Talk:Russo-Georgian War

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

• Be neutral (scrupulously so)
• Be verifiable.
• Be bold
• Be collaborative

Don't

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

Put new text under old text.

Conflicts in the Former Soviet Union

that part of this page is highly inaccurate, as it fails to meation the conficts in Moldava, or in Central Asia, and that has to change.

What conflict in Moldova? If you refer to Transnistria, it is a non-recognized state, and it does not have a border with Russia. It does have a border with Ukraine, but, Ukraine has proved to be quite hostile towards Russia in the recent Georgian conflict. Transnistria is just a case of partial occupation by a country of another country, against all internal and international laws. It is just a spine in NATO's back, just enough so that Moldova can't join NATO or the EU. It will be solved... Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-official reactions...

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

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

Russian media and public information is not controlled (basically). Media sites just try to save or increase audience. You can visit any site depending on your preferences. For example, you can visit russophobic site grani.ru. --Butter-club (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Estonian Public Broadcasting company cites a very recent research done by Levada-Center (http://www.levada.ru/eng/opisanie.html, concidered relatively reliable by analysts) in Russia (1600 people), that 33% of respondents think that SO and Abhasia shoud be incorporated in to Russia, 26% think that the separatistic region should become independent, and 11% of russians think that those regions should be part of Georgia; the non-response rate was 30%. The Estonian page: http://uudised.err.ee/index.php?06131750 (in Estonian), I could not find the original source (Levada-Centre's report). However, this [page] sports different figures, and [this source]too, now. Search "Levada" and "poll" from Google News. 213.35.176.54 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Estonia is not neutral in the given theme. To save WP:NPOV.--93.80.187.11 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But who is? Russia? A better argument is that a direct link is preferable if can be found. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely Molobo jests when he/she claims that Russian media and internet is controlled? The Russian internet is a free for all, and needless to say, in this conflict there was one country which blocked internet content on a wholesale basis; guess which country that was? It wasn't Russia that's for sure. Additionally, in regards to media, it isn't controlled as much as what people tend to think (and believe from propaganda) - there are many media outlets which are critical of many of the government institutions and officials. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all the Russian Internet is under strict control of the FSB. Nobody permitted to write his opinion without a sanction of the local FSB-officer. Those who breaks this rule were executed by shooting or feed to polar bears. There are also a special mind control brigades that track peoples thoughts. If you are not loyal to Medvedev you can find yourself in one of the Siberian secret concentration camps or uranium mine. The most hard-to-deal Russian dissidents becomes the victims of the Battle Tripod belonged to Putin himself.

Web brigades. Also Reporters Without Borders put Russia at 144th place in the World Press Freedom Index from a list of 169 countries. --Molobo (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In Russia people make donations and collect assistance for the aggrieved civilians of Ossetia. Ru magister (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And how does this connect to the information here ? As Carl Bildt noted such justifications were used in 1939 and 1938 by Germany.--Molobo (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Web brigades" in Russia are basically the same as "Think Tanks" in the West. No difference. 77.28.215.83 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference though. We actually know "think tanks" exist and actively see their propagan..er, I mean, objective obligations to the truth.LokiiT (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

[1]

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

Chechen separatists are responsible for Beslan school hostage crisis, Russian aircraft bombing and other terrorism acts. Sure, they are trustable source of information about Russia. -- Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was responsible for Holocaust yet it revealed Katyn Massacre. The atrocities of one side do not cancel its ability to report on opponents(likewise Soviet Union had Gulags but liberated Auschwitz...of course murdering later some of the inmates like Wladyslaw Pilecki). The fact they reported plans to invade Georgia one month before the actual invasion started is notable. There could have been doubts if they claimed it today, but they claimed it a month before the actual invasion.--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have an idea how frequently or infrequently claims that Russia will invade so-and-so are made by organizations as large as this separatist organization? This could well be true, but another possibility is that they had bad or no intel, yet were right by chance. The prediction is not significant if there is always someone claiming that Russia will invade Georgia next month, so how often are claims of this nature made? Christiangoth (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Molobo, the case for Russian plans to invade Georgia are hearsay unless grounded evidence is provided. It is a common fact that the Baltic states, Poland and the Chechen rebels are engulfed with hatred towards Russia and can easily lie just for the sake of making evil to it. Pglukhov (talk)

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

Of course you find it notable but post hoc ergo propter hoc is not permissible. What to ask: a) how often were such predictions given? b) How often were they wrong?

It's like the guys who for the last 4 years have been predicting the "USrael attack on Iran". If that happens (especially now, I doubt so) they will go screaming "Predicted it! Predicted it!". But they did shit. They simply stated something that has a fair chance of being correct by sheer chance' and not because it is such a good analysis or based on facts or whatnot.

I also advise you to think about the conuter-claims about the planned US attack on S Ossetia, Abkhazia and perhaps Russia herself that, for the sake of maintaining NPOV, our "dear" Russian "readership" will doubtlessly introduce. The national bolsheviks (a scary bunch if there ever was one) have been "predicting" that Georgia will try to retake S Ossetia by force on that-and-that date ever since Georgia lost it, that they get help from the US, Israel... the usual suspects.

That is why I was so outspoken against dubious sources in the "Tskhinvali Destroyed... Or Is It?!" discussion above. Eventually this will lead to overdue emphasis on the opposing lunatic fringe views.

A better point might be the general untrustworthiness of a party at war with Russia themselves. In any case, no, the plan was drawn up in a 2001 computer game, according to Chechen separatist sources.

Anyways: you show me yours I show you mine. (Novosty - currently down again.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict a clash of military forces in the Caucasus. Some guys argue that the "Zionist-Neocon conspiracy" had been planning this since they set up their "stooge Saakashvili" in the first place. I think we both agree what to think of that.

The difference to 1939 is: there were border clashes and mutual provocations between Poland and the Reich, but Poland did NOT auf unserem eigenen Territorium auch mit bereits regulären Soldaten geschossen. The Nazis had to fabricate this. The Gerogia situation is like a guy turning into a one-way road in the wrong direction and colliding with a speeding lorry he knew was coming along and blaming the lorry driver for the accident because he was speeding. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand your German. However your personal theories are interesting the bottom line we have two sourced statements that Russia planed the invasion. If some source disagrees we can add on that. Of course the statments must be presented as view of the source not as truth.--Molobo (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The German - it's Hitlers announcement of the "Polish invasion", literally: but Poland did not "fire on our own territory also with regular forces already" (the orignal is more ungrammatical if anything)

Essentially: open up the argument to Chechnyan rebel sources and you will at the same time, under the guise of NPOV, open it up to such things (<- you might take care not to eat or drink while reading this.) It's easy to anticipate whom readers will believe more: a distinguished Canadian professor or a throatslitting Wahhabi bush-fighter.

