Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Russian wanton destruction, breach of international law, possible war crimes and theft of US Property

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4566892.ece As per this times article is it worth mentioning that after the "peace deal" Russia is continuing to attack Georgian positions, bases, and destroy not only military assets but also civilian rescoucse and infrastructure. They are also “capturing” (read kidnapping) military personnel from outside the areas they occupied when the peace deal was signed. Additionally they have stolen US vehicles that were awaiting shipment back the US (they were not being used by the Georgians) All of this is not only in breach of the terms of the “peace deal” but also breaks international law, could someone please include this into the main article, maybe a section on Russia’s breaking of treaties, as well as breaking of international law (possibly war crimes)? 81.149.82.243 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally they have stolen US vehicles that were awaiting shipment back the US This is highly dubious. Maybe Toyotas or BMW's?--Thomaq (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They stolen US part of Ossetia. Магистер (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

US part of Ossetia? I was not aware the US had any terrirorial claims in the region, is there a sourrce for this claim?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Have you wondered that maybe they are trying to weaken the Georgian army so this won't happen again anytime soon? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that was part of the ceasefire deal... (SCNR) -- megA (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, actually. Under the part where Russia is allowed to take "certain security measures". --Mrcatzilla (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that "certain security measures" refers to continued aggression against the Georgian military. That wouldn't be a ceasefire, and the Georgian government wouldn't have agreed to it. Christiangoth (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On US vehicles, the Russians took four amphibious-kit Humvees -- see here for instance. I hadn't thought that the Russian detention of Georgian soldiers, with a ceasefire signed, is likelier to be kidnapping than capturing... But still, even though it doesn't appear (yet?) on the list of WP:NOTs, Wikipedia is not the Hague Tribunal. Reuters, Human Rights Watch, the AP, and so on are giving very clear evidence of war crimes and an ugly sort of malfeasance, but we don't know how far up the chain culpability runs -- we should wait until a notable source makes indictments, and then document that action, rather than making the indictment ourselves. If you know of such sources, however, please add them: I certainly will if I encounter any. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

TV said the abductees were policemen. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AP said the captives were military personnel and their source was Georgian port authorities. They asked the Russians why they were captured and they stated that they were operating without command ... which given the state of the Georgian military command sounds feasable. As for the US vehicles, the seizure of military hardware is perfectly justifiable irrespective of who it belongs to in an area which has little to no military command operating. Leaving them sitting around for anyone to nab would just be irresponsible as they'd surely end up on the black market. Looting is against the Geneva convention but disarming and destroying weapons is not.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Operating without command" is not a valid reason to kidnap someone, they weren't armed at the time, and weren't attacking the Russians, and were also on the Georgian side of the lines which were established pre the "cease fire". Launching a raid over a cease fire line after a cease fire has been signed to capture anyone (millitary personel or otherwise) is kidnap, not arrest or capture according to the rules of war. The Humvees were vehicles belonging to the US millitary, but it's not as if they were tanks, they didnt have any weapons on them, so that's like saying you can steal any vehicle because "it might be used for military purposes" (additionally they were actually packed in locked shipping containers ready for shipment, and the Georgians hadnt even gone near them as they were in a civilian port), additionally Russia had to ADVANCE AFTER THE "CEASE FIRE" to steal the vehicles, it has also been destroying civillian infrastructure, vehicles, ships, buildings and property, also there are numerous reports (from verifiable international press sources) of Russian armed forces looting from Georgian Civillians, both in Georgia proper, and in the South Ossetian region. As well as the fact that the 20% of buildings that are claimed to have been damaged or destroyed in the action in South Ossetia, it is estimated that 2-4% were damaged by Georgian troops, with the remaining 16-18% destroyed in the subsequent Russian Invasion. 81.149.82.243 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this war actually about?

According to the article as it currently stands, the war is simply caused by conflicting interests as regards to a tiny province called South Ossetia north of the capital of Georgia. The article doesn't really deal with ex Soviet republic of Georgia's aspiration of Nato membership, Russia's geopolitical interests, particularly as regards to its "backyard" (i.e. former Soveiet republics as a whole, and maybe what used to be Europe to east of the Iron curtain), the message Krimlin wants to send to neighbors who intend to go against Russia's intersts. Etc, etc. So, how about an introductory article section called geopolitical backround dealing with these issues? --Hapsala (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's about Kosovo more than the Russian "Near Abroad." However, I'm not a notable source... Be sure to adhere to the notability standards, but if you find notable sources discussing possible motives for the conflict, feel free to add them. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This war about the control of US over Caucasus. Магистер (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See, thats blatant POV 72.140.80.212 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

its about keeping georgia out of NATO by toppling their crazy president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.40.251 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The war is related to the current Russian regime (Putin et al) to recreate the USSR with them as it's dictators, to do so they are moving down the route of anexxing parts of surrounding nations, and will eventually attempt to install puppet regimes, or mount full scale invasions under some kind of pretext. 81.149.82.243 (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see there are a lot of point of view, that are opposite to one each other. The idea of finding the reason of the war /the way it is stated in the head/ is great, but I don't see how we can do it here w/o starting another editors war.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hapsala. I think a two sentence overview stating the cause of the conflict at the intro would help a great deal. It would be difficult - make that very difficult - but not impossible. 203.206.3.212 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean cause, I mean "what's it all about" in the way that Hapsala meant it. 203.206.3.212 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This can't be done until NPOV sources agree to what the causes are and that will only happen after everything's resolved. CapnZapp (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Official and last Numbers of Casulties

Georgia:

Military

133 dead - 45 killed during russian air raids, 68 KIA, 20 killed during ceasefire

500 wounded

18 captured —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

70 missing

Civilian losses

82 killed during russian air raids and advances through georgian territory

965 wounded

Georgia/South Ossetia

Military

casulties unknown, but ossetian armed formations confirmed as complitly destroyed. Only 700

survivors (?) ( confirmation needed )

Civilian losses

Number of dead - unknown ( estimated high )

Number of wounded - unknown ( estimated very high )

Georgia/Abkhazia

Military

400 dead - 400 KIA

circa 1000 wounded

Civilian losses

none

Russian Federation

Military

104 dead - 74 KIA, 30 killed during artillary barrages

up to 300 wounded

5 captured

18 missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by

ComanL (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Senior MP: 215 Killed in Conflict --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

afaik 74 includes these 30. 195.218.210.133 (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia have it's 14 or 15 soldiers captured.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Verified source 4000?

"Anatoly Nogovitsin, the deputy chief of staff, said at a news conference on August 13, that although no verified data was available, but “I’ve heard Georgia has lost 4,000 men.” " Hearsay? I don't know, he just "heard". I don't know if we can write the 4,000 figure with just that source--Jaimevelasco (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the casualty box, the Polish sources cites the Georgian minster of home affairs as estimating 4000 dead, mostly South Ossetian civilians. LokiiT (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem like a good source. Not the newspaper, but the citation of the said "government official" not mentioned by name. If that's really going to be Georgia's estimate we'll hear about it later but so far I can't find anything about it on english news-sites. Grey Fox (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Propaganda to push up the moral of russian troops during fightings —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

--Oleg Str (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Name rankings on Google News

A search on Google News bring up the following results for each potential name:

• Russia-Georgia Conflict: 1,771 results
• South Ossetian Conflict: 1,402 results
• South Ossetia Conflict: 908 results
• Georgia War: 681 results
• Georgian War: 484 results
• Russian-Georgian Conflict: 481 results
• Russia-Georgia War: 262 results
• Russian-Georgian War 94 results
• South Ossetia War: 33 results

I should note several of the results on Georgia war/conflict actually refer to it as Russia-Georgia. This probably doesn't even accurately reflect the extent of media coverage as the results for South Ossetia also include results from the days leading up to the major conflict. One also has to take into consideration the organizations using these terms. Those using South Ossetia are primarily regional news organizations while those calling it a Russia-Georgia conflict include CNN, AFP, AP, Reuters, NPR, The Times, The Guardian, MSNBC, Fox News, Business Week, USA Today, Financial Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, International Herald Tribune, Xinhua, and countless others. This clearly is the name which has been adopted. Whether this will be the name history gives it is a much later question, but for now it is clear what this article should be called. It's time to stop all this idiotic bickering over whether there has been a consensus on naming, it's not like we can't include the names in the intro like every other conflict. I suggest the article be renamed Russia-Georgia Conflict with the intro providing some of the other popular names.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear rename now no more putting off the vote, the clearly inappropriate current title must go. Hobartimus (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia-Georgia conflict may refer to more than just the warfare. There's already a seperate article on that.

• War in Georgia: 1,000 results Grey Fox (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Russian invasion" Georgia: 2344 results

I did not find any article that did not refer to this particular conflict but I suppose some may be. Variations include "Russian invasion of Georgia", "Georgia: Russian invasion", "Russian invasion of a neighboring country", etc. For example: "Russian invasion of Georgia": 446 results ---(PaC (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

As someone mentioned a week ago about this same issue; wikipedia is not a popularity contest. The Hundred Years War was not called so until after the fact ... which doesn't make much of an argument, but I think that the conflict began in the geographical region of South Ossetia, and therefore it defines the conflict, like "100 years" defines that conflict (even if it wasn't 100 years long). It isn't like Russia and Georgia went to all out war against one another, there were no formal declarations, and if they did, Russian troops would be in Tbilisi. I personally think that by leaving the title that is in place now, all concerned parties will know exactly what the article is talking about. Let's face it, in citing all those American based sources, most news anchors can't pronounce "Ossetia" and "Russia vs. Georgia" registers much clearer with American viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menrunningpast (talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A search on Google: "Bush is a fool" - 78 800 results. Магистер (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you search "Putin Terrorist" in Google, you get 3.4 million results, so your point is? "Results 1 - 10 of about 3,400,000 for putin terrorist. (0.20 seconds)" MattUK (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Putin Terrorist" - 1 190 results, "Bush Terrorist" - 66 000 resilts. Магистер (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you put quotetion marks around it for more precision, you get this:

• "South Ossetian Conflict": 1,068 results
• "Russia-Georgia Conflict": 719 results
• "South Ossetia Conflict": 633 results
• "Georgia War": 517 results
• "Georgian War": 440 results
• "Russian-Georgian Conflict": 289 results
• "Russia-Georgia War": 207 results
• "Russian-Georgian War": 110 results
• "South Ossetia War": 19 results

So, the name, in my opinion, should be "South Ossetian Conflict". --Mrcatzilla (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Also sprach Google!" I think, these results speaks nothing. Магистер (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the article's name are welcome at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Article title. Greenshed (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood for oil?

An interesting look at the back story of this conflict [1] from the BBC, who would have thought oil might be a motive? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Any war into a country that hqas oil supplies is called a war for the oil, even if it wasn't.--Jakezing (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also remember that Russia explicitly did not want to harm pipelines through Georgia, with the interest of maintaining good relations with both Azerbaijan and Turkey. I don't have a source on hand, but it seems very logical. PKK insurgents in Turkey rendered the BTC pipeline inoperable before the fighting in South Ossetia escalated, not Russian forces after the fact. Menrunningpast (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• other POV: no oil -> no money -> no mercenaries -> no wars--A20080819 (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• other POV: no Earth -> no people -> no wars 68.151.34.161 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are repots on the Times online website that say that Russia bombed the pipeline, it's not so much to gain control of the oil and natural gas, but to for it's flow to be though Russia, under the control of Moscow, rather than letting countries have independant control of their own rescources. MattUK (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

British Petro didn't confirm attacks on its pipeline. Only observers at the pipeline could clear whether any signs of attacks are visible. But more decisively: Who will invest $$$$$$$$$$ in a project like Nabucco within immediate reach of Russian tanks and airforce . Elysander (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with posts appearing in the wrong sections?

Just a point I would like to mention, and defer to the more experianced editors on here, but is anyone else having problems with posts which are made in one section appearing in the section above or below the one it was meant to be in. I'm not clicking the wrong "edit" link, as I've checked the "Subject/headline:" field before posting, any ideas out there from the more knowledgable Wikipedians? MattUK (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This happens some times on high traffic pages when a section is created/deleted/moved at the same millisecond you post. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"[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)

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)

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)

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)

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.”[2] 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)

I'm sorry for calling you YBM. It was uncalled for. After all, you have never insulted me. You only did it to my country, to my fellow russian SergeyXXX, and to my faith in people, who wisely abstain from harsh conclusions on things they've never seen(although, i think, my country will be able to recover from the shock of your insult, and keep on livin'). "Don't cite me disinform news agency". Or what? Strong allergic reaction of "black-white" world view with unfitting data input will seriously endanger your life? I have expected a better link from you, Captain. Maybe this article is published not on "disinform.ru", but on respectable from all sides TimesOnline, but, as such, it serves as a clear demonstration of how information could be a crap, no matter who's the publisher. The authors of this article should have became action movie script writers - 'cause it's only in bad action movies you can meet wild-eyed armed-to-the-teeth unshaved men with gaping holes in their thighs and a great urge for killing and procreation. In real life, when somebody is shot in the thigh, he is not even able to drive any means of transportation in his vengeful search of prey - if he's lucky, and his bone wasn't fractured, then, for the first 10 minutes, he is rolling on the ground, grasping the wound and crying for Jesus, and for an obviously pagan deity F*ck in all of his manifestations. If he somehow managed to stop the very profuse bleeding(yeah, on the thigh, and without tourniquet, fat chance), he's got to bandage it, or, upon slightest disturbance, bleeding will start again(so, no gaping holes for showing off around reporters). And he's gotta do that mighty fast, or he will bleed to death, or die from hypovolemic shock in no time. But our hero, himself, or with a little help from his friends, have managed to overcome the situation. He got up and went for revenge... well, at least he tried to, but an excruciating pain didn't even allow him to stand on the other leg and jump. Our hero had used painkillers, but the only location he could and will try to reach, while their effect lasts, is a hospital, which he isn't going to leave for a very long time, or he'll get sepsis and his leg sawed off on the very next day(and that operation will help him, only if he's still lucky). I could have went on with commenting of this crap, whose authors have thought, that to jump on the 'hate russia' bandwagon, and write a piece of gory fiction(not without rape story), which no one will be able to disprove, is a clever idea of earning money, but i don't think that this will help you learn to subject the information to the critical analysis, no matter how much do you like to believe it, so why bother? But ok, let alone that. You may believe it, or not, but OS inform have a statement, about Ossetian civilian hostages, captured by Georgians. Will you throw it aside too, so image of poor innocent besieged Georgia won't be tainted? You may not know, but (http://www.regnum.ru/news/1042994.html) yesterday, Georgians had refused an exchange of prisoners, because "Georgian side had brought up demands of political and military nature, which are absolutely unrelated to the exchange process". And, please, tell me, if you can, what "due military respect" was exersizing that georgian sniper, who stopped the bus of refugees and killed a 13-year-old girl? ETST (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have aby questions, write to Mark Franchetti, because I don't care about your OR. "but OS inform have a statement, about Ossetian civilian hostages" - More like disinform.ru have a statement about SUPPOSED Ossetian civilian hostages, because no one have seen any. Also I asked you to not bother me with this "news agency", which puts Kavkaz Center to shame. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see, which of the questions i've asked go to Mark Franchetti, because he was not the one, who was repeatedly ranting here about absence of "due military respect" in Ossetians, while conveniently forgetting to mention the lack of such in Georgians, and i don't need a lecture on "How to write a story, which violates basic medical facts(not an OR), but will be believed in" either. No, my questions were addressed to you, and you've failed to provide adequate responce. Forgive me, but comparing bulletin-board-for-terrorists'-statements website, famous for it's hate speeches on russians and jews, and calls for terroristic acts and jihad, to official regional news agency "OS Inform"(no hate speeches, or calls for a revenge upon the Georgians whatsoever), is not what most people will call justified, too. Is that your reasoning for listening to what you want to hear only? Ok, enough of this, or it'll get out of hand. Just stop your rants, please, there are no innocent parties at this war, but if somebody has the knowledge and moral right to judge any of them, it's neither you nor me. Don't bother to reply. Thank you. ETST (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

