consider themselves "left wing" are effectively trying to attack the credibility of human rights groups. Reading HRW's stories on Gitmo, it seemed to me they are more "left" than "right". HRW has advocated for abortion legalisation, gay rights, and the abolition of capital punishment. Can someone explain this apparent contradiction to me?Bdell555 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of anti-Russian bias in Western media during this conflict. A lot of Saakashvili's lies were taken at a face value. Here is an inyteresting analysis in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, there are a lot of sources saying there is an anti-Western bias in Russian media. The point is that this section will get out of hand if you start including allegations from both sides about bias. You can't just have the allegations against the western media for NPOV reasons.Bdell555 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And again THE SAME ONE link. For the record, the title says "Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war", but the article itself says:

"Winners — Vladimir Putin: he made it clear to the world that Georgia had been the aggressor and that his soldiers were intervening to stop “genocide” (...) Losers — Mikhail Saakashvili: the picture of the Georgian President cowering from a Russian helicopter said it all".

Does not compute - "interesting" indeed. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point, obviously both Russian and Georgian media are biased, there is no point including claims to that effect, the question is whether outside media is biased.--Miyokan (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Four countries (de-facto): Russia, Georgia, Abkhasia and South Ossetia were directly involded in conflict. There is no sense to make any notion about their media bias - their bias is obvious. But the media of other countries (western or not) can be expected to be neutral. So, allegation of their bias is worth to be included. And... western media is considered 'independept' and 'neutral', aren't they?

Now about 'blogger'. The articla is placed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia1, while I can see separate button for blogs, and address is different and it looks different. Example: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/08/busted_how_america_turned_the.html. Please compare them: unlike previous, the second if clearly visible as blog. So, it looks to me that the text about Ossetia war bias is placed as article, not as blog. This means that notion about it should be restored because article in The Guardian on this topic is surely notable. This should be done because currently it's not neutral: I can see Russian (side of conflict) allegations vs. allegations of HRW (considered as neutral international organisation). Allegation on western bias placed in western media will fix the picture. 79.175.2.54 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No one could be treated as neutral instead of asia or africa... West wanted Georgia to enter NATO to do so they need to fulfill NATO restrictions. Country with unclear borders cant enter NATO. It is not an empty words, remember the reaction of Turkey after US officially acknowledge of Armenian Genocide, and remember that Georgia would be a great backup in that region. And US waste a lot of resource to reinforce Georgia army for that purpose. And Georgia fights with American weapons in this conflict! It would be very naive thinking that after that Bush simply agreed with Russian claims and express any discontent about Georgia. So blindly just for bush speech about occupation of Georgian city Poti wouldn't be a rational step.Dprohorova (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fox News video with 12-year old girl and her aunt that arived from the conflict zone

About media bias and propaganda war: I think everyone should watch this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ ) from Fox News to understand how US media is waging information war against Russia in order to support its puppet Saakashvili. They cut any info that doesn't correspond with their scheme. They don't need to know what the 12-year old girl and her aunt have to say, they don't need to hear truth because they already have their own "truth". It's the kind of stuff that was well shown in "Wag the Dog". Watch that movie once again and you'll understand what is really happening in the western media now. - Jake7 (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Dear user CopperKettle (if it was your who deleted this comment) - why the hell do you think that you can do such things without any notice and explanation?!! I ask administrators to ban this user for such actions! This is the Talk page!!! Which is ment to discuss issues, not to hide them! This video is the fact and is important in understanding why the "allegations of media bias" appeared! I thought it was enough that YouTube started to delete comments to this video in a large scale and seems to have freezed the counter so that this video couldn't rise up in popularity ratings so it could see more people. Now I see that someone wants that noone could here about this even on wikipedia! Where's the "freedom of speech" all the West was admired of?

PPS. And please, CopperKettle, do not erase this post this time, because I anyway will restore it! - Jake7 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was probably Captain Obvious and his doggy who erased your post, not CopperKettle. Concerning the topic: I think this is a very serious issue and I it should be in the article. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the piece when it aired, it was at the very end of Studio B. It was caused by a "Hard Commercial Break". Shepard Smith had no leeway and HAD to go to commercial because it was at the very end of the program. Shepard Smith anchors the only news programs on FOX, the others are pundits. In my opinion he anchors the most "fair and balanced" programing on FOX and that is why he gets the best rating. He just had to go to commercial. I've seen it happen at least 100 times on his show. It was unfortunate but the piece went over and he only had 4 seconds to close before the commercial and the following wrap up segment of Studio B. Fox reporters were being shot at by Georgians Thursday, and FOX was not happy about it. Reporting crews were running for their lives. I don't think this incident was media bias by Shepard Smith, he looked, in my opinion, to be truly upset that he had to cut the girls mother off. He has never appeared biased (except for Ole Miss football and the NY Giants). It was unfortunate and I felt very sorry for the young girl's mother. But in this case I do not feel it was Media bias.I firmly believe it was an segment overtime issue. Jason3777 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can not find my HTLM book so I can't do strikeout right now but the following sentence "In my opinion he anchors the ONLY "fair and balanced" programing on FOX." should replace the above "In my opinion he anchors the most "fair and balanced" programing on FOX". Jason3777 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I watched the video on YouTube and had not realized he gave the girl's aunt (who above I called her mother) 30 seconds after the commercial break to continue (must have been out of the room). This is not bias. Shepard Smith did all he could to be "fair and balanced". Jason3777 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I regularly watch Fox News, and I have witnessed many times when people have had to be cut off, even people who are saying something that fits in with the channel's alleged ideology, due to commercial breaks. As a result, the cut-off should not automatically be viewed as an attempt to silence what the two were saying. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. If you watch the link, you will find out that not only did she complete what she said- but it rolled for another couple of minuets afterwords.

2. The commercial break was nothing special- it actually seemed to have lasted longer then most small interviews FNC dose- i will guarantee you that whoever posted this doesn't watch FNC, nothing was out of place.

3. This is speculation on my part, but how dose a 12 year old girl tell the difference between two sides who wear the same uniform, who has been in Russia right after they fled- what proof do we have that they aren't being told what happened by the Russian state-run media?

4. more speculation, but since they quoted the Russian statistics (that have been challenged many times by independents) wouldn't it be same to assume they are just saying what they heard? In a combat zone you have no idea what is going on, its not until you are safe and looking at it from another prospective that you get a sense of what happened, and since the place they did that was in North Ossetia- they got a Russian state-media point of view. This seems to consider with their Russian quoted statistics.

I can guarantee that they didn't see the emblem on the side of the plane, and their have been questions raised about who exactly bombed the city- Georgian president claims Russia carpet bombed the city, while South Ossetia and Russia said Georgia shelled the city with artillery.

No doubt Georgia did damage to the city, heck we did damage to Baghdad and we are much more accurate than the Russians, but to imply Georgia was attacking civilians is going to far in reasonable assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, i can't watch this video at the moment, due to narrow inet bandwidth, but i, nevertheless, believe, that no media company would be stupid or careless enough to manifest its bias in such an obvious way, as an abruptly interrupted broadcast of ongoing material is. However, i want to compare my experience of watching media coverage on the Russian channels, with someone, who watched the western ones. First of all, in the russian news, since the very time the Russian troops entered Tskhinvali(but long before the Georgian government admitted it), there were numerous video reports containing interviews with ossetian civilians on what have happened to them. There, i wanna cite this (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990468.html?categoryid=14&cs=1) article (used somewhere in the refs of main page), which purpose was to disprove western media bias: "During the past few days, Russia’s state television" — russia-don't-really-have-any-freedom-of-speech crap removed — "has been running rolling news updates on the heavy fighting, interspersed with highly emotive photos of ethnic Russian refugee women and children shown to the accompaniment of classical music." Well, what can i say, of course, it's possible, that i could have missed such kind of reports, despite my intent monitoring of the topic, but, nevertheless, this kind of description looks to me like a some foreigner's idea of what a dumb russian propaganda might be looking like. The reports i saw, while certainly being "highly emotive", were

• a)not a series of photos, but a fully fledged video footage of interviews and burning streets.
• b)without any musical background, especially classical, or any other spirit-heightening one. (There was one speech-free short movie, though, made after "end of operation" statement by Medvedev, intended to show results of conflict, depicting casualties and destructions. But it's appeared long after the article did, and used some dark ambient music only).
• c)Most importantly, these, certainly, were not "ethnic Russian" refugees(from where? escaping what?), but ethnic Ossetian ones(in fact, i have seen no russian women or children or whatever refugees in these reports at all). Of course, it could have been a mistake of the editor, so stupid it is, but it strikes my eye, and i've thought it's worth mentioning.

The question is: was any footage from these reports shown in western media, the most remarkable one being the footage of the French President Nicolas Sarkozi himself, amidst the mob of Ossetian Tskhinvali citizens, trying to comfort a crying old woman, which btw was telling him "the same old fairytales" of Georgians sweeping basements, killing elderly woman and 2 kids with tank etc., and pleading him for EU-protection of S.Ossetia from Georgia? If not, then maybe someone will be able to find any links to them? The other thing i experience, is some derision in russian media concerning Saakashvili's western-directed cries for help, especially various staged video like "Tskhinvali under Georgian control"(where Georgian guys shoot at an unarmed citizen at the distance), "Saakashvili's public statement on invasion by Russia"(where he speaks in english, despite the fact, that hardly many georgians understand it), "Saakashvili under Attack"(where he cowers from nowhere to be heard russian bomber plane, while passing-by regular sitizens aren't doing anything of the sort) and so on. His press statements are also being laughed at, because, as it seems after listening to russian news, their only purpose is to frighten ordinary Georgian to death, with "russians are getting nearer with every moment, but i'll defend Tbilisi till i die" rant. Most notable being one of his statements about "50 russian tanks on the border of Gori", which was disproved by his own, Georgian Ministry Of Defence official stating "these were not 50 Russian tanks, but 3 Georgian BTRs". Maybe, someone can find some links on these? All in all, can anyone provide any similar details on western media coverage and impression of what's going on implied by it? I think, it will be very interesting, at least, and can be incorporated in the wikipedia article's media bias section, maybe in form of references to broadcast schedules or something. Ah, i've nearly forgotten, speaking about "Russian Accuracy", i have also heard a statement from russian military commander, that, in this conflict, they're using only precise-strike armaments "which, of course, cost much more, than conventional ones, but do not endanger lives of civilians". That, for the time being, concludes the list of news, i feel, didn't make it through translation barrier. I'm really sorry, guys, that i gave no links here, i just can't put much more effort in it right now. =(( ETST (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos on Front Page

I don't know where to put this, but the picture of 'Georgian Rocket Launchers' from Novosty on the front page is almost certainly Russian rocket launchers. It's generally agreed that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvalli occurred at night and by the early morning they were in the city. So why is the picture of the supposed bombardment of Tskhinvali nearer to midday? If the attack was a surprise, its unlikely that Russia photographers would be on hand behind the lines to film Georgian artillery. Moreover, the damage patterns in Tskhinvali as described by Human Rights Watch is not consistant with bombardment from a multiple launch rocket system, but is much more consistant with conventional artillery. If this is Georgian artillery in the photograph, then its almost certainly not firing at Tskhinvalli, and the claim from Russian press that it is makes the whole picture that much more suspect. The AP has shown pictures of Russian armored columns containing large numbers of BM-21 'Grad' launchers (I'm fairly certain this is the type shown in the photo), so we know that the Russia military is using those weapons in theater. Yes, Georgia does have BM-21's in theater and may have even used them at some point and maybe even on Tskhinvalli (I've seen nighttime video footage that is more convincing), but given the origin of the picture it is far more likely to be Russian rockets in the photograph. - Celebrim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.19.254 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling Reference Box II

I was able to create a scrolling reference box for the reference section. If this causes havoc with your browser please revert the edit. I did this as an attempt to reduce the article display size for better viewing.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BLASTED USER: I would call this entire thing a fiscal disturbance according to the factors of 'western involvement', today it occured to me, that this was message board particle as well --- saying if the internal-infuriation gets like this it will -- then there was the presidential satire of the number of presidents in russia outnumbering the number of people in georgia all of whcih remember oddly a diff'rent strokes reference, because of this behaviour -- I say let 'em crash... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.238.188 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please block this page or, at the very least, give it an NPOV

I've had it. Someone is repeatedly removing my edits, made in good faith, and is replacing them with poorly written pro-Russian propaganda. I'm no fan of Georgia, but when the only sources in a section are lurid, state-sponsored Russian media tales of Georgian atrocities, the section needs change. I added to the section about humanitarian conditions in South Ossetia the NPOV tag and the Human Rights Watch report discounting the (obviously grossly exaggerated) Russian statistics. The former was removed, the latter watered down and placed at the bottom. What is this?

Regnum news agency[96] and 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 Tskhinvali. 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.[97] A South Ossetian reservist reported there were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.[97]

At a meeting with South Ossetia refugees at a makeshift hospital camp in Alagir on August 9, eyewitnesses told the Russian Prime Minister that Georgian troops had set fire to a house with several young women inside. "They were rounded up like cattle, shut into the house, and set on fire. In another place, we saw a tank run over an old woman who was running away with two children. We saw how they slashed up an 18-month child," a refugee said.[98] Russian sources cited the representative of South Ossetia administration Irina Gagloeva asserting that Georgia opened an irrigation canal to flood the basements of Tskhinvali in order to prevent people from hiding in the basements of the buildings during bombings.[99]"

Regnum, the mouthpiece of the Russian government, is used as a source in a war between Russia and Georgia? Human Rights Watch, an infinitely more credible source, is downplayed and ignored? This was my original paragraph, added below the South Ossetian government casualty figure:

Human Rights Watch, however, calls the Russian death toll figure of 2,000 unfounded and a result of "propaganda." Doctors in Tskhinvali "had provided figures that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue," although "there have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments." The investigation is ongoing.

This is the "new and improved" (i.e., vague and badly written) version, conveniently placed at the bottom of the page:

Nevertheless, alleged that [sic] "The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful," she said. "Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics." Doctors in Tskhinvali said that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of atleast [sic] 44 people (those brought to the city morgue) were dead although "there have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments." The investigation is ongoing.[100]

Let's move to the section on Georgia, shall we?

British journalist Andrew Wilson (of the London Times) reports that he was assaulted and almost killed by ,according to him, "Ossetian fighters".[107]

"Ossetian fighters" needs quotation marks while "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" does not? The Times is a perfectly reliable source, and there is no reason to think that the people who were going to kill him (he was saved by his journalist status) were not South Ossetians.

Witnesses report burning and destruction of Georgian villages (especially around Gori) as the Russian troops retreat, 'allegedly by South Ossetians'.

There are no allegations here. It is now a fact, confirmed by many reputable and consistent sources (CNN, the Times, AP, Humans Rights Watch) that the South Ossetians are looting Georgian villages and occasionally burning houses. THESE ARE NOT ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT - THESE ACCOUNTS ARE COLLECTED ON THE GROUND BY INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS.

And now we come to the most delicious part of all this:

Human Rights Watch researchers also allegedly saw (within quotes) "armed Ossetian militia members in camouflage fatigues" taking household items out of houses in the village of Nizhnie Achaveti and loading them into their trucks. Explaining the looters' actions, an "Ossetian man" allegedly told Human Rights Watch that they are entitled to take things from Georgians now – because they lost their own property in Tskhinvali and other places. The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be "decisive and tough" measures taken against looters.[109] The Guardian cited witnesses who reported "an orgy of looting, burning, murdering and rape" against Georgians carried out by Chechen and Ossetian "volunteers". However the guardian reported it was impossible to verify the claims.[110]

In case the reader doesn't understand that these are completely false allegations, that there are quotes around the "disputed allegations" (note the quotes!) is spelled out right before! How convenient! "Ossetian man" - well, I'm sure the Georgians are planting villagers who speak Ossetic in the face of dozens of Russian tanks just to fool Human Rights Watch! And, of course, the claims of the "guardian" (capitalization is so passé!) are "impossible to verify", but those of the Russian media-government are not only fully verifiable but in fact are to be relied upon as central sources! And how! aristotle1990 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately, wikipedia is ochlocracy. So, the Russian mob rules. Administrators do not want to intervene. Cofer2 made seven reverts in this article today, but no one cares.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a ochlocracy, the fact is that there are way too many editors at the moment, some of them have bias.

Let's give a month, when things cool down we, NPOV editors, will have a easier time removing the propaganda from the article.

You should add a tag to the article.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire "Timeline" section is certainly non-neutral. The bias is obviously toward a pro-Russia POV. Not only is it full of biased language; it's full of persuasive argument. If this was our writing standard, we would need to include a whole other section that includes all the arguments that Georgia would use to justify their actions seeing that all Russia's arguments are included in this section. The "Georgia" part of the "Humanitarian" section is also blatantly non-neutral, putting everything in quotes as though nothing within quotes is 'verifiable'. I've attempted to make a few very minimal edits that should not upset the biased crowd but will help with the credibility factor, but seems that I will be wasting my time to work any more on this as other neutral editors are having no luck with their edits sticking. I am not taking any sides either, but this article currently is substandard for a Wikipedia current event article that has been around for as long as it has been. The mods certainly need to step in at some point if things don't settle down and even out within the next few days. Efrafra (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about NPOV, I can't seem to find anything from Georgian side explaining WHY they moved their troops into South Ossetia(while Russia has plenty of excuses), does anyone have any info(and legit sources) on that? Would be nice if we find it now, rather than when the conflict is over. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Source does not contain quoted information

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/13/georgia.russia.war/index.html

as Source 11 supposedly states that Russia has lost; "74 Russian troops killed, 171 wounded and 19 missing in action" but the article has no mention of casualties other then to say that CNN could not verify the conflicting reports on casualties. Please can someone amend this article. This is yet again another example of an edit to Wikipedia which is unsourced which reflects poorly on the Russians ... hardly NPOV is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it with a new ref, [7], but next time you have to do it! Took about 5 seconds in Google News. I don't know what your NPOV complaint is, likely CNN removed the numbers from its article, or someone mixed up a ref. But thanks for pointing out the error. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected and the original poster is not autoconfirmed yet. He can't edit the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

REAL source: http://mil.ru/info/1069/details/index.shtml?id=49437 Магистер (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign press (AP, The Guardian) at last get to Tskhinvali and this is what they see

During a visit Tuesday arranged by the Russian government, journalists from The Associated Press and other Western media were escorted into the city aboard armored vehicles.

