Talk:Russo-Georgian War

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

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

Don't

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

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

McClatchy and LA Times report on Tskhinvali damage

A McClatchy report from Tskhinvali confirms 40 killed there, a number very close to that of Human Rights Watch. I suggest adjusting the 44 number to "40-odd" or "low 40s" and say "According to HRW and McClatchy..." or something like that.Bdell555 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And where do you think McClatchy got his number, rounded? :) BTW, that "44 dead" figure doesn't mean "total dead" at all, these are wounded people who died in the hospital of Tskhinvali - methinks it should be made more clear in the article. Corpses from the streets were not transported to the hospital (its morgue is probably too small anyway), they're being collected into the mobile refrigerators (also there's a lot of improvised graves according to reporters). Nor does it include casualties in nearby villages, or people evacuated into North Ossetia and later dying there. I can't provide link now, i had seen that on TV only. Still no official number afaik, investigation is underway. 195.218.210.172 (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"[40] included both civilians and combatants: people who died at the hospital, whose bodies were brought to the hospital or whose families reported burying their dead in villages" according to this LA Times articleBdell555 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No they were the majority of the dead in the city - they were brought to hospital becuse the morgue was out of order (but it's at least 44, or confirmed 44, anyway). Btw - no one cleared the dead Georgians from the streets, many days after ceasefire - leaving the dead to rot/to be eaten by animals is a war crime too (actually, they shouldn't be even buried in a mass grave). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

But i seen hospital manager interview and he said quite opposite, that he only knows number of the dead and wounded right there, not in the whole city. Anyway, how american newspaper can be considered primary source? Especially given the fact western media tends to work at georgian side even at this day, and international envoys preferred visiting refugee camps, not the city itself.

Russian TV said there is 2136 officialy registered death claims from the ossetian side. Of course, that doesn't mean there are same number of deaths - some cases describe several deaths by one witness, and some are one death reported by many. 195.218.210.167 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity, i can't really spend much time here, to counter you, Your Biased Majesty. Will you ever seek or read sources, that do not agree with you, or have some excuses for inexcusable russians' actions, for the sake of, at least, pretending to have NPOV? 'Cause, right now i'm looking at the article of OS-inform news agency, published on August, 16. Let me translate it for you, to the extent of my little abilities:

South Ossetia government offers to Georgia, to take georgian dead soldiers' bodies as soon as possible. "If Georgia will fail to take the bodies ... we will have to bury them in mass graves in South Ossetia territory" said S.O. Prosecutor's Office representative Georgiy Kabulov.

From his words, nobody can tell the exact number of dead georgian soldiers, because, since the first days of conflict, there were spontaneous burials of bodies, which have started to rot, and fragments of bodies, which could not be identified. "Today only, we have picked 34 bodies of georgian soldiers", Kabulov said. "We're not vandals, we've had put each one of them in separate coffin, if they[G-gov] want to take them, we'll let them to, but we haven't received any such requests from Georgian side, yet".

"We won't do georgian bodies' identification. Only 4 soldiers have had IDs on them. If, in the nearest time, georgian side won't take their dead, we will have to bury them - we can't keep them any longer."