WTF? Why do any pro-russian source ever need such thing? What's the point - 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 CNN? and russian 1stChannel pictures presented side by side on the screen! 195.218.210.137 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"WTF? Why do any pro-russian source ever need such thing?" Some people on Wikipedia here uploaded pics "of Tskhinvali", taken from disinform.ru - these pics were stolen from western agencies and taken in Gori (we found the original author and his caption). Gori was mostly not shelled but bombed. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Captain, so you are saying that them posting disinformation justifies you posting it? Interesting... Very interesting... 68.151.34.161 (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So where are BOMBholes in Gori, eh? Hint - there are none! 195.218.210.133 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"American broadcaster CNN has been accused of using the wrong pictures in their coverage of the conflict in South Ossetia. A Russian cameraman says footage of wrecked tanks and ruined buildings, which was purported to have been filmed in the town of Gori, in fact showed the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali."[3]--Tananka (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

@68.151.34.161 Hmm... Holy Warrior Of BiAss... sounds kinda cool! Gotta think of adopting this title in my everyday life. ))) Well, i was naively hoping, that it would be just between me and him, and it won't disturb the others. But it seems, i'm opening a new front of S.O.war here. But Captain isn't very reserved in his statements either(yeah, very childish of me), and i simply can't leave them undefied. ETST (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be quite naive to assume that Tkhinvlis destruction was perpetrated by Georgians alone. Georgians took the city with a rapid advance supported by artillery. Russia dislodged the Georgians from the city with artillery, tanks and bombers. Grozny shows the history of Russian tactics to dislodge opposing forces. The destrucion of Tskhinvali was perpetrated by mutual forces. A clear aspect of bias is present here as the only sources we have for Tkhinvalis destrucion, even today, are Russian. NO international media has been allowed that far north.70.193.63.107 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely NOT the "rapid advance supported by artillery", but rather "massive all-night shelling and slow advance" 195.218.210.133 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Western journalist were eventually let in (first on the guided trips in a Russian APC with the Russian officer charged with PR), and of course found Tskhinvali to not be groznyfied. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "groznyfied"? Grozny was being destroyed mostly by direct fire several years of fighting! 195.218.210.133 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently there's not enough gore, death and destruction in the Tshkhinvali. We should probably request a couple of peaceful, democratic B-52 from US to finish the job, right Captain? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Groznyfied, I would think, is pretty self explanatory and an excellent coining (although I prefer "Groznified"): look at google earth, Grozny was decimated and still is. Direct bombing, it was not, nor was Tshkinvali, but what can one expect with the equipment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menrunningpast (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"still is"? I guess you never had seen present-day Grozny videos! This is how bias is born... 195.218.210.175 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fox News/You tube

Just a heads up, but linking to the video on youtube is a violation of Fox New's copyright and isn't allowed per WP:YOUTUBE. I'd say the coverage in other sources should be enough to discuss the alleged missteps on youtube's part. If you feel a video of the interview is necessary, you'll have to find it through Fox New's site. AniMate 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) cunty

There was an explanation in the info to the interview with Amanda I quote, sorry for caps (thus was printed in comments):

"*****FAIR USE***** THIS VIDEO IS POSTED BECAUSE IT IS NEWS WORTHY AND EDUCATIONAL. UNDER FAIR USE RULES YOUTUBE IS NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE THIS DOWN. FOX NEWS CANNOT CLAIM A COPYRIGHT. FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVILEGE". End of quote. "News" can't be subjected to copyright! That's the principle implied in the Constitutions of many countries including USA as I assume.

For those interested there is also another interview with Amanda on YouTube by Russia Today which was posted there oficially by Russia Today itself.

And I have one question: Where's the whole section "Fox News video with 12-year old girl and her aunt that arived from the conflict zone"?!! Where did it disappear and why??? - Jake7 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable to compare an video which is posted voluntarily and an video which is posted "under fair use". BTW, Is that fair use a law of USA? I do not know USA law, but I can't imagine any other country can be extend the fair use to this Fox video.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

About Copyright and Fair Use.

1. Yes, that fair use is a law of USA. "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." [4]

2."Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright" [5]. - Jake7 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just find the link on FoxNews.com and link to it directly. That way there is no possibility of a copyright infringement. Jason3777 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored Fox News video with FoxNews.com link to avoid potential copyright problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason3777 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Fox News video is of a much better quality than the YouTube copy and is subtitled "12 year old girl escapes Georgian crisis; blames Georgia for aggression", so much for the censorship/media bias claims.... Jason3777 (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WHY someone keeps deleting this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCwTo9AdT2c ? From the Talk section, wth? I think it has to be discussed as well. Maybe someone can find official link, so it can go into main article. 195.218.210.175 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From Your Local Infobox:
"Russian/Ossetian estimate more than 2,000 South Ossetians killed.[10] Russian/Ossetian claim a confirmed 60-200 Ossetian civilian corpses identified and 500 more unaccounted for.[11]"
Which would make 560-700, but not 2,000. So...? And how can you "confirm 60-200"? Either one single number is confirmed or it's another estimate.-- megA (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It means the Russians have changed their estimate -- they had been insisting on 2,000 dead and a Georgian objective of complete genocide, plus all sorts of other war crimes, but Human Rights Watch has contradicted them and now they're backing down. "Confirm 60-200" sounds a little bit high to me -- the main hospital in the South Ossetian capital confirmed only 44 dead. Their new figure is evidently 700 at the high end, which is probably also wrong unless you count South Ossetian militiamen as civilians -- which reportedly they're doing. This has been discussed elsewhere on the talk page; please review that section. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RSO said 200 identified bodies and 500 missing and at the same time Russia said 60. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Human Rights Watch" has no effect on Russian estimation. HRW is not reliable source for non-western people.--A20080819 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a common sense that HRW is always not a reliable source for all governments, institutions and individual people who are critized by HRW. Because HRW is anti-Turkish, anti-USA, anti-Chinese, anti-Russian ... on a regular basis and on demand HRW is a classical 3rd party source annd therefore on a higher level than Russian or Georgian sources. Elysander (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

HRW's reports should be taken with care, but IMO thay aren't bad. Number 60-200 is pretty wide, but I think it's more or less realistic. 1500-2000 was taken from Osethian government. In the begining Prime Minister Putin sad about Tshinvali "Tens are dead and hundreds are wounded" - I think it is pretty realable.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't concerned about the numbers themselves, but how you can claim a figure is "confirmed" when there are still estimates involved... seems like a contradiction to me. -- megA (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Tens are dead" ?? after massive artillery (inc.MLRS) strike to city at night? non-sense! It was September 11 for Tshinvali .--A20080819 (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Official information from SO gover: 1492 killed civilians of Tskhinvali region. 2008-08-20 (ru)--A20080819 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC. Russia has issued new, reduced casualty figures for the Georgian conflict, with 133 civilians now listed as dead in the disputed region of South Ossetia.. But that wasn't my point... -- megA (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Beginnings of Russian withdrawal?

Really now? The only thing that the section says that asserts actual withdrawal is a claim about Reuters which their article doesn't actually say. (It says some vehicles left Gori, but it doesn't say where to.) The title is therefore inaccurate, and (since only the Russians claim, so far, there is a withdrawal) POV. And even if we knew more, the assertion that this is the beginning of something not yet happened is purest WP:CRYSTAL. Unsupported Russian claims do not belong in the timeline, any more than they did yesterday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian troops leave Georgia town - "A number of Russian troops have begun to pull out of Gori, the largest Georgian town close to the South Ossetia border."

"Some Russian troops have been seen leaving Gori, the largest Georgian town close to the South Ossetia border."[6] LokiiT (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, where are they going? That they left Gori is 18 hours old. If any of these said even they were going north, that would be another matter. (And there have been doubts.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... i thought Russians "have been never in Gori"? ;-) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-ossetia15-2008aug15,0,2212287.story Elysander (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This was is filled with general confusion and crap sources--Jakezing (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AP is running a story that they asked the troops as they left Gori where they were going and a colonel responded that he was headed back to Russia. They even gave a break down of the types of vehicles that they saw.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap sources:

Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin called the media together to announce: "A propaganda war is going on." "This is a massive disinformation campaign," he said, waving copies of The Washington Post and the Financial Times and quoting reports in them about Russian troops attacking the Georgian city of Gori. Churkin said Russian troops had acted responsibly securing a large ammunition dump and more than a dozen tanks and troop carriers abandoned by the Georgians at a military base near Gori, Churkin said, adding that Russian troops "are not in Gori, they have never been in Gori, they have never occupied Gori." Churkin said he was not aware of any U.N. complaints that regions of Georgia were inaccessible to aid workers. (UN chief: South Ossetia and Gori inaccessible)

This was on August 15. Whatever Russians say, on whatever level, just can't never be taken seriously. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

«A propaganda war is going on.» Well, «all's fair in love and war». Don't believe ANY politicians of ANY country involved. --Namenlos Ein (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well there is something to thik about. Yeah right. But for some pplz life seems sweeter, when they think that it's only Russia's Putin you can't believe. Not own Bush, Ushenko, Mihiko or whoever ^-). There were no battle for Gori, cos Georgians military left it. There also left no administration in Gori. There are numerous reports of Western journalists, that soldiers here are jumping on their trucks and leaving to the Tbilisi at hight speed. City admninstration and Police, some civilians folowed them. So ppls were left just like this. While main Russian forces stayed out of a city. Some Russian squads where there to take a Police role. They are not numerous enough to make a military force. And waiting for the georgian police to come. That's what I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Str (talk • contribs)

You did write " some civilians followed" . Who spoke from a "Battle for Gori" ? Neutral observers did confirm that Russian airforce did attack Gori with cluster munition. Round about 50.000 civilians did leave Gori. And Russian officers did forbid Georgian police the last days to access Gori area to take its genuine role according UK and German TV journalists. Elysander (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe any official spokesmen. I have not seen the unsupported claims of the Georgian government creeping into the article all that much lately; but I would cheerfully support their removal as necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia has yet to begin withdrawal, they have in fact advanced from the lines they held pre the "cease fire", this has been verified many times by Georgian officials, foreign officials, neutral observers (HRW, UNHRC), as well as extra-governmental organisations such as NATO (Virtually every reliable news source has these news stories), the only people claiming that they are withdrawing were the Russians, and they backtracked once they were caught out. One of the reasons the Russian government, officials and media (which is state controlled) is not a reliable source is that they have consistantly lied from the begining, only to change their story when they get caught out but reliable sources. MattUK (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• "end withdrawal" is more important than "begin withdrawal".--A20080819 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Intervention

Hello. I would like to remove the first paragraph of the Russian Intervention section:

In the opinion of the independent Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, "Russia's invasion of Georgia had been planned in advance, with the final political decision to complete the preparations and start war in August apparently having been made back in April."[65]

I think Pavel's opinion adds nothing to the goal of neutrally presenting the information. I do not see that his opinion belongs here. Yourcomrade (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)User:yourcomrade

Pavel Felgenhauer ~~ Why should be the citation of an essay from a well known Russian defence analyst published in a Russian media that's not controlled anyway by Russian state against the goal of neutrality ?? Elysander (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it is in the middle of "Timeline section", where editors add facts and try to avoid analysis. I think the paragraph should by moved to separate section\article especially created for motives\opinions\analysis. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds better than above. The time line is anyhow already a mix of facts, myths & hearsay. Elysander (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And a little bit ;-) earlier than Felgenhauer >> Monday, August 4th 2008 : Moscow Orchestrates War Scare in South Ossetia - http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373282 - Elysander (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