Reporters witnessed more than a dozen fires in what appeared to be deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods and saw evidence of looting in those areas.

The heaviest damage from the recent fighting appeared to be around Tskhinvali's government center. More than a dozen buildings in the area were little more than scorched shells.

Several residential areas seemed to have little damage, except for shattered windows, perhaps from bomb concussions.

Russian army agitprop tour backfires, as little-to-no evidence of their wild claims:

Army Col. Igor Kononenko showed off a civilian neighborhood, once part of the old Jewish quarter, that sustained extensive damage. He said that was proof the Georgians targeted civilians.

"This street is very small, tanks can't go through here," he said, arguing there was no military reason for the Georgian military to shell the neighborhood.

However, the district stands on a hillside in the line of fire between Georgian rocket position and Tskhinvali's government center, located around the university. Some civilians in the area conceded Georgian fire at the government building might have fallen short.

At the regional hospital, doctors said the patients were moved to the basement during Georgia's bombardment of the city, and had to do without light, water or toilets. The dungeon-like rooms still stank of sewage Tuesday, while sheets and bandages were stained with blood.

Dr. Tina Zhakarova, who said the hospital had treated 224 patients during the fighting, called the Georgian assault on the city an act of ethnic cleansing.

Noting the medical facility had been damaged, she held out a handful of shrapnel to reporters. Doctors can protect people from disease, she said. "How can we protect them against this?"

But from the outside, the hospital appeared to have only light damage, either from bullets or shrapnel. Most of the windows were shattered.

Russian army officers said a Georgian missile pierced the hospital's roof and caused damage not visible on the outside. But they refused to show reporters the destruction, saying it was not safe.

Maybe the best:

Outside town, dozens of houses burned along the main road. A Russian officer said some of the buildings had been burning for days and others were damaged the previous night during an airstrike by a single Georgian plane.

When an AP photographer rode through the same villages Monday morning, none of the houses was burning. The fires only began Monday night, more than 24 hours after the battle for the city was over

Heavy damage in Tskhinvali, mostly at gov't center

I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny. Much (much) more damage (UN: "most destroyed city on earth"[8]), many more casualties, much more bigger city too, so I guess you'll be totally outraged. Right?

One sentence also bolded with no comment. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you are not following your on advice above that "This is not a forum"? While your suggestions on sources to improve the article are of course welcome, your irrelevant/off-topic, unnecessarily inflammatory comments are not, and liable to result in pointless arguments Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#The_wording_at_the_beginning - propagandist couldn't shut up about the demands of the "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city", "the heavy shelling laid the city in ruins," "the merciless wiping out of a city" and what not. But, not only the damage is limited, not only was inflicted by both sides during a regular battle, but also the rebels seem to be destroying "deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods" of the city right now, during "ceasefire". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, let's remember that the whole invasion was justified both internally in Russia and internationally by the Russian claims of "more than 2,000 killed", "settlements wiped-out and city in ruins" and "complete genocide". Now we know it was all lies. I repeatedly proposed this article to be named "War in Georgia", with no effect. Frankly, now I think it should be rather called "Looting of Georgia", becaue thi is what is going on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, there is so much propaganda in our articles at the moment. E.g. in the Timeline article: South Ossetia government representative Irina Gagloeva stated the morning of August 11 that Georgia opened the irrigation canal, supposedly in an effort to flood the basements of Tskhinvali buildings with an intention to prevent civilians from hiding from bombings. (according tu Lenta.ru) ... So shouldn't be the streets in Tskhinvali under water at the moment, when it was true? -- DanteRay (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you know? The water is in the basements, obviously. There are no wounded in Tskhinvali because the Georgians finished off the wounded. There are no bodies because the Georgians ate the bodies. The article is perfectly fine and neutral, representing both POVs, that is the Russian propaganda jut as much as South Ossetian. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of Russian sources does look doubtful now, given reports from Human Rights Watch in South Ossetia and the fact the western media reporting from Tskhinvali were moreover under Russian escort. But let's be calm professionals here as opposed to sarcastic or taunting and discuss problem material on a case-by-case basis.Bdell555 (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't realised, the soapboxing and offtopic comments of other contributors is not an excuse for you to start soapboxing and making offtopic comments. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "offtopic comments", as they meant to change the article to include "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city" in prominently the article, while reality was that merely "patches" of the city (more like a town) were heavily damaged through admittably questionable artillery support tactics during the battle, mostly in the government district. Btw, "near-almost-destroyed city" is an intereresting phrase. As of the hospital, HRW says it actually has been hit in the roof by a Grad rocket - but also said that "there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded" admitted into this (the only) hospital in the town. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed offtopic. While the suggestion of a source was welcome, this comment "I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny." added nothing useful to the discussion, was provocative and was not a real suggestion for adding content to the article. Nor was "btw, the whole story turns out to be just like the fairy tale of "Jeningrad". As I've said several times, you are welcome to propose sources to add to the article, but interspersing this with your own provocative comments is NOT' acceptable Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's see what the other journalists in the group say about a trip with Colonel Kononenko (btw, the whole story turns out to be just like the fairy tale of "Jeningrad"). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

British The Guardian:

Several truck-mounted rocket launchers were a sign of Moscow's intent to hold Tskhinvali at all costs. Approaching Tskhinvali, the group of reporters was transferred to armoured personnel carriers because of the risk of fire from Georgian snipers, said the Russian officers leading the trip.

In villages close to the city there were many burned out houses, and others were still ablaze. In the city itself it was clear that claims the city had been levelled to the ground by artillery were exaggerated. However, it was also evident that while some neighbourhoods were intact, there were patches of terrible destruction.

'I've never heard anything so monstrous as people shelling a hospital' - Tom Parfitt travelled to Tskhinvali, in a trip organised by the Kremlin, to witness first hand the destruction caused by the battle for South Ossetia

Some residential areas were hit during the fighting ("patches" of destruction, including one "whole street of 100 meters" just south of the gvt centre - the same one AP said might be hit by accident because of ground elevation), others not at all ("intact"). In all, Russian claims "clearly exaggerated". Nearby Georgian villages are looted and burning. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AP Google update of the original AP report also contains this:

An AP photographer saw irregular troops near burning homes in ethnic Georgian villages, and there was evidence of looting in those areas.

At an Ezeit electronics store with smashed windows, a few appliances stood outside, but most of the stock seemed to be gone.

Nearby, a man in dark glasses, camouflage and a Kalashnikov assault rifle drove a tractor hauling what looked like a large refrigerator partly visible under a blanket. A car went down the road with two new satellite dishes on top.[9]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down there buddy, none of this is even news. BBC had a report out like 24 hours ago talking about all this and showing pictures. Take your own advice and stop using this as a forum/soap box to get out your frustrations. Go for a jog or something, work on other articles; take a break, you clearly need one. LokiiT (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Russians aren't letting western journalists into the Gori area (never mind South Ossetia) to see what's been going on there: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/georgia.russia4 Bdell555 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, BBC.

As the Russian military moved deeper into Georgian territory on Wednesday, thousands of people continued to flee towards Tbilisi.

It is a mass exodus that Georgia's capital cannot cope with. Many schools and kindergartens across the city are full of displaced people. (...) The testimonies of those who have fled villages around South Ossetia are consistent, but with all roads blocked and the Russian military now in charge of the area, the scale of alleged reprisal killings and lootings is difficult to verify. But despair and fear is, unmistakably, on the rise here. (...) "The government says only 120 people have been killed, but it is not true," she said.

"In Gori, I saw lorries full of bodies being delivered to the hospital every day. So many people have died, why is the government lying?"

Georgians fear revenge attacks

Saying about the claims of the Georgian government downplaying the real number of the killed Georgians - it probably does, as I already wrote elsewhere (in opposition to the Russian claims of "total genocide" and what not). It may be a lie but a different kind of lie, one not sparking what BBC called "revenge attacks".

Also, there was a discussion ealrier here on talk page about that South Ossetian militiamen should be called "army". It's not an army, an army has a clear chain of command (and accountibility), and they're bands of armed looters who go around in civilian cars and tractors - and doing looting. It's a militia(s) or at best paramilitary, unruly irregulars. It's not army and the "South Ossetian military" may be maybe these 3,000 guys with Russian tanks at the first day of war, and not everyone and his brother handed-out some kind of uniform, dark glasses and a rifle and told to avange "genocide". "Volunteer" is not the right word - US Army is volunteer, that is professional (as opposed to, say, the mostly conscript Russian). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I thought our job here is to post facts and not POVaculate prematurely. Captain, I am a supporter of democracy and freedom as well, but you seem to be going overboard, how about you tone down a little? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian has seized American made (Weapons?) & Equipment and their subsequent technology from the Georgians

Russia informed Georgia's Interior Ministry that its troops will remain deployed around the city of Gori, near South Ossetia, for as many as three days, ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said... In Gori, Russian troops are transporting seized Georgian military equipment ( which is supplied by the United States)... [10]24.0.64.87 (talk)

It's no secret that Georgia is considered an "ally" by the United States. That said, this kind of information has the potential to be misleading without additional context. Counter-example: Most of Georgia's tanks, APCs, and aircraft are of Soviet/Russian design and manufacture. Does that mean Russia is actually supporting both Georgia and S. Ossetia? Of course not. But the way you present the above implies that the United States is doing something nefarious or evil. Let's all try to keep stuff in perspective here. croll (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two separate things: "made by" and "supplied by". These weapons were supplied by USA for Georgia, while the USSR weapons are leftovers of the Soviet era. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

True, I agree with the first post as for the second (part), technically accurate however it's obvious that that are looking for anything western and more advanced as history would state the information should acknowledge Russians known history of "acquiring" the West's technologies by what ever means possible, one more report:

Georgia's coast guard said Russian troops burned four Georgian patrol boats in Poti on Wednesday, then returned Thursday to loot and destroy the coast guard's radar and other equipment...The same APTN crew followed Russian troops on the outskirts of Poti as they searched a field and a forest at an old Soviet military base for possible Georgian military equipment.[11]

24.0.64.87 (talk)

Okay, let me rephrase this. Has anyone bothered to read the Bloomberg article the first post actually cites? There is no claim in the article that any of the siezed equipment was supplied by the U.S. It doesn't specify whether it was US-supplied or, as has been said, Soviet "leftovers". Ergo, it does not belong and the source is being misrepresented as saying something that it does not. The source can be used to show that the Russian's are seizing Georgian military equipment, but it is neither accurate nor responsible to claim that the siezed equipment was supplied by the U.S. which, I repeat, infers that the U.S. is doing something nefarious such as smuggling in weapons to the Georgians, which, again, nobody is claiming. croll (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand this as my own POV, I didn't want to change the title, but I did somewhat. In any case it still note worthy because the Russians are still seizing Georgian war supplies and further is significant because of the place in which is occurring outside the "conflict zone".--24.0.64.87 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out I was correct:

U.S.-Made Weapons

Russian troops seized U.S.- and Russian-made weapons in the Georgian town of Senaki, near Abkhazia, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, told reporters in Moscow. All shooting has stopped in Georgia, he said. [12]

--24.0.64.87 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Also something interesting about the joint training operation in July. Given that it's properly cited and Bloomberg is a reliable source, I have no trouble including that, though it might be more appropriate for the timeline article. Can't say I have strong feelings either way. Cheers. croll (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

August 14 Human Rights Watch Report

I'm concerned about adding all of the material in this report because it may increase the amount of material discussing the humanitarian impact to undue weight. Perhaps just the section below, which appears to mention the worst of the problems, and/or select elements from the rest of the report should be incorporated:

.... Russian officers at the checkpoint told Human Rights Watch that the road closure was due to the massive looting taking place in Georgian villages along the road.

However, moving back from Tskhinvali to Java on the evening of August 13, Human Rights Watch researchers saw, for the second day running, houses that were ablaze in several Georgian villages. They had clearly just been torched. One counterintelligence officer of the South Ossetian forces claimed to Human Rights Watch that: “We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.”

The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man... http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm Bdell555 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That is an informative quote. Many statements by combatant side in this section are probably propaganda/disinformation. We should leave in this section only statements by human rights organizations (like your quote) and by most reputable news outlets, such as New York Times, etc.Biophys (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A doctor at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital who was on duty from the afternoon of August 7 told Human Rights Watch that between August 6 to 12 the hospital treated 273 wounded, both military and civilians. She said her hospital was the only clinic treating the wounded in Tskhinvali. The doctor said there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded and added that all of the wounded were later transferred to the Russian Ministry of Emergencies mobile hospitals in South and North Ossetia. As of August 13, there were no wounded left in the Tskhinvali hospital.

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's best to site sources from both sides. Western related media is biased.

--What Max —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HRW is not media, Mr. Genius. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I never referred to HRW as a "media". Since HRW allegations are currently reported by Western influenced media, the HRW should not be taken as the main source of information. HRW is a United States-based international non-government organisation that conducts research and advocacy on human rights, has been criticised in the form of commentaries from various organisations, journalists, and bloggers. What Max (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As of the basements

Also, Human Rights Watch saw several buildings that bore traces of heavy ammunition as if fired from tanks at close range. There was some evidence of firing being directed into basements, locations where civilians frequently choose as a place of shelter.

One thing:

At a crossroads in the north of the city there was evidence of a fierce fire fight. Three destroyed Georgian tanks were slewed across the road, a mess of ash and twisted metal. The heavy turret of one tank had been tossed across the street, falling through a shop front. Nearby on the ground lay a human foot. (...) "Those tanks in the street, we hit them with rocket propelled grenades from the basement."[13]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Related to this point about firing while proximate to civilian habitations:

Whenever someone starts telling us about shelling in Tskhinvali, it is important to keep in mind exactly what Tskhinvali is. It is not a city somewhere in the middle of a republic that is being fired upon by saboteurs. On three sides, Tskhinvali is surrounded by Georgian villages. The edge of Tskhinvali is a military outpost. South Ossetian forces fire from there into the Georgian villages, and the Georgians respond with fire of their own. To help keep Georgian fire from hitting civilians in the city, all the South Ossetians would have to do is move their military base forward a couple hundred meters.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1189525.html (other excerpts from this source were cited by Svante Cornell writing on the New York Times website)Bdell555 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

German TV has a short video clip from behind Russian lines. The German speaking reporter alleges ethnic cleansing.Bdell555 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

By whom, Russians or Georgians? Please, be more clear. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Please note that Captain Obvious is violating Wikipedia Guidelines by deleting messages he doesn't want to see (1, 2) and adding clearly provocative comments to them. At the same time he allows himself to write such things as

I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny.

I think it's a clear violation of those policies he himself tries to force on others. Moreover, he shows that attitude for quite a time now. Wikipedia is not a forum nor is this a place for people to force their POV. Rules are written for everybody. Please do something about him. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The chronologically first instance you invoke was hiding (not deleting) of your comment to Captain Obvious and his response to it. Your comment contained phrases like "Epic lol. Seriously, you're brainwashed to ashes.", "you're just an anti-Russian propagandist" and other personal remarks, like accusations of hypocrisy, provocations and religious fanaticism. The second case is that he deleted the same passages - after you reverted it and demanded he does not hide it. However opinionated and sarcastic Captain Obvious might be, it seems that he refrained from personal remarks on you. We should all remember about WP:NOTFORUM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that my comment was full of personal remarks, but that was after several days of him saying "I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already" et cetera and not listening to anything the other side says to him. I do not understand how his "Wikipedia is not a forum" lectures correlate with his own messages. Also he did make a personal remark calling me "Captain Russia" - I guess the tradition of calling people Captains is in his blood. And then again, if we agree that this is not a forum and if we delete personal remarks why keep his constant attacks at Russia which accompany his every message? It's not like I'm that patriotic and all, but this is just nasty. That's nationalism to me. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed way too many off-topic messages from both sides going on here and as I've stated before, despite his lectures on "not a forum" Captain is not following his own advice. Note that nether side's behaviour is justified by the other side's failure to behave properly Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious is deleting my comments as well. He seems to be dictating the information on this page based on his views of the war. Wikipedia is a general consensus of all opinions, his actions should not be permitted. What Max (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Motives for war

There has been much discussion of both sides' justification of their actions, but little as to their reasons for them. I think it would give a greater insight into events if some motivation were suggested. For example, one media outlet suggested that Russia is "building a soviet state".

