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 195.218.210.137 (talk) at 00:53, 19 August 2008 (→McClatchy and LA Times report on Tskhinvali damage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

Don't

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

"a dirty little war"

If you want to know the story of this war, see this Guardian article.Bdell555 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really biased article. There is nothing to be gained by portraing Russians as evil barbarians, nothing. It's in fact really dangerous.
It's way more constructive to try to understand why the Russians are behaving like this.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be considered for incorporation into the article? Otherwise what the point of this post? Lihaas (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is called "Russia's objectives.." but starts with a story of some marauders. No mentioning on Georgian invasion into Tskhinvali, its called "..doomed military incursion..". How tragic. Then follow ramblings about Putin's yearning for Soviet years and about some graffiti on Moscow wall (I tell you, most graffities on our walls are run-of-the-mill obscenities, no need to travel that far to read them). The article is the hysterical anti-Russian propaganda masterpiece, an is as far from political analysis as I am from North Pole. It paints the whole situation upside-down. "..secessionist provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which broke away from Tbilisi during the 1992-93 civil war.." - no mentioning of the cancelled autonomy and attempted militatry crackdown by nationalistic Georgian government. Then they speak of Crimea as some "target" of Russia, what an imagination. "On Friday, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, condemned Russia's invasion of Georgia.." ..then went on to condemn U.S. invasion in Iraq and Guantanamo prison, began laughing wildly and was taked to the nearby hospital. Oh my God. Of course such cartoonish presentations, whether painted by Russian or Western propaganda, have no place in an encyclopedia article. --CopperKettle (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at this marvelous phrase: "..Like the Soviet Union's invasion of Czechoslovakia 40 years ago this week, this invasion took place in August...". Yeah, and just like the Hitler's annexation of Austria, the War in Iraq started in March. Cool analogies. Let's scan the history for cozy dating. --CopperKettle (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is the the Guardian is a reliable source by Wikipedia sources and therefore material from it may and should be included in the article. The Guardian is a left-leaning paper. The fact that you don't like is not a sufficient reason to exclude material provided by a reliable source.Bdell555 (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even a reliable source will fail from time to time; this article is raving madness. I guess they leaned so far to the left that they completely tipped over and knocked their heads. The article reads like a Russian State TV transript, only with 180 degrees turn. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdell555
You have to agree that those views do not necessarily represent The Guardian's views. That article is an op-ed nothing more. The Time for example, has published already about 3 op-ed or "analysis" about the conflict.
@CopperKettle
Totally agree with you..."cartoonish presentations"... very well said, it is really cartoonish and 1 dimensional.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not have to agree.
This is a Guardian op-ed. See what it says above the title? "Comment"
This is a Guardian editorial. See what it says above the title? "Comment"
Now go look at what it says above the title of this piece. "NEWS". The Guardian is accordingly putting the full weight of its credibility as a news source behind the factual claims in this piece. The Guardian was THERE. Were you? For this material to be excluded, you have to provide evidence that the Guardian, as a general news source, is not reliable, given the fact the general consensus across Wikipedia is that it IS reliable. If you are going to edit war over the inclusion of any claim of fact cited to this article, I suggest providing some more argument here first.Bdell555 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should have dealt with only facts in an objective manner, instead it used selected facts in order to support a bunch of one-sided extremely biased opinions, making it IMO an op-ed.
In the end that article wrote exactly what you wanted to read, that's why you like it so much to the point of advertising it. That's very sad.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's sadder that you seem to think that what happened did not happen. If it did not happen why is another British reporter saying something similar?
That's a cheap shot from you. You failed to address my points and invented the point that I disputed the veracity of the article's accounts. Really awful, if you don't something to say shut up but don't invent slanderous points.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't dispute "the veracity of the article's accounts" then what IS your point, relevant to the article? Do you dispute the veracity of this article?Bdell555 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or this one?Bdell555 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that since the views/opinions expressed on that op-ed don't necessarily represent The Guardian's views, that op-ed was just as relevant as all the other op-eds. There is nothing special about it. For example, The Times published 3 op-eds, 2 Anti-Russia and 1 Pro-Russia.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT an op-ed! That is a bold faced lie on your part to claim it is an op-ed when when I've presented undeniable evidence in front of your face proving the contrary. The Guardian classifies it as news so stop saying it does not without coming up with evidence. You've entirely rebutted any good faith assumption about your intentions here. This is not a personal insult but simply a noting of the contrast of the facts before you and what you are claiming.Bdell555 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I continue to believe the Guardian is a reliable source, inclusion of material from HRW may be sufficient. I'll start a new section below to that effect.Bdell555 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back at square one!!! IMO it is an op-ed because this article didn't deal "with only facts in an objective manner, instead it used selected facts in order to support a bunch of one-sided extremely biased opinions, making it IMO an op-ed."
My IMO is sound, and here is your evidence:"The militia gangs were part of a murderous wave unleashed by Russia last week on Georgian civilians." And this: "These theatrical Russian advances have a clear purpose: to menace Saakashvili and to underscore the irrelevance of European and US diplomacy." That's not News, that's a Russia-bashing op-ed. You advertized the article because you liked what you read. Be a man and admit it.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are facts. Not every fact you don't like is an op-ed.Bdell555 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Key words: gangs, murderous, unleashed on civilians, theatrical, menace => Extreme partisan POV abound => analysis worthless due to heavy bias; facts need to be fished out very carefully. For example, from the two sentences cited by EconomistBR above, the following fact can be gleaned: "Armed South Ossetian irregulars have been sighted in Georgian-inhabited areas." - the same can be gained from other, far more neutral sources that might also provide more information without the need for sanitation. --Illythr (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you want to add from this article? BTW, see that I've translated at the talkpage of the Timeline. --CopperKettle (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, we have to establish a consensus on whether the article is a reliable source or not. Fact of the matter, there are more and more stories coming about about brutality behind Russian lines. I suspect this material is going to provoke an edit war which I'm trying to avoid by trying to get this discussed in advance as much as possible.Bdell555 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tha't the point - it can probably be considered reliable regarding the facts the author operates with, but his analysis is hopelessly biased to be of any use. So, whoever's brave enough to go elbow-deep into it, can propose facts from it for inclusion, although same facts taken from neutral sources will be strongly preferred. --Illythr (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KOSOVO Information