But of course, to bury Georgians in mass graves, while haven't even completed to bury their Ossetian relatives, is such a war crime from Ossetian people, innit? And you was simply unable to restrain yourself from pointing it out, i'm sure. ETST (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Your Biased Majesty, but “You’re going to be dumping your comrades’ bodies soon, you faggot, where we only bury stray dogs. And that’s where you are soon going to join them. (...) The prisoner was made to drag the dead men off the truck and to bury them in a ditch with the corpses of eight other Georgian soldiers.”[1] Of course they bury the enemy dead with all due military respect, yes sir. Just like they treat prisoners of war just like they should, and the civilian hostages... oh wait, they should not take hostages at all. (And don't cite me the disinform.ru "news agency", please.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for calling you YBM. It was uncalled for. After all, you have never insulted me. You only did it to my country, to my fellow russian SergeyXXX, and to my faith in people, who wisely abstain from harsh conclusions on things they've never seen(although, i think, my country will be able to recover from the shock of your insult, and keep on livin'). "Don't cite me disinform news agency". Or what? Strong allergic reaction of "black-white" world view with unfitting data input will seriously endanger your life? I have expected a better link from you, Captain. Maybe this article is published not on "disinform.ru", but on respectable from all sides TimesOnline, but, as such, it serves as a clear demonstration of how information could be a crap, no matter who's the publisher. The authors of this article should have became action movie script writers - 'cause it's only in bad action movies you can meet wild-eyed armed-to-the-teeth unshaved men with gaping holes in their thighs and a great urge for killing and procreation. In real life, when somebody is shot in the thigh, he is not even able to drive any means of transportation in his vengeful search of prey - if he's lucky, and his bone wasn't fractured, then, for the first 10 minutes, he is rolling on the ground, grasping the wound and crying for Jesus, and for an obviously pagan deity F*ck in all of his manifestations. If he somehow managed to stop the very profuse bleeding(yeah, on the thigh, and without tourniquet, fat chance), he's got to bandage it, or, upon slightest disturbance, bleeding will start again(so, no gaping holes for showing off around reporters). And he's gotta do that mighty fast, or he will bleed to death, or die from hypovolemic shock in no time. But our hero, himself, or with a little help from his friends, have managed to overcome the situation. He got up and went for revenge... well, at least he tried to, but an excruciating pain didn't even allow him to stand on the other leg and jump. Our hero had used painkillers, but the only location he could and will try to reach, while their effect lasts, is a hospital, which he isn't going to leave for a very long time, or he'll get sepsis and his leg sawed off on the very next day(and that operation will help him, only if he's still lucky). I could have went on with commenting of this crap, whose authors have thought, that to jump on the 'hate russia' bandwagon, and write a piece of gory fiction(not without rape story), which no one will be able to disprove, is a clever idea of earning money, but i don't think that this will help you learn to subject the information to the critical analysis, no matter how much do you like to believe it, so why bother? But ok, let alone that. You may believe it, or not, but OS inform have a statement, about Ossetian civilian hostages, captured by Georgians. Will you throw it aside too, so image of poor innocent besieged Georgia won't be tainted? You may not know, but (http://www.regnum.ru/news/1042994.html) yesterday, Georgians had refused an exchange of prisoners, because "Georgian side had brought up demands of political and military nature, which are absolutely unrelated to the exchange process". And, please, tell me, if you can, what "due military respect" was exersizing that georgian sniper, who stopped the bus of refugees and killed a 13-year-old girl? ETST (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have aby questions, write to Mark Franchetti, because I don't care about your OR. "but OS inform have a statement, about Ossetian civilian hostages" - More like disinform.ru have a statement about SUPPOSED Ossetian civilian hostages, because no one have seen any. Also I asked you to not bother me with this "news agency", which puts Kavkaz Center to shame. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see, which of the questions i've asked go to Mark Franchetti, because he was not the one, who was repeatedly ranting here about absence of "due military respect" in Ossetians, while conveniently forgetting to mention the lack of such in Georgians, and i don't need a lecture on "How to write a story, which violates basic medical facts(not an OR), but will be believed in" either. No, my questions were addressed to you, and you've failed to provide adequate responce. Forgive me, but comparing bulletin-board-for-terrorists'-statements website, famous for it's hate speeches on russians and jews, and calls for terroristic acts and jihad, to official regional news agency "OS Inform"(no hate speeches, or calls for a revenge upon the Georgians whatsoever), is not what most people will call justified, too. Is that your reasoning for listening to what you want to hear only? Ok, enough of this, or it'll get out of hand. Just stop your rants, please, there are no innocent parties at this war, but if somebody has the knowledge and moral right to judge any of them, it's neither you nor me. Don't bother to reply. Thank you. ETST (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How about you(ETST, Captain Obvious), two holy warriors of biass, move somewhere else with this? And by somewhere I mean off the wikipedia. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it "bias" to quote an eyewitness reporter against the disinform.ru claims (the guys who stole a picture from Gori and miscaptioned as from Tskhinvali, etc.)? Mass graves are against Geneva Converntions (like a lot of what the Ossetians do, including taking hostages, abusing prisoners, reportedly killing them, using them for forced labour, etc). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Why do any pro-russian source ever need such thing? What's the point - there are no shellholes in Gori, no heavy damage at all - unlike Tskhinvali. On the contrary, it's western media - CNN, BBC, FoxNews - who repeatedly called some Tskhinvali videos as "Gori"! It was even confirmed on TV by author of one of those videos, russian operator, with CNN? and russian 1stChannel pictures presented side by side on the screen! 195.218.210.137 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"WTF? Why do any pro-russian source ever need such thing?" Some people on Wikipedia here uploaded pics "of Tskhinvali", taken from disinform.ru - these pics were stolen from western agencies and taken in Gori (we found the original author and his caption). Gori was mostly not shelled but bombed. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Captain, so you are saying that them posting disinformation justifies you posting it? Interesting... Very interesting... 68.151.34.161 (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So where are BOMBholes in Gori, eh? Hint - there are none! 195.218.210.133 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"American broadcaster CNN has been accused of using the wrong pictures in their coverage of the conflict in South Ossetia. A Russian cameraman says footage of wrecked tanks and ruined buildings, which was purported to have been filmed in the town of Gori, in fact showed the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali."[2]--Tananka (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

@68.151.34.161 Hmm... Holy Warrior Of BiAss... sounds kinda cool! Gotta think of adopting this title in my everyday life. ))) Well, i was naively hoping, that it would be just between me and him, and it won't disturb the others. But it seems, i'm opening a new front of S.O.war here. But Captain isn't very reserved in his statements either(yeah, very childish of me), and i simply can't leave them undefied. ETST (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be quite naive to assume that Tkhinvlis destruction was perpetrated by Georgians alone. Georgians took the city with a rapid advance supported by artillery. Russia dislodged the Georgians from the city with artillery, tanks and bombers. Grozny shows the history of Russian tactics to dislodge opposing forces. The destrucion of Tskhinvali was perpetrated by mutual forces. A clear aspect of bias is present here as the only sources we have for Tkhinvalis destrucion, even today, are Russian. NO international media has been allowed that far north.70.193.63.107 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely NOT the "rapid advance supported by artillery", but rather "massive all-night shelling and slow advance" 195.218.210.133 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Western journalist were eventually let in (first on the guided trips in a Russian APC with the Russian officer charged with PR), and of course found Tskhinvali to not be groznyfied. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "groznyfied"? Grozny was being destroyed mostly by direct fire several years of fighting! 195.218.210.133 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently there's not enough gore, death and destruction in the Tshkhinvali. We should probably request a couple of peaceful, democratic B-52 from US to finish the job, right Captain? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Groznyfied, I would think, is pretty self explanatory and an excellent coining (although I prefer "Groznified"): look at google earth, Grozny was decimated and still is. Direct bombing, it was not, nor was Tshkinvali, but what can one expect with the equipment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menrunningpast (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Infrastructure damage

Do we need to keep the infrastructure damage subject if now it's clear that Russia hadn't bombed the Tbilisi Airport? Taamu (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that no. But that we should mention that piece of propaganda.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't think there's no more infrastucture in Georgia, don't you?

