Talk:Russo-Georgian War

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

Abkhazia and North Ossetia as combatants.

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

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

No capital after a colon, even in headings

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

Two escalations?

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

Use spacings in headings

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

Media call it Georgia-Russia conflict

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

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

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

I agree with the above poster. No war has been declared between Georgia and Russia, and all of the conflict is restricted to South Ossetia, which is not part of Georgia.

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

Extremely POV suggestion and factually incorrect as Russian forces were already part of the peacekeeping contingent on the ground before the Georgian crackdown attempt. Asterion^talk 09:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The so-call peacekeeping is not recognized de jure or recognized anywhere in other Eastern Europe like Ukraine. When Russian troop attacks anywhere they are not originally related to the peacekeeping area (i.e. Ossetia), they are part of the war. I can't see Russia is already "there" in Tbilisi since 1992. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian peacekeepers ARE recognised by UN and were set there on UN mandate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.239.226.109 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Reuters article good for reference

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

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

According to the historian Igor Diakonov:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peacekeepers

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know they call themselves peacekeeper. That is not enough. At minimum there must be some non-regional parties, not within Russia and Georgia, to say they are peacekeepers. I can't call them peacemaker because they call themselves peacemaker.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Effects on 2008 US elections

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

Georgia declared war!

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

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

Archive now! It's going no were!

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

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

We can't archive after 12 hours. People can't respond that fast. I've changed it to 3 days (which may still be too little). Superm401 - Talk 09:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We're getting about 300kb/day right now. That's too much for some ISPs to handle, particularly those in the regions related to the subject. At this stage of the game, anything that takes longer than a day to respond to is old news and only serves to increase load times for those with questions or suggestions. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we compromise on 30 hours? Superm401 - Talk 09:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think 30 hours is probably a reasonable target, but I also don't think we need automatic archiving right now. This is a current event with a lot of traffic; we can archive it manually when people start saying they're having problems with the load times, or when we see there are inactive discussions piling up. I have no problem helping with that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've disabled it. Superm401 - Talk 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

US Embassy

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

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

Good job.

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

Russia Offers South Ossetia 10.5 billion roubles for reconstruction

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

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

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

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

International community reactions - 6.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC - UN Estimates of Refugees

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

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

Useful images to add to the article

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

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

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

Details on..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basically, if the U.S. is involved in military training in Georgia, we should mention it. We don't know how much exactly did they help in the conflict - but we know they are allied with Georgia and providing assistance. Naurmacil (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tskhinvali battles.png

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

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

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

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

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

Ballistic Missiles?

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

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

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

POV in wording of article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack on Airport and By SEA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carl Bildt: "The principles at stake"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carl Bildt: "The principles at stake"

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

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

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

Naval blockade

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

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

Removal of International reactions

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

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

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

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

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

Russian Escalation

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

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

Dmitry Medvedev is the president of Russia

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

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

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

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

Dmitry Medoyev and Dmitry Medvedev... Wow :-) Great typo ;) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Financial market reaction

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

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

Name change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Google counting how many sites refer to 2008 South Ossetia War etc, [6], [7], [8], NerdyNSK (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

• Well, Russian sources call it "South Ossetia War", so if you really want to stick to reliability and neutrality, you should remember this as well. Otherwise the title would be biased by western view on conflict. Moreover, up to the moment Russians did not cross the line that separates full-scale war from support operation and did not declare a war with Georgia, so technically it's not even war (and we're calling things de jure here; for example, South Ossetia is called region of Georgia, although de-facto it's independent state). Calling this "2008 Conflict in Georgia" would be fine, although that includes POV as well: the conflict is still mostly in South Ossetia, and whether South Ossetia belongs to Georgia is a big fat question for the conflicting sides. So, to my mind, the only neutral title is "2008 South Ossetia Conflict/War", because up to now the conflict is mostly progressed in South Ossetia (be it part of Georgia or not), and there's no rule to include in war's name every single region involved at every single phase of the conflict -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  It's only Georgian POV. We must not use somebody's POV. For example, Russia calls all this "Peace enforcing operation". And what? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I'm talking about. We must not use Georgian POV nor Russian POV, that's why "South Ossetian conflict" is a correct name. Both sides agree that most of the action takes place at South Ossetia (though opinion differ on whether South Ossetia is a part of Georgia), both sides agree that there's a conflict taking place. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  May be, 2008 War in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Hmm, it looks like we talk that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not Georgia, it is by de facto, but de jure... I'm in doubt :( --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what we have at the moment