The information about Kosovo and it's relation to this conflict is excessive. For example, it is the largest subheading in the background section, but gives very little information about South Ossetia; although, it gives extremely repetitive information (mostly pulling from quotations) about why Russia cites the situation as a precedent for sending their own troops into the breakaway provinces of Georgia and Georgia proper. Some of these quotations are not cited well and/or are wholly unnecessary to this article: "An UN Security Council diplomat said "Strategically, the Russians have been sending signals that they really wanted to flex their muscles, and they’re upset about Kosovo."" Who is this Security Council diplomat? What country are they from? Does this information have anything to do with Georgia? And if everything is legitimate then (grammar) some should change "An" to an "A". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menrunningpast (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agreed, the text does not belong to this article. What we need is a section detailing the US reaction the US is very much a party to this as a military ally of Georgia fighting with their troops side by side in Iraq for example. Hobartimus (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!Menrunningpast (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Background to war" - Sunday Times Article

I offer for the possible improvement of this article the following from the Sunday Times (in the UK) which offers some interesting background regarding the "behind the scenes" issues leading up to the conflict in South Ossetia - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4545980.ece

doktorb wordsdeeds 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also translated a piece telling of the events in the runup to the Georgian invasion. Talk:Timeline_of_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war#Georgian_police_car_bombed_on_31th_July_.28Novaya_Gazeta.29 Here. --CopperKettle (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well balanced account of what happened, the part talking about the diplomatic efforts to stop the conflict from starting are unique, nowhere I've seen so much detail. IMO we should add it to the article. The article is quite unbiased.
Thanks doktorb for posting the link.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the doctor's article:

The US State Department’s internal timeline of the crisis pinpoints the explosion on August 1 of two roadside bombs, believed to have been planted by South Ossetian separatists sympathetic to Russia, as a decisive moment. Five Georgian policemen were injured, one severely.

Novaya Gazeta tells of this incident thus:

..This war was brewing up for a long time, but one incident served as a formal pretext. On the 31th of July, a Georgian police car was blasted using a self-made remotely controlled device on a detour road near the Eredvi village to the east of Tskhinvali. Russian peacekeepers had time to carry out an investigation and found that two 122 mm Russian-type howitzer shells were used. The policemen's Toyota was totally wrecked, and five Geogrians were injured. Just at the same spot, but on the 4th of July that year, similar explosive was used to destroy a car that carried the head of the provisional pro-Georgian administration of South Ossetia Dmitry Sanakoyev. After the blast the car was fired upon, but Sanakoyev came out unscathed though his bodyguards were wounded. Sanakoyev had been a minister of defence in the separatist government of South Ossetia, but later broke up from Kokoyti and passed to the Georgian side with a group of his Ossetian militant followers. Kokoyti and his supporters consider Sanakoev a traitor.On the 1st of August the Georgians striked back and fired at Ossetian positions, for the first time using long-range big-caliber rifles. The separatists didn't expect such an attack and suffered noticeable losses, replying with a mortar fire directed at Georgian villages, and this fact was noted by the Russian peacekeepers. In the following days the Ossetians started an active provocation campaign, apparently aiming to bring on the full-blown conflict and draw in the Russians, and in this they funally succeded. ..

Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it's one bomb made of two artillery shells, as Russian peacekeepers investigation tells. --CopperKettle (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article tells of the event of 31st-1st as Russian provocation, and this could just be, we dont know. But further on it tells that Rice just barely stopped Saakashvili from launching an offensive agains Abkhazia earlier this year. So the war should've happened without any provocation; and I guess Abkhazians would've defended even without Russian help. --CopperKettle (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, the most balances article as of yet, with a little surprizing implication that Russia would've rolled the tanks in without an offensive from Georgia; this I doubt. But at least it agrees that offensive caused much troubles to civilians and such. --CopperKettle (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote:

Whatever the final death toll, few dispute that the city suffered destruction and that civilians were hardest hit. Nor is there any doubting Albina Shanazarov’s tragic fate. A 13-year-old girl, she sought to flee the city with her mother and three sisters...

..etc. --CopperKettle (talk)

Only stupid people take everything published in British, or for that matter any country's newspapers, as true. I remember, in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, MI6 had Czech Intelligence place a fabricated article about Iraqi WMD in their newspapers, so that it could be picked up by British newspapers and republished, so as to add materially to the fiction. And that is just one example of how we are daily fed fiction from a rich tapestry of lies. 192.190.108.28 (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures deleted

May I ask why exactly pictures that I uploaded under Creative Commons Attribution by Arkady Babchenko were deleted? I uploaded a bunch of them, and asked the author (Arkady Babchenko) personally if it was alright to use them. Direct quote: "Огромная просьба, когда будете выкладывать их где-либо в сети, упоминайте не только авторство Аркадия Бабченко, но и то, что они принадлежат Альманаху «Искусство Войны» (http://www.navoine.ru)." Translation: "if you post these pictures somewhere else, please note the author, Arkady Babchenko, and navoine.ru".

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=610#610

--Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said they belong to the almanach "Art of war"? Then they are probably not free, and that may be the reason for the deletion. Optimally the images should be totally free for use. Also if you find such images, try to put them directly in WikiCommons. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were multiple problems during the last few days about people uploading war images under false license declarations, so admins are rather quick on the delete button now. Perhaps an admin may have been a bit too quick in some instance or other. Can I get this clarified (as I don't read Russian) - this was a webforum where the guy who posted the images said he was himself the photographer, he'd actually been down there with the army and taken photographs and owned the copyright, yes? And that "Almanach", what kind of a publication is that? - Also, did he explicitly allow re-use in other venues besides Wikipedia, including commercial ones? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casulties

The georgian armed forces suffered losses about 133 servicemen. That was confirmed on Sunday 17th august 2008 by georgian soldiers during an interview at a military base —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give us a source before we can put that in. Was it on Georgian TV? I'd probably be prepared to believe you seeing as we may not be footnoting the infobox anyways.Bdell555 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Governments

I have edited rather drastically. My view continues to be that neither the Russian nor the Georgian (nor the American) Government is a reliable source, and we can leave out claims which are solely reprinting their various spokebeings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we do want to say something about American actions, this report that the Americans warned Saakashbili to be cautious, but did not tell him they would not support him, and that "they believed they had an understanding with Russia that any response to Georgian military action would be limited to South Ossetia," should be included. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Times online also speaks extensively on US actions to try to contain Saakashvili's vigor. (from a link by doctorb higher up) --CopperKettle (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On August 16, The general staff of Moscow confirmed that Russia had occupied Poti, as well as military bases in Gori and Senaki. It stated that they were there to "defuse an enormous arsenal of weapons and military hardware which have been discovered in the vicinity of Gori and Senaki without any guard whatsoever."

