Talk:Russo-Georgian War

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

Military info

Russian North-Caucasian military region have more then 100 thousands solders. 620 tanks, 200 APC, 875 Artitllery units Airforces 60 Su24, 100 Mig 29, 100 Su 25, 40 L-39 and 30 Su24MP, and 75 Mi24

South ossetia have 87 T72 and T55, 95 Art units (include 72 howitzers), 180 APC, no warplanes, 3 Mi8 (transport) 5 thousand solders and 15 thousands in reserve

Georgian army have 29 thousands solders (100 thousands in mobilisation) 165 tanks (T-72 and T-55), 180 APC, more then 200 art. units, 180 mortars 10 Su-25KM, 2 Su 25Ub, 6 L-39, 9 L-29. 28 Mi's helecopters (at least 3 Mi24), 6 Bell-212, and 6 UH-1H (presented by USA)

Taken from http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/08/08/forces/

93.92.202.124 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The merge

Wait with it. Wait to the end of the latest war for the merge. To obscure right now. Apperently, this is not just another part of the conflict but a real war. Just wait. We could always do it later.

OK. But I spotted seriois POV issues in the article. For example, Georgia could not declare war on SO as it not a separate country. Georgia said it was conducting an operation "to restore a constitutional order."--Kober^Talk 22:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most sources agree that South Ossetia is a de-facto independent state. I dont known Georgian, and unfortinately since the war started my Ossetian friends are unreachable so they cant give and translate for me the Ossetian sources. That might explaine the POV, I use reliable sources but they are all Russian. And as a Georgian friend of mine told me there is heavy cencorship on the events in Georgia itself so there are no Georgian sources that could tell us more then we already told. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia has not been recognized by anybody, so it is a civil war. JoshNarins (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This may have been true when JoshNarins posted it, but the war is no longer merely internal. Christiangoth (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

biased Russian sources

Biased Russian sources should not be used, because they are merely quoting South Ossetian terrorists reports, ignoring official Georgian side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.1.129 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So South Ossetians are "terrorists", while Chechnyans are "freedom fighters"/"separatists"? Hmmkay. Anyway, both sides are present in the article currently. Esn (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(A portion of Kober's post has been removed because it was off topic to improving the article. Christiangoth (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)) Anyway, you did a good job on the article. Now it is more neutral and balanced.--Kober^Talk 05:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really do very much; mainly I just added back some info that had been deleted before, cleaned up the references to look a little neater, checked some of the news agencies reporting on the story and added a few more news. I don't think I have time to do anything major, so I hope others will continue the work. Esn (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Back on the Russian sources by 24.185.1.129, both those and the Georgian sources need to be taken with a grain of salt. At this point the most reliable is international media from netural countries with presence on the ground. (such as CNN, Fox, BBC.) Jon (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not correct: the media sources of NATO countries, such as listed above "CNN, Fox, BBC" can not be referred to as the sources from "neutral countries", because they support Georgia, following American directives. And this is the point outlined by Russian representative in NATO Rogozin who warned NATO countries and asked them to moderate pro-Georgian propaganda in their media sources: http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/08/note/ --Victor V V (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that the BBC, CNN, etc are "following American directives"? By the very definition of the phrase, CNN, the BBC, etc are media from Neutral Countries because they are media sources in countries that ARE neutral!!! (Unless you know something I don't, NATO is not at war with Russia).SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I can prove that whenever journalists from CNN, for example, start to express the opinion too much independent from the official line (it mainly refers to international issues. )I agree that in domestic affairs these sources try to be objective)), they are usually fired. Nevertheless, NATO countries are not NEUTRAL because NATO is a military alliance, which by definition and by its current moves (radars, rocket deployments) proves to be non-neutral. Trying to prove neutrality of NATO basing on the media-sources sources of NATO countries means a weak and biased position, too.

Therefore, I agree with Anthony Ivanoff (below) that "all the sources should be mentioned while stating to whom the statement belongs". --Victor V V (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A nation is not necessarily neutral if it is not directly involved. This is like saying that a towel boy is neutral in an American football game because he is not on the field during play. The towel boy still has a team he hopes will win, and even supplies that team to help it. The United States in WWII before the attack on Pearl Harbor is a classic example of a nation not directly involved but not neutral. Christiangoth (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(Note: off-topic chatter removed.) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

biased western sources should not be used as well. CNN is totally POV. I think all the sources should be mentioned while stating to whom the statement belongs. There is information/bias war ongoing at the moment between West and Russia. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Ezzex (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely see some of the current sources for this article as problematic. I see Jon's point as a valid one; both Georgian and Russian sources should be treated with suspicion, as their reports can obviously be biased. As for the point raised by both Victor V and Anthony Ivanoff, I agree that it is possible that sources from neutral countries may also have either a pro-Russian or pro-Georgian bias, depending on the source in question. Using multiple sources from different neutral countries is likely to produce the most balanced view.

Media bias will occur in many places. The US media outlets of CNN and Fox certainly have both been respectively challenged as biased by detractors, as has the BBC. No single media source can be purported to be "the truth." However, we can seek for general consensus across media sources to filter for the most gross levels of bias. Seek to ensure these media sources each are independently reporting, not just "copycatting" each other, or pulling the same stories from the same basic newswire. Where possible, refer directly to government or NGO sites for their official observations and rulings, such as when I quoted from the UN site directly. Does that make it "truth?" No, but it makes it the official position of the UN. YMMV. --Petercorless (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that there can be no neutral countries and neutral media now, too. Not only Russian or Georgian, but any other country's media source should be defined, mentioning the country or this source, for example "British media (BBC) or American media (CNN) claim that Russians are aggressors, bla bla bla". Then it would be neutral. --Victor V V (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I'm modifying the Casualties section of the article. The source used is RussiaToday, which does not quote its source regarding the Georgian casualty figure. Thus, I feel that "Up to 30 casualties claimed by August 8th" is the most appropriate wording until someone finds an official Georgian admission of casualties. The Russian casualties are backed up by a statement of a member of Russian military, so I think that can be considered as a reliable admission of casualties and does not need to be reworded. However, I'm taking out the words "officially" (if it's confirmed, it is obviously official) and "peacekeepers" (I feel the expression contains pro-Russian bias when used without quotes and pro-Georgian bias when quoted). Tritec (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A better Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View solution is something like, "Russian sources have claimed there are a total of xx Georgian casualties, while Georgians have not yet reported a figure." NPOV does not mean just rejecting sources and perspectives out of hand. We can't just completely exclude RussiaToday, Civil Georgia, CNN, or whatever. The trick is not giving any of them undue weight. Superm401 - Talk 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Petercorless (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

fn.64 has a link to a report, which gives prominence to a link to a video, which states that bloggers are comparing the Georgian president to Adolf Hitler (photos of the mustachioed one included). Seems like a sly way of using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda.--Shtove (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Current event tag

I've added the "current event" tag back in because this seems like one of the most important events right now internationally. If an escalating war involving a nuclear power isn't a "current event", what is? Esn (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A "current event" is a Wikipedia article which is being editted a couple of hundred times per day due to being a current event. I don't think this qualifies. —Nightstallion 08:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only the morning and there have been over 50 edits. I think it's well on track. Esn (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mh. Okay, you may be right. —Nightstallion 10:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR regarding Russia's involvement

Concerning this edit, is it really WP:OR if the Georgian president says that Russia is involved, and if Putin says that "retaliatory actions will be taken"? Esn (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian president or officials can say whatever they want, they are contradicted by Russian officials say that they are trying to keep the peace, not taking sides.--Miyokan (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

source. "But Putin, the former Russian president who is now its influential prime minister, condemned Georgia's "aggressive actions" and said his country would have to retaliate." Esn (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The video footages clearly showed the destroyed buildings in the Goergian towns and Russian jets flying over them. These incidents were also reported by EuroNews. --Kober^Talk 09:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have links, Kober? Esn (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They may very well have been destroyed by Russian jets, but what matters is what side they are on, and Russia has said that they are not taking sides, despite what Georgian officials say. Your logic goes "Russia attacked them so therefore they are with the South Ossetia", which is a classic case of WP:SYNTH.--Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Putin's comments about "retaliation" are clear enough. However, I wouldn't object to waiting until more clear information is available. Esn (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You can add "Russia (according to Georgia sources)" --windyhead (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Question for Miyokan: where/when exactly has Russia said that they're not taking sides? Is that sourced? Esn (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a late-night statement, appealed for efforts to prevent huge bloodshed. "It is not too late to avert massive bloodshed and new victims," it said. "Russia will continue efforts to avert the bloodshed and restore peace in South Ossetia.[1]--Miyokan (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but that doesn't mean that they're not taking sides. The Georgians are saying the same thing, right? "restore constitutional order", "Despite our call for peace and a unilateral cease-fire", etc. Esn (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

