Talk:International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War

Comment

For all gdfl info on content then see 2008 South Ossetia War per this time and date. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I strongly suggest this be merged back into the main article. We don't have separate "International reaction" articles for everything that happens, and not for conflicts or wars. While Kosovo 1999 is a similar situation to this one (draw your own parallels, people), there is no good reason for this to be its own article, at least for now. Maybe if there is a declaration of independence (again?) that elicits an international reaction. But not right now. BalkanFever 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do have lots of "International reaction" articles (such as International reaction to the Benazir Bhutto assassination), they are a good way to split alot of factual info off the main article in a NPOV manner. Also this War is likely to go on for a bit (even if thats just peace talks), with more reactions over time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is remerged the already exceedingly long main article really will be too long. ARBAY TALKies 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel playing larger part

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358 This should be added... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the info that Israel will stop shipments to Georgia is false, Israel officials have denied that, though they stopped selling unmanned drones. Do a google search, you'll see it come up. 72.140.80.212 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the US president photo!

Please revert this edit which removed the photo of the US president. The article is about the international reaction to the war, and the photo shows the US reaction, and the US is the most powerful and the only hyperpower on this planet (whether we like it or no!), therefore whatever the US says is of extreme importance. The photo also adds value to the article, and it also helps the reader understand the US position. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored, but not exactly for the same reasons. The reaction of the US is important not only because of how powerful it is, but because of its relationship with Georgia and Russia, and its real and perceived role in the conflict. Photographs of the reactions from other influential heads of state should also be kept. Oxygen (believe) 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course we should include photos of other leaders as well, especially Russia (generally whoever has nukes and has interests in Caucasus is important and should be included). Please do put more photos if we have free ones. NerdyNSK (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NerdyNSK: How arrogant of you to say that. Whether you like it or not, articled on Wikipedia must maintain a neutrality and the addition of that image upsets the neutrality. The image should be removed. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not POV to include a photo of a world leader. If you can find a free photo of a Russian leader I will be very happy to include it. If not, you can include a Russian flag with quotes from Russian leaders as its captions. I have no problem seeing both the US and Russian statements in image captions, but I do have a problem with having no images at all. Images are good for the encyclopedia and the article. NerdyNSK (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen: There are numerous countries that have established diplomatic ties to Georgia. That does not mean we should add images of people from everyone of those countries. The image should be removed. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the image should not be included to maintain neutrality. The United States response is no more important then Ukraine's, Canada's, Israel's or any other countries response, despite it's status on the world stage.72.140.80.212 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The encyclopedia exists to serve our readers, and all of our readers are very interested to learn how the US views the conflict. Adding the pic with the caption helps our readers by attracting their attention immediately to the information they mostly want to read when they first visit the article. Search on internet forums and you will see that everyone discusses whether the US is likely to get involved and how and what the US said etc. NerdyNSK (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what readers are interested in? If they want to find the US response it's right here for them to see, we do not need to put President Bush's photograph at the top of the page because thats saying the US response is much more important then other nations. It throws the neutrality of the article at risk, because this site isn't all about the United States. 72.140.80.212 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the photo have any significance to "International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war"? No it doesn't. What photo would have had significance if it was made in South Ossetia for an example but like this it looks like any other Bush photo. Otherwise we could have this in the article too:

Raul Castro, President of Cuba, made a statement regarding Georgia: "It's false that Georgia is defending its national sovereignty. The request for a previous withdrawal of the invaders is just and our government supports it." Castro also added that "The Autonomous Republic of South Ossetia historically formed part of the Russian Federation" and condemned the United States.

And we don't need it.--Avala (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The article 2008 South Ossetia War was moved to 2008 South Ossetia war and for consistency I believe International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia War should be moved to International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war (this does not mean that I agree with the name, as I would prefer 2008 Russia-Georgia War, but I propose this to keep consistency with the main article). NerdyNSK (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• since no body objected I moved it. NerdyNSK (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbering

Do the tables need to be numbered? Countries are already (mostly) listed in alphabetical order. Numbering makes it difficult to insert new entries. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Article question

Would these be fine?

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080810-153729/OFWs-in-Georgia-safe-but-ready-to-go OFWs in Georgia safe, but ready to go

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20080810-153785/Evacuation-plans-ready-for-Filipinos-in-Georgia Evacuation plans ready for Filipinos in Georgia

Wasn't able to find anything from a reaction from the Philippine gov't. Will look more. Ominae (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about making a diagram?