This is unacceptable. The Russian Government cannot confirm anything; nor can the Georgian Government: they are the interested parties, and we are not here to reprint their public statements.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite a wikipedia policy for this? I find it rather ridiculous that you don't think the Russian government is reliable enough to confirm that they've occupied a town and destroyed military equipment, which falls in line with what the BBC and Guardian are saying. Your view may be that it's not, but my view is that statements are what they are, reliable or not, they shouldn't be censored, and I've never heard of a wikipedia policy backing that view up. LokiiT (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the governments are apt to misinform, especially in a war, but shouln't there be some "common sense" rule: if the presumed fact told by a government is apparent, just add it? --CopperKettle (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the presumed fact asserted by a government is obvious, and it is (as here) of world-wide interest, someone else will say it, as something they have observed. Half of this is an assertion we already have: that the Russians are in Gori and Senaki; the second asserts the purpose of the Russians remaining, which is crystal-ballery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make up rules, we have to adhere to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. As long as we mention that it's the government making the statements, there's nothing wrong. LokiiT (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't quote interested parties when (as here) we can find disinterested ones; that's part of verifiability. Doing so risks deceiving the reader by inducing him to overlook the source of the information. We don't put in long quotations of doubtful factualty; that violates WP:UNDUE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite a source that says official government statements can't be quoted, assuming the source is reliable. By your logic, we can't add that Medvedev said the pullout will start on Monday because he's an "official source". WP:UNDUE only applies if the addition is bigger than it should be, that doesn't mean you can remove the quote in its entirety. There's nothing wrong with saying that Moscow officials confirmed what the BBC and Guardian reported, nothing at all. LokiiT (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show any reason for a neutral reader to believe that a government spokesman is reliable, Russian, Georgian, Ossetian, or American. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In brief, don't cite people who "are apt to misinform". There is no good reason for doing so, unless better citations are not available; and even then there's a sound case for silence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is good reason for doing so. It's called WP:NPOV, one of the most important aspects of editing on wikipedia. It's not up to you to decide who's "apt to misinform", that's wp:OR. The only important aspect to quoting governments is making sure such statements are reliably sourced, in this case they are. All I can really gather from your argument is that you don't like something therefore it shouldn't be in the article, but wikipedia doesn't work like that.LokiiT (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the statements of either side in the interest of NPOV is preposterous. I will give it some time to see what course of dispute resolution is most suitable. Hopefully, consensus will have removed this channelling of propaganda - and, I repeat, I object equally to Georgian propaganda - before I return to this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeating the statements of either side in the interest of NPOV is preposterous" ...?????? LokiiT (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhapt it would be clearer to say that repeating the Russian [or the Georgian] case for themselves, including their crystal-ballery, is preposterous. We could, in theory, neutralize it partly by citing the numerous sources who don't believe them; but that would merely add a cloud of words to what we should have in the timeline: the events which have observably happened on the ground according to the most disinterested sources.
That is what we did have, before Lokiit changed it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most directly relevant policy statement can be found at WP:PRIMARY. The publications of an interested party to a dispute or issue are generally regarded as primary sources. As such, they are not to be used except as descriptions of the various positions. If Russia says that the war began with A and Georgia says it began with B, then NPOV allows and encourages the article to recount those positions as positions. It does not allow the article to leave matters there if there are any secondary sources that are reasonably independent of the parties and that can provide context. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cold War

Additional input, improvement, involvement, etc. at New Cold War would be helpful, and this seems like an obvious place to find interested parties...   user:j    (aka justen)   22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cold War?!! That article shouldn't even exist, that's a neologism trumped up by TV pundits. There is no such thing a New Cold War. Russia doesn't have an sphere of influence or the money to embark on a multi year arms race.
A Russia-China military alliance comparable to NATO? That article is crazy.
I am AfDing that article.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a term with significant verifiable and reliable sources, none of which are television pundits. Your opinion that there is "no such thing as a New Cold War" is your opinion, but it shouldn't be influencing your decisions here at Wikipedia. As for your last point, the article doesn't discuss the comparability of NATO versus a Russia-China military alliance. Not sure which article you were reading...   user:j    (aka justen)   02:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This map "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Current_Major_Military_Alliances.png" is outrageous, it puts China and Russia in an alliance comparable to NATO. That's a mistake.
We should let this New Cold War starts before we have an article about it.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map doesn't speak to comparability. You're superimposing your own point of view on the map.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong anyways...--Jakezing (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internal linking of dates in article and general dating

The article has many date references, some in the format of ex. August 17 or August 17, 2008, but there is no consistency in the format. Also, dates are being internally linked i.e August 17,2008 and is it really necessary to do so? There are so many blue links that I feel the reader gets so mind boggled that he/she won't notice links that might enhance their understanding of the crisis.

So can we:

  1. Agree on a consistent date format? [Month, Date] or [Month, Date, Year]
  2. Remove internally linked dates to reduce "blue link" blindness?