News: unnamed number of Russian peace-keeper casualties: [2] Esn (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian involvement

Interesting video

The source (life.ru) is by no means reliable (I haven't heard about it until today) but the video is interesting. Furthermore it's written there that:

“ Как стало известно LIFE.RU, в сторону Цхинвала по единственной дороге, связывающей Южную и Северную Осетию, движется колонна бронетехники с российскими флагами. Это ракетные системы залпового огня "Град", 122-мм и 155-мм гаубицы, БТР и танки. ”

So, according to this source, a column of armed forces (including tanks, APCs, howitzers and Grad systems) under Russian flag moves by the Transkam towards Tskhinvali. Alæxis_¿question? 10:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I damn hope it's true. We never left friends alone in times of trouble. Actualy, usualy it's reliable. But every monday and friday it has news like "Alla Pugachova died", "Ksenia Sabchak was fucked by aliens". As long as it doesn't come to showbiz it's reliable. They have a problem of lack of information. For example, Russia yesterday said they will sent peacekeepers to stop the war. So are those tanks are those peace keepers or are they taking Ossetian side? Check more sites on this one. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another source for info here, but I don't know how reliable that site is either. Esn (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Echo of Moscow a column of our forces entered Tskhinvali. That's rather reliable source. Alæxis_¿question? 12:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

@Chrystal Blue Moon, I understand the fact that Russia is in somewhat of a delicate situation, but keep in mind that Ossetia, just as Abkhazia, are self-declared states, and most of the world consider them integrated part of Georgian territory. So by sending troops into Ossetia, Russia is actually invading Georgian territory. If Russia thought that it's citizens are in trouble, they could get them out of Ossetia and bring them home, instead of making home for them in Ossetia. Anyway, about 1400 people, mostly civilians have died in the 2 days of conflict, and all I hope is that it will pe over without many other dying. I am not Georgian nor Russian by the way. I don't want my comment to sound offensive towards Russian people, and if it does, I send my apologies. I am still curious about your point of view. Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

@Qubix, don't be stupid, you simply don't know history of Ossetia! It was during USSR creation, when the territory, where osetians lived, was demarked by a border between RSFSR and GSSR. That's why there are South and North Ossetias. Learn russian and read here: ru:Война_в_Южной_Осетии_(2008). It didn't matter while USSR existed, just like with Krym in Ukraine, but it did matter in 1989, when USSR was already not so strong and South Ossetia declared their autonomy in Georgia, just like Georgia in USSR. But georgian nits didn't give it 'em (while Georgia became independent). I'm sure you think, that Kosovo is not self-declares state. Don't you? Of what fucking integrity of Georgia do you speak? Yesterday these bastards killed wounded peacekeepers, they killed more than 1400 ossetian women, elders and children, they destroyed 70 % of Tshinval! It's genocide of ossetians! What would you do, when one fuckin stupid, like Saakahitler would decide to kill all people of your nationality?! --UBaHoB (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you would calm down and speak in a civilized manner, it would be helpful. Second, I never said that Georgia does not have part of it's blame, especially for using Katiusha type rockets to bomb a residential area, when everybody knows what the effect of such an attack is. The only problem was that, officially, Georgia is a recognized country and Ossetia is not. What I asked is : Do the Russians have the right to cross the border and fight the war into what is , officially, Georgian territory? Thirdly, don't shout at me for the crimes committed by the Georgians because of 2 reasons: 1)I did not take their part in this, and specifically said that I HOPE ALL HOSTILITIES MUST END BEFORE MORE HUMAN LIVES ARE LOST, NO MATTER WHAT NATIONALITY, and 2) because Russia killed it's share of civilians in this conflict and in many others, including people of my nationality. The only question I posed was regarding the official border and the theater of operations. Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyberwarfare

Ossetian source claims ([3]) that Ossetian sites (http://osinform.ru/, http://cominf.org/) are under DDOS attacks now. I think this should be mentioned in the article.

Btw, I have now problems accessing Rustavi 2 site ([4]). Please try to go to this site and write whether you have succeeded. Alæxis_¿question? 10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I havent it gave me a white page saying I'm not permitted to enter it, like a hardcore porn site or something. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten there finally. Probably it's just that too much people try to do it at the same time... Alæxis_¿question? 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The main page works, as does the American server, but the Georgian server doesn't. Esn (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And I can't access those two sites that you first mentioned. We need a reliable source about this in order to add it, though. Esn (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source about it. I think we can safely write that 'according to the Ossetian side ...' Alæxis_¿question? 11:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Apperently the Ministry of Foreign Affairs got defaced and pictures of a minister portraied as hitler were put op. Site currently not loading http://www.mfa.gov.ge/

09 Aug 2008 2:05:47AM EDT: no response from server, guessing servers are experiencing loads nearing levels of a DDoS attack (too many users?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.121.75 (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

Made a mistake trying to insert info that was already cited in the article. Just getting back into the swing of Wiki'ing again. Petercorless (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiblock

Please block this article from anonymous users. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am registered byt i cant edit the article, why is that? (wanted to add that the US is sending an envoy as reported here --Frodoqui 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

click the lock icon at the top of the article, there is an explanation --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

i see, it's because i am not yet "autoconfirmed", thanks! --Frodoqui (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Information about Georgians falling back

The information from Russian media about Georgian Military falling back from Tskhinvali is probably false, and not yet confirmed by any other medias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markuspint (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we'll say "it was reported by Russian media" until other sources come up. Esn (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Media in English language is slow, so we use Russian media (I know Russian slightly, but I don't know Georgian, that's why I used Russian sources). --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Channel One apparently has video of Russian tanks in Tskhinvali: [5] Esn (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Better now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markuspint (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just in case, information in Western and even Georgian media is sometimes false too, let's not forget about it.85.202.113.34 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Put this on the Wikipedia main page already!

Support the motion here. Esn (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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. [6]) 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. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 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)

Peacekeeping

Watch out for that "Russian peacekeeping" violates WP:NPOV. --76.19.149.244 (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's their job description, not POV. Esn (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, mostly it just reads kind of strange; calls in mind Civ 2 under Democracy owning the UN world wonder you could declare yourself Peacekeeping to get around the normal prohibition against declaring war . Jon (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They are peacekeepers, and as such are officially recognized by all interested parties - Georgia, South Ossetia, the USA, Russia and the CIS. Is there anything else to discuss about wording?85.202.113.34 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.202.113.34 (talk)

"Peacekeepers"

Stop pushing badly written, unsourced, broken English stuff.

This is really silly. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What is sily is: 1. Calling peacekeppers sildiers. 2. The cause of the war is much more complicated. This time Georgia started it, Ossetians waited for the peace talks. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mirotvortsy ARE soldiers. Russian Army active duty soldiers. They are NOT United Nations troops.