And that's the problem: once you allow one conspiracy theory in, it is very hard to keep any of them out. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to hear it being labeled conspiracy theory. Likewise Nazi Germany did terrible things-yet it was right on Katyn Massacre. The report has been widely circulated is notable and now being again confirmed as US officials claim indeed Russia planned this. As explained below all needs to be put in neutral light. That report was published by Chechnya independence movement should be named, that it was circulated in reliable press, and that now US officials claim Russia indeed planned the invasion earlier.--Molobo (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, there's one thing I've got to ask. If the Russians planned it, why was it introduced by an American author (granted, one who has sometimes freaky analytical abilities) in an American video game? Does that sound even a little bit strange to anyone else? Ringlhach (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is crap. That's why I put it up; to show the lowness to which the name-calling is sinking now the shooting is over. Anyways, the reading of history books on the birthing pains of the CIS is strongly encouraged. They have been at each other's throats since 15 years, and they have seriously begun to gear up for something like this for the last 2 years. When was the last time Russian forces were not in the region in numbers and on alert? And when was the last time Saakashvili lowered his defense budget substantially? (Did he ever?)

The Red Storm thing is one of the classics. The "anti-NWO" scene, those guys who believe the world is Hollywood and Fox News rolled in a ball and flattened out to a large disk orbited by the sun love that stuff. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the relevancy of these articles. Here's why: firstly, such statements are words only and are not backed by any facts, i.e. there were no military plans published or anything factually proving that Russia was preparing for war. Secondly, all these statements are mentioned postfactum. Here's a good question: if all was known why nothing was done? Brits + Americans + Georgians are allies. Thirdly, the numbers and dates are extremely off. All this makes me question credibility of these sources. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin's former aide Andrey Illarionov also says that the Russian military elite were prepared to make use of any provocation in the region as a pretext to invade Georgia. He refers to the conflict as a "brilliantly staged provocative war" and draws some parallels with Shamil Basaev's infamous raid into Daghestan and Putin's destructive response in Ichkeria.(in Russian; Ekho Moskvy interview). --93.177.151.101 (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Secondly, all these statements are mentioned postfactum." Do we agree on the calendar order? Published July 18. July 18 precedes August 7. So, no - not post factum. The dates are also not very much off. The original source may be this piece from kavkazcenter, from July 6. Of course kavkazcenter is heavily POV, together with phrases like "Caucasus Emirate", so it needs to be treated with caution. It does not mean they made this one up, though. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly why I wrote "mentioned" rather than published. We agree on the calendar order, however you don't answer my main question: if all was known why nothing was done? The only logical answer would be that these sources were considered not reliable by the decision makers. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you differentiate mentioning from publishing then - mentioned where? Here? Things on Wikipedia are usually mentioned post factum. I am not sure what your point is.
• As to your other question: who are we to judge that nothing was done? I have no access to diplomatic or military archives. But if a plan is revealed it is usually not carried out unmodified. And the Georgian move into South Ossetia could even be interpreted as a failed preemptive action resulting from such knowledge (if they would have secured the Roki Tunel, the strategic situation might be quite different). Or maybe this information has been neglected. Or maybe the report was a lucky guess. But all of this is delving into original research. What we have here are two media reports on the topic: kavkazcenter and a Polish newspaper (German owned, if that matters). Let's the readers decide what to make of these claims.
• Also, someone has just removed from this talk page a link to an official NATO statement from June 3. An earlier NATO statement on Abkhazia and South Ossetia is from April 16. This is of course diplomatic language, but shows similar underlying concerns, which in all probability were based on actual intelligence. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Mentioned by the other Mass Media of course. Such important information did not appear anywhere except those two sources. Just compare it to the current abundance of info.
• Well, again, no Mass Media mentioning that something was done. Georgia may had well stated that they act as preemptive against possible Russian aggression, yet they chose not to do so.
• It was me who deleted it, because that statement is: 1. Vague, 2. Old, 3. Says nothing about military, only about Russia establishing "legal links" with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I don't think we're supposed to just post on this page anything that happened there prior to the conflict, especially that old. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Information warfare

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

Article: (Information warfare

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

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

Cyberattacks and censorship)

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

Can't find it now, but I saw the CNN video where they indeed showed Tshinvali footage while saying 'Russians bombed Gori'. Georgian and Russian media are both biased, obviously, but Western media doesn't always stay objective. 209.6.213.24 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

(talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 

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

Reffering to the South Ossetians and Abkhazia government as 'Successionists' is pro-Georgian POV and incorrect. Russ It is not normal to refer to a country as Successionists unless they are fighting their initial war to secede from a larger country. In this instance, this is incorrect, since this is NOT the first conflict that these countries have been involved in. Hence they are not Successionists or a Successionist government.

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I'm concerned, until they're recognized by somebody (meaning the national government of a third-party nation, or a group of nations i.e. the UN, AU, ASEAN, EU... you get the drift), they're secessionist. I think Taiwan is probably the best example here. As far as I know, the People's Republic of China calls it "China's Taiwan province" (when they bother to mention the island), and the Republic of China was one of the founding members of the UN. We might be able to get clarification here. Ringlhach (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was it changed to "The 2008 South Ossetia war started on August 7, 2008, involving Georgia, the unrecognised republic of South Ossetia, the unrecognised republic of Abkhazia, and the Russian Federation." ???!!!??? I saw no consensus to allow this, if anything I count the prevailing balance to keep the term 'seperatist'. Is editing not built on consensus?? I am OPPOSED to the use of 'unrecognised republic of XXXXXXXXXX' please revert as consensus clearly prevails. Thank you. Jmedinacorona (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia base it's definitions on the in my opinion 'Emporer has no Clothes' game of international unrecognition, rather than the actual facts of the matter. The actual facts of the matter (ie de-facto or 'in fact') are that those countries have not been de-facto Seccesionists for 16 years, because de-facto they have been independant for that long.

The position that De-Jure they are part of Georgia, is a POV position since the idea that De-Jure status stems from International recognition rather than de-facto reality is itself a POV, one which is not universally recognised, for instance by myself and obviously not by South Ossetia and Abkhazia either.

Since the definition of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians in this war as successionists is not a de-facto definition but a definition that is based upon a POV which elevates international recognition to the status of final legal arbiter and one which tacitly recognises the Georgian claim to those areas as valid, it is actually NPOV to describe them as 'unrecognised Republics' as opposed to 'successionist governments', since that is a factual statement (even if arguably they are now effectively recognised by Russia) as opposed to a POV statement based upon a particular legal theory of national independance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Secessionist" ("Sucessionist" does not exist) is not a POV term, as it merely states that one entity wants to secede from another it priorly was a part of. It does not implicate that the secession is justified or not, right or wrong or whatever.

That both regions were part of the Georgian state at least until 1990, there is no disagreement about this fact. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. It is problematic to merely present the two republics of S.Ossetia and Abchasia as parties of the conflict without indicating Georgia's claim to these territories. Both parties claim to have these territories on their sides.

And no, it doesn't really make a difference in that regard whether anyway recognises these entities. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the "Georgian state" did not exist until 1990. And the South Ossetian declaration of independence from Georgia (then a Soviet Socialist Republic) dates back to 1989, when it had the right, by the constitution of the Soviet Union, to secede from the Georgian SSR, which it did, although this wasn't recognized by anyone in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union. 209.6.213.24 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

However the Succesionist status normally ends when the nation has successfully gained it's independance from the country. I completely support the status of Succesionist for the last Ossetian war as NPOV, but not this one, since now South Ossetia is independant. For instance, we don't normally refer to the USA as 'the successionist government of the USA'.