• Unless there's significant discussion of this in reputable sources, it would violate WP:NOR. And speculation is, of itself, suspect. It might be worth looking into this when the dust settles, but with the conflict ongoing there's really no way to say what the true motives are. 23skidoo (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Vladikavkaz

Has the city Vladikavkaz been also occupied by the Russian army, does anyone know ? Prunk (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be a joke?.. Alæxis_¿question? 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vladikavkaz is PART of Russia.. So they need not occupy it. --141.210.133.237 (talk) 1you prov7:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote (from the link you provided): Vladikavkaz is the capital city of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Russia. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear they decided not to take Atlanta after all. --Illythr (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all Russian Army should occupy Moscow. Vladikavkaz can wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadimkaa (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be renamed

The war has not only taken place in South Ossetia as the article title currently suggests, but in many other places in Georgia such as Abkhazia, Gori, the Black Sea, Zugdidi and outskirts of Tibilsi, ect. So we need to have another name for this article. Ijanderson (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read this discussion of the matter. This article should not be renamed until the real world agrees what to call it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson, welcome to the mess that is this discussion page. :) As Septentrionalis noted, this has been discussed several times before (although most if not all of those conversations are now in the archives) and there is a concensus that although the article will need to be renamed eventually, we should wait until the non-Wikipedia world (i.e., the real world) decides what that name is going to be. Thanks. croll (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the notion this is until there's a decision what this will be called off Wikipedia so far South Ossetia War is not what they're talking about. The majority of reports have some variation of Russia-Georgia War. Most are either calling it, Russia-Georgia conflict, Georgia-Russia conflict, Russian-Georgian War, so on and so forth. All major media agree it is between Russia and Georgia with the separatist republics being little more than Russian toadies. In fact, Russia-Georgia conflict seems to be overwhelmingly the most used name for what's going on. It's used more than pretty much all the other names combined. I believe it is actually the only term that brings up more than 1,000 results on Google News, going at around 1,500. Since that seems to be the most widely used name for now, I believe this should be the name used here. South Ossetia War comes up in only a few dozen sources for comparison. I think this name should be changed to the one most widely used and later if some other name emerges it can be changed. There's another outstanding issue in that the campaign box lists this as the 2nd South Ossetia War, but it also is the 3rd Abkhazia War, but we can't very well have both links going to the same article. Given the nature of the conflict having articles for the Abkhaz front and Ossetian front, including operations near the separatist regions, seems reasonable while this remains a more general article about the conflict overall.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is arguing this is the most common name. But policy states that when there is no consensus for a move, the page stays at the current location therefore we tend to stick with whatever the first contributor called it. If you'd read the discussion linked above, you'd note there is almost consensus not to move at the current time and from what I can tell, this discussion has been held nearly everyday so there is no point revisiting it unless you're bringing something new to the discussion which you don't appear to be. As for splitting this article, I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it, and would strongly oppose splitting now given that the article is still in a major state of flux. Premature splitting tends to result in a royal mess with excessive duplication of content and effort, and often leads to a bunch of unmaintained articles which may suggest the war is still ongoing 3 years from now. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoewever, when mainstream sources converge on the same variant, we should move the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• And there's no harm in creating likely titles that are redirects to this title. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Defense Secretary: Russia seems to be withdrawing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401611.html?hpid=topnews

From the article: "Russia appears to be withdrawing its forces from positions inside Georgia in initial compliance with a cease-fire agreement"..."Russian forces have practically ceased air operations in Georgia and are cooperating with U.S. military deliveries of humanitarian supplies for Georgia."

If this holds true, then the conflict appears to have ended, and we should edit the infobox accordingly.

Alphabravo11 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. This isn't the first sign that has been hailed as the end of the war, and we are not Wikinews. Robert Gates isn't there, and is an official source; no more reliable than the Russian or Georgian ones, and less knowledgeable. Statesmen have been known to predict things in the hope that they would then come true. (And today's news also includes the Russian commander at Gori saying it would take him 48 hours to be ready to withdraw.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a few days. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One source declaring that Russia "appears" to be withdrawing, does not constitute definitive evidence that this conflict has reached its termination. We shall have to wait, as you have suggested Alphabravo11, before more solid proof has emerged to show that the war has ended. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When all sides officially declare that "war is over", it is indeed over. Not yet.Biophys (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should wait a few additional days before coming to any sort of conclusion, from what i have heard on FNC as soon as that report came out they also reported 100 Russian tanks moving deeper inside Georgia. The only thing we know for certian is the fog of war is extremely heavy in this war- from Georgian irregulars militia units, to Russia saying one thing and doing the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Autocomment

I removed the autocomment facility. It discourages editors who arrive here with an idea from looking to see if we've already discussed it, which means we get a half-dozen discussions on the same topic. I don't see why this is a good thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

War is not "ongoing"

I changed the status in the info box, this war is not "ongoing", its already over, Georgia lost.--SergeiXXX (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look up two sections. It isn't over until it's over, and there is a Georgian army in being. It may be that history will eventually decide it ended Wednesday; there may be guerilla warfare for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as occupation of Georgian territory continue (especially beyond the Abkhasia and S. Ossetia), this conflict is "ongoing". Russian forces were not withdrawn.Biophys (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The conflict is still ongoing until the international community recognizes that it's over. And there's many different perspectives being reported right now; it's impossible to say whether it's over or not right now. 23skidoo (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The conflict is still ongoing until the international community recognizes that it's over. And there's many different perspectives being reported right now; it's impossible to say whether it's over or not right now. 23skidoo (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not "occupation". Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not Georgian territory. Havent been so since 1992.--And the Georgian Army is shattered. And there is no "guerilla warfare" against the Russian Army in either Abkhazia or S. Ossetia. They Russians are seen as liberators by both peoples. Everyone there is on Russia's side. If there is "guerilla warfare", its against Georgia. SergeiXXX (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course the war is ongoing! For example Russians together with different bandit groups such as cossacks were looting in and around Gori today. And they still are in Poti in the west. By the way Estonian military volonteers arrived to Tbilisi today. Narking (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not Estonian military volunteers, but volunteers for humanitarian mission. Statements from Estonian Foreign and Defence ministries. [14], [15]

SergeiXXX, when you said "Be prepared to recieve back the coffins of your brave "Estonian military volonteers".", you were breaking WP:CIVIL. You may be thinking, "Hold on, Narking was saying that cossacks are looting Gori, why is he not being punished?" Narking was stating what he believes is a fact. It is POV, imo, but he is stating it as a fact. Sergei, your comment was a threat. There is a difference between stating what you believe is a fact, and stating a threat, and WP:CIVIL does not allow threats. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

::I didnt threaten anyone. just pointed out the truth. A few Estonian punks dont stand a chance against hardened former Soviet VDV Afghan vets.--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Estonian military volunteers definitely live up to their reputation, arriving 2 days after the war has ended... Óðinn (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Once more, they are NOT military volunteers, notwithstanding what Russian media says. Please see official statements above. And insulting remarks by SergeiXXX and [[User talk:Óðinn|Óðinn] should be removed as off-topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.192.206 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page must not be used to state anything regarding the 2008 South Ossetia war itself. This talk page is reserved for comments relating to the article. I would also like to say that a consensus by Wikipedians needs to be obtained before the infobox states the war is over. Due to the conflicting news stories being broadcast by many major media outlets, I cannot see such a consensus emerging atm. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide reliable sources stating that war is still going on? Óðinn (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian has the following article [16]. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the phrase "There is no way to independently verify these accounts"? Óðinn (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Óðinn, please provide some reliable sources that state that the war is over. atm, both sides have agreed a ceasefire, which is not the same as agreeing that the war is over. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bild (German newspaper) Quote: „Gegen 13 Uhr hörten wir, dass die Dörfer um Gori wieder unter Artilleriefeuer standen." (Translation: Aroung 1. PM we heard that the villages around Gori were attacked by artillery.). And they have two journalists in Gori. -- DanteRay (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When all sides officially declare that "war is over", it is indeed over. Not yet.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it's just a ceasefire when I remember it correctly. -- DanteRay (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Btw: You also might have a look on this video from today. They describe that the war should be over but in fact isn't. They still hear shootings and grenade-explosions, fire in the villages around Gori, more and more Russian troops on Georgian soil ... -- DanteRay (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Allright, the German sources are somewhat more convincing... Óðinn (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bild is not much better in any way than The Sun and is not a reliable source for anything, especially not for such controversial topics like wars. There is absolutely noone who thinks it can be used as a source in the German Wikipedia. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right that Bild has a lot of crap in their newspaper, but at the end of the day, they have guys down there in Gori, and you just have to look at the video. It's okay to have doubts about the texts they write, but they don't fake videos. -- DanteRay (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also other newspapers report about shootings and explosions: Zeit, AP reporting about explosions etc ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteRay (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::And YES, the war is still on, technically, as the Russian Army is still there, and is still engaged in a stand off with the gogies. So, yeah, the Westerners are right on this one. Unfortunately.--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that why the Russians sank what was left of the docked Georgian navy just yesterday? As well as starting a brutal occupation of Georgia, letting rebels massager villages in the name of "justice" after feeding them all the propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of OSCE

There is no mention of OSCE in the article. While we're at it, there's only little and outdated in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war also. --Vuo (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for removal and maybe more info about information warfare?

[[Image:Geogiacasualities.jpg|thumb|right|A Georgian man cries as he holds the body of his relative after a bombardment in Gori, 80 km (50 miles) from Tbilisi <ref>http://www.javno.com/en/foto.php?id=19&rbr=7941&idrf=381645</ref>]] This photo is faked. Here are the rest of the fake photos:

http://img12.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/1/2/f/8/9/12f89bef0459a49e1d9549a40e6514c4_full.jpg

The man pictured is wearing very clean clothes, and the "corpse" has no apparent damage (maybe the wound is on the back?)

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/7/6/7/1/a/7671af3567d5056d5e7ac87f0c362367_full.jpg

Same "corpse" turned over. No wound on the back, eh?

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/9/c/e/0/7/9ce078f42e63002a83c19031665beb61_full.jpg

The guy from the first picture is dressed up and ready for a new show

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/7/6/7/1/a/7671af3567d5056d5e7ac87f0c362367_full.jpg

Check out how the corpse is hanging onto the woman's shoulder! Do all corpses do that?

--Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Until a reliable source tells: "this photo is fake", nothing should be removed, because your analysis represents WP:OR.Biophys (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Logic isn't a reliable source? If you can tell it's fake, it does not belong in Wikipedia--Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's still OR. First, the one where the so-called corpse is holding onto the woman - I don't see anything saying the person being carried is dead. As for the other photos, your interpretation of them is 100% POV and OR unless you can provide a reputable source saying the photos are fake. I'm sorry, I have to side with Biophys on this. 23skidoo (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) It isn't. Have you tried reading WP:OR? Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your logic isn't a reliable source. Read WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V. The picture is not faked. It was taken by Gleb Garanich, a reputable Reuters photographer. It is his reputation vs. "reputation" of anonymous bloggers participating in informational warfare, such as you. Go away, please. This is a copyvio, however, but it is another issue. Colchicum (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the image is liable to be deleted within 7 days since I doubt it can be used under NFCC so the issue is somewhat moot IMHO. Do we even have a good source for that image? It claims to be from Reuters but so far the only sites hosting it are hardly reliable. If we can't find a good source which clearly links it to Reuters, it probably should be speedied. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is a blatant copyvio of [17]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair call. However the fact the image is from Reuters pretty much defeats the original argument (unless one wants to put forward the conspiracy theory that all news photos are faked). 23skidoo (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at least know we know it really is from Reuters. But as I hinted at above, it's unlikely this can be used under NFCC being a commercial media image that is not iconic Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's faked at all and I really wish we could keep it here. If someone wants to try and make a case for fair use, that's probably the best bet. Otherwise, it's gonna be gone pretty soon as I've tagged it as a copyvio. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures 1 and 3 do appear to be the same person in different clothing, interesting. It was probably made by the Georgian government. Removing a picture isn't original research. There are plenty of pictures we have to choose from based on logic and reason. Where is the reliable source that says we must use these pictures in the article? A choice to use any picture could be "original research" based on what you're saying.LokiiT (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NYT Photo: Gleb Garanich/Reuters -- DanteRay (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I undid my own edit for now. But I still think it's obvious Georgian (Western?) propaganda. Haven't you been reading the news lately? All newspapers in New York, such as Daily News, NY Post and NY Times are spilling georgian propaganda all over, with authors' last names ending in "shvili". --Mrcatzilla 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to sign your post again as your username didn't go through. And again, you're espousing a POV that we can't use in Wikipedia. The fact the media happen to be using Georgian reporters should come as no surprise, considering it's not one of those countries that would have a strong western media presence. I don't even know if it rated a field office for the AP. And do you think there would be any different accusations made if the reporters were Russian??? Or American? Why don't we just ignore this event completely then? There's no way to cover it without knee-jerk reactions of propaganda coming from somebody. 23skidoo (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, would it be good to add to the information warfare section a few sentences about fake images distributed to media? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no independent third-party source saying they're faked. The images in question could have been taken and doctored to make them appear fake, and then planted in order to discredit the original. WP:OR. Let's wait until there's some reliable evidence, no based on OR, that there are faked images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Declared war

Something that might be worth noting is the fact Georgia actually declared war in this case. This needs to be verified with a source, but I believe this might be the first major conflict in years in which an actual declaration by one of the parties has been made. Technically (so I understand but I may be wrong) the US never actually declared war when it went into Iraq, or even when the 1991 Gulf War broke out. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 2000 were never a declared war. Etc. Again, I may be wrong, but this would make this conflict additionally notable if it is in fact the first outright declared war in recent years. (I'm not counting the War on Terror). 23skidoo (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Declared a state of war. How this differs from the declaration made in the Gulf War should have a source from an international lawyer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean that "state of war" in which it gave their leader more power, that wasn't a decleration, that was just a way of saying "martial law". Also, the Us hasn't declared war since 1941--Jakezing (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a customary property of declarations of war, at least for those countries whose leaders have limited powers to begin with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html. Магистер (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=461&info_id=7227 : 14:30 The Parliament approved ordinance of the Declaration on the State of War and full mobilization'. Магистер (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha Georgia never declared war, they were invaded so declared a "state of war". I'd love to see a source saying that Georgia declared war, haha there wont be a source, because they never did. Ijanderson (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath-ABM shield placed in Poland-invasion of Georgia influenced Polish decision to agree.

Consequences of Russian invasion of Georgia: ABM shield will be placed in Poland.ABM shield treaty will contain statement about American military help in case of invasion by "third party" In previous days Polish officials said Georgian invasion influenced their and American stance on the issue. [18] [19]

--Molobo (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox: "ethnically Georgian loyalist territories"??

The "territorial changes" item in the infobox currently says: Georgia loses control over the ethnically Georgian loyalist territories in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia as the conflict continues. I'm confused as to how the phrase "ethnically Georgian loyalist territories" could properly describe Abkhazia or South Ossetia. I would think it'd be more appropriate to say something like Georgia loses control over the ethnically non-Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Or is the infobox text trying to say something else that I'm not grasping here (such as referring specifically to ethnic Georgian enclaves within the two breakaway regions)? Richwales (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously what you're seeing are the "successes" of the No Child Left Behind act. Mission Accomplished! I was wondering what the heck "ethnically Georgian" is supposed to represent save for blatant POV for days now. Unfortunately, as the article is locked I haven't been able to correct it. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love my country, stupidly telling us that going under a table will rpotect us from a nuke and that they think teachijng us with out of date textbooks will help us, books made in 2008 using maps made in 2000.--Jakezing (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That phrase is about as clear as mud, but I think what it's trying to say is that within the breakaway regions of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia are villages and enclaves that maintained Georgian loyalties and ethnic identities. With the Russian "invasion" or "peacekeeping" or whatever, Georgia has lost contact with (and control of?) those places. croll (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, Carl. There WERE ethnic Georgian enclaves in Ossetia and Abkhazia, but now, most of those people either died or fled to Georgia. War is a terrible thing...--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I am not entirely sure that Georgia has lost control over all of them though. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• May I propose changing that portion of the infobox to simply: "Unresolved." As discussed ad nauseum in another topic here, the war is ongoing and trying to figure out where the territorial "boundaries" are going to be redrawn is nothing more than speculation until the Russians stop moving around. croll (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with croll's interpretation and suggestion. I disagree with the notion that 71... and Jakezing's comment have any relevance to the issue. Can we keep these discussions on topic, without the "I think America is stupid" editorializing? --Elliskev 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I just expanded the intro because it was way too small for an article this big and important. My goal was to present the facts as they are. I don't want any "genocide" accusations, none of that "they did this first" or "the sky is falling" statements, just verifiable facts of the conflict and the officially stated reasons that explain it. Here's what I wrote, all of it is basically from the same BBC article, which I think is a somewhat neutral source compared to most:

The 2008 South Ossetia war is a war that began on August 7, 2008, and involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The war began after a ceasefire agreement when Georgian forces launched a surprise military attack against the breakaway province of South Osseta, sending a large force and reaching the capital Tskhinvali. The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia said the operation was intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region, while the government said the troops were "neutralising separatist fighters attacking civilians". Russia responded the next day by pouring troops and armor into South Ossetia, in which the majority of citizens hold Russian passports, driving the Georgian troops out of Tskhinvali and taking complete control of the region and its outskirts. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated that their goal was "to force the Georgian side to peace", and that he "must protect lives and the dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are".