“We will force [the Georgians] out from the conflict zone ourselves. I state once again that we have the necessary troops and equipment [sil i sredstv] to do this,” the South Ossetian “president” Eduard Kokoity warned (South Ossetian Press and Information Committee, August 3). Um, yeah. Sure. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to create a "section\article especially created for motives\opinions\analysis." The Time, Newsweek and USAToday have written many op-eds that make some very interesting points.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 03:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another well-known Russian expert and Putin’s ex-aide Andrey Illarionov has expressed similar opinion. According to him, the war against Georgia was "a brilliant provocation which has long been planned and successfully carried out by the Russian siloviks [army elite]. It technically completely reproduced ‘Basayev’s [Chechen rebel warlord] raid into Dagestan’ and the beginning of the second Chechnya war." The article is in Russian[7], but Russian-speaking wikipedia editors can verify it. The president of Georgia Saakachvili also claimed that he had warned the West about a planned Russian invasion, but the West downplayed the risk.[8] Now we have three similar opinions from absolutely different persons – two by independent Russian experts and one by the Georgian leader. This only adds significance to Felgenhauer’s comment which should not be removed, but, on the contrary, reinforced with the above-mentioned opinions. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be about the same as claimed that Bin Laden's attack on the US was a pre-planned provocation for the invasion of Afghanistan? Don't mean to be argumentative but it certainly seems about the same to claim that 'planning' for a smaller less significant power to attack something within the realm of your interests was pre-planned without actually showing evidence of planning. --Senor Freebie (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult point to argue, would you say that an American crack down on illegal immigrants in Calaforina made a Mexican invasion of the Southern USA acceptable? I certainly wouldnt. Georgia was acting within it's own (internationally recognised) territory, the so called Russian "Peacekeepers" (not internationally recognised, only accepted by Georgia a few years ago at gun point (let them stay or we'll attack you) after the Russians basically invaded South Ossetia under a pretext) borders, Russia then preceded to invade not only the region of South Ossetia, but large areas of the rest of Georgia, and then destroyed large amounts of infrastructure and property (there are at the moment unverified reports of Russian millitary personel demolishing buildings and then claiming that they were destroyed by Georgians, these will probably be verified by HWR or some other international observers soon enough). Under all international laws Russias actions are illegal, they invaded a soverign nation, attacked that countries millitary and civillians within it's own boarders, destroyed civillian infrastructure, looted civillian property (there are reports unverified reports of rape and beatings) as well as other illegal actions, some of which may be classed as war crimes. MattUK (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of a US tanks-and-artillery attack on a Mexican town of 70 000, which is independent for 15 years and around which a peacekeepers contingent is stationed, made up of Mexian, USMexican, and US troops. But I did heard something of some conflict in which US citizens' anclaves on a foreign territory played a role and which lead to US invasion into Mexico.. --CopperKettle (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And some guy with a name Henry Thoreau was somewhat disagreeing to that one, I remember. --CopperKettle (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And it took place in the year 2008 or 1968 or 1956 ? Elysander (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For those who died during it the question of a date was a small one. --CopperKettle (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did justify a certain event in the past something today?? Next time someone will choose a splendid example of the 17th century. ;-) Elysander (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No. But Bush's comments about the "invasion of a sovereign nation" on the backdrop of his Oil War in Iraq is really a joke of the year. And speaking of "poor Georgia" after it had ramped up its military budget from 30 mln to 1 bln $, readying itself for an attack. If the major powers fell so low as to abandon the UN-negotiation processes, like with Kosovo, and basically plunged back to the level of 17th century, they should abstain from high-flying talk until they're back in the 21st century again. Move the UN troops to Georgia and Ossetia, oust the Russian troops totally, but allow not a dollar from US to pump the Georgia's military budget, not a rifle from US to be shipped, not a single US soldier on the ground, that would be a fair play. Accusing each over while making the same thing is like the pot calling the kettle black, IMHO. Sorry for chattering here instead of editing. --CopperKettle (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There were sections named "Georgian interests" and "Russian interests" where the Felgenhauer's view would've been just right, but it was decided to delete them. --CopperKettle (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things said above, many of which seem to be besides the point of my suggestion. If someone wants to create a section for Analysis and than add Pavel F.s comments there, please go ahead. I think it makes sense, as long as all views are presented in a balanced way. I maintain that this comment does not belong in the Timeline section. Also, just because F. is "well known" is not enough to make what he says credible. He works for an ultra-opposition newspaper in Russia, which is a fact that should be mentioned along with his commentary. Many readers of this article are not well informed on the subject, and the goal should be to help then understand the situation as viewed from all sides, and let them make their judgment, if any. If someone wants this article to be propaganda, please go write your opinions elsewhere. Yourcomrade (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)yourcomrade

Russia & Georgia

While it is deplorable, civilian casualties are not a new thing at all. Reporting on it is absolutely necessary, but are we going to label Russia, U.S.A., China, Britain, France, ad infinitum as personally grotesque for their participation in these attrocities as in blaming the one instead of the other? Japan fought a war of indescribable abuse and misery and the U.S.A. responded with THE most horrific weapon known to man and used it on civilians. Really, the worst thing about war is war itself. Adding up civilian casualties on the one side over the other seems to me remarkably dangerous. Imagine a war without civilian casualties. I suspect that the combatants would find what they were doing - fighting in a remote desert with not a civilian around, rather absurd. Then, when the victor returns to the "conquered territory" only to find that the disappointed citizens of that land have decided to mount an armed insurgence - My God!! We love to kill, don't we.Leather-stockings (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Current Status in the Info Box

The current status is "Conflict ongoing, ceasefire currently in effect", would this be better worded as "Conflict ongoing, ceasefire currently observed by the Georgian Millitary", I say this on the basis that the Russian armed forces and the Russian backed and equipped Militias have advanced since the cease fire, captured more Georgian personell and equipment and continued destruction of Georgian millitary and civillian property and infrastructre in contravention of the cease fire document which stated that all actions by the millitaries and militias would cease with immediate effect, and all sides would withdraw to the positions before the conflict began. MattUK (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I quote: "5. Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines prior to the start of hostilities. While awaiting an international mechanism, Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures". Moreover, there was no fire, since establishment of ceasefire, was there? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There was lots of fire in the Goergian villages, bases and cities. I see withdrawing is harder for them than invading. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

it isn't useful to try and keep this article updated up-to-the-minute. So the Russians prance around a few days before retreating. The ceasefire is still in effect, and in the larger schemes of things, it is hardly important if the Russians withdrew on 18 or on 21 August. We can change the note as soon as the Russians confirmedly violate the ceasefire. --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a common misunderstanding about the word "ceasefire", all that means is that the two sides in a war have agreed to not shoot at each other for a bit. The war between Georgia Vs Russia is still ongoing, their just not shooting at the moment. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the wikipedia's definition of ceasefire: "A ceasefire (or truce) is a temporary stoppage of a war or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions." This is similar to most other definations for ceasefire. It's not simply the literal stoping of firing weapons. In general, retreating your forces is allowed by ceasefires but advancement is not. (Advancement is normally considered agressive) Jon (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

New reference, especially for those who are against Russian intervention. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While confirming that the troops had begun to leave, the Kremlin official took pains to specify that the movement represented a "pullback" and not a "withdrawal," suggesting that the option for the soldiers' return was being left open. It also makes clear that other troops are digging in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia scales down Georgia toll

Latest from BBC.

Russia has issued new, reduced casualty figures for the Georgian conflict, with 133 civilians now listed as dead in the disputed region of South Ossetia.

The figure is far lower than the 1,600 people Russia initially said had died.

Please update the infobox with the latest information. For my part, I am glad the human toll has been so much lower than initially feared.76.64.217.42 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It was never presented as feared, it was presented as fact (including on the highest level and by all Russian state media non-stop in the first week at least) - and nobody in Russia even bothered to ask how and how exactly arrived at this figures (mostly around 2,000). The lies made militiamen furious and contributed to their crimes againt ethnic Georgians. In the meantime, South Ossetians themselves returned from 200-700 few days ago back to over 1,400 (at least not "2,100", but hey, maybe tommorow). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, a complete misunderstanding of the article. 133 was the number of identified corpses, it is not the number of confirmed dead. Captain Obvious continues with his irrational comments. What Max (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

What happened to the 19 Russian MIA? And the 74 dead has been changed to 64 dead. They corrected the figure by a factor of 10. I don't know how can you list 10 people more dead than there actually are but W/E. http://gazeta.ru/news/lenta/2008/0/20/n_1260079.shtml

Потери российских войск в Южной Осетии составили 64 погибшими и 323 ранеными, привел уточненные данные замначальника Генштаба ВС России Анатолий Ноговицын. Ранее сообщалось, что 74 миротворца погибли и 171 был ранен. «Число погибших на сегодняшний день уменьшилось. От заявленных 74 человек 10-го числа сегодня количество погибших миротворцев составляет 64 человека», – сказал Ноговицын. По его словам, ранения различной степени получили 323 российских миротворца

---

Google-translation----------------------

Losses of Russian troops in South Ossetia was 64 dead and 323 wounded, led refined data VS Russia Deputy Chief of General Staff Anatoly Nogovitsyn. Previously, it was reported that 74 peacekeepers were killed and 171 injured. "The death toll so far declined. From 10 claimed 74 people - the first of today the number of peacekeepers killed 64 people ", - Nogovitsyn said. According to him, wounds of varying degrees were 323 Russian peacekeepers

Just because they don't mention the MIA doesn't mean there aren't any. It should be changed back to 19 until they state that they have been found.

There was prisoner exchnage. But I congratulate the Russian sciencists on ressurecting some of their zombie soldiers. I think the 1,967 recently ressurected civilians may be eblisted in the Russian Undead Corps, "Republic of South Ossetia" Division. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So what's wrong, double reports were eliminated and some less serious wounds added. And latest corrected number of reported civilian casualties is 1492 (double claims taken out of earlier 2136 number as well). 195.218.210.175 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was a prisoner exchange but georgia had only 5 russians as POW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Names of Countries.

The official name of Russia is The Russian Federation. I changed it, please do not edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturm31 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is in the infobox, where formality is largely harmless. I trust this wave of pedantry will not be taken further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the official name is Russia or The Russian Federation. See the Russian constitution, first section, Aricle 1, The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" shall be equal. --Hapsala (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties needed to be updated

Someone should add in the russian section of casualties 5 captured and add in the georgian section of casualties 37 captured. Also the current estimate of 215 killed and 300 missing georgian soldiers is not correct. The 215 killed estimate includes both soldiers, civilians and soldiers. That reference that states 215 killed says 69 civilians, 13 policemen and 133 soldiers killed, it also says 70 soldiers missing. The other reference put says 160 soldiers killed and 300 missing. So the Georgian section of casualties should say something like this:

Confirmed by Georgia:
160 soldiers killed and 300 missing (One official's estimate from 8/18)

133 soldiers and 13 policemen killed, 70 soldiers missing (One official's estimate from 8/19)

37 soldiers captured

Btw, INFOBOX IS WRONG! Now it reads: "Russian/Ossetian initial estimate of more than 2,000 South Ossetians killed; later scaled down to 133.", but it should read "Russian/Ossetian initial estimate of more than 2,000 South Ossetians killed; later scaled down to 1492, with 133 confirmed by name". 133 isn't an estimate, 1492 is! 80.82.38.14 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

По данным руководства непризнанной республики, в ходе конфликта погибли 1492 жителя Южной Осетии, в эту цифру включены жители Цхинвали и его пригородов, погибшие в ходе артобстрела с грузинской стороны. Ранее власти Южной Осетии заявляли о двух тысячах погибших, эту цифру называли и представители российского руководства. Между тем правозащитная организация Human Rights Watch, представители которой работали в зоне конфликта, заявила, что обнародованное число погибших с осетинской стороны сильно завышено. По их подсчетам, речь может идти о десятках убитых военнослужащих и мирных жителей. http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/20/victims/  ; http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29271  ; Aedile (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Will change Aedile (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

an estimate, 1492, I see they've chosen a "precise" number to make things seem more interesting. Grey Fox (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

According to other wikipedia (the spanish) some of the facts in the infobox are wrong. 2000 civilians dead was a very initial estimate, because soon the ministry of interior of Russia changed it to 1600. 1,492 is actually not the russian number, but the number given by the goverment of South Ossetia (here we could argue about how much it's controlled by Russia). However as far as I know the russian goverment still hasn't moved from the 1600 number. (--Jaimevelasco (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Refugees

More than 230,000 people believed to have been displaced according to the Georgian government.<:ref name=despair>Despair among Georgia's displaced, BBC News, 20 August 2008</ref>

This is not Wikinews. We need not include every estimate, especially an offhand comment from which the BBC distances itself, by an interested source, for the number of refugees. We have 158,000 already. We should have an estimate from some such authority as the UNHCR all too soon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch: "U.S. organization and source"

As much of "U.S. organization and source" as the UN (with its HQ also in NYC). I see some Russian editors just can't get it. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia moving to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Here's the word on it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atzbkPai3Y20&refer=home http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3e09be4d-96d2-4d78-93c9-d315748af630 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4572733.ece

It seems almost a certainty that Russia will recognize them on Monday, but I'm not sure where exactly this should be put here or if it should even be included in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Might become an interesting move for Georgia to go back to the old days and recognize Dokka Umarov as the true leader of the northern caucasus in reply. The caucasus is famous for its proxy wars! Grey Fox (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In March 2008, Chechnya's prosecutor, Valery Kuznetsov, has launched a criminal case against Umarov for "inciting inter-ethnic hatred and calling for the overthrow of the Russian government on the Internet." If he is captured, prosecuted and found guilty of these charges, Umarov could theoretically face a fine of up to 500,000 rubles and a ban on holding management positions. According to Kommersant, Umarov was earlier on Russia's wanted list but the charges against him were suspended in 2005 and Kadyrov said he was surprised to find that there were not any criminal cases against Umarov.

I see Russia takes Umarov (and the Internet) quite seriously ;) At the same time, federally wanted for kindapping/murder Sulim Yamadayev is hiding in Georgia - that, is hiding among the Russian soldiers there (I just love the Russian sense of law and justice). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is far from certain. Such moves happen from time to time, and Mironov is not somebody you should listen to. Colchicum (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, if it happens, Russia is accordingly going against its arguments for not recognizing Kosovo, i.e. more headaches to come... --Hapsala (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On Monday? Are you serious? I guess, first of all, South Ossetia and Abkhazia will make another round of independence referendum. After that Russia will take it into account and maybe will recognize them. Taamu (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

90%

This article says "According to Russian President Medvedev, 90% of South Ossetians possess Russian passports and thereby qualify for protection under article 80 of the Russian constitution", but neither of the two sources cited (BBC, Deutsche Welle) say "90%". Does anyone have any other sources? Khoikhoi 03:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Google may help, NerdyNSK (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

4000 source

• in template in section "Casualties and losses": "Russian estimate: 4,000 casualties", but link direct to georgian site.--A20080819 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How to click the link:

1. Point your cursor on the link using mouse.
2. Click the LMB.

You're welcome. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• civil.ge article is not provide original source of this information. its not WP:RS in this case.--A20080819 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

POVs in introduction: "quickly" responded, "quickly" driving the Georgian troops out, etc

Introduction abuses the word "quickly". Could somebody edit it and remove all those works like "quickly" and other similar adjectives to ensure that, at least, introduction contains facts and only facts without any POVs. 89.113.128.63 (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Otto (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a WP:RS?

Moscow, Russia - Three Sukhoi Su-25s and a Tupolev Tu-22 (WAPA) - Four Russian airplanes have been shot down few days ago during a mission in the conflict area between Georgia and South Ossetia by an Ukraine air-defense missile systems BUK-M1, Russian General Anatoli Nogovitsin reported today.

