Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Georgian War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 132.68.248.44 (talk) at 23:04, 12 August 2008 (→‎Non-official reactions...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveoptions


What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

Don't

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

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



Non-official reactions...

...are notably missing from this article. Personally, public opinion in Russia would interest me the most. Russian Wikipedia article has a section on some non-government views in Russia, see #A comparison to the Russian Wikipedia (translation). GregorB (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Russian media and public information are controlled, including internet. Right it is impossible to know what public tells and knows. But the media due influence a lot of nationalism there. Of course the propaganda is more subtle then in Soviet times and to make it credible they allow controlled criticism of government to make media look credible.--Molobo (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian media and public information is not controlled (basically). Media sites just try to save or increase audience. You can visit any site depending on your preferences. For example, you can visit russophobic site grani.ru. --Butter-club (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Estonian Public Broadcasting company cites a very recent research done by Levada-Center (http://www.levada.ru/eng/opisanie.html, concidered relatively reliable by analysts) in Russia (1600 people), that 33% of respondents think that SO and Abhasia shoud be incorporated in to Russia, 26% think that the separatistic region should become independent, and 11% of russians think that those regions should be part of Georgia; the non-response rate was 30%. The Estonian page: http://uudised.err.ee/index.php?06131750 (in Estonian), I could not find the original source (Levada-Centre's report). However, this [page] sports different figures, and [this source]too, now. Search "Levada" and "poll" from Google News. 213.35.176.54 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia is not neutral in the given theme. To save WP:NPOV.--93.80.187.11 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But who is? Russia? A better argument is that a direct link is preferable if can be found. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Molobo jests when he/she claims that Russian media and internet is controlled? The Russian internet is a free for all, and needless to say, in this conflict there was one country which blocked internet content on a wholesale basis; guess which country that was? It wasn't Russia that's for sure. Additionally, in regards to media, it isn't controlled as much as what people tend to think (and believe from propaganda) - there are many media outlets which are critical of many of the government institutions and officials. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web brigades. --Molobo (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Volunteers" entered S. Ossetia prior to Georgian Advance

Volunteers arriving in South Ossetia - president's envoy65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President of EU member country calls to end talks on treaty with Russia and calls partnership with it a mistake

Estonian president called for end of talks to have a treaty with Russia in regards to cooperation and called idea of partnership with Russia a mistake[1] --Molobo (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very nice and well for the Estonian president, but I cannot help noting that a) they did not a single flick of the wrist to stop the fighting and especially b) the ceasefire accord (in the preparation of which the 4 countries were completely sidelined I think) is apparently the first ceasefire accord in the history of the Ossetian conflict in which a term like "preservation of Georgia's teritorial integrity" does not appear. That, I think, if correct is really notable, because as opposed to those 4 countries being anti-Russian it represents a stark change from how things were in the past.
If correct, it means that the EU's priority was to get a ceasefire even if this meant risking that Georgia will be chopped up eventually. I mean, formally chopped up.
If correct, this also gives an assessment of the state of the Georgian state apparatus. Would they sign what may well turn out to be their countrie's (as they define it) death sentence if they had any other choice?
This is not a good development. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What else is new out of the mouths of one of the Axis of Hatred presidents? Anyway, it's not relevant to the article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevent as it is consequence of Russian invasion. As to neutrality most sources aren't neutral, they are to be presented in neutral way though.--Molobo (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IT's relevant if the EU decides to cut off ties with Russia as a result of the conflict (note invasion not used) because the esteemed Estonian president feels this way about Russia regardless of any conflict in Ossetia, and has gone on the record in the past on the issue. Frankly, it's a whole lot of mouthing off being done, like a broken record in that regard. It's not relevant to this conflict unless something comes of it. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. These 4 politicians are making noble statements of commitment, but I am not at all sure whether the EU and the NATO is gonna follow through. The problems Eastern Europe has with Russia are not unjustified, but unfortunately for these 4 countries, they are problems the rest of Europe cannot really understand. That these guys go there and to this in the first place indicates a deep rift going through EU and NATO, and/or that they are willing to force the hand of their allies. Forcing some other guy's hand without need is not a good thing. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economical

Pls, update RTS index.--Butter-club (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Published 18 July 2008-Polish newspaper reports "Georgia will be invaded by Russia next month".