Not to mention that "more than 10" is not "10" and "about 30" is not "30". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude mirotvortsi is peacekeepers in Russian. They have a mandate from the UN. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "sildiers", though. Srsly: Please come back when you learn some English. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Soldiers". When you write fast you make mistakes. The CIS sent those peacepeople, not Russia. See what the president of Kazakhstan said in Pekin. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They were sent by CIS not Russia. See leader of Kazakhstan in Pekin. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't resort to ad hominen to win your argument, please. "mirotvortsi" is "peacekeepers" in Russian. Esn (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright but they are still soldiers, with ammo, and so on. They are not UN peacekeepers. "mirotvortsi" is just how Russia sources call them. --windyhead (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mirotvortsi in not only in Russian, Russia also understands it's very differently (than your standard Blue Helmets from the UN). For Russia they defend "Russian citiziens" (whom they gave passports AFTER the secession). For Georgia they are Russian occupational troops defending a de facto annexation of the region by Russia - and now invaders ("150 armoured vehicles" crossing the official border). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the CIS decided to sent the soldiers. If they would want, Tbilisi would already be pizza. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Actually the CIS decided to sent the soldiers." You're right about "soldiers" (at least), but they are only Russian soldiers and commanded by only Russian commanders (and that, say, Georgia is in CIS but want them out, and out of their own territory). I don't know know what you meant by "If they would want, Tbilisi would already be pizza.", though, so please eleaborate? (Mirotvortsi "turning Tbilisi into pizza"? Is this what "peacekeepers" do?) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources call the killed Russians "peacekeepers", not soldiers. When the sources start talking about "soldiers", then we can call them soldiers. Offliner (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No wai. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Way!. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood When the sources start talking about "soldiers", then we can call them soldiers. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be clearly written they are Russian soldiers (with heavy weapons and combat aircraft) on what Russia and some of their allies call a peacekeeping mission to "defend the Russia's citiziens" - and not the Russian UN peacekeeping troops sent into a random region by United Nations. For the uninformed reader who would think otherwise. Plus, they just apparently crossed the official international border in a large number with tanks - and if true, this is an invasion (just as Georgians apparently also invade their own breakway territory). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're talking like a UN Peacekeeper and a Russian Peacekeeper are somehow different. UN Peacekeepers carried guns and bullets and were real soldiers trained to kill just like any soldiers. Peacekeepers ARE soldiers. They are the same thing. Just ask the Canadians who fought at Medak Pocket...stop making asinine comparisons. A peacekeeper is a soldier, full stop. Every peacekeeper is a soldier, but not every soldier is a peacekeeper, it is only one type of mission on which he may be employed.139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The UN is a much bigger organ than Russia whose words aren't better than those of Georgia. If they are peacekeepers or not, it's best to ommit that here because it carries a moral judgement. "Peace" is the problem. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In an armed conflict, if one side (or the other) sends fighting soldiers into battle, you cannot possibly call them "peacekeepers". There is no "peace" that is "kept" that way. Peacekeepers don't fight unless they have to defend their own life. -- megA (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are being silly. Russian soldiers are peackeepers because they have a legal mandate to be there. They are in South Ossetia based on the provisions of the treaty that ended the first South Ossetian war and which Georgia signed herself. Not all Russian soldiers in South Ossetia are neccesarily peackeepers, but those that were there already when the conflict flared up are legally peackeepers.

If a "peacekeeper" attacks any side without the need to defend his own life, he is not a "peacekeeper" any more. Stop being ignorant, whoever you are. -- megA (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your definition is an invitation for POV. If we start deciding who is really a peackeeper and who is not really a peackeeper we will never reach an agreement on any peackeeping mission, not just this one. If they have a legal mandate they are peacekeepers. They are a part of a legal peackeeping force thus they are peacekeepers. And yours is a false argument anyway. The treaty that put the peacekeepers in place explicitly states they are there to guarantee the status quo and dissuade any side from trying to wrestle control of any territory by force. Thus in repelling the Georgian attack they actually acted as their mission demanded. Stanimir (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add any info you might have that they were not "truly" peacekeepers, but let the reader decide for himself. Do not censor the very word "Russian peacekeeper" as if it were an oxymoron. Stanimir (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They are military and they have guns. But they are peacekeepers, and as such are officially recognized by all interested parties - Georgia, South Ossetia, the USA, Russia and the CIS. Is there anything else to discuss about wording?85.202.113.34 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Russia could call these soldiers flower salesmen: it's semantics. The fact is any unwanted incursion on sovereign territory is an invasion. Invading another country because you undermined its authority by giving out phony passports is an act of war. It is semantically correct to call these soldiers "invaders" or "the invasionary forces". It would be preferable to simply refer to them as "the soldiers", "the troops" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true for Russian troops, which were imposed after the conflict began, but this does not apply to the Russian peacekeeping battalion, he had been there under the treaty. --Eraser (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why it's not on frontpage?

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Now lets find someone to answer. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is now.--Southeastern Everglades (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, why is it not getting the coverage it deserves in the media? Answer: Because of the Olympics! Hmmm... what's more important to report on? War breaking out in Europe, or the olympics? Unfortunately, we now know the answer.SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Russian tanks enter South Ossetia" is the main story on BBC News and "Georgia 'under attack' as Russian tanks roll in" on CNN. Well, even Al-Jazeera has "Russian tanks enter South Ossetia". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

News on CNN is terrible, i think. They're obviously not 'neutral'. Just a remark. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This morning (US time) CNN was primarily covering the war as opposed to the olympics. I don't know about the other stations. The few minutes I watched seemed pro Georgian since they were intervewing the Georgian president but I didn't stick around long enough to see if they were planning on interviewing someone from Russia or not. Jon (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the interview was prety "funny". CNN interviewer: "Is your tiny country at war with Russia?" 0:46 What? Georgia isn't tiny. It isn't huge, but it's above the median of the world countries sorted by size. His face after a question like that and his reaction time to such an adjective says it all. Also interesting how the president eludes the interviewer's question about Georgia attacking first 6:13.

The media (in the United States)isn't covering this because it isn't juicy enough. Absurd, I know, but Edward's affair appeals much more to the carnal minded attention of the American Public. FYI I'm American so I can say this haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.188.11 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm American and Edwards has been 3rd fiddle to this conflict and the Olympics. If you were in South Carolina, I could see how things could be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NATO Reaction

From NATO's Official Website:

"Statement by the NATO Secretary General on events in South Ossetia

The NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is seriously concerned about the events that are taking place in the Georgian region of South Ossetia and said that the Alliance is closely following the situation. The Secretary General calls on all sides for an immediate end of the armed clashes and direct talks between the parties"

Source: Statement by the NATO Secretary General on events in South Ossetia LCpl (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"voluntary 429th Cossack division"

I wonder what with the other 428 voluntary Cossack divisions.

Is this a comedy relief or something? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly not. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The 428 divsions are mostly not, or is the comedy mostly not? What is happening with the 146th and the 317th Cossack divisions? Should we really post every clown's statement? (hint-hint) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

These Cossack divisions is unimportant at this moment. They're something like small patriotic groups. Not comedy, but mostly useless in real battle imho. (Not to mention they will get to Georgia in not less than a month) Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't say so. They are constantly trained, they are strong. If they want they will be in Tbilisi in 12 hours, just sent them an invitation. If they'll really like it, they'll take it with them home. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They're training - for a minute - with Shashkas, horses and old rifles. I doubt they can make it to Tbilisi in 12 hours, at least without getting dropped from heavy bomber. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, dude. Plastun Cossacks are known for their training in stealthy assault. They can sneak up on you and get a knife through your heart before you can realize it =^.^= -- Wesha (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In russian wiki, there are Don Cossack voluntary fighters listed as part of the Ossetian side: 23px Донское Войско (добровольцы)90.190.166.173 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the name to the one quoted in the relevant news article. And the article uses the term "regiment". I do not know how it shall be raised, where, under whose orders, part of what structure. I simply translated the words of the ataman. Hope that helps. Russoswiss (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an English-language article here Esn (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentence about Russian troops in the introduction

