Talk:Russo-Georgian War

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

A better map

Ok, a map of the first attacks was posted in the article, but it is small and lacks detail. Could someone create a bigger, more detailed map based on [1]? I would have done it myself, but I don't know Russian.

Typo

Good morning. It may seem not overall important, but there is a typo in the word "Lithuania" at the bottom of section no. 5.5. Please someone fix it. 89.161.15.229 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not be bold and fix it yourself? The page isn't locked. - Darco (talk)

Timezones

The article says "At 00:53 on August 8, Georgian forces began shelling the city" but does not give a timezone. We need to say the timezone apart from the time. Are the times in the article in UTC or local time? NerdyNSK (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's local, there is MSD timezone (UTC+4). I'll try to fix it now. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It needed in correction or to check up. Acording to Wiki - summer time in Georgia is UTC+5--Niggle (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Independent source for russian air stikes?

Georgia conflict: Roar of war as jets fill the air - The source says only about unknown jets flying near Gori, and nothing more. However, in article, it "proves" Gori and Kaleri bombing. --Eraser (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Striped area shows the territory controlled by Georgia prior to the conflict."

Is this where Georgians live? And/or pro-Georgian Ossetians? Anyone knows? - Pieter_v (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics have changed significantly since Soviet censuses. I wouldn't trust the Georgian government censuses with regard to the number of Ossetians living in that territory nor would I trust the Ossetian Governments censuses either. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that it should be more explicitly told that, even though the south ossetian republic was called out, a great part within its borders is inhabited and governed by Georgians. - Pieter_v (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "the south ossetian republic was called out"? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean the declaration of independence. - Pieter_v (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the map on the page, I think it is pretty clear that the striped area had been under control of the Georgian government from Tbilisi since the ceasefire in the 90s, and this is where they staged their military manoeuvres from in order to capture South Ossetian positions. Yesterday the Georgian government had claimed to have captured up to 70% of the territory (including both the striped sections of the map and non-striped areas on the map), however this figure has inevitably been reduced since the intervention of Russian troops. Without sources I'm pretty sure that Ossetians and Georgians were fairly mixed before the tensions of the early nineties, much like Bosnia, and therefore labelling villages as "Georgian" or "Ossetian" could be disingenuous to the situation as I am confident there are refugees from both spectrums.

Actually even before the 1992-1993 conflict most villages were either mostly Georgian or mostly Ossetian. This map shows Georgian, Ossetian and mixed villages in SO according to the last census carried out there (1989). Alæxis_¿question? 05:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

German response

If you feel that Germany's response to the hostilities should be added to the article:

Foreign Minister Steinmeier has stated being "appalled by the escalation of violence" and demanded that "all combat has to be ceased immediately" on august 8th. He urged the international community to prevent "tensions, violence and looming war" from "spreading troughout the Caucasus".

Federal Foreign Office, 08/08/2008 - No official translation provided.

--78.54.129.44 (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it in. Esn (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian night attack on residental houses in Tskhinval (August, 7-8 night)

There are the lake of information about period from 00:53 till 04:45 in the Article.

"At 00:53 on August 8, Georgian forces began shelling the city, which allegedly included the route along which refugees were being moved.[27] As the day progressed, Russian media reported that at least fifteen civilians had been killed in Tskhinvali.[20] At 04:45, Georgian State Minister for Reintegration, Temuri Yakobashvili announced that Tskhinvali was nearly surrounded, and that Georgia controlled two-thirds of South Ossetia's territory.[28] "

Comments of the civilians on the BBC "Have to say" page:

"Georgia says: "I offer you an immediate ceasefire and the immediate beginning of talks"?!! Don't trust them!!! Army use heavy guns and MLRS "GRAD" against civilians: they are attacking Tskhinval right now. Words to you at the morning, swords to us at the night. Mikhail, Tskhinval, South Ossetia"

Confirmation BBC video: night MLRS Georgian fire against Tskhinval [2]

--Niggle (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

What exactly is the issue? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I actually have been assuming that someone added it as a way of saying "look, there's high motivation for bias for some individuals, so take everything with a grain of salt." To me the neutrality tag seems technically wrong but practically useful. I did not add it, though. Christiangoth (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

UN Security Council "reaction"

It would be better to use original information from UN page:

The first meeting (Russian request) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/sc9417.doc.htm

The second one (Georgian request) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/sc9418.doc.htm

--Niggle (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading background section

I do not think we should describe "ethnicity" of people who live in South Ossetia. However if we do, we should indicate the percentage of "Ossetian", "Georgian", "Russians", and so on. Right now, one might think that all people who live there are Ossetians. An if we are talking about citizenship, not about ethnicity, all of them are either Russian citizens or Georgia citizens (the South Ossetia itself is not an internationally recognized state). Another important question is this: what percentage of people who live there hold Russian passports, and are they also citizens of Georgia? Biophys (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That is potentially misleading. Ostap 04:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "potentially misleadin"? This is important because Ossetians themselves seek integrity with Ossetians in Russian region of North Ossetia. Does not it clearly show that this is the important factor, and therefore should be mentioned? Historically, ethnical factor is the main reason of wars in Caucasus, the same about this region, especially if you take into consideration the prehistory of the conflict (before Soviet Union Ossetia was not a part of Georgia, and after the USSR, there was a conflict of 1991-1992) --Victor V V (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The information on ethnicity comes from BBC and the article currently makes it explicit that one third of the inhabitants of South Ossetia are Georgians and that about half of the inhabitants of South Ossetia have a Russian passport (BBC didn't say whether the Russian passport is in addition to another passport). NerdyNSK (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know one can't be a citizen of both Russia and Georgia at the same time. Alæxis_¿question? 04:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not "about half", but more than half of inhabitants of South Ossetia have a Russian passport (according to Russian sources - about 90%, and this figure is more accurate, by the way, because BBC does not give percentage. 90% is more than half). --Victor V V (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this section has been visibly improved since my comment, although it is still too POVish and shallow with regard to reasons of the conflict.Biophys (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cossacks references considered confusing

Firstly, the references to the Cossacks are confusing. It is not immediately apparent which side they are on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping this talk page organised, I added a header. NerdyNSK (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clear that up by saying that they are against Georgia in "reactions" section. Esn (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture from previous conflicts

I added a photo from 2004 conflicts showing a Georgian firing at South Ossetians, while in the caption I said that the pic was from 2004. A user removed the photo saying it's not about the 2008 conflict. I added the pic again, this time changing the caption to say explicitly that it is an example from a previous conflict, in addition to the date (2004). I think the photo is relevant, useful, informative, and adds value to the article, and I think it should stay. If we get a similar photo of combat action in 2008 I will be happy to think replacing it, or keeping both, but I think this 2004 is all we have showing actual combat between Georgians and Ossetians. I recommend keeping the photo, and I would like to know what you think. NerdyNSK (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as long as its clear it is from a past conflict. Once we get similar pictures from current conflict, we should probably replace it. Ostap 04:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the first caption I provided only referred to the date without making it more explicit that the photo is about a previous conflict, so I fixed this in the current caption. Just to note, however, that perhaps it would be better for the encyclopedia to edit the caption saying it's an old conflict rather that revert the whole insertion of the photo, but anyway. I agree that a photo from the 2008 conflict is preferable especially if it's of high quality. NerdyNSK (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's plenty of those that are copyrighted but still none under free licenses. -- Wesha (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on suggested additions to the Background section

1. Add that Mikheil Saakashvili came to power in the Rose Revolution with a campaign promise to bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia back under Georgian control.
2. Add that Saakashvili had promised to bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia back under Georgia's control by peaceful means but that Georgia also has that highest increases in per capital military spending
3. Is a staunch US ally and has received military assistance from the US and Turkey and has greatly improved the effectiveness of the Georgian military.
4. Add Kosovo's recognition of independence and the Russian response of official collaboration with South Ossetia and Abkhazia

[Perhaps this would come under a heading of "deep, deep background" (or the "religious dimension"), but the assertion that Georgia (who is an ally of the United States--an iteration of the "king of the South") was attempting to bring these areas under its control; and that Russia (an iteration of the "king of the North") responded to the military moves of Georgia, brings this conflict within the context of the fractal Prophecies of Daniel 11:40. It will not help the situation to ignore that fact or delete this information.]Michael J. Cecil (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add more thoughts when I think of them. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

INTERFAX.RU - Convoy of the wounded, coming from South Ossetia, was attacked by Georgian armed forces, as was told to "Interfax" by Igor Konashenkov. "Thanks to the staff of the OSCE mission was agreed to evacuate the wounded. However, the stories of the wounded themselves relayed that when the convoy reached the road leading from South Ossetia, Georgian artillery opened fire on the convoy," - Konashenkov said.

Although evacuation routes do exist, sources report that it is difficult to leave the reagion.

Interfax also reported that villagers are under attack by the Georgian foces, being taunted and then killed after seeing their homes destroyed.

Ossetian led news forum, cominf.org, updated periodically, reported that civilians were being gunned down after fleeing into forests for protection. This supports the claims that Georgia is actively conducting ethnic cleansing of the people.

Also, upon entry into Tskhinvali, Georgian tanks opened fire on civilan homes and buildings to continue the bombardment of the city. Very few buildings remain intact. This was also reported by Interfax, and from victims who were able to send SMS/text messages to families in North Ossetia.

No author or links and highly biased. ... The preceeding should be deleted. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Links

someone should clean up the links. I cleaned up #8 because there was a ref tag error, but my info doesn't look right. Also the russian links should say (Russian), like so. The first one doesn't, and others may not either. Lihaas (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Georgian pecekeepeking forces are deleted from infobox, while the Russian remain?

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed in fact someone changed "12 dead Russian soldiers" to "12 dead Russian Peace Keepers." Are they peace keepers? Were they trying to keep the peace are were the shooting at the Georgians? I donno, it sorta reeks of bias 72.140.80.212 (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know those 12 were killed during the initial stage of the conflict when Georgia started an assault on South Ossetia. Russian forces did not fight back till around August, 8, 12:00, and those 12 were killed much earlier. So I guess they were by all means what you americans call peacekeepers at the moment, just watching from the sidelines and not fighting back. Though to my mind peacekeepers are those who stop others from fighting even if that means entering the fight themselves, so they weren't much of a peacekeeping force doing nothing while the massacre went on. They are now, preventing Georgia from attacking Ossetian citizens. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia says casualties" are peacekeepers.

Anywyay, don't delete fact there were 500 Georgian peacekeers (and they are now engaged in warkeeping as much as the Russian ones, too). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Russian positions are being listed under "International Reactions". Shouldn't this be seperated out to a Combatant Section? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Russian army is not attacking Georgia but tries to stop Georgia from bombing Osetia and killing civilians.

Please use four of the little squiggly things at the top left of your keyboard at the end of a note like that.65.68.1.90 (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They are internationally recognised as peacekeepers since 1992 by Georgia, South Ossetia, the USA, UN, OSCE, CIS. They work as peacekeeper force there under official agreements signed by Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia on behalf of CIS. The US have stated several times that they value the mission that these peacekeepers do in breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhasia. What is there to discuss abou wording??85.202.113.34 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Improve background section

It should be more something among the BBC one:

SOUTH OSSETIA TIMELINE

• 1991-92 S Ossetia fights war to break away from newly independent Georgia; Russia enforces truce
• 2004 Mikhail Saakashvili elected Georgian president, promising to recover lost territories
• 2006 S Ossetians vote for independence in unofficial referendum
• April 2008 Russia steps up ties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia
• July 2008 Russia admits flying jets over S Ossetia; Russia and Georgia accuse each other of military build-up
• 7 August 2008 After escalating Georgian-Ossetian clashes, sides agree to ceasefire
• 8 August 2008 Heavy fighting erupts overnight, Georgian forces close on Tskhinvali

More recent stuff before August (incuding the downing of Georgian drones and other incidents, like when Georgians caught are arrested Russians illegally transporting weapons). And yes, the war erupted on August 8 rather than August 1. Clashes are not war. (I think the rest should be mostly moved to Georgian-Osstian conflcit article.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As there's sudden interest, let's improve the first war and related articles

1991–1992 South Ossetia War, Georgian-Ossetian conflict, 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis, Georgia–Russia relations

There was also a War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) (and the conflict since, including the War in Abkhazia (1998) and the 2001 Kodori crisis) and the Georgian Civil War in general, too. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

August 9 events

Russian resumed fierce air-strikes against Georgia. The central part of Gori is almost completely destroyed, with civilian casualties. The Kopitnari Airport near Kutaisi in west Georgia is being shelled right now. A Russian SU-25 hit a residential building in Senaki where the displaced persons from Abkhazia live. During the nighttime battles, Georgians report to have downed 3 Russian jets. The Georgian state minister Temur Iakobashvili said Georgia is waging a patriotic war against Russia. Source: [3]--93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

‘Dozens’ Killed Poti, Senaki Bombings – Reports.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Interfax talks now about more than 1600 killed people. So do German media sources. -- 91.66.143.134 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Israeli response

As I have said before, Georgia claims that Israel has NOT frozen arms sales. I can't edit a locked article. Here are the links again, and one new one:

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Contralya (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand there has been confusion about Israel's response. They apparently halted all arms sales that were not for defensive purposes. So it's more of a partial freeze.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to edit the article. It's only semi-protected. Superm401 - Talk 09:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NATO

Robert Hunter, U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Bill Clinton says that the conflict dooms Georgias chances of joining the alliance[8]. Not sure where to insert it in the article.Hjortefot (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, he's not official. He is ex-ambassador to NATO... --Alexander Widefield (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I added this to the Georgia and NATO article yesterday, though this is a newer article.--Patrick Ѻ 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tskhinvali

Please help to expand the article on this battle. Add info on fighting to that page.