Successionist in THIS War is a POV term, since South Ossetia/Abkhazia are no longer trying to secede from Georgia, they are already independant, just internationally unrecognised. The claim that they are still part of Georgia and trying to 'secede' from Georgia in this war is Georgian POV definately. Since the claim that de-jure South Ossetia is part of Georgia, is itself a POV position based upon a particular legal theory of independance.

It has nothing to do with Seccesionist being 'bad' or 'good' it's just in this particular War it is not factually accurate, except if you accept the Georgian POV or a particular disputed legal theory of independance. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If tomorrow the Chinese attacked Taiwan and the wikipedia article referred to them as seccessionists due to their lack of international recognition there would be massive POV claims and Wikipedia would lose face yet again as a neutral encyclopedia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have both had independence since 1992 even if their governments were too insignificant to recieve recognition. I'm Australian and I knew that a year ago. Hell I even read an SBS world fact book entry on these provinces (note not Georgia) which described their struggle for independence. Was all very confusing but the fact that a book that had a list of each small independent territory listed these as separate entries then is enough evidence to point out that their war of seccession has ended and that this is a war between independent entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that South Ossetia is as successionist as Taiwan. South Ossetia has never agreed to be part of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union.98.204.199.179 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To break away from a country is to "secede" from it. The process is "secession" and those who undertake it are "secessionists". "Succession" is the replacement of one by another according to an orderly progression; the prince succeeds the king, or the vice president succeeds to the presidency. The prince and his secessionists secede from the kingdom until the king dies and the prince succeeds the throne according the order of succession. That said, doesn't South Ossetia want to join with North Ossetia as part of Russia? That's not exactly secession. The situation is analogous to that of Bosnia; as soon as Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia, the Republika Srpska seceded from Bosnia because they wanted not to have seceded in the first place. Surprisingly, it led to conflict. --67.163.163.28 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if South Ossetia initially aimed to join up with North Ossetia as part of Russia. I'm pretty sure they want to be Independant rather than annexed by Russia, although they are very pro-Russian and have a close ties to Russia, which are going to get even closer by looks of things (if that were even possible).

I would demand some actual source from the South Ossetian government itself about it's intentions to join Russia before I would consider that a founded statement. Basically, I know of no statement in which the 'present' South Ossetian government actually states it's intent to become an official part of Russia.

Basically, does the actual South Ossetian government actually state it's intention to join with Russia? Or is this an unsubstantiated media rumour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it already had. 95% of the populous hold Russian passports? Jmedinacorona (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that they were offered such passports by the Russian government, given the regions economic dependance upon North Ossetia and probably more cynically so they would have a Casus Belli in case of this happening to defend 'Russian citizens'.

However a Customs Union does not mean the country has been annexed by another country or intends to be annexed. Is there any evidence that the South Ossetian government intends to place itself formally under Russian rule? I'm not saying that this is an unlikely possibility in the future, I just wish to know what the claims basis is, if there is any. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Until the secession has been finalized, it is still a secession. De Facto independence for any number of years is irrelevant, as the territories in question were never formally admitted to constitute a separate nation or separate nations, by either the international community, the existing sovereign state in question, or the neighboring regional sovereign states. If it is POV to use international recognition as a guideline for determining a state's status, what guideline do those who object to the term "Secession" suggest?

However the seccession has indeed been finalised in 1992, in that the initial attempt to seperate South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia was successful. In that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were able to win the first war against Georgia and Georgia was forced to withdraw from those areas.

The guideline that we suggest is actual de-facto existance and having managed to survive the initial war that the former controller of those territories has launched to reclaim them. That is to say, successfully seperated from the original State without bieng reconquered.

International recognition is irrelavant to the actual material existance of a state and their de-facto non-seperatistness (is that a word?), because as the saying goes.

The Emporer does in fact have no Clothes. Whether the existance of an independant state is recognised by a bunch of self-interested and not exactly unbiased foreign states who won't recognise independance unless it suits them, is irrelavant as to whether a country actually exists or not. Basically, the Emporer is naked whether everyone denies this is so or not.

And finally, to call them Seperatists, is to tacitly recognise the Georgian claims in this war, which is simply blatent POV. To call them unrecognised states is simply NPOV and factual, since it allows the reader to arrive at his own conclusions based upon their own theory of such things. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace plan by France or EU?

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

France's government holds the presidency of the European Union and acts as the EU's government. That is the end of the story; french diplomats act on behalf of the European Union, not in national interest. Sarcozy has consulted the European Council (national leaders). Officially, the European Union has brokered the plan, not France which happens to lead the EU at this moment. - SSJ ☎ 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the peace envoy was a joint EU-OSCE mission; France should not get all the credit...

http://www.formin.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=134794&nodeid=15145&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Stubb+voices+optimism+over+Georgia+deal/1135238548262

-Mimu Bunnylin 213.159.245.167 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Could the part about the EU peace plan be reworded? Its currently.. "Later on the same day (August 12), Russian president Dmitry Medvedev met the President-in-Office of the European Union, Nicolas Sarkozy, and approved a six-point peace plan." Would it not sound better to say something like..

"Later on the same day (August 12) Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met the French President Nicholas Sarkozy acting in his role as the current President of the council of the European Union. "

I agree the fact Sarkozy was there on behalf of the EU should be included as it played a vital role but the statement should still include the fact he is the French president aswell.

4:30pm BST, 13th of August.

Please someone try to find the agreed text of "six-step plan" and correct the last point of it (where "the status discussion" was replaced with something like "international guarantees of Secure state in Osetia and Abkhazia") Whoever (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

American soldier captured by Russian Army in Georgia.

http://life.ru/media/images/0808/1089004bdb5d4840f5b325ba767bfd20.jpg

American soldier captured by Russian Army in Georgia.

No captured soldiers in this war. Ru magister (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That picture is completely uninformative. Could have just as easily have been taking in the the state of Georgia as by Russian troops in the country of Georgia. croll (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! But it's quite informative. The white symbol, I know NATO uses them. The shadow of green-olive can also be compared. Structure might be side of truck, the pattern on it might be characteristic.

He does not look like a captured soldier to me.