Chystal has removed the sentence I added in the introduction about the presence of Russian troops. The explanation doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what the wording should be, but I am sure that the fact that Russian troops are directly involved is a big part of the importance of the subject. Therefore we need a sentence on it in the article lead; what do others think? -- SCZenz (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When they rally do something then we enter it. And the brakeaway, well, just for the record de-facto they are independent and even Georgia calls them Breakaway (they use more words but those are censored). Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. Russian troops have crossed the border and are occupying territory, and it's big international news because of that. Therefore it ought to be in the article lead. I'm not tied to the wording, but leaving it out as though it's somehow unimportant hurts the article. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Even the frontpage says "Russian troops move across the border as Georgian military forces enter the breakaway republic of South Ossetia." --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's true I have seen it on the News. What i do think is the Russia have yet done anything to enter the intruduction. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Their tanks are occupying territory that is recognized, by most of the world's countries, as belonging to Georgia. Without taking a point of view on whose territory it is, the magnitude of the conflict is remarkable. That's why the fact is getting top billing on all news sources, and that makes it notable. I'll restore at least a brief sentence on the Russian presence unless you can explain your views with something other than "they haven't done anything yet"—they have done something, they crossed what most countries recognize as a border. With tanks. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on this. Mentioning presence is ok. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. So, if it was late 1999 and the Georgian Army just crossed the border with Chechnya while talking about defending Chechens from Russia, and the Georgian soldiers are dying from the Russian attacks, and Russia says Georgia is involved in the fighting, what else they would have to do else to get important? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Those were peace keepers not soldiers, and they were mentioned in the casualeties. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Georgia says it was invaded by armoured columns (and that's what the Russian TV showed, too) and even that Russian waplanes are bombing Georgian territory while "specifically targeting civilian population" in "the worst nightmare one can encounter", nothing about "peacekeeping troops" or what not. Please see what peacekeeping is (as opposed to "peacemaking"). And you didn't really answer my question. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ignore this troll, guys, he's User:M.V.E.i.. Blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  Given this fact, and the folks who agree with me above, I've put the sentence back in. I'm not committed to the wording or sourcing at all, so I'm sure that will be edited, but I do think it's vital to include something about Russia's involvement, as I explained above. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I NPOVed this phrase a little (allegedly to protect Ossetians who hold Russian passports). Main question is about the casus belli for intervention by Russia. Remeber that Hitler justified his occupation of the Sudetenland by his desire to protect ethnic Germans who formed a majority of the population there. In that case however, these people are not "ethnic Russians", but simply people who hold Russian passports given to them only recently. Older people there also receive official pensions (money) from Russian government.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are any problems with that, please discuss it here instead of continue your reverts.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russian peacekeepers" - do they have a name?

So we can say "[acronym] troops" or whatever.

Also, I'd prefer "Russian troops" (because they are Russian troops and the rest - "peacekeepers" or "occupiers" - is POV). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Peacekeepers" should seriously be replaced by something else. Not only in Georgia, but also in the west they have often expressed their dissatisfaction about russian presence here. A term like that carries a moral judgement and fails wp:npov. - Pieter_v (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Now maybe I don't know as much fancy lingo as some people, but what the hell does Russian ex officio troops mean, exactly?SpudHawg948 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The battalion of Russian troops deployed in South Ossetia through peaceful arrangements between the sides to the conflict. Under these treaties, the Russian soldiers performing a peacekeeping mission in the conflict zone. It is therefore reasonable to call them peacekeepers, with Georgian point of view recorded in a footnote.

This is correct. There were also Georgian peacekeepers, and one other country. JoshNarins (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise becomes unclear whether the Russian invasion can be a question, because in the article written that the Russian forces already present in South Ossetia before the conflict. --Eraser (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the Russkies entitled to deploy new "peacekeeping" troops at their own discretion? This is the problem. Colchicum (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

as

Russia obviously considers it their right to invade countries that had once been part of the U.S.S.R. in order to "back up" ethnic Russians. This is the problem. All of the countries that used to be part of the U.S.S.R. are being bullied by this military "Right" of Russia.65.68.1.90 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ossetians are not "ethnic Russians".Biophys (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia has a mandate under OSCE Mission to Ossetia to maintain what is called a "peacekeeping" force there. Here's a reference: http://www.osce.org/georgia/22955.html 97.104.12.80 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"The monitors patrol independently and in co-operation with the tripartite JPKF (comprising one battalion each of Georgian, North Ossetian and Russian peacekeepers, under Russian command and joint supervision by the JCC)." Repeat, one battalion. Colchicum (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all the other forces cannot be called peacekeepers. We don't know the strength of Russian troops that moved to SO though. Alæxis_¿question? 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But the battalion under the command of Marat Kulakhmetov, is the peacekeeping forces, so the text of the article must be edited. Units of the 58th Army, arrived in South Ossetia, can be called the invasion forces (Georgian POV) or reinforcement for peacekeeping contingent (Russian POV). --Eraser (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace."[1] Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development."

So, are they now "peacekeeping" (UN-definition, not Russia's) or not? If not, they are not "peacekeepers". By this I meant the "peackeeping battalions", because the "reinforcement" are obviosuly not. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious, you are being very repetitive. Do you have an agenda? The Russian troops are peacekeepers, because they have a legal mandate to be there. They are there as provided by the agreement that brought forth the ceasation of hostilities on July 14th, 1992. Just like there were Georgian peacekeepers in South Ossetia as part of the same peacekeeping force and on the basis of the same agreement. Now if you want to argue that the Russian peacekeepers were not really "peacekeeping" you can make your case in the article. What they did and did not do however does not change the fact that they are technically and legally peacekeepers. Stanimir (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeepers? Two regions of Georgia, which just happen to be of differing ethnic backgrounds and allies of Russia try to break away. Both have almost no military at the time...... And now, there are Russian soldiers within Georgia forcing their desires. Both regions have magically gained Tanks, RPG's, and more. And, the Russian "Peacekeepers" are invading Georgia. The term is "occupying army" or "invaders". And, does the word DURESS mean anything to you??.. Look it up. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress] Georgia never "wanted" Russian military within their borders. It was a forced occupation made under duress.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

.65.68.1.90, you are incredibly ignorant. Both the Ossetians and Abhazians are ethnic Russians to you? I will not even address the rest of your ramblings. No use wasting breath on such a simpleton. Stanimir (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So, how did the Russians come up with the IMMEDIATE ability to invade Georgia if all they are is "Peacekeepers"? And, how did a "humanitarian aid" convoy appear within hours after Georgia began to move in? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not an "oversimplification". It is pure and unrestrained idiocy. Ossetians are a seperate ethnicity as are the Abhazians. They are not even related to the Russians. Claiming otherwise reveals you as either a simpleton or someone with an agenda. In either case you are not worth discussing with. Stanimir (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more personal attacks.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Other dispute regarding existing content here

THIS is war room so let's argue here instead of edi-warring over war Okay? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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.[12] - 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)

Map

Just stumbled upon this article looking for more information. Is there an available map like the ones commonly found on Wikipedia? The region in grey and the highlighted version in green, or something like that. Anything better than the black-and-white present one. It's not very informative. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.80.65 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be pretty simple for someone wanting to add colors to do so, you might need to be logged in though for posting images. Just avoid color combos known to have color blindness issues as well as color combos that appear to favor one side over the other. Jon (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Times

Since this is an event on earth (as opposed to outer space), local time zones are prefered with UTC in ()s. So as part of the wikification process to Aug 8th (and also later portions of the previous section), the times should be changed to the local timezone for South Ossetia. (Hopefully the combatants are in agrement on what timezone should apply to South Ossetia.) Jon (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, as far as I know. SO uses +3 while Georgia uses +4 :) Alæxis_¿question? 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of problems with the underlaying Georgia & South Ossetia articles though is they are stating raw UTCs without offical timezone names and also don't explictly state weather or not they observe daylight savings time. If they observe daylight savings time, and raw UTC is being stated it could just be that the more commonly edited article had the UTC corrected to reflect daylight savings time but the other didn't. Jon (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

SO is in the Moscow time zone (and thus dst is observed there). Alæxis_¿question? 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

SO uses daylight saving, so at now it is UTC+4 there (and UTC+3 in winter, but there is a summer). --Alexander Widefield (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian equipment

I'd really like to add info about the Russian equipment which is in South Ossetia now. According to sources 58th Army and the 4th Air Army are "there." Does this mean they have all the equipment listed in the wikipedia articles of those units with them? Is it safe to add those to the article? Offliner (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In the video feeds I definitely identified the following:

• 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled howitzer
• 9K37 Buk self propelled SAM system
• 9K51 Grad MRLS
• T-72 tanks
• BMP-1 APC
• MT-LB multi-purpose APC
• Sukhoy Su-25 attack aircraft
• Mi-24 attack helicopter
• Tu-22 frontline bomber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.38.178 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• (more to be added) -- Wesha (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Dear wikieditors, please do not remove important information which is sourced by Russian or Georgian-language sources. Biased as they are, they present the most immediate sources of information, being closer to the conflict than Western sources. I really understand that most of you cannot read Russian, but you may use http://translate.google.com to get a good idea of what Russian-language article is saying. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody removed, all sourses, on anybody languale is legal. Канопус Киля (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Own official, okay? Like what Georgia says about Georgian. AND SOURCED. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Two Russian planes downed, a Su-25 and a Tu-22, confirmed by Russian military. Source. --Illythr (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Official and soursed numbers for South Ossetia are: 1400 civilian casualties during the first day of Georgian offensive after bombardments of Tskhinvali (Kokoity, the president of South Ossetia republic as quoted by (The Independent), (Reuters)). Please include this number in the article, as it now states that Ossetian casualties 'unknown'. Please also consider that these claim of casualties was done BEFORE and one of THE REASONS why Russian army entered the conflict. Please mind that and do not let the article on that matter read as if these casualties were in any part caused by Russian fire.85.202.113.34 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Information sources as references

The article is based mostly on Russian official statements and Russian news services. Therefore the article can not be taken very seriously unless the balance of sources and accuracy is increased significantly. I´m concerned about the neutrality-realistic-informational presentation of this article.Karabinier (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Russian users also far outnumber Georgian users here. A neutrality tag would be fitting at the moment. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see plenty of the Georgian POV in the article. Most of the presidents statements are mentioned, and most sources used in this article are Western (BBC, Google, Yahoo, IHT etc..) LokiiT (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyberwar section

Please add something on Russian cyberattacks on Georgian government websites. Minsitry of Foreign Affaris website http://www.mfa.gov.ge/ was first to be attacked. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it atacked if i enter it without problems? Bring a reference and we have a deal. It's me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mfa.gov.ge/ is professionally hacked (contains nothing but a collage of the pictures of Saakashvili mixed with the pictures of Hitler). Why are you lieing now, Mr. liar? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Now i see it, hhh god they do look alike!!! It's me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's me, i brought the stuff, are you the same person as User:Chrystal Blue Moon?

Not that i know so, are you him? It's me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Russian-speakers can read a very interesting opinion [13]. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone please do something about the troll. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian aircrafts from Armenia

According to several sources two bombs were dropped on Vaziani military base. And they report that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Russian army’s 102nd base in Gumru, Armenia. [14] This fact should be taken into consideration and placed in the article. Baku87 (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another source by topix.com they also state that Russian aircrafts from the military base in Armenia were used in a attack. See [Topix.com] Baku87 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another time/date question

Under "International organizations", it says "European Union - On August 9, Nicolas Sarkozy ... announced" - but the Le Monde article linked to is clearly dated August 8. The first time given there is 19h28 (presumably French time), in which case surely it would be before midnight even in Georgia. Loganberry (Talk) 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Isn't this against standard Wikipedia procedures? I think outside users would have a lot of specific knowledge to add here. Tfine80 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons: mostly because banned user User:M.V.E.i. is running around with sockpuppets: secondly because this is a highly controversial topic and I don't want a flood of anons turning the page into a complete mess of nationalist dogfights. If anons have something constructive to contribute they can do so here on the talk page. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are likely hundreds of anonymous users around the world capable of adding to this critical article. They are very unlikely to use the talk pages. It is important that the article not be blocked simply because of one user. Dealing with nationalism is inevitable on these sorts of pages and it simply needs to be watched closely. Tfine80 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This is a very similar situation to what we had when Kosovo declared independence. It was agreed at the time to keep the main page locked down and let anons post on the talk. It's not so hard to find. This is an equally contentious topic, possibly more so. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The knee-jerk reaction to block may have occurred with Kosovo, but it is not something that is consistent with long-time Wikipedia traditions. Before this recent practice became common, we were frequently able to manage these sorts of episodes, and the articles benefited enormously because of the outside contributions and error-checking. Many Russians and Caucasus folks may want to contribute to the English Wikipedia for the first time. We should not be so unwelcoming, and not all of them will incorporate biased nationalism. Tfine80 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with whats being said in the above by Tfine80. This censorship is new and not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.17.233 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan's reaction

Azerbaijani governmential officials have repeatedly supported Georgia in this matter, here is a quote by the spokesman for Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry:

Azerbaijan recognizes the territorial integrity of Georgia and the conflict should be settled on the basis of this very principle. He also said that in line with international law Georgia has a right to restore its territorial integrity and the UN charter is a proof of it. Georgia's actions comply with international law.

Thats whats been said from the Azerbaijani side Baku87 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added Azerbaijan's reaction to the list. In the future, feel free to be bold and edit it in yourself. :) Kingnavland (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I mistakenly thought the article was fully protected, thanks for your aid Baku87 (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of the start of the war

Shouldn't it be the time when massive hostilities started, that is on August 7, the date of "Georgian operation begins"? I can't take "sniper war" seriously - I never heard of such thing, it's "incidents" not "war". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So? August 1 or 7/8? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkish support to Georgian gov't

Turkey has, according to Reuters, agreed to supply electricity over and above the usual Georgian requirements. This is in response to a Georgian request. Worthy of addition to the section on Turkish reaction to the crisis? Source:http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL86733520080808Thuycidides the Younger (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Response

I noticed in the "Reactions" section that we've noted John McCain's response to the events, but not Obama's. We should include either both or neither of them.

You are correct, I was just on my way to edit in the Obama statement. Kingnavland (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to myself, I might note that I'm not sure either reaction should be noted, as Obama and McCain do not speak for the American government, and I don't see a reaction from David Cameron in the UK response paragraph. That being said, it's the least of our worries right now. If there's wikipolicy on this, it can be applied later when the article is fully wiki-fied. Kingnavland (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the political motives of Presidential Candidates doesn't necessarily coincide with those of our State Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehaalandtluk (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I removed them but I was reverted with no reason given. Neither of them belong in this article under the section "states" as neither of them speak for the state. Ostap 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By that metric, Winston Churchill's commentary on German aggression prior to May 10, 1940 would be non-notable. And since when do Senators not speak for the government? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think they speak for their constituents. I think we should stick with foreign ministers, presidents, prime ministers etc. Why include these two just because they are presumptive nominees? If we include them, we could include the entire US congress which is not needed. Ostap 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What McCain and Obama think is irrelevant, because they don't speak for anyone but themselves and isn't going to make a lick of difference as to what happens here. As for speaking for their constituents, perhaps we can have the opinion of Paro Dzongkhag included, as they too would be speaking for their constituents, or is it that a nobody in terms of effects in this conflict from the US is more important than anyone else? Sorry, but the opinions of electioneering combatants in the US take a backseat in this conflict; what is more important, even more important than what Bush and Co think, is the opinions of the ex-Soviet states, and perhaps more importance should be placed on their opinions than of some nobody senators with no power to do anything. --Россавиа ^Диалог 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Then we agree, but I wouldn't take it that far. Ostap 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent events

Russians are repulsed from Tskhinvali, but they then bombed the Georgian vital port of Poti and the town of Senaki. Please add recent actions by the Russian imperialists to the article. There are several casualties among civilians but thousands are volunteering in the army. Thousands of Georgians are holding a rally at the Russian embassy in Tbilisi. The Russian ambassador is reportedly evacuated because of a fear of public revenge. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

please refrain from POV remarks both here and in the article. As for your information, please give us the sources proving that. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you are very welcome to comment on the subject subject of improving this article. Everyone has POV; free discussion is allowed and encouraged. There are no obligation to provide sources at the talk pages, unless one makes uncivil comments or defamatory claims with regard to a living person.Biophys (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, commenting on the subject is explicitly not the purpose of a talk page. The talk page is intended to be dedicated to how best to improve the article. In fact, a very large banner at the top of this talk page prohibits discussion of the subject of the article (for its own sake). Christiangoth (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and that is exactly what this user was doing: he commented about improvement of this article. That was also what I mean.Biophys (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the newsgeorgia.ru site [15], a military base near the Vaziani has been bombed again tonight. Vaziani is the base used as the site of U.S. training operations. News about the base: [16] (it has been bombed again tonight). I can't add this to the page (can't get autoconfirmed status), so please someone do it. Sorhed (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Military Equipment and Statistics.