 Here is the map of fights for August 9: http://forum.pravda.com.ua/read.php?2,203072164

Good background article

I see a lot of editors are making an issue of background and so I figured this article which is already full of more recent events would help with some of these concerns. Information from that article should help expand the background section here. At the same time the article could use some revamping as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now someone make a second paragraph on the events of the 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis events before August. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone in the region has photos, upload them here?

If you don't have any pics, please don't get killed while trying to get some.

This also applies to the other conlicts, btw (including the previous Georgian ones). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian war planes

Russian military officials admitted to the loss of two jets, one SU-25 and one TU-22. Georgians claim thay have actually downed 10. The source is the Russian website lenta.ru: http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/09/planes/. Please add the info to the article. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added, thanks for link. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't spam by list every Russian unimportant unit in the infobox

If they were important they would have articles (like the armies have theirs). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Russian articles are underdeveloped on WP, so in order to fight systematic bias leave the redlinks, as Russian units are just as notable as US units, and redlinks will encourage development. Any moved, please place back as part of the needs for WP:RUSSIA. --Россавиа ^Диалог 09:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think every single Georgian unit (equally unimportant) should be crammed there, too? Please stop being silly. Also, I don't know why we have a list of different Cossack factions there. Do they hate each other or something? Are they from different countries/breakway regions? No? So, they're all "Russian/Cossack volunteers" an may be explained in the article, not cram the infobox. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

there is no need for uncivility, articles will be created, and as mentioned, it is important for WP:RUSSIA to have these links (albeit redlinks) for future article development. Do not assume that a unit is not notable due to a redlink. As you can see these are not unnotable units, all it requires is for someone to be bold and create an article on this WP for those units. Do not remove again without proper consensus. --Россавиа ^Диалог 09:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Every Georgian unit is important, but we simply don't know them. If you know - please be bold and add them. But do not remove Russian units. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When articles are created and you get RELIABLE SOURCES these units are there, do an "Order of battle" section, and don't spam the box. See the Iraq War or Korean War or Gulf War or Bosnian War or whatever. If one had to list every unit, it would be crazy. Actually, even Russian Armies involved are borderline, but I can accpet THIS. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You think your opinion is the best one? It's YOUR opinion and you are alone in it. WP is not moderated site, and you are not a moderator. Please stop doing this. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please revert what is amounting to vandalism, as there is no consensus to remove it from the infobox, and this information is required, and no-one owns this articles. Gather consensus to remove it first, then if consensus is reached to remove it, remove it. This is how things are done on WP. --Россавиа ^Диалог 09:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And are you think that Russian Ministry of Defense official site is unreliable about what army forces are used in South Ossetia?

Why you think that 76th Airborne Division of VDV consisting of more than 6000 (!) men is unimportant? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, COahc-fd, please note that you are in violation of WP:3RR with your reverts which obviously has no consensus. To avoid a report on this, I would suggest that you undo your last revert yourself, and then come back here to discuss and get consensus. --Россавиа ^Диалог 09:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He did undo again, please report that, Russavia. I don't know where to do it. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be reported here if you are able to do this, just going to do some major wikilinking on the article which is needed. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

fufff... I did it. diff.--Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the units should be listed, if and only if a source is given for their involvement. However, it doesn't matter if they're redlinks. Superm401 - Talk 09:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add them in several minutes. Thanks that you stated that, i've forgot. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not replace them for North Caucasus Military District. For example, 76th Airborne Division is based in Pskov, not in North Caucasus. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you slow or something? Read the title of this section until you understand. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you offend me? What I did? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Captain Obvious that you stop being uncivil to other users. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is strongly in favor of having this information in the top infobox. Please stop removing it now. Superm401 - Talk 11:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He does not stop! Hey, admins, are you there? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

News links direct from Georgia and Russia in the English language

New to contributing to Wikipedia & talk pages. Hi from a newby! The following links may be useful for you [originally posted here]. Not sure if they (or some of them) belong in the "External Links" section. You can use the following information the best way you think, since I am inexperienced with the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Hope they're useful for you.

Here are some English language web links of news sources direct from Georgia and Russia that I have found (to be working):

GEORGIA:

Georgian Public Broadcasting

AdjaraTV

Medianews

Radio-Imedi

Civil.ge daily news online

Server connection error from the following: [ http://www.news.ge/ ], [ http://www.media.ge/ ], [ http://www.interpressnews.ge/ ], [ http://internews.ge/ ], [ http://news.boom.ge/ ], [ http://www.rustavi2.com.ge/ ], [ http://www.liberty.ge/ ], [ http://forum.ge/ ]

RUSSIA:

ITAR-TASS news agency

Russia Today

Military News Agency by Interfax

Varvara's Voices from Russia blog with photos and translated news from Interfax

RIA Novosti news agency

Pravda news

Speckontheweb (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that external news links in English from the Georgian side are being removed and only displaying news links to Russian news media. This makes me mad - not because of my position on the war - but this is extremely biased to remove alternative new sources! The Messenger is certainly a mainstream newspaper, what reason can be given to remove it? Dobbs (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Martial law declared in Georgia

Saakashvili Declares Martial Law: "South Ossetia was just a pretext used by Russia to launch a large scale military aggression against Georgia." --93.177.151.101 (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Civil.Ge is down :( I've added it with link to Russian source, can't find in English. If somebody can find that please add. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, was that site hacked as well? BalkanFever 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there are simply too much internet users who want to read :) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian "state of war" order is not a formal declaration of war, and stops short of declaring martial law. -- Wesha (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazian plans

Since Abkhazia is an autonomous republic in Georgia, they don't really have a border. My wording in the section isn't the greatest [9], but any rewording should not represent as two different countries. BalkanFever 10:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, de facto Abkhazia is independent, so it is a de facto border. On the other hand as you rightly point out, Abkhazia's independence, and thus the border, is not internationally recognised. Anything that mentions this should keep the middle ground between these two aspects of the situation. sephia karta 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Economic consequenses

"The war is also widely expected to slow down the economy of Georgia", which needs a citation? Are you kidding? Does anyone really think this war will boost Georgian economy? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Without source this is a original research. WP is the secondary, not primary source of facts. It's obvious but however we must provide the source for it. Law is the law. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really law but you are right. Anyway, the economic effects are so obvious that we don't need to write anything about it. The sentence should be removed, since it is both unsourced and not very informative. BalkanFever 11:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Many times a war boosts a nation's economy through war economy and increase in factory output and demand for machinery. This probably does not apply in Georgia's case, though. I read somewhere on a news site why and how Georgian economy is likely to slow down, but I wasn't able to find the URL at the moment :( NerdyNSK (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. If the war is on your soil, it hurts your economy. If it's abroad, it may help, depending how much the war costs. But I agree it shouldn't be mentioned here. Superm401 - Talk 11:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard & Poor's and Fitch lowered Georgia's debt ratings - http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fitch-lowers-georgias-debt-ratings/story.aspx?guid=%7BFA377F13-52F9-4AA2-A3C2-A57170314903%7D&dist=msr_2 and the same from Fox Business - http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/fitch-lowers-georgias-debt-ratings-b/ 89.19.169.5 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone added content relating to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Very well spotted. This addition upgrades the article to a broader context. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Spreads to Abkhazia

10h47 UTC, from Le Monde[[10]]

"According to Georgian public television, Russian aviation bombarded Saturday a part of separatist territory Abkhazia controlled by the Georgians."

Hjortefot (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't read French, sorry :( I don't understand what's there, so I cannot add this to article. If you read French well do it yourself please :-) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I found Russian source. Let's add this. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok good. I am not autoconfirmed so I cannot edit the article. Else this[11] works well too.Hjortefot (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure... Can we use links to Google Translate here? I don't know :( --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that that is what the link says. It would be best to include both the original link and a machine translation in the citation. But simply the original link is fine. BalkanFever 11:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's another link (to the Echo of Moscow radio). Alæxis_¿question? 11:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to the original, but be right about what it says! :) Also, English sources are preferred if of equal quality. Superm401 - Talk 11:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but English sources usually give one-sided view (guess which). Therefore use google translate if you can not read Russian, but we should not be selective in terms of language now.

As for Abkhazia, it starts its own offensive:

The article says that it was Abkhazian, not Russian aviation, that bombarded the eastern part of Kodorsky ravine on Saturday (http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/09/bagapsh/) --Victor V V (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian president declares state of war with Russia over South Ossetia

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.150.95 (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is not declaration of war, this is declaration of martial law on the territory of Georgia.

The Georgian "state of war" order is not a formal declaration of war, and stops short of declaring martial law. -- Wesha (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this link on CNN site is bad, it links to news portal about Ossetian conflict, but not to news entries themselves. So please do not insert it as the source. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The references of this article shows rampant use of links to news portals. I see no problem in using this source for references. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what do you mean by "portal"? The issue here is that the CNN page keeps changing drastically. It isn't a fixed story. Superm401 - Talk 11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That was not the argument of Alexander Widefield. How do you know for sure the other referenced articles does not change content? Can you read Russian? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was his argument. There is no problem with CNN per se, once they start making new pages for each story (which will happen when it's less fresh). I can't read Russian, but I can see that there are several different stories on the Russian sites. Superm401 - Talk 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was his argument, but then he needs to be more specific in his use of words. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia declares 'state of war' as Russian bombs fall

"Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili declared a "state of war" on Saturday as his troops battled it out with Russian forces over the breakaway province of South Ossetia."

http://news.smh.com.au/world/georgia-declares-state-of-war-as-russian-bombs-fall-20080809-3soz.html

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmeB7WbpRoVnV4IbRCC6nrgbilRQ

"The Georgian Parliament has approved a declaration for a 'state of war' for 15 days after 1,500 civilians were killed in fighting between Russia and the former Soviet satellite." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1042816/Georgia-declares-15-day-state-war-1-500-civilians-left-dead-Russia-conflict.html

TBILISI, Aug 9 (Reuters) - Georgia's parliament approved a state of war across the ex-Soviet country on Saturday following days of fighting against separatists in its South Ossetia region and their Russian allies.

"The state of war will be valid for 15 days," stated the decree by President Mikheil Saakashvili that parliament approved. (Reporting by James Kilner; Editing by Jon Boyle)

http://www.reuters.com/article/europeCrisis/idUSL9310316

Actually this is martial law. I wrote this in the article. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you need to quote what the references says and not what you think they say. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian "state of war" order is not a formal declaration of war, and stops short of declaring martial law. -- Wesha (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

link for citations needed

Подразделения 76-й Псковской дивизии направлены в Цхинвали - http://www.rian.ru/defense_safety/20080809/150223158.html

On the subject of the arrival of parts of the Pskov Airborne Division in South Ossetia. Requested for the "citations needed part" at the "At 10:30 UTC, Russian paratroopers land in South Ossetia[citation needed]. President Saakashvili calls for ceasefire in his speech.".