How about making a diagram? It would fit the article well. For example, there would be "lefts" and "rights" supporting either Russian or Georgian POV, with neutral bar in the middle, and few bars to each side, where extremity is shown through it's closeness to border. Colors like blue and green for sides and cyan for neutral would also improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.189.199.57 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, but it might be best to wait until the situation is resolved; countries' opinions may change depending on what happens. Esn (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely OR, to transform qualitative into quantitative assessments. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The situation is too complex for a linear graph. For instance, some organizations might disapprove of Georgia's initial move north but also disapprove of the degree of Russia's response. Cwilsyn (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama and McCain

Would it be appropriate to include Obama and McCain's reactions to the recent events in Georgia? They are US Government officials in some sense, and (unless something major happens) will be in charge of the US in the aftermath of this. Both have denounced Russia, though McCain was more vitriolic in his denunciations. Orville Eastland (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidates do not represent official government statement, so neither one is really appropriate for inclusion in this article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuff there is no such notability requirement for inclusion in this article, and as for notability Obama and McCain's views are very notable as many people in South Ossetia will know them more than most people mentioned here. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, this article includes quotes from Greek political parties. Orville Eastland (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be limited to official statements. I suggest removing the Greek political parties and looking at the German section. Cwilsyn (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

CSTO vs NATO

For better objectivity, reaction of CSTO should be also shown, cause there`s reaction of NATO. -- 193.232.9.194 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody edit the article? Don`t you want to add some objectivity? :) If you are so lazy to find sorces here`s one [[1]]( in russian, I can translate if you like) -- 193.232.9.194 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ICRC statement

Maybe this could serve as an update for the Red Cross position? OelnJa (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, its been added. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, just noted that this article is not protected, so I could have done that myself. But thanks for adding it! OelnJa (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are reactions and counter-reactions

It is a voice from one of the sides in response to the reactions, so it is not "international reaction" by itself. But it has been suggested in the Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war that it may fit here better:

Russia Warns Baltics, Poland To Pay For Georgia Stance. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain top adviser was lobbying Georgia?

I'm not fond of watching over american elections, but it is somewhat related:

John McCain's top foreign-policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, is a leading expert on U.S.-allied Georgia -- and was a paid lobbyist for the former Soviet republic until March, in the run-up to what has become a major battle between Georgia and Russia.

Democratic rival Barack Obama's presidential campaign was quick to try to paint Mr. Scheunemann's dual roles as a conflict of interest after Sen. McCain swiftly took Georgia's side in the dispute, and cited it as evidence that Sen. McCain is "ensconced in a lobbyist culture," as Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan told reporters over the weekend.

[2]

McCain may lose some points and Obama win some.Garret Beaumain (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant to the conflict, or to the election. McCain has always been a strict critic of Russia, and it is certain that his response wouldn't have been any different either way. It will defiantly not "lose some points" in the election. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

EU,NATO leaders and Ukraine in Tibilisi "We came to fight since our old neighbor (Russia) thinks that it can fight us"

[3] The leaders of Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia rushed to Saakashvili's defense Tuesday, traveling to Georgia and appearing together at a mass pep rally in the center of Tbilisi, the capital.

"We came to fight since our old neighbor (Russia) thinks that it can fight us," Polish President Lech Kaczynski said. "This country thinks that old times will come back, but that time is over. Everyone knows that the next one could be Ukraine, then Poland."

--Molobo (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Individual reaction of Latvia

Press releases from Latvian Ministry of Foreign affairs: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], maybe some of these are relevant to this article ~~Xil (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining this article

This article is a useful reference imho. It does need consistent date formats and punctuation style, as well as updating. Cwilsyn (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of Nato image

Their is no rational for the use of the Nato flag, (Image:Flag_of_NATO.svg).
I think it needs to be removed as I cannot see how using it here qualifies for Fair Use. FFMG (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NATO provides this and other images for download and states quite simply on their site that they are free to use as long as they are credited as the source. I'm rather boggled at how something as simple as a flag can get wrapped up in so much red tape. The whole thing just looks like FU gone mad. There was a FUR attached earlier, but it got nuked. Wiggy! (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple, and I have explained it to you on your user talk page. You apparently haven't read what I wrote very carefully. You should do that. __meco (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is incorrect

Only Cuba supported Russia, not 'other countries'. Not even Belarus supported the Russian invasion. --Molobo (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord Poland!