Being bombed by Russians? I guess there wasn't this type of infrastructure at all. Do you have data concerning it? P.S. If yes, please don't confuse it with Georgian propaganda. Taamu (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Being looted, burned, mined, demolished during "ceasfire". (Russians call it "taking care of abandoned bases" or "peacekeeping".) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

100% propaganda! Taamu (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda?? Do you have any sense of dignity? I'm from Gori and these marauding hordes your admired czar send in to plunder Georgia razed my neighborhood to the ground. You used cluster bombs to destroy the civilians and attacked a local hospital. All foreign jouranlists and the UN representatives have confirmed these facts. I can send you my own photos, but I'm sure you will still blubber of "media bias" and "western conspiracy". That's how modern Russian neo-bolshevist propaganda works. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I do have. But, forgive me for being sceptical, i want to see your photos of russians attacking the hospital. The thing i can't really understand, is what the hell they've needed the hospital for? And how could you attack hospital? If no one is shooting back from it, that is? ETST (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions lifted. I've read news on the hospital. I'm sorry about that. I don't think, it was done intentionally. ETST (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope these were rhetorical questions. The hospital was clearly marked. "How to attack a hospital": Aim and fire, just before the ceasefire.[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10526968 --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Tskhinvali hospital was an example of "aim and fire, just after the ceasefire" behavior. Stop it, Captain. This war, even without your indignant cries, is bad enough already. ETST (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How dare you mention the sense of dignity after all your government and your troops have done with civilians in South Ossetia!!!??? All foreign jouranlists and the UN representatives can confirm whatever will be useful for the US government. We already saw it when Ossetian girl gave an interview at American TV channel!!! Second, Russian troops attacked millitary base in Gori, there could be killed civilians (accidentally), it's a WAR. You can send me your own photos of what??? I can send you my own photos of the FULLY destroyed by Georgian troops Tskhinval!!! So, please don't try to raise this sort of dispute. Your pres. saakashvili has shown his pathetic face when he ate his tie. He started the war, why doesn't he behave himself as a man? He's acting like a pro&#$tute!!! Taamu (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, what "Ossetian girl gave an interview at American TV channel" event are you referring to?(Sorry, i just can't keep up with news). ETST (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

TRY THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ 195.218.210.137 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone give Taamu a chill pill? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

100% propaganda! In the best traditions of the propaganda war Nazi Germany and its Soviet allies waged prior to the invasion and partition of Poland. "All foreign jouranlists and the UN representatives can confirm whatever will be useful for the US government." - Ha, ha! So all foreign jouranlists and the UN representatives work for the US government, right? Typically Russian conspiracy theories and paranoia. There is no cure for that. If you want to see pro&#$tute, go to the Kremlin. We all know how they protect their citizens in Chechnya, Beslan, Ingushetia and now in Georgia. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, my friend! Thanks for a very fruitful conversation. Taamu (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird sentence in introduction

From the introduction:

Russian armed forces quickly responded with a large scale counter-attack into South Ossetia but largely refrained from invading Georgia proper.

What does "largely refrained" mean? You either refrain or you don't. How far the invasion went, futhermore, and how far someone wanted to invade (and then generously "refrained") is open to interpretation (making the sentence POV, methinks.) -- megA (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, like this. They did advance significantly, AFAIK. --CopperKettle (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much, but "largely refrain" to be bold on this particular article... ;_) -- megA (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author. My understanding - which may be wrong - is that there were some movements beyond the claimed SO border, but nothing that would genuinely be an invasion of G. Toby Douglass (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Russians have dug in 40 miles of Tbilisi, blown up at least one railroad bridge, cut the main road from Tbilisi to the sea, occupied several cities and two large military bases, and sunk at least one Georgian ship: all of which actions have been confirmed by Reuters, Human Rights Watch, the Associated Press, the BBC and so on, in the face of constant denials by the Russian government and media. (My "favorite" quote: outside the city of Gori, Russian general Vyacheslav Borisov was asked about the croplands that his irregulars had set on fire, and replied, "It's a farming technique." See http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/stalins-birthplace-a-town-ravaged-by-war/2008/08/14/1218307118845.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 for one instance of this quote, though I originally saw it elsewhere.)

If you're new to this article and don't have a strong interest in the subject, I strongly recommend that you not get involved. This is a wasps' nest -- there hasn't been much fighting on the ground, so Wikipedia is taking up the slack... :) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And let me draw your attention to the new section on "Russian claims, then and now," if you're wondering who's to blame for that... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Author again. It seems to me from what I've been reading that indeed the Russians have established a major presence in G proper, so my edit was incorrect. Toby Douglass (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian claims, then and now

1. (August 8) More than 1,400...1,600...2,000 civilians dead in Tskhinvali!!! COMPLETE GENOCIDE!!!
2. (August 14) 60 civilians verified killed and indetified (and more than 40 Georgian soldiers killed in the battle and left behind during the Georgian withdrawal). Doesn't matter - Georgian genocide anyway!www.int.iol.co.za

1. (August 8) The city completely destroyed!!! Razed to the ground, like Stalingrad in 1943!!!
2. (August 17) 80% of buildings undamaged, after the Georgian attack and the Russian counterattack. Even water supplies expected to be restored in days.[3]

Just wow. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Any problems doing math? 100% - 10% - 20% = 80%?