Aedile (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ;) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

I am in support of image-rich Wikipedia articles. Imagery helps the reader navigate the article both visually and textually while scrolling (by placing relevant images next to relevant paragraphs in the text). Just like we have a textual discourse we could have a graphical discourse as well. Images and their captions help the reader focus on important parts of the article, and they also attract the reader's attention and make our encyclopedia look better and more professional. NerdyNSK (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as they don't violate Wikipedia's image policies (and those policies are very, very strict) and they don't clutter the page (i.e. compromising text layout and headers too much) then images are welcomed. BalkanFever 11:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I support images too, but they have to be relevant and free. We have quite a lot of tangentially relevant images already (previous wars, training exercises, etc.), so I'm cautious about adding more. Of course, a free image of the actual conflict would be enormously appreciated. Superm401 - Talk 11:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC has recently published several images from the war zone. They show the residential quarters in Gori bombed by the Russians.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7551139.stm --93.177.151.101 (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think these are free. Superm401 - Talk 11:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone replace a picture of Bulgarian Su-25 with picture of Georgian one? [12] Kos93 2:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I did, thank you for pointing out that we had a picture of a Georgian Su-25! NerdyNSK (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is as far as going outside of the Wikipedia community to ask specific individuals if they would consider giving images (i.e. that they took, that they can thus agree to release), whether or not that's discouraged. However, one US news site is reporting that a "Missouri School of Journalism professor is in the capital of the Republic of Georgia as the country is coming closer to war with Russia". It identifies him as Greeley Kyle. After this conflict dies down, I repeat several weeks or so after this conflict dies down (he may return to the US), it's plausible that we would be able to reach him through the University, and ask if he has any images he took that he might consider uploading. — Beobach972 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We could certainly ask him. Wikipedia offers suggested form letters for this purpose at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Superm401 - Talk 07:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Opposing forces"

This table makes it look as if all Ossetians as well as ethnic Georgians inside South Ossetia are fighting Georgians. As far as I know, the ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia want to remain a part of Georgia. - Pieter_v (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia. They left this region in 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.99.115 (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no, roughly 20% of the population of South Ossetia is still very much Georgian in ethnicity. 70.101.32.218 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrecognized states and non-state entities

"Hundreds of Kubans are predicted to volunteer when the Kuban Kossack Army becomes formally involved." Perhaps we should avoid presumptions and predictions? And how can a paramilitary unit become "formally" involved? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We can say "[Whichever news source] predicts that....." or "states that it expects....." or something to that effect. Or alternatively we could remove the predictions while leaving the confirmed. BalkanFever 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove the predictions all together. We can summerize them when the war is over. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't done so already, feel free to. BalkanFever 12:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much. I just wanted to be sure and discuss it before someone starts reverting my edits. ;o) ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Independant Media Articles

Would it not be preferable to refrain from quoting Russian news agencies and papers as they are not independant of government control and as such are an unreliable source of information that are likely to be facilitating Russian governmental propoganda? (86.8.241.65 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Russian media is independent in fact and reliable. Please prove your opinion before saying in the air. Actually, Russian media is more quickly than any other (I don't know Georgian language, may be they too). --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt we can add 'according to Russian sources' or 'according to Georgian sources'... Alæxis_¿question? 12:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. "Russian/Georgian media reports/reported that..." is also good. BalkanFever 12:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We know Russian news is biased, but so is all other news. Neutral point of view means we take this into account, saying for instance, "A spokesman for the Russian forces in South Ossetia said that Georgian shells directly hit barracks in Tskhinvali, killing 12 Russian soldiers and wounding 30." Yes, the spokesman may be lying, but the reader can judge that possibility knowing the source. When there's contradictory info (e.g. the planes), we report both (or all) sides. Superm401 - Talk 12:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive this page

- Someone who knows how to, please do. - Pieter_v (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite hard because many sections have recent (and quite probably relevant) responses, and only the old, finished discussions should be archived. Also, the amount of edit conflicts one would face in trying to clear half the page...........*shudder*BalkanFever 12:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I archived discussions up to 8 August 2008, but unfortunately 99% of the discussion is from 9 August... However we can move more to the /Archive 1 as the time passes. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please reinsert the removed content, I have set the page up for automatic archiving, and it will result in what you have just archived being missed. --Россавиа ^Диалог 12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the time window before a section gets archived?BalkanFever 12:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted the archived content and cleared the archive. Hopefully all is well now. BalkanFever 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kodori Valley/Upper Abkhazia

According to the Echo of Moscow ([13]) Sergey Shamba said that Abkhazian armed forces began to 'push' Georgian forces from the upper Kodori gorge. Alæxis_¿question? 12:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press is also reporting that "separatist forces in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia launched air and artillery strikes to drive Georgian troops from their bridgehead in the region" [[14]] This "bridgehead" is the Kodori Gorge. Should this conflict be a separate article? I assume more information is forthcoming.

Georgian aircraft casualties as of early 9 August

I note that the article lists as casualties two Russian aircraft; you may wish to note that the Georgian government (per various news sources) confirms that three Georgian aircraft have been destroyed. See : [15] (an AP story?), [16]. 172.129.243.190 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing sources for this — I think we mention it in the article, but I can add it to the casualties table at the top. — Beobach972 (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the reasons?

Does anybody have slightest idea of why Saakashvili has decided to start all this nonsense? When he ordered to flatten down the towns populated by Russian citizens he knew very well what the consequences will be. It was mentioned many times that there never was hatred between Ossetians and Georgians, like it exists between Abkhazians and Georgians; but now it's in the past -- after Georgians murdered and injured thousands of Ossetians, now they have every right to consider Georgians as their deadly enemies. The chances that Ossetia will be returned to Georgia were average before 2004, were about zero a month ago, and became negative now. Georgia itself is likely to be occupied soon. Where this passionate desire to drive the situation from bad to worst comes from? — Hellerick (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you do not plan to discuss on how to improve the article, this is not the place for you. BalkanFever 12:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If ot's not a Forum what are those pages for? Let a man ask. BWC56 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He is a megalomanic. Think about it for yourself. Is there any logic Ossetia, Abkhazia will be part of Georgia? Why do Georgians need those lands? To say "we have them"? This megalomaniac is a psycho thats all. BWC56 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is purely to improve the article about the 2008 South Ossetia War, not to discuss the event and the politics. You guys can do that at your own talk pages. BalkanFever 12:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that's what those pages are for :-| Sorry. BWC56 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

--Jakezing (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Old discussions older than or up to 8 August have been archived at Talk:2008 South Ossetia War/Archive 1. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained major aircraft loss.

Media says Russia admits losing two planes, a Su-25 (~ A-10 Warthog equivalent) and a Tu-22. This latter one is probably a Tu-22M or Tu-26 in NATO notation. This is a very large supersonic swing-wing medium bomber from the 1980s, which the USA considers a strategic bomber asset due to its large payload and aerial refueling capability.

It is suprising the russians lost such a significant asset, that plane is simply too valuable. Did they fly it low altitude and it fell victim to simple autocannon fire from the ground? Did they fly it high and it fell victim to a SAM missile? Did they fail to provide it with jammer variant Su-24 Fencer escort planes for anti-SAM purposes? If yes, that was a major oversight! Russia's strategic air forces are not large enough to lose a Tu-22M on the first day of a silly little conflict like this one in Ossetia. 91.83.24.145 (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia actualy says they lost nothing. BWC56 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No they admitted that they lost two jets.

Sources: Georgian, Russian

The Georgian Ministry of Defense revealed the identity of the captured Russian pilot of a downed SU-25. He is Colonel Igor Zinov (Игорь Зинов), born at Moscow in 1951. The dead pilot is the certain Zhavchin. He had anti-Western rhyme with him, wich is reportedly disseminated among among the Russian military personnel. It reads:

Пока у русского солдата

Есть спички, пули, самогон,

Сосите хрен, солдаты НАТО,

Дрожи от страха, Пентагон!

"Until the Russian soldier has matches, bullets, and homebrew,

Suck our shit, soldiers of NATO,

Shiver of fear, the Pentagon."Georgian Inter Press Service.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We lost two jets, they will loose Tbilisi. Start counting. BWC56 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you actually lost 10.

You actually lost your country :D И все-таки мы ебанем по Тбилиси.

Someone please block such users and remove their comments. I'm trying here to provide sources for further improvment of the article and the guys like BWC56 pollute the talk page with their nationalistic and idiotic remarks. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you guys are for democracy and free speach, no? In two days we will see who was right, and for now, could you bring links to a bigger sources? Like the Russia One chanel, PTP, i dont know. BWC56 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It was supposedly downed by Ukraine-provided S-200 high-altitude SAM. Russians were not aware that Georgians had those. -- Wesha (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down, both of you. Mind WP:TALK and WP:CIV. BalkanFever 13:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian constitution and use of armed forces

According to constitution only Council of the Federation may authorize use of armed forces outside the territory of Russia (d, article 102, chapter 5 http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-06.htm ), but it's currently on a vacation until september 15th (article 41, http://www.council.gov.ru/about/agenda/ch1/item258.html(in russian))... What about russian peacekeepers’ mandate? Does it allow to use additional forces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.169.5 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC References

If reliable references are needed, try BBC News' coverage. The GEORGIA-RUSSIA CONFLICT box to the right is a quick link to all their related sections. There are also videos and large numbers of images. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the declarations of the president of Georgia are not included?

BBC videos

A phrase needed to be deleted

In the background, the phrase "Some journalists have suggested that Russia's strategy during the 2008 South Ossetia War may have been to sabotage Georgia's entry into the NATO."

It's a POV. POV's are not needed. And why in the backfround it wasn't mentioned that the head of Georgia when came to power promised to end the de-facto seperation of South Ossetia? This article is to POV driven. BWC56 (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these NATO comments need to be removed. "Some journalists" are not notable. If we want to discuss causes, we need to wait for explanations by notable people (e.g. historians, state leaders, etc.). Note that this doesn't mean they all have to agree. Superm401 - Talk 13:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind to have different views here, as long as they all are brought and not by selection. BWC56 (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

POVs that are referenced are certainly needed as this is how we can give equal coverage to both the Western POV and the Russian POV, and maybe synthesise them in order to reach NPOV. If not for anything else, references to journalist articles with POVs is important to document any bias or propaganda by media outlets. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV to say what a journalist said, giving the reference. It is important as it documents how the West sees the war. If we have to wait until historians pick up the war, nobody will have any interest by then. If you can improve the phrase please do so, and if you can find references for Russia's POV please add them as well. If you are really sure the phrase is injurious for the encyclopedia and you find that there are a sufficient number of other people who agree with you, while there is no significant opposition, then you can try deleting the phrase. I, for one, do not oppose any change to the phrase as long as the reference link is maintained intact so that our readers have a chance to read the analysis. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Those POV's are not needed. Other countries leaders don't get the case journalist think they can open their mouth? Wikipedia needs reliable information, POV's dont enter here. BWC56 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"fighting between Georgian forces and pro-Russia South Ossetian separatists." Words about "pro-Russia" should be deleted. Read http://osinform.ru. They want to be independent. Why do you think they are pro-Russian? They will be pro-US or pro-China if US or China will help them to survive. 90.189.91.27 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Commander" of Abkhazia

The Russian Wikipedia article on this lists Sergei Uasyl-ipa Bagapsh (Russian: Серге́й Васи́льевич Бага́пш, Abkhaz: Сергеи Уасыл-иҧа Багаҧшь) in the "commanders" section of the table, as commander of the Abkhazian forces. Should we list him as well? — Beobach972 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as we have references on Abkhazian forces actually in combat in South Ossetia, you know: Who, where, when, what etc. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Someone has added his name to the article, but you raise a good point. I failed to distinguish between Abkhazians fighting Georgia and Abkhazians in South Ossetia. The conflict seems to have spread beyond South Ossetia, and this article may, in the coming days/weeks, be moved to a geographically larger title, though, and there are reports of Abkhazian involvement. But we can wait for more references; that's not a problem. — Beobach972 (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The title doesn't mean we can't discuss combat outside Ossetia. There is already substantial mention of fighting elsewhere in Georgia. However, it's still rooted in South Ossetia so the title is appropriate. Superm401 - Talk 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

airplane's images

Why in this page use the fotos of the trainer type of "Su"-palnes? use better Image:SSCN4908.JPG (bomber type of Su-25) and Image:Su-27 on landing.jpg (fighter type of Su-27). Or, pergaps you can use Image:Su-24 Fencer Right side gear down.jpg and Image:Tu-22M3 Monino.jpg, if these bomber planes are really used in the war. Please, someone change the fotos.--123.224.96.87 (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia and Russian Federation

Can someone explain why the term "Russia" is used and not the term "Russian Federation" when it comes to the referenced news articles? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because according to the Constitution of Russia, Russia and Russian Federation have the same meaning and either can be used officially and/or unofficially. From article 1: Наименования Российская Федерация и Россия равнозначны. --Россавиа ^Диалог 14:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Constitution: "The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" shall be equal."

Basically, "Russia" is the short form for everyday use, whilst "Russian Federation" is more of government use. But both can be used to one heart's content. Russoswiss (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I was not aware of this. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Georgian Tanks

Ok, I'm a bit confused about this: Russia's Channel 1 claimed that Georgia had 250 tanks. This had been confirmed by other sources. Yet the article gives the tanks as 200 and it initially gave the tank size as 150. Can someone find out exactly how many tanks Georgia has?

Well the information that is now up is based on a report from a Polish news site. Other sources give other figures, and it is difficult to choose which one to choose. Maybe as more information will come in, we'll have a better idea. TSO1D (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A new kind of war?

According to the article, this is a war between peacekeepers and volonteers assisting the peacekeepers... Hapsala (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And they are doing a hell of a job. ;o) ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

90% number

Please stop presenting the "90% of ossetians have a russian passport" as a fact. These are the numbers put forward by Russian and pro-russian sources and need to be indepdently varified before it's presented as fact. And yes "more than half" by the BBC DOES contradict 90%, because 90% equals to "almost all". - Pieter_v (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually 90% would be more then half. More then half is greater then 50%, which means 51%-100%. 90% falls along those lines. I fail to see a contradiction, and I strongly urge you to take a math class. Cheers!