I don't mind going through the article and reformating to whatever we can come to an agreement on. «Javier»|Talk 00:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McClatchy and LA Times report on Tskhinvali damage

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

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

"[40] included both civilians and combatants: people who died at the hospital, whose bodies were brought to the hospital or whose families reported burying their dead in villages" according to this LA Times articleBdell555 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they were the majority of the dead in the city - they were brought to hospital becuse the morgue was out of order (but it's at least 44, or confirmed 44, anyway). Btw - no one cleared the dead Georgians from the streets, many days after ceasefire - leaving the dead to rot/to be eaten by animals is a war crime too (actually, they shouldn't be even buried in a mass grave). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But i seen hospital manager interview and he said quite opposite, that he only knows number of the dead and wounded right there, not in the whole city. Anyway, how american newspaper can be considered primary source? Especially given the fact western media tends to work at georgian side even at this day, and international envoys preferred visiting refugee camps, not the city itself.
Russian TV said there is 2136 officialy registered death claims from the ossetian side. Of course, that doesn't mean there are same number of deaths - some cases describe several deaths by one witness, and some are one death reported by many. 195.218.210.167 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity, i can't really spend much time here, to counter you, Your Biased Majesty. Will you ever seek or read sources, that do not agree with you, or have some excuses for inexcusable russians' actions, for the sake of, at least, pretending to have NPOV? 'Cause, right now i'm looking at the article of OS-inform news agency, published on August, 16. Let me translate it for you, to the extent of my little abilities:

South Ossetia government offers to Georgia, to take georgian dead soldiers' bodies as soon as possible. "If Georgia will fail to take the bodies ... we will have to bury them in mass graves in South Ossetia territory" said S.O. Prosecutor's Office representative Georgiy Kabulov.
From his words, nobody can tell the exact number of dead georgian soldiers, because, since the first days of conflict, there were spontaneous burials of bodies, which have started to rot, and fragments of bodies, which could not be identified. "Today only, we have picked 34 bodies of georgian soldiers", Kabulov said. "We're not vandals, we've had put each one of them in separate coffin, if they[G-gov] want to take them, we'll let them to, but we haven't received any such requests from Georgian side, yet".
"We won't do georgian bodies' identification. Only 4 soldiers have had IDs on them. If, in the nearest time, georgian side won't take their dead, we will have to bury them - we can't keep them any longer."

But of course, to bury Georgians in mass graves, while haven't even completed to bury their Ossetian relatives, is such a war crime from Ossetian people, innit? And you was simply unable to restrain yourself from pointing it out, i'm sure. ETST (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Your Biased Majesty, but “You’re going to be dumping your comrades’ bodies soon, you faggot, where we only bury stray dogs. And that’s where you are soon going to join them. (...) The prisoner was made to drag the dead men off the truck and to bury them in a ditch with the corpses of eight other Georgian soldiers.”[1] Of course they bury the enemy dead with all due military respect, yes sir. Just like they treat prisoners of war just like they should, and the civilian hostages... oh wait, they should not take hostages at all. (And don't cite me the disinform.ru "news agency", please.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about you(ETST, Captain Obvious), two holy warriors of biass, move somewhere else with this? And by somewhere I mean off the wikipedia. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "bias" to quote an eyewitness reporter against the disinform.ru claims (the guys who stole a picture from Gori and miscaptioned as from Tskhinvali, etc.)? Mass graves are against Geneva Converntions (like a lot of what the Ossetians do, including taking hostages, abusing prisoners, reportedly killing them, using them for forced labour, etc). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Why do any pro-russian source ever need such thing? There are no shellholes in Gori, no heavy damage at all - unlike Tskhinvali. On the contrary, it's western media - CNN, BBC, FoxNews - who repeatedly called some Tskhinvali videos as "Gori"! It was even confirmed on TV by author of one of those videos, russian operator, with BBC and russian 1stChannel pictures presented side by side on the screen! 195.218.210.137 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction in poor English

I understand there is a lot of editing on this page and it is difficult to keep track of all the edits, but the introduction is really hard to read for a native speaker without wincing, it seems to have been edited by many of the locals with their limited knowledge of English grammar. Does a native speaker have the time to revise at least the first 4 paragraphs? --Lgriot (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the introduction; and the problem is not only non-native speakers. A group of editors might be able to meet separately to come up with a well written introduction, but I’m not sure how this would be done. Regardless, it seems there is way too much hostility over content to try to improve the writing -- charges of propaganda would follow. Right now it looks like this article will be written by those with the most time and stamina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjpro (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

I have removed a line which said there were two polls for independence in 1992, which showed the will of the people wanted indepence. The article which is quoted for this is *before* the second poll (and so the sentence is not backed up by the article) and the first poll was not internationally recongized - not mentioning this is misleading. (Speaking purely personally, a 98% vote for anything smacks of vote rigging.) Toby Douglass (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should undo it. The information concerning the polls is essential part! Taamu (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needs modification before undoing. What the statement says and what the referred article say *are not the same*. Toby Douglass (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The high figure might speak of rigging, might point to the fact that pro-unity folks were ousted and forced to flee, might speak of a nationalist surge in the days just after the conflict; with these caveats somehow mentioned, with references, it could be included at least in the "timeline", I think. --CopperKettle (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I removed the line on the basis that the sentence and the referred article didn't match, as opposed to my views about the poll percentage. Toby Douglass (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cossacks in infobox

Can we include the different Russian cossacks in the infobox? since it is included in the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) article.

Spartan's stupid copypasta

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=232637655&oldid=232610559

A huge block of copypasted text.

Someone PLZ lock it from the new and unexperienced editors. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is already semi-protected, which means that people who don't have an account on Wikipedia can't edit this article, and it also means accounts which are less than four days old can't either. If you think the level of protection should be greater, I believe that the next level above semi-protection is complete protection, which means that no-one can edit the article, and I do not believe that a move like that will be endorsed by an admin atm. I might be wrong in thinking that is the next level, though. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure damage