BTW these numbers refer to the sturdy multi-store buildings only (private cottages area was definitely razed to the ground, there's a lot of footage on this matter). And about 60 civilians, there are exhumations of temporary graves underway, all is done according to standard criminal investigation procedure - a slow process. NOBODY ever announced any FINAL number (even remotely) of casualties. There are over 2100 death claims which are being investigated right now. 195.218.210.133 (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha. It's amazing. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: how is this in any way related to improving the article? And how is this in any way different than the bogus claims on the Georgian side, like the one about the destruction of Gori which the UN embarrassingly exposed as being complete rubbish?[4]--71.112.145.102 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"While the buildings did not appear to be very damaged, there are clear signs of massive looting of both shops and private accommodations," the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said in a statement. Not "very" damaged, but "massively" looted (by pro-Russian forces under Russian military watch). Thanks for the link. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalingrad (whole city like this, that is 0% of undamaged buildings). Stalingrad of course was also a big city - now over 1 million after rebuilt, not a provincional town 30,000.

File:Soviet soldiers moving at Stalingrad2.jpg

Something like this, am I right? All references to "destroyed" Tskhinvali should be removed from Wikipedia.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29507379@N06/ . Магистер (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So? 1,400 buildings allegedly damaged (including 700 allegedly "beyond repair"). 5,600 buildings officially undamaged. Is this "Stalingrad"? Tskhinvali "existing no more"? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning Stalingrad?(Igny (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Ha ha. I'll tell you.

• South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity compared Georgia's initial assault on the region's capital Tskhinvali, which prompted the Russian invasion, to Germany's attempt to seize Stalingrad during World War II. "Tskhinvali has become the Stalingrad of the Caucusus," Kokoity said at a joint news conference.[5] (I thought "Stalingrad of the Caucasus" was Grozny, but hey.)
• Russian officials have said the city was flattened, comparing the wreckage to the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II. Leaders in Moscow repeatedly referred to genocide and to thousands of corpses.[6]
• Other Russian and South Ossetian officials have pegged the death toll as high as 2000. They have maintained that Georgian troops razed Tskhinvali and left it resembling Stalingrad after the long siege by Nazi troops during World War II. [7]

And so on. (I remember even hearing Medvedev.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Undamaged only small buildings. Магистер (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

• August 17: Russian president Medvedev announces withdrawal of Russian troops will begin on Monday.
• August 18 (Monday): Timeline_of_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war#August_18:_No_sign_that_Russians_have_begun_leaving_Georgia

-- megA (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cityvalyu -- please *avoid* making changes like that!

Specifically, like this. When your edit summary talks about removing weasel words, the last thing you should do is add them... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

alleged was removed to said the refernce permitted onlt that..and russians in that same line unreferenced...Cityvalyu (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that this user has previously made blatant POV edits to this article (see archived discussion from yesterday). It is my impression also that there is a distinct discrepancy between the edit summaries provided by this user and the actual edits. __meco (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

you may be lying Cityvalyu (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a problem. If this sort of editing pattern doesn't stop, administrators should be notified. Ostap 00:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

please feel free to actCityvalyu (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cityvalyu was notified of 3RR, however a more serious problem is that he also uses false edit summaries to describe his edits and now also falsely accuses others of vandalism in his latest edits. Hobartimus (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

please refer to vandalism guidelines if you have doubt..note that i have not lodged an official warning since i assumed good faith (unintentional?) from you ...please see your talk page or aleast the discussion below on "being too smart"..thanksCityvalyu (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

USER:Cityvalyu has many complaints against him for making extremely biased edits and then editing warring his garbage, currently he is listed under request for editor help and WP:AN with a huge wrap sheet of POV edits, childish behavior, inserting weasel words while caliming to remove them, vandalism and harassing other editors via their talk page - he will probably be banned soon, feel free to undo any biased edits he makes.--Papajohnin (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fox News/You tube

Just a heads up, but linking to the video on youtube is a violation of Fox New's copyright and isn't allowed per WP:YOUTUBE. I'd say the coverage in other sources should be enough to discuss the alleged missteps on youtube's part. If you feel a video of the interview is necessary, you'll have to find it through Fox New's site. AniMate 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) cunty

There was an explanation in the info to the interview with Amanda I quote, sorry for caps (thus was printed in comments):

"*****FAIR USE***** THIS VIDEO IS POSTED BECAUSE IT IS NEWS WORTHY AND EDUCATIONAL. UNDER FAIR USE RULES YOUTUBE IS NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE THIS DOWN. FOX NEWS CANNOT CLAIM A COPYRIGHT. FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVILEGE". End of quote. "News" can't be subjected to copyright! That's the principle implied in the Constitutions of many countries including USA as I assume.

For those interested there is also another interview with Amanda on YouTube by Russia Today which was posted there oficially by Russia Today itself.

And I have one question: Where's the whole section "Fox News video with 12-year old girl and her aunt that arived from the conflict zone"?!! Where did it disappear and why??? - Jake7 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable to compare an video which is posted voluntarily and an video which is posted "under fair use". BTW, Is that fair use a law of USA? I do not know USA law, but I can't imagine any other country can be extend the fair use to this Fox video.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

About Copyright and Fair Use.

1. Yes, that fair use is a law of USA. "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." [8]

2."Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright" [9]. - Jake7 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just find the link on FoxNews.com and link to it directly. That way there is no possibility of a copyright infringement. Jason3777 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored Fox News video with FoxNews.com link to avoid potential copyright problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason3777 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Fox News video is of a much better quality than the YouTube copy and is subtitled "12 year old girl escapes Georgian crisis; blames Georgia for aggression", so much for the censorship/media bias claims.... Jason3777 (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Formal start date of the war

I wonder how "The 2008 South Ossetia war formally began on August 7, 2008" can be either NPOV, community consensus or a matter of fact.