Even so, unlikely but possible that some US trainer got lost around Gori and was picked up by Russians. But mind you, they are legitmiately there, so without catching one with one with a smoking gun (which won't happen) there is no real point. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• to lose one's way in broad daylight. --Ieee2008 (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I love the Russian racism in all of this chasing of a "negro" ghosts in Georgia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its interesting that the notations about the US soldier that the Russian's claimed they'd captured on the 10th have all mysteriously disappeared along with the sources ... they stated they captured him in South Ossetia and he was en-route to a prison for investigation and that he held US citizenship. Might look into who deleted that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 11:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No captured soldiers in this small military mission. Ru magister (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"No captured soldiers in this war." "No captured soldiers in this small military mission." Perhaps his name is a typo, and should actually be spelled Ru Minister... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i seriously doubt the united states would be dumb enough to let its personnel into the fighting, unless it was doing some secret mission recon or something.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Atrocity stories

The last paragraph of "Humanitarian impact" subsection "South Ossetia" is a series of atrocity stories of murders by Georgian forces, sourced to the Russian press: civilians gunned down in basements, little old ladies are run over intentionally by tanks, numerous incidents of people herded into buildings and the buildings burned down.If the Georgian press or government spokesmen, or international press have issued any denials, these should be included in the section. War crimes are all too common, but so are false lurid atrocity stories in wartime, and the section seems POV. Edison (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not POV. Ru magister (talk)

russian man says is not POV must be true!

I believe you are right, the Russian press (to my knowledge) is state-run and so would naturally emite what could be perceived as propaganda. I believe it is far, far to soon to allege war crimes (for either side) unless witnessed by independent sources. Georgian and Russian sources are completely unreliable- both will allege things- perhaps not lying but that is called fog of war. It won be until the war is over and the UN comes in that we can really begin to understand if any war crimes took place.

Therefore i suggest we do not put anything unless confirmed by independent sources based on independent eye witnesses. I believe it will prove to be far more accurate once everything is found out and will not play into the propaganda war.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Man, Ru magister is the best the KGB (sorry, FSB) could come up with? I guess they aren't that concerned about wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Added an NPOV tag - Edison's description precisely summarizes the situation. aristotle1990 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

Here is a map showing the movement of Russian troops, the different battles and attacks. It could be added to the article. -- DanteRay (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you put this forward yesterday? Or one very much like it? It was decided not to use it for some reason if memory serves. I don't know why it looks alright to me.Andrew's Concience (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I changed it according to the suggestions of the other users. So, this is not the same version anymore. -- DanteRay (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Maybe it would be better placed in the timeline of events page?Andrew's Concience (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the Bombardment of BTC in the article, so what is it doing on the map? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that being very useful because there is a major misconception going around that Russia made the first moves in their entirety and this map doesn't show the movement of Georgian troops that occured before Saturday so its not very useful at dispelling that misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 11:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be part of a series of maps showing troop movements. No single map can coherently show the movements of both sides through the course of a conflict, even one as (hopefully) "brief" as this. IMO, by itself, that's no reason not to include this map, but it is a reaosn to see the inclusion of others. croll (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russians in Gori?

Yes, Russian are in Gori to feed people (http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/feed/) and to maintain law and order (i.e. preventing crime, looting etc) as Gori left by Georgian authorities and Georgian police and is uncontrolled now (http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=27084). There is an agreement between Georgia and Russia, on Aug 14 Georgian police is going to return to Gori, so Russian will leave it (http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/14/gori/, http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=27124). Sorry, news are in Russian only Enerjazzer (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The AP is reporting that Georgia is claiming that Russian forces have entered Gori. [3] JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gori is being plundered. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More here. [4] JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

However journalists in Gori, 15 miles (24km) over the South Ossetian border into Georgia, said they had seen no Russian tanks[5] More "false alarms"? They've already falsely accused Russia of invading Gori once..why would they do it again? LokiiT (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing from that article that just boggles my mind.. Saakashvili also accused Russia of the "carpet bombardment" of Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's capital, and setting up internment camps for residents there and the other separatist territory, Abkhazia. ...wtf? LokiiT (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its because the Western press is listening to him, particularly in the USA and Australia. Organisations like AP and Reuters are being fairly independent about this but I've seen claims made by South Ossetian's against Georgians reported in the Australian press as claims made by Georgia gainst Russia. For example, the initial claim that 1,400 civilians were killed by the Georgian military was repeated by "The Australian" newspaper and "news.com.au" but instead of the original claim it was as closely as I recall "The Russian invasion had caused 1,400 civilian casualties by Friday".

Saba Tsitsikashvili, a local journalist in Gori, said Russian troops had occupied the main road on the edge of the city, but had not moved towards the centre. "People are in panic. This road where the troops are is about 2km from the centre, she said.", Guardian (11.8..

Finnish news agency STT writes in Iltalehti next (by guy whois in Gori), rough translation: "locals say that there is going on looting by unknown people with uniforms". Another one: "Terhi Hakala (head of the Finlands Etyj operation in Georgia) confirms that there is Russians in Gori and part of it is going towards Tblisi" I guess that she means this convoy (guardian).

Guardian has also news about looting and russians that they have troops near Gori (or least had). (this is pretty much same as in that CNN news above ). --Zache (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian military checkpoint about 5 to 10 km from the city. Tanks, APCs, fuel trucks. ERR 13.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.113.230 (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about 'protect' them? They sacked the city! haven't you seen the video and reports from Fox and Sky news?

75.179.172.189 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Why are we to beleive the Fox and the Sky? Russian Army might lack discipline, but not to the point of outright looting; there may be looting by some Ossetian guerillas. However.. please give the links to the Fox and Sky reports, I'd like to read. --CopperKettle (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties in the box are from August 10 - UPDATE PLZ

Georgian for sure changed (I heard 160 killed). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

175, unfortunately.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Source and I'll update. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Russian military, about 200 bodies of Georgian soldiers was collected near Tskhinvali. Магистер (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, anyone find sources and update (also for the Russian alliance and civilians), cause I'm going now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When did Russia "confirm" that 74 soldiers were killed? The latest confirmation was 21, 74 seems like a huge increase in the number reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually about two week is needed for Russian military bureaucracy. Ru magister (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"...said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff.

Nogovitsyn said the conflict had killed 74 Russian troops, wounded 171 and left 19 missing in action. Officials have estimated at least 2,000 civilians were killed in South Ossetia." From CNN [6] 66.241.139.254 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone edit the casualties section. It depicts false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by What Max (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Now there is only a false information. None have correct information. Магистер (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

!!! Even worse now. The "Russian estimates: ~4,000 dead[15]" sounds wrong and cites a dead link. Kilternkafuffle (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The link isnt dead.. near the end of the page "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.”"

There should be more data regarding lost military equipment,

Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia article needs to be updated

Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia was just destroyed in the war, CNN showed Abkhazians taking down Georgian flag from the administrative building. Women and children fled at once (under fire), while the men (formal forces and ad-hoc tribal militia) remained and many were killed before they retreated with the Georgian army.

Same with the Georgian villages in South Ossetia, which were heavily bombed and the government (and witnesses according to media reports) say then brutally pacified by the Russian Army after government forces withdrew. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just put a PROD template on the govt of the autonomous republic of abhazia article. I was one of the main contributors to it. This government was never really all that notable and it is as you said now destroyed so I propose deletion of this article as looking back it was never really a notable government. If things change we can recreate the article. We can still make mention that this government at one time existed in the Abkhazia article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, do we know for a fact that Russia is not going to give back areas of South Ossetia that were Georgia controlled? My understanding is that the ceasefire calls for a status quo ante bellum. Abkhazia is a different situation as the Abkhaz forces are sort of not party to the cease fire agreement and they seemed to have done most of the heavy lifting in Abkhazia.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture with Georgians "trying to expell anti-Russian rebels durign the Second Chechen war"

This picture is not relevant at all to the current events!