Talkpage Management

In order for this page to continue to effectively serve the article for which it is intended, I have begun to enforce the tag at the top warning that posts off-topic from improving the article on the South-Ossetian War will be deleted. I am deleting posts but leaving information on when they were made and by whom. I am also organizing posts within talkpoints according to their logical order by grouping responses to the posts to which they respond and by indenting responses that are not indented for the purpose of making their nature clear. I have considered merging functionally identical talkpoints and grouping talkpoints on similar subjects, and will probably do so if there is positive feedback for doing so. I will not do so if there is negative feedback. Christiangoth (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove anything that is off-topic, within reason. I wouldn't rearrange other comments though: it's not that hard to follow. And if by "talkpoints" you mean "sections", then please don't merge similar ones. Otherwise the automatic archiving will be compromised, and because most people don't pay enough attention to dates, they could misinterpret completely different comments. BalkanFever 15:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That being said, some things may be off topic, but if the issue has been resolved in the thread, it should be left alone. That way people reading through will have an idea of what not to do, and it won't look confusing with parts edited out. BalkanFever 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

K. And yeah, I did mean sections. I guess I should probably use the terminology that that little tab at the top uses. Christiangoth (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Involvment?

I believe Russian news had said that un-marked NATO vehicles are arrviing in Georgia and Turkish naval infantry are mobilised, is there any source on this?

What are your sources? Alæxis_¿question? 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of my Russian friends say that a Russian news source said so, I'll look for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilavolciak07 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

[17] I've found the source for this info but it's rather vague and cites unnamed eyewitnesses. So I think we have to wait some time before adding anything about it to the article. Alæxis_¿question? 15:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I have the link? I cant find it. I think they have landed. Is there confirmation on that? Attilavolciak07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Logistics

How are Russian troops entering the zone? Are they crossing the mountains? I cant find any road between South Ossetia and Russia. Does South Ossetia has any airport? Dentren | ^Talk 15:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably the Georgian Military Road which once again plays its importance in caucasian warfare ;) - Pieter_v (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No! They go by Transkam that connects NO and SO directly. Alæxis_¿question? 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that the Ossetian Military Road perhaps? - Pieter_v (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This one fell out of use since Transkam was constructed. Alæxis_¿question? 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a tunnel connecting South Ossetia with Russia, or they could have airlifted troops

It's Roki Tunnel. Alæxis_¿question? 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Second that, it's mentioned in, like, every other article from lenta.ru -- Wesha (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly the Roki tunnel - it is the only way: - "Russia has a military capability, if it is indeed moving into South Ossetia, to secure a corridor from Tskhinvali back through the Roki tunnel and to secure Tskhinvali itself," he said, referring to a tunnel that is the only land route connecting South Ossetia to the Russian Federation. Tskhinvali is the main city in South Ossetia." - CHRISTOPHER LANGTON, DEFENCE ANALYST AT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES AND EXPERT IN CENTRAL ASIA. Taken from http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL8710763 - I do this because having been there, and having a very specific map of the region directly in front of me counts as original research. So here is the cite. Dobbs (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposing Forces - Russian aircraft.

I think differentiating that there are 320 Russian Military aircraft "in the region" versus 3,070 total is slightly misleading since aircraft can easily be transferred around a country (even one as large as Russia), as opposed to equipment like tanks which require more logistics to relocate.

Not easily. Hardly. Infrustructure of airbases is limited. Stan (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Death toll over 2000

The news agency Reuters reported that over 2000 people died, according to Russian sources. [18] -- 91.66.143.134 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be added in the box. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian sites blocked

Today all the Russian sites can't be reached here in Tbilisi. It worked in the morning, but now in the evening all ru sites are blocked.
Right now two Russian pilots were interviewed in a hospital. They will be sent back to Russia via Red Cross according to Alaniya TV. Narking (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this information? Obviously you are on the ground in Tbilisi and know this for fact, however a media source would be good for inclusion for the cyberattack section, which could be expanded to cover censorship in the midst of the conflict. On a side note, User:Russavia/DipMis, when this dies down, any possibility of heading back to the .ru embassy to get a photo for that article under development? Thanks. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Presidents of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland condemn Russian imperialism and revisionism. Call for NATO and EU action

[19] Joint statement by them. They said we condemnt Russian imperialism and revisionism. All call for NATO and EU to react. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.144.67 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC) [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.66.239 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name

article name

Since South Ossetia is NOT a recognized nation, and is indeed officially part of Georgia, shouldn't this article be named Civil War in Georgia? Kingturtle (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Have'nt seen a single source that uses such name. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• South Ossetia is a country, not independent state, but still a territory with a name. Just like Darfur. --Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. At this time, the Russian military involvement is quite evident, so there seems to be a Russian-Georgian war.--Darius (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes it notable is that the Russian military has rolled in. CNN is currently calling it a "Russian invasion", but I think that it may be too early to go down that road. The title should indicate that the major players in this are the Georgians and Russians. --Elliskev 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, the military activities have extended far beyond South Ossetia. Russian jets flew from Armenia and bombed the areas in south Georgia - Marneuli and Bolnisi where the military airfields are located. I saw one Russian SU downed by the Georgian air defense forces near Gori, Georgia. I captured a photo, but lost my camera when escaping shelling. Reports coming from the locals also say that Georgians are in almost complete control of Tskhinvali and the Russian columns heading through Roki Tunnel suffered heavy losses. Russia also announced an air blockade of Georgia. This is a full-scale invasion; Georgian troops are recalled from Iraq and thousands of Georgians are volunteering in the army. You can find a regularly updating news at http://www.civil.ge/ and http://www.interpressnews.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG (you can use free username and password that appears in the yellow banner). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.151.101 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• That two sources are in .ge zone, right? And the first one is state Georgian source. It is useful to cite them for Georgian side opinion, but keep mind they are written by one of the combatant sides.Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of these websites are run by the international NGOs with their base in Georgia. The Georgian gov't has nothing to do with these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.151.101 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• ANALYSIS-Georgia takes gamble with move on rebels - Reuters.Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Darfur is not a country. So, "is not country just like Darfur" if you want. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russia 'invades' Georgia as South Ossetia descends towards war" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2524550/Russia-invades-Georgia-as-South-Ossetia-descends-towards-war.html - Pieter_v (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russians suffered heavy losses". Ha-ha, man, who believe in this bullshit? Russian jets in Armenia - wow, cool, why not in Iraq? And this downed SU - are you sure it wasn't Georgian? :))) --81.91.48.15 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a Russian base in Gumru, Armenia Baku87 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Mikhail Saakashvili Russian forces are attacking its civilian population.[21] - Pieter_v (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And according to George W. Bush Saddam Hussein made a nuclear weapon --81.91.48.15 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the most lasting legacy of the Bush presidency will be our reputation as bumbling, gullible rubes.

All official Georgian sources are totally POV and clearly anti-Russian --81.91.48.15 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, same goes for Russian sources concerning Georgia. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Georgia's gamble to retake South Ossetia by surprise while everyone was watching the Olympics has turned out to be a disaster. It's interesting to see how the Georgian president is furiously backpedaling now. And by the way, Pieter V, why am I not surprised to see you here? Everyone is aware of your blatant Russophobia, but if you're going to contribute to this article at least try to be serious. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am? I'm just interested in conflict. It looks like you're the one whose biased. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who defends Chechen terrorists who kill children and innocent civilians...yes, you are biased. LokiiT (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, you on the other hand clearly show how biased yourself by calling chechens "terrorists" and ossetians "peacekeepers". Also I've warned you that personal attacks are not allowed and you can get blocked for them. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, people. Sooner or later we will know the truth. In the meantime, let us write down all the information in the article - and from the pro-Russian and pro-Georgian sources. --Eraser (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So people who hold schools hostage and kill children for political gain aren't terrorists? You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I. Calling someone biased isn't a personal attack. If you continue with that accusation you'll be blocked yourself.LokiiT (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes those people were terrorists, but they don't represent all Chechens. Only a racist would believe that. Also, fyi, Russians killed many more Children. - Pieter_v (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never once said that all Chechens are terrorists. All those who support such terrorist acts are though. And you need to learn the difference between cold blooded murder and unintended collateral damage. LokiiT (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that based on the third-party (not Russian or Georgian) sources that this is a conflict between Russia and Georgia? If so, despite South Ossetia being the obvious casus belli, is it reasonable to move this article to something along the lines of 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict or 2008 Russo-Georgian war, regardless of blame? --Elliskev 19:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a bit of a different concern with the article name, "War in South Ossetia". From what I read there have been attacks outside South Ossetia. So the article discusses attacks in these border towns like Kareli and Marneuli near Tiblisi, which are not "in South Ossetia". Because of that, I think the name needs to be more location neutral, like "South Ossetia War" or "2008 Georgia-South Ossetia conflict".--Patrick Ѻ 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be worthwhile to point out in this section that the vehicle used to transport the Beslan terrorsits was traced back to South Ossetia, where it entered the Russian Federation and had S. Ossetian license plates.

Article name (about the war part)

It's not clear that this is a "war" per se yet. (Georgia's president declined to explicitly say the two countries were at war. [22]) Is there some more neutral name for the article we could pick? I ask because it would be nice to put this in {{In the news}}, but I think the title might be controversial. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia has been saying that they have only peaceful intentions from the beginning. (Although, are wars even declared anymore?) Georgia said that they would consider it an act of war if Russia entered. And they have. So it would seem to be "war" by their definition. Esn (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, a number of news organizations have already said that war has broken out. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Esn (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are calling this a war which is enough to classify it as one here. History is full of occurances in which neither side bothered to actualy declare war because the fighting had already started. Jon (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, were the Gulf Wars ever formally declared, for example? -- megA (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Name (Again...)

So there's this comment at the end of this section here pointing out that the war is no longer contained to South Ossetia. I think he makes a very good point, and I agree. I would suggest moving the page to "South Ossetia War (2008)". Any takers? Kingnavland (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support for South Ossetia War (2008). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be my comment. "South Ossetia War (2008)" is a good choice, because South Ossetia is the subject of the war, not necessarily the location of it. The other suggestions I saw that included Russo-Georgian or some variant could get confusing because of multiple belligerents.--Patrick Ѻ 22:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support.Biophys (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What will the article be named if NATO intervenes? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; however, if NATO were to intervene, the story would get picked into wider circulation by lots of mainstream sources, who would settle on a name for the conflict. Doesn't look like anyone's opposed, so I'm going to make the move. Kingnavland (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If NATO got involved we'd call it World War III. Anyways, thanks for the move. As more of Georgia has been engulfed the article was increasingly misnamed.--Patrick Ѻ 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it be renamed 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to some extent that we should have an article entitled 2008 Russo-Georgian War or something of the sort, but then we would have to split this article into two parts. One part could deal with the actual fighting in South Ossetia between the Georgian Army and the separatists from Aug. 1- Aug. 8; the other part would go into that other article and would be about the Russo-Georgian conflict that began on August 8th and which as others have pointed out has transcended the bounds of S. Ossetia. TSO1D (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are more participants than two. And the major fighting is going in South Ossetia. We need not to change anything. A perfect tittle.Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think, the Ossetins are the nation whose fate is most closely connected. Stan (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name

I would like Second South Ossetian War. Like Second Chechen War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Inevitably, this depends on how far back you count. I can easily claim it should be third:

1. Georgian-Ossetian conflict (1918-1920)
2. 1991–1992 South Ossetia War
3. 2008 South Ossetia War

I'm sure others could argue for 4 or more. 2008 South Ossetia War is undoubtedly correct and unambiguous (let's hope it ends before 2009 though). Superm401 - Talk 11:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree too, because you just invented this name: [28] ;) - Pieter_v (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we wait a while before a page move discussion? I think it's fine for the time being. Let's concentrate on the actual article. BalkanFever 12:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to get rid of the term before Wikipedia spreads it. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_9#Second_Ossetian_War_.E2.86.92_2008_South_Ossetia_War. Superm401 - Talk 12:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Georgia now officially declared war on Russia (as far as I know), it is now a Georgia-Russia war, not just a Georgia-Ossetia war, therefore there is a strong case to move to 2008 Georgia-Russia War. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold your horses. The Russians are peacekeepers, remember? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if Georgia did officially declare a war with Russia (which is far from clear) that is no reason to change the name now. Only if the theatre of operations expands widely is that rename possible. Superm401 - Talk 12:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia was involved in the previous war to... and? It's involved as part of the Ossetian side, remember? Thats all. BWC56 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are more participants than two. And the major fighting is going in South Ossetia. We need not to change anything. A perfect tittle.Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are TWO state participants, Georgia and Russia. Georgia has declared war. I would also argue that with military operations being carried out throughout the country (not just S. Ossettia) makes this obvious - I don't think this is a reasonable argument from a Wikipedia POV. I think that one should take a look at the Wikipedia defination of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War and as this conflict seems to be in accordance with how wikipedia has defined the term, this IS a reasonable Wikipedia argument for the change. Dobbs (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-Russian war