While it is a war (as a consensus), it has not been declared, and the declaration date is not the start date mentioned above. The war is never formally started, but as a matter of results of several escalation of violence. It is not disputed violence happens before 1-Aug, before 7-Aug and before 8-Aug. Choice of 1-Aug, 7-Aug and 8-Aug is completely arbitrary depends on your view how much state-sponsored violence is a war, and depends on whether violence happens on a single de jure territory is considered a war (In my POV whether de jure is not important, but it is POV). --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true. How about "August 2008" with no specific day date? Large-scale hostilities began on August 7, before there were only clashes/provocations. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A distinction could be made between the initial acts of war and the official declaration of war by the Georgian parliament, through approval President Saakashvili's decree on Aug. 9th. Valid for 15 days. source: [10] Incidentally this decree also declares martial law. [11]--Tananka (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• UTC time? Artillery and MLR strike was first massive action: August 08, 2008 0:45(local time)CNN label--UAV2000 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister Putin's role

Russia's PM Vladimir Putin is currently not included in the infobox, or should he? Swedish foreign secretary Carl Bildt says that the Russian invasion is partly Putin's personal revenge and something that he even warned U.S. President Bush for during a dinner session in Sochi. [12] If that's correct, and Putin is not de facto transformed into a lame duck, he may very well qualify for an inclusion in the infobox. --Hapsala (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he should -- note how when the war started, he immediately headed back from the Olympics -- but here on Wikipedia, a personal opinion and a nickel can get you a cup of coffee (at 1920s prices, at least). However, if you can find a notable analyst who makes the argument, add him, with a cite of that analyst in the infobox. (Wikipedia doesn't normally footnote infoboxes, but I think the policy is to make an exception for this conflict...) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I support including Bildt's assertion into the article. Carl Bildt is a relative heavyweight in international politics and is generally trusted as a sober and knowledgable figure. __meco (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree!! Carl Bildt's information is a top-quality-source regarding wikipedia standards. Does exist an official English translation?? Elysander (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is in charge of Russia? Putin or Medevev? I gather Putin is still the captain of the ship (he just kept the power made the Moscow White House the new Kremlin), whith Medevev as the honorary counsel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.232.237 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox should contain only commanders, while Putin is Prime Minister. Removing Putin. It was discussed earlier, see Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Archive 1#Commanders --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin was personal involved and travelled to the war zone to oversee the situation and several reliable sources call this whole thing Putin's war IMO removing Putin from commanders is whitewhashing and denial of the situation. See articles like [13] [14]. Or use google to find several thousand more. Hobartimus (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Officially (by constitution) Prime-Minister do not command military forces. I tagged "citation needed" to infobox, so you can prove your edit. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Officially or not ! Shall we deny visible and hearable facts ?? Elysander (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I contributed to the confusion here: I missed that Carl Bildt said it. It's notable -- it should probably be in the article. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, then Dick Cheney needs to be included in infobox of this article along with Rumsfeld and Powell. Only those commanding military forces (commander-in-chief/presindent) and in charge of operations on the ground (e.g. marshals or generals) should be included in the "Commanders" box. Putin neither of those things and should be removed. Zealander (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest Cheney cannot be compared to Putin for starters Cheney didn't hand pick Bush for his position Cheney didn't place Bush there, like Putin picked out Medvedev and placed him into his position. A huge number of sources agree that Putin is the number 1 leader of Russia and indeed many sources call this Putin's war. Hobartimus (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that Putin is behind this war. He went to Vladikavkaz to push the army to attack Georgia. Rumours say that some Russian military didn't want to attack so Putin himself had to go there and push them. Narking (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That must be rumours from Tbilisi. They say Putin himself was behind fist lines of Russian soldiers. Indeed he was in picket with machinegun :) Actually, I'm not sure rumours should be discussed here. Vadimkaa (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Section title

I did write an edit summary explaining why I reinserted "EU-brokered..." in the section's title. It is because I think that brings clarity in relation to which agreement it is, as opposed to any other deal. - SSJ ☎ 14:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to mention it. If so, it would be better to put France and Russia instead of EU. Taamu (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, anyway "EU-brokered" ! But didn´t Lawrow write the "Seven-Points-Note" ? Elysander (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC: "an EU-brokered ceasefire" - SSJ ☎ 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted. But when Mr.Sarcozy visited Moscow he didn't have any finished documents concerning the ceasefire, he had just a willingness to accomplish it with Russia and Georgia. So, can we call it a "EU-brokered Six Points"? Taamu (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Whyzeee -- please avoid Godwin's Law.

Your addition of the German occupation of Czechoslovakia to the "See Also" section went overboard. Comparisons to Hitler's annexation of Czechoslovakia should be done by historians, after the conflict is over; at the present, such a comparison is just inflammatory, even though the Russians are hardly acting virtuously. If notable people compare the conflict to the Sudetenland -- and I'm sure that some have -- you could mention that with suitable citations, here or in the article on international reactions, but Wikipedia is neutral on the issue and will remain so until a consensus emerges among historians. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --CopperKettle (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. __meco (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the fellow who added a WHEN tag to a footnoted paragraph because it involved the Russians threatening Poland with nuclear attack? [15] Remove the beam from your own eye before removing the speck from your neighbor's. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait... I'm sorry. Your edit may have been in good faith, after all -- although if so it was distinctly odd, given that you didn't read the article before making it. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If notable people compare the conflict to the Sudetenland ... you could mention that with suitable citations. That's it! Elysander (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but then I question how NPOV an article can be that is about an ongoing event. I do however question the link between the Sudatenland and South Ossetia.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)]]

NPOV is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and absolutely not up for debate -- even if Jimbo Wales were willing to debate it with you, I think that abandoning the policy could mean the end of the Wikimedia Foundation's tax-exempt status. If you need help on how to maintain NPOV on this article or any article (current events or otherwise), please review WP:NPOV. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware I was debating that this article should be NPOV, mearly that it cannot be. Even if 99% of the editors on this article are NPOV 1% will be POV editors (and looking at the talk page this is a very optimistic figure). Nor do I belive I was advocatinig abandoning it, just that we (and wikipedia) must be aware that there are issues playing out both here and in the real world that must raise questions about the encyclopidic nature of a 'real time' article (after all in cannot even be informative given the fact that many facts will not be known about till after the conflict is well and truley over). Now I belive that I understand what NPOV means, which is why I do not bleive this page can be NPOV no matter how hard those who are truley NPOV strive.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)]]