The table showing military equipment should not be removed. I don't necessarily agree with Georgian and Russian country statistics, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehaalandtluk (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How do I report user 'Wingsforsheeba' for repeatedly removing information which may be relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehaalandtluk (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors and please sign your comments using three or four tildes (~) --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why citation marks for "hundreds" and "peacekeepers"

It is what the main Russian English-language propaganda outlet (Russia Today) is saying - unless there are neutral reports of "hundreds" of "volunteers" (and not dozens and not thousands and not two and their dog), for example, we can't present it's as a fact. Same for casualties - it is the Russian command saying the [number] dead/injured are "peacekeepers". It's not facts, it's what the propaganda sources are claiming.

Also maybe it should be "officially" instad of "confirmed". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, how do you tell pro-Russian propaganda from pro-Georgian propaganda? Though it doesn't matter actually — just stick to the sources. Russians call them peacekeepers, which they actually are, because they officialy use uniform, logos etc. of peacekeeping forces — doesn't matter whether they go killing Georgians or playing balalaikas, they are still officially peacekeepers. We should present both points of view (Georgia: occupiers; Russia: peacekeepers) and leave aside these "quotation marks" and revert wars. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see what peacekeeping is. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also also, I'm for changing all "volunteers" in the article except for in quotes/link titles, because it's really unknown who they are besides being irregulars for sure (even if they would be, say, dress-up GRU commandos or mercenaries or whatever, they still would be classiffied just as "irregulars" in this situation, I guess). Except for the stuff like "volunteers joing Russian/Ossetian/Georgian" official forces (in the sense of enlisting and into their own), of course. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody really cares here what you think about volunteers and peacekeepers. If Russian media calls them volunteers and peacekeepers, the article should state that. If Georgian/other sources call them otherwise, the article should state that as well. Anything else is POV and original research. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, what? This is what I'm saying. Without quotation marks only when confirmed by neutral sources. So, unless it is confirmed by neutral (like UN mission or whatever) sources that all "volunteers" are really volunteers, they're irregulars. And again, please see the official international definition of peacekeeping. And also what is peace enforcement (still, only neutral forces!) and peacemaking (I think even this does not apply, but maybe because this is just badly written). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What's a neutral source? Just because you think something is propaganda doesn't make it so. I could call BBC propaganda and put everything they write in "quotes" using the same excuse. LokiiT (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How about UN? HRW? OSCE? (BBC being propaganda - UK is not the side of the conflict, so fail. But foreign journalists too should only be "according to".) ---Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain is correct. We must avoid pro-Russian propaganda AND pro-Georgian propaganda. We must avoid any propaganda per WP rules. Giving way to all types of propaganda is not method to create neutral articles. BBC is a more neutral source simply because UK is not a side in the conflict. Besides, the independence of media in both Russia and Georgia is questionable Biophys (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

UK/USA being not a part of the conflict means nothing here: Western sources are almost as biased as Russian are. CNN reports for example are strikingly anti-Russian. Remember, we, editors of Wikipedia, must not judge who is right and who is wrong. We should just present ALL the points of view, all claims, all notable opinions — Russian, Georgian, third-party. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we should not present all views. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of garbage. We should only present notable and relevant factual information and scholarly views, as supported by reliable sources. We must select most reliable sources, and the CNN is certainly a more reliable source than "Russia Today".Biophys (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN reports I saw were just a biased version of Russian sources. Anyways, doesn't matter already, I'm going to sleep :) Good luck to you at your wikiwars :) --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Ivanoff is correct about some things I saw on CNN, they depicted footage of mobile rocket launchers as being Russian, when in fact they were Georgian, as I ascertained from other news sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If CNN is unbiased (which it's not in my opinion) it is definetly innacurate in some of its reporting. For instance the video http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2008/08/08/vo.ga.fighting.ap is titled Damage in Georgia. The photage is recognizable from other reports and it is taken from the Ossetian capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.248.45.225 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's getting tough here, "the majority (e.g. Biophys) is convinced that information from the main stream media is correct and reliable". Now we know why DEMOCRACY is so effective. Please use internet wisely, whenever you see News about any other nation, it is wise to go and check their own web site (most of the reporters speak and write reports in Enlgish language and have much more knowledge about what is happening in their own countries...Davedawit (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Davedawit thanks for your advice, but these people are trying to improve the article, stick to that vein. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "peacekeepers" and "volunteers" means something different in the sources. It's a citation. For example: According to Mr. Blah there are "hundreds" of "peacekeepers" in the region. Meaning that the Mr. Blah says they are peacekeepers, and he says there are hundreds of them, but the newspaper doesn't neccesarily agree or not-agree with him on the number or the title. It only states that this is what someone said. I think it's good and NPOV practice. Suva Чего? 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because Western countries are not directly involved in the conflict does not mean their media outlets are by definition not biased. Western countries do maintain very close relations with Georgia after all and for example the United States helped in restructuring and training the Georgian army. Nobody would claim a source from Belarus is not suspect of being pro-Russian despite Belarus being neutral in the conflict, but equally so BBC and CNN and similar sources must be suspect of being pro-Georgian. Stanimir (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Report from war field have been affected of what is known as "embedding Journalism", War field reporters (BBC. CNN, FOX, RU etc.) sign contracts with the military that limited what they are allowed to report (in order to win public opinion). Hence it is appropriate not to use names like BBC or CNN which are pro-Giorgia sharing both political and economic common interest. Instead we must put both parties Georgia and Russia report separately, as this will permit for the reader to decide to come to its own conclusion.Davedawit (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent news

I'm sorry that I cannot provide sources because most of English-language Georgia websites have been cyber-attacked. The Russian air strikes are expected in Georgia's capital Tbilisi. The president's palace, parliament, and ministries are being evacuated. Hospitals are full of wounded and injured. People are adviced to go into the subway. The Russians launched another round of strikes against the Georgian ports. Some reports say they have already opened the second front in Abkhazia. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Front in Abkhasia is obviously a lie Kuroki Kaze (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this 93.177 guy from Caucasus (judging by the IP) is trying to make a panic and become a source of rumours. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, guy. People are dying under the attacks of your kinsmen on a hourly basis. The tv has just showed the destroyed port of Poti, with several killed and wounded. Have a dignity! Infromation is available only in Georgian. That's why I'm posting the news here in English. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dying people is not an excuse for disinformation. I pretty much doubt, for example, that people could be advised to go to the subway (which is closed now, BTW) instead of shelters. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:AGF.Biophys (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but the world mass media spared some correspondents from Beijing to Tbilisi, so it's not like if it's an English-languagen information blockade but we'll wait for what the "official" reports say. I'm not following updating of this article, though. I was concentrating on the infobox - and I still don't think Russia should still retain any kind of "peacekeeping" pretense after becoming a combatant side and apparently even attacking targets outside South Ossetia. (Reports like "Despite denials from Moscow, the Russian air force has been carrying out air raids in South Ossetia and Georgia itself, says the BBC's Richard Galpin, in Gori, eastern Georgia.") --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Weapons

Removed (OR, incomplete/misleading), so here

Type	Georgian Army	South Ossetian Army	Russian Army
Tanks	T-72, T-55	15 T-55 and T-72 tanks	T-80
APC's/IFV's	Otokar Cobra, BTR-80	24 APCs
Artillery	VZ 77 Dana, BM-21	120 mm mortars	2S3 Akatsiya
Air Defence	BUK-M1, S-125	6 Osa, 3 Tunguska, 3 Shilka, and 6 Strela-10, 12 23-mm ZU-23/2
Aircraft	Su-25, MiG-25	Su-25 (Rumored)	Su-25, Su-24, Su-27
Helicopters	UH-1H, Mi-24	4 MI-8
Small Arms, Light Weapons	M-4, M-16, G-36, Tavor, AK-47, AK-74, RPG-7	AK-47, RPG-7, 9K111 Fagot and Konkurs anti-tank rocket systems	AK-74

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is a "personal opinion" of Russian RIA Novosty journalist Ilya Kramnik. Any better sources?Biophys (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this Table was correctly removed. There is a better source (Russian).Biophys (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What do we do for cited Georgian websites that go down due to the conflict???