Why on earth is the Polish statement so large?! I'm sure we can cut about 80% of it out so its just a line or two to match the rest of the article?? Any objections? Taifarious1 03:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I object. There is no reason that a country which invests itself on numerous arenas and displays a deeper commitment than most other European countries shouldn't have these efforts aptly described. I do agree this text needs to be cleaned up, but I reject a general purge. __meco (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Poland has no more to do with this than any other European country. WP:UNDUE should come into play here, Poland is no more important than the rest and suggesting otherwise is only your opinion, not fact. LokiiT (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well LokiiT, Poland just made the missile shield deal with the US that Russia sees as a threat..therefore Poland has much more to do with this than any other European country indeed. And since they chose to sign such a pact during the Russian-Georgian crisis, it is a political statement on it's own.--Termer (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A country's importance is judged by many factors. A blanket levelling of all European countries with regards to their involvement in the conflict is hardly rational. When one country, such as Poland, invests an unusual amount of its resources into this conflict, this should be detailed. __meco (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Poland was one the most involved countries in this conflict in regards to diplomacy. Georgia is a cornerstone of Polish foreign policy, has deep historic ties to Poland, Kaczynski is personal friend of Georgian President's family and so on. Polish diplomacy was heavily involved. I would however shorten the passages and just give sentences about the most important actions.--Molobo (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New neutral project

Do not clear it, please, be objective. If it is possible - add it to the page.

The new Internet site Russia-vs-Georgia have been created recently. The main goal of this site is to give all visitors do voting one of the side and comment it . The authors asserts that «Project doesn't support any of the sides. Our aim – together with visitors investigate real situation.». The abbreviation vs is striked, obviously it is the hint to understanding that «Russia is not versus Georgia». --Korolev Alexandr (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• neutral project? Where is the third option for voting, in case someone might support peace between the countries instead of one or another in the conflict??--Termer (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As is so often mentioned, what does this have to do with improving the article? This looks more like someone's political site and not a news site which could be used as a reference source. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dkis attempted to remove Chechnya

Either we should remove the "Unrecognized states and non-state entities" section altogether, or we should preserve the comments of all unrecognized states that have anything to say on this issue. The section is not titled "Unrecognized states and non-state entities that Russia approves of."

Speaking of which: I'm sure that al-Qaida has said something on the issue. Could someone add them, as well as putting the Caucasus Emirate back (and maybe adding Kosovo)? ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Looking through the revision logs: User:Dkis also blanked the Caucasus Emirate entry -- and there as with Ichkeria, he simply blanked the entry without bothering to add an edit summary for why he was deleting information. Dkis, if there's a reason these unrecognized states aren't kosher, please post that here, but otherwise remember that unrecognized means unrecognized, and all unrecognized states belong here. Not to mention that the reaction of the Muslim rebel states is very important here -- if there's anyone who's going to escalate this war, it's them. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My mention of Kosovo sounds like a troll -- I didn't intend it to come across that way; I think Kosovo is the one unrecognized state that would/should be most interested in this conflict, and so their observation would be worth adding. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Meco -- clarification on Poland and Russia's threat of nuclear attack.

Meco, the footnote for the paragraph that you edited linked to http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833364,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics -- in which General Anatoly Nogovitsyn is reported by Interfax to threaten a nuclear strike against Poland. When a controversial claim is made and a footnote is provided to back it up, check the footnote before contravening the claim; Wikipedia has and deserves a very good reputation for reliability when citations are provided. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dkis, either discuss the ChRI and the Caucasus Emirate, or stop deleting them.

Once again, User:Dkis has blanked the position statements of the ChRI (Chechen Republic of Iskeria) and the Caucasus Emirate on the war, and has not provided an edit summary about it. Dkis, if you have any reason or argument on this subject whatsoever, please post them on this talk page. You have deleted these entries, with their citations, twice within two days, and you have not made an argument for your action, not even in an edit summary. Please, either post your argument for excluding these factions on the talk page, or stop erasing them. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

Republika Srpska is only a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so they can't say for the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina so I think we need to delete it or somehow mention that it is a statement only from Republika Srpska and not from the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Libya

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080814/116039560.html . Магистер (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Separate Ukraine article?