• Georgia is near Chechnya. Georgia supported terrorism in Chechnya by training, transport and so on.--Butter-club (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia did what? (Non-existing) Links plz. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

they is crazy genocider terrorist russian putin man tell me on tv must be true tv no lie state no lie -unsigned non englisher-

im sorry 1, sign your posts, 2, english? Your saying the tv dosn't lie? You my freind are a imbecile then.--Jakezing (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Butter-club, maybe you are right but this picture portrays Georgians during the second Chechen war. Deleted.

You, my friend, don't understand what trolling is 66.241.139.254 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not about trolling. The use of that picture is ungrounded as it does not reflect the main topic of the article.

I was replying to Jakezing --66.241.139.254 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm ...

"An Associated Press correspondent saw and spoke with Russian vehicles south of Gori, heading beyond the city."

So he actually spoke with vehicles ... that's pretty poor English. -- DanteRay (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But not as bad as On August 12 one shelling, which hitted outside a press centre of western reporters in Gori, killed dutch TV-channel RTL's cameraman and wounded its journalist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus ... sometimes it's really amazing how many mistakes you can put in one single sentence. -- DanteRay (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, editing is really shiity - I wonder if some mods would close this article for Wikipedia's "anyone" bar for few editors who proved to make good additions. (After applying and then checking their input before the green light.) Probably not. Or am I just taking war too seriously? (No, as I just recalled the Russian hacker attacks and how seriously Russia takes the cyberwarfare.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Took out both; speaking with vehicles is a fairly transparent metaphor, but there's no need for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Russians have vehicles like KITT ;) -- DanteRay (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russians have a Huge Human-Like Battle Robots! Магистер (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is barely one week old, let one year pass by then we will have a good article. Besides we have non-english speakers editing this article, this is an immense privilege to Wikipedia/English, I wished someone did the same to Wikipedia/Portuguese. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

HRW confirmed ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia by the rebels and warkeepers (AFP)

The Human Rights Watch group said its researchers in South Ossetia had on Tuesday "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians."[7]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Report:

Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted

(Java, August 13, 2008) � Human Rights Watch researchers in South Ossetia on August 12, 2008, saw ethnic Georgian villages still burning from fires set by South Ossetian militias, witnessed looting by the militias, and learned firsthand of the plight of ethnic Ossetian villagers who had fled Georgian soldiers during the Georgian-Russian conflict over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire. [snip - read yourself]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment, eh? Maybe the pro-Russian editors say something about valiant Russian peacekeepers peacestruggling to end the Georgian genocide and how foreign advisors in Georgia are juggling the facts to make it look bad? SERIOUSLY NOW, someone use it prominently in the article, as it's the first confimation of massive war crimes (there's also some about the plight of South Ossetians, whose men joined the bands of militiamen who are now rampaging through the region, so you can comnpare it with wild the Russian claims of the last few days). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no... the Human Rights Watch never even mentioned the expression ethnic cleasing. But you Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog, not only you did mention it you also confirmed it. Amazing!!!

Soon you might label the whole thing as a genocide. That's a war and wars cause destruction and suffering.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Systematic burning of villages (purely on their ethnic basis only - that is, bands of Russia-supported paramilitaries looting and then burning Georgian minority villages in South Ossetia) outside combat is not ethnic cleansing? So, what is it is? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait till someone says it is. That shouldn't take long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait till who says what? Btw, the same thing is being reported by government and media in Abkhazia and in the Gori area. Georgian gvt also said "internemnt camps" are being created in the occupied territory - google "filtration camps" to learn what it meant in Chechnya... --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Says it's ethnic cleansing, which it may well be. I note that the same article ends with accounts of robbery and violence by Georgians against Ossetians, ending in mass flight - let us not call that ethnic cleansing prematurely either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Who said it was "systematic" and "outside combat"? Once again you did...That's a war zone. You can paint this situation any way you want basically, but don't make claims in behalf of the the Human Rights Watch.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what you get when you start a war. Say thanks to those people who decided to attack Tskhinvali. Because it was exactly like that in Tskhinvali that night. Only without the support of international community and without any hope to survive. Georgians has the whole world supporting them, Osettians had nobody on their side except for Russia. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the HRW report linked above? Or maybe you do not see any difference between checking IDs, searching homes and warnings: 'tell your men not to open fire' vs. setting whole villages ablaze. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Between what and what? Did you even bother to look at what's with Tskhinvali? I know your media does not really show destroyed Ossetian villages, they prefer to show Georgian ones. But just so you know, the city is levelled to the ground. During the night of August 8th there were those who had their mobile phones with them, and there's a bunch of ICQ logs - go search for them in Russian LJ - describing the massacre in Tskhinvali. Many of them were killed during that night. How in the hell is this "checking ids" and "warnings"? Why do you eat whatever your media feeds to you and do not even try to check something by yourselves? -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I did bother to look at what's with Tskhinvali, apparently unlike you. [8][9] A city levelled to the ground, eh? Colchicum (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And how do you call this? A birthday party? -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let alone the fact that Tskhinvali is not a city. A town at best. Colchicum (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Destroyed by the systematic action of looting/burning (aka "peacekeeping") or maybe destroyed by the combat including Russian artillery fire and bombing (aka "genocide")? Hey, ever heard of Grozny? You call LJ sources, but HRW "your media". This is awesome.--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you have a problem differentiating South Ossetians and Russians. What's the matter, they're all the same, right? Peacekeeping, Ossetians, Russians - throw everything in. Who cares!
"Destroyed by Russian bombing" - that's what you've read in your press. Go read ICQ logs and eyewitness stories. They're the truth. It's laughable to say that HRW is more reliable than the people who live there. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Looks like you have a problem differentiating South Ossetians and Russians." - no, this what Russia does ("Russian citiziens" BS). "Go read ICQ logs" - are you serious? You can't possibly be. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's you who mix "peacekeepers" with South Ossetians. Are you doing this intentionally, or do you simply not understand the difference? Maybe you're from USA's Web Brigade, huh?
And yes, of course eyewitness stories are far more valuable than lies you and I read in our media. I'm wondering if you're serious when insisting on opposite. I thought this war where everybody and their brother lied in the media should have taught us all how trustworthy the media sources are. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1) HRW is not "our media". 2) If you show me alleged "ICQ logs" and I'll show you "ICQ logs" telling the EXACTLY opposite things, what then? Btw, OSCE just went to check the reports of the capaign of looting/burning/killing/kidnapping around Gori. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For EconomistBR

In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire.

Not systematic?

Human Rights Watch researchers also saw armed Ossetian militia members in camouflage fatigues taking household items � furniture, television sets, heaters, suitcases, carpets, and blankets � out of houses in the village of Nizhnie Achaveti and loading them into their trucks

Is this what ypou called "combat in war zone"?

He said members of the South Ossetian militia came to his house on August 11, and tried to take away some household items. When he protested, they set the house on fire and left. The man said he had no food or drinking water; his hands were burned and hair was singed

Maybe this is combat?