I think it's a Georgian-Russian war. Georgia declared war on Russia and Russia probably did the same, so change the name of the article. Robin Hood 1212 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article you will understand that war has not been declared. The Georgian president has said that Georgia is in a state of war. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia didn't do it yet (and hardly will). Alæxis_¿question? 15:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia didn't declare war on Russia, it was invaded, it declared a "State of War" for 15 days. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't even invaded! Russia has yet entered Georgia, it is it South Ossetia right now. BWC56 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Um...Russia aircraft bombing targets outside of SO doesn't constitute being "in" Georgia??? Maybe Russia should stick to only air attacks that way the entire international community will sit back and accept as Russia total destroys Georgia and simply say "Well they never invaded." I think not Jmedinacorona (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia was involved in the previous war to... and? It's involved as part of the Ossetian side, remember? Thats all. BWC56 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

and South Ossetia is in Georgia. Also Russia has bombed Gori, in Georgia and parts of Abkhazia which is also a part of Georgia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Formaly? Maybe. In real? Just for the experiment, in a peacful time, try to enter Abkhazia or South Ossetia in Georgian military uniform :-P Besides I hope South Ossetia and Abkhazia wont be even formaly Georgia after this conflict. I simply dont get the logic here! Why should an Abkhazian, living on his land he stole from nobody, be considered as living in Georgia? We are not babies lets talk in de-facto terms. BWC56 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk de facto then. South Ossetia and Abkhazian want to be a part of Russia because they are nationalist Russians and they can't play nice. They don't want to live under Georgia because they are nationalists who miss the USSR. Also they are both Russian inventions. Therefore they do not deserve independence. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fun enough, who does deserve independence then? Those who do not need it and don't want to fight for it? Laughable. --- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk de facto then. Read South Ossetian and Abkhazian news. They want to be independent. And they will fight because many of their relatives were killed by Georgian nationalists. People of South Ossetian and Abkhazia hope that Russia will stop the war. They are patriots and fight for independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.189.91.27 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of article:Conclusion

With all respect to you kids being excited they can coin the name of a war thru Wikipedia, no. In the media, wherever, it is called the 2008 South Ossetia War. In other places it is calles the 2008 South Ossetia Conflict. You cant start an article name section 10 more times, you still wont be allowed to play with that toy. BWC56 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how far things escalate.Geni 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When a media concensus will adopt a different name, we will do it to. Wikipedia existed since 134BC, and when the name of The Big War was changed into First World War in 41 because another big world war burst out, Wikipedia was there, and changed it's name. BWC56 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, BWC56, you're wrong to say that "In the media, wherever, it is called the 2008 South Ossetia War." BBC is calling it GEORGIA-RUSSIA CONFLICT. CNN refers to "the conflict between Georgia and Russia". The New York Times says "The conflict between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia moved toward all-out war". AFP: "Western leaders called Saturday on Russia to curb its military onslaught against Georgia". Al Jazeera seems to be calling it the "Caucasus conflict". --Elliskev 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha :) thank you, BWC56, using humour to help diffuse all this fuss. Memo to the rest of you: We can wait a few days, at least, to change the name, precisely because it is so easy to move the page and change the name. I trust anyone coming to read this article got here after seeing some news story, and hence knows what we're talking about, regardless of whehther we call the article South Ossetia conflict or Russian-Georgian conflict etc. — Beobach972 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BWC56, I think you're wrong about the details of Wikipedia naming WWI. I think the reason WWII broke out is actually because a user on Wikipedia changed the name of WWI from The Great War to World War One. Since the name was then World War One, the European powers decided that there should be a World War Two, so they had one. It is therefore important not to doubt the awesome geopolitical ramifications of Wikipedia!

It is not Russian-Georgian conflict. It is conflict between Georgia & South Osetia. Rissians have peacekeeper's mandate and trying to stop the war. We can discuss about efficiency of this methods later on forums. But the conflict is between South Osetia & Georgia. South Osetia is not part of Russia. And for a long time de facto it was not part of Georgia. South Osetians have their own goverment and army. 90.189.91.27 (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Name Change Argument: The War has expanded

With the war rapidly expanding to Abkhazia and Russian air attacks on undisputed Georgian territory, the name "South Ossetia War" is no longer correct. This is a Russo-Georgian conflict, as the war is no longer limited to South Ossetia. LCpl (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Name Suggestions?

It is clear at this point in time that the war has spread throughout northern Georgia. Although initially located only in South Ossetia, the fighting has spread to other parts of the country.

If none of the names given about are accepted, then are other suggestions to be given? Frankly, "2008" will date eventually and we will all regret using it. This Wikipedian votes for a name change.

South Ossetian War of Independence? (a little soon though...) Olympic War? (because the major fighting began on the day of the olympic opening ceremonies, although unrelated to the war) South Ossetia War? (because, although not the only fight they've had, this certainly involves the most personnel) Georgia-Russia War? (straight forward, i'd say)

We can also just say that the name must be changed eventually, and we can name it something more relevant to something else as the war progresses. The Fix 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Poland calls for emergency EU summit due to Russian invasion of Georgia

[29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.144.67 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent news

Upper Abkhazia: Georgian forces repel Abkhaz attack.

Georgia Says Destroyed 40 Russian Tanks

[30]: earlier decision revised; Georgia pulls all of its troops from Iraq.

Georgian Athletes Withdraw from Olympics. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Proxy WAR.

Georgia is close friend and ally of USA in east Europe. The gov of Bush provides weapons to Georgia. We can say that this is another proxy war of USA and you should talk about this in the article.

Do you have any solid third part sources for that?Geni 16:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is typically Russian conspiracy theory. They are thoroughly brainwashed by this sort of bullshit. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is very realistic theory. First of all US provided Georgia weapons and teach Georgian military. And US reconnaissance should to know about plans of Georgian goverment. Georgians knew that Russians have peacekeeper's mandate and protect border between S Osetia & Georgia. BP stopped their Baku-Tbilisi pipeline on 6.08.2008. And many other facts. But I agree that it is not enough. And it is not correct to talk about proxy war. 90.189.91.27 (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

When you dont like the truth - Call it a conspiracy theory. BWC56 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the USA has nothing to do with the conflict/war. Yeah, okay, they sent some weapons to Georgia, but that didn't happen in the last two days... That's like saying East Germany (which does not exist anymore since 1989) is supporting Georgia, because they have some East-German tanks. -- DanteRay (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a diffrence beetwen something you buy on times of peace, then something you get at times of war. BWC56 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right, but Georgia got the American weapons in times of peace. There are no reports that the US has sent Georgia weapons in the last two days. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• USA has trained Georgian troops.[31] - a fact. Some sources discuss if they may have been trained for this war.[32] Georgia is alway reported as U.S. ally.Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you enter the information to the article? Those links are highly important. BWC56 (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wow! Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman say, the 130 Americans in Georgia, which include “a few dozen” civilian contractors, are all working to train the Georgian forces.[33] Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that 100% should enter the article!!! BWC56 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the article at all. A poorly-written section called USA involvement is both misleading and irrelevant. I am removing it. Kingnavland (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC) <Timeloop: Someone got there first.>

Yep. Beat you to it. :) --Elliskev 17:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• What is irrelevant there? That georgian troops were trained by american contractors is relevant. That Bryan Whitman said is relevant. There's nothing wrong with that section.Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• With all due respect - this is NOT a new or amazing discovery. It is also NOT subject to debate as to if it happened. The cite from sfgate (from user Garret Beaumain) is not a good one. A much better one is http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/b/eur/18737.htm from the United States Government. Now if this is important to the current conflict or should be on this page at all (I don't think so) should be the issue. Dobbs (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Shure it needs! I'm surprised we even argue on this. BWC56 (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dobbs Just because the United States sold military arms to Georgia and also provided their military with training, does not mean that they either endorced or are aiding Georgia in this current conflict. That's like saying because Georgia military are using Russian made armament including aircraft and tanks, that Russia is not only in conflict with them but are providing military aid against their own forces.Jmedinacorona (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They are using USSR- and US- made weapons, NOT Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.99.115 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bildt chief of foreign diplomacy of Sweden compares Russian actions to those of Adolf Hitler

Calls Russian actions violation of international law and says Russian explanations are comperable to those of Adolf Hitler.

[34] --83.16.144.67 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Swedish source? I'd be better than the Polish one.

That's not a reliable sources. Those who know that site know what I'm talking about. BWC56 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There might be a Swedish source. Do you speak Polish? Or are you just saying that because generally Polish news agencies are anti-Russian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is a reliable major media publication. It is also pro-Russian as it supports democracy and freedom in Russia.

It is not, if you could find a Swedish source we will enter this one to. BWC56 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is reliable.

With all due respect, that source is not reliable in this case. I've been reading all the major Swedish newspapers on-line every second hour today and they have been reporting quite extensively both on what the foreign minister (Bildt) and the prime minister (Reinfeldt) have been saying. Both of them strongly condemn the Russian actions and state that Russia is the guilty party in this conflict, BUT neither has said a word about Hitler. If they do, I can assure you it will immediately be a major piece of news in Sweden so the absence of any such report suggest that nothing of the kind has been said. JdeJ (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, after some poking around, I think I have found a few Swedish sites reporting this... see e.g. [35], where the relevant section is at the bottom, subtitled Allvarliga konsekvenser (Serious consequences). It says Den ryska invasionen kommer att få allvarliga konsekvenser för klimatet mellan Ryssland och västvärlden, enligt Carl Bildt. - Vi accepterade inte att Milosevics Serbien intervenerade militärt i andra före detta jugoslaviska stater med hänvisning till skyddet av de som har serbiska pass. Och vi har anledning att minnas hur Hitler för lite mer än ett halvt sekel sedan använde just denna doktrin för att underminera och anfalla betydande delar av Centraleuropa, skriver Carl Bildt. In English (and NB if you don't trust me you can double-check using an online translator like Google), that means : The Russian invasion will have serious consequences for the [political] climate between Russia and the West, says Carl Bildt. - We did not accept Milosevic's Serbia intervening militarily in other former Yugoslav states with reference to the protection of those who had Serbian passports. And we [also] need to remember how Hitler, little more than half a century ago, used this doctrine to undermine and attack important parts of central Europe, writes Carl Bildt. — Beobach972 (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I also found a report on the same comparison. [36]. Sorry for doubting it at first, I will add it to the article. JdeJ (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the original source [37]. It's Carl Bildt's blog. Narking (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And as a native Swede I can confirm the translation above. Narking (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Should we cite a blog? There's already a large speech cited from Bildt under "Sweden" in International reactions section.Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can cite a blog. If a blogger claimed that Carl Bildt had said this, I wouldn't include it, but this is Carl Bildt's own blog and I can think of few better sources for what Carl Bildt says than Carl Bildt himself. I agree fully with your moving it, by the way. JdeJ (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Update of the death toll

Speaking to Russian news agency Interfax, Russia's ambassador to Georgia, Vyacheslav Kovalenko, said on Saturday that 2,000 civilians and 13 Russian peacekeepers had been killed in Tskhinvali. "The city of Tskhinvali no longer exists," he said. "It is gone. The Georgian military has destroyed it." [...] A Russian air strike on Gori, a Georgian town near South Ossetia, left 60 people dead, many of them civilians, Georgia says. BBC (Reuters reports the same)

So there over 2000 dead people. In the box it still says 1600. I would update it myself, but for some reason I can't. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Add your opinion in the section I start under this one. BWC56 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there no other sources for casualty and dead. BBC has already reported the huge officila Russian overstatement of displaced peoples fleeing the conflict, off by about 28,000, are there no other sources. Lets also be careful here, it has been stated that many irregulars flowed into the region and these can be misrepresented as civilian casualties.75.216.27.164 (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you down the protection?

With all respect to keeping anonymous users or users who just today signed up out, I think people who registered before the war started could edit. Look above me! People have links, have nice edits they want to do, and they cant, and that realy makes the work on the article harder. BWC56 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

People who can write such fascist things should not be allowed to edit at all. So, you are "tired of those Georgians", right, Mr. Zhirinovsky? --93.177.151.101 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What's fascist about respecting the right of people who live on their land to be independent? What's fascist about being tired of people who murder other people only because theywho they murder want to be free on their land? It's exelent anonymous user's like you with weird sources cant edit. Please understand, if you speak of a German, bring a German and not a Polish source. BWC56 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How suprising. I didn't know you supported freedom for Chechnya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.144.67 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, they had the 90%+ supporting Putin's party at the election. BWC56 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not 99% like here under communism for communist party during Soviet occupation ?

Just a generalised warning, if you both can't be WP:CIVIL, I will happily take it to WP:AN/I --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This image is incredible

[38] Do you know what's the original source or if we can use them in the article? (found in http://www.flash.gr) --Leladax (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This woman was injured during the Russian air strike on the residential blocks in downtown Gori, Georgia. She was transported to Tbilisi and, fortunately, is ok now. I don't know anything about the status of this image, though.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It will most certainly be copyright of the media outlet. BalkanFever 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

European Union accepts Polish proposal to hold an emergency meeting regarding Russian war against Georgia.