It seems Ukraine's reaction has led to some domestic political intrigues. Perhaps a separate article should be created for Ukraine's reaction in light of this development.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don´t insert illustrious writers' views

Please don't try to insert private blogger's views like they were the mainstream views of the countries or even official views. Example [11]. Narking (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they may be not the official position, but the foremost representatives of the Swedish culture must be respected too. When Valery Gergiev said something about the conflict, it is worth mentioning, the same about Jonas de Geer. Besides, in the article in Swedish he is not called "blogger", but writer therefore that is surely not his main occupation - he is considered skriftställare, journalist och katolik.. Bogorm (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides, Folkets Nyheter is a prominent tidsskrift, therefore its contributors should be respected - as there are mentions about some BBC reporters in the article about the was (far less renowned than he), so should he be mentioned too. I would like to see other (sourced) arguments for the erasing of his position! Bogorm (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's surely not the official position when you site a blogger from the extreme right. If you didn't know it he has links to Nationaldemokraterna which is a tiny extreme nationalist party. And Folkets Nyheter surely isn't a prominent newspaper. It's just ridiculous. It's like citing Sam Webb as a the American view. Narking (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sam Webb is the leader of a prominent political party in the USA, whether you like it or not. Besides, I am the translator of the article about Jonas de Geer in Bulgarian and I would appreciate more reveration towards the illustrious political figure of your own country, which he is. I verily do not understand this effort to disparage him... And being extreme right is no more reprehensible than being liberast (not targeted at anyone) Bogorm (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I knew it, since I transated the article in Bulgarian and it is mentioned there. Bogorm (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it's still a blog and from a person with views very far from the mainstream in Sweden. It surely doesn't belong here. Do you want to add every person's view in each country? Narking (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If he is prominent enough to have an article in the Wikipedia, then his opinion should be authoritative. And people outside politics have often more remarkable and outstanding positions as e. g. Valery Gergiev and he. So why en effet did you erase it - because it is from a blog or because you fear lack of notoriority? (The second would flabbergast me, since he is a renowned person in Sweden) Bogorm (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Both, it's from a private blog and from a person with zero influence in Swedish politics. And don't come and say he is a renowned and prominent journalist and writer in Sweden. Then you clearly show you don't know what you are talking about. Narking (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If he has an article in the Swedish Wikipedia, that is enough and means he is. Do not try to belittle him. If every inconvenient person were "with zero influence", then probably the infant 17-zear old lad Daniel Wretström, butchered by pugnacious, pusillanimous, assembled (zusammengerottete in German is the right word) murderers is "with zero influence" too? Bogorm (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An article in Swedish Wikipedia surely doesn't say much if a person is prominent or not. And besides that, it's official views that should be mentioned in this article and not extremist's views from each country. Narking (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, extremist views are to be castigated, but liberast ones should be freely promulgated, right? That would be a pro-Occidental POV! Besides, there are extremist governments on this Earth as DPRK or the new government of Nepal (insofar as the Maoism is a form of extremism) and their statements are not to be derogated because of this. Bogorm (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that you are just here to push your own POV. You simply don't listen. If Jonas De Geer would have been a member of the Swedish government his blog would have been important here, but luckily he isn't and will most probably never be with his extremist views. I might think that DPRK has an extremist government but that doesn't matter here, their views are of course welcome in this article. If you don't see the difference between a government's view and an extremist blogger's view you have big problems. Narking (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"luckily he isn't" - I suggest you to preserve your POV for yourself and not use Wikipedia for defaming Jonas De Geer and whether it is lucky or not. "will most probably never be" - please do not intrude crystal-ball predictions - this is once again admissible only in forums! He is not an extremist blogger, for the 10th time I inform you that on the Swedish article he is described as a skriftställare, journalist och katolik.. If you are unable to distinguish between a writer and a blogger, then you have an even bigger problem. Hopefully it is unwillingness in lieu of incapability. Bogorm (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's now clear that you don't even read my answers. Sorry, it's just a waste of time to discuss with you. Read my answers and you will understand why this Jonas De Geer doesn't belong to this article. Narking (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have perused asiduously (for my desolation) your personal opinions about Jonas De Geer's political activity which were innecessary to be disclosed right here. He belongs to the article because he is a prominent, renowned writer and thence an illustrious Kulturträger of the Swedish culture, because his comment Georgia on my mind concerns notably this conflict, because he elucidates the perfide instigators of the colour revolutions and I find your striving to conceal all this crucial information from the reader reprehensible. One compatriote of yours who quoted Bildt, forgot to write about the Russian embassy's indignation and this hints too at POV. Fortunately I understand Swedish though... What about your Latin - Ceterum censeo, cogitationem eius illic confestim reddendam esse! Bogorm (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For your information Carl Bildt is Swedish Minister of Foreign affairs. His views should be in the article, not mine or yours(unless you are a Bulgarian minister). You have clearly showed you know nothing about Swedish politics even though you claim to be able to read Swedish. Narking (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nowhere denied Bildt's claims, I was indignant about the obfuscating of the aversion they caused in the Russian embassy! Luckily I could add the reaction of the Russian embassy. I know very well who this person is and what post he occupies! "unless you are a Bulgarian minister" - your comments become increasingly facetious and derisive ... and I am not delighted by that. Bogorm (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your indignation about Carl Bildt's statement doesn't give you the right to add Jonas De Geer's blog post to this article. Narking (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not mine indignation, it's the Russian embassy's irritation, on which one had been deliberately reticent in the article about the reaction to the war(not this)! ""Olycklig och osaklig", anser ryska ambassaden i Stockholm om utrikesminister Carl Bildts jämförelse" - does not that sound like reprehension ([12]) ? Bogorm (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's rather obvious that you and the Russian embassy are of the same views. Which you have the full right to have of course. Anyway I repeat for the last time Jonas De Geer's blog post doesn't belong here. Narking (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is rather obvious that you want to impede the popularisation of the foremost writer of contemporary Sweden Jonas De Geer, but I am going to resist that. I have translated the article about him in Bulgarian, I can translate it (and Folkets Nyheter) in other languages too - in German or Latin! Anyway I shall not settle for other efforts to belittle his personality, as it would be a blatant POV. Summa summarum, you have not provided any source stating that he is not a prominent representative of Swedish culture and I have shown you the Swedish Wikipedia which is sufficiently valuable for me and hopefully for other admirers of the Project Wikipedia too. Bogorm (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to talk more about Jonas De Geer and your alleged language skills you are free to do so, but just don't do it here. Neither belongs to this article. Narking (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reinstatement of the prominent writers' elucidations and statement - VOTING