According to General Nogovitsin, three Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot fighters and a Tupoolev Tu-22 strategical bomber were carrying out a reconnaissance mission in the region of the city of Gori, the main command centre of Georgian Army. (Avionews) [9] JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

first sentence accuracy

first sentence now reads "...attack by Georgia into South Ossetia, one of two provinces which had declared independence ..." Did South Ossetia ever declare independence? Another question, wasn't there a total of 4 regions that wanted autonomy, with 2 of them now under full Georgian control?Anatoly.bourov (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia declared its independence several times by means of independence referenda. What do you mean "4 regions wanted autonomy"? Are you talking about Adjara and Kakheti? As for SO and Abkhazia, they never wanted autonomy, they wanted independence. Taamu (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between wanting independence and declaring independence. Holding a referendum is not declaring independence. If it were, Canada would be split in two now. SO declared independence from USSR in 1990, but never from Georgia, according to Dept of State. What happened in 1992 was not declaring independence, but a ceasefire. First sentence fails accuracy checks on these points.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, SO never declared independence from USSR. You mean Georgia??? South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia in 1992. Taamu (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

from US Department of State

A South Ossetian declaration of independence (within the U.S.S.R.) in September of 1990 was met with a firm negation from the Georgian government, and in December Georgia abolished South Ossetia’s status as an autonomous oblast and declared a state of emergency in the region.

Armed conflict began in January of 1991 and continued until June of 1992. At that point, a ceasefire (the Sochi Agreement) was agreed upon by Russian, Georgian, and South Ossetian representatives, Georgia having declared independence in April of 1991.

The June 24, 1992 Sochi Agreement established a cease-fire between the Georgian and South Ossetian forces and defined both a zone of conflict around the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and a security corridor along the border of South Ossetian territories. The Agreement also created the Joint Control Commission (JCC), and a peacekeeping body, the Joint Peacekeeping Forces group (JPKF). The JPKF is under Russian command and is comprised of peacekeepers from Georgia, Russia, and Russia’s North Ossetian autonomous republic (as the separatist South Ossetian government remained unrecognized). South Ossetian peacekeepers, however, serve in the North Ossetian contingent. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) agreed to monitor the ceasefire and facilitate negotiations.

What evidence is there to 1992 declaration of independence? Do you mean the 1992 Sochi Agreement ?Anatoly.bourov (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, South Ossetia didn't declare independence from USSR! US Department of State is not the last instance to cite to! A South Ossetian declaration of independence (within the U.S.S.R.) in September of 1990... sounds really weird. As for the date of independence, it's quite hard to reveal it. I'll try to find out some sources. Taamu (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Gori, Georgia

Russian editors remove the recent history from "History" section. See also the article's talk page. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the question, but how did you find out that Anonymous=Russian??? Taamu (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian pilots

Georgia: Civilians Killed by Russian Cluster Bomb ‘Duds’: More Attacks Confirmed; Unexploded Ordnance Threatens Many

and...

Captured Russian Pilots Leave Georgia Voicing Gratitude, Regret --93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

“A senior Russian official denied the allegation, saying the report was a ‘well-prepared lie’” — http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7564176.stm — comment added by 85.15.253.240 (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's next?

Russia 'distributing passports in the Crimea' (Ukraine)

"The allegation has prompted accusations that Russia is using the same tactics employed in the Georgian breakaway regions of Abhkazia and South Ossetia in order to create a pretext for a war. Russia handed out passports to the residents of the two provinces, which have long looked to Moscow for support, five years ago. The Kremlin has justified its invasion of Georgia in terms of defending its citizens in Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgian "aggression"."[10]. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say that this sounded like original research -- but if the Ukrainians themselves are expressing the concern, it's certainly notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if it belongs here, though... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainians in a West Ukraine are holding Romaninan and Polanda passports, so it's realy not the case. And the most important - when its Georgia started Grad's firing at Osethia Russias action are called "agression". Another reason of Russias invasion is again Georgian attack on it's peacemakers base. Which ussualy forgoten on Western press. Son I don' think we should include this "passport case" here, untill more dteails are revealed. Like how many passports and so on.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Individual people with double citizenships are not a problem. But giving out citizenships/passports as a collective act to a certain selected group of people ( How many ethnic Southossetian people have got Russian citizenship is still an open question) inside of an objective conflict zone is not only a "problem" but also against current international law. Elysander (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia gave out passports in South Ossetia to use it as a pretect to war, and they are also begining to do it in Ukraine for the same purpose, it seems that with out NATO membership when the Russian lease runs out on Sebastapol in 2017 the Russians will invade part of Ukraine under the pretext of "protecting our citizens whereever they are in the world". MattUK (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Many Israel people are holding Russian passports... Remember: Ukrainian S-200 was shootdown civil plane with them--A20080819 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with taking what's rightfully theirs. Krym has been Russian since 17th century. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Russia and Ukraine have been part of the Mongol Empire since 13th century. So give them back to Mongolia. -- megA (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Mongolia conquered most of Asia and held it for some 2-3 centuries.They're not native to the land. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as Russians are not native to Crimea. And Crimea was conquered by Russia only at the end of the 18th century, not 17th. 83.182.184.155 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask the Crimean Tatars ? ;-) They still live there and are the only ones who can be seen today as autochthone /native. Elysander (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you all love Unrelated talking and Original Research?--Jakezing (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe the topicstarter will think next time before starting a topic called "who's next?" --Mrcatzilla (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Both Russia and Georgia use International Dating (day month year) format, and I can't see any good reason to use American (month day year) dating format in this article. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• agree.--UAV2000 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• agree--Jaimevelasco (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I, at least, will revert anybody engaging in Date Wars on this article. This is not strongly tied to any English speaking nation, and has an established style. If we had nothing else to do, this might have some excuse; but that's certainly not so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Remember the WP:3RR. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there's any connection to an English-speaking nation. The MOS says, "Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable guidelines above should use that format." Both Georgia and Russia use day-month-year.--Pete (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, use day-month-year, and use wikilinks (like 21 August 2008), because when you wikilink the dates, the software used by Wikipedia (MediaWiki) automatically recognises it as a date and formats it accordingly to the user's preferences (ie when I am logged in I can set up my user account to show wikilinked dates as year-month-day, day-month-year, or month-day-year), and this works only when the dates are wikilinked. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• There are too many American date formats in the article, I would find it pointless to change them to the British format. Besides, Section 5.2 on the Humanitarian impact on Georgians says "makeshift centres" (British spelling) in the 7th line, and then 3 lines later it mentions "media center" (American Spelling). Would you want to enforce uniformity here too? User:Mateat 3:24, August 22 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

Is it really the "South Ossetia war" and not the "Georgia-Russia war"? __meco (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it's just Wikipedia who still talks about South Ossetia war. It's surely time for change now. Narking (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If this had been a full-out war, Georgia would be fully occupied by Russian troops. Most of the fighting occurred in South Ossetia; the fighting was over control of that country/province/area; the title shouldn't confuse readers. If in fact the press is labeling this as the "Georgia-Russia war", then we can change the title. But first someone needs to provide a (lengthy) set of citations to show that. (And not just articles with sentences that include phrases like "the war between Russia and Georgia".) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments are welcome at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Article title Greenshed (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a suggestion, just a comment. Some Russian media started using the term Five day war, in similarity with the Six day war. (Igny (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

is there any evidence talk of NATO and kosovo is relevant?

half of the background section is taken up by discussion of Georgia's desires for joining NATO, and Kosovo precedent and so forth. Is there any evidence of relevance of this discussion, or is it in the contributor's mind?

Anatoly.bourov (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See the articles cited. This analysis is quite common in the mainstream English press. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay hypocritical goverments.--Jakezing (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The analysis in the press is opinion, not fact, I don't see direct relevance to the topic. Even if we do decide to publish journalists' opinions as content, the connection needs to made in the next with specific references. If not made, I propose scapping all text describing NATO membership application and Kosovo. Anatoly.bourov (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours, nobody objected or added any additional text to clarify, I am going to remove all talk of NATO and Kosovo from the background. If we want to conjecture about what else might be relevant to the background I suggest we include references in the text on who actually suggested what, and then judge whether such suggestions are notable.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be rewritten in more depth. NATO matters are noteworthy in this case, but should be verifiable.--Tananka (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A Russian Voice: Russia lost the "war of information" because missing freedom of press

Sergej Petrunin >> http://www.sobkorr.ru/news/48A91CE5E0D84.html - Elysander (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be put into the statements made by the Russian opposition. I saw that Kasparov's web site is a partner to the above written site. But the only practical opposition to the party "United Russia" is the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. They came second, and Kasparov got nowhere. I simply don't know what the Commies said about this war Aedile (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They supported Russia. LokiiT (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

News Agency Rosbalt published a summary of statements made by several opposition's representatives ( Kasparow, Kowaljow, Mitrochin, Kasjanow. but Limonow and Belych too) > http://www.rosbalt.ru/2008/08/14/513721.html - Elysander (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of sore losers and laughable fools at once! :))))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.211.41 (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all too easy to make such alegations, when Russia now has both national and private news agencies. But let their comments be included and contradicted. It might shed noteworthy light on matters. Let the evidence be shown.--Tananka (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia 'distributing passports in the Crimea'

The allegation has prompted accusations that Russia is using the same tactics employed in the Georgian breakaway regions of Abhkazia and South Ossetia in order to create a pretext for a war.[11] --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well who is getting them? Aedile (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While this is an interesting and potentially dangerous development, it is not relevant to this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While activities in Ukraine may not be relevant, the discussion on how it happened in South Ossetia is relevant to background. The story is that Russia has a 1992 law stating that any citizen of the old Soviet Union can apply for a Russian passport, thus allowing Ossetians to obtain Russian citizenship. This practice is perfectly legal, and cannot be dismissed as "distributing passports", and perhaps should be addressed in this article.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1992 law has long been superseded by a new one which makes it illegal. Colchicum (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The practice of distributing citizenships/passports as happened in Southossetia ( and now probably again on Krim) is naturally against current international law. What happened in Soutossetia has nothing to do with the individual right described in law of 1992. Elysander (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Before 2002, Russian law let residents of ex-Soviet republics apply for citizenship if they had not become citizens of their newly independent states. But the process was complex and involved repeated trips to Russian consulates or moving to Russia altogether. Yevgeny Volk, a political analyst with the US-based Heritage Foundation think tank, says people in Abkhazia and South Ossetia got passports without the usual "colossal problems". "This undoubtedly indicates a double standard in Russian policy and a determined effort to weaken the (separatist regions') ties with Georgia," Volk said. (...) Vashchenko helped Russian lawmakers prepare a 2002 bill on easing citizenship applications from the two regions. The bill set off a flood of applications in Abkhazia, where some 150 000 residents became Russian citizens in June of that year alone, according to media reports. They joined a significant part of the province's population that already had Russian citizenship, estimated at 50 000. Many people in Abkhazia could even apply without leaving home. The Congress of Russian Communities, a nationalist non-governmental organisation with close ties to Russian officialdom, simply took their papers to the nearby Russian city of Sochi for processing. A similar process unfolded in South Ossetia. Georgia's foreign ministry decried an "unprecedented illegal campaign" and then-president Eduard Shevardnadze claimed there had been "covert annexation and violation of Georgia's sovereignty". By the time pro-Western reformer Mikheil Saakashvili became Georgia's president after the 2004 "Rose Revolution", most residents of the two separatist zones were Russian citizens. Russia's passport campaign led to many cases of "sham" citizenship, casting doubt on Moscow's rationale for attacking Georgia, said Christopher Waters, a law professor and Eastern Europe expert at the University of Windsor in Canada "Given the sham-like nature of the granting of passports in so many cases, Russia's basing its forceful actions on protection of nationals abroad... is invalid," Waters said in a written answer to questions. [12] --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

is the opinion here that the 2002 bill is illegal? does anyone have the text of the bill, and/or International court judgement that it is illegal? Other than one-sided rhetoric there is no evidence of anything illegal, many people in US can apply for passports without leaving their home. Anatoly.bourov (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Do the people who optain Russian citizenship lose their old citizenship in countries such as Ukraine? I understand that that's the practice in Estonia, where the interest in getting Russian citizenship has been rather limited (even among people who have no citizenship at all). --Hapsala (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In Estonia the appreciable part of the population has no citizenship. These people who do not have possibility to receive the passport (because wrong ethnicity), - receive passports of other states, basically Russia. Магистер (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not "wrong ethnicity", but the curious unability to learn the Estonian language and the country's history in spite of living in the fully independent Estonia for 17 years now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Language is not a big problem. But they definitely refuse to accept blatantly forged and faked pro-nazi "history" of the half-nazi eSStonian state! 195.218.211.41 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there's only one "s" in "Estonia". There's double "ss" in "Russia", though. (See also 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS RONA (1st Russian) and 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Russian)). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was in first years of new Estonian government. Now all of them have Russian & other passports. Whether ANY citizen of Canada MUST speaks English? Магистер (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fake. Магистер (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia is selective about extending citizenship and passports to citizens of former Soviet republics who do not have a permanent residence in Russia. Many Ukrainians question this practice and take it personally that South Ossetians were granted passports while the same opportunity is not available to Ukrainians. USchick (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel?

To build alliance with NATO, Georgia conducted in 2008 a NATO membership referendum.

This sentence is tagged {{weasel}}; why? No English speaker would phrase it quite this way, but where's the weasel-wording? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, no Russian media source is announcing this. On the more interesting site, it will be interesting to see Russia recognizing Abkazia, Ossetia and Kosovo. 77.28.210.163 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

oops, weasel tag landed on the wrong sentence. was meant for the next paragraph "There are also also analysts", "There were suggestions", etc with no references Anatoly.bourov (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You want {{who}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you go to reference #52 and read the citation? Instead of putting several citation tags after every 4-6 words, read the citation provided and see that the entire sentence is directly cited in ref #52. I don't understand this type of editing. Based on the type of tagging in this one referenced sentence, all of the other referenced material needs multiple inline citations to qualify every aspect of the source.--«Javier»|Talk 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin in the Commanders box

Resurrecting this conversation.