Currently citation number 10 in the article links to a Georgian website. This is the website: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18871

The site has gone down. My presumption is that this was a legitimate citation that has gone down due to Russian action, but I don't know. Do we pull the citation or not? If we do, then it seems like the events themselves are dictating their Wikipedia coverage, and there is a risk of this and future conflicts receiving unbalanced coverage favoring the side that is able to maintain its own websites and take down those of its opponent. This would inevitably result in coverage at least a little biased in favor of the strong. However, if we don't take the citation down then we can't be sure that it is legitimate and even if it is we risk creating a precedent for leaving up unverifiable citations which could lead to illegitimate citation in this or future conflicts. I am at a loss as to how best to proceed. Christiangoth (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave it for now and look for an alternative source for this. Also try Google cache is possible. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Google cache: [17]. I think there's no problem in leaving it up for now. Esn (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to click the 'text version' link on the top left. It loads faster. --Leladax (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily certain this is Russian/South Ossetian cyberwarfare, I think it's just the Georgian servers getting overwhelmed. I was able to access the page without too much delay. Kingnavland (talk) 21:53, 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)

Fighters from Gyumri Air Base (Armenia)

Baku87, we all know that Azerbaijan spreads fairy tales about Armenia, Karabakh's history, and cultural monuments in Nakhichevan, but please let it not spread here. If they did fly from there, and if it indeed was a violation, find a more reliable source than something produced in Azerbaijan (topix.com is not reliable and it looks like they've just cut & pasted from the Azeri website).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

topix.com looks reliable enough to me. If you have concerns, please ask at WP:RS noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is not. The page clearly displays that the source is an Azeri propaganda site and that topix merely reposted it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan your quick to jump to conclusion about me or Azerbaijan spreading so called fairy tales, you are obviously an Armenian and are thus biased regarding me or Azerbaijan. But anyways Azerbaijani or not that has nothing to do with this issue, please dont turn this into a battlefield based on different unrelated articles. Topix.com is a reliable website and you have no right to remove it Baku87 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

According to its own entry, topix.com is a news aggregator, that means it collects sources, it doesn't file them. There is no author, no news organization name, and its wording is similar to that of the original Azeri source. An Azeri source counts for nothing on something so controversial, especially on saying that the flights are in violation of a hitherto unknown treaty. Once you find CNN, the BBC, or the Washington Post confirming that planes took off from there, can you then leave that information. Don't let administrators come and tell you all this.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the rules topix.com is enough as a source, your just trying to cover things up and now you have invited several of your countrymen to join you in your cover up. Just look at the source for a sec, its good enough. If you can find a source that denounces this we could use that. I have proven this and if you dont agree you should proof me wrong with another source.Baku87 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have referred the matter to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Kingnavland (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For the last time. Topix is not the SOURCE. An Azeri user posted the article from an Azeri source on Topix. End of story.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you dont even want to consider looking into the source, I will post it here for you:

Russian aircraft bombing near Tbilisi took off from Russian base in Armenia Georgian new agencies report that Russian military aircrafts bombed Vaziani base near Tbilisi at 15.10 by local time. Two bombs were reportedly dropped on the military base. No casualties are reported in the base. Gruziya Online website reports that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Armenia. The agency mentions that there is an air regiment in Russian army’s 102nd base in Gumru, Armenia. According to the agreement signed between Georgia and Armenia, Armenia can not allow any other state to attack Georgia from its territory. Full Story: www.guardian.co.uk This is a reliable source and it seems you are the one who is to prove this did not occur. So please provide me with a source of your own proving this fact wrong. Dont start playing revert games, but rather proof this wrong. Baku87 (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You have now violated 3RR. Your source is: is an online azeri publication, hence not reliable.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't took a look at what is being reverted, but that is the website of the Azeri-Press Agency, a news agency, and should be an acceptable source. Nikola (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the source you have given Eupator but it is something different than the one I presented to you. Eupator I showed you the link and the article written in it but you keep on refering to different sources. You keep neglecting my sources and for this you are ion violating of the rules. Once again the source is from topxi.com it is a reliable source and should be mentioned in this article Baku87 (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The source I gave you is reliable for now according to several members. The only opposing members are Eupator and MarshallBagramyan whom both are of Armenian decent so its pretty obvious that their accusations are biased. The fact remains that Russian aircraft from the Russian military base in Armenia was used in the bombing. Baku87 (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is the fact. Armenia has very little to say when the Kremlin decides to use its territory for attacks on the neigboring country. Admit it! --93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, once again these are Russian aircrafts (presumable MIG-29 which are multi-fighters for both air and ground attackes) who attacked Georgia, so these are not Armenian aircrafts but they came from the Russian base in Armenia. Also Armenian officials comment on this event denying the accusation, see here. This information is important to note, we need to insert this, perhaps we can also note that Armenia denies this event either way it cannot be completly ignore it. Baku87 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin Says `War Has Started,' Georgia Claims Invasion (Update4)

[18]
Also I read Dutch sources that according to Kacha Lomaia, Mikhail is about to, or already has declared war on Russia. Maybe this article will become the Russian-Georgian War? - Pieter_v (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Premature. I hope not.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Georgia's pro-Western President Mikheil Saakashvili said the two states were at war." [19] - Pieter_v (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This situation exposes several articles that are undeveloped in wikipedia

Russia, Foreign relations of Russia, Territorial disputes of the Russian Federation, absolutely striking how undeveloped they are. --Leladax (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. But anyone who wants to improve article "Russia" runs into serious problems.Biophys (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from even that. Not even subjects that all sides discuss are included. --Leladax (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You can help! Plus there's plenty of small countries which have almost no information. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Don Republic article badly needs a good translation of the Russian article. It's not the same as the Don Cossacks, as far as I can make out (see outside reaction section). I myself am very confused about what it is exactly. Esn (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Finnish reaction

Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, also serving as the OSCE chairman-in-office, has been in contact with both Tbilisi and Tskhinvali, urging the parties to stop any military action and to try and restore direct talks instead. He has decided to deploy his Special Envoy immediately to Georgia, and is also himself preparing to travel to the region.

http://www.formin.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=134713&nodeid=15145&culture=en-US

- Mimu Bunnylin 213.159.245.240 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try and add that in. Esn (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. 213.159.245.240 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All these volunteers.

Who are the Russian volunteers? Average Ivans from Moscow or North Ossetians with Russian citizenships? If not then why aren't North Ossetian volunteers listed?

What about Don Cossack's 450 signed up people from "volunteer 429th independent motor rifle regiment" they will be listed if/when they ever reach Ossetia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that it's more than 450 by now; it was 450 when he announced that he's inviting volunteers. Also, as I said above, the Don Republic article really needs to be translated/worked on. I'm not even sure what it is exactly. There's quite a bit more info in the Russian wiki. Esn (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• More about volunteers from The Guardian [20]. Garret Beaumain (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it in to the "Don Cossacks" response section. Although there are some things in that article that should be added to the main sections. Esn (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some info about Terek Cossack volunteer involvement: [21] Esn (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Military advisers

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358 "Georgian tanks and infantry, aided by Israeli military advisers, captured the capital of breakaway..."

What does that article mean? That Israelis helped plan the attack or what? (1st source I see mentioning Israel)

Well, I'm not sure of the reliability... I added it in for now with the disclaimer that Debka.com says so. I also added this, from August 5. Esn (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, it was removed because it was "not an Israeli reaction to the war as such". I still think that it is clearly related to the conflict and should be in there somewhere. Esn (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia is claiming that Israel continues to supply them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

hint: when people metnieon "military advisers", they mean this: military advisor -- "Military advisors, or combat advisors, are soldiers sent to foreign nations to aid that nation with its military training, organization, and other various military tasks. These soldiers usually do not actually engage in combat and are often sent to aid a nation without the potential casualties and political ramifications of actually mobilizing military forces to aid a nation" Smith Jones (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It still should be mentioned somewhere. I added the August 5 news back in. Esn (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There are 127 American military advisers in Georgia, I don't know if it is useful to the article, but here is the source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWTvvsJl_Fw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What cut their internet connection?