That's why we stick to reports by internationally reputable and trustworthy organizations, like Reuters, Human Rights Watch, the AP, and the BBC. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone has. I have no doubt they will continue to use other (less reliable) sources to back up whatever claim they are making. Moreover how informative are this sources. For example what is the current position of Russian forces. How many troops do they have in Gori? What are Russias war aimes? What level of planing eixsted before the conflict on the part of Russia to annex South Ossetai or Georgia to draw the US into the conflict? Were these even aims? It seems to me that we cannot know what the situatuion on the ground is, not even if we use Neutral sources (especialy as many of them are relying on either POV sources themsleves or imbeded reporters, harldey free agents). This talk page (and the article) is litterd with examples of the events on the ground overtaking and nulifiying many assumptions. At best this article can only be little more then a blog, updated each time a new fact emerges, that is not enclyopedic it is blogopedic. I have been unsure about the wisdom of this (or any real time) article since first seeing it, and that unease grows the more I see how it has become little more then a talking shop for those with anm agenda to promote their version of the conflict.[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Russian wanton destruction, breach of international law, possible war crimes and theft of US Property

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4566892.ece As per this times article is it worth mentioning that after the "peace deal" Russia is continuing to attack Georgian positions, bases, and destroy not only military assets but also civilian rescoucse and infrastructure. They are also “capturing” (read kidnapping) military personnel from outside the areas they occupied when the peace deal was signed. Additionally they have stolen US vehicles that were awaiting shipment back the US (they were not being used by the Georgians) All of this is not only in breach of the terms of the “peace deal” but also breaks international law, could someone please include this into the main article, maybe a section on Russia’s breaking of treaties, as well as breaking of international law (possibly war crimes)? 81.149.82.243 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally they have stolen US vehicles that were awaiting shipment back the US This is highly dubious. Maybe Toyotas or BMW's?--Thomaq (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They stolen US part of Ossetia. Магистер (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

US part of Ossetia? I was not aware the US had any terrirorial claims in the region, is there a sourrce for this claim?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Have you wondered that maybe they are trying to weaken the Georgian army so this won't happen again anytime soon? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that was part of the ceasefire deal... (SCNR) -- megA (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, actually. Under the part where Russia is allowed to take "certain security measures". --Mrcatzilla (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On US vehicles, the Russians took four amphibious-kit Humvees -- see here for instance. I hadn't thought that the Russian detention of Georgian soldiers, with a ceasefire signed, is likelier to be kidnapping than capturing... But still, even though it doesn't appear (yet?) on the list of WP:NOTs, Wikipedia is not the Hague Tribunal. Reuters, Human Rights Watch, the AP, and so on are giving very clear evidence of war crimes and an ugly sort of malfeasance, but we don't know how far up the chain culpability runs -- we should wait until a notable source makes indictments, and then document that action, rather than making the indictment ourselves. If you know of such sources, however, please add them: I certainly will if I encounter any. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

TV said the abductees were policemen. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AP said the captives were military personnel and their source was Georgian port authorities. They asked the Russians why they were captured and they stated that they were operating without command ... which given the state of the Georgian military command sounds feasable. As for the US vehicles, the seizure of military hardware is perfectly justifiable irrespective of who it belongs to in an area which has little to no military command operating. Leaving them sitting around for anyone to nab would just be irresponsible as they'd surely end up on the black market. Looting is against the Geneva convention but disarming and destroying weapons is not.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's next?

Russia 'distributing passports in the Crimea' (Ukraine)

"The allegation has prompted accusations that Russia is using the same tactics employed in the Georgian breakaway regions of Abhkazia and South Ossetia in order to create a pretext for a war. Russia handed out passports to the residents of the two provinces, which have long looked to Moscow for support, five years ago. The Kremlin has justified its invasion of Georgia in terms of defending its citizens in Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgian "aggression"."[16]. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say that this sounded like original research -- but if the Ukrainians themselves are expressing the concern, it's certainly notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if it belongs here, though... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this war actually about?

According to the article as it currently stands, the war is simply caused by conflicting interests as regards to a tiny province called South Ossetia north of the capital of Georgia. The article doesn't really deal with ex Soviet republic of Georgia's aspiration of Nato membership, Russia's geopolitical interests, particularly as regards to its "backyard" (i.e. former Soveiet republics as a whole, and maybe what used to be Europe to east of the Iron curtain), the message Krimlin wants to send to neighbors who intend to go against Russia's intersts. Etc, etc. So, how about an introductory article section called geopolitical backround dealing with these issues? --Hapsala (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's about Kosovo more than the Russian "Near Abroad." However, I'm not a notable source... Be sure to adhere to the notability standards, but if you find notable sources discussing possible motives for the conflict, feel free to add them. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This war about the control of US over Caucasus. Магистер (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See, thats blatant POV 72.140.80.212 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

its about keeping georgia out of NATO by toppling their crazy president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.40.251 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Official and last Numbers of Casulties

Georgia:

Military

133 dead - 45 killed during russian air raids, 68 KIA, 20 killed during ceasefire

500 wounded

70 missing

Civilian losses

82 killed during russian air raids and advances through georgian territory

965 wounded

Georgia/South Ossetia

Military

casulties unknown, but ossetian armed formations confirmed as complitly destroyed. Only 700

survivors (?) ( confirmation needed )