[39] --83.16.144.67 (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on it on the EU site. BWC56 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BWC I'm beginning to think you have dog in this race http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/08/europe/EU-France-Georgia-South-Ossetia.php75.216.27.164 (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) sorry belongs below in reference to french response75.216.27.164 (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner goes to Tbilisi and Moscow to attempt mediate end to Russian invasion of Georgia

[40] --83.16.144.67 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not reliable. French links dont talk about it. BWC56 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This table

	Georgia	South Ossetia	Russia
Population	4.6 million	70,000 (14,000 of whom are ethnic Georgians)	140 million
Army	30,000	3,000	100,000 in the region (1,037,000 total)
Tanks	200	87	620 in the region (23,000 total)
Aircraft	82	0	320 in the region (3,070 total)

Can we get a consensus on whether this table belongs in the article? I don't see a problem with it. It's well-sourced and relevant to the topic. Another editor has removed it as not in the Iraq War article and POV pushing. --Elliskev 18:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment I will not add it myself, as I've reverted his removal twice. --Elliskev 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Second this. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Return it. I'll translate his argument for you: "If the Iraq war article sucks, this one should suck to!". BWC56 (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the table. Provides useful information about the relative size of the countries and militaries involved. Fail to see how it's POV. Kingnavland (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is propaganda first used by the Nazis during ww2, and has been used ever after, saying; Russia is so big that is why we lost Russia is just so big and vast and has so many people etc etc etc. This is just simple propaganda which has since ww2 been used against Russia in anything. It can clearly been seen as anti Russian propaganda because the American invasion of Iraq both in 1991 and 2003 there is no such table about how the US has 300 million citizens and Iraq just 24. so why not in the sake of fairness and balance first place a graph about The US population of 300 million VS Iraq 24 million in the Iraq war articles and then after that I will gladly place back the Russian 140 million vs the Georgian 4,6 MillionJim Furtado (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This table was initially taken from a Russian newspaper. This has nothing to do with propaganda. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

People, return the table. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a "fair" place. By your logic all articles should be turned to start level, out of "fairness". We work on this article, how to make it better. We dont care if the Iraq war article is left behind, or ahead. The table is needed because it's good, and if the Iraq war editors deleted it, it's their problem. BWC56 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that all the people who agree are all new accounts that is very interesting, so interesting that it might call for a check on what ip hides behind each of those accounts too see if they just don't happen to share the same ip, but keeping the graph out of the article will of course keep such unpleasant requests and the long term banning which come with sock puppetry from materializing. Jim Furtado (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. You're threatening to ask for an IP check if you don't get you're way? Real nice. BTW, click here to see that I'm not a new account. --Elliskev 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Great idea!!! At the same time, we should check you with the Georgian guys here, and the Pole, must check with the Pole! Your account might exist since 2007, but the number of your edits show's you use it only at extreme cases. I wonder what account you used at the rest of the time. BWC56 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been here for a while, and if you note, BWC and I have disputed on this very talk page. The table has been reinserted as it is neither POV nor propaganda. You are the only person that believes so. Please submit to the majority on this issue. If you remove the table again, you will be in violation of 3RR. Kingnavland (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Usually, articles on military conflicts make no demographic or territorial comparisons. Example: 2003 invasion of Iraq, the largest two-side war article.Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that demographic and territorial comparisons are not relevant to the article. --Elliskev 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A little background on the inclusion of the table in the article. I was the one that initially added the table. At that time it was no more than a copy of the table found within this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2524994/Georgia-Russia-fighting-a-war-in-South-Ossetia.html The table has since been expanded upon and edited by a number of users. I think that it is useful, but its content bears further exploration. This is true both in that we need to continue to exercise diligence in the accuracy of the content, and that the table is incomplete. It lacks a section on naval power and a section on nuclear weapons. Granted, nuclear weapons are not currently in use, but an inclusive glance at the military of Russia should not overlook them. Christiangoth (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Any objections if I place inuse for 45 min or so?

Looking at the references for this article, they aren't cited properly. In order for the references to be valid in x-amount of time down the track, they need to be cited properly, as often news links will go dead after a couple of days. Are there any objections to myself placing the Template:Inuse template on the article in order to allow me to go through all the references and cite them properly, so the information is available to all users in x-amount of time from now. During this time, there can't be any edits to the article, as it will conflict with the edits which are necessary and need to be done - any edits done will be removed by my own edit, so it is best for people to hold off on editing, or place their edits on the talk page so that they can be included back in once finished. If there are no major objections to this within the next 15 minutes, I will go ahead and get cracking on this proper referencing. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you do it at an hour less people are active here? Right now the article constantly recives new information and the thing you offer will realy not do good to the article and won't be fair to the users that waste, sorry, contribute some of their precious time to Wikipedia. BWC56 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's any major information coming in right now, now is just as good a time as ever to do the cites. Not sure what the inuse template looks like, but perhaps you can put a sentence in big giant letters at the top of the article: "Please place all proposed edits on talk page until inuse tag is removed." Kingnavland (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Trust your word. Support. BWC56 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You won't do any biased pro-Russia edits, will you? jk Asim Manizada (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• No any biased pro-Georgia as well, please. There's NPOV rule.Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Asim Manizada (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am going ahead and will try to get as much done in the allotted 45minute or so. If others can keep an eye on any useful edits which may be made during this time, and record them for insertion once done. Cheers. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object. --Elliskev 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done the references in the lead; this is the section most vulnerable to edit conflicts, so I have removed inuse, it's ok to continue to edit, I will complete section by section. On a side note, if all editors adding references, can please use one of these citation templates when referencing, it would make every much easier. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkish troops in Georgia?

I have seen Russian reports that Turkish troops were coming or something. Then I heard they are in Georgia, I want to know if anyone has heard of this or has a source, because it will be extremly imprtant?

• Does not look like this. [41]Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan is pulling troops to Garabkh and Georgia borders, after declaring support. No official quotations yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Manizada (talk • contribs) 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Does not look like this. [42]Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.today.az/news/politics/46861.html

It is said that ethnic Georgians from Azerbaijan will join the fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.192.197 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gumri base in Armenia

Can you add that the planes used for strikes were Russian Mig 29s?

New York Times Gallery

The New York Times has a really impressive gallery about the war [43]. May be interesting for the section external links. -- DanteRay (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So one sided. I wonder why they dont have a gallery of Ossetian people killed, dead, wounded people shot by Georgian soldiers. The Russian TV showed videos of those things. BWC56 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure Russian TV can make many things it wants to show to Russians.--Jagiellow (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am shure the New Yourk Times can make many things it wants to show to Russians. BWC56 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, why don't we upload both of them, so it's equivocal? Logic Asim Manizada (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Because they are protected by copyright.Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is Associated Press a russian TV? [44] Photos of refugees fleeing to North Ossetia, at your service.Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Great link. Do you have photos of the capital in ruins, or dead people? ORT yet uploaded their photomaterial to the internet. BWC56 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Most of them make videos, not photos. Just like this:[45]Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep our opinions to ourselves. It's Wikipedia. Asim Manizada (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP - ADDING link to South Ossetian War article by Bill Van Auken to the external links section

Hello everyone. Below is a link to an article by Bill Van Auken on the current situation in South Ossetia and the Caucuses. I wanted to add it to the external links section of the 2008 South Ossetian War article, but the system says I'm not an established Wikipedian so I failed. I've been registered at Wikipedia for more than a year and have started and also contributed to a number of articles. Nevertheles I don't qualify as established Wikipedian. So my request is for someone who is an established Wikipedia user to add this link after checking it's ok and suitable for the Wikipedia article.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/ruge-a09.shtml

thanks for your attention.

Daniel F. (registered as Denghu)

The World Socialist article doesn't seem to add anything I would call new. Sorry. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

International Reaction divided into International Reaction and Combatants Opinions

Would there be a problem with dividiing the International Reaction into International Reaction and Combatant Opinions. And, Move South Ossetia, Georgia, Russia, and some of the Russian Republics into the Combatant Opinions section?65.68.1.90 (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. BWC56 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate.65.68.1.90 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Going through with this edit in 10 min. Thank you.65.68.1.90 (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Start putting images of civilians

It's disgusting seeing only armies. This is not the propaganda site of a Defence Ministry. --Leladax (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has free-images which we can use, then sure, upload to commons and use them. However, I would object somewhat to seeing victims of Russian actions, yet not seeing victims of Georgian actions; as they say, a picture says a thousand words, and this is an article which will be subject to extreme POV, and such images should be used with extreme care. Having said that, I doubt anyone has a free image which we can use, as all photos I have thus far seen are copyrighted to media outlets. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

100% correct! BWC56 (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not fond of corpse shots, but here they are. (parental advisory!) [46]--Garret Beaumain (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just like Russavia, BWV56 and Garret, I don't support adding pictures of civilians. It is distasteful and I cannot see what purpose it would serve. JdeJ (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be corpses. Several images exist with wounded or just fleeing civilians. Putting only military images is multiple times uglier since it looks like the propaganda leaflet of an army. --Leladax (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above users: there's too much room for POV-pushing with images of civilians, and the overwhelming majority of the images would be copyrighted. BalkanFever 01:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tranisistrian response

Yesterday the unrecognized Transnistrian Republic made a statement about the conflict, which can be found here. I would appreciate it if someone could add it in after the link repairs are finished. TSO1D (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Very important. Agree! BWC56 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add any references now, please use the citation templates to reference it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page semi-protected if it is on the front page?

This is against standard Wikipedia procedures. I think outside users would have a lot of specific knowledge to add here; and this semi-protection should not remain in perpetuity. 69.137.224.127 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be weaker, but i agree anonymous users and users registered less then three days shouldn't edit this one. BWC56 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish president:"We aren't planning to send soldiers to Georgia but everything is possible" "Today Georgia tomorrow Ukraine"

[47] Notable quotes: Polish president:

• "We aren't planning to send soldiers to Georgia but everything is possible".
• "Events show the need for ABM to build in Poland"
• "Russia is the agressor"
• "Georgia is fighting for its independence"
• "Today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, and we will return to what was happening for tens of years. The face of Russian imperialism is more and more visible and dangerous. The faster we get to know this the better. That is why the issue of Georgia is important for polish patriots"
• "Georgia will be given every possible and real assitance and support from Poland".--Jagiellow (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia destroy capital of S.Ossetia(picture)

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:VoinaOssetia8a.jpg

Please, use not-biased words. It is attack on the capital, with aim of recapturing it from separatists, not 'destroying' it. With respect. Asim Manizada (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever was the aim, result was destroying, right? Nevermind, I don't want to fuel a discussion.

It is fairuse image in russian wiki. Russian wiki is very liberal concerning the fairuse policy. I'm afraid, in en-wiki non-free image rules are more tight. Garret Beaumain (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Russian wikipedia is "very liberal" concerning fairuse policy since Russian copyright laws have not been updated and enforced since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The image itself does not prove anything - well, at least I cannot se any town being neither destroyed nor recaptured. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and Poland destroyed itself in 1939 because it opposed Nazis and Soviets. --Jagiellow (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible to use a fair use image. It's copyrighted and non-free. NerdyNSK (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not always. See WP:NFCC. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Planes over Tbilisi

I can hear planes flying over Tbilisi right now. Hopefully it's Georgian planes though. Narking (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

News from today's current events portal - updated with Georgian call for cease fire

• Russia and Georgia continue to fight in South Ossetia and Georgia. The search for the dead and injured continues after at least 2,000 civilians were killed. Russia reported 12 soldiers killed and 30 wounded in the first day of the Georgian tank and missile bombardment of Tskhinvali and its retaking. (BBC) (Associated Press) (BBC) (RIAN)
• Russian jets attack military targets in the Georgian city of Gori, outside South Ossetia, killing 60 people; two are shot down. (BBC) (BBC)
• The President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev says Russia launched a military operation to help peacekeepers stationed in the region since the early 1990s defend their position during Georgian attack and protect South Ossetians. (RIA) Russia's Foreign Ministry accuses Ukraine of encouraging Georgia to carry out "ethnic cleansing" in South Ossetia. (Reuters)
• Georgia's parliament approves a state of war across the country for the next 15 days. (Reuters) Delegates from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, European Union, and United States head to Georgia to broker peace. (BBC)
• The Georgian-controlled section of the Kodori Gorge in Abkhazia came under fire from aircraft. Abkhazia's foreign minister Sergei Shamba, said Abkhaz forces had launched an attack aimed at driving Georgian forces out of the gorge. Georgian television claimed the attacks were by Russians. (BBC)
• Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili called for a cease fire which his Security Council secretary, Alexander Lomaia, said means that Georgian troops will withdraw from Tskhinvali and stop responding to Russian shelling. (AP) 75.61.101.124 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank those who have made some of those edits. 75.61.101.124 (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish president calls for new international peacekeping force in Georgia

[48] --Jagiellow (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian mass-media blocked

I can't find any sources about Georgia blocking Russian Mass Media. Any help?