In the village of Kekhvi, many houses were set on fire between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm on August 12 � they were ablaze as Human Rights Watch researchers moved along the road. Two elderly women from Kekhvi were weeping as they told Human Rights Watch about what happened in the village. One of them explained that the members of South Ossetian militias passed by the village and stopped at her house and �threw something� that set it on fire.

Combat yet?

A representative of the local administration in the town of Java told Human Rights Watch that the authorities had arrested two men who were looting the ethnic Georgian villages, but was adamant that they were not members of the South Ossetian militias. His colleague, however, said, �Isn�t that what they [Georgians] have been doing to us? These old people shouldn�t be complaining � they should be happy they weren�t killed.�

Not strategy?

International humanitarian law applicable to the fighting between South Ossetian militias and Georgian forces prohibits attacks on civilian property, as well as looting or pillaging. Individuals, including commanders, participating in the deliberate or reckless destruction or looting of civilian property are responsible for war crimes. International humanitarian law also prohibits �acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.�"

Not war crime?

No Georgians left in South Ossetia beyond few old people "with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go".

I guess it's "not ethnic cleansing" - actually, it's peacekeeping operation. Thank you Wikipedia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_Villages History teaches wisdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.162.145.242 (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog

You determined that there is "ethnic cleansing" going on in Georgia not the Human Rights Watch. You wrongly made that claim in behalf of the Human Rights Watch.

You also chose to denounce the "Systematic burning of villages outside combat" by the Russians, but again, the HRW never said that you chose to conclude that out of the HRW report.

Since you weren't satisfied, you decided to qualify the Russian counter-attack as a "Georgian genocide". This on top of a "ethnic cleansing" accusation that no one but YOU confirmed.

That's crazy.

You have the right to interpret that report as you want but NEVER pretend that the HRW said so. The HRW is impartial and as of now it is in total disagreement with you.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 01:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talion

"He told Human Rights Watch that the vast majority of the residents, including his family, fled the village when active fighting between Georgian forces and South Ossetian militias broke out on August 8, but he decided to stay to look after the cattle. He said members of the South Ossetian militia came to his house on August 11, and tried to take away some household items. When he protested, they set the house on fire and left. The man said he had no food or drinking water; his hands were burned and hair was singed � apparently as he was unsuccessfully trying to extinguish the fire � and he appeared to be in a state of shock. He said that there were about five to ten elderly and sick people left in the village, all in a similar desperate condition, and many of the houses were burned."

Is this statement mean that after destruction of Tskhinvali and 8-10 Ossetian villages (August, 7-8), Ossetians revenghe on property in Georgians villages without killing of somebody??? I'm not shure it's possible. Do you have any relatives or other peoples who from Caucasus? What do you know about blood feuds/vendetta tradition? I'm Russian. I was born in Sibiria, but now I study in Moscow. My grandfather was from [Avar|Caucasian Avars] (he died 2005), my mother was born in Dagestan. I only know that for deaths of my neighbors or my relatives i will find out person who did that, and kill him. It so called "The Law of the Highlanders". Talion. Do you remember Vitaly Kaloyev case? And I only know that Saakashvili will be punished.

So I don't trust to any statements that for the life of people in Tskhinvali Ossetians take only property of Georgians. And it means that after this actions of the Georgians, South Ossetia will NEVER forget and NEVER forgive Georgia. --Niggle (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaand where's any confirmation of "destruction of Tskhinvali" (by the systematic Georgian action and not in combat or even by the Russian bombing that evicted them) and "8-10 Ossetian villages"? The fact is that South Ossetia was just ethnic cleansed, like Abkhazia was in the 1990s on much greater scale.--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

to you is quite enough of statements in media to accuse Ossetians in ethnic cleansed. To them (to people who are there) is quite enough to know from neighbors that it really was done by Georgians. They will not wait decision of UN Security Council or HRW report or Court decision. You are really don't know essence of situation and the value of links between us. That's why you don't understand the reasons of the Georgians fear. --Niggle (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here you go Captain. "'Colonel Konashenko said: "The Georgians could not get tanks through these narrow streets. So first they turned it to ruins with a Grad attack and tried to punch through here to the centre of the city. There was heavy fighting in the streets. I think more than 500 bodies were pulled out of this part of town." Asked if there had been atrocities against civilians the Colonel replied: "I personally saw one man beheaded lying in the street and others say they witnessed civilians who had been finished off with a shot to the back of the head." LokiiT (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this Russian colonel asserting that shelling a street makes it any wider? Or less filled with rubble? Or less riddled? 132.68.248.44 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's say your depiction of vendetta mentality applies fully here. Applying this reasoning causes you to disregard HRW report of Ossetian looting and burning, because that would not be violent enough ("Ossetians revenghe on property in Georgians villages without killing of somebody??? I'm not shure it's possible."). But do you notice that this reasoning can be reversed? If the "revenge" is "only" looting... Does it not make you wonder about the truth of the Ossetian/Russian official claims of genocide in Tskhinvali? I have to admit I consider HRW a more neutral source here. Also, something being part of vendetta does not make it any less of a crime, I am sure we agree on that. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok

What, Is Going On? Yahoo is showing they took gori and renewed offensive, and, what does russia say today? Honestly, i say this:

• wait until we have proof from both sides or visual proof that they are somewhere/doing something, standard sourcing is creating havok and not working.

• Take all events pertaining to this war off the main page, every day we keep updating whats happening on it, when honestly, we don't know. --Jakezing (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"what does russia say today?" Russia Today says the same bullshit as always. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Videos of Russian troops in Gori probably exists or will shortly. A Russian convoy left towards Tbilisi, apparently for psychological reasons as they turned and heded backl after some time apparently without firing a shot. Russian troops are present at Poti and have supposedly sunk 6 Georgian Navy craft. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today is FSB financed News Agency and it should not be used as a reliable source. Again, there is no such thing as Free Media in Russia and taking sources from the conflicting side is not suitable for NPOV quality. Iberieli (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One of Russia Today's reporters resigned because reports he was filing were not broadcast if they did not picture Russian actions favourably.Bdell555 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell, source on that please? Russia Today is good for getting the Russian point of view, something that this article can't do without. LokiiT (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

US or Non-Russian/Georgian Soldiers

The claim to foreign soldiers being killed or captured in this section does not seem to be credible at this point. Interesting, yes, but I can't imagine it would have been this ignored by diverse media outlets. Well, maybe I can believe it, but barring verification of the story, or allegations of a cover up, I think it should be removed. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was reinstated. Should we REALLY have this stuff? I think it's just veeeery ham-fisted propaganda (silly claims of "negros" and not even images of them) with yes, no repeating in the western media. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove it for sure. Ostap 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it again. If this goes back into the article, it has to at least be in a different section. The majority of the Georgian order of battle section should not be about rumored mercenaries that have not been reported by media outside of Russia, let alone verified by the Russian media. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong information