Civilian losses

Number of dead - unknown ( estimated high )

Number of wounded - unknown ( estimated very high )

Georgia/Abkhazia

Military

400 dead - 400 KIA

circa 1000 wounded

Civilian losses

none

Russian Federation

Military

104 dead - 74 KIA, 30 killed during artillary barrages

up to 300 wounded

5 captured

18 missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by

ComanL (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Senior MP: 215 Killed in Conflict --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

afaik 74 includes these 30. 195.218.210.133 (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From Your Local Infobox:
"Russian/Ossetian estimate more than 2,000 South Ossetians killed.[10] Russian/Ossetian claim a confirmed 60-200 Ossetian civilian corpses identified and 500 more unaccounted for.[11]"
Which would make 560-700, but not 2,000. So...? And how can you "confirm 60-200"? Either one single number is confirmed or it's another estimate.-- megA (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It means the Russians have changed their estimate -- they had been insisting on 2,000 dead and a Georgian objective of complete genocide, plus all sorts of other war crimes, but Human Rights Watch has contradicted them and now they're backing down. "Confirm 60-200" sounds a little bit high to me -- the main hospital in the South Ossetian capital confirmed only 44 dead. Their new figure is evidently 700 at the high end, which is probably also wrong unless you count South Ossetian militiamen as civilians -- which reportedly they're doing. This has been discussed elsewhere on the talk page; please review that section. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RSO said 200 identified bodies and 500 missing and at the same time Russia said 60. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Human Rights Watch" has no effect on Russian estimation. HRW is not reliable source for non-western people.--A20080819 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

POW's

Will someone edit the casualties section of the infobox, it should be put in the Russian part of the casualties section 19 missing (5 captured), as the reference I provided confirms that 5 soldiers or pilots were captured, also the given reference and plus this one [17] confirm that 15 georgian soldiers were captured during the conflict in South Ossetia and another 22 were captured today in Poti so it should be put in the georgian casualty section something like this: 215 soldiers killed, 300 missing and 37 captured, based on these two references. Will anyone make this edit?

Verified source 4000?

"Anatoly Nogovitsin, the deputy chief of staff, said at a news conference on August 13, that although no verified data was available, but “I’ve heard Georgia has lost 4,000 men.” " Hearsay? I don't know, he just "heard". I don't know if we can write the 4,000 figure with just that source--Jaimevelasco (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the casualty box, the Polish sources cites the Georgian minster of home affairs as estimating 4000 dead, mostly South Ossetian civilians. LokiiT (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem like a good source. Not the newspaper, but the citation of the said "government official" not mentioned by name. If that's really going to be Georgia's estimate we'll hear about it later but so far I can't find anything about it on english news-sites. Grey Fox (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Propaganda to push up the moral of russian troops during fightings —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Beginnings of Russian withdrawal?

Really now? The only thing that the section says that asserts actual withdrawal is a claim about Reuters which their article doesn't actually say. (It says some vehicles left Gori, but it doesn't say where to.) The title is therefore inaccurate, and (since only the Russians claim, so far, there is a withdrawal) POV. And even if we knew more, the assertion that this is the beginning of something not yet happened is purest WP:CRYSTAL. Unsupported Russian claims do not belong in the timeline, any more than they did yesterday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian troops leave Georgia town - "A number of Russian troops have begun to pull out of Gori, the largest Georgian town close to the South Ossetia border."

"Some Russian troops have been seen leaving Gori, the largest Georgian town close to the South Ossetia border."[18] LokiiT (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, where are they going? That they left Gori is 18 hours old. If any of these said even they were going north, that would be another matter. (And there have been doubts.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... i thought Russians "have been never in Gori"? ;-) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-ossetia15-2008aug15,0,2212287.story Elysander (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This was is filled with general confusion and crap sources--Jakezing (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AP is running a story that they asked the troops as they left Gori where they were going and a colonel responded that he was headed back to Russia. They even gave a break down of the types of vehicles that they saw.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap sources:

Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin called the media together to announce: "A propaganda war is going on." "This is a massive disinformation campaign," he said, waving copies of The Washington Post and the Financial Times and quoting reports in them about Russian troops attacking the Georgian city of Gori. Churkin said Russian troops had acted responsibly securing a large ammunition dump and more than a dozen tanks and troop carriers abandoned by the Georgians at a military base near Gori, Churkin said, adding that Russian troops "are not in Gori, they have never been in Gori, they have never occupied Gori." Churkin said he was not aware of any U.N. complaints that regions of Georgia were inaccessible to aid workers. (UN chief: South Ossetia and Gori inaccessible)

This was on August 15. Whatever Russians say, on whatever level, just can't never be taken seriously. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

«A propaganda war is going on.» Well, «all's fair in love and war». Don't believe ANY politicians of ANY country involved. --Namenlos Ein (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Intervention

Hello. I would like to remove the first paragraph of the Russian Intervention section:

In the opinion of the independent Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, "Russia's invasion of Georgia had been planned in advance, with the final political decision to complete the preparations and start war in August apparently having been made back in April."[65]

I think Pavel's opinion adds nothing to the goal of neutrally presenting the information. I do not see that his opinion belongs here. Yourcomrade (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)User:yourcomrade

Pavel Felgenhauer ~~ Why should be the citation of an essay from a well known Russian defence analyst published in a Russian media that's not controlled anyway by Russian state against the goal of neutrality ?? Elysander (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it is in the middle of "Timeline section", where editors add facts and try to avoid analysis. I think the paragraph should by moved to separate section\article especially created for motives\opinions\analysis. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds better than above. The time line is anyhow already a mix of facts, myths & hearsay. Elysander (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And a little bit ;-) earlier than Felgenhauer >> Monday, August 4th 2008 : Moscow Orchestrates War Scare in South Ossetia - http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373282 - Elysander (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