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

I think that no. But that we should mention that piece of propaganda.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think there's no more infrastucture in Georgia, don't you?
Being bombed by Russians? I guess there wasn't this type of infrastructure at all. Do you have data concerning it? P.S. If yes, please don't confuse it with Georgian propaganda. Taamu (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being looted, burned, mined, demolished during "ceasfire". (Russians call it "taking care of abandoned bases" or "peacekeeping".) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100% propaganda! Taamu (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I hope I do have. But, forgive me for being sceptical, i want to see your photos of russians attacking the hospital. The thing i can't really understand, is what the hell they've needed the hospital for? And how could you attack hospital? If no one is shooting back from it, that is? ETST (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions lifted. I've read news on the hospital. I'm sorry about that. I don't think, it was done intentionally. ETST (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these were rhetorical questions. The hospital was clearly marked. "How to attack a hospital": Aim and fire, just before the ceasefire.[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10526968 --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you mention the sense of dignity after all your government and your troops have done with civilians in South Ossetia!!!??? All foreign jouranlists and the UN representatives can confirm whatever will be useful for the US government. We already saw it when Ossetian girl gave an interview at American TV channel!!! Second, Russian troops attacked millitary base in Gori, there could be killed civilians (accidentally), it's a WAR. You can send me your own photos of what??? I can send you my own photos of the FULLY destroyed by Georgian troops Tskhinval!!! So, please don't try to raise this sort of dispute. Your pres. saakashvili has shown his pathetic face when he ate his tie. He started the war, why doesn't he behave himself as a man? He's acting like a pro&#$tute!!! Taamu (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, what "Ossetian girl gave an interview at American TV channel" event are you referring to?(Sorry, i just can't keep up with news). ETST (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TRY THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ (don't think official link ever existed) :) 195.218.210.137 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone give Taamu a chill pill? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Strange editings - text disapperas.

Excuse me please, but recently I started a new section here, advising that we need to add info about that Georgia attacked it all first, about that it attacks Russian peacemakers base and that we need to add "USA interest" section to Russia interest, Osethias interest and so on. Now I can't see any tracks of these my text. It is not even in a "history". How's that?--Oleg Str (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Archive. Taamu (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRITE (!!!!)

  • TITLES OF THE ARTICLES
  • SOURCES OF THE ARTICLES
  • DATES OF THE ARTICLES

What the hell? Som guys put links alone, destroying references section. Others write things like "NY Times" (instead of The New York Times). As I said above, admins should protect this page from new users. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Trivia) Statements by involved parties

Use aany of this elsewhere if you want and if notable.

Remove an item from this list if used. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

File:Tbilisi-2008-08-12.jpg
Tbilisi demonstration against Russian intervention on August 12, 2008.
  • Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili claimed the Russians conducted a "well-planned invasion"[1]
  • "A sniper war is ongoing against residents of the villages in the South Ossetian conflict zone and as I speak now intensive fire is ongoing from artillery, from tanks, from self-propelled artillery systems – which have been brought in the conflict zone illegally – and from other types of weaponry, including mortars and grenade launchers", Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said in a live televised address made at 19:10 7 August local time.[2]
  • "This is about annihilation of a democracy on their borders," Georgian President Saakashvili told the BBC. "We on our own cannot fight with Russia. We want immediate cease-fire, immediate cessation of hostilities, separation of Russia and Georgia and international mediation."[3]
  • Georgia's Security Council secretary, Alexander Lomaia, said Saakashvili's proposal means that the Georgian troops will withdraw from Tskhinvali, the provincial capital of South Ossetia, and stop responding to Russian shelling.[4]
  • Russia has "started a full-scale military invasion" of Georgia, the country's UN Ambassador Irakli Alasania said in New York.[5]
  • "If this is not war, then I wonder what is," Georgia's ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Victor Dolidze, told a crisis meeting of the OSCE's permanent council in Vienna.[5]
  • Georgian President Saakashvili stated, "What Russia is doing in Georgia is open, unhidden aggression and a challenge to the whole world. If the whole world does not stop Russia today, then Russian tanks will be able to reach any other European capital." He argued Russia was attacking Georgia because "[Georgia] want[s] to be free and we want to be a multi-ethnic democracy."[6]
  • In an interview with CNN, Saakashvili said that Georgia and Russia were practically at war. "We have Russian tanks moving in," he said. "We have continuous Russian bombardment since yesterday ... specifically targeting the civilian population. Russia is fighting a war with us in our own territory."[7] He told the BBC: "Our troops are attacked by thousands of troops coming in from Russia."[8]
  • On August 13, Georgia's Ministry of Defence reported on its web site[11] that 4,600 Russian passports had been found in a Russian armed forces vehicle. These passports were said to have exhibited numerous irregularities — such as having consecutive serial numbers despite bearing different years of issuance — and none of them had been signed by their owners. Georgia suggested that this was evidence of a plan to increase the number of Russian "citizens" in South Ossetia in order to bolster Russia's claim that it was acting to protect its citizens.
  • Also on August 13, Ex-President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze stated that "…Georgia should not have advanced into Tskhinvali in so unprepared a way. That was a grave error".[12]