I can confirm that Russian sites are blocked here in Georgia. I can't reach any ru address. Narking (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The ORT chanel's reporter from Tbilisy said that it's true all .ru sites and Russian chanels were blocked. Even privet companies were not allowed. Morever, many mobile-phone networks stoped working. BWC56 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/08/tv/

Narking, you can always connect to a .ru address via a service such as hidemyass.com --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! By the way Russian mobile phones still work here. Narking (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have actually not been able to confirm a Georgian blackout of Russian media in Georgia from any other source except lenta. Mobile service is being disrupted. This claim is dubious, are there any other non-russian sources for the blackout?75.216.27.164 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine reports that Russian ships have laid course for Georgia-attempt to blockade sea connection to the invaded country

[49] Black Sea Fleet sails from Sevastopol to Georgian waters. Russian flagship the cruiser Moscow and nine other ships are in the group. --Jagiellow (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop bringing Polish links? Ukraine reports? Bring a Ukrainian source. A reliable Ukrainian source. BWC56 (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about your comments. Gazeta Wyborcza is a reliable major newspaper with both national and international awards.--Jagiellow (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Information about possibility of Polish troop deployment and other statements in English

[50] --Jagiellow (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Protests against Russian Embassy in Poland. Day of Solidarity with Georgia on Monday as the Russian invasion continues

[51] "Meanwhile, around 100 protestors gathered outside the Russian Embassy in Warsaw, Saturday evening, to protest against the “state of war” in the region.

Law and Justice MP Pawel Kowal said he is launching a campaign of solidarity with the Georgian nation and that red and white ribbons - the colours of both the Georgian and Polish flags - should be worn by all politicians, media figures and ordinary members of the public.

“Small gestures can help,” he said. A Day of Solidarity with Georgia is being organised for Monday."

Journalists in Tskhinvali ask for help

Journalists locked in Tskhinvali are calling for coridor to get out. Novaya Gazeta reporter say, he with correspondents of Interfax, Reuters, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, and some other media, are hiding in basements ant can't get out. Komsomolskaya Pravda journalist Alexander Kots, who tried to walk away from the basement, was wounded by riffle fire and currently is evacuated from Tskhinvali.

"We, journalists of Russian and western media, ask for presidents of Russia, USA, Georgia, governments of western countries, UN, OSCE, and others, to organize a coridor for our evacuation. We, 50 journalists, and more than 200 of women, children and old people, are hiding in the unsafe shelter. In fact, our position is like hostage's, because we can't leave the city amid the fire. We ask for international society, to leaders of the states, to diplomats: we ask to organize a coridor for our evacuation under guarantee by state leaders and international organizations."[52][53]Garret Beaumain (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the nature of Russia those "journalists" most likely are trapped Russian soldiers that want to team up with Russian invading force.--Jagiellow (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have nothing nice to say than please keep it to yourself. Do also use correct formatting to indicate who you are responding, the same goes for the rest of you. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reuters one and a guy from ukrainian "Inter" channel as well? Have a opinion, but stay polite and reasonable.Garret Beaumain (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Knowing the Georgian nature, cmmon, put your pockets out! What did you steal today? No eating Ossetian babies today! BWC56 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll second Garret, provide facts, do not shove your opinions. It's not a forum. Asim Manizada (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Most likely lied to by their Russian "journalists". You have to understand that in Russia everything serves war and conquering other nations.--Jagiellow (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Told a guy from the nation that doesn't respect the eight of South Ossetia for independence. BWC56 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as independence as Germans in Poland demanding independence from Poland and Nazi Germany to save them in 1939.--Jagiellow (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats the whole point, the Ossetians are not in Georgia. There in South Ossetia. BWC56 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I will report both of you, if you don't stop. BWC, Вырасти уже, это википедия, тут мнения никого не волнуют, правд всегда больше одной. Asim Manizada (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See the BIG notice at the top of this talk page? This page is not a discussion forum. Frankly, I, as well as most wikipedians couldn't give a rat's arse what your own personal opinions are on the subjects of the article; discuss the article itself and how it can be improved, otherwise use this link to find a suitable place where people do (maybe not) care what you all personally think, and diatribe there. Not here!! --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally. It's not a forum, not a place for opinions, but facts. Asim Manizada (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It may have looked by the indentation that my comment was made to you, just know that it was not made to you in the slightest, but to the two users who are waging their own Poland-Russia War of 2008 above you. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I understood it Russavia, thanks for clarification anyways though. Asim Manizada (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

POV?

"The 2008 South Ossetia War started in August 2008 after days of heavy fighting between Georgian forces and pro-Russia South Ossetian separatists"

Is it worth mentioning that South Ossetians are pro-Russian? Should it also be noted, then, that Georgia is pro-US? I'm not much of a Russian patriot, but this article seems to be somewhat biased. --Exizt (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That sentence says that the South Ossetian seperatists are pro-Russian, not the South Ossetian people as a whole. Even the Georgian govt don't dispute this; they just doubt the seperatist's provenance, ie. they claim they are backed/organised by the FSB. I agree the article should contain some of the back-story that Georgia, is, obviously in the US/EU sphere of influence.

USA is not the part of this conflict. Russia is. So it is important. Perhaps USA will become part of the conflict then we will add that Georgians prefer USA to country which enslaved them and brought terror of communism and russification.--Jagiellow (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

lol. Let's forget Stalin was from Georgia

USA will never join the conflict Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

USA sold weapons to Georgia, i wonder for what. BWC56 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Exporting weaponry is a profitable industry and Russia is second only to America in this business: [[54]]

Russia havent started the war so the pro-Russian is not needed. BWC56 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jagiel, relax. Asim Manizada (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia is the major combatant. It stays.65.68.1.90 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Causualities

The BBC is reporting that Russia has confirmed 21 of their soldiers have died. They do not differentiate between the initial peacekeepers and the reinforcements. [[55]]

Updated Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What about that Russian source yesterday that said 150 wounded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.53.96 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"South Ossetia said that..."

I'm quite confused by the numerous statements that are attributed to "South Ossetia" in the article. Like most readers I don't have much understanding of the constitutional status of S.O., so it would be good if these statements were expanded to include the information in the footnotes, such as who precisely said these things and in what capacity they represent S.O's population.

Please use four little squiggly things at the top left of your keyboard after a note like that.65.68.1.90 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow your own advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.90.58 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

War Propagnada and Media Manipulation

It is important to note that the majority of the citations originate from Russian media sources and International media sources via there Moscow Bureaus. Where unverifiable information is unable to be cited properly, it should be deleted. Additionally conflicting reports eminating from Russian and Georgian sources should be presented side by side, i.e. who controls Tskhinvali at this time in the conflict (accredited to CNN with no citation and equally conflicting reports). 75.216.120.189 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This article developes as the war does. Russian speaking Wikipedians has been the fastest to deliver references, but during time the references will predominantly become references in the English language, just as the box says above the references section. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In a perfect World... I wish there was a rumors section, with the newest at the top. Oh well, in a perfect world.65.68.1.90 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats your POV. As far as I can tell CNN is propoganda. Isn't it weird their man talking about Ossetia sits in Tbilisi? Not professional. On ORT an Ossetian said that western media recived information to the capital but no one came. BWC56 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Whats funny, CNN shows yesterday's clips. Morever, they show now civilan clips from Ossetia. BWC56 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. And, your POV is obvious. Please stop spamming.65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BWC56 and Jagiellow

Find somewhere else to get rid of your frustrations or start coming up with improvements to the article. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Have i done one POV edit to the article? No. And Jagillow is the one showing his POV here, i show him there is another view. BWC56 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i. Ptrt (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry, I'm not him. Even thought I'm 100% shure you are User:Petri Krohn. Can't you wait for the blocking year to end? You ask how I know? Lets say, on MSN some of your friends are not as loyal as you think. BWC56 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. That would be really strange, provided that Ptrt and Petri Krohn seem to have almost entirely opposite beliefs. But how did you come to learn about Petri Krohn? Colchicum (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First and last: I am not interested in a conversation with you on crybaby level. I am sure you can do better. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of us are adults and understand there are sides to a conflict. You really don't need to express everything on the other side for us.65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

About Georgian and Russian "Strength"

Well, umm, Georgia has mobilised so obviously their strength is not "1 battalion of peacekeepers". Plus you got the whole Russian 58 army there. What are the reasoning behind these figures? (SebastianGS (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Georgia calling for a ceasefire.

I have read that Georgia is now willing to go back to behind preconflict borders and to stop responding to Russian aggressions. Should we start finding references and promote this more??? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They were calling for a ceasefire before trying to surround the Ossetian provincial capital, so until something happens, it is hard to tell if the request is a ploy or genuine.

AP:Georgia proposes cease fire in S Ossetia 65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No. They said it a long time ago, yet the Georgian aggression continues. While asking for it they have atacked South Ossetia even harder. That was a trick. BWC56 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A more notable thing is that Russia offered them the same earlier and they refused. BWC56 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To stop responding to shelling seems to be a little more than a trick to me.65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what Georgia says to the world, but what are their troops doing on the ground? We don't really know at this juncture, the overtures are encouraging however.

bwc56 could you please stay neutral "That was a trick" is your opinion. You are not there to say if its a trick or not.

So how am I supposed to talk about a case where a state says one thing, and does another? Why did it say what it said? So it could do something which contrasts what they said. Thats called a trick. You "as if" do one thing, de-facto do another. BWC56 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that is what Russia demanded from the beginning - to withdraw troops to pre-conflict positions. If it will be done, it is a chance for ceasefire. But looking at reports on more fighting, it seems there are just words. Some speaker say that to media, while he shoud have said it to russian officials and his own troops. BTW, it is already covered in article, in August 9.Garret Beaumain (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't actualy care why they said it or if it is a trick or not. We might care if reliable sources started to discuss why they said it.Geni 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So we are, and so we did. It is in article, as well as the other side's quotations.Garret Beaumain (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting censorship in Georgia section.

This tidbit seems way too biased and is only referenced from a Russian source.65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Except the source, a Georgian here admitted it! BWC56 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

that would be original research.Geni 21:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Except it is already mentioned under "9 August: Escalation". And, the wording of the article suggests a POV for Russian media. Obviously biased and in the class of propaganda at this point.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

2 downed jets

Why were the 2 Russian jets removed from casualties & losses it was confirmed by Russia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do it. but, I believe it's because that section deals with people.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is casualties and losses. A downed jet is a loss. Also Georgia confirmed that a number of its aircraft were destroyed on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It would belong somewhere else in the article. Times, references, and etc. would be nice. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's under "9 August: Escalation" around 8:3065.68.1.90 (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and North Ossetia as combatants.

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

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

No capital after a colon, even in headings

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

Two escalations?

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

Use spacings in headings

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

Media call it Georgia-Russia conflict

Most media now call this violence a "Georgia-Russia conflict". Let's move to 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict or 2008 Georgia-Russia War. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But, I do wish we could call it "The Invasion of Georgia". But, it's not PCorrect. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

nien politicaly correct wise it is "The Invasion of Georgia" (or at least "the entry into sovereign Georgian territory by russian forces without permission") but that is an unhelful title and not one being widely used at this time so we stick to the more useful and common name title.Geni

Reuters article good for reference

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

Source on the conflict from a very famous and recently deceased historian

According to the historian Igor Diakonov:

“ It is difficult to explain why two separate Ossetian autonomies exist; Southern Ossetia south of the Caucus, and Northern Ossetia to the north of it. Presumably, Stalin who was commissioned to solve the Caucasian national problems, did not want to create resentment among the Georgians who regarded Southern Ossetia as an integral part of Georgia. However, the allegation that Southern Ossetia was formerly inhabited by Georgians is not proven; and anyway, since the Ossetians have certainly lived there for centuries, there is no reason why they should not be regard this land as their own. ”

(I. M. Diakonoff, The Paths of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 262 )

How is this relevant? Dismiss. Colchicum (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As it is the views of such a prominent historian it is certainly something which can be used in an article, such as Georgian-Ossetian_conflict, where it fits perfectly. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, but it absolutely doesn't relate to the war or the conflict. To something like History of the Ossetian people maybe. Colchicum (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? 75.61.101.124 (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the best source of information on the state of the conflict from a tactical point of view?

Not so much interested in the Russia versus US stuff. The debates on self-determination, etc. Just want to know where's the best place to keep track of who has the upper hand. Thought that might be this article, but is very hard to extract that from what I read. Is there a good place to read about it elsewhere? Honest, I'm just a news hound and am following this like a tennis match.