Nothing seems to be working. --Leladax (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This has relevance to a previous talk point that I began earlier in this page on how we are supposed to deal with cited sources going down due to the conflict (either due to cyber-warfare or destruction of necessary hardware. Georgian websites cited in the article were down for a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiangoth (talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Don Republic"

What's the meaning of this text from the Russian wiki entry for Don Republic?

ВКО объединяет т. н. «реестровых» казаков, то есть состоящих на государственной службе в соответствии с Федеральным законом от 05 декабря 2005 г. N 154-ФЗ «О государственной службе российского казачества», а его Устав утверждён Указом Президента РФ от 17 июня 1997 г. № 612.

There are some links to the relevant government documents. Just what kind of organization is this? The Russian article also says that there are 135,000 members.

Esn (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a Federal Law reglementing the organisation of "cossack societies" within the Russian Federation. Namely it reglements the conclusion of service agreements between such societies and federal, regional and municipal branches of power. I think it also foresees special arrangements for military service, creation of cossack-enrolled regiments with historic names. It also foresees a role for cossack societies in upkeeping public peace by supporting local police forces.

This law does not create Cossack regional entities within Russia and it does not give the Cossack hosts (about twenty of them officially registered in Russia, if I remember correctly) any self-rule. The Cossack Host society "Grand Host of the Don" is one of such societies, with 135'000 registered members (reestroviye kazaki - registered cossacks). Russoswiss (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Found Canada's Response

http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&publication_id=386429&Language=E&docnumber=173

I'd add it but I'm not whole good with the reference thing...

Thanks. I added it in. Esn (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Hey, this might be odd, but I think this should be the talk page topic to formally discuss casualties for the entire history of this article. Debate and whatnot regarding them here as well. Anywho: 1- Any word on the exact configuration of the 30 Georgian casualties? Do these include the losses in the recent bombings? 2- What about the forces of South Ossetia and their allies(Non-Russian): ANY word on them? -Shane

israel arms freeze?

Look at these two links:

[22]

[23]

So, this information has not been proven true and could actually just be a rumor. The article should accommodate this information.

Also, it seems that Israel is selling arms to Georgia because of the fact that Russia is selling advanced military tech to Israel's enemies.

[24]

Contralya (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Commanders

• Vladimir Putin is the Prime Minister of Russia and Dmitry Medvedev is the [[President of Russia. According to Wikipedia, it is the President who is Commander-in-chief and not the Prime Minister. Therefore from a legal point of view I am not sure how much official influence Putin can have on the war. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NerdyNSK. The commanders listed should regard those that have legal command of the units on the battlefield in all instances except when it can be adequately demonstrated that forces are taking orders from someone else. Whether or not Putin has direct or indirect control of Medvedev in any way is inconsequential to the fact that Medvedev is actually the Russian Commander-In-Chief. Christiangoth (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. I don't think many would argue that Putin is not still the real power within Russia.65.68.1.90 (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any reference saying that the troops participating in the conflict receive orders from Putin, or at least that Putin tells the President what to say to the tropps, or something like that? Without a reference, this sounds like speculation. NerdyNSK (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible NPOV issue about the name?

I read on the BBC that Georgia does not accept the name South Ossetia and calls the region by its ancient name or its capital city. If this is true, then we have to think whether our name of the article (2008 South Ossetia War) could be viewed as POV. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... shouldn't that be an issue for the South Ossetia article first and foremost? Esn (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, it would also be an issue for any article containing any name for this region. If what I read on BBC is correct then by using the name "South Ossetia" we make it appear as pro-Russia or pro-Ossetian, and by using the ancient name or the name of the city we make the article appear pro-Georgian. I am not sure how we could solve this in an NPOV way, but what I say is that we (the editors) must be aware of this name politics. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian ancient names do not take precedence over other language ancient names. Wikipedia uses the names used by the world community, it does not delve into the dictionaries of ancient names to rename articles. Russoswiss (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional information: apparently the name "Samachablo" came to be used under Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first president of the independent Georgia, who was renowned for his staunch nationalism. To the point that even Georgians had enough of him and overthrew him. The name itself apparently refers to lands held by a Georgian noble family in that area. Russoswiss (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Georgia refers to the area as either Samachablo or Tskhinvali Region. However, Ossetians call it South Ossetia, Russia calls it South Ossetia, the UN calls it South Ossetia and pretty much everybody except for Georgia refers to it as South Ossetia. NATO countries use the term "Georgian region of South Ossetia", Russians use the "Republic of South Ossetia". So, it is not a problem of POV. Russoswiss (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information that the UN refers to the region as South Ossetia (I have no time to check it now, but a reference would be great). If this is true, then we can keep naming the region South Ossetia because (in my opinion) the UN is the highest and most neutral authority that can give a region its name, albeit I think we should provide both names somewhere in the main article text (I did) to make sure it doesn't offend Georgian readers. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/sc9418.doc.htm Enjoy! Russoswiss (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE REFERENCES THAT ARE USED ELSEWHERE IN ARTICLE!

Don't do this! It creates broken links and is very annoying to fix! Try not to delete any references before checking if they are used somewhere else first!

Thanks in advance... Esn (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you send him a message? I don't see the need for a capslock title here, (although real men use shift). - Pieter_v (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's any one "him" person. I've just been noticing for quite a while that sections have been removed and references broken. Esn (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian strength

This Russian article says that there are 29,000 troops on the Georgian side. Should it be added to the infobox and table at the bottom, maybe? Esn (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Oxygen (believe) 01:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeeping mandate

I find it very interesting that the involved parties are also present with peacekeeping forces. That has to become confusing to everybody in the end. Why on earth was that solution chosen and not peacekeeping forces from either China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia or any other nation not directly involved in these matters? (is there an Wikipedia article on this?) ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 02:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia has often requested the Russian peacekeeping forces to be replaced by UN peacekeepers, but Russia always refused. Stuff like that, as well the constant requests from the west for Russians to draw back their forces should probably be mentioned in this article. - Pieter_v (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Too simplified. Rejected not Russian, but Ossetians, and they are one of the parties to sign a peace treaty. Please, before blaming Russians, learn more about the matter. --Eraser (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can educate me on this matter. What is the difference between Russians and Ossetians, when the majority of (South)-Ossetians have Russian citizenship and strive for a unification with their (North)-Ossetian brothers, who are a part of the Russian Federation? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 03:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to citizenship and there is such a stuff as a "ethnicity". You may go to South Ossetia and look at the Ossetians to understand that they are not Russian. --Eraser (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So, why did the North-Ossetians not decide to join their brothers in the south and become a part of Georgia, if it is just a matter of ethnicity? According to the article on the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, the Ossetians and Georgians were always able to live in peace with each other. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 03:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Historically Ossetians more tend to Russia than to Georgia. For this reason they decided to announce the reunification with North Ossetia, and not vice versa. Blame Russia, that everything is planned so absurd, in the early 90 - ies of the, at a time when these events occur, Russia and its leadership were in full chaos. They had no time to think about the tiny republic. --Eraser (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's far more fun to just randomly blame people. :P Kingnavland (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Found a way to access news from NewsGeorgia via their Russian Site. Maybe it will help the content in the article.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsgeorgia.ru%2F Militaryace (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers

Perhaps we should have some unrevokable facts presented on actual involvement by volunteers in combat before we add them to the article?
It seems silly to include them to the battle scene before they have actually faced it.
Furthermore, are the Russian peacekeepers really going to allow citizens of the Russian Federation to form paramilitary units and engage in combat in a conflict the Russians themselves have to peacekeep?
^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 02:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Don and Terek Cossack volunteers, at least, are already in South Ossetia according to the sources. The Kuban Cossacks only said that they are willing to defend South Ossetia, but that was a while ago; there may already be sources with new info. The Abkhazians, as far as the sources here say, have moved to the edge of their borders but have not actually entered Georgian territory. Esn (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Abkhaz are, indeed, already in Georgian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.154.49 (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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 [25]

--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 origignal 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)

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: [26]--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:

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

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[31]. 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.

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)

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)

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 [32], 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[[33]]

"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[34] 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.

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)

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? [35] 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)

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: [36] ;) - 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)

"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)

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 ([37]) 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)

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 : [38] (an AP story?), [39]. 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

[40] 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)

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

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.

Death toll over 2000

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