In the order of appearance:

• 2008 South Ossetia War (current title)
• 2008 Georgia War
• 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict
• 2008 Georgia-Russia War
• 2008 War in Georgia

I omit "invasion", "agression" etc. (because of POV) and "Caucasus War" (because it's not all the Caucasus there). Let's vote? ;) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, voting should not be used for making decisions here in Wikipedia, right? Instead, discussions should be used. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So, let's vote by discussion ;) See my opinion below for example. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• As for me, I prefer 2008 War in Georgia because this title is best on describing all the situation. It's not "Georgia War", because this title means that there is only Georgia (even with Abkhazia and South Ossetia) is participating in the War. "War in Georgia" is very good. I think. ;) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • For much the same reasons, I prefer 2008 South Ossetia War. Yes, war extends beyond the borders of South Ossetia, arguably beyond the borders of Georgia, but at least for the moment, the war is being fought over South Ossetia. The problem with options 3&4 is that they leave out the South Ossetians. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  The fact that "there is only Georgia (even with Abkhazia and South Ossetia)" is POV by itself. For example, from Abkazia and South Ossetia's view point, there's NOT only Georgia, but Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  Agree, I've forgot this :( --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, but the international community effectively does not care what Abkhazia and South Ossetia think. Not even Russia recognises them (though this may change).Representing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as completely separate states would probably be WP:UNDUE. In the title, "Georgia" covering both South Ossetia and Abkhazia is fine; in the actual article it is more difficult to distinguish. BalkanFever 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  That being said, I agree with the point above this subsection made by 81.x.x, and the similar point made by Ben Aveling. The conflict is still mostly about South Ossetia for now. Maybe this will change in a few days, we'll see. BalkanFever 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  Whether "international community" cares about this or not does not matter. This point is exactly the one that led to the war in the first place. If not for South Ossetia and Abkhazia declaring their independence, then there would be no war at all, wouldnt there? So taking one side in this question is more or less equal to taking a side in a war. -- 91.77.90.51 (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• 2008 War in Georgia, 2008 Georgia-Russia War or 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict are fine for me because: the violence appears to take place all over Georgia rather than in Ossetia only, and the war is not only between Georgians and Ossetians but it's Georgians versus Ossetians, Russians, and Abkhazians. "Georgia-Russia conflict" is also how the BBC refers to the violence. NerdyNSK (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• I like 2008 Georgia War, and 2008 Georgian-Russian War would also be fine, but not Georgia-Russia War or conflict. Conflict is already used for Georgian-Ossetian conflict which means it is long term --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia armed conflict is a "state of war" ..not war..all 3 parties republic of S.Ossetia. , Georgia and Russia have not declared war on anyone !!! so, please change the misleading title..or give official citations to validate use of "war"..admin can do well to take note of this glaring discrepancy on a mai page article title...Cityvalyu (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

see down discussion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the word "war" should be used

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

I agree on the war thing..However Russian def. min. told just now that if apartment blocks were targeted , they would be razed to the ground and not only just a small portion on fire [9] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "state of war" has been used by one of the parties, so the word "war" in the title is perfectly fine. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 10:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I must stress that this is not related to whether "state of war" is used. Russia act as such. Ossetia combatant act as such. Georgia act as such. So be it no matter anybody have proclaimed a war.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bombs kill civilians, fires destroy buildings, tanks entered the region, and missiles were fired. What else do you want to call this a war? A nuclear weapon? :) NerdyNSK (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning. -- 91.77.90.51 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Combatants in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

This is crazy talk. This is a local warfare, so at minimum there must be some non-regional parties, not within Russia and Georgia, to endorse them as peacekeepers. They are only illegal combatants. If that is possible Japanese solider in WW2 are all peacekeeper, because they are working for peace for the Far East Asia, at least they believe they are acting in a peacekeeping capacity (or technically 大東亞共榮 in Unicode).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Skynews report on Gori bombing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information about the military budget of Georgia

I suppose "Background" demands such economy information.