[2]

Information published on 18th July 2008 that Chechen seperatists revealed they intercepted Russian plan to invade Georgia in August. The attack will be between 20 and 10 September using Kodori and Cchinwal. The plan was made and authorised by Putin. Reports movement of 8,000 soldiers to border with Georgia. --Molobo (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen separatists are responsible for Beslan school hostage crisis, Russian aircraft bombing and other terrorism acts. Sure, they are trustable source of information about Russia. -- Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany was responsible for Holocaust yet it revealed Katyn Massacre. The atrocities of one side do not cancel its ability to report on opponents(likewise Soviet Union had Gulags but liberated Auschwitz...of course murdering later some of the inmates like Wladyslaw Pilecki). The fact they reported plans to invade Georgia one month before the actual invasion started is notable. There could have been doubts if they claimed it today, but they claimed it a month before the actual invasion.--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody have an idea how frequently or infrequently claims that Russia will invade so-and-so are made by organizations as large as this separatist organization? This could well be true, but another possibility is that they had bad or no intel, yet were right by chance. The prediction is not significant if there is always someone claiming that Russia will invade Georgia next month, so how often are claims of this nature made? Christiangoth (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prediction is notable. Note that they are now two sourced statements regarding that the invasion was planned. --Molobo (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you find it notable but post hoc ergo propter hoc is not permissible. What to ask: a) how often were such predictions given? b) How often were they wrong?
It's like the guys who for the last 4 years have been predicting the "USrael attack on Iran". If that happens (especially now, I doubt so) they will go screaming "Predicted it! Predicted it!". But they did shit. They simply stated something that has a fair chance of being correct by sheer chance' and not because it is such a good analysis or based on facts or whatnot.
I also advise you to think about the conuter-claims about the planned US attack on S Ossetia, Abkhazia and perhaps Russia herself that, for the sake of maintaining NPOV, our "dear" Russian "readership" will doubtlessly introduce. The national bolsheviks (a scary bunch if there ever was one) have been "predicting" that Georgia will try to retake S Ossetia by force on that-and-that date ever since Georgia lost it, that they get help from the US, Israel... the usual suspects.
That is why I was so outspoken against dubious sources in the "Tskhinvali Destroyed... Or Is It?!" discussion above. Eventually this will lead to overdue emphasis on the opposing lunatic fringe views.
A better point might be the general untrustworthiness of a party at war with Russia themselves. In any case, no, the plan was drawn up in a 2001 computer game, according to Chechen separatist sources.
Anyways: you show me yours I show you mine. (Novosty - currently down again.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict a clash of military forces in the Caucasus. Some guys argue that the "Zionist-Neocon conspiracy" had been planning this since they set up their "stooge Saakashvili" in the first place. I think we both agree what to think of that.
The difference to 1939 is: there were border clashes and mutual provocations between Poland and the Reich, but Poland did NOT auf unserem eigenen Territorium auch mit bereits regulären Soldaten geschossen. The Nazis had to fabricate this. The Gerogia situation is like a guy turning into a one-way road in the wrong direction and colliding with a speeding lorry he knew was coming along and blaming the lorry driver for the accident because he was speeding. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't understand your German. However your personal theories are interesting the bottom line we have two sourced statements that Russia planed the invasion. If some source disagrees we can add on that. Of course the statments must be presented as view of the source not as truth.--Molobo (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN tag

Current events globe On 12 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) 2008 South Ossetia war, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

To everyone that's done work on the article...here. There's just so many edits to the page its mindboggling. Feel free to copypaste to your talk page. --SpencerT♦C 21:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information warfare

[3] A very good source, we could make good use of this Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article: (Information warfare

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin accused foreign media of pro-Georgian bias in their coverage of the ongoing conflict between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia. "We want television screens in the West to be showing not only Russian tanks, and texts saying Russia is at war in South Ossetia and with Georgia, but also to be showing the suffering of the Ossetian people, the murdered elderly people and children, the destroyed towns of South Ossetia, and [regional capital] Tskhinvali. This would be an objective way of presenting the material," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said. Current Western media coverage of the events in the separatist republic is "a politically motivated version, to put it mildly," he said.[256]

On August 11, 2008, the Russia Today TV channel accused CNN of presenting video footage made by Russia Today in South Ossetia as pictures of bombed Gori.[257]

Cyberattacks and censorship)

Seems one sided and rather Russian bias. I know there are plenty of links to the opposing view.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of the press in Russia65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV non respected

In the first section nammed "Summary", the sentence : “In the early 2000s, it was reported that 95% of the native population in South Ossetia adopted Russian citizenship.[26]” is sourced with a russian newspaper website and appears to me to be false. At least it must be written : "Russia reported that..." or "Russia claims that...".

Can an administrator protect this article, can you protect it from propaganda (from both side..) ? thanks. MaCRoEco (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling reference box

I've seen on other articles references put in a scrolling box to save space. I don't know how to do it but may I suggest doing it here, 313 references and growing is too many to display at once. Terlob (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statement?

"Neither state has been diplomatically recognised by any member of the United Nations."