Some idiot posted that 74 russian soldiers killed with no SOURCE to confirm it just CNN ( american propaganda chanell ) it is unacceptable the russians official claim is 21 soldiers , and someone also changed georgian soldiers killed to 54 even though they admited of lossing over 200 few days ago, some people are obviusly double standard and wan't to make georgia look good ignoring the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiReFTW (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

and we can trust georgia?--Jakezing (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The info is from Russian deputy chief of staff http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558399.stm

Now too early for the official information from Russian military. Will be more than 100 russian soldiers killed. Магистер (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares for your Russian propaganda here, for the neutral users, please consult western references and not Kremlin FSB censored Media. Dont forget, there is no such thing as Free Media in Russia. Iberieli (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually CNN didn't state this they quoted the RUSSIAN Deputy Chief of Staff, who is obviously spewing out "American propaganda" because he wants to make his own country look bad, right? --66.241.139.254 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They know it better, than Russian military? Hmm... You the dreamer. Магистер (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they don't. Which is why the official casualty figure comes from the RUSSIAN MILITARY, it wasn't made up by CNN --66.241.139.254 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Ministry of Defence link [10] confirms 74/171/19 numbers. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the preliminary (not complete) data. Магистер (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia:English become Wikipedia:Russian?? Did I miss the merger? Jmedinacorona (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Приглашаем Вас на страницы Русской Википедии!!! Добро пожаловать!!! Правьте смело!!! Do you need the translation or any help, dude? --195.98.173.10 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо за приглашение, но мне очень жаль говорить я не мог способствовать как грубо, не-нейтрального POV в языке я ни читать, писать, ни говорить! С уважением Частные смело! :)))Jmedinacorona (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope google translate did that correctly and I didn't unknowingly renounce my nationality and join a I Love Daisies advocacy group! hehe Jmedinacorona (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, never use "google translate" again, heh. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the war

Just yesterday it had over 300 sources, several pages of text detailed information, and today about 160 sources only and most of the text deleted the article? What happened why was the article butchered like this? I could find no discussion on the talk page about this, did I miss something? Hobartimus (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Article were splitted and detailed timeline stuff can be found [here. --Zache (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a shorter version of the time line should be also included in this article. See Timeline of the Beslan school hostage crisis as an example.Biophys (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I suggest putting back a short summary to the main article just too much is missing right now. Hobartimus (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This must be done, and the links to the page with the timeline of the conflict should be inserted in

several places, because otherwise article becomes biased.

There is summary section in main article. There used to be also short and awful timeline section, so it combined with summary-section which already had relevant content. --Zache (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There must be an item in the contents. Because now it looks like this

   * 2.1 South Ossetian interests
   * 2.2 Georgian interests
   * 2.3 Russian interests

   * 3.1 Demands to end conflict
   * 3.2 Ceasefire

Article is big, and it is very difficult to find quickly information about the beginning of the war: who provoked the conflict, who started the fire first. There must be a direct link in the contents menu to the timeline section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.140.229 (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently I see no link to the main timeline article in this article, so I am adding a link to this article. Christiangoth (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me. It seems to have already been added by some other benevolent user. Christiangoth (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Things what shoudl be updated or added to timeline:

• There is no mention about Russian airstrike campage at beginning of the war (which ruined Georgias defence).
• In port of Poti were sinked some military boats.
• What happened South Ossetian Georgian Villages (about 1/3)?
• looting

--Zache (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we shoud add America's interest - it is trying to be an active player in the region. It is teaching Saakashvili ^-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Str (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Preparation for war

• Article contains not enough information about preparation for war. For example, remember reconnaissance-UAV ?--Woozeefy (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Hermes 450 --Woozeefy (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Video: youtube--Woozeefy (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oops. Already is in 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis--Woozeefy (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of media bias

This section is biased and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Aside from Kremlin and Russia Today allegations, it has links to "Antiwar.com" and to a guy who runs a blog. This view of "media bias" is held by a small minority and does not deserve such a big section. I think it should be removed. Does anyone else agree? Ostap 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all that is written sources, which specializze on popular scandals.--Woozeefy (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the section either has to go or be further expanded to cover allegations that the Russian media is in turn being biased. A Russia Today reporter, for example, has resigned saying he was filing reports that Russia Today refused to broadcast. Of course, that would make the section even bigger. I accordingly don't see another solution besides removing the section.Bdell555 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, moved here:

Allegations of media bias

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

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

Blogger James Poulos at The Guardian remarked that "As Russian columns advance into Georgia proper, columns in the American press fill with dire warnings and withering contempt for anyone so puerile as to ever trust a Russian... The anti-Russia lobby is giving the pro-Israel lobby a run for its money, hyping the settling of scores among two European, Orthodox Christian countries as more dangerous to the peace and security of the west than any clash of civilisations or jihad ever was... The anti-Russian reaction obscures the basic particularity of the Georgian situation, and all the history that informs it."

Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, a anti-interventionist advocacy website, stated that "The anti-Russian bias of the Western media is really something to behold: 'Russia Invades Georgia,' 'Russia Attacks Georgia,' and variations thereof have been some of the choice headlines reporting events in the Caucasus, but the reality is not only quite different, but the exact opposite. Sometimes this comes out in the third or fourth paragraph of the reportage, in which it is admitted that the Georgians tried to 'retake' the 'breakaway province' of South Ossetia. The Georgian bombing campaign and the civilian casualties – if they are mentioned at all – are downplayed and presented as subject to dispute."

What? Practically all of Russia's media is much more biased than this section claims the western media to be. This stuff here is only propaganda by Russia Today and RIAN (Russian state agencies) plus some bloggers' claims. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, too. This article needs a MAJOR cleanup overally. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. Balance it by adding and editing, not censoring. These claims are notable. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is so "notable" with the Russian propaganda websites whining about the world "bias" towards its enemy, and some bloggers writing something, to give this more space than the HRW report of village burning campaign which got zero space in the article?

Add it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Add it." or what?

And so, it was reinstated again. This is SO STUPID. So we've got:

1. RIAN (Russian propaganda outlet)
2. Russia Today (Russian propaganda outlet)
3. a blogger
4. some dude who allgedly hates interventions but don't care about Rssian interventions.

Yes, it's all MUST-BE MATERIAL IN SERRRRRIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA (ANYONE CAN EDIT).