User:Narking has removed the statement of the prominent Swedish writer Jonas De Geer with no single argument or source confirming that he is not prominent, thereby indulging in Argumentum ad hominem against him. He had been a reporter for the widespread magazine Folkets Nyheter in this country and I am deeply disturbed by representatives of Sweden sticking firmly to ministers' sentences and being reticent about the Russian embassy's (not him) and the foremost cultural personalities. Thereby I put here the statement proposed for inclusion in the article, which had been impeded by him, and commence a procedure of voting for its restauration, since I believe that the sooth should prevail however inconvenient it for some people is:

• "The prominent Swedish writer, journalist and commentator Jonas de Geer described the war Georgia instigated as "suicidal" and compared it to Cuba invading USA. He deems the "colour-coded" "liberation upheavals" in Georgia, Ukraine and Serbia being organised by Berezovsky, Soros and the neoconservatives around McCain striving at a confrontation with Russia."

References

(for the current section only the third one imports)

For

• Support Bogorm (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Against

• Oppose The reason why this statement doesn't belong here is very simple, and I'm sure everyone here understand that. Jonas De Geer is not an official representative of Sweden. That's it. And it doesn't matter if user:bogorm thinks he is a prominent person in Sweden or not. But for those without knowledge of Swedish politics I can tell that this person is only a known person within the extreme nationalist and White Power groups in Sweden, and those groups have minimal support in Sweden. (And what was the reason to put links here to http://www.russia-vs-georgia.com?) Narking (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it is a free and accessible place to express oneself about the ongoing conflict. Here it is not the place for imposing one's opinions on famous personalities on others. I consider prominent everyone who has an article in some Wikipedia with more than 100 000 pages. If you initiated a deletion procedure in the Swedish Wiki for Jonas De Geer and succeeded, I would immediately cease to consider him prominent. Bogorm (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Marginal opinions expressed by obscure persons are redundant. They only make the article POV.--Kober^Talk 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If everything, whereof one is ignorant, is defamed as obscure that is the first stride towards the obscurantism. Sapienti pauca Bogorm (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It is exaggeration. Personal opinion of privet people come on. Geagea (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay

http://www.mrree.gub.uy/mrree/Prensa/Comunicados/2008/053_2008.htm - Uruguayan government press release Kislorod (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - missing

I think that SCO has announced a statement about the war, but I can't find it mentioned here. Alinor (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is here. It is disputable whether it fits better to this or yonder article. Bogorm (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NGOs vs International Organizations

It seems to me like the "International Organizations" group should be split into genuine international organizations (e.g. UN, NATO, CSTO) and non-governmental organizations (Amnesty, HRW &c). --Quintucket (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/08/09/10050.shtml

  Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War

Cyberbot II has detected links on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/08/09/10050.shtml

  Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/08/georgia-russi-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International reaction to the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820124452/http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10856/a/109510 to http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10856/a/109510

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)