Russia

  • Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in a BBC interview: "Peace is required and that is what we are going to achieve but we would not go beyond this."[14]
  • Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, "The actions of the Georgian powers in South Ossetia are, of course, a crime — first of all against their own people," and alleged Georgia was committing "complete genocide."[15] Putin opined that the territorial integrity of Georgia has suffered a fatal blow. He later stated "the Georgian side was preparing aggression... Nobody was listening. And this is the result. We have finally come to it. However, Russia will of course carry out its peacekeeping mission to its logical end."[16]
  • Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he was ordering the military prosecutor to document crimes against civilians (by Georgia) in South Ossetia. He said "The actions of the Georgian side led to deaths - among them are Russian peacekeepers. The situation reached the point that Georgian peacekeepers have been shooting at Russian peacekeepers. Now women, children and old people are dying in South Ossetia - most of them are citizens of the Russian Federation. According to the constitution, I, as the President of the Russian Federation, must protect lives and the dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are. Those responsible for the deaths of our citizens will be punished.[17] He said it aims to force Georgia to accept peace and restore the status quo, and it is acting within its peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia, and in line with the mandate issued by the international community.[18][19]
  • After the GMT 4:00 8 August UN Security Council meeting, Boris Malakhov, spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said he hoped it was still possible to prevent "mass bloodshed," adding, "It now became clear why the Georgian side was refraining under various pretexts from signing a legally binding document on non-use of force"[20]
  • Russian envoy Yuri Popov said Georgia's military operation showed it could not be trusted and NATO should reconsider its plans to grant membership to Georgia. Popov said, "Georgia's step is absolutely incomprehensible and shows the Georgian leadership has zero credit of trust." He called Georgia's behavior treacherous.[21]
  • In a letter to all NATO members, Ambassador of Russia to NATO Dmitry Rogozin stated Georgia had "got a permit to start a military operation" after the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest and warned against continued support of Georgia and its president.[22]
  • In North Ossetia's Vladikavkaz there were several demonstrations rallied by local Ossetians, with protesters shouting "Russia, save us!" and demanding the withdrawal of Georgian forces from South Ossetia.[23]
  • Chairman of Russia's State Duma Security Committee, Vladimir Vasiliyev, stated, "Georgia could have used the years of Saakashvili's presidency in different ways - to build up the economy, to develop the infrastructure, to solve social issues both in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the whole state. Instead, the Georgian leadership with president Saakashvili undertook consistent steps to increase its military budget from US$30 million to $1 billion - Georgia was preparing for a military action."[24]
  • On 10 August 2008 Russian human rights commissioner (ombudsman) Vladimir Lukin called for creating an International Tribunal on South Ossetia. "That man who ordered a night attack on Tskhinvali is the main responsible person," he said.[25]
  • Vice Chairman of Russian parliament Vladimir Zhirinovsky in his speech on Echo Moskvy radio suggested bombing Tbilisi and bringing Saakashvili to trial, overthrowing his "fascist regime," as well as breaking all diplomatic and economic links with Georgia.[26]
  • [other reactions from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and deputy Foreign Minister incorporated into initial paragraphs]
  • Russia also laid much of the responsibility for ending the fighting on the United States, which has trained Georgian troops.[27] Moscow ignored the Bush administration’s statement about “significant long-term impact on the U.S.-Russia relations”. Washington has not condemned Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia.[28] Israel,[29][30][31] France, Ukraine, and other countries have also trained Georgian forces in the past.[29]
Map of North and South Ossetia.
  • The Communist Party of the Russian Federation "completely support actions of the (Russian) head of the state and the government against aggressor Mikheil Saakashvili" according to party leader Gennady Zyuganov. Zyuganov also criticized the U.S. and the European nations which have called for a cease-fire, because Zyuganov says they only "wish to protect the bloody dictator Saakashvili." Finally, the Russian government should recognize the independence of the Republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia according to Zyuganov.[32]
  • Mikhail Gorbachev, former head of state of the Soviet Union, in an op-ed in the U.S. newspaper The Washington Post blamed Georgia for starting the conflict: "the roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy... What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against 'small, defenseless Georgia' is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity."[33]
  • Sergei Lavrov said, on August 14th, that "One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity. It is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state". [34]

The general staff in Moscow stated on the 16th,, "There is a presence of our armed forces near Gori and Senaki. We make no secret of it," "They are there to defuse an enormous arsenal of weapons and military hardware which have been discovered in the vicinity of Gori and Senaki without any guard whatsoever." it said.[35][36]

South Ossetia

  • On 8 August, South Ossetia called on "the governments and peoples of the world" to recognise its independence: "For South Ossetia, there is only one path of life – the acceptance of its independence by the international community. We call on all self-respecting people of the planet to not be indifferent to the fate of the Ossetian nation."[37]
  • On the 16th, Eduard Kokoity, President of the Republic of South Ossetia, stated that no Georgian peacekeepers or international observers would be allowed in South Ossetia.[38]

Abkhazia

  • Abkhaz Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergey Shamba called on the international community to prohibit Georgia from having its own armed forces. "Over the last hundred years Georgia has been an independent state for 21 years: from 1918 to 1921 and from 1990 till now. And during that time launched 7 wars," he said.[39]

Did a stub on Civil Georgia

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McClatchy article

An interesting article today from the McClatchy newspapers, a US newspaper chain. | Tour of Tskhinvali undercuts Russian version of fighting. I suspect that it ought to be discussed here on the Talk page before inserting anything into the contentious article based on this source. N2e (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird sentence in introduction

From the introduction:

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

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

Be bold, like this. They did advance significantly, AFAIK. --CopperKettle (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought as much, but "largely refrain" to be bold on this particular article... ;_) -- megA (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the author. My understanding - which may be wrong - is that there were some movements beyond the claimed SO border, but nothing that would genuinely be an invasion of G. Toby Douglass (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Russians have dug in 40 miles of Tbilisi, blown up at least one railroad bridge, cut the main road from Tbilisi to the sea, occupied several cities and two large military bases, and sunk at least one Georgian ship: all of which actions have been confirmed by Reuters, Human Rights Watch, the Associated Press, the BBC and so on, in the face of constant denials by the Russian government and media. (My "favorite" quote: outside the city of Gori, Russian general Vyacheslav Borisov was asked about the croplands that his irregulars had set on fire, and replied, "It's a farming technique." See http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/stalins-birthplace-a-town-ravaged-by-war/2008/08/14/1218307118845.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 for one instance of this quote, though I originally saw it elsewhere.)
If you're new to this article and don't have a strong interest in the subject, I strongly recommend that you not get involved. This is a wasps' nest -- there hasn't been much fighting on the ground, so Wikipedia is taking up the slack... :) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And let me draw your attention to the new section on "Russian claims, then and now," if you're wondering who's to blame for that... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Watch update

Russia Should Curb Militias and Allow in Humanitarian Aid

Investigate Violations and Protect Civilians

photos for those interested. Bdell555 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

"On August 16, Russia put this number at over 10,000 refugees." Citied article says about present number, not total. So, this formulating is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.63.113 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and McCain on the current crisis

Reading from a paper, Barak Obama issues his first statement about the current crisis. The video is a (possibly partisan) comparison between the two main contenders in the upcomming U.S. presidential election. (Youtube video Obama/McCain) --Hapsala (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians Illegally Armed With German Weapons

It may be helpful: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3571263,00.html Vadimkaa (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add clarity to this, these G36's would have been illegal (in germany) if exported from germany without export license. (Hypnosadist) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Igny

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=232701715

Definitely not a hearsay. Perhaps a source with a "wrong" date for Igny ?? Elysander (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military casualties

Will someone who is a registared editor change the data on military losses.