Any suggestions, POV problems, additions or improvements? Please add them here first and discuss it so we don't get into anymore revert wars. LokiiT (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that it's a quote, I think the phrase "neutralising separatist fighters attacking civilians" is a bit vague. My understanding of the Georgian position is that separatists from within S. Ossetia had been shelling Georgia with artillery of some sort, and this sparking the Georgian military response. In light of that, I'm unclear as to how much of a "surprise" attack this was, so I have a little question about that phrase (i.e., "launched a surprise military attack") but otherwise I think it's pretty fair and well-balanced. Nice work. croll (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the long run, do we want the war aims as most of the intro? Even War of 1812, where they are notoriously complicated, only has half a sentence. But if we are going to have them, this wording is probably reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Leads should summarize the article. This looks rather too much like the deprecated habit of beginning the story in the lead; which may explain Zache's comment below. (But to do that, we have to have all the article, which is not going to happen till the war ends.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should be that war beginned on August 1, with skirmishes between S-O and Georgia forces... or something like that. Point is that it started before Tskhinvali attack. --Zache (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In five days of fighting the Russian forces recaptured the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory. ... this was yesterday in summary section (which were renamed to timeline). Anyway i think this sums pretty nicely what happened in the battleground after Tskhinvali fights --Zache (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the intro will be quite different after this whole thing ends when we can sum the entire event up in a few paragraphs without using shifty "facts" and hearsay. Right now, current events are changing so fast and info is flooding in so quickly that it would take too much space to fit everything into the intro (imo). It would look like, well, the big section below where all that stuff is written in detail. Though perhaps what happened preceding the initial cease fire deserves mention. LokiiT (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"The war began after a ceasefire agreement when Georgian forces" - it will be Russian propaganda. Магистер (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit that removed the specific date, I don't think anyone would dispute that the actual war began when Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia. That's what every source I've read says, western and Russian media. LokiiT (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Magister, that's what the BBC timeline says, though I agree with the latest edit that changed it to say "broke down". LokiiT (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel a little silly as this is getting into semantics, but with the date issue: I'd probably agree with you that the "war" began on August 7, but I'd also probably agree that this "conflict" began on August 1. In that sense, it kind of relates to what we wind up calling this article. If we decide the article should stay focused on the "war", the events between 1 August and the 6 Aug would be relatively unimportant to the article, and should be put into a "background" subsection of the article. If we decide the article is about a "conflict", then the events leading up to the war are more important and the date should reflect them. Is it that important in the grand scheme of the article? *shrug* Again, thanks for trying to do a better intro. croll (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"The war began after a ceasefire agreement" There was no agreement. Georgia declared ceasefire unilterally, and it was not agreed on or respected by the other side (mortar shelling of the Georgian villages continued). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LokiiT, Russian troops, who were and are most certainly a party to the conflict as opposed to "neutral" peacekeepers, were stationed in Tskhinvali and from their base in that city provoked the Georgian side over a long period. Anyone who lives in Gori, a place I've visited, can tell you that few days went by when there wasn't any shelling in the area. Russian provocations were continual. Why no mention of the Russian cyberattacks in July and the violations of Georgian airspace by Russian military aircraft? Why no account of how Russia was destablizing Georgia through the criminal leadership of South Ossetia such that serious economic and political development, the second phase of the Rose Revolution if you will, was impossible without dealing with a problem on its sovereign territory and imposing the rule of law? It's as if it is warmongering to buy heavy weapons for your SWAT teams when the criminals themselves have heavy weapons. You're pushing the Russian line that an aggressive, expansionist Georgia launched an attack from out of the blue sky of peace and harmony in violation of international law. The international consensus is that it is the Russians who are in violation of international law. If you are not going to call it what it is, a Russian invasion, then don't imply that the Georgians started it on August 7, either.Bdell555 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell555, while I have a feeling you and I might agree on what's going on behind the scenes, a lot of that is beyond the scope of this article and/or can't yet be substantiated by reliable sources. It's frustrating as heck, so all we can work with is what has been objectively established as true and then try to present in a balanced way the perspectives of both sides. While I might not agree with some of his arguments on this talk page, I do think LokiiT is acting in good faith with respect to his edits on the introduction. Let's try to keep these conversations constructive, otherwise they'll just spiral into more of the useless bickering that's running rampant. For instance, I think you're noticing some of the concerns I had about phrasing (e.g., the "surprise" attack), but we should come up with alternate ways to phrase that rather than assuming bad faith. croll (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me be specific about phrasing then. What is the reference to the passport status of South Ossetians doing if not to have Wikipedia justify the Russian invasion? Sweden's foreign minister, Carl Bildt, who is also chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, has rejected that Operation Himmler for what it is: No state has the right to intervene militarily in the territory of another state simply because there are individuals there with a passport issued by that state or who are nationals of that state... we have reason to remember how Hitler used this very doctrine little more than half a century ago to undermine and attack substantial parts of central EuropeBdell555 (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also disagree with you that the essence of the background I've described couldn't be reliably sourced. A variety of quotes from regional security and strategic analysts could be provided, for example.Bdell555 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"What is the reference to the passport status of South Ossetians doing if not to have Wikipedia justify the Russian invasion?" That was the stated justification by Russia. That's what I meant when I said "just verifiable facts of the conflict and the officially stated reasons that explain it."

What you're saying may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. That's a POV that can't possibly be proven right now. Russians have their version, Georgians have theirs, Americans have theirs. They all think "they're right", just like you do, but we can't favor any one of their versions. Only state completely verifiable facts. LokiiT (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see "Russia claimed that its actions were justified by..." preceding any mention of passports in that text you provided.Bdell555 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Read right below that, where Medvedev states he is obliged to protect Russian citizens. That wouldn't make much sense if South Ossetians didn't hold Russian passports. LokiiT (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting the argument as if the reader should accept it as obviously legimate, as opposed to an argument the Russians "claim" (or some such phrasing) is legitimate. You call for verifiable facts. Well, it's a verifiable fact that every government in the world does not recognize South Ossetia. The territory is sovereign Georgian territory. Yet your intro goes to considerable lengths to avoid acknowledgement of that fact. e.g. Georgia didn't launch a "surprise" attack against ITS breakaway province but rather THE breakaway province.Bdell555 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's biased because it uses the word "the" instead of "its"? Well that can easily be fixed, but I'll again point to the fact that all of this information is from BBC. The BBC called it "the" breakaway republic. And look at the beginning where it says "the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia", this seems to be making it very clear that Georgia legally owns both pieces of land. LokiiT (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell, what are you proposing in terms of alternate phrasing? No offense, but "it's" versus "the"? That's really getting into symantics, IMO. And I really don't think LokiiT is trying to present Russia's argument as legitimate. He tried to present both side's arguments/justifications without an injection of POV. How about this:

The 2008 South Ossetia War is a war that began on August 7 2008, and involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The war began after a ceasefire agreement between Georgia and the breakaway province of South Ossetia broke down, and Georgia Georgian forces launched a surprise military attack against South Ossetia, sending sent a large military force into South Ossetia which reached and reaching the capital Tskhinvali. The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia said the operation was intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region, while the government said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian seperatists. were "neutralising separatist fighters attacking civilians". Russia responded the next day by pouring troops and armor across the Georgian border and into South Ossetia, in which the majority of citizens hold Russian passports, driving the Georgian troops out of Tskhinvali and taking complete control of the region and its outskirts. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated that their goal was "to force the Georgian side to peace", and that he "must protect lives and the dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are," by which he was referring to the more than 30,000 civilians in South Ossetia who held Russian passports.

This is a significantly more neutral draft, in my view. Change "the unrecognised republics" to "Georgia's breakaway provinces" and I'd be satisfied. Of course, "the breakaway province of" in the next sentence could then be scratched as redundant. I might add that I think mention of a "ceasefire agreement" is to mention one antecedent of many possible antecedents that could be mentioned. But I don't object to it in your draft since it is neutrally phrased.Bdell555 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that is this sentence: "said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian seperatists" - This isn't said in the BBC article so you would need to find a reliably sourced quote from the Georgian government confirming that. LokiiT (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Very fair point. What about this, from the Chicago Tribune, about 2/3rds of the way down the article: "Thursday evening, Saakishvili called for a cease-fire and urged separatist leaders to resume talks on a peaceful settlement. But when separatists began shelling Georgian villages after Saakashvili's cease-fire call, Georgian leaders decided to move ahead with the assault. "Separatists opened fire in response to yesterday's peaceful initiative of the president of Georgia," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze in a televised address. "As a result, lives of civilians were under threat." [20] (Again, just to be clear, I'm presenting that to establish Georgia's provided justification for moving troops into South Ossetia, not as proof that the statement itself is true.) croll (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

LokiiT, I went ahead and updated the Intro just because it was getting progressively farther from what it was we were discussing here. I'm sure there are probably better, more international sources than the Chicago Tribune, and I'm totally open to changing the source or whatever. Just thought I'd be bold and revise the introduct based on our conversation here. Hopefully it meets to most peoples' satisfaction. croll (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The current version seems pretty balanced. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good for now. It still might be able to use some background info from August 1-7, but it looks pretty neutral right now. LokiiT (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I went and looked at the BBC source and noticed that you decided to not to provide Putin's allegations of genocide as a rationale despite the fact the BBC mentions it in the same breath as the citizen protection rationale. I also continue to dispute the use of "republic" language when there is no legal republic. Maybe I've got a "republic" in my back yard!Bdell555 (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell, sorry if you felt slighted by my not getting the "republic/break away/state"-edit in there. I wasn't clear if LokiiT was on board with that, and the introduction was getting hacked to death while we were talking. And then, once I got the revision in, I forgot to work with that section as my partner got home. Anyway, to deal with both your points... First, to be honest, I'm surprised you're arguing the term "genocide" should be included. It's an inflamatory term and, as we've learned more about the conflict, I think both "sides" of the debate here on Wikipedia (the rational members, anyway) would agree today that neither combatant is actually trying to exterminate the opposing ethnicity. Second, as for the "republic" wording, I think that's an issue for the two of you to resolve but, technically, yes, you could have a "republic" in your backyard, but it would not be internationally recognized. I do understand why you find the term troublesome as at first glance it seems to imply a degree of independence that, as far as Georgia is concerned, they don't have. But, if you follow the link to the article on diplomatic recognition, it's an accurate term based on how it is used elsewhere in Wikipedia. Perhaps an alternative term could be "unrecognized state", or "break away state"? croll (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I may feel "slighted" if someone reverts me without explanation, but you are explaining your disagreement here so no cause for me to feel slighted going forward on the points I felt should be addressed.

re "republic" or "state" vs "enclave" or "province", I don't believe there is any dispute the areas are, at a minimum, enclaves. Are they more than that? I think the burden of proof is on the party wanting Wiki to make a stronger claim. I therefore don't think it is inappropriate to request more evidence for terminology that is often used in a legal context and implies more separation.

The Russians have two reasons for their invasion. One is the passports issue and the other is a humanitarian rationale. If anything, the latter is getting more play as a justification. I think if it was 100% proven there was a genocide, someone with a Russian POV would demand that it go in. If serious doubts have been raised about the allegation, however, someone with a Russian POV would be scrambling to recall it, since a questionable rationale would have been left out there for the world to go "hmmmm" over. Thoughts?Bdell555 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Intro - Part 2

Reuters summarizes it as: Moscow attacked Georgia with troops, tanks, planes and warships last week after Tbilisi sent a force into South Ossetia to try to take back control over the province, which threw off Georgian control in a war in the 1990s. source Short, accurate, and to the point.Bdell555 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

At first glance I like that a lot, but on consideration I have two concerns. First, not necessarily a huge problem, but its chronologically backward. I'm not sure if that's "taboo" or anything like that, but... Anyway, second concern, and this might be silly, but I could see some people objecting to the term "attacked", which I could easily see triggering a whole new round of arguments about who started it. (Somebody just started another discussion about this below, arguing that even the current version isn't "clear enough" that Georgia started the whole thing.) So, I'm not sure it's a good idea, but... if others are comfortable with it, fine. I'm certainly not asserting ownership. croll (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the possibility of objections is not a reason for revision in and of itself. We ultimately let neutral, reliable sources do the talking, and minimize our own. If Reuters is neutral and reliable, we should be circumspect about changing the language of the source. It's not a matter of someone saying the Georgians attacked vs me saying the Russians attacked. It's a matter of REUTERS saying the Russians attacked.Bdell555 (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by Mrcatzilla concerning the sentence which says, "The war began after a ceasefire agreement between Georgia and South Ossetia broke down, and Georgia sent a large military force into South Ossetia which reached the capital Tskhinvali." I did so because the edit read such that the Georgian troop movement was the event which broke the ceasefire agreement, which is something that Georgia disagrees with (see the following few sentences where Georgia says the troop movement was in response to shelling). Again, however, I'm certain it can be improved, I'm just leery about POV getting back into the introduction after we spent so much work here trying to get it out. croll (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So it broke down by itself, eh? As far as I know, Saakashvili said on the 7th, that there will be no military advancement, and that they will talk it over on the 8th. At night, he launched a Grad attack directly onto Russian peacekeepers and went on through the city destroying anything that moves. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. But it was left vague because the reason is disputed. S. Ossetia and Russian would say, yes, Georgia just did this completely by surprise -- Georgia broke the ceasefire. Georgia would say, no, our civilians were being shelled by separatists -- the separatists broke the cease fire. Perhaps it would be better to say something along the lines that the precise cause of the breakdown is disputed, or each side has a different explanation. But to just change it to read that Georgia blitzed S. Ossetia states something as fact which is subject to reasonable dispute, and is therefore POV. We tried very hard to eliminate POV in the introduction. If you have suggestions on how to improve it while maintaining POV, that'd be great. (BTW - I didn't speak to you with sarcasm, I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Thanks.) croll (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All right. Here's my proposal then:

---

The 2008 South Ossetia War began on August 7, 2008, and involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia which broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s. The war began after a ceasefire agreement between Georgia and South Ossetia broke down (each side accuses the other of breaking the ceasefire), and Georgia sent a large military force into South Ossetia which reached the capital Tskhinvali. The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia said the operation was intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region, while the government said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian separatists.

---

Something of the sort. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's great. I'd be fine with that. croll (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, if someone put that into academic tone?.. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Nicely worded and balanced. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, much as I appreciate the compliment (?) ;-), I think the wording is fine. croll (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1) "involving the countries of ... S-O and A". Puts them on the same level as Georgia and Russia in the first sentence and identifies them separately. I believe "Georgia's" should be inserted in there for accuracy's sake.

1a) a "war" is between two countries unless it is a "civil war". There was no 2nd country in this conflict until the Russians invaded. I might add that it wasn't a war between Georgia and Russia just de jure either, it was a war between them de facto as well. The S-O forces were described as "Russian militias" and I haven't seen evidence they had an independent command structure such that this was some sort of multi-polar conflict

2) There are a gazillion antecedents to this war. Why just mention this ceasefire? Why that instead of something like "after months of escalating tensions" or mention of the various specific elements that escalated those tensions? This ceasefire business just adds words. The most immediate proximate event isn't necessarily the most consequential or explanatory either.

3) I believe every Wiki user has the right to demand a source and so I exercise my right to demand one for "war began on August 7". Tons of wire reports about this war have gone out in the last day or two so it should be possible to find one that says that. If not, perhaps we shouldn't be giving such an introduction when all the wire services are introducing the conflict to their readers in a different way. A reason why I'd like to see a wire report is because it is the most likely form to be maximal facts and minimal argument.Bdell555 (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can find no mention in the reference where the Georgian forces and the Georgian government made different statements as written in the intro The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia said the capture was intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region. The Georgian government said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian separatists.[20] Shouldn't this be referenced if they gave two separate accounts as to why they were there?--Jmedinacorona (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Found and added reference now #20 for the "restore constitutional order" quote by a senior official with the Georgian Ministry of Defense not head of Georgian forces in S-O. Still looking for reference for Georgian govt stmt of sending to end shelling The reference #21 seems to fit for the remainder of the statement.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I think this talk page proves what a joke Wikipedia has become. The POV rule means that any fact someone doesn't like can't be included. Fact is when this 'war' broke out, all the western news agencies were reporting it as 'Georgia invades South Ossetia'. 24 hours later, this changed to "Russia invades Georgia". So those of you wanting to get the truth out should try citing the earliest reports, rather than the later ones, spun ridiculously backwards in such an obvious manner that it'd be ridiculous if it weren't actually happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.66.20 (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's true, that isn't the way Wikipedia operates, actually. If there was a 9/11 page at 11:58 AM on 9/11 on Wiki, there is nothing inherently superior about the sources used then over what sources say 5 years later. Quite the opposite, in fact. Suppose there was a false flag operation involved in an event and most reliable sources didn't detect it in their earliest accounts of the event. Suppose it was revealed upon further inquiry and analysis. If the reliable sources start rephrasing their accounts of the event accordingly, it is ultimately no argument to say the earliest accounts should be preferred. Imagine a fist fight breaks out in an alley. You run over there and see it. Is your very first impression of who "started" it going to be the most accurate one?Bdell555 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is one of my arguments for why the Reuters account I mentioned earlier is preferable.Bdell555 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, so Wikipedia isn't just a joke, it's a hopelessly broken joke. 'False flag' actions are more often the fantasies of conspiracy theorists than reality, and most often the earliest news reports are the most accurate, albeit least elaborate. And what exactly does a 'false flag' operation have to do with any of this? Nothing, nobody has tried to edit this article to suggest either Russia or Georgia engaged in any false flag attacks. I just feel sorry for all the poor saps who spent countless hours selflessly contributing to this cesspool without realizing what it would become once the authorities discovered how important it was to control the information on it.

So your contention that editors like me are working for "the authorities" isn't itself a conspiracy? A false flag op is just an example of a situation where there might be more to it than meets the eye. Moscow claimed the Georgians killed 2000 victims at the time of their invasion. If the wires passed that on relatively uncritically because of the pressures of the 24 hour newscycle and they are now backing off, they might well have good reason. Fact is, Reuters can't go call up 10 academic experts to provide background or send in correspondents to verify things instantly. I could give you less "conspiratorial" example if you like: the early reports that a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department. Or maybe the tone of some early reports about the Oklahoma City bombing that didn't rule out the possibility of Islamic terrorists as strongly as later reports.Bdell555 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

64.180.66.20 you made 2 additional edits on the post above after originally posting it. Those are updates of your original, albiet small, they are still additions or changes to your orginal post. Bdell555 makes a valid point that the sources can't know everything in the very beginning of an event and have to revise and expand as events unfold and additional reliable information is received or to add information inadvertantly left out when originally published. I don't see why you disagree on using updated sources. --Jmedinacorona (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

During Georgian attack on Tshinvali 7-8 August, Russian troops were killed (Russian troops were inside Georgia according to 1992 Agreement between Russia and Georgia) this is important to include I think.86.102.43.111 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Handover

Russian troops tried to hand Gori back to Georgian authorities,

Such a claim requires a source, so we can see who says so. I looked at the two sources in today's timeline, and I don't see where this comes from. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

tried? LOL Colchicum (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reports of a collapse in negotiations on a handover of the town triggered a confrontation between Georgian and Russian troops at a checkpoint on the main road, a little over a mile from the center of Gori. No shots were fired, but Russian tanks quickly roared up in a display of might that forced the Georgians to pull back. [21] -- DanteRay (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not clear why the joint patrols failed, but it appeared that there was discord among personnel. Around 10 a.m. Thursday, a Russian Army major general ordered Georgian and Russian officers to patrol in pairs, but this did not last. “We had to go or there would have been shooting,” said a Georgian officer, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. More than 30 Georgian police officers left Gori and returned to a Georgian post outside the city; shortly afterward Russian troops fired five artillery rounds. Their target was not clear. [22] -- DanteRay (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks; a fairly reasonable deduction, but it is a deduction. What the AP actually attests is reports of a planned handover, and then reports of a fall-through.