This article is about military conflict, plain and simple and only those in actual and legitimate control of the military operations should be mentioned in the commanders box. This how I see the list of commanders:

Dmitry Medvedev - Commander-in-Chief (Russia)
Anatoly Khrulyov - Lt. General (Russian Army)
Vladimir Shamanov - Lt. General (Russian Army)
Vyacheslav Borisov - Mj. General (Russian Airforce)
Marat Kulakhmetov - Mj. General (Russian Peacekeepers)
Sulim Yamadayev - Lt. Colonel (Russian Spec. Forces "Vostok")
Eduard Kokoity - Commander-in-Chief (South Ossetia)
Sergei Bagapsh - Commander-in-Chief (Abkhazia)

Mikheil Saakashvili - Commander-in-Chief (Georgia)
Zaza Gogava - Br. General (Georgian Army)
Mamuka Kurashvili - Br. General (Georgian Peacekeepers)

Neither Putin nor Georgian defense minster Davit Kezerashvili belong on the list. Zealander (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Vladimir Putin with the Georgian defence minister - or Dick Cheney - is just rediculous. --Hapsala (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Zealander, that's patently untrue. Putin is the de facto leader of Russia as according to every major media outlet (and anyone who knows what they're talking about). Not including Putin is akin to proclaming one's habitation of a world in which de jure fantasies trump de facto realities. Yezterdae (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's your POV. Please cite sources. For example the one who signed the peace declaration with the french president was Medvedev, not Putin. And the one I see in the news giving the orders, at least officialy, is Medvedev. Maybe the wife of Medvedev has a lot of influence over him, but I don't see that name on the infobox. The reason (and this is my POV) I see that most people usually mention Putin is that the name is easier to mention and remember than Medvedev. --Jaimevelasco (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV, it's a little thing called "reality", with which I would suggest many Wiki editors reacquaint themselves. Today's New York Times for example. This is not something which needs to be justified. In fact, for this claim to be dismissed as POV, there need be plausible evidence that the opposite is also true. Are you going to claim that Vladimir Putin is NOT the de facto ruler of Russia? Your POV is rather asinine, sorry. People do not say the previous President is still in charge because it is "easier to remember", people say that because the former President is still the President in everything but name. I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you understand the difference between de facto and de jure.Yezterdae (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin is ruler, or rather chief executive; he is not military commander. Compare Russo-Turkish_War_(1877–1878), in which Alexander II does not appear, although he accompanied the armies. (Under Seven Years' War, neither George II of England nor William Pitt shows up, although Pitt conducted the grand strategy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Remarkable arguments against such commanders' boxes. Maybe only military commanders should appear there - and not politicians. The box looks anyway ridiculous wirh Medvedev, Kokoity and Bagabsch. Elysander (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can accept the reasoning that political "commanders" should not be there at all. However, if Medvedev belongs, so does Putin. Yezterdae (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok Yezterday, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimevelasco (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that political executives are military commanders. They fit into the chain of command at the top and therefore have to be included. Putin does not fit into the official chain of command, so unless we can cite multiple reliable sources that explain how they know that he has control of military units, we should not include him. Christiangoth (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically Mendev is "Commander in Cheif" of the Russian armed forces, however however Putin is "Commander in Cheif" of Mendev (not on any open legal basis, more if you dont do everything I tell you my ex-KGB friends will cause you, or members of your family to "disappear"), so he really should be up there. MattUK (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think satire, no matter how popular, should dictate what appears in the infobox. You could have argued on the same basis that President G.W. Bush should have appeared in the infobox of ruler of the United Kingdom during Tony Blair's leadership. You could argue Putin's inclusion on account of his constitutional duties, perhaps. The large role he has played is worth its inclusion in the article's text though.--ZedderZulu (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian peacekeepers

Why in the article there are no information on the Russian peacekeepers which were in South Ossetia legally and have been killed by the Georgian armies in the first days of the conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.15.253.240 (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Georgian peacekeepers killed in the first days of the conflict. Grey Fox (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

...As result of defensive actions Russian peacekeepers attacked by the Georgian armies.

Also, it is necessary to mention one-sided consecration of the conflict in world mass-media and cynical ignoring the facts of an event granted by a Russian side.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.15.253.240 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're picking sides 240, unfortunately for you, who started the provocations is unsure and contradictory. Grey Fox (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

According to one Russian reporter (written in Russian) the conflict may have started when an altercation erupted between Georgian troops and Russian peacekeepers who were all eating a meal together, where 15 of the Russian peacekeepers ended up being shot. The fact that Russian reporters are the only ones who have access to the area, means that their reports may be first ones available, and sometimes the only ones. Here's the link to the article. No source is cited, mentioned toward the end as something the writer heard, but no one knows for sure. http://www.expert.ru/articles/2008/08/13/kochetkov_photo/ USchick (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This article (on Wikipedia) may be the most comprehensive discussion of this historical event. Great job guys!!!!! USchick (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction contains POV adjectives -- "significant extent", "lage scale", "massive"

Introduction is still not limited to facts, as I see. It introduces a lot of POV via adjectives. The reader should make its own judgment of whether something is "significant" or "massive". The judgment should not be imposed upon the reader. I'll try to cite all I see here:

• armed forces responded with a large scale counter-attack into South
• advancing to a significant extent into provinces of Georgia
• to launch a major military offensive in South Ossetia
• a stream of refugees from South Ossetia fled
• by large scale bombardment
• while many of their homes were looted

Will somebody remove those adjectives, please (and maybe I've missed something else, too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.113.128.63 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by What Max

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=233361922

Faking of quotations !! Elysander (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad I didnt realize it was a quote. What Max (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Why is there a random hyperlink at the top of this article? Could an admin please stick it in its rightful place, please. (Ta, muchly!) Orthorhombic (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

done. --«Javier»|Talk 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Internal linking of date and year, do we need to do this?

Do we really need to internally link the date and year? There is so many "blue links" it's making the article hard to navigate. It really adds nothing to the article and clutters navigating to links that may add to the readers understanding of this conflict. --«Javier»|Talk 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. See WP:Autoformatting; it invokes an ancient device which satisfies editors who can't bear to see an alien date format. It does sometimes have the advantage of emphasizing the chronology and making it easier to see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do state related news agencies in Russia begin with "cleansings" of their online news archives ???

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

Did interfax delete following self-compromising news in its online archive http://www.interfax.com/3/416284/news.aspx released on August 4th, 2008 ?? Content >> Southossetian envoy in Moskow did report about Russian volunteers streaming to the frontlines in the South Kaukasus. << Elysander (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for a New Introduction

Would it be possible to suggest the following as a rejigged introduction, correcting some of the grammatical errors, and paring down the size of the introductory text significantly:

The 2008 South Ossetia war began on August 7, 2008, with a military attack by Georgia into the break-away province of South Ossetia, which since 1992 de facto has enjoyed a high degree of autonomy.[18] [19] Russian armed forces responded with a counter-attack into South Ossetia, also advancing into provinces of Georgia outside South Ossetia. A preliminary cease-fire was signed by Georgia and Russia on August 15, 2008.

On August 2, 2008, conflict between Georgian and South Ossetian forces increased sharply, with the former claiming to be motivated by rocket attacks and the latter claiming to be responding to a heavy bombarbment of Tshinvallia. A stream of refugees from South Ossetia fled into Russian region of North Ossetia, reaching an estimated 30,000 of the 70,000 overall population.[23] More than 11,000 of them would return after the intervention of Russia in the war.[24]

The direct involvement of the Russian Federation began on August 7 by with an attack on Georgian forces in South Ossetia. They were successful in driving the Georgian troops out of Tskhinvali and struck targets in and around the city of Gori. By August 18, about 100,000 ethnic Georgians had fled their homes in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia proper due to the conflict,[29] while many of their homes were reportedly looted and destroyed by pro-Russian irregular forces.

At present, the Russian military has announced that it has begun a ten day withdrawl from advance positions. Western nations have largely condemned the Russian actions, but the conflict is seen by all parties as connected to the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe.

I really do think that this is fair. This speel needs to be pared down: it is an introduction after all. As to any POV issues regarding my edits, I have tried to present known facts and a balance of opinions, before ending by placing the conflict in its broader global realpolitik context.

If cannot please both sides, then the least that I hope that it will do is please neither side. Suggestions welcome.

Currently we have:

By preliminary estimate the 2008 South Ossetia war began on August 7, 2008 with a military attack by Georgia into its break-away province South Ossetia, since 1992 a de facto independent entity.[18] [19] Russian armed forces responded with a counter-attack into South Ossetia, also advancing into provinces of Georgia outside South Ossetia. A preliminary cease-fire was arranged by the President-in-Office of the European Union, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, on August 12, and signed by Georgia and Russia on August 15, 2008.

The war involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Just hours after Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili declared a cease-fire with South Ossetian separatist troops, Georgian military forces unleashed a barrage of shelling on the province's capital, Tskhinvali, late Thursday and early Friday. Georgia then proceeded to launch a massive military offensive in South Ossetia.[20][21] The Georgian government said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian secessionists.[22] In the following battle, the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, was damaged. Starting on the August 2 and increasing with the intensifying fighting, a stream of refugees from South Ossetia fled into Russian region of North Ossetia, reaching an estimated 30,000 of the 70,000 overall population.[23] More than 11,000 of them returned after the intervention of Russia in the war.[24] South Ossetian and Russian authorities alleged a civilian death toll of over 2,000 early in the conflict.[25] However, on August 13 Anna Neistat of Human Rights Watch, while acknowledging that investigation was not yet complete, said that this figure was "suspicious" and "very doubtful", citing a Tshinvalli hospital report of 273 wounded and 44 dead.[26].

Russia responded the next day by large scale bombardment of Georgian military and civilian targets by sending troops and armor into South Ossetia, driving the Georgian troops out of Tskhinvali. The Russian air attacks on the Georgian city of Gori also hit civilian targets.[27] The president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili claims that Russia is attempting to cause a regime change to depose the democraticly elected Georgian government due to Georgia's close relations with Western nations.[28] By August 18, about 100,000 ethnic Georgians have fled their homes in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia proper due to the conflict,[29] while many of their homes were reportedly looted and destroyed by pro-Russian irregular forces. By August 17, the United Nations confirmed "massive looting" in Gori,[30] while South Ossetia acknowledged it is keeping more than 100 Georgian civilians hostage, including women and children.[31]

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused Georgia of committing "genocide"[32] while President Dmitry Medvedev stated that his country's goal was "to force the Georgian side to peace", and that he "must protect lives and the dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are."[32] The Georgian leader has also appealed to the world for help after accusing Russia of conducting "ethnic cleansing" in his country,[33][34] claiming that it had depopulated the entire South Ossetia region of its Georgian civilians and that almost all Georgian residents of Kodori Valley were expelled by the Abkhaz separatists with the aid of the Russian military. The Georgian side has also filed a lawsuit against Russia in the International Court of Justice, claiming Russia, through the separatist authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, violated a convention meant to eliminate racism.[35] South Ossetian separatist leadership said it does "not intend" to let the Georgian civilians return to their homes.[36]

August 12, Georgia launched the application against actions of Russia in the International Court of Justice [37]. Orthorhombic (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the introduction will need to be revised as we continue to have the benefit of hindsight. However: "On August 2, 2008, conflict between Georgian and South Ossetian forces increased sharply, with the former claiming to be motivated by rocket attacks and the latter claiming to be responding to a heavy bombarbment of Tshinvallia." Is this a fact? Can it be referenced please? It may be more accurate to state that both sides blame each other for starting the conflict, with ongoing minor hostilities dating back for several decades. According to one Russian report, the hostilities may have started initially with an argument that erupted during dinner, resulting with 15 Russian peacekeepers getting shot in the process. Clearly, these guys are not diplomats with pens as their weapons. :-) Here is the link in Russian. http://www.expert.ru/articles/2008/08/13/kochetkov_photo/ USchick (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"with a military attack by Georgia Georgia into the break-away province of South Ossetia, which since 1992 de facto has enjoyed a high degree of autonomy." About this intro. I disagree with the "high autonomy" one, de facto independent is more accurate and less controversial because seperatists don't just strife for autonomy. Also, South Ossetia is not a province as far as I know, and is an area that currently overlaps several provinces. I think it should also be fair to include the fact that only part of South Ossetia was de facto independent, and the other parts, mainly georgian villages were controlled by the Georgian government and that it was forces there (aka the georgian peacekeepers) that were constantly active in skirmishes with Ossetian controlled villages. I did not know this in the beginning myself and it took me a while to find out.

Also I'm not sure if the war started when Georgia tried to take Tskinvali, but possibly instead when Russian forces started the invasion with the attack on Tskinvali being the Casus belli. Grey Fox (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed, some of the text can be changed, here's comments:

The 2008 South Ossetia war began on August 7, 2008, with a military attack by Georgia into the break-away province of South Ossetia, which since 1992 de facto has enjoyed a high degree of autonomy.

old text was fine, verbiage of "de facto independence" is used in many sources, including wikipedia article on SO. Plus "de facto high degree of autonomy" is awkward and hasn't been mentioned elsewhere.

By preliminary estimate the 2008 South Ossetia war began on August 7, 2008 with a military attack by Georgia into its break-away province South Ossetia, since 1992 a de facto independent entity.[18] [19]

also, if you are mentioning destruction of buildings in Gori, you have to mention destruction of civilian buildings in Tskinvali by the Georgian forces prior to Russian action. Anatoly.bourov (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like this is better: "The 2008 South Ossetia war began on August 7, 2008, when an attempt by Georgia to capture the capital of the break-away province of South ossetia, which became partially de facto independent since the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, promted Russia's military to responded with a counter-attack into South Ossetia.