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

Yes, it's possible. North Korea spends even greater share, probably :) Here's another (Georgian) source telling about GEL 1395 million military spending (that's about USD 1 billion [10]).

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

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

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

Cracked site screenshot copyright

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

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

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

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

• POV is in the interpretation of facts, not in showing facts to the world. It is a fact that the site was cracked. Showing the screenshot adds informational value to the article, since it exposes the propaganda and information warfare methods of the Russians in a visual way, and it also enables people to see for themselves how weak and amateurish this propaganda is. Wikipedia also carries lots of propaganda in the propaganda and Nazi propaganda article, but this does not make the articles POV. We could add the screenshot (if copyright allows it) in a Propaganda or Information Warfare section. Simply republishing propaganda is not POV, it is showing the real truth (the crime Russian information warfare crackers did, if you want) to the world. NerdyNSK (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  how weak and amateurish this propaganda is
  Well, sorry for not bringing you strong professional-quality propaganda, like the one you grew used to, lol ;) To me the pic is fun enough. That's not propaganda, that's just declaring own point of view. I see nothing wrong with that, except for cracking the site, but who can blame them for that... -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Georgia has not pulled out

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

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

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

I agree that we don't know why Georgians are pulling out. But Russian bombed Georgian military bases but not Ossetian city Tskhinval. Ossetians reports that Georgian fire prevents them to safe civilians and journalists. http://osinform.ru/news/7669-gruzija-ne-daet-jevakuirovat-iz.html 90.189.91.27 (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia says it has withdrawn its forces from breakaway South Ossetia ... "They have been withdrawn, completely," Georgian interior ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili told Reuters. But Russian peacekeepers said that Georgian forces were still present in South Ossetia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/10/2330349.htm?section=justin

Well according to Russia this is not the case. It's most likely some sort of misunderstanding or mistake, but for now the evidence suggests there has not been a complete withdrawal from South Ossetia. There may be one coming but if the Reintegration Minister's reasoning is considered that too may be to allow in humanitarian workers. Since these are two different officials, which I hadn't noticed at first, the Interior Ministry statement can be put back in until there's further information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, Russians suffered huge losses and failed to make any progress. That's why Putin immediately arrived in North Ossetia and produced his fiery speech. Within hours, larger and large amounts of Russian hardware began to inavde Georgia. He apparently instructed his generals to launch a new offensive at any cost. Tskhinvali is razed to the ground. That's why Georgian forces had to retreat to the nearby hills and continue to fight. BBC's source is its bureau in Moscow and the information is inaccurate. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Say cracking, not hacking

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

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

Thanks! NerdyNSK (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

casus belli

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

There is no declaration of war (only declaration of being the state of war), so there is no casus belli. It seems no one bother the need of casus belli.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a casus belli, otherwise we would not have the article. Casus belli in this case means: "plausible casus belli for initiating military action". Whether one agrees to casus belli or not is an entirely different matter. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for misleading. The concept of casus belli is there. What I means to no combatant really care to declare this war and they don't seems care too much on casus belli.

Sorry for misleading. The concept of casus belli is there. What I means to no combatant really care to declare this war and they don't seems care too much on casus belli.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maps

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

Misleading introductory phrase

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

BTW, use of a word "separatist" is Georgian POV. Georgian sources call them "separatists", Russian and South Ossetian calls them "volunteers" (добровольцы) and "militiamen" (ополченцы). Let's neutrally call them "soldiers". Because they are soldiers in fact. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Webster's defines "separatist" as: One that favors separatism; an advocate of independence or autonomy for a part of a political unit. If they are advocating autonomy, they are separatists. It has nothing to do with POV, and there are no implicitly negative connotations to the word. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

With the same logic we could call the bin Laden terrorists soldiers as well. Not everyone who has a gun is a soldier. I am not sure it's NPOV to call any armed person a soldier. A soldier, I think, is a member of organised armed forces of recognised nation who has the legal right to use force in a military setting and gets orders from a legitimate government. Let's call them fighters (but not freedom fighters) or simply armed persons, or some other name if you really feel like changing the name. I don't see anything POV in separatism, however, so for me I have no problem with using the word separatists (the above Webster definition I think is correct). NerdyNSK (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide Reports