This is a problem with any mention of what the belligerents planned or tried to do, but did not actually perform. Such things should wait for the histories to be written, by men with access to the actual papers on each side. When I restore the now missing footnote, I will leave it out; we can give the Russians credit for leaving Gori when they do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Would have been shooting

"We had to go or there would have been shooting," a Georgian officer said.

I think this comes under the same head as the section above: it's what a Georgian officer (unnamed) said the Russians (I think) would have done. We have enough trouble figuring out what the Russians did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline Aug. 9 - Abkhazia Offensive

This sentence below is in the timeline and seems so vague to me. Why did they begin an offensive? The reference mentions nothing about it beginning in the Kodori Valley nor does it mention that the 3,000 ethnic Georgian civilians were a part of the retreat? Am I missing something obvious?

"Also on August 9, an offensive was begun by the military of the Republic of Abkhazia in the Kodori Valley, the only region of Abkhazia that was, before the war began, still in effective control of Georgian loyalists. By August 13, all of the remaining Georgian forces, including 3,000 ethnic Georgian civilians, in the Kodori Valley had retreated to Georgia proper. [47]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedinacorona (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Both Abkazhaia and S Ossetia were mixed areas before 2008 South Ossetia war. Some villages/areas were controlled by them and some were by Georgia and there weren't really any real borders. Abkazai offensive started because it was possible to throw Georgian troops out and take control of whole area. It started with announce that there will be offencive and there will be safe passage for civilians and Georgian troops before they start actual fights against georgian troops if they want leave. Most civilians left, Georgian troops stayed. On august 12, Georgian troops retreated, but i don't know if there were fights or not.... --Zache (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There were. "Civilians who stayed" (Svan tribal militia) would stay even if the Georgian army decided not to fight there. They repelled the first Russian-Abkhaz attacks.[23] Georgian army eventually withdrew - I don't know if they did, but probably fought to the end (with the captives being the "part of population" now captured and mistreatred according to the Geo gvt). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It reads somewhat better now. I understood the why of it, it was just that the entry in the article seemed vague for someone coming to read it and having no understanding previously. It just kind of hangs there and I couldn't wrap my mind on how to make it more informative. Thx --Jmedinacorona (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

US Connections

I am requesting that someone edit the article to include a "US Connections" (or appropriately similar) section to talk about things like how it is being related to the Cold War (Georgia and the Baltic States who have recently openly supported Georgia are former Soviet republics - http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/world/2008/08/13/todd.russian.threat.cnn ) the recent Poland-US defense deal (which has upset Russia - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7561926.stm).

A good video with some good info: http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/bestoftv/2008/08/08/pilgrim.david.satter.interview.cnn

Danielgleckler (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I think you may have added a request for semi-protection on accident. I'm not an admin, but generally talk pages are not protected, and the main article page is already semi-protected. As for your suggested edits, it's definitely interesting stuff but it relates more towards long-term political issues and foreign relations, necessarily involving a certain degree of speculation. The first isn't very relevant to the article, and the second is generally against Wikipedia policy. (That aside, welcome to wikipedia. I certainly found the links interesting.) croll (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the welcome, and for pointing out my semi-protection request accident (still learning how to use everything). How exactly is the second "generally against Wikipedia policy"? So I know for future reference. dg (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it seemed like a lot of the videos were addressing potential future implications. (E.g., What does this mean with the Ukraine? Is this a shift in Russian policies towards former Soviet states? What about Latvians and Estonians and so on?) Trying to predict things like that is speculation or, as is called here, trying to be a crystal ball. For more information, check out What Wikipedia Is Not. Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia policy, just trying to offer some information that I've picked up over time. Others might disagree with me. :) Cheers. croll (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Great big gap.

I can't fix it cause of the protection, but there's a massive gap where the background is supposed to be. I assume this was an edit gone wrong or something.Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's a format error that creeps up from inserting infoboxes and pictures. I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia's formatting functions to fix it, though. :( croll (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I use Firefox browser and the problem doesn't show up, but when I switched to IE I see the HUGE gap. I too don't know enough about Wiki formatting to fix it, but hopefully someone does cause it makes the article appear even more grossly larger than it already is.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All good now. Thanyou annonamous editor for fixing it :) Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Statements section -- should it be removed?

This seems like a variation of a trivia section. A long list of interesting facts but not properly incorporated into the article. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but the article is getting long and stuff like this really "should" be in the article itself (if it's relevant enough to be so included). croll (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AGREE I'm not altogether sure exactly what this section adds to the article and agree that if the statements were a precursor or in reply to an action by any of the players in this, it would be incorporated within whatever action took place. This article is already very long without this section.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was more usefull when we were all scrambling for information and we were putting up statements as they were reported. You're right though it's pretty redundant now and if we put up every single statement we'd need a separate page :). Remove it for sure. Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE — Much of this information could be useful, and in any event, it shouldn't have been removed so quickly. I believe it should be put back pending a more thorough discussion. Richwales (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rich, I might have jumped the gun a bit there. If I did, my apologies. I'd asked the question maybe 12 hours (?) and only had two agrees, so I did it, which probably wasn't enough time to consider all the various time zones for editors. Anyway, I don't disagree that some of the information "could be useful", but I'd like to see it being put to use within the article itself rather than simply listed as a series of possibly interesting quotes. If you want to revert me for now, I certainly won't mind. I'd just like to see those quotes getting incorporated into the article or used as sources within the article instead of just being listed in a bullet format. Peace. croll (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reinstated the "Statements" section — tweaking the title to "Statements by involved parties" — and added a {{trivia}} tag to encourage incorporation of these items into the rest of the article as appropriate (possibly after the dust has had a chance to settle). Richwales (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AGREE I think the statements should be spun out into the appopriate article because otherwise the article is too long.Bdell555 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE There's a huge amount of contention about the content of the article. If the statements section was integrated into the article, everything in it would be lost in a hurry -- with the war raging in the main body of the article, we really ought to preserve a section of primary-source statements, letting the reader see what both sides sound like and judge for him/herself. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The war of words isn't the war. Readers could still find it in a sub-article just like the timeline is in a sub-article.Bdell555 (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates to infobox

The war is not ongoing, it ended when the ceasefire was signed. This is clearly a Russian victory and there are plenty of sources that describe it as such. Georgians lose the Kodori Gorge previously held by Georgia and the Abkhaz also took a peace of Georgia proper as well. There are many sources that describe Georgia's loses in Abkhazia. What I'm not yet clear about is whether Russia will give back parts of South Ossetia that Georgia had control over prior to the war so I've left it out of territorial changes. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the ceasefire will hold for any longer time. The war may not be over just yet, so lets not be too hasty to change information prematurely. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How long does the ceasefire have to hold before we can write it in the article? I think it's safe to put it in the article because clearly Georgia does not have any real command and control or infrastructure capabilities to continue the war against Russia and Russia doesn't seem interested in moving against Tbilisi. If by some fluke that changes, we can update the article. If there are assymmetric combat against Russia a la post war Iraq, we can write another article about it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres a difference between cease-fire and lull in fighting.--Jakezing (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Point being? Both sides Georgia, Russia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia have signed the ceasefire. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your changes are entirely POV, unsourced and very much out of line. You make your initial statement and without concensus, go right on and edit the article with your POV? Even the Korean War, 55 years after a cease-fire has not been declared over--Jmedinacorona (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not generally source the infobox and my changes are called being WP:BOLD. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait till the Russian troops pull out at the very least. There's no rush to have this all done right now. It still wont make a GA for some time.

Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict is definitely ongoing--anything else is premature. Publicus 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Poti

The NYTimes e-story has changed; as best I recall they were more definite about it at 17:30 UTC than they were when they went to press, probably about 02:00, but they don't mention Poti now. I have summarized the print edition, and will return to this tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yamadayev, wanted in Russia "for seriour crimes", is a Russian commmander in Georgia

Russia's mini Oskar Dirlewanger.

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=1622 --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As I read, he was dismissed from commandment, but morally he is the leader of Vostok soldiers and they listen his commands. I.e. he is a commander de facto, not de jure. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

War map and timeline

[24] Detailed map and timeline of Russian air strikes in Georgia. Source: Georgian mInistry of Defense.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia: Russian Cluster Bombs Kill Civilians

New report by Human Rights Watch. [25] --93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"This is the first known use of cluster munitions since 2006, during Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon." This should also be mentioned in the cluster bomb article.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do it. (Asking/noticing people usually brings nothing on Wikipedia.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw: bombing of Gori notbale enough, now? (Plus killing of journalists including the Dutch and injuring of the Israeli one and a lot of attention/reports in the media.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all so strange. I'm absolutely sure, that the first time i've heard of cluster bombs, was report in russian media, accusing Georgians of their usage. There was video footage, showing unexploded allegedly western-made bomb found in Tskhinvali right after Russians took it. Wasn't that shown on some western media channel? And i didn't get it from the HRW report, but whether they've seen any evidence to russian cluster bombing, except photos and georgian doctors' statements? Cus, usage of cluster bombs for the purpose of destroying "warplanes producing factory" seems laughable to me - they're designed to take out uncovered people, not factory equipment safely hidden inside buildings. ETST (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was standard practice in WWII to attack targets with a combination of high explosives, to destroy buildings, and cluster bombs, to kill first responders and make it harder for them to be rebuilt. I see no reason to rule out that the Russian Air Force used cluster bombs on the factory, particularly if the likes of Human Rights Watch says they did. It would make good strategic (though bad moral) sense; and Russia doesn't have the best record when it comes to inhumane armaments -- they used a lot of thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan and Chechnya. (And the US and UK use thermobaric weapons!? Ugh -- I had liked to imagine they were better than that...)

However, if you can find a reliable cite that the Georgians used cluster bombs in Tskhinvali, it wouldn't hurt to add that. That means a neutral cite, from a third party with a reputation for neutrality and no stake in the conflict -- Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, Reuters. Other news services not affiliated with governments -- the BBC, the AP, etc. -- can probably be relied on, too; but the Russian media have been producing an awful lot of maskirovka in this war... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of great non-copyrighted images

http://monolith.irsrv.ru/war/ http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551 Maybe we could use some of them for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.17.65 (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they're not copyrighted. They're all from the second source, where the text says: "Please, if you're going to publish these photos somewhere on the net, do mention not only Arkady Babchenko's autorship but also the fact that these photos belong to "The Art of War" almanac". While I do not know if this "belongs to" means they're copyrighted, I doubt these photos are released under GPL. -- 81.195.13.43 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, RIA Novosti allows us to use its materials (including photos) for free in "public free reference, educational and country-research (страноведческих) resources". Alæxis_¿question? 12:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See the their photos of Tskhinvali here. Alæxis_¿question? 12:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked Arkady Babchenko on the forum personally. Let's wait and see if he grants us permission to use the photos. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, he granted Wikipedia permission to use them (or anyone else, as long as they cite him as the author). Link -> http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=610#610

Guys, I don't know how to add pictures and photos to Wikipedia, or how to use them later, so this lays now onto your shoulders. I'm new here. So, pros, it's your time to use all those wonderful pictures. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbors the Yamadayevs

Vostok Battalion article requested. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, there's one already (covering also Zapad). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian reporter shot by snipers in Russian controlled Gori vide

[26] --Molobo (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• georgian show--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What ?

--Molobo (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC journalists look explode and some plane

[27] --Molobo (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

interesting video which clearly shows that the war is not over yet. -- DanteRay (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Definetely the war isn't over, however the video is older, but shows that the Russian military attacked civilians.--Molobo (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The video was filmed and appeared long before the cease-fire - I know because I watched it on the BBC when it was first reported - can't remember which day exactly but it was much earlier on in the conflict. I have to question though, can it be taken as proof that the Russian military deliberately targetted civilians? Even if their's evidence elsewhere, is this video proof of anything, except that maybe the aircraft was attacking targets at will? --ZedderZulu (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Longer video [28] --Molobo (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

unidentified plane fly far and sideview, but "rockets" explode about journalist. its bad staging, like Geogrian foto in Tskhinvali with multicolor pants.--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are claiming BBC is manipulating news and videos ? That would be a serious claim-anything to back it up ?--Molobo (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC is not serious populist company. --Ieee2008 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC is a serious media company. Ieee2008 is a not serious troll on the Internet. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am like you. "BBC" is like "RIA Novosti". Try make NPOV! --Ieee2008 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, since 1993 RIA Novosti is controlled by the Russian government. They are not an independent, reliable source. -- DanteRay (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And BBC is? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the BBC is things like "Alleged Anti-Israel Bias" (Israel being UK's friend country) and vandalising the article on US President George W. Bush by changing his middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker" on Wikipedia, not "being the official propaganda tube for British governments" (yes, plural - there are various governemnts there, freely elected). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My point: why is there a reason to believe western propaganda news instead of eastern propaganda, them being equally trustworthy? Let's keep it neutral, shall we? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because BBC is not "western propaganda news" (Newsflash!!! WWII is over) and thus we are keeping it neutral. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Not western propaganda" says who? You? And who are you, might I ask? Stop pushing your POV. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the Free Press Index by Reporters Without Borders: Reporters Without Borders#Worldwide Press Freedom Index Ranking. Russia on Rank 144; United Kingdom (with BBC) on rank 24. -- DanteRay (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I think this index does not apply to wars in which the country takes a side. In fact, I believe info coming from any member of NATO should be treated with suspicion because of direct interest in this war. The only things we can trust are videos and statements supported by both sides of the conflict. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

UK did not take a side, and even if, it would didn't change a thing (see BBC Iraq war reporting). Congratulations for Eritrea for beating North Korea. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get that remark about Korea, but, in either case, it's your opinion against mine. NPOV appreciated. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My what? Click the link to see the BBC reporting in the British war in Iraq and try to find ANYTHING there even remotely resembling RIAN/RT propaganda. Eritrea is the last in the rating, after NK. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

some soldiers robbing Gori-video from security cameras

[29] --Molobo (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• fake soldiers--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They're Ossetian rebels, not Russian soldiers, and the looting is mentioned in the article already. LokiiT (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"They're Ossetian rebels, not Russian soldier" That's a not a very convincing argument. For example RONA volunteers atrocities are counted as those of German responsibility despite them being non-Germans.--Molobo (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So LokiiT, is that an admission that we can stop qualifying the looting allegations as allegations? In order words, that we don't have to continue to have "According to western media outlet X, ..." all the time? State the facts like they are usually stated in Wiki articles, in other words?Bdell555 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Civilians

We have basically four categories of civilians affected by the war (forgetting Abkhazia for the minute):

• Ossetians living in SO - they were target of Georgian attacks, some took refugee in Russia
• Georgians living in SO - they were target of Ossetian shooting, now they are forced to flee and their houses are looted and destroyed
• Georgians living in Georgia proper - they suffer from the bombing
• Ossetians living in Georgia proper - there are reports that they are harrassed and some chose to take refuge in SO

I think this is four different stories that deserve four sections (or three if Ossetians living in Georgia are not important enough) Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev! But Ossetians houses is OK in SO ?? After Georgian MRL and other artillery?--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be the first ever looting by artillery, so I'm interested. Any details? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"destroyed"--Ieee2008 (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"looted and destroyed" --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And mixed ethnics?--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Georgians living in Georgia proper - they suffer from the bombing" No, they were also forced to flee (most of the refugees!) and their houses are looted and destroyed (like villages around Gori).

You also forgot the Georgians in Abkhazia (upper Kodori/Abkhazian AR), same thing as in SO.

And again, we hould stop pretending it's "South Ossetia war". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a fifth category, Georgians living in Russia - "there are reports that they are harrassed and some" are trying "to take refuge in" Georgia but are being denied exit into Georgia by Russian authorities.Bdell555 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And how about Russians living in Georgia (I mean citizens of Georgia)? They are harassed too. [30]--Namenlos Ein (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, we probably need a category for Georgians in Kodori. I assume there are not many Abkazians in Georgia proper nor Georgians in modern Abkhazia proper and nothing bad happens to Abkhazians in Abkhazia. Correct? Maybe we can join Ossetians and Russians living in Georgia together? I actually do not have any WP:RS on either of them Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Georgia, "Part of the population [of the upper Kodori and Tskinvali region] is under arrest and is subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment." --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Abkhazia has rather large Georgian (or rather Mingrelian) population in Gali district (about 50 thousand which is 1/4 of the country's population). I haven't heard about any abuses they suffered due to this conflict but more info might become available later. Alæxis_¿question? 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Information War

Do we need such section? We could use This Times article for the start Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should use an outdated article which is contradicting itself!

"Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war"

• Winners — Vladimir Putin: he made it clear to the world that Georgia had been the aggressor and that his soldiers were intervening to stop “genocide”
• Losers — Mikhail Saakashvili: the picture of the Georgian President cowering from a Russian helicopter said it all

Yes, thank you The Times. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if I'm the only one getting sick of you, Captain obvious, of using this discussion board as your own personal blog. You're making me want to side with the Russians out of spite. Here's a good quote for you and your "propaganda" whining. "“In the old days under Soviet rule we didn't believe a word of our own propaganda but we thought that information was free in the West and we longed for it,” said Katya, a middle-aged Muscovite. “But we have learnt since that the West has its own propaganda and in some ways it is more powerful because people believe it.”[31]

Oh yes, now your detailed response to my comment made it clear: Saakashvili won the PR war because he's the PR "loser", and Putin lost it because he's the PR "winner". Sorry, I didn't notice this obvious correlation the first time. Also, stop pretending to be neutral, it's really, really silly. Btw, send my greetings to Katya, a middle-aged Muscovite. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I think it's a good idea, but we would need a lot of sources to fill up three whole sections dedicated to those things. LokiiT (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the Times article seems to have pro-Russian bias but I am sure we could find sources with the opposing bias. We also have some experience in writing NPOV texts from POVed sources Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note for this conversation. Someone has to police name-calling and incivility. Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and the unsigned person he was fighting with should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Lihaas (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Video of Russian soldiers attempting to shoot journalists

[32] It seems that Russian Army freely shoots at civilians in Georgia. --Molobo (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• PS: "Russian soldier" speak with high pronounced accent.--87.117.137.224 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They are probably Ossetian or Chechen irregulars. Again, like in 1945, it wasn't the front line Red Army troops that went on the rampage in East Prussia so much as the following wave, who were less disciplined. I can't help but not the parallels, though, especially given all the reports that many of them are "drunk'.Bdell555 (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Novaya correspondent says Yamadayevtsy are not looting and not killing POWs (yes, he's reporting Georgian soldiers in basements being "shot on spot" during clean ups by irregulars, as well looting, destruction, and "absolute hatred").[33] (About Georgian soldiers who were left behind when Georgia declared ceasefire and retreated from SO, I remember a story of a soldier talking on his cell phone with these left behind and telling the journalist to "send the Red Cross" to them. Oh well. I guess no longer needed.) Ossetian militiamen/marauders are "Russians citiziens" armed and fighting alongside the Russian regular army, anyway, so the Russian leadership is criminally responsible for their actions and failing to stop them. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway since Russian Army is in control of those regions, all that happens by its units and its subordinates falls within their responsibility according to international law.--Molobo (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article in Novaya Gazeta is interesting. The correspondent says that his "opinion on Yamadayev's troops was transformed. This is a real family.. ..The Georgian prisoners are not abused [by the Chechens] , they are given water, food, cloth to cover themselves during the night. ..they are apt to transfer the prisoners further, to any detachment, but not to the Ossetians - because [the Ossetians] would kill [Georgian prisoners] right away".

Мнение о ямадаевцах я изменил. Это не батальон, это семья. Остались только те, кто не ушел к Кадырову. Отношения типа «эй ты, иди сюда» здесь немыслимы. Много молодых. Все воюют великолепно. С одним проговорили полночи. Он рассказал, как забрали в заложники его жену, чтобы он перешел к Кадырову, и как держали в плену его самого. Пытали. Но много и тех, кто воевал в первую Чечню.

Грузинских пленных никто не бьет, дают воду, еду, бушлаты на ночь. Это обычные мужики, резервисты. Они говорят, что за уклонение от мобилизации дают четыре года тюрьмы. Сдавать их собираются кому угодно, только не осетинам — убьют сразу.

--CopperKettle (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kettle for showing us how humanitarian and caring Russia is.Btw-prisoners ? Does it mean that Russia treats Georgians as Prisoners of War de facto reckognising the conflict as war rather then "peacekeeping mission" ? And if not on what charges and under what law Russia gives itself right to imprison people of another independent nation ?--Molobo (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

""Does it mean that Russia treats Georgians as Prisoners of War" - um, POW is an official status. It's a priviladge, actually. Russia never treated anyone as POW in any war since, I think, WWI. German prisoners of WWII? In Gulags (or shot). Polish prisoners of 1939? In Gulags (officers in POW camps, but later shot). Afghans? "Bandits" (in Afgan prisons or killed). Chechens? "Bandits" (in Russian "filtration camps"/prison colonies or killed). Civil War? Come on. Maybe except Finland - they even swapped prisoners (and the Red Army soldiers were then imprisoned or shot "for treason"). Didn't even sign Geneva, at least at the time of WWII (maybe later, but I'm not sure). Even American Cold War prisoners who were secretly brought to USSR from Korea or Vietnam all simply disappeared. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Video with translation (from Turkish to English)messages: Turkish say:"that must be georgian soldiers". Why "Molobo" has written "Russian soldiers"?--Shift register (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Because it turned out they were not Georgian.--Molobo (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Molobo! I'm not intending to "show" anything about "Russia", I've just translated a bit from the article describing that's going on there. In this region, there's always some fighting, as long as I remember from being a kid. The Chechen detachment, to the surprise of the correspondent (from an independent newspaper), showed rather high discipline. The fact that they (not some abstract "Russia") treat Georgians humanely means just that. On the down-to-earth level, in the thick of the battle, I don't beleive the soldiers are ruminating on what exactly their behavior means in the diplomatic gargon. Personally I do not see why during a peacekeeping operation there shouldnt be prisoners. There's no delineated border, regions of control and nationalities are intermixed in a patchwork pattern, and the Georgian invasion only mixed it more, so the peacekeepers have no stable line to guard between the nationalities; the guerilla detachments of Ossetians might kill the Georgians, the Georgians, if freed, may go on fighting, so the peacekeepers must detain them. --CopperKettle (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they (not some abstract "Russia") treat Georgians humanely I would like more credible sources then Russian newspapers. Russia is a the bottom of Free Press index and its media are completely controlled by the authoritarian regime that rules the state(that includes fake opposition parties and publications created to control resistance)--Molobo (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC) "In the thick of the battle, I don't beleive the soldiers are ruminating on what exactly their behavior means in the diplomatic gargon" At least here every soldiers needs to learn international law regarding warfare(Geneva Convention and so on). And the Russian soldiers long ago stopped being peacekeppers and became one of the sides, which finally ended in invasion of Georgia(plans of which were revealed month ago).--Molobo (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are independent newspapers in Russia, and a higly critical nation-wide radio, the Echo of Moscow (turned on beside me right now). Being at the bottom of an index does not equate to total media vacuum. If you are seeking the crystal-clear-one hundred percent-true media source in such a war, then you're the real idealist. As of Russian soldiers being one of the sides, thats your point of view, I do not agree to that, but you're free to have it. --CopperKettle (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Molobo :) Ur conspiracy theory is bosh :) See also WP:RELIABLE--Shift register (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you may imagine Russia as totalitarian, as you want, based on any evidence you possess(have you, at least, lived there, by chance?), but i think CopperKettle failed to deliver his point to you. Tell me, please, what exactly, do you think, these soldiers should do to their Georgian captives, based on international laws(which every soldier, especially not very educated Chechen, should know better than a lawyer)? Maybe, just release them, so they would be torn apart by Ossetians? Or, maybe, even give them back their weapons, so they could protect themselves, or just turn around and shoot the Russians in their backsides? Or, maybe, escort them to current Ossetian-Georgian border, wave a hand to Georgian snipers, and say "hello there, we have a couple of yours here"? It is easy to talk about laws, while sitting in a chair in front of your computer, but as far, as i concerned, those soldiers did alright. Of course, i'd be glad to see such report in western media too, but this one makes me seriously doubt all claims of seeing looting and rampaging Chechen barbarian hordes. ETST (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Novaya (Politkovskaya's paper for you) and Izmailov (a former Russian offcer who left the army in Chechnya to work as a journalist after receiving death threats from the military for acting as a whistle-blower after a massacre of civilians) are very credible sources. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Video and Media sources

Some of you is citing some facts that make me laugh. A video with Russian soldier with Chechen or Ossetian accent (belive me there is a big difference) trying to shoot a journalist / or media news where Russian troops occupated (!) Vladikavkaz (for those who doesn't know Vladikavkaz is part of Russia). Video and Media sources can be interpreted as you want. So, please turn on your brains before editing!Taamu (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"A video with Russian soldier with Chechen or Ossetian accent" In WW2 they were German soldiers that didn't know German so its nothing extraordinery. Russia controls many ethnic groups with many languages.--Molobo (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people from West call all people from former USSR Russians, so according to your POV I can say that Russians attacked Russians on 7 August. To avoid this kind of mistakes we need to clarify our statements. I already wrote about the confusion concerning Vladikavkaz, someone of wikipedians said that Russians occupated her own city, that is nonsense! Taamu (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You are talking about ethnic groups, not about citizenship. Since South Ossetians are Russian citizens it doesn't matter what the ethnic group is of Russian soldiers.--Molobo (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened is that, after that Turkish TV video, the Russians took them to Vladikavkaz for interrogation, according to the International Press Institute.Bdell555 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So it is now confirmed they were Russian soldiers. I noticed an notable fact-

The journalists had passed through an unmanned Georgian checkpoint into the South Ossetian capital There they were interrogated for a number of hours by Russian officials, asked to explain why they did not have Russian visas, and warned not to leave their rooms.

So it seems now Russia treats the Georgian territory as part of Russia demanding Russian visas to enter it.--Molobo (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How this conflict begins.

There is no mentioning in this article, that Georgia starts it massive offence. The article says "ceasefire agreement between Georgia and South Ossetia broke down, and Georgia sent a large military force into South Ossetia which reached the capital Tskhinvali." But that doesn't mean, that is is Georgia attacked Osethinans first. Then there is no mentioning also, that Georgians attacked and sieged Russias peacemakers base. We should add them.--Oleg Str (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I should admit I have a vested interest in the intro as I worked with some others who compromised a bit on developing its language. That said, I'm not sure I agree. The intro currently is fairly straightforward and necessarily brief (it's an intro). It says there was a ceasefire, it broke down for an unspecified reason, and Georgia invaded. If, as you claim, Georgia attacked the S. Ossetians first (which Georgia disputes), then... actually that's what the intro says. The ceasefire broke down, and Georgia invaded -- it does not say as fact that S. Ossetia invaded or bombed Georgia. The Russian peacekeeper stuff is also something that, personally, I think is better suited for the article and/or timeline, not the introduction, otherwise if we start including all that detail it can get bloated. That said, surely others will disagree and I don't doubt there is room for improving the Introduction, as long as its done collaboratively and constructively. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! :) croll (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said as usual, Carl.Bdell555 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion, now archived, about the wording at the beginning: here. We agreed to add the Russian Government's pretext and the general Russian impression of Georgian all-out attack. But later the Human Rights Report came out saying the humanitarian loss seems to be far from that you would expect from an all-out shelling of a city. --CopperKettle (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

As South Ossetia is not really where the war is taking place any more, but all over Georgia with the continued Russian attacks would this article be better off being renamed? Something along the lines of "Russian War on Georgia - 2008"? 81.149.82.243 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

With a slight modification "Russo-Georgian War" or "Russian Georgian War" I agree; as soon as Russia intervened they expanded the combat zone beyond South Ossetia, starting with the air and later with Tanks. (Russian War ON Georgia though would be considered POV). Jon (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you look through the archives linked at the top of this page, you'll see this topic has been discussed numerous times. (There is a lot of stuff in the archives, though, so I understand why you may not have found it.) In short, there is a concensus that agrees the article title will need to be changed -- there is agreement that the current title is not completely accurate. However, it's standard procedure to wait until the "real world" has decided on a name for the conflict before we change it, otherwise we risk having to change it every couple of days, and that requires fixing a lot of links within Wikipedia. So, you're right! It's going to happen. Just going to take a little while. And, who knows... perhaps if someone can do a review of recent news articles it will become clear the real-world has come to a concensus on what this mess is called. croll (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it a joke? If yes, check this one "American War on South Ossetia - 2008" Taamu (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And why American? (You Russian editors are incredible.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why American? Open your eyes and you will know why, captain. Taamu (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and US is not in infobox. Would you elaborate? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I lost the link but sometime yesterday I saw an article title linked to Fox News calling it the Russian Georgian War. I do note though that historians call most wars involving Russia as Russo [other combantant] Jon (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Result

Previously the article (some time yesterday US Time) was stating something like Georgia lost control over the enthicly Georgian portions of South Ossetia and Abzahia[sp?]. Now it's merely stating "cease fire taking place". I think the former is more accurate; it's clear that before the major fighting began that Georgia was in effective control of large parts of South Ossetia and now that they aren't in effective control of any of South Ossetia. And meanwhile there has been quite a bit of dispute over weather or not Russia is actualy taking anything more than a highly literial meaning of cease fire (re: perhaps not firing but still advancing after the cease fire was signed). Jon (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jon, if you can get through the sarcasm from some of the editors, check out the Infobox: "ethnically Georgian loyalist territories"?? section up above which discusses this. I changed to to say Unresolved and that has since been further edited, as you observed. Certainly, the territorial boundaries are still unclear for as long as Russian troops are moving around -- at least, they're unclear to us in the West as we haven't a clue about what Russia intends (we're obtuse that way).  :-) Anyway, I thought that original language was pretty confusing and also a bit speculative. I would argue against putting it back for now. croll (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sarcasm"? Where do you think the Georgian rfugees from SO and Abkhazia are from? Whose villages were looted and burn? (No prizes for guessing.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you from Georgia? If yes, please name me some villages that had been burned. P.S. Don't confuse South Ossetia with Georgia!!! Taamu (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I just did. What now? P.S. Okay!!! --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, Carl. There WERE ethnic Georgian enclaves in Ossetia and Abkhazia, but now, most of those people either died or fled to Georgia. War is a terrible thing...--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please first learn to read before directing others to "check out". And if you don't know such basics about the conflict, what are you doing here in first place? "Anyone can edit", but come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, what Taamu was asking for, was not a proof of existence of Georgian villages(i don't think he ever doubted that). Your edit amounts to you, Captain, have issued another one insult and haven't named a one single village, which had been looted and burned. Please, dial it down, Cap. ETST (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Kekhvi, Nizhnie Achaveti, Verkhnie Achaveti and Tamarasheni (SO) on August 12 for sure. Also, I wasn't even talking to Taamu (but to croll and regarding his claims of "sarcasm"). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain, I responded to some of your points on your talk page, where it felt more appropriate. As for the substance of this, the portion of the info box at issue has to do with territorial changes -- where the boundary lines have been "redrawn", so to speak, at the conclusion of the conflict. Regardless of whether the Georgian enclaves still exist or don't (as SergeiXXX alluded), that's irrelevant to the portion of the infobox that is at issue. One cannot determine where the territorial changes are until the conflict is over. As the conflict is not over (which, I admit, is subject to a rather lengthy debate), it is entirely speculative to determine where those boundaries are or will be. Peace. croll (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of propaganda from Captain Obvious

I'm rather disappointed at the allegations and at the words like "couldn't shut up". I've never considered myself a propagandist. I do not see a reason to remain silent then I see that the matieral is being presented with a preferential connotations to either side of the conflict. We should abstain from such things here, and remain neutral. I quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#The_wording_at_the_beginning - propagandist couldn't shut up about the demands of the "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city", "the heavy shelling laid the city in ruins," "the merciless wiping out of a city" and what not. But, not only the damage is limited, not only was inflicted by both sides during a regular battle, but also the rebels seem to be destroying "deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods" of the city right now, during "ceasefire". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--CopperKettle (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Should be rather "these who apparently believe in the propaganda without independent confirmation" or something. The Russian claim about "complete destruction" just turned out to be false/lies (just like the claims of "complete genocide", voiced by the Russian leaders on the highest level - and what it would even mean, that the Georgians just killed all Ossetians in the world overnight?). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My edit proposition was meant to present the Russian impression of the events and the pivotal pretext for Russian military reaction; it was worded carerully not to be states as sa fact, but rather be an analogoue of the "2003 War in Iraq" into, where the highly doubtable US allegations of WMD are presented as the pretext for the invasion. The Human Right Watch report later put the Russian claims into doubt. I don't see a propaganda here. For the first several days the Western sources were skipping over the fact of Georgian invasion and the Russian pretext, making it appear as a normal incursion into a province that's just seceded, when in fact S.O. has for almost 20 years been independent. Best regards --CopperKettle (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

US/Iraq - not "highly doubtful" but untrue (come on). Russian claim was always in doubt (propaganda), HRW & Western journalists on a Russian military trip(!) simply disproved it. SO was "independent" for about 15 years, so it's as much "almost 20" as "almost 10". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

US/Iraq was highly doubtful *cough* oil. Anyway, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we are to present facts in a neutral way, we are not to use adjectives/ describing words, leave that for the audience of the article. Describing words are POV. We are to give a balanced neutral view. Ijanderson (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Estonians in Georgia!???

This source is full of anti Estonian and anti European propaganda: [34]. I suppose there must me more proof of Estonia's involvement. This is not right to have propaganda sources on wikipedia. It is a violation. Pleckaitis (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Violation was when Georgia committed genocide against Ossetians and Baltic States supported Georgia! Taamu (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about violation of Wikipedia's standarts. I do not take sides in this conflict. Pleckaitis (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does quote CNN and Fox News in various articles, amongst other very unreliable news networks, so propaganda sources are allowed. However, the linked article pretty much says that a group from the "Reserve Officers Society of Estonia" went to Georgia to distribute humanitarian aid. Some Georgian official is quoted that they came to "help defend Georgia's sovereignty", whilst another Georgian official says they are there to distribute aid. I think the latter is closer to truth than the former. Thus, this does not justify placing them into the combattants list. Russoswiss (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't lump CNN with Fox; they're quite different. CNN is far more reliable, and has actual reporters on the ground in Georgia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Propaganda sources" are not accepted as reliable sources. You can use the 'propaganda sources' to reference the official position of a government, but not for facts and actual information. IMO, Fox News should not be used in delicate political articles. CNN is a different thing. bogdan (talk)

Estonia denied this.[35]

egarding the allegations published in media, according to which „the Estonian government sent its servicemen to protect Georgia's sovereignty and ensure a Russian troop withdrawal from Georgian territory“, the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs makes the following statement:

Estonian government has sent neither military units nor servicemen to Georgia to carry out military tasks.