The Georgian military losses should be changed to 160 killed and 300 missing because here is a reference [[2]] that says the Georgian Ministry of Defence claiming to have confirmed 160 soldiers killed and 300 missing.

Updated. It's also a pretty good summary. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone ought to remove the aircraft losses from the infobox or otherwise mention the destruction of Georgia's entire airforce.[citation needed] If you want to talk about that, move it down into the article or remove it altogether. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian claims, then and now

  1. (August 8) More than 1,400...1,600...2,000 civilians dead in Tskhinvali!!! COMPLETE GENOCIDE!!!
  2. (August 14) 60 civilians verified killed and indetified (and more than 40 Georgian soldiers killed in the battle and left behind during the Georgian withdrawal). Doesn't matter - Georgian genocide anyway![3]
  1. (August 8) The city completely destroyed!!! Razed to the ground, like Stalingrad in 1943!!!
  2. (August 17) 80% of buildings undamaged, after the Georgian attack and the Russian counterattack. Even water supplies expected to be restored in days.[4]

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

Haha. It's amazing. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions: how is this in any way related to improving the article? And how is this in any way different than the bogus claims on the Georgian side, like the one about the destruction of Gori which the UN embarrassingly exposed as being complete rubbish?[5]--71.112.145.102 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stalingrad (whole city like this, that is 0% of undamaged buildings). Stalingrad of course was also a big city - now over 1 million after rebuilt, not a provincional town 30,000.
File:Soviet soldiers moving at Stalingrad2.jpg
Something like this, am I right? All references to "destroyed" Tskhinvali should be removed from Wikipedia.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29507379@N06/ . Магистер (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? 1,400 buildings allegedly damaged (including 700 allegedly "beyond repair"). 5,600 buildings officially undamaged. Is this "Stalingrad"? Tskhinvali "existing no more"? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

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

Article rename

Originally, when the conflict was wholly or largely confined to South Ossetia, my sense was that the media generally referred to it as the South Ossetia war or the South Ossetia conflict. Now that much of the action and occupation has taken place inside undisputed Georgian territory, as well as in Abkhazia and even in Georgian territorial waters, the media has switched to refering to it as the Georgian conflict or the Russian-Georgian conflict. I propose that in the interests of accuracy, we follow suit. (Incidentially, it might be worth considering whether there should be a separate article just on the initial fighting in South Ossetia alone. However, this is a separate question and this article certainly does not have that limited scope). On the renaming question, I favour the 2008 Russian-Georgian conflict but could support something similar. Greenshed (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Russo-Georgian war" --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the link on this subject at the top of the talk page. Until English usage settles on some one name for this, there is no hurry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the archive link. Now to the central question and, respectfully, I must disagree that there is no hurry. Given that the nature of the conflict has changed, keeping the name as the South Ossetia war supports the point of view that the whole conflict is about South Ossetia. It may well be that English usage never settles on one name and so the neutral thing to do is to pick the most commonly occuring name (or possibly some other form of average name) used by reputable, third party English-language sources. Greenshed (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia War. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a tad ambiguous; to say nothing of local history, see William Tecumseh Sherman. If we were discussing an established usage, that would be different. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it is important that the article contains the disagreement between both sides on defining the situation. State of War(Georgia) vs Peace-Making(Russia). This should idealy be mentioned in the introductory paragraph, and expanded.--Tananka (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo for using

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_3.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_4.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_5.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_6.jpg GNU license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ru magister (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Used them in Battle of Tskhinvali. Btw, the story of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_2.jpg is BS - it's not WWII and the modern tanks can't burned with petrol bombs (the old tanks would be if hit near the engine), can be only set on fire which will destroy the paint on them. Ossetians not only had plenty of RPGs, they had also many tanks on their own. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, this history not quite real, but shows the attitude of civilians. Магистер (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ossetians didn't had "many" tanks, and even those weren't combat-ready, they were stored by peacekeepers according to previous agreements 195.218.210.137 (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance of Georgian Military

Interesting Article about the Georgian Military's performance

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080818/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_military_tested;_ylt=AqaAlsgpyVuoM.2BOLfGTxis0NUE

New Georgian death toll (unofficial)

4,000 killed - mostly civilians and mostly in villages in SO or near Gori. Template:Pl icon http://tygodnik.onet.pl/31,0,13603,wojna_po_wojnie,artykul.html

Supposedly kept in secret to not upset the public. Gvt said "no comment". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Be aware that this user has previously made blatant POV edits to this article (see archived discussion from yesterday). It is my impression also that there is a distinct discrepancy between the edit summaries provided by this user and the actual edits. __meco (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a problem. If this sort of editing pattern doesn't stop, administrators should be notified. Ostap 00:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cityvalyu was notified of 3RR, however a more serious problem is that he also uses false edit summaries to describe his edits and now also falsely accuses others of vandalism in his latest edits. Hobartimus (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNHCR: 158,000 refugees now

While Russia says only over 10,000 Ossetian (and there are only about 55,000 South Ossetians total).

Russia trains its missiles on Tbilisi, AFP, August 19, 2008 --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, 148,000 - from Gori. ;) Магистер (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Population: 150,000 (1 city, 143 villages). Many also from and near Abkhazia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of war vs. declaration of war

A distinction could be made between the initial acts of war and the official declaration of war by the Georgian parliament, through approval President Saakashvili's decree on Aug. 9th. Valid for 15 days. source: [6] Incidentally this decree also declares martial law. [7] --Tananka (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page view analysis

Following that request, I am doing some special analyses, so you might be interested in those page hit analyses as well... --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please dont misquote to project a biased view

allow words pointing to the pros and cons..removing the failures gives undue importance to a unworthy inference..

read the lines properly..please stop vandalising the article and my neutral edits

the Guardian reference (ref number 22) says:

Anna Neistat of Human Rights Watch (HRW), who is leading a team investigating the humanitarian damage in South Ossetia, told the Guardian that Russian estimates of 2,000 dead in the conflict were "suspicious".

"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful," she said. "Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."

Neistat said that HRW investigators had, today and yesterday, recorded cases of Ossetian fighters burning and looting Georgian villages north of the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali.