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

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

I plan on moving,

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

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

No confirmation of Russian bomb hitting civilian building in Gori

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

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

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

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

Cyberattacks

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

• How can we know it's the real Georgia MFA and not some random blogger? NerdyNSK (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, why would the Georgian MFA use blogspot rather than, say, a server provided by USA or Poland? Doesn't look like a real site to me. It may be Russian information warfare or a joke by a blogger. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Right now, I can give these sources. 1) Radio broadcast few hours ago (in Estonian), where official from Estonian ministry of foreign affairs publishes the address. It can be heard here http://podcast.kuku.ee/saated/valismaaraja/ He says it 6 minutes after the beginning of broadcast. 2) Moldovan news site http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/141041/ 3) Estonian newspaper http://gruusia.postimees.ee/?id=25906

Azerbaijan

Why was Azerbaijan's reaction removed from International reactions? Asim Manizada (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I've re-added Azerbaijan and Armenia in a "regional community" section, because their opinions are arguably more important than, say, Poland and the Baltic countries. BalkanFever 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to say so. Azerbaijan is not part of South Ossetia and should be referred to external parties unless their stand on the side with Gerogia and a part of of Gerogia. I withdraw my originally viewpoint.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption

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

The particular tanks shown were owned by East Germany. I changed the caption to "East German-owned T-72 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles shown in a museum. Both types are being used by Russia during the 2008 South Ossetia War". Is that more clear? Superm401 - Talk 09:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually when we say a "Georgian tank" or a "British submarine" we mean a tank owned by Georgia or a submarine owned by Great Britain. For example, another picture in its caption says "a Georgian Su-25", even though Su-25 is Soviet. Should we change all captions now? Since the name of the tank is linked, the reader can go to that article and see who made the tank. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Extremely biased map

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

Can I trouble you to say why it's biased? Superm401 - Talk 09:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just read it. It is EXTREMELY anti-Russian, don't you find? Quotes about "occupied by the Russian troops and run by pro-Russian puppet regimes" et al are IMHO very non-NPOV (Poligraf (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

The source of the map is a Dr working for a Canadian think tank. I edited the caption to make sure the reader understands the source of the map. I think the map should stay, as it actually documents actual historical events. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not acceptable. I removed it. I suggest someone edit the image and rewrite some of the quotes. Besides that, the words were pretty small and the map far too detailed to be put as a thumb on the article. And it's irrelevant to the section (or to the article), so I don't see why it should stay. Naurmacil (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Long header

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

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

Reverted to the old title NerdyNSK (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction too long and one sided.

The introduction continues down to,

---

According to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's intention is to defend the many civilians of South Ossetia who hold Russian citizenship. He said that it aims to force Georgia to accept peace and restore the status quo, and that it is acting within its peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia, and in line with the mandate issued by the international community.[18][19] "The actions of the Georgian powers in South Ossetia are, of course, a crime — first of all against their own people," Putin said and opined that the territorial integrity of Georgia has suffered a fatal blow. Putin said the government was ready to earmark up to $425 million for aid to the region. Medvedev said he was ordering the military prosecutor to document crimes against civilians (by Georgia) in South Ossetia. Russia also laid much of the responsibility for ending the fighting on Washington, which has trained Georgian troops.[20]

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili says his country is defending itself from Russian aggression and that Russian forces are bombing its civilian population.[21]

---

This seems to be too long and one sided. Anyone disagree? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, reference 20 does not seem to exist.