Also Bourov that's a bit more controversial, since it's unsure who is responsible for the damage in Tskinvali (according to Georgia it was Russian artillery). Grey Fox (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GreyFox -- is Human Rights Watch credible enough? Economist

Much of the damage was done by the Georgians, says Human Rights Watch (HRW), a monitoring group. Shortly before midnight on August 7th Mr Saakashvili ordered a bomb barrage using Grad multiple-rocket launchers. This lasted through the night. Even his supporters agree that the use of indiscriminate Grad rockets, which killed civilians, was disproportionate and merciless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly.bourov (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose to Bourov version. Although current version is not good, the suggested changes do not really improve anything. Both versions tell: "Russian armed forces responded with a counter-attack". Such sentence wrongly implies that Russian forced had an obligation to respond and in fact "responded". This was not the case. They had no obligation to "respond". What they did was not a "counter-attack". That was an "attack". However changes by Grey Fox are good. Biophys (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

what exactly are you opposing to? I did not suggest a new version, all I posted was the proposed and the old content...Anatoly.bourov (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure if the war started when Georgia tried to take Tskinvali, .. Therefore i used the phrase preliminary estimate to reveal the temporary character of a certain fixed date like "August 7th". Regarding international law SO and Abch. are still today part of Georgia. The definition of de facto independent entities is uncertain and topic of controversies we cannot track here. Bourov tries to implement anyway the Moscow version. Elysander (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I've not suggested any new text, merely linking existing intro. I resent your personal attacks. Anatoly.bourov (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

De facto independent means that its independent in practice, but not lawfully (thats de jure), so thats pretty accurate, although it should be noted that only part of South Ossetia was de facto independent (most of it). Grey Fox (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

that only part of South Ossetia was de facto independent (most of it) ... as in Abchazia too. And don't forget "formally" in both "regions" the Georgia-loyal governments led by ethnic Southossetians and Abchazians. Elysander (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, South Ossetia is not a province. Tskhinvali is situated in Gori province for example. Narking (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The introduction should follow the rules of journalism and state undisputed facts. How the war started and who did what will continue to be debated throughout history. In the meantime, what are the facts that we can all agree on? Everyone's opinion here is welcome and valued. 1. This was an armed conflict that started in August of 2008. (Exact date seems to be in question and can be answered in a timeline of events section, unless it is undisputed that August 7 is the official date.) 2. The participants were Georgia on one side. SO, Abkhazia, and Russia on the other side. 3. Both sides blame eachother for starting the conflict. 4. President-in-Office of the European Union and President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, brokered a cease-fire on August 12, that was signed by Georgia and Russia on August 15, 2008. 5. Tshinvalli was the location of the first major battle, with major destruction to non-military targets. Other battles and locations can be listed in a separate section. 6. Civillian refugees trying to get out of the way created a humanitarian crisis. 7. The world watched in horror as this seemingly local border dispute erupted into a nightmare. (This last part is my opinion, but something similar can be said to reflect the fact that the result was severe devastation and that no one else got involved with military action.)

Please contribute other facts or feel free to comment on the ones listed. Once we agree on the facts, let's put them into paragraph form, and viola! that's the introduction, followed by a timeline of events. :-) USchick (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I completely agree with USchick, there are three important points to be mentioned. 1. This is actually Russian-Georgian war because Ossetian separatists are not an independent side of the conflict. This article must be renamed, as was discussed previously. 2. The war began from the attack of Russia on Georgia. One should remember that South Ossetia is a part of internationally recognized Georgian territory. So, whatever wrong Saakashili did at his own territory may be relevant to the causes of the war, but it does not constitute the war itself. As an example, the US invasion of Iraq began from US invasion, not from 9/11, the genocide of Kurds or anything else. 3 The current outcome of the war is wrong. It is the occupation of the Georigan territory by Russian forces, rather than anything else. If Russian forces remain in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that would be also annexation of the internationally recognized Georgian territories.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If we try to be very objective and stick to the facts, the new introduction will be very short. Until we move to a new page with a new name, I support the effort to continue with a new introduction and add the name later, because right now the existing intro is very biased and inaccurate. Looking at the other articles on this topic in other languages, many seem to be direct translations of this page, so we need to get it right. Please see new proposal at the bottom of this page. USchick (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1. UN Charter, Article 1, Chapter 1 , part 2
2. Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
3. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15

Self-determination All three of these laws take precedence, as would do constitutional law. Therefore the de facto status implies independence regardless. Until the founding principles that overrule are changed. Hence the dual truth of de facto independence and non-recognition.--Tananka (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, taking on board as many people's suggestions as possible, may I suggest this as a rejigged version of the initial paragraph. If it is not able to satisfy both sides (people in perfect agreement don't go to war!), then at the very least it will hopefully satisfy neither side.

The 2008 South Ossetia war began around August 7 was a land, sea and air war fought between the Republic of Georgia on one side and the separatist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the Russian Federation, on the other, with the earliest battles being fought in and around the city of Tshinvalli. Both parties have blamed the other for starting the war.

The number of refugees from South Ossetia fleeing into Russia reached an estimated 30,000 of the 70,000 overall population. Meanwhile by 18th August, about 100,000 ethnic Georgians had fled their homes due to the conflict,[29] with property reportedly having been looted.

A preliminary ceasefire was signed by Georgia and Russia on August 15, 2008. The Russian military has announced a ten-day withdrawal from advance positions, while Georgian authorities have expressed discontent with the rate and extent of the pull-back, and with the continuing Russian presence in port of Poti.

Western nations have largely condemned the Russian actions, while Russia has accused the West of double standards in the light of recent Balkan politics and NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthorhombic (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

US Govt now says Russia's first move legitimate

coming from US ambassador to Russia, this should be worked into the introduction

The U.S. ambassador to Moscow, in a rare U.S. comment endorsing Russia's initial moves in Georgia, described the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack.

GlobeMail

Anatoly.bourov (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is personal opinion of US envoy, not US government position. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I see he is speaking on behalf of Washington. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very important statement and it should be included in the article.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be included in the article if US Govt. confirms translation's authenticity. The english summary on Kommersant's international website http://kommersant.com/p1014311/Beyrle_Georgia/ contains only the well-known phrases of the last days: Mr Beyrle emphasized that they had been always reiterating that the conflict couldn’t be resolved by force, persuading Georgia not to apply it till the very last moment. ... The ambassador avoided direct answer to the question about Washington’s idea of Russia’s adequate response to Georgia. Elysander (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good description from the article: "Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, triggering a massive Russian reaction when its peacekeepers there came under fire." Can we use it without infringing on their copyright? Would someone like to take a stab at writing the introduction now, and the rest of us try to be nice about commenting on it? USchick (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as copyright, I think the rules are that one or two sentences are okay, even if taken verbatim.

The key statement quoted by Globe and Mail seems to only be present in the Russian language page of Kommersant "Мы видим, что российские войска вполне обоснованно ответили на нападение на миротворцев РФ в Южной Осетии." My translation would be "Russian forces responded in a reasonable fashion", not necessarily "legitimate". Too bad it's not clear if the interview was in Russian or English.

Nevermind, it appears the Russian version consists of actual quotes, while the English version is just a summary. Does US Govt routinely release official English versions of ambassador's interviews? Anatoly.bourov (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm .. i don't believe kommersant wouldn't miss such a journalistic coup on its English site if US ambassador's phrases were so conclusive as translated above. Elysander (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kommersant interview is linked on the Dept of State site for Moscow_Embassy, meaning the Russian quote is likely correct. Whatever the final translation of "Мы видим, что российские войска вполне обоснованно ответили на нападение на миротворцев РФ в Южной Осетии." may be, it is clear that in this sentence Beyrle does not denounce the initial Russian action (italics mine). Which in itself is a major statement. Although it might be for Russian consumption only at this time, as the high level outpour of rhetoric on further development continues.

Reuters now reports the quote as "justified", saying "...ambassador to Moscow describes Kremlin's first military response as justified after Russian troops came under attack." (Reuters-Ynetnews ) Anatoly.bourov (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

globe and mail and ynetnews using an identical text btw the same source except a new composed subtitle text or better news summary in ynetnews where obviously legitimate and justified are used for the same Russian word. No progress at all. Elysander (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that вполне обоснованно means completely justified. (Igny (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I agree. Telling "вполне обоснованно" means an unconditional support of the actions by Russia. This is an incorrect translation from English to Russian.Biophys (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys-- what do you mean "This is an incorrect translation from English to Russian."-- I think the ambassador gave his interview in Russian, no? We are now looking for the official translation into English, and barring that, an agreed upon translation into EnglishAnatoly.bourov (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask US embassy in Moscow or State Department in Washington D.C. ... the only legitimate addresses for an official translation. Elysander (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not how WP works, we work on what is verifiable and is published by reliable sources. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! That's a question of authenticity ! If the interviewed person (an U.S. Govt. official) would say this above mentioned English-Russian-English translation is a misinterpretation or fake or was not authorized by him then the source/translation is without any value. Once more kommersant on its English website did not choose words/phrase in its interview summary that are identical or only similar with/to justified or legitimate. Very probably the interview was conducted in English. Maybe interesting is where is the origin of this translation but it is a secondary question. Elysander (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it the opinion of the members that Globe and Mail is a reliable source? It's been over 24 hours and neither the Dept of State nor US embassy to Russia has raised any objections. It appears the GnM report can be now treated as a source. Full Russian text of Kommersant interview including quote of interest is still linked on US embassy web page. Anatoly.bourov (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

International Crisis Group

http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/europe/caucasus/195_russia_vs_georgia___the_fallout.pdf New report by the Crisis Group: a comprehensive history and analysis of the conflict. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• this organization like wikimedia..--UAV2000 (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a good secondary source. This is a think tank. They produced a good report with many references to other sources.Biophys (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks useless as they are supposed to prevent conflict(just like their motto states). Whatever they are doing right now, is out of their responsibility. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Currently, the article claims that:

A study of casualties over the period from August 8 until August 20 concluded that the precise count is 1,492 dead as the result of the bombing of Tskhinvali

the phrasing is clearly intended to convey it as a fact, and does not specifically say who did the counting; however, two references for that senses are not as clear-cut. AP:

Civilian casualties remain unclear. South Ossetian officials on Wednesday said 1,492 civilians in the breakaway province had been killed. The investigative committee of the Russian prosecutor general's office on Wednesday confirmed 133 civilian deaths in South Ossetia, but said it could not be sure of a complete figure because many victims had already been buried.

RIA Novosti:

"At a meeting of the emergency commission on dealing with the consequences of Georgia's act of aggression, it was announced that 1,492 people were killed in Georgia's attack on South Ossetia," spokeswoman Irina Gagloyeva said.

So the numbers come from South Ossetian sources, and there is no consensus on how truthful they are. Note that even Russians still only confirm 133 deaths. Considering all this, perhaps it is worth rephrasing the paragraph? -- int19h (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only use statements by international human rights organizations and reliable news outlets like New York Times. Statements by combatant's media like RIA-News, a mouth peace of Russian government, are of zero credibility.Biophys (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And how is New York Times, mouth peace of US government, more reliable than RIA? More reliable to do what? Just curious. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What is a civilian ? What civilian casualities ? The Southossetian statistics seem still only estimations and not registrations. According Human Rights Watch Southossetian officials did count militias and volunteers as refugees and dead civilians.

We should wait til Southossetia clears its own definition of "Civilian".Elysander (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin's war, but no Putin to be found

Why do Putin supporters remove his name from the infobox and the rest of the article? Maybe Putin wants to work under cover? John McCain said something like this: I looked Putin in his eyes, and it said K G B... 213.50.111.114 (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Any sources that Russian military are actually controlled by Putin rather than by Medvedev? Otherwise, your comment is hardly relevant. If you want to contribute constructively, please edit articles Putin, John McCain, or KGB. Biophys (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New introduction

I propose the following introduction based on known facts and refraining from any statements that are not facts. If you would like to comment, please read the previous posts discussing what constitutes a fact and what needs to be included. The introduction needs to be followed with a timeline of events. All informed opinions are welcome and valued, please be objective in your comments. Ok, here it is, let the (new) battle begin....

The 2008 South Ossetia War is a military conflict that started on August 7, in the South Caucasus region when Georgian forces attacked the city of Tskhinvali, triggering a massive reaction from Russia when its peacekeepers located there came under fire. Russian troops had military support from South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, two de-facto independent regions located within the country of Georgia. Both sides blamed each other for provoking the use of force and continued to use heavy military action in spite of repeated cease-fire claims.

The first battle took place in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, and resulted in major casualties as well as substantial damage to non-military targets. Civilian refugees attempting to flee from the conflict were not initially allowed safe passage out of the war zone, resulting in a humanitarian crisis. Major battles took place in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and spread to Tbillisi, the Capital of Georgia, with Russian troops occupying the affected territory.

President-in-Office of the European Union, Nicolas Sarkozy, brokered a cease-fire on August 12 that was signed by Georgia and Russia on August 15, 2008. Both sides agreed to a six-point peace plan and to end the military hostilities. USchick (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose strongly. There are too many opinion statements that are not facts and too many weasel words and euphemisms. (1) It is not uncontroversial that it started on August 7; (2) Georgian attack targeted not only Tskhinvali; (3) What are the massive reaction, military support and so on? (4) What triggered the Russian reaction and whether it was a reaction or a pre-conceived plan is not a fact but an interpretation; (5) What does "when its peacekeepers located there came under fire" mean? If Russia reacted because of this, write because, not when, but it would be a controversial analysis, so don't include this at all. (5) [B]oth sides <...> continued to use heavy military action in spite of repeated cease-fire claims -- When? What ceasefire claims? As far as I know recently only Russian troops have been active and not the other side, and it would be wrong to mix up ceasefire claims from different periods; (6) The first battle took place in Tskhinvali -- and around it as well. (7) major casualties as well as substantial damage to non-military targets - what do the words major and substantial mean? Read WP:WEASEL. And the claim would be very contentious if it was made more precise. What the hell are "non-military targets"? It implies that they were targeted on purpose, far from a well-known fact. (7) Civilian refugees attempting to flee from the conflict were not initially allowed safe passage out of the war zone, resulting in a humanitarian crisis. - is this an uncontroversial fact? No, as far as I can tell. (8) Humanitarian crisis -- what doest this euphemism stand for? (9) Major battles took place in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and spread to Tbillisi I have never heard of battles in Tbilisi. Moreover, what is a major battle? (10) six-point peace plan -- if you don't clarify them, who cares how many points there are? (10) and to end the military hostilities -- doesn't this follow from the very definition of the word ceasefire? Colchicum (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. A lot of controversial or incorrect statements represented as facts. The text is also not informative (agree with Colchicum). Even current version is better. See also my points 1-3 above. I think they should be reflected, perhaps after some discussion and additional sourcing.Biophys (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC) A couple of references: Russian forces will permanently stay in Georgia and Some earlier comments by Andrei Illarionov (Russian).Biophys (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think you made a good attempt at writing a new type of introduction, one that doesn't include too much details which should be written about in other sections. It's not finished yet, and above are some good arguments against your version as it stands, but don't feel too criticized. Grey Fox (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Even though that this is very controversial, the introduction should be satisfying with this user's intro. RoryReloaded (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the introduction should not be "controversial". It should briefly summarize most important and indisputable facts, as was correctly stated by USchick. Unfortunately, he could not do it.Biophys (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose No acknowledgment of any damage to Georgian homes or property here while Ossetian civilian losses described as "major" and "substantial". Thousands of Georgians are not being allowed to return to their homes, many of which were burned and/or looted anyway.Bdell555 (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• No offense taken, thanks for the comments. Would anyone like to introduce a different version? USchick (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Satellite Damage Assessment for Tskhinvali

A rather interesting piece of data from CERN: http://unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat/asp/prod_free.asp?pid=1246 Might come in handy as a reference in Damages/Humanitarian Impact sections. From the page:

An estimated total of 438 buildings within the mapped extent of Tskhinvali have been classified either as destroyed or severely damaged. An important preliminary finding of this satellite damage analysis is the observed heavy concentration of building damages within clearly defined residential areas.