"The torching of houses in these villages is in some ways a result of the massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties," she said. "That is then used to justify retribution."

Neistat said that doctors at Tskhinvali hospital had provided figures that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue. Russian and South Ossetian officials have claimed that 1,400 people were killed in the first day of fighting, mostly in Tskhinvali.

There have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments and there are no lists of the casualties. Neistat stressed that HRW's investigation was not complete

so stop sexing up with a georgian or us govt. slave like position..please be neutral (NOTE THAT I DIDNT ASK YOU TO BE A OSSETIAN)..

so please stop acting too smart..your cooperation is welcomed..Cityvalyu (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) either state both sides or remove the sentence outright..restoring neutral version as i am not violating 3rr ...Cityvalyu (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my Cityvalyu, I'm not sure if English is your first, second or third language; however, "after acknowledging the "incomplete" nature of her investigation" as you write in your edit, has a completely different meaning than "stressed that HRW's investigation was not complete" <--- meaning still on-going and likely to discover additional information. It does not mean that what she is stating at the moment is false, contains glaring inaccuracies, and therefore should be discounted. --«Javier»|Talk 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Russia and Georgia Clash Over Separatist Region, The New York Times, August 8, 2008
  2. ^ Saakashvili Appeals for Peace in Televised Address, Civil Georgia, 7 August, 2008.
  3. ^ In 'state of war' over South Ossetia, Associated Press, Tue Aug 12, 3:15 AM ET
  4. ^ [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hV2N6fVKS5slf10A13Dj_uIdaZ4QD92EO4000 Georgia proposes cease fire in S Ossetia, Associated Press, Aug 9, 2008
  5. ^ a b [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080808/ts_afp/georgiasossetiarussiaunrest Russia thrusts into South Ossetia; clashes with Georgia reported, Agence France-Presse, Fri Aug 8, 7:44 PM ET
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference at war was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Russia, Georgia Near Full-Scale War Over South Ossetia". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 2008-08-09. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  8. ^ Russian forces battle Georgians, BBC News], 8 August 2008
  9. ^ "Georgia institutes proceedings against Russia for violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (PDF) (Press release). International Court of Justice. 2008-08-12. Unofficial.
  10. ^ Simons, Marlise (2008-08-13). "Georgia Files Suit Against Russia, Charging Racial Discrimination". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  11. ^ "Statement". Georgia Ministry of Defence. 2008-08-13.
  12. ^ Ex-president: Georgia made mistake, International Herald Tribune, 13 August, 2008.
  13. ^ "'Georgia Decided to Restore Constitutional Order in S.Ossetia' – MoD Official". Civil.GE. 8 August 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-15. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ "Interview by Minister of Foreign Affaires of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov to BBC, Moscow". August 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ "Medvedev, Putin accuse Georgia of genocide".
  16. ^ Times Online (2008-08-11). "Russian troops invade Georgia and 'take the town of Gori'". Retrieved 2008-08-13.
  17. ^ South Ossetian bloodshed claims hundreds of lives Russia Today, Retrieved on 2008-08-08 See also: Lenta.Ru: На Цхинвали движется колонна русских танков (Russian) and Медведев пообещал наказать Грузию. Lenta.ru. 8 August 2008. Template:Ru icon and Youtube video: Official statement of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev in view of situation in South OssetiaTemplate:Ru icon
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference bbctanks was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ "Medvedev tells Bush Russia aims to force Georgia to accept peace". RIA Novosti. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  20. ^ Reports: UN Security Council to Discuss S.Ossetia. Civil Georgia. 8 August 2008.
  21. ^ Georgian troops, planes, pound separatists Retrieved on 09-08-08
  22. ^ "Russia Warned NATO against Further Support of Georgia". Kommersant. 2008-08-08. Retrieved 2008-08-08. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  23. ^ Armed Cossacks pour in to fight Georgians, The Guardian, August 9 2008
  24. ^ Experts argue over Georgia-Ossetia conflict Retrieved on 09-08-08
  25. ^ "Лукин призвал создать международный трибунал по Южной Осетии" (in Russian). Lenta.Ru. Retrieved 2008-08-10.
  26. ^ Template:Ru icon "Радиостанция "Эхо Москвы" / Передачи / Разворот / Пятница, 08.08.2008: Владимир Жириновский, Геннадий Зюганов, Александр Дзасохов, Сергей Митрохин, Никита Белых".
  27. ^ Georgia: In 'state of war' over South Ossetia, Associated Press, August 9, 2008
  28. ^ Pleming, Sue (2008-08-09). "U.S. says Russia uses 'disproportionate' force". Reuters. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  29. ^ a b Herb Keinon (August 11, 2008). "Analysis: Israel tiptoes around conflict". The Jerusalem Post. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  30. ^ "Israel backs Georgia in Caspian Oil Pipeline Battle with Russia". Retrieved 2008-08-10.
  31. ^ Jewish Georgian minister: Thanks to Israeli training, we're fending off Russia, Haaretz, 11/08/2008
  32. ^ "Г.А.Зюганов об итогах встречи представителей думских партий с президентом: КПРФ – за срочное признание независимости Южной Осетии и Абхазии, а также полный разгром агрессора" (in Russian). КПРФ. 2008-08-11. Retrieved 2008-08-11.
  33. ^ Gorbachev, Mikhail (2008-08-12). "A Path to Peace in the Caucasus". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-08-12. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  34. ^ Washington Post. Russians Say Separatist Enclaves Will Not Revert to Georgia, accessed 14-08-2008.
  35. ^ Traynor, Ian (2008-08-16). "Six days that broke one country - and reshaped the world order". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-08-16. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  36. ^ Galpin, Richard (2008-08-16). "Russia in control and on the move". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-08-16.
  37. ^ Южная Осетия призвала мировое сообщество признать ее независимость. Lenta.ru. August 8, 2008. Template:Ru icon
  38. ^ S. Ossetia says Georgian refugees unable to return to region, RIA Novosti, 15/ 08/ 2008
  39. ^ "Абхазия призвала лишить Грузию армии" (in Russian). Lenta.Ru. Retrieved 2008-08-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War&oldid=232804378"