I'm suggesting removing from the end of ref 19 to ref 20,

Because the reference is bad and the material is covered later in the article. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever has fixed the reference. So, I am considering moving it to "Combatant Statements". Any problems with that? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This change is too major to not get consensus on it. Any opinions ? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I can fairly say that I have no opinion about the conflict, and I have the impression that the current introduction is too detailed about Russia's motives. This can be solved easily by moving the detailed part to the article text. But for some reason, my edit was reverted with the argument that "Russia's actions deserve intro". [11] I agree that Russia's actions deserve an intro, but none of Russia's arguments were removed... Cityvalyu, can you explain your reversal? Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

American sources are unreliable on this one

Even Associated Press is incapable of not dissolving into "teh evil russians are teh evil". Be careful. --Leladax (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why we say "American media reports that..." or even "The Associated Press reports that..." BalkanFever 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If we say where the source comes from, it's not POV, it's a fact, and it can be useful for showing the propaganda and bias of all sides. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it POV to say "teh evil russians are teh evil"? POV does not refers to the content. Saying russian evil is not POV. Just try not pretend it is fact and put correct reference and that will be fine.

In my view, saying American sources are unreliable is same as saying russian is evil--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you can expect bias from a combatant's media. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

One can expect bias from any media. That's why we attribute statements. BalkanFever 11:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right BalkenFever. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, this is the english wikipedia and most of its users and editors are American. Be careful because I noticed they've gone into 'russia is teh evil of the world' in this one. --Leladax (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that most of the edits on this article have been made by Americans, although the majority of edits may have been made by people currently living in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Otherwise excellent job here..

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

Google hits confirm most popular names

There are 3'920 Google hits for "South Ossetia War", 13'200 hits for "Georgia-Russia War", 55'200 hits for "Russia-Georgia War", 29'700 hits for "Russia-Georgia conflict", 9'500 hits for "Georgia-Russia conflict", 64'200 hits for "Georgia-South Ossetia conflict", 113 hits for "South Ossetia-Georgia conflict", 176 hits for "South Ossetia-Georgia war", and 242 hits for "Georgia-South Ossetia War". NerdyNSK (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, it looks like the two most popular names are "Georgia-South Ossetia conflict" and "Russia-Georgia War", but the first name appears to be infected with pages describing the previous conflicts, so I think the best option is 2008 Russia-Georgia War. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree on best option. We need to establish whether Russia is just enforcing its mandate as peacekeepers or they are escalating the situation beyond that. We need a clear definition of the difference to include Russia to the title of the article. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with NerdyNSK. Just note that the original name is made based on the fact that Russia is not a yet proper combatant.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Russian-Georgian War! Like Eritrean-Ethiopian War!--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Just for the record... 8'780 hits for "Russian-Georgian War" and 4'760 hits for "Georgian-Russian War". NerdyNSK (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the German media they don't call it war but conflict. -- DanteRay (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion above ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Better to keep new comments about a move down here. Easier. BalkanFever 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a popularity contest. "South Ossetia War" is used outside Wikipedia, and I think it's a more descriptive and specific name than "2008 Russia-Georgia War". Superm401 - Talk 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

While I doubt whether a popular name should be used, I have to ask Superm401, how could you claim '"South Ossetia War" is used outside Wikipedia' when it is mostly known (at least in google) as "Russia-Georgia War"? You argument are contradicting your point of view.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's all well and good to be specific the conflict is now dying down in South Ossetia and growing in Abkhazia. We can't continue to justify this title now since it already involves more than South Ossetia and it's going to be completely ridiculous to call this the 2008 South Ossetia War when most of the fighting shifts to Abkhazia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also note that Google says there are 77 hits for "2008 Russia-Georgia War" which is exactly one of the proposed Wikipedia article titles. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What you're suggesting here is like that: "South Ossetia independence" gives 1200 Google hits while "South Ossetia part of Georgia" gives 5000 Google hits, so we should side with Georgia and claim that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. That's just ridiculous. Wikipedia should be neutral, period. Naming the article "Russia-Georgia War" implicitly suggests that Russia is the aggressor (how else it's possible to have a war between these two on the Georgia's land?). No matter how many people share that point of view, it's just point of view. Wikipedia should name articles in a way, that's netural. If sides do not agree on how to call the war, it's incorrect to take one side or the other. It's not a question of what's popular. -- 91.78.160.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• There's a common thing to name article according to the cause, place, or even time, of events. How do you like Great Northern War, Winter war, and Battle of Ice?Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  Exactly. That's why the article is named "South Ossetian war". Because it's the cause and the place of war at the same time. -- 81.195.27.246 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Editorial stand on peacekeeping vs. warfare