What about Russia? --Calibas (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

2008 South Ossetia war → ? — I believe that the name of this article should be changed, because the current name-2008 South Ossetia War-implies that combat is restricted to South Ossetia, which is inaccurate, and could be considered misleading. In previous discussions, some have stated that we should wait until after the war is concluded before selecting a new name. I understand the reasoning behind that argument, but I believe a provisional name, at least, should be inserted that is more reflective of the suituation in Georgia. I personally believe the new name should be 2008 War in Georgia, as no side is discriminated against in the title, which has been a concern about the proposed "Russia-Georgia War 2008" new name (South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not listed), and all of the fight is happening within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia. Any other suggestions are welcome, obviously.— 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Since this discussion does not involve an original suggestion for a name, but instead is a discussion to find a number of suggestions, and then draw a consensus on one, please could you state "support" followed by the new name you would like to see this article have, if you support the article being renamed. Thank you in advance. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All this name change rubbish! Let us take some perspective here - we are writing a fairly rapid response as-live report on an ongoing armed conflict. There will be ample time to review such things as the article title through the eyes of history, rather than spending far too long on one issue. Let us look at other Wiki articles, for some context and comparison. It would seem the English Wiki is not alone in choosing this name. I urge you to keep with the article in focus, rather than continous chatter about its title.
German Wiki:Südossetischer Krieg 2008
Estonian Wiki:2008. aasta Lõuna-Osseetia sõda
French Wiki:Guerre d'Ossétie du Sud de 2008
Polish Wiki:II wojna w Osetii Południowej[edytuj]

doktorb wordsdeeds 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the fact that the war is ongoing means that we can't select a title that is more reflective of what is going on in Georgia. The fighting has extended outside of South Ossetia, and I believe the name of the article should reflect that. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath section proposal regarding the invasion

Now the the invasion of Georgia is over there is an Aftermath section which would be usefull.

We could include consequences of the invasion:

  • Peace proposal by EU and its points.
  • Call by the EU countries for international force led by EU in Caucasus.
  • Ukraine suggesting closing access to Black Sea Fleet and new treaty on its location.
  • USA proposing to move ships to Black Sea.
  • Proposal to throw Russia out of G8.
  • More likelyhood of ABM shield being build suggested by Poland's government.
  • Closer cooperation of Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia and Poland in defence against Russian encroachment attempts.
  • Calls to end any treaty with Russia by EU and ending of the idea of partnership.
  • Boycott of Sochi Games.
  • Canceling WTO access for Russia.
  • Georgia taking Russia to International Court of Justice after atrocities comitted by Russian invasion force.

--Molobo (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget things like:
  • Russia reaffirming it's control over the Caucasus region.
  • South Ossetia and Abkhazia even less likely to return to Georgia in foreseeable future etc.
Also Russian reactions to stances taken by other coutries during the escalation may fall here (as this, mentioned above: Russia Warns Baltics, Poland To Pay For Georgia Stance, but there will be more for sure) 132.68.248.44 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Successionist Government/Republic issue. Why Successionist is POV.

Reffering to the South Ossetians and Abkhazia government as 'Successionists' is pro-Georgian POV and incorrect.

It is not normal to refer to a country as Successionists unless they are fighting their initial war to secede from a larger country. In this instance, this is incorrect, since this is NOT the first conflict that these countries have been involved in. Hence they are not Successionists or a Successionist government.

This is not a POV statement, since on the same principle we should still refer to the USA as the Successionist government of the USA, due to the fact they faught a past war to suceed from Britain. We do not do so, hence it is both POV and incorrect to refer to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Successionist governments. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the fulcrum here is "international recognition".65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why not add internationally unrecognised (which is no longer really true) rather than successionist government? Both are equally long and one is factual (or at least it was) rather than blatently POV like successionist. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this does make a rather long title. Republic of South Ossetia (internationally unrecognised). But it is no secret anyway given it clearly says so on it's own page. Also, past references to South Ossetia/Abygazia do not use the term 'seperatist government'. Including the page of the offending entity and the first Ossetian War, when the term 'seperatist' would actually be accurate. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Who recognizes either Abkhazia or South Ossetia as an independent country? Both territories are considered to be territories or provinces inside of Georgia, if not governed by Georgia, but everyone in the international community, even Russia recognizes this. Do they want to be part of Georgia? Of course not, but technically they are, therefore they are secessionist. Kosovo? Also secessionist. (p.s. "succession" isn't the word you're trying to use)

Peace plan by France or EU?

Even though French polticians brokered the peace plan, they did so in the capacity of EU-representatives if I'm not mistaken. If I'm right, I think that this is insufficiently reflected in the section on the peace plan. --Jeroenm (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France's government holds the presidency of the European Union and acts as the EU's government. That is the end of the story; french diplomats act on behalf of the Council of the European Union, not in national interest. Sarcozy has consulted the European Council (national leaders). Officially, the European Union has brokered the plan, not France which happens to lead the EU at this moment. - SSJ ☎ 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War&oldid=231555040"