Estonian ambassador to Tbilisi, Mr. Toomas Lukk has spoken with the Georgian deputy Defence Minister, who said that the quotations ascribed to Nino Bakradze, Head of Department of the Georgian Ministry of Defence by the Russian news agency Interfax are not true. --Molobo (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They are humanitarian volunteers, so no they are not defending any sovereignity, or participating in any possible combat situations. Also its their personal activity, not act of Estonian state. They are prohibited from wearing Estonian Army uniforms there.--Staberinde (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

From Georgian foreign ministry webpage -Staberinde (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian "peacekeepers", Estonian "humanitarian volunteers" - this war is WILD. Mercenaries do not usually get issue gear, they buy their own. 'Nuff said. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(And what's the point? The Armenian gov't surely did not stop their "veterans" or "reserve officers" from joining in on the Russian side. It's not the 20th century anymore. Armed "civilian contractors" with shoot-to-kill license are a standard element of warfare these days. I do not see anything usual in the Estonian - or Armenian - activities. Morally repugnant as war ist in general, but not unusual or condemnable from a purely formalistic standpoint. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Do you have any evidence, that this humanitarian mission is something else? Any evidence that these humanitarian volunteers are "mercenaries" or "armed civilian contractors" as you accuse? If not, please don't add your POV here, this is not a forum for publishing personal POV.90.190.192.206 (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Links, news pages and proof

I've looked around and found these pages on the Cyberattacks by/on Estonia and Russia. Poland and the Ukraine also offered a 'web-page in exile' ti the Georgian Goverment at one point to.

[[36]]

[[37]]

[[38]]

[[39]]

[[40]]

[[41]]

[[42]]

[[43]]

[[44]]

[[45]]

[[46]]

[[47]]

[[48]]

[[49]] --86.29.245.87 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Kokoity

The Kokoity government stated that they start a war with marauders and looters<:ref name=KokoytyKommersant/>.

This is ungrammatical, unclear, and has lost its source. I suspect that Kokoity is denouncing the Georgians, but since he was declaring this morning that "such things happen in war" when it is his people who are looting, I'm not sure how much weight to put on this. In any case, please clarify before restoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We've already got statements by the Russians that they will crack down on looters so I agree we don't need this.Bdell555 (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Gori in ruins"? You decide

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29033/video Aedile (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia articel of Russia Today: Russia Today was severly critisised for it's coverage of the South Ossetian conflict, with claims of a heavy pro-russian bias. Journalist William Dunbar resigned, “I had a series of live, video satellite links scheduled for later that day and they were canceled by Russia Today,” he told the Moscow Times. “The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn’t conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn’t let me report it. I felt that I had no choice but to resign,” "Russia claims media bias" (2008-08-12). - When will people stop calling Russia Today a reliable source. -- DanteRay (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today maybe is not reliable source. But the pictures in this video are. As someone said, cameras don't lie. Aedile (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"and pointed to the fact that Russian peacekeepers have in fact performed a humanitarian mission there." The newspeak for "cluster bombing and looting" is now "humanitarian mission". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mrcatzilla. NATO operation in Kosovo was a humanitarian mission, yet cluster bombs were used and some bands of Kosovans used the power vacuum to loot Serbians and destroy the ancient churches. Same in Georgia-Ossetia. The power vacuum is used by the rogue guerillas from both sides. --CopperKettle (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

At least Western sources don't deny it. But Russians news papers are like: "no we didn't use cluster bombs, and no we are not in Gori, and yes tomorrow our troops will leave Gori (wait a minute ... that doesn't make sense ... who cares, the Russians will believe it anyway ...)" -- DanteRay (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not "humanitarian mission" (this would be about, say, aid to the disaster-struck zones in the 2004 Asian tsunami) but "humanitarian intervention". They also didn't claim it's "peacekeeping" when they invaded with tanks and KLA/NATO irregulars and looted Serbia and Montenegro. Oh wait - they actually DID NOT invade with tanks and KLA/NATO irregulars (and no such thing as NATO "volunteers" - it's unthinkable for, say, the US Army to be accompanied by a bands of armed American civilians) and loot Serbia and Montenegro, so what the heck are you talking about? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Gentle reminder, fellas, we should keep conversations limited to the article's content and not turn this into a forum about the relative merits of Russia Today as a reliable source. :-) I'm not sure what the point of posting that link here was, but it doesn't seem like there's any discussion of where (or if) it belongs in the article. Peace. croll (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we talk about the article please? I don't see "Gori in ruins" in the article. If it were, then if it were cited to a reliable source, it should stay. If another source of comparable reliability says it is NOT "in ruins", then, generally, BOTH allegations go in, acknowledging the dispute, with it being made clear to the reader what the sources are so the reader can draw his or her own conclusion.Bdell555 (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell555, there is a "?" mark at the end of "Gori in Ruins". Aedile (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It probably is, just like Chechenya was in the mid 1990's. --86.29.245.87 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A Russian news agency would be the last thing i would trust for a reliable source- its a state-run agency and i do not think its trust worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia

Can't we just call them breakaway Republics like CNN and save a lot of changes between unrecognized/seccesionist/and just regular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.56.121 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

fine by me. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean this: "The 2008 South Ossetia War began on 7 August 2008, and involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia which broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s", and change it to "...and the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."? I see no problem with that, would make it a bit more concise. croll (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Transnistria is called "breakaway", so this should be a normal term; yes then. --CopperKettle (talk)

Maybe we could keep the wikilink to Diplomatic recognition (currently attached to "unrecognized") so it looks like this: "...and the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."? croll (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Update on casualties

German source, reporting on casualty counts. S Ossetian authorities report 200 dead, 700 missing; HRW and Russians are apparently aware of 44-60+ in Tskhinvali and counting. Not 2,000, that much seems certain by now.

http://www.n-tv.de/1009353.html

I have changed the "2,000" claim in the infobox, added "initially". For as early as Saturday or perhaps Friday even, Russian sources were talking about "casualties" (dead + wounded), then they dropped the number altogether. Sources ought to be in the text already. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to put in sourced estimates or a number range instead of "Unknown", as it is now? -- megA (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Non-combat military operations involving the United States"?

why this category? This isn't an article about any "non-combat military operation", let alone one involving the United States. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the one where the US transported Georgian soldiers back to Georgia using US airplanes for free? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The only thing I could think of was humanitarian aid, which did seem like a miscategorization, but yes, that would seem to fit. (Not that I think there's anything wrong with transporting the troops back to their home country, but... yeah, would seem to fit, as long as it doesn't turn into a segue to putting the U.S. in the infobox as a combatant.) ;-) croll (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

um, this article mentions some US plane and this is grounds for categorizing it as concerning a US military operation? Hey, the article also mentions Dick Cheney -- how about we place it in Category:Dick Cheney? dab (𒁳) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Condoleezza Rice didn't pass gas while she was in country or it will be added as U.S. supplies chemical weapons --Jmedinacorona (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC) I struck my comment. --Jmedinacorona (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

=)))))))))))))))) lol, man, you made me crawl under my table and weep. Just the remark to relax international situation! Well, i've read some article which mentions Cheney, is yours the one, which alleges neo-conservatists conspiracy in US, or something like it? Well, while all of it seems to me somewhat controversial to me, it was written, i recall, by some quite serious russian(?) institute of politics. At least, the war is, indeed, clearly making McCain more popular, as far as i can judge about american politics that is. But aside from that, all of this "Tiger Jump" and "Immediate Responce" stuff looks very shifty to me, and i see no reason, why it shouldn't be included into the article. ETST (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of media bias

Potential edit warring in this subsection over the last few days. I believe it is important to delineate between the terms "the foreign media" and "non-regional media" (implied in the source), and am being ignored by editors who twice removed the tag for what is likely a selective interpretation. In this update the Deputy Foreign Minister is quoted as accusing Western media of pro-Georgian bias, in this interview he notes that "Russia has been ... voicing its position not only to leaderships of western countries, but to the western media as well ... for discussing the most acute world order issues." Ottre (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I leave you all with Orwell’s warning not to dismiss accounts simply because of their source.

“what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.” George Orwell http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/lookingback1.htm

Adjpro (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot this last link on the U.S. role in the conflict, lots of history

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5465

Adjpro (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Do we absolutely need secondary sources to demonstrate that by "foreign media" he meant something other than non-Russian media? How do we know that RIAN is accurately reporting on how often the word was used? Ottre (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The user Ostap R deleted the following paragraph in this section:

"BBC News world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds filed a story on August 15 citing the reports of refugee Ossetians in Russia and a Human Rights Watch report describing much of the damage in Tskhinvali as due to Georgian fire in concluding that the the Georgian attack into South Ossetian on 7 August was being "played down" contrary to the evidence. Reynolds noted exaggerated Georgian claims and the fact most of the western media is based in Georgia is his story about how mud thrown in the "propaganda war" stuck to Russia: "the Bush administration appears to be trying to turn a failed military operation by Georgia into a successful diplomatic operation against Russia. [176]"

Watch his edits, he was disrupting this page over the last few days. What Max (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted this paragraph back to live from Mariah-Yulia's edit. See no criminal in this paragraph, it does tell of the White House propaganda war. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This was her edit that I reverted. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The White House does not control the media. This section is for allegations of media bias, not politics. Ostap 02:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Reynolds is basically saying the media is biased in favour of the White House. It may be nonsense but it's an allegation. If we are going to have this section at all we should it include it. I think if we use the wording given here, it makes it clear that it is more or less Reynolds' opinion and may or may not be fact.Bdell555 (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As any powerful political body, they do play with the media and affect them. This leads to biased reporting. The BBC report is quite a balanced source usually. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly beleive that the paragraph about Reynold's BBC report should stay. Let's not engage in revert wars, Ostap R., and discuss it here. I quote: "Reynolds noted exaggerated Georgian claims and the fact most of the western media is based in Georgia is his story about how mud thrown in the "propaganda war" stuck to Russia". See, the media are mentioned. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If no sound arguments against this paragraph are given for some time, I will restore it in its place. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

It's surprising that this hasn't yet come up, at least in the background section. But there are sources for Kosovo being the an important part to the decision to take this to a larger scale war.

There was something on CNN International by George Friedman of Stratfor talking about Kosovo being a consideration for the moving into S. Ossetia (and Abhkazia). Perhaps there should also be mention of the Russian comments that the two are not likely to ever be part of Georgia again. See the following links for more on this: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENIN276&q=george+friedman+kosovo+georgia&btnG=Search&meta= http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2008/08/russogeorgian_war_and_balance.html http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENIN276&q=kosovo+georgia&btnG=Search&meta= http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2337

ps- This could be cited too http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7563182.stm Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Refugees - New Number

UNHCR speaks of more than 118000 refugees. Maybe someone could update this number in the box. -- DanteRay (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Updated new figures. Lihaas (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia's military budget ramped up prior to the war

I quote from the Russian version:

Кроме того, Грузия стала резко наращивать вооружения, стараясь вступить в НАТО. Бюджетом Грузии на 2008 год запланированы расходы Министерства обороны, эквивалентные 0,99 млрд долл. США, что составляет более 4,5 % ВВП (оценка по паритету покупательной способности) или около 9 % ВВП (оценка по соотношению курса валют) и более 25 % всех доходов бюджета Грузии на 2008 год.

translated:

Besides, the military budget of Georgia was increased drastically as the country sought to join NATO. The expenses alotted for the Ministry of Defense for the 2008 amounted to 0.99$ bln. This represents more that 4.5% of Georgia's GDP (when calculated using the purchasing power parity) or about 9% of its GDP (based on currency exchange rates) and takes up more that a quarter of all of the profits written in the state budget for the 2008.

the refs

Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought there used to be something in the article about Georgia's military budget and... as I think about it... I might have been the one who deleted it. Heh! (It was in a very strange place in the article and didn't seem relevant at the time.) Where do you think information about the budget would fit within an article about the war? I'm guessing you're inviting the reader to draw an inference that Georgia was planning this for some time? (That might open up a can of worms about speculation and POV.) croll (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If this material is going to be included, equivalent material about the budgets of Russia and the "non-recognized republics" should be included as well. Would antiwar.com have those numbers like it does for Georgia?Bdell555 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Russia's military budget hasn't increased prior to the war, because it's not the aggressor. On the other hand, numbers from the unrecognized republics would be beneficial. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus that Russia is "not the aggressor." Since you are using that very contentious premise as a starting point ("because") for your argument as to what is relevant and should thus be included, this conclusion of yours is necessarily very contentious as well. We can't put it in any more than we can say "Russia is not the aggressor", in other words.Bdell555 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

All right then, I guess we can look at the numbers and from those safely conclude that Russia is not the aggressor, publish this information elsewhere and use it here as a resource due to "no original research" policy. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

These are just the facts, why not post them in the article. As to whether Georgia is agressor, everybody is entitled hto his own view. The facts might help balancing that view. --CopperKettle (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some time has passed, and there are no substantial counteragruments; will look for the place to add the statistics. --CopperKettle (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Added here. --CopperKettle (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I went and checked the CIA reference cited for the GDP %, and it says 0.59%! You evidently don't have a cite for either 4.5% or 9%, and calculated it yourself. Please see WP:OR: "if you use it ... to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research"Bdell555 (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) See also WP:SYN: Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion... then the editor is engaged in original research. The fact you are citing a currency converter site here indicates that this is clear cut case of synthesizing.Bdell555 (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. The CIA WB figure is of 2005 and then it was indeed just 0.59%. Alæxis_¿question? 05:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the source according to which Georgia's proposed military spending in 2008 account for 5.6 of GDP. Alæxis_¿question? 05:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's another article published a yyear ago:

“ The government’s decision encountered almost no resistance in parliament, with opposition deputies only demanding more details on how the massively increased budget - now accounting for six per cent of the country’s GDP and equivalent to spending on social and healthcare programmes - would be spent. ”

“ According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, Georgia currently has the highest average growth rate of military spending in the world. Some independent experts are worried that the spending is not fully accounted for, while others say that it could undermine the peace processes with the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. ”

Alæxis_¿question? 05:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that solves the problem in that I have no objections at all to that material being added to the Military of Georgia article and I would encourage you to add it. But that still doesn't solve the problem of relevance. It is not neutral to not have a description of the growth of Russian and South Ossetian military spending as well, assuming that any of that stuff is relevant.Bdell555 (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

See the extraordinary sessions of Georgian parliament: 1 2 --CopperKettle (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Priorities of Additional Defense Spending - Friday, 27 June 2008 03:50 - "A draft amendment to the 2008 state budget will bring total funding of the Ministry of Defense to GEL 1.395 billion – up by GEL 295 million."
• MPs Discuss Budgetary Amendments - Saturday, 05 July 2008 03:17

  As a result of the budgetary amendment, the funding of the Ministry of Defense (MoD) will increase by GEL 295 million to GEL 1.395 billion. The Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) will also benefit from the planned budgetary amendment as an additional GEL 40 million is earmarked for it. If approved, the amendment will bring the MIA’s total funding for 2008 to GEL 640 million, compared to GEL 467.4 million in 2007. At the same time the amendment envisages spending cuts for a number of ministries.

That's were the recent news, just prior to the war. --CopperKettle (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Defense Spending, Number of Troops Increased - 15th July. "..Parliament approved on July 15 a proposal to increase the personnel cap on the Georgian armed forces from the current 32,000 to 37,000 and also supported to increase defense spending by additional GEL 295 million..." --CopperKettle (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The facts are of direct relevance to the conflict, as they show that the attack on Tskhinvali had some serious preparation behind it. The Russian Army is much more in size and variations in its budget, if there are any, might be explained by the vastly expanding oil revenues in the recent years. --CopperKettle (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No doubt it did have "serious preparation behind it". However, there is a great deal of evidence to support the argument that the Russian response had "serious preparation behind it". One could add all sorts of material about rising nationalism and [revanchism]] in Russia. How about a comparison of Russia's military budget to Georgia's, so readers can judge which power should more reasonably be afraid of aggression by the other?Bdell555 (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison? Why not, fine; and the reports of border concentrations of the troops, if there were any, could be added. --CopperKettle (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that after this has all been done such that we don't have an undue weight problem, we'll have a big chunk of material that rightfully belongs in the 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis article. The article would just be too big.Bdell555 (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexis' material gets right to the point, and is accordingly much preferable to this mess of data of yours. The problem in any case remains, what, if anything, does it say about "Georgia's interests"? If it says that Georgia is aggressive and Russia is "non aggressive", as has been contended in this section, then Wiki ought to be also include material that may suggest Russia is being aggressive, in order to avoid WP:UNDUE. In other words, the comments of Sweden's Carl Bildt should be added with respect to "Russia's interests" in order to show that the relevance of the passport status of South Ossetians is controversial. I don't see anything in the "Russia's interests" section that suggests that Russia's interests are not anything but admirable and reasonable.Bdell555 (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The relevance of increases in military budgets

Let's discuss. I assume such statistics are highly relevant. A little country wouldn't explode its military spending just as a whim, so it shows some interest. "If there's a rifle on the wall at the beginning of the play..". Maybe the "mess of data" could be reworded but the facts speak for themselves, IMHO. I vote to

• Leave it, and probably add the info on Russian military manoeuvres (on the borders?) and spendings prior to the conflict. --CopperKettle (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to compare Georgia's military spending from year to year, then we should be comparing the size of Georgia's military budget to Russia's. You could take the 2008 number and compare it to another year, and say that's evidence of aggressive intent, and someone else could take the same number, and compare it Russia's, and say that that's evidence not of aggression but of a recognition of a need for defence. What's absurd about this is your argument that Georgia was creating an arms race. You can't have a race when the other guy is already a mile ahead of you. Why does Russia have such a huge military budget compared to Estonia? Is Estonia going to take it over? These are all relevant comparisons if any budget comparisons are in order. I think it would expand the section too much. As it is, this "interests" section just serves to have Wikipedia lay out Russia's various arguments for invasion, without any acknowledgment of what's wrong with those arguments. It's POV enough already.Bdell555 (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If the numbers placed in that section evoke false connotations, maybe we should just move this paragraph out from the "interests" caption? --CopperKettle (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Use Alexis' material (so it is not OR) and then put it into the 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis article where it belongs.Bdell555 (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you really insist on getting your concern's about Georgia objectives into the article, start by using Alexis' non-OR numbers, above, and then create a stub "western interests" section. In that "western interests" section, it could be explained to readers why western powers think that, for example, the arguments expressed in the "Russian interests" section make for very problematic precedents.Bdell555 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This info is relevant for this article imho. SO expressed its worries about the increase of Georgia's military spending (see the article I've already quoted, that also say about some 'independent experts' worrying 'that it could undermine the peace processes with the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia'). Since their worries materialised the info about the growth of Georgia's military spending over the last few years should be in the article. Alæxis_¿question? 07:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea why the increase in the military budget of Georgia should be included in the Georgia interests section. I read the entry and it states the official reasons being attributed to it's wish to join NATO. I have read nothing that has stated that in order for Georgia to join NATO, it first had to regain control of it's breakaway provinces. So in what context are you inferring that it has anything to do with the current war? The reference also specifically says that the increase was not for dealing with the breakaway provinces. Do you have another reliable source that states in fact that another provision of the increase was budgeted to deal with current and ongoing problems with these provinces? Otherwise I cannot see the relevence. --Jmedinacorona (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So basically you say that the fact that one side of the conflict 'had the highest average growth rate of military spending in the world' is not relevant for an article about this conflict?