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

This section is need within this talk page. Before their mandate is justified, they must be referred as combatants, probably illegal one because they even did not made the declaration of the war.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Their mandate is de facto "justified", whatever that means, otherwise the Russians have been combatants for the last decade or more, not just a week. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That is crazy talk. Just compare what have been done by Japan in early 1937. They are peacemaker, so-call "otherwise the Japanese have been combatants for the last decade or more". Russia is attack noncombat airplane within Georgia, Is that really peacemaking?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume English is not your first language.
First of all, it is not crazy talk since I am not crazy.
Secondly, I use the term peacekeepers - not peacemakers. The word peacekeepers indicate that there is/was a peace to keep, the word peacemakers indicates that there is/was not peace and needs to be made. It is a fact that peace was kept in South Ossetia since the previous outbreak of armed hostilities back in the beginning of the 1990s. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The "peacemaker" is actually "peacekeeper". Thanks for pointing out. However, their existence for 10 years there cannot justify themselves as peacekeeping. This is simply self-referral without any party outside the region. An apple is an apple when the characteristic of apple is there, not simply because their hostility is there for 10 years. BTW, Japan is peacekeeping in China for 6 years, if your logics holds.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is your POV. The question now is, how will you transform that into something we can use in the article? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That is your POV. You need provide me information that Georgia have agree Russia peacekeeping mission within the land of Georgia (at least de jure) and what extend it has been. Otherwise, it is simply another Manchukuo in Chinese history.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I do not have to provide information on whether Georgia or anyone else has agreed to a Russian peacekeeping mission. It is a fact (de facto) that the Russians has acted as such, be it with or without anyones permission, approval or consent.
Secondly, the word combatants is refering to persons or parties "who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict within the law of war", ergo the Russians were not combatants but peacekeepers since the early 1990s. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If no one could give us such agreement, then de facto and self-proclamation itself is not enough. It has to be judged as case by case basis. The fact is South Ossetia is nothing different with Manchucko in any factual issue in 1931 (some modern mechanism is used in Ossetia, of course, time changes). The view of outsiders (not within those warring region) becomes very important unless it turns out to be global war (then there is no outsider). By your view of combatant, there is also unlawful combatant. They also combat without following law of war. Combat not in line with law of war does not necessarily means it is peacekeeper. If by their so-call peacekeeping mandate they can attack Gori, can they attack New York and Tokyo too?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Manchukuo was ethnically similar to the Northern Chinese. On the other hand, South Ossetia is ethnically similar more to Russia than to Georgia. So your comparison doesn't hold. The fact is that South Ossetians want the Russians to be there. They're fighting with the Russians against Georgians. The actual "Japanese" here are the Georgians, not the Russians. Naurmacil (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right that illegal or unlawful combatants exist, but that is not why I initiated this section of the talk page. I think there is a need for an editorial stand on how to differenciate whether the Russian forces are enforcing their peacekeeping mandate in the current situation or they are escalating the hostilities by their presence or actions. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So, are you argue that ethnicity should be considered and the "de-facto" and "self-proclamation" is not enough? I am talking about what is the essence of peacekeeping, and there should be very little connection between peacekeeping and ethnicity. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What you refer to as "de-facto" and "self-proclamation" is actually the same thing seen from two different POV's - and both are enough. Ethnicity in this case is not directly related to the essence of peacekeeping. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not directly related, but it is related. Ethnicity is the main difference between Manchukuo and South Ossetia - and thus the legitimacy of the "peacekeepers". Manchukuo does not want Japan there because of a difference in ethnicity; South Ossetians want the Russians there instead of the Georgians. So yes, the Russians do have some legitimacy here because they are welcomed by the local South Ossetians. Naurmacil (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the order because you are responding to me. In my view, Nearly all globally recognized peacekeeping mission is not protected by close ethnicity troops. I see no exception but there might be one or two exception. 2) there is no way to tell what "South Ossetia wants" because Russia has a famous history on fixing referendum in Mongol, Poland (1946), Chechnya and many other. I can't really count it when South Ossetia is under occupations by Russia for 10+ years. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Only if it is published in a reliable source (and not your own, otherwise OR). Joshdboz (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you post it here, on the talk page? Ben Aveling 11:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure: At least half of Georgian soldiers who was involved in first attack on Tshinvali are not ethnical georgians. Many of them are people with negroid and mongoloid apperance. Nationality of some of them are confirmed already. Many of them are people from African countries, continental Asia and even Japan. 53 of detentioned mercenaries already told they joined war for money of current Georgian goverment. More than 250 georgian soldiers already laid down their weapon and surrender to Peacemaker forces.More than 100 Georgian reservists defected from Saakashvili forces and joined Russian army to fight against Saakashvili regime.