Honest, I'm just trying to get a perspective on kind of the immediate situation in terms of forces in control. My impression (based on very naive reading and it is HARD to weed through accounts from the belligerants btw) is that S. Ossetia was de facto out of Georgian control. That Georgians sent forces in. That Russians have responded and there is a ground battle. But who is winning? Also have the impression that Russian air power has supported Russian ground troops in Ossetia as well as attacking other targets in rest of Georgia. Have not hear of any significant incursions of Russian ground forces into non-Ossetia parts of Georgia. Or of any Georgian ground or air incursions into Russia proper. Is that about correct? TCO (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Short version: S. Ossetia won de facto independence from Georgia is the early 1990s. Since then it has done its own thing although it was not recognized as an independent state by any country on Earth. Come the Olympics and Georgia attacks S. Ossetia hoping that, with everyone distracted and Putin out in Beijing, that if Georgia manages to take S. Ossetia's capital fast enough Russia would not dare try and fight back with all the international pressure. Didn't quite work out. Russia pushed Georgia's forces out in less than 24 hours although Georgian troops have once again staged an attack on the capital as of this morning (according to Russia Today). I don't know if you know about it, but you can watch Russia Today live here, although they aren't exactly the most neutral source on the Web. Still, RT has some interesting, albeit repetitive footage, and you might be able to pick out some useful info. SkyNews also does an okay job of covering the conflict.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian troops were pushed out of Tskhinvali, which is corroborated by numerous new stories which say the witnesses saw no Georgian soldiers, but basically Russian soldiers roaming around. However, this is probably not the case anymore as Georgian troops have once against staged an assault on Tskhinvali, so there's still fighting in the capital. Abkhazia took the chance to shell the Kodori Gorge, and have now entered the Gail district. In the meantime, Russia also targeted Georgian economic infrastructure outside of S. Ossetia. You know, the usual. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe Russian soldiers still have the upper hand in the capital right now. Russia only has, at most, a few thousand soldiers there, no "all out" war yet. If it came to that Russia would easily crush Georgia. Some witnesses say they have seen NATO trucks headed to Georgia, although this has not been substantiated. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting analysis. I'm trying to untangle being pro or anti Georgia with the larger question of what is going down on the ground. It sounds like you are basically validating my viewpoint. They are struggling in S. Ossetia on the ground (with Russia perhaps getting the upper hand) and Russia is sort of opportunistically taking a few pokes via air power (perhaps naval to come?) at rest of Georgia. Makes complete sense in terms of how we wage war also. I really doubt Russia is going to try to take over all of Georgia. They don't really want it and it would be brutal once they got into mountain warfare.TCO (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How would the community feel about me deleting some of the self-determination debate in this section? I wanted a place to learn about what is going on on the ground from a "follow the horserace perspective". (Ideally this would be something I could efficently extract from the wiki article itself if wiki acted as a useful aggregator and categorizer of information instead of a debate society.) There is the whole rest of the main article and talk page to have Groundhog Day debates on which side is the aggressor.TCO (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on agreement by some of the talkers as well as the specificty of my question within this section, have gone ahead and deleted "self determination debate" posts. Had to use some judgement on that as there were two posts that were mixed in nature (kept the one that had more military content, deleted the one that had less. Hope this does not enrage the parties. There is a whole rest of the page to talk about how bad the US or Russia are. This is a section to list sources of TACTICAL INFORMATION on how the war is going...to support developing a picture of that...leaving aside which side we care for...if any.TCO (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been hesitent to comment here as the whole conflict is a jumbled mess these last few days. But I feel pretty confident that the escalation in Russian forces we see here; mobilization of the Black Fleet, high altitude bombers and possible ballistic missles seem to indicate the following. Georgia controls everything up to Java and the Roki Pass, impeding Russian mechanized advancement to Tskhinvali and forcing them to drop Airborne units into S. Ossetia Earlier today. The fierce fighting has not dislodged this log jam of mechanized equipment. So Russia is opening up the Abkhazia front and, due to it's loss of low altitude fighter-bombers, moved to less risky high altitude bombers. While Russian military strategy is direct and forceful in tactics, the Russian public will not tolerate another Chechnya type low intensity conflict in the mountains of Georgia, and believe me this is greatly feared in any conflict in the Caucusus. I think until AM today Georgia time, Georgia had the upper hand militarily, I do not believe prior Russian reports of a Russian occupation of Tskhinvali, until possibly recently. Now that Russia has opened up a second front, and possibly a third will come emanating from their base in Armenia, Georgia will be hard pressed to balance it all if armor breaks through Roki. This is all POV and I admit it, but it is very hard to piece together events on the ground right now with the data we are presented. What is not POV is that any process of Russian victory, if they are victorious, will result in Punitive warfare before a ceasefire is declared.75.216.27.164 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeepers

Are the Georgians refering to themselves as peacekeepers? The only sources we have for "Georgian peacekeepers" are from 2004 and 2006. They did invade South Ossetia, which is hardly peacekeeping. Unless we can find some more up-to-date sources calling the Georgians peacekeepers, we should refer to them as the Georgain Armed Forces, not Georgian peacekeepers. Saru (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the combatants called themselves "Peacekeepers". 65.68.1.90 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's plain stupid to call army which killed ~2000 civilian people a peacekeeper. Aggression in form of shelling the capital city full of people will hardly ever be peace keeping. toxygen (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources for ~2000, please. Putin the Great claimed that only tens has been killed so far. And yes, as to shelling the capital, try to recall Chechnya. Colchicum (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Russians never claimed that to be peacekeeping but putting down terrorism by Islamist fanatics. The question asked by Saruman20 was wether there were Georgian troops with an offically recognized peacekeeping mandate. That Russian troops had a mandate recognized by treaty is known. I don't know if the same treaty involved Georgian troops (though it seems weird because a peacekeeping force is usually meant to be neither of the conflicting parties). 84.154.47.122 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reference the Wikipedia article on South Ossetia. Georgians, Ossetians and Russians all participated as Peacekeepers prior to the present conflict. That is what started all this, unofficial armed exchanges between rebels and Georgian peacekeepers which then escalated to a coordinated Georgian military advance.75.216.27.164 (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Effects on 2008 US elections

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

Georgia declared war!

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

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

Archive now! It's going no were!

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

Automatic archiving was set up, so it should have been taken care of. BalkanFever 01:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

US Embassy

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

Good job.

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

Russia Offers South Ossetia 10.5 billion roubles for reconstruction

As is reported by nearly all media that covers Russia properly. This should be added in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.135.250 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an amount listed in US dollars already on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it listed in US dollars? To my knowledge she says she's offering the money in roubles and I see no reason to change that to U.S. dollar without even mentioning it. Naurmacil (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The usual solution is to post both numbers ;) But I just did that so don't worry. And the reason we use US dollars is because most people reading English wikipedia have no clue what 10 billion rubles is worth. LokiiT (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

International community reactions - 6.1

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

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

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

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

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

sorry did not see that link, that is enough... 77.99.98.170 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing more boring that reading international reactions, especially when all Russia-aligned countries support Russia and all US-aligned countries support Georgia. Reading the statements of just the 3-4 main actors is enough, all the rest is only useful for political analysis and is better treated by a separate article. Detailing the EU, US, NATO, and Russia and China reactions is enough in the article, the rest should go to the specialist page, which is linked from the main page. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree since I have seen link:-) However still think there could be useful to put there dates or build them to sentences such as "United States – After the GMT 4:00 8 August...", because expect more statements... 77.99.98.170 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC - UN Estimates of Refugees

The BBC reports here:[[56]] that the UN is contradicting the Russian figure of 30,000+ refugees and believe there are between 4,000 and 5,000 refugees that have been evacuated to Russia. It names a further 2,400 as internally displaced. This article also quotes Mr. Putin saying that 'Georgia was committing "complete genocide"'. Furthermore, the English in the Humanitarian Impact section needs to be proofread and corrected, specifically the final sentence: "In Gori, where large of smoke are rising above the town, Russian warplanes hitted apartments instead of a military base, and there were civilians trapped inside buildings on fire. Journalists referred to the situtation in Gori as "chaotic"." Additionally, the Timeline section is misleading because it says on July 14th "US and Georgian forces started a joint military exercise at the Vaziani military base near the Georgian capital" ... This exercise has clearly been completed because there are only 130 American military advisers in Georgia now, but the article seems to imply the exercises are ongoing. I think the July 14th section should be deleted since it has nothing to do with the conflict. This yahoo.com news report: [[57]] contains the same quote from Mr. Putin, I think it should be added to the Russian reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Useful images to add to the article

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

The header map still has room for improvement as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Pics from the 2004 conflicts are only tangentially relevant to this, and s similar pic doesn't add that much more information. Beneficial to the reader would be current pics, so if anybody finds free ones, they should be uploaded. Alas, most are copyrighted. BalkanFever 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Details on..

What is the relationship between the United States and Georgia, and how is the United States involved in the conflict? Naurmacil (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The United States is not involved other than trying to defuse the situation, according to sources we have. Conspiracy theorists have been posting their speculation across the internet however.

Georgia and the US are allies. The United States trained Georgian soldiers and (I believe) they supplied them with arms. They held a military exercise together last month in Georgia. LokiiT (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That is all prior to the conflict. During the course of the conflict (the last 3 days) all sources point to America calling for a solution to the conflict, to my knowledge there is no evidence to the contrary.

Georgia is a staunch ally of the US and the countries have had a strong relationship since Georgia first extended it's invitation for US military trainers to retrain it's post-soviet army in 2001, much to Russia's chagrin. Currently there are 130 contractors and US DOD personal in Georgia http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/08/military_georgia_080808w/ in addition to Embassy/Consular staff and ex-pats and, as you can see, the bulk of US support is military and monetary in addition to political interdiction on behalf of Georgia, as well as that works.75.216.27.164 (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are 130 members of American military personal in Georgia, but any amount of training they provide in 3 days would not impact the course of the conflict, military units are not trained in 3 days. Now, a shipment of weapons or equipment would have an immediate impact on the situation on the ground, but there is no evidence towards anything of the sort. If there is evidence, post it here and it can be utilized accordingly.

We have been training Georgians since 2001! This is the current contingent of trainers. To the contrary, It is entirely possible that the US will use the opportunity of an expedited return of Georgian forces from Iraq to resupply and improve Georgian equipment.75.216.27.164 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, but until it happens, it remains only possible and not fact. Possibilities do not concern wikipedia.

Image:Tskhinvali battles.png

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

• Comment: I have read on the BBC that South Ossetia is legally part of Georgia according to international law. NerdyNSK (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ballistic Missiles?

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

It came from an "Senior Unnamed Bush Admin. Official". [58] LCpl (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

POV in wording of article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack on Airport and By SEA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carl Bildt: "The principles at stake"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carl Bildt: "The principles at stake"

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

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

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

Naval blockade

Bloomberg is reporting [59] that Russia is deploying elements of the Black Sea Fleet as a naval blockade and has already turned away one ship. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Removal of International reactions

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

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

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

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

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

Russian Escalation

Reuters is reporting [60] that Russia has begun using strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Dmitry Medvedev is the president of Russia

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

I have removed the incorrect part. It now reads "Dmitry Medvedev claimed that..." However, I believe that the passage used to contain another name, not Medvedev, and that someone changed it. However, the source of the statement is down (civil.ge) and so it cannot be verified who said what. BalkanFever 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dmitry Medoyev Colchicum (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha! So someone tried to correct what they thought was a typo. I've fixed it now. BalkanFever 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Financial market reaction

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

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

Name change

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

I think we should go with 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict or 2008 Georgia-Russia War as was proposed above under section "Media call it Georgia-Russia conflict". Ostap 04:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't call the Iraq War the Iraq-United States War even though the two sides were once fighting each other. This war is in Georgia and Georgia only, and most likely it will stay that way unless Saakashvili invades Russia. --Tocino 04:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not up to us to decide. What do the sources use? The user above said that these were being used in the media. We must use what sources use. Ostap 04:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good point. I propose "Georgian invasion of South Ossetia." Seriously though, "2008 South Ossetia War" is fine.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The war is spreading to Abkhazia though, so just saying South Ossetia War doesn't really represent reality. --Tocino 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Exactly. Patience, people. BalkanFever 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

See Caucasus War. Also, Armenia and Azerbaijan aren't involved. BalkanFever 05:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We should use whatever reliable sources use, if it can be determined. For now I guess we should probably stay with what its at. Ostap 05:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no agreement. Simple copy and paste won't work. Alæxis_¿question? 06:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Nobody has agreed here, and a copy-paste will not work. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can move pages, and for good reason. BalkanFever 06:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combatants in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

Skynews report on Gori bombing

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

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

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

SkyNews isn't a Russian source. Here's what is written there:

“ [Their correspondent] said a military installation had been hit in Gori and surrounding residential apartments had been badly damaged ”

So it's clear that military installation (that was surrounded by residential apartments!) has been hit. However it's not clear whether these buildings were hit by stray bombs or by the blast of Georgia's munition warehouse. Alæxis_¿question? 06:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Information about the military budget of Georgia

I suppose "Background" demands such economy information.

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

Yes, it's possible. North Korea spends even greater share, probably :) Here's another (Georgian) source telling about GEL 1395 million military spending (that's about USD 1 billion [61]).

The CIA World Book gives 2005 data - 0.59% of GDP. Now it's 4.65% (Military of Georgia) so (given the magnificent growth of Georgian economy in last several years) the rise in military expenditures is really huge. Alæxis_¿question? 07:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Cracked site screenshot copyright

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

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

Georgia has not pulled out

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