Gleb (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But there is a question: who did destroy the buildings? That could be done by Georgian, Ossetian, or Russian forces...Biophys (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The map actually shows not only Tskhinvali, but also the area around it. Moreover, it says "Heaviest concentration of building damages in the town of Tamarasheni north of Tskhinvali, with a total of 177 affected buildings." On the map it looks completely destroyed. Given that Tamarasheni was a Georgian village, and there were no reports of Georgians trying to attack it at any point, it must have been destroyed by Russian/Ossetian forces. Since the map indicates the date of 19 August, my guess would be most of the damage was done after the active military phase, as Ossetians burned Georgian villages in an attempt to ethnically cleanse these territories (some details here [13]). Ergneti, another Georgian village shown on the map also looks heavily damaged. (PaC (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

I am not trying to make a point. The assessment contains factual data which can be incorporated into the second paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#South_Ossetians, which currently references anecdotal sources. Something like:

According to a preliminary satellite damage assessment of Tskinvali carried out by United Nations UNOSAT program, "[a]n estimated total of 438 buildings . . . have been classified either as destroyed or severely damaged" with "observed heavy concentration of building damages within clearly defined residential areas".

Gleb (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporters on the ground earlier noted that the greatest total destruction was in Georgian neighborhoods. This should be broken down accordingly if it is not to be misleading.Bdell555 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates needed

Could someone please update occupation of Gori and raid on Poti? Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Links from main article may be needed as well. --Tananka (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Hitler

The Economist in its August 16th print issue, on p. 11 (see [14] online) writes: "Russia has made perfunctory attempts to justify the invasion. It claimed that it was defending Russian citizens. This excuse, as Sweden’s foreign minister tartly noted, recalled Hitler’s justifications of Nazi invasions." User:Mateat 2:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (please see archives of this talk page). Andrei Illarionov noted that such analogy is not entirely correct. Hitler's occupation was justified by the Munich Agreement signed by other countries. Unlike Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia or US invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Georgia by Russia was a completely unilateral action conducted without any consultations with other countries (S. Ossetia does not count since it was not recognized internationally) - according to him [15] Biophys (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of my comment was to include a link to a highly respected source (The Economist) quoting the foreign minister of a country (Sweden) with a long tradition of neutrality, and not to argue whether the analogy drawn with Hitler is appropriate. User:Mateat 4:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you do not need discussion. Just go ahead and include this in the article.Biophys (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of that guy is irrelevant no matter how respectable or neutral he is.(Igny (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

If you didn't know it Carl Bildt isn't just foreign minister of Sweden but also Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It explains why he went to Tbilisi during the war. So whether you like his opinions or not they are surely relevant here. Narking (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable due to both the possitions he holds and his activity durring this conflict. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that this is an official position of Sweden or the Committee of Ministers or the Council of Europe? Whoever the guy is, his "tart remarks" are irrelevant. I also read many other opinions comparing Putin/Medvedev or their actions with Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Stalin, Hitler, Peter the Great, and so what? They are all irrelevant to the conflict here. (Igny (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

The Economist has such a stellar reputation of predicting Russian military actions, that it's managed to call every Russian military conflict dead wrong. Just read their editorials on Russia losing the Second Chechen Wars. Or their editorials on the US winning in Iraq. Or the one about Ukraine going to war with Russia. How can any military professional take them seriously? Militarily, they're a joke, and this is a war, ergo military, article. The Economist is a respectable source in ECONOMY, not in military history, where they, quite frankly, get nearly everything wrong. Also, comparisons are irrelevant. I can easily write up an article comparing Saakashvili to Stalin, and anyone, with enough imagination, can compare Bush and/or Putin to Stalin as well. Stalin's so popular these days, I think there has to be a wikipedia article about him somewhere. Honorable Wikipedia editors, Mateat and Narking, you can help out the Stalin Article, and create the list of the people he's been compared to, because for this article, it's irrelevant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.129.39 (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted interfax news "reconstructed" via google cache

Following news was publshed by interfax on August 5th , 2008 - and then obviously deleted in its newsarchive after August 11th. The news according google cache: http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:hP3H7LWp00MJ:www.interfax.com/3/416284/news.aspx http://www.interfax.com/3/416284/news.aspx&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=de

11:06 GMT, Aug 05, 2008 Volunteers arriving in South Ossetia - president's envoy MOSCOW. Aug 5 (Interfax) - Volunteers are arriving in South Ossetia to offer help in the event of Georgian aggression, Dmitry Medoyev, a South Ossetian presidential envoy, has said. "Volunteers are arriving already, primarily from North Ossetia. Ossetians are one nation and one culture," Medoyev said at a news conference in Moscow on Tuesday. Russian regions in the North Caucasus, and Russian Cossacks have demonstrated readiness to support South Ossetia, he said. "We have received offers of help from the North Caucasus and from the Cossacks in southern Russia," Medoyev said. "But Tskhinvali will count on its own forces in the first instance. We have armed forces of our own," he said. A guerilla war will begin in the event of Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, and South Ossetia will launch a railway warfare against Georgia, Medoyev said. "We will watch how Georgia will manage to fulfill its oil transit obligations then," said Medoyev.

Elysander (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... in the early days of the Russia-Georgia war, there were several reports at gazeta.ru and lenta.ru about the big losses suffered by the Russians between Tchinvali and Dzhava. They were then deleted within a few hours. The FSB guys act quickly... --93.177.151.101 (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Use google cache for a search, but you need the original url's Elysander (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely notable should be included in the article. Hobartimus (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Check history!! This notable information was already inserted in the article (maybe at a wrong place) but deleted by Igny as hearsay. :-)) Elysander (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the original article in Russian. The news archive database of interfax.com seems to be much smaller. --Illythr (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!! A smaller database cannot be the reason because you can find several English written articles/news of 2007 and earlier by search. Elysander (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I couldn't find any that are older than August 10th? Its three news databases Russian & CIS, Central Europe, China are cut off at the same date. --Illythr (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... check for example [[16]].. Articles go back til October 2007. Elysander (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the page you link to provides news articles from Aug 11th through Aug 20th to me... The site does have things like this, but those are not news articles. --Illythr (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a browser problem on your side? I was just clicking my "example search link" above and found 132 documents ( news, headlines, articles) with "sarkozy" inside in a not-chronological order - back til October 2007 ;)

Addition & correction : Articles (underlined) go back deep in 2007 - news/headlines not before August 11th Elysander (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Of the 132 articles - two date before Aug 10 and both are from different sections. Anyhow, if there were any sinister intent there, I doubt they'd leave the Russian article intact like that. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you ;) - there are 132 documents under the certain keyword ( example: sarkozy ). Obviously only ( selected ?) articles are archived longer than 10 (?)days in the English interfax news online archive, simple headlines/news ( without text) vanishing after few days. The above mentioned article belongs to the non-selected articles. Elysander (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Check their categories. The documents still accessible are not from the "news" cat. --Illythr (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More of this story is at http://www.ogj.com/search/results.cfm?si=OGJ&collection=ogj&keywords=Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan&x=17&y=11 the oil and gas journal. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct information by Interfax. It was corroborated by other publications, for example RFE/RL.Biophys (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"massive looting" in Gori

User:Advokat has just removed the UN official's report of massive looting in Georgian settlements as an "unconfirmed information with a link to a non-existing page". This is a lie. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LH617289.htm the page is accessible and the article says:

"A United Nations aid convoy managed to enter Gori on Sunday, the first time U.N. organisations have reached the Georgian town since fighting started last week, and found signs of "massive looting". --93.177.151.101 (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• But UN place to website photos of military base in Gori.--UAV2000 (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The aforementioned news post contains no photo's. What are you talking about? --Hkinaf (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bottom. Latest Images section.--UAV2000 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

map for article

• Ethno-Linguistic Map of Europe Before 1914 with Ossetians and Abkhazians [17]. Public Domain?--UAV2000 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How is it relevant for the 2008 article? Colchicum (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Because it shows where different ethniticities lived. If you can find an updated version - go for it. Russia charged Georgia with Ethnic Clensing, so an ethnicity map is valid. I'm not sure if 1914 is the one to use, but I don't see a problem with an updated version of it being used.

US Humvee's

Ive been looking around, and apparently Russian forces have taken several United States Humvees that were at docks for transport. Can anyone find more sources for this? Does this merit inclusion?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-seizes-us-vehicles-902432.html Dtheweather9 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian casualties

There are rumors of hundreds of Russian dead. My question is how can Russia even hide those hundreds of dead? Do they release the names of the dead or do they just give numbers? I understand why they'd want to hide the dead if they really have ~500 dead, but the truth would finally come out. I think that the Georgians just mistaked the Russians with South Ossetians when they were killing them. Especially that the Ossetians aren't releasing any combatant deaths and only give out numbers like 2000 civilians. The Russians and Ossetians have the same equipment and both looked "rag-tag" I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at first glance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

just rumors--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New articles about buffer zones?

Should we have new articles about South Ossetia buffer zone and Abkhazia buffer zone since these two areas are new reality on the ground? See: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/2008820143346769471.html 212.69.4.242 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand we don't know now the extent of these zones and their legal status, so let's wait a bit. Alæxis_¿question? 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, does anybody have a map of these buffer zones? 212.69.4.242 (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks a little premature. If you want to create a new article, this could be War crimes in Georgia or Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Georgia like in article Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia. But you have to register to create an article.Biophys (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that somebody could be interested to read about false allegations for ethnic cleansing. Contrary to this, these buffer zones are new reality and the purpose of Wikipedia is to have articles about all existing things. And do not worry, I am registered, and I can use my Wiki account when I need to. 81.18.62.141 (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I found a map of a buffer zone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7578250.stm 81.18.62.141 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The buffer zones were defined in 1999 and 1992 agreements, does WP have articles on these agreements? That would probably be more important than an article on the zones themselves, or maps of such zones.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No matter what shape these articles would have, they should contain information about these buffer zones and possibly also maps of the zones. Anyway, here is updated BBC map of the zones showing both of them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7579506.stm 81.18.62.141 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention Putin!

The present infobox is rather peculiar - another good night's sleep for Russia's No. 1 - Vladimir Putin. According to WP consensus (huh...) Putin has nothing to do with this war... Why, btw, are the Russians so anxious of cleaning the article from his name? I thought Putin was the role model for contemporary Russians. What Putin does is always right. Nothing to be ashamed of. Or is it? 213.50.111.114 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Russian; I removed it, as discussed above. The infobox is intended for military commanders, not heads of government or chiefs of state. Check other articles on wars, and see how rarely kings, presidents, and prime ministers are listed; except when, like Frederick II of Prussia, they in fact held chief field command. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am Canadian Russian, and I don't get it, what does Putin have to do with this conflict? He is as related to the conflict as Bush. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Putin should be included in the infobox. The war has been in the pipeline for some time and Putin has been personally involved in convincing Russian officers with second thoughts about the invasion of Georiga, not to resort to such thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.121.84.241 (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Errrr, what? Are saying he's been trying to manipulate public opinion? Well, I can say the same about Mr Bush, and Ms Rice. Shall we write them down as well? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we need to include chiefs of state 'cause they are commanders-in-chief of the military and no military action starts without their approval. So please include Saakashvilli and Medvedev back. Zealander (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates

See also: Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11 § Date_formats

A solitary user has been changing the dating scheme to 23 August 2008. This is contrary to Wikipedia custom and guidance, and disruptive on this article, where we have more important things to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the summary of the war has always said August 23, and so on, except when edit warred, I restored the format of that section. In the long run, it should be paragraphs, not bullet points; and a subhead for August is both redundant and dangerous; if we are unlucky enough to have another run of combat over the night of the 31st and the 1st, it should not be divided between section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus established on this page - now archived here - has been to use International Dating format. You are the only person supporting American Dating format for an article on a conflict between two nations both using International Dating. You have been warned repeatedly not to do this, you have a history of changing formats or removing units against consensus, and you should think very carefully before making disruptive edits. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we're on the brink of a "Date war?" This is English WP where both the DD.MM.YYYY or the MM.DD.YYYY are acceptable. There are no STRONG English speaking national ties involved, so use of either is acceptable as long as there is consistency throughout. I agree with Pmanderson that whatever date format came first should be used and consistently . From my time on the article, I have seen the mm.dd.yyyy used as well as the dd.mm.yyyy but the majority of useage was in the mm.dd.yyyy useage. Why war about it?--«Javier»|Talk 01:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How about you use the ISO 8601 standard which is international use of dates? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the relevant [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic|Manual of Style section], we see:

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
• Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format.

As both Georgia and Russia use day-month-year format, that format should be used here. Whether they speak English or not is immaterial. Edit-warring to include an inappropriate style is unacceptable. --Pete (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete? I don't think you have reached consensus on this, so why are you continuing to make your POV edits at this very moment? Is this your idea of WP editing?--«Javier»|Talk 07:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Foreighn Minister of Georgia Ekaterine Tkeshilashwilli, Russian troops begun to advance into Georgia August 7 through the Rock Tunnel http://echo.msk.ru/programs/beseda/535961-echo/

not WP:RS.--UAV2000 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Aslo, according to statement of the "Ossetian Prezident", all the Georgian towns and villages in South Ossetia are completely destroyed; they do not exist anymore. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1011783&NodesID=5

The article should mention these statements. dima (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the section referred to has half-a-dozen editors. Another editor dissented on the (accurate) ground that we have too many American dates to convert; another supported on the sole ground that autoformating will only work with British dates. This is not true; and we're not autoformatting now anyway. In short, not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see only two voices raised in opposition against general agreement in a recent discussion that day-month-year is appropriate, as backed up by the Manual of Style, quoted above. There is no good reason for using American dates against the guidelines. --Pete (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is consensus a vote? If so then I have somehow been misinterpreted WP concerning WP:Consensus all this time. Please correct me if I'm wrong before I put on my democratic voting hat in future consensus related talk. Oh and by the way I'm serious. Is it a vote? In the spirit of consensus, you might take a look at the Russia WP article and you'll notice that the "American" and "International" ways are both used and especially in the referenced sources section about 90% of the date format is "American". You might want to start enforcing your POV there since your contention is that since Russia and Georgia use day-month-year then this Russia article somehow missed this. You might also take a look at Georgia also, same "American" use of dates. Therefore, I fail to see the point.--«JavierMC»|Talk 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll get around to them in due course. In the meantime, perhaps we can use the Manual of Style as both a guideline for settling on presentation, and guidance on settling disputes. Using established wikipolicy instead of bickering over trivia? Hmmmm? --Pete (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Further to above, on looking for reliable sources for date formats by country, I find that we have two within Wikipedia:

• Calendar date. Both Georgia and Russia are shown as using day month year order here.
• Date and time notation by country (no entries for Georgia or Russia)

However, linking from the second article I find a detailed project to get dates and other formats sorted out for use in internationalising applications. For example, I look at Russia, and I find that they use day-month-year format for the Gregorian calendar. Look at line 2648 here. --Pete (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK this is the last I'm going to say on this talk page concerning this. Obviously no other editor of this article cares since their lack of participation in the discussion is quite obvious. However, I would point out WP:GUIDE to you before you make a rampant charge on WP and correct what you seem to be perceiving as a policy instead of a guideline, and especially this part:

Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment.