Josh: well, you would rather use malformed information and have reference to it than use real information without reference. I understand this but given that all media manipulate information as they want I think it's better to have up-to-date information from battlefield. Not only rumors, but facts upon which military decisions are made. But if it's not convenient, no problem. toxygen (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see us using that as for all we know, you could have written it yourself. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. It needs to be published in an external, reliable source before we can use it. Superm401 - Talk 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure, that's why I was asking. But it's little bit striking how 2 different media publish 2 completely different information on the same event. In case someone is interested, I can publish the information here. Is this ok? toxygen (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, it needs to be in a third-party, reliable source. Superm401 - Talk 12:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't include info not published somewhere. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe your information is accurate, Toxygen, but sadly Wikipedia has no means to verify independent sources. You could probably give that information to the media and hope that they make the best use of it. Naurmacil (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceasefire

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

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

Both sides agreed to a ceasefire according to the BBC source. Then Georgia invaded South Ossetia, claiming that South Ossetia violated the ceasefire by attacking Georgian villages, while South Ossetia and Russia say that they did no such thing and hence Georgia violated the ceasefire with its surprise invasion.--Miyokan (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC story doesn't say which officials actually agreed to a ceasefire. Superm401 - Talk 12:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC source says 7 August 2008 After escalating Georgian-Ossetian clashes, sides agree to ceasefire; however Georgia launches a surprise attack. It's not necessary to say which person gave the order to agree to the ceasefire.--Miyokan (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clearly relevant information. If it was only ground commanders, that would be very different than the president, for instance. Superm401 - Talk 12:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Web brigades?

Some people believe Russia has Web brigades. I don't know whether they exist, but if they do I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they may have agents of influence here, making us insert or allow pro-Russian POVs more than we would normally do in an encyclopedic article. All is possible in information warfare... so keep this in mind and make sure we focus on established facts rather than falling prey to pro-Russian POVs. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We're aware of that, and in fact cyberattacks are mentioned in the article. I am quite sure Georgia is also capable of information warfare, so it's not right to target Russia. We should, however, be sure to note Georgia's viewpoints. Superm401 - Talk 12:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, please assume bad faith of anyone with a ru-n infobox on their user page and who is active here. ;-)

On a more serious note, isn't everything in the article attributed to their sources anyway, thus clearly demonstrating whose POV it is? --Illythr (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Web brigades" is a conspiracy theory peddled by a handful of Russian government critics, as was pointed out in that articles listings for deletion. The only reason that article was kept was because of its "notability" as a conspiracy theory. On another note, Russian News & Information Agency[12] might have been hacked as it's not working and Russia Today[13] was also not working but just now came back online.--Miyokan (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Could it be a "natural" DDOS attack instead? That is, due to hordes of real people visiting it? --Illythr (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, the website was working fine for all the past days of the conflict, I doubt that there was suddenly a huge spike of users on the 3rd day, and it's especially suspicious because the Russia Today website simultaneously went down.--Miyokan (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any such "Russian web brigades", but I have indeed seen plenty of such empty accusations of good-faith contributors on Wikipedia which resulted in the departure of several extremely prolific contributors from Russia and from elsewhere in the world with no relation to Russia. In my humble opinion, anyone who raises this conspiracy theory without any evidence at all should be banned. Naurmacil (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that. What's with this discrimination of Russians? Same logic should be applied not only to Russians, but to Georgians as well, and to USA citizens (it's clear that USA are strongly supporting Georgia, so it's possible that their web brigades are on the move too), and since USA is the de-facto owner of NATO, to most of the NATO countries as well. We will end up being left with only African and Japanese contributors, probably. -- 91.78.160.22 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is too early to raise this conspiracy theory. Chinese Web Brigades do exist and they are officially hired. IMO, that article should not be filled with Russian only context.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Poorly Written Segment