Anyway, this connexion has been made for example in this article by Foreign Policy In Focus and by a Russian delegate at the Conference on Disarmament ([50]). Alæxis_¿question? 09:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a tripartite peacekepeer force stationed in the territories; and how could you bring back a nearly monoethnic province that gained de-facto independence 15 years ago? The only way is talks and attempts to heal the wounds (Georgia attackes S.O. in 1992, that time there was no Russian help, and Ossetians pushed the attackers back). --CopperKettle (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some check of sources

Sometimes it seems, sources contradicts the article. For example, there was a statement that "on August 13 russians occupied Senaki" with links to New York Times and Anniston Star, none of the articles even mention that city.Garret Beaumain (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

One can use {{failed verification}}, or just fix it. Superm401 - Talk 08:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FOX reporter Steve Harrigan underfire by Georgian Irregulars

Here's an interesting video from FOX News: http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3029011&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://search2.foxnews.com/search?access=p&getfields=*&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=my_frontend&filter=0&site=video&proxystylesheet=my_frontend&q=Harrigan Jason3777 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

à la guerre comme à la guerre; interesting news. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is surely off topic, but I'd note that if these are, in fact, "Georgian irregulars", it is exceedingly strange. There are so many oddities, in fact, I decided to note them all in a blogpostBdell555 (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Fox journalist says in the video that he was sitting with Russian forces before the attack came. It would be unusual for Ossetian irregulars to attack Russians. Esn (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

mis-leading line

I found this in the "censorship"

"Fox News cut off an American-Ossetia girl, Amanda Kokoeva, after she stated that she was attacked by Georgian Forces and saved by the Russian Troops."

1. If you watch the link, you will find out that not only did she complete what she said- but it rolled for another couple of minuets afterwords.

2. The commercial break was nothing special- it actually seemed to have lasted longer then most small interviews FNC dose- i will guarantee you that whoever posted this doesn't watch FNC, nothing was out of place.

3. This is speculation on my part, but how dose a 12 year old girl tell the difference between two sides who wear the same uniform, who has been in Russia right after they fled- what proof do we have that they aren't being told what happened by the Russian state-run media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed higher on this talk page. Seems to me she was not cut off intentionally. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for your consideration. Georgian troops were in american-style uniform. 3D camouflage, AFAIK, which much different from russian. Vadimkaa (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

under what section? I must have missed it.

Jade Rat (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Fox_News_video_with_12-year_old_girl_and_her_aunt_that_arived_from_the_conflict_zone - here. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok i missed that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reworded it a little to move it from this hypie style:

There were allegations in the internet that the Fox News channel cut off an American-Ossetian girl, Amanda Kokoeva, after she stated that she was attacked by Georgian Forces and saved by the Russian Troops, while the people accustomed to Fox programmes said that such commercial cut-offs of are not out of order there. This video also allegedly experienced multiple problems with the counters available on YouTube. The video rating and view count are not being updated and new comments are being deleted.[187]

How are Youtube counters at all relevant to this war?Bdell555 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

They might be relevant in the propaganda war, which is a no small part of this conflict. But probably this all is just an inflamed imagination; I saw more that 8000 comments there and the viewcounts may be just lagging; so this statement could be deleted if there are no definitive corroboration like some wayback internet machine. --CopperKettle (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds a lot better- its a lot more neutral i think. Jade Rat (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Why is there no mention of August 10 in the Timeline Section?

The time line skips from August 9 to August 11. Important stuff happened on the 10th. Jason3777 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletions by Bdell555

Bdell, I don't understand two things: why you're deleting so much material on the the grounds of original research when the sources are listed, and why you're so passionate about the material being deleted. It doesn't seem very important or contentious to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the original research policy. It doesn't matter if all the sources are reliable. You can't synthesize material like that in Wikipedia. Note my request to use Alexis' numbers instead as a minimum. They quote articles that DIRECTLY say blahblah GDP %. It is the procedural or form issue that is the greatest problem here, as opposed to the content. Notice that the GDP number Alexis found is different from the one calculated by original research, as well.Bdell555 (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, it's secondary research, which is still banned by wiki's original research policy. I deleted what I could confirm to be secondary research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, it is original research. My memory of the exact wording of the policy was fuzzy. We need to find someone else saying it before we can say it, even if it is true. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this passage so now it's fully sourced and no WP:SYN accusations can be raised. I'll now try to find some info on SO and Abkhazia's military spending. Alæxis_¿question? 07:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Sergei Bagapsh claimed the republic spent 25% of its 2006 income on defence. The whole income was 1.1 bln roubles ($ 40 mln approximately) so Abkhazian military expenditures were about $10 mln then.. Alæxis_¿question? 08:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are there two sections in talk concerning the Georgian budget? Aren't there enough sections to read through that we don't need to start making duplicates and triplicates? If we add a comment in one do we need to copy/paste in the others as well?? --Jmedinacorona (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's my bad, I added a new section to the talk page without reading the previous section. Though to be fair, we did reach a solution faster than if I had taken the time to read the entire dispute. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to read the comment I left in the previous section? I didn't realize it was being discussed further down the page and definately didn't know that a solution was reached so fast. Did this solution take in to account my questions concerning the addition? That is why I feel having multiple sections on the same topic is counterproductive, because it bypasses the full need for consensus. --Jmedinacorona (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Answered above. Alæxis_¿question? 10:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of media bias - Fox News

I am not trying to say that Russian media are unbiased, but look at this brilliant piece of journalism from Fox News: Fox News: 12 Year Old Girl Tells the Truth about Georgia. --Eraser (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_of_Georgia&diff=prev&oldid=232276293 --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Myself, and about 12 other have already disputed this. We watch FNC, cutting people off to go to a commercial break is extremaly common- nothing is out of place. This also happened at the end of Studio B they had no choice but to go to a commercial.

Jade Rat (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Some has better start cracking the whip when this talk page is being used rapidly. How does this section contribute to discussion on helping the wikipedia ARTICLE?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Lihaas (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FOX News

I visit and see LOTS of discussion lately is about Fox fucking News. Can't you people discuss any reliable sources, instead? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FNC is one of the most reliable, and the most watched cable news in America- i don't know where you are getting that it's "unreliable" unless your into the conspiracy that its the "Vast right wing propaganda station".

Jade Rat (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Those who watch it don't know if Europe has states like the US does? so I'm not surprised by their choice--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-22

" * Russian Air Force- retired during the 1990s."

Obviously false, as at laeast one was shot down by Georgians in 2008. In 2007, RIAN also had a story "Russia conducts Tu-22 strategic bomber drills in the south".

Maybe retired and then brought back, as no replacements came?

"Operational history" section should be too updated. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's Tupolev Tu-22M. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgians brought down Tu-22M, not Tu-22 (and the RIAN article is also about Tu-22M). Alæxis_¿question? 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But they said "Tu-22" and this is what everyone repeated. (The RIAN article title also said "Tu-22" in the title.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates

1. UN refugee agency - 88,000 Georgians Displaced

2. No Signs of Russian Withdrawal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.151.101 (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New neutral project

Do not clear it, please, be objective. If it is possible - add it to the page.

The new Internet site Russia-vs-Georgia have been created recently. The main goal of this site is to give all visitors do voting one of the side and comment it . The authors asserts that «Project doesn't support any of the sides. Our aim – together with visitors investigate real situation.». The abbreviation vs is striked, obviously it is the hint to understanding that «Russia is not versus Georgia». --Korolev Alexandr (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We only use real sites, not a vote system.--Jakezing (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Total bias in "Humanitarian impact" section

This is for "South Ossetia" section on Wikipedia:

On August 8, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated: "Georgia’s actions have led to human losses, including among Russian peacekeepers... Georgian peacekeepers were opening fire at Russian peacekeepers with whom they were supposed to work together in... maintaining peace in the region. Civilians, women, children and old people are dying today in South Ossetia, and the majority of them are citizens of the Russian Federation".[1]

On August 8, the International Red Cross urged the combatants to make a humanitarian corridor to evacuate the wounded and civilians from Tskhinvali.[2][3] According to Russian sources, Tskhinvali's main city hospital was non-functional, and ambulances could not reach the wounded, while Georgia continued to bomb the hospital. Twenty-two wounded remained in the building, which reportedly had only two storeys left.[4] International Red Cross spokeswoman Anna Nelson said it had received reports that hospitals in Tskhinvali were "overflowing" with casualties.[5] According to Russia Today, more than 150 people were trapped under the rubble of the city hospital.[6] Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin alleged that Georgia was responsible for a "complete genocide."[7]

The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, said that thousands of refugees left South Ossetia, mostly for North Ossetia in Russia within the first days of the conflict.[8] About 140 buses, carrying thousands of refugees, had already arrived in North Ossetia on Friday evening, August 8, according to Reuters.[9]

Human Rights Watch visited a camp for the displaced in the village of Alagir and interviewed more than a dozen people, including those from Tskhinvali and neighboring villages. Those from the city reported spending more than three days in the basements of their houses, unable to come out because of the incessant shelling. Residents of Satikhar village said that after the village came under heavy artillery fire on the night of August 7, all women, children and elderly (more than 100 people) started fleeing their homes. Most of them spent the next two days hiding in the woods and then trying to make their way toward the Russian border. Later, the Russian military in the village of Ger helped in the displaced civilians' transport to North Ossetia.[10]

Eduard Kokoity stated from South Ossetia that the death toll has risen to 1,400 in South Ossetia.[11] Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on August 9 upon his return from Beijing to Vladikavkaz claimed that "tens of people killed, hundreds wounded" and 34,000 refugees had crossed the Russian border.[12] The United Nations refugee agency said that between 10,000 and 20,000 people have been displaced within Georgia.[13] According to Russian sources, Tskhinvali was lying in ruins, and more than ten border villages were burnt to the ground as of August 9.[14][15] According to western media who arrived in the city later, however, "[s]everal residential areas seemed to have little damage" and "[r]eporters witnessed more than a dozen fires in what appeared to be deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods and saw evidence of looting in those areas.[16] According to Chicago Tribune, theater and typesetting school were heavily damaged or destroyed.[17]

The fighting interrupted electricity and telephone service in Tskhinvali, and some inhabitants sheltered in basements[18] with no access to water or medicines.[19] Human Rights Watch interviewed an Ossetian man who noted that Ossetians had lost property "in Tskhinvali and other places".[20]

Russian media reported on August 9 that several journalists were hiding in the basements, as they appealed to world society for a peace corridor to let them out of Tskhinvali.[21][22]

At a makeshift hospital camp in Alagir on August 9, Prime Minister Putin was told that Georgian troops had set fire to a house with several young women inside. "They were rounded up like cattle, shut into the house, and set on fire. In another place, we saw a tank run over an old woman who was running away with two children. We saw how they slashed up an 18-month child," a refugee said.[23] Russian reports cited the representative of South Ossetia administration who asserted that Georgian troops opened an irrigation canal to flood the basements of Tskhinvali in order to prevent people from hiding in the basements of the buildings during bombings.[24] and that Georgian tanks ran people down and that soldiers took away women.[25]

Human Rights Watch entered Tskhinvali on August 13 and reported that it saw numerous apartment buildings and houses damaged by shelling. It said some of them had been hit by "inherently indiscriminate" weapons that should not be used in areas populated by civilians, such as rockets most likely fired from Grad launchers. It said there was evidence of firing being directed into locations where civilians frequently choose as a place of shelter, such as basements. Human Rights Watch talked to a teacher at the local kindergarten, who said: "They were shooting from Grad rocket launchers, paying no attention to civilians living in these houses. We went deaf from the shelling. They simply wanted to wipe us off the face of the earth." The woman showed Human Rights Watch researchers the kindergarten building hit by the Grad rockets, as well as fragments of the rocket itself. [26]

What we got here?

1. SO is in Georgia. Why is "South Ossetia" section separate from "Georgia" section? It should be, say, "South Ossetia", "Gori", "Abkhazia" and "Elsewhere" sections, for example.
2. Most of this are unconfirmed reports of Georgian atrocities bia the Russian/"Russian citizien" propaganda - by now, this stuff should be in propaganda, and here only confirmed reports (UN, HRW, IRC, etc.). Russian propaganda (there's only Russian propaganda there) BS which has to be removed or moved to "Propaganda" section was highlighted by me in strike.
3. There's no mention but "according to western media" of the widespread looting and destruction of the ethnic Georgian villages, and the 15,000[51] Georgian refugees get less space then the wild ravings of V.V. Putin. This is not "according to western media", it's a fact (HRW, UN) which was only confirmed by media from the third-party countries too.
4. As mentioned in the previous point, HRW quotations only regarding South Ossetians - and none of these disaproving Russian BS claims in the style of "total genocide".

Also, there's no mention(!) of the plight Georgians in Abkhazia. UNHCR via Reuters Reliefweb:

More than 700 frightened residents of the remote Khodori Valley in Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia region have been escorted to safety in a two-day operation mounted by UN refugee agency staff. (UNHCR secures safe passage for Georgians fearing further fighting)

Why are they "frightened" and need to be evacuated from the territory controlled by "peacekeepers", when the Georgian army did not attack so there's no "revenge"?

By the same article: Right now there are 118,000 refugees, including 15,000 Georgians from SO (practically all of the Georgian population there) and 73,000 Georgians from "Georgia proper" (maybe including Abkhazia in the report), mostly Gori.

Of ~118,000 refugees, only 1/4 are Ossetians. The rest are Georgians. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup, too

Also, what remains should be cleaned up, becuase it' badly written and mostly look like just copy-pasted (and doesn't matter if's in citation marks, it should be edited, it's supposedly encyclopedia and not a blog entry or a press article - if anyone wants to read more, they can click the link rwead in the source).

For example, the apparant copypasta of:

Human Rights Watch talked to a teacher at the local kindergarten, who said: "They were shooting from Grad rocket launchers, paying no attention to civilians living in these houses. We went deaf from the shelling. They simply wanted to wipe us off the face of the earth." The woman showed Human Rights Watch researchers the kindergarten building hit by the Grad rockets, as well as fragments of the rocket itself.

Should instad be:

HRW researchers found a kindergarten building hit by the Grad rockets, as well as fragments of the rocket itself.

If I'm back and nobody cleaned up this, I'll do it myself. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

About moving to the "Propaganda" section

There's no such section, but should be (about the stuff which was presented as facts and provided as a justification for the invasion, but later turned out to be untrue). For example, we take the lie of:

According to Russian sources, Tskhinvali's main city hospital was non-functional, and ambulances could not reach the wounded, while Georgia continued to bomb the hospital. Twenty-two wounded remained in the building, which reportedly had only two storeys left.[4]

and the lie of:

According to Russia Today, more than 150 people were trapped under the rubble of the city hospital.[6]

and make it:

• According to Russian sources, Tskhinvali's main city hospital was non-functional, and ambulances could not reach the wounded, while Georgia "continued to bomb" the hospital, which allegedly had only two storeys left and where 22 wounded were alleged to remain.[4] According to Russia Today, "more than 150 people were trapped under the rubble of the city hospital".[6] However, it turned out that the city hospital, which was hit in the roof by a single Grad rocket, did not collapse. The Grad rocket damaged part of the second and third floors of the building. The hospital, whose outer walls were also hit by either small arms fire or shrapnel, continued to operate in the building's basement until August 13, when all the wounded (of which 273 were admitted in during the fighting) were evacuated to Russia.

Instead, Wikipedia is promoting disproved lies as "humanitarian impact". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain and his bloody hungry beast - How much people you need bleeding and dying to call in "humanitarian impact"?

United Nations

• Why the United Nations have not made of any decision in the first days of conflict? About it in article it is not told...--Shift register (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because we don't know either?--Jakezing (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)