Happy editing and now back to the substance of this article. Peace --«JavierMC»|Talk 00:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

EU peacekeepers

I heard an expert (dont remember his name) on the BBC who said that the war could have been avoided, should the EU just have deployed some peacekeepers in the two breakaway republics. According to the expert, Russia would not likely break through EU peacekeepers' line. I dont think the Russians would care so much about breaking through an EU peackeeping line. Anyway, I wonder if such a mission has ever been planned by the EU (or Nato) and possible Russian reaction to prevent such a mission to be deployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.121.84.241 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia has long been trying to "internationalize" the peacekeeping process in the conflict regions, but Western Europe was reluctant because of a staunch opposition from the Russians. The BBC expert was exactly right that the war could have been avoided, should the EU just have been more active. Georgia's past efforts to get the EU involved in the peacekeeping mission should be added into the background section, methinks.--93.177.147.27 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is talk about using OSCE peacekeepers in the buffer zones, as Sarkozy and Medvedev had discussed (AlJazeera) but it's hard to find amongst all the opinion articles... Anatoly.bourov (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Status

Should the Status section now ready "Russia Occupation of Northern Georgia" rather than "Ceasefire in effect" as both the Georgians and the EU/USA (who brokered the peace deal) say that Russia is in breach of the cease fire agreement. MattUK (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to present a NPOV view of events, then sure. If you would like to take into account Russia's POV, then no. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The views of Russia, that it is allowed to invade sovergin nations when it wants to, that wouldnt be NPOV, according to the text of the cease fire, Russia is in breach of the deal, and is according to international law an occupying force in Georgia, so it's not POV, it is FACT! MattUK (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, according to POV. We don't deal with what is TRUTH (who's truth) but what is verifiable whilst sticking to strict NPOV. If verifiable information is introduced which states the Georgian/US POV, then this needs to be counter-balanced by presenting the Russian POV, and since the Russians deny that they are occupying Georgia, then to rename the section to Russian occupation is inherently NPOV, regardless of how many RFE/RL, Jamestown and Novaya Gazeta articles some editors will use to push their own POV in demonising Russia. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Buffer zones

We need an article and map regarding the Russian buffer zones in Georgia. I'm really interested to see how large they are. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a more general article, Russian occupation of Georgia. Although Russia officially announced a complete withdrawal of its forces from Georgia, the officially occupied regions include Poti, block posts on many roads, the "buffer zones", Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Biophys (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

According to official position of Russia, the occupying forces are "peace keepers". However, they were not recognized as such by UN or any other internationally reputable organizations. So, they can not be called "peace keepers" (someone suggested "war keepers" during previous discussions here).Biophys (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need a more general POV article, in which RFE/RL, Jamestown, Novaya Gazeta and other anti-Russian opinion pieces will undoubtedly be used to create yet another Russia hate-fest article. As to peacekeepers, they are in South Ossetia under an international recognised mandate, are they not? --Russavia ^{DialogueStalk me} 15:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... the only not-synchronized nation-wide Russian newspaper calling anti-Russian is a POV master piece and discredit the writer of such lines himself. Elysander (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding all talk of "occupation" and peacekeeper status, OSCE monitors are beginning to arrive(OSCE_Arriving), any and all POV comments should be held off until they make statements. Opinions on compliance with the six-point peace plan are only opinions, they will only become fact if ICJ rules on it.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

erm, rather only ICJ can declare an occupation factual and/or illegal, and OSCE monitors have the power to declare non-compliance.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What "international recognised mandate" for "peacekeepers" in Poti and other places are you talking about? There are already enough sources to create a number of "Russian occupation" or "ethnic cleansing" type articles, regardless to any future developments.Biophys (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about interpreting the "While awaiting an international mechanism, Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures" verbiage -- the interpretation is a matter for OSCE, and not a matter of personal opinion. The monitors are already there, we won't have to wait long before they announce what they think is happening. It is premature to declare non-compliance at this point. Once the monitors declare what they think the situation is, we can treat it as fact, until then, it's opinion.

As far as alleged occupation, that can also a matter of opinion, not fact, at this time. Starting with OSCE declarations, and proceeding to ICJ rulings, we can start those articles as it happens. Same thing for alleged ethnic cleansing, there is mention of proceedings being initiated, that is all that is fact right now.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as there is more than enough information and sources to create an Acts of Genocide committed by Georgia article. However, as I am not on a crusade to demonise anyone, nor any nation, this is not an article I would create, and I will be keeping an eye on such articles and will not hesitate to instantly take them to AFD because they will only be created with an ulterior motive which will of course be totally NPOV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The statements by OSCE and other organizations is only one of many WP sources. If something called "ethnic cleansing" or "occupation" in WP:reliable sources, this can be used. Yes, I am also not on a crusade to demonise anyone.Biophys (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

so back to the start, Russian buffer zones in Georgia is a fact and has a NPOV name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just go ahead and create it if you have enough material.Biophys (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the "buffer zones" you refer to were created in four-party talks in 1999, and will be manned in the near future fully by OSCE personnel, so calling them "Russian" is a POV position. perhaps "Buffer zones around SO and Abkhazia", or just "Buffer zones in Georgia" would be NPOV Anatoly.bourov (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This article has shortcomings

This article

• lacks balance.

The article only mentions the initial invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia but fails to give an account of the Russia response: Russia invaded Georgia. This omission is tantamount to a violation of the Wikipedia WP:NPOV requirement.

There are also claims that Russia planned for this eventuality by handing out Russian citizenship to people in this region in advance of its military activities. It also is accused of having done this in Abkhazia, which it also invaded. This claim needs to be documented based on factual evidence.

• uses an inappropriate title.

The article refers to the South Ossetian War of 2008, but this conflict is wider in scope than South Ossetia, even if the war began there. Russia invaded also Abkhazia and other parts of Georgia. The title could be one frequently used by the media.

• fails to reflect the cease fire agreement.

The article does not account for the peace accord, whereby Russia promised to withdraw its forces, its compliance to date with and reasons given for meeting/not meeting the terms of the agreement.

• As this article now stands, it fails to account for a crucial ingredient, the proactive and reactive acts of Russia, including their efforts to meet the terms of the cease fire agreement. The title gives only a partial description of this war. A stand-alone article that focus only on the South Ossetia dimension of this war does not seem justifiable. The material should be included as a segment of a fuller article covering the whole war, correcting also for the above noted imbalances.Odin 85th gen (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What version of the article are you referring to? The current version does NOT use the verbiage "initial invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia". In fact, the first use of the word invasion refers to the Mongols, while the second instance refers to "Russia's invasion of Georgia".

Re "The article does not account for the peace accord, whereby Russia promised to withdraw its forces" -- do you mean the six-point peace plan? In the current version it is featured quite prominently.

Re "The title could be one frequently used by the media." -- which is exactly what, and what is "the media"?

Re "Russia invaded also Abkhazia" -- again with the POV-heavy wording of "invaded" , oppose. Anatoly.bourov (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree: "Russia invaded also Abkhazia" Russia is under peacekeeping agreements convened with Georgia. Many references are made of Russian deployments beyond the agreed buffer zones.
  Agree: Title could be better. There is a discussion page especially for the title. Article is incomplete. --Tananka (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

need more references for opening paragraph

It appears the sole reference for the whole first paragraph has been mangled. It now links to "BBC, US warship reaches Georgian port, 24.08.2008", can anyone restore?Anatoly.bourov (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was me who inserted this reference. The conflict is summarised thus there:

“ Russia's four-day war with Georgia erupted after Tbilisi tried to retake South Ossetia - which broke away in 1992 and was supported by Moscow - in a surprise offensive on 7 August. The offensive followed a series of clashes between Georgian and South Ossetian forces. ”

The previous version was not NPOV imo since it failed to mention Georgia's attack on Tskhinval. I wouldn't mind if some old version which is referenced better and is NPOV is restored... Alæxis_¿question? 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"surprise" attack or offensive

This has already been discussed in the Talk page at considerable length. The BBC does say "surprise", however the overwhelming majority of reliable media sources do not use such language. There was no Georgian "attack" from out of the bright blue sky of peace and harmony to those who followed the background to this conflict. There were a serious of provocations and spiralling tensions. Again, we've been over this before. If there is going to be any assignment to either Russia or Georgia as the instigator, neutrality demands that the counterargument be included as well. It follows that this cannot be covered off in a single clause like "the war began with a surprise attack by Georgia". One could easily say the war began with a Russian invasion on September 8, with the Georgian move analogous to the Georgian moves that retook the Gorge and Batumi. Those events arguably didn't start "wars".Bdell555 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, besides BBC news sources are ok, but not perfect according to wiki's source policies. Grey Fox (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to suggest here. Most news source agree that the first large-scale military offensive was undertaken by the Georgian army following orders of the President. Even FOX news said "Georgia, a U.S. ally whose troops have been trained by American soldiers, launched a major offensive overnight Friday. Heavy rocket and artillery fire pounded the provincial capital, Tskhinvali, leaving much of the city in ruins." It's hard to find a less pro-Russian news source that can still qualify as a WP:RS All previous skirmished were not sanctioned by the respective governments, so this did start the war. As far the surprise factor, it is clear residents of Tskhinvali were not warned about the attack. Now to counterarguments, if there is a reliable source that says so, it should be included, but from I've seen it's fairly unanimous as to the start of the "war".Anatoly.bourov (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, that was Russian-Georgian war, not Ossetian war (check the number of Google hits). The military actions took place in the entire Western Georgia, far beyond Ossetia. Hence "Georgian" or "Russian-Georgian" war. As any war between two internationally recognized countries, it began from attack of one country to another. What happened before belongs to "casus belli" but does not constitute the war itself, according to any scholarly or logical standards.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's legalistic nitpicking, imho. SO is only de jure Georgia's territory so it would be an oversimplification and POV to say that Russia started this war for the reasons you've mentioned. Alæxis_¿question? 19:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a legalistic nitpicking. The war was not on the Ossetian territory only, but on the Georgian territory.Biophys (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys -- did you mean to post in the "This article has shortcomings" section? Either way, it is probably a fair suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly.bourov (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC

* 20 August - After the tentative ceasefire was brokered, BBC opined that "whether or not either side was deliberately planning to go to war or just over-reacting to circumstances, it is clear that both Russia and Georgia were prepared for a sudden escalation in the violence. Both Georgia's assault on Tskhinvali, and Russia's response to it, were swift and brutal", with both sides' actions being described by human rights groups as "disproportionate".<:ref>"Ossetian crisis: Who started it? by BBC News Online". BBC. 2008-08-20. Retrieved 2008-08-20.</ref>

It's not clear that such summaries of opinion pieces add much to the article. But do they add anything at all to the timeline, where I found it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cited phrase does not add much. However, "who started this war?" is a valid question. There is an in-depth analysis of this by Yulia Latynina (text in Russian).Biophys (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A section on "who started it?" may be useful. But if so (and I'm not sure we have the reliable sources to do it yet), this belongs there, not on the timeline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New Europe vs Old Europe

A lot of US aligned Eastern European countries, commonly considered part of the "New Europe", were neutral: the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, (and a lot without an official position: Hungary, Slovenia, Republic of Macedonia, Albania). So the "International reactions" section presents an inaccurate view.Baltaci (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

title of wire story changing

I think the last para of the "media bias" section should be deleted. That's simply because wire story titles change all the time. This is not news. Newspapers can title wire stories whatever they want and often change them, other times they don't change them while the wire service does. The title often changes throughout the day as well. I don't see how this relates to media bias.Bdell555 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would rather suggest to place the entire chapter "Mass media disinformation, propaganda, and alleged bias" into a separate article Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war. The subject is interesting and notable, but yes, it should be removed to facilitate reading of this very large article.Biophys (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just created this article. Let's remove the content fork from here.Biophys (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never been a fan of this section, having previously argued for its deletion.Bdell555 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. I moved this content to the newly created article. Unfortunately, it was nominated for AfD. I am also not a fan of this section, but having this subject as a separate sub-article seems to be a good compromise solution. Do not you think?Biophys (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more useful to delete the last paragraph and keep this in the main article? Or have it fused into the timeline section? The info-war is surely one of the most noteworthy matters in the article. If the last paragraph edit is borderline, then delete and move to talk pages while it's evaluated. --Tananka (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the split is a good idea as wikipedia is infinitely large. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On the 23 August, a story was published on Reuters entitled "Georgian forces back in control of strategic road" by Margarita Antidze, various news websites had republished it including: Times of Malta, Washington Post, ReliefWeb, Khaleej Times, Economic Times, Canada.com, elEconomista.es, Calgary Herald, The Gazette (Montreal), and MorungExpress. However, during the day, the story had been changed, on the Reuters website, and was later entitled "Russian forces still in Georgia" by Niko Mchedlishvili. Whereas most news website had kept the original story, the Washington post and Yahoo news stories had been changed as had Reuters'. Gareth Jones had signed the initial version, "Russia troops still in Georgia after pullout". Between 3:15-6:19 am GMT the article was edited and signed Gareth Jones again. . 6:57-8:22 am GMT the article is replaced and now entitled "Georgia back in control of strategic road" by Margarita Antidze, which is then edited before 9:27 GMT. It is later replaced yet again to end up as "Russian forces still in Georgia" by Niko Mchedlishvili

• OK last paragraph moved onto talk page. Is it noteworthy anyway?
  The section was moved to "Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war".. Why AfD now?
  --Tananka (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)