“We will force [the Georgians] out from the conflict zone ourselves. I state once again that we have the necessary troops and equipment [sil i sredstv] to do this,” the South Ossetian “president” Eduard Kokoity warned (South Ossetian Press and Information Committee, August 3). Um, yeah. Sure. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to create a "section\article especially created for motives\opinions\analysis." The Time, Newsweek and USAToday have written many op-eds that make some very interesting points.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 03:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another well-known Russian expert and Putin’s ex-aide Andrey Illarionov has expressed similar opinion. According to him, the war against Georgia was "a brilliant provocation which has long been planned and successfully carried out by the Russian siloviks [army elite]. It technically completely reproduced ‘Basayev’s [Chechen rebel warlord] raid into Dagestan’ and the beginning of the second Chechnya war." The article is in Russian[19], but Russian-speaking wikipedia editors can verify it. The president of Georgia Saakachvili also claimed that he had warned the West about a planned Russian invasion, but the West downplayed the risk.[20] Now we have three similar opinions from absolutely different persons – two by independent Russian experts and one by the Georgian leader. This only adds significance to Felgenhauer’s comment which should not be removed, but, on the contrary, reinforced with the above-mentioned opinions. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be about the same as claimed that Bin Laden's attack on the US was a pre-planned provocation for the invasion of Afghanistan? Don't mean to be argumentative but it certainly seems about the same to claim that 'planning' for a smaller less significant power to attack something within the realm of your interests was pre-planned without actually showing evidence of planning. --Senor Freebie (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia & Georgia

While it is deplorable, civilian casualties are not a new thing at all. Reporting on it is absolutely necessary, but are we going to label Russia, U.S.A., China, Britain, France, ad infinitum as personally grotesque for their participation in these attrocities as in blaming the one instead of the other? Japan fought a war of indescribable abuse and misery and the U.S.A. responded with THE most horrific weapon known to man and used it on civilians. Really, the worst thing about war is war itself. Adding up civilian casualties on the one side over the other seems to me remarkably dangerous. Imagine a war without civilian casualties. I suspect that the combatants would find what they were doing - fighting in a remote desert with not a civilian around, rather absurd. Then, when the victor returns to the "conquered territory" only to find that the disappointed citizens of that land have decided to mount an armed insurgence - My God!! We love to kill, don't we. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgbeatty (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Leather-stockings (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Date fortmats

Both Russia and Georgia use International Dating (day month year) format, and I can't see any good reason to use American (month day year) dating format in this article. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Name rankings on Google News

A search on Google News bring up the following results for each potential name:

• Russia-Georgia Conflict: 1,771 results
• South Ossetian Conflict: 1,402 results
• South Ossetia Conflict: 908 results
• Georgia War: 681 results
• Georgian War: 484 results
• Russian-Georgian Conflict: 481 results
• Russia-Georgia War: 262 results
• Russian-Georgian War 94 results
• South Ossetia War: 33 results

I should note several of the results on Georgia war/conflict actually refer to it as Russia-Georgia. This probably doesn't even accurately reflect the extent of media coverage as the results for South Ossetia also include results from the days leading up to the major conflict. One also has to take into consideration the organizations using these terms. Those using South Ossetia are primarily regional news organizations while those calling it a Russia-Georgia conflict include CNN, AFP, AP, Reuters, NPR, The Times, The Guardian, MSNBC, Fox News, Business Week, USA Today, Financial Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, International Herald Tribune, Xinhua, and countless others. This clearly is the name which has been adopted. Whether this will be the name history gives it is a much later question, but for now it is clear what this article should be called. It's time to stop all this idiotic bickering over whether there has been a consensus on naming, it's not like we can't include the names in the intro like every other conflict. I suggest the article be renamed Russia-Georgia Conflict with the intro providing some of the other popular names.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear rename now no more putting off the vote, the clearly inappropriate current title must go. Hobartimus (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia-Georgia conflict may refer to more than just the warfare. There's already a seperate article on that.

• War in Georgia: 1,000 results Grey Fox (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Russian invasion" Georgia: 2344 results

I did not find any article that did not refer to this particular conflict but I suppose some may be. Variations include "Russian invasion of Georgia", "Georgia: Russian invasion", "Russian invasion of a neighboring country", etc. For example: "Russian invasion of Georgia": 446 results ---(PaC (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

As someone mentioned a week ago about this same issue; wikipedia is not a popularity contest. The Hundred Years War was not called so until after the fact ... which doesn't make much of an argument, but I think that the conflict began in the geographical region of South Ossetia, and therefore it defines the conflict, like "100 years" defines that conflict (even if it wasn't 100 years long). It isn't like Russia and Georgia went to all out war against one another, there were no formal declarations, and if they did, Russian troops would be in Tbilisi. I personally think that by leaving the title that is in place now, all concerned parties will know exactly what the article is talking about. Let's face it, in citing all those American based sources, most news anchors can't pronounce "Ossetia" and "Russia vs. Georgia" registers much clearer with American viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menrunningpast (talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood for oil?

An interesting look at the back story of this conflict [21] from the BBC, who would have thought oil might be a motive? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Any war into a country that hqas oil supplies is called a war for the oil, even if it wasn't.--Jakezing (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also remember that Russia explicitly did not want to harm pipelines through Georgia, with the interest of maintaining good relations with both Azerbaijan and Turkey. I don't have a source on hand, but it seems very logical. PKK insurgents in Turkey rendered the BTC pipeline inoperable before the fighting in South Ossetia escalated, not Russian forces after the fact. Menrunningpast (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• other POV: no oil -> no money -> no mercenaries -> no wars--A20080819 (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)