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

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

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

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

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

bombing of Goir

Should we have a article for the bombing of Gori like for the Al-Qaa air strike [14]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.12.186 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of bombing everything in Georgia, pretty unlimited whenever there is an Georgian. If this bombing is written then be prepare to write a lot of them.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian airstrikes in Georgia - I suggest that article --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest 2008 Russian bombing of Georgia which is akin to 1999 Russian bombing of Chechnya.

Links section

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

Any info is good, but there must be some description. I have looked the website and I cannot see what has happened except there are dead men. I expect some description whenever photo is provided. (where/when/who it is taken)--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I perceive the site as Russian POV, but would be useful for documenting anti-Georgian propaganda if we want to document that... Don't link without discussing though as it's too much POV NerdyNSK (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Very true. But let him explain who is taking those photo first. If the photo is "explainable" and are not manufactured by Russian army or Ossetia combatant, why not let them display?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Split casualties between military and civilian.Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's bullshit!

Do not trust CNN, BBC and other channels!! Do not place links to their websites like prove of some "facts"! Whole yesterday they showed only russian tanks coming to Georgia like russians began this war. That's horseshit!! USA, Ukraine, Turkey and other countries provided weapons, training and money for this invasion to South Osetia. Read about training called "Immediate response 2008" which had place in Georgia (http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/07/15/10890-immediate-response-underway-in-republic-of-georgia/). Blaming Russia is is very annoying... Do not forget to remember Kosovo. And do not dare to say that this is "an excepsion". And if you blame Russia for some sins, remember your own countries. USA is world's number 1 terrorist. Great Britain which has been great two centuries ago, hates Russia. Read about "operation unthinkable". It's really unthinkable! Lots of those, who are interested in history, do not even know about that operation. 84.32.232.122 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Half-russian guy, who lives in Lithuania

This is not a place to recruit people to your side. The article must be neutral, that's right, but other than that there's no need to prove or disprove something here. -- 91.78.160.22 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to make this article neutral. The first thing anglo-saxons have to do is make your mass media and goverments neutral. I'm afraid that's impossible. 84.32.232.122 (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Half-russian guy, who lives in Lithuania

No need to do that. Governments may be biased, but Wikipedia should not be. Just concentrate on searching biased information in article and imroving it to become non-biased (explaining both sides' points of views), instead of arguing here on who's right and who's wrong. Both sides are wrong and both is under propaganda. Everybody knows that. -- 81.195.27.246 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus this is not a forum.--66.229.12.186 (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is the "Web Brigades", they weren't trained very well.

I'd love to be paid but i'm not. I'm just fed up with attitude to Russia. 84.32.232.122 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Half-russian guy, who lives in Lithuania

Express your feelings somewhere else.

Unfortunately American and to a lesser extend other Western Media are extremely unreliable on this one. Neutrality is never "the mean of the sources" and certainly it's not the "mean of the sources" in this case. a) Georgians started the conflict. b) Predominately South Assetian are the civilian casualties yet 'Russia is attacking' is what the Associated Press is reporting. --Leladax (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"unreliable" maybe, but "extremely unreliable" is your own bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If they can't even get right who started it and who has the majority of the casualties, they quality as extremely unreliable to me. --Leladax (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Russian source reliable? By denying and request to remove article Web Brigades? This is a flamewar! Please keep to improve the quality of this article instead.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

exactly

Russia is part of the conflict, of course it's not going to get reliability awards, but elements of the West effectively act as part of the conflict. Ignoring for example who started it and who has the majority of the casualties (in the order of several magnitudes more) makes you effectively acting as part of the conflict. --Leladax (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're bias. There is no exact information on "who started it".

• I rely on Reuters. They have a correspondent in Tskhinvali (the one hiding in a basement), and they keep the relatively neutral position.Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)