People, please keep removing this shit (I can't guard the article, besides there's this 3RR stuff). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. If you want you can create a separate article about propaganda in this war and place it there. This article is already too big. Let's focus on facts.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no place about it anywhere. Article about "propaganda in war" citing official propaganda outlets like some neutral observers? "Blogger James Poulos"? "A dude who wrote "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 And the Israeli Connection" for all people? Come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Add it? Look at this Associated Press report. Count the number of inconsistencies in Russian communcations that we'd have to add. "Russian at first denied that tanks were even in Gori but video footage proved otherwise", [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov "denied that Russian troops were anywhere near [Poti]" vs We have seen more and more Russian troops coming into the area all day etc etc. A person could probably fill a page detailing apparent bias in Russian sources. This section needs to go.Bdell555 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captinobvious, you seem to have some serious neutrality issues here. We can't disregard Russian media. I've seen some outright lies on my own American television over the past few days, there's propaganda coming from both sides. Where did all these anti-Russians come from who are hellbent on removing their point of view and think their own media is completely objective and trustworthy? It's not good, and unfortunately I can't put any serious effort into this article. LokiiT (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So find someone other than Russian propaganda, "blogger" and a conspiracy nutcase. Until then, get out with this. (Btw, this whole "genocide by Georgia" non-stop hate campaign thing in practcially ALL the Russian media, not only these government-run... and then they dare to whine about "bias"? oh, boy) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of quotation marks and the biased, if not ad-hominem ("Attack the attacker"?) term "conspiracy nutcase" hardly looks like a serious argument to me. True neutrality stops to exist the moment you discard sources simply based on the position they hold or held in the past, and in a conflict where every single reporting party has at least an emotional involvement, all you get to hear could be considered "propaganda" anyway - be it reporting what you want people to think or not reporting what you don't want people to think.

I vote for reinstating the "conspiracy nutcase"'s quotation, since it provides an opposing to the popular one view from a western source which at least appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Whether you like it or not, this is a viewpoint that also exists and deserves representation.

Also, why do I get the impression that the possibility of both parties not quite having a clean record as far as "ethnic cleansings" or "genocides" - which, I want to add, is a very questionable term to apply to lootings - in this war is outright discarded or ignored by the bulk of the posters - or at least the bulk of the posts, since some people appear to have an extraordinary urge to demonstrate presence - on this talk page? Can we please cut down on the black-and-white worldview? --87.170.212.163 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=231738472&oldid=231738034 - and again reinstated, with the reason "This should stay" (almost as good as "Add it.").

"This should stay" WHY again? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A better question is why not? Are you afraid of people finding out that their media might not be telling them the whole truth? Because that is the truth. Neither side is fair or objective in the least. The most neutral articles I've seen have been blogs and opinion pieces that wouldn't qualify as reliable sources. You accusing Russian media of being "propaganda" just because you don't like it is meaningless. Do you know for a fact that there was no genocide? Were you there? Then give the ol' flapper a rest and stop pretending that you know what's going on. None of us do, and that's why we report what both sides are saying. LokiiT (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I told you "why not" (look above). Now, you tell me "why yes" - why the Russian propaganda and opinion of "blogger" and a conspiracy nut are supposedly essentional for a self-declared encyclopedia? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Do you know for a fact that there was no genocide?" Yes - HRW found no evidence while finding evidence of atrocities by South Ossetians. If there was "genocide", they would have something more to report than about Ossetian militiamen who were captured by Georgians, beaten and released(!). The whole story was pure Russian BS. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Add it" referred to "the HRW report of village burning campaign which got zero space in the article". -Colfer2 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

9/11 is a good example. Yes, one can create a separate article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but such materials should NOT be included in main 9/11 article.Biophys (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some mainstream media have questioned the simple vision of the Georgian conflict. Charles King in the Christian Science Monitor: “The emerging narrative, echoing across editorial pages and on television news programs in the US, portrays Georgia as an embattled, pro-Western country struggling to secure its borders against a belligerent Russia…. Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html

Adjpro (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another mainstream western source talking about the Georgian/western propaganda campaign. LokiiT (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html "Russia illegally attacked Georgia and imperiled a small and feeble neighbor. (...) Russia has massively overreacted to the situation in Georgia. It has hit targets across Georgia, well beyond South Ossetia, and has killed both Georgian military personnel as well as civilians. The international community is right to condemn this illegal attack on an independent country and United Nations member." - Hey, but isn't it excatly what Karasin was whining about? Hey, world, it's peacekeeping! operation! Horrrrrible Georgian genocide! "So far at least, Russia's aims have been clear: to oust Georgian forces from the territory of South Ossetia, one of two secessionist enclaves in Georgia, and to chasten a Saakashvili government that Russia perceives as hot-headed and unpredictable." - as you see, the article is absolutely outdated. And you're trying to hard. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain and dog, Could you clarify what you think I'm trying too hard to do and what is outdated? In my mind, I am trying to work with people on this list to come up with a good entry. Noting that media may be simplistic does not seem to suggest anything about Georgian genocide. I appreciated your comments asking for entries to be better written, but what you just wrote is too flip and self-involved to be understood.

For some reason, what I wrote in response to Lokiit above did not come through. I rejected LokiiT's use of the word propaganda, because it implied dishonesty -- the article he cited only suggests "PR."

Thank you

Adjpro (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch says there is "a massive Russia propaganda machine" at work here. What I don't understand is why editors who apparently consider themselves "left wing" are effectively trying to attack the credibility of human rights groups. Reading HRW's stories on Gitmo, it seemed to me they are more "left" than "right". HRW has advocated for abortion legalisation, gay rights, and the abolition of capital punishment. Can someone explain this apparent contradiction to me?Bdell555 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of anti-Russian bias in Western media during this conflict. A lot of Saakashvili's lies were taken at a face value. Here is an inyteresting analysis in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, there are a lot of sources saying there is an anti-Western bias in Russian media. The point is that this section will get out of hand if you start including allegations from both sides about bias. You can't just have the allegations against the western media for NPOV reasons.Bdell555 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And again THE SAME ONE link. For the record, the title says "Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war", but the article itself says:

"Winners — Vladimir Putin: he made it clear to the world that Georgia had been the aggressor and that his soldiers were intervening to stop “genocide” (...) Losers — Mikhail Saakashvili: the picture of the Georgian President cowering from a Russian helicopter said it all".

Does not compute - "interesting" indeed. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point, obviously both Russian and Georgian media are biased, there is no point including claims to that effect, the question is whether outside media is biased.--Miyokan (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Four countries (de-facto): Russia, Georgia, Abkhasia and South Ossetia were directly involded in conflict. There is no sense to make any notion about their media bias - their bias is obvious. But the media of other countries (western or not) can be expected to be neutral. So, allegation of their bias is worth to be included. And... western media is considered 'independept' and 'neutral', aren't they?

Now about 'blogger'. The articla is placed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia1, while I can see separate button for blogs, and address is different and it looks different. Example: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/08/busted_how_america_turned_the.html. Please compare them: unlike previous, the second if clearly visible as blog. So, it looks to me that the text about Ossetia war bias is placed as article, not as blog. This means that notion about it should be restored because article in The Guardian on this topic is surely notable. This should be done because currently it's not neutral: I can see Russian (side of conflict) allegations vs. allegations of HRW (considered as neutral international organisation). Allegation on western bias placed in western media will fix the picture. 79.175.2.54 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No one could be treated as neutral instead of asia or africa... West wanted Georgia to enter NATO to do so they need to fulfill NATO restrictions. Country with unclear borders cant enter NATO. It is not an empty words, remember the reaction of Turkey after US officially acknowledge of Armenian Genocide, and remember that Georgia would be a great backup in that region. And US waste a lot of resource to reinforce Georgia army for that purpose. And Georgia fights with American weapons in this conflict! It would be very naive thinking that after that Bush simply agreed with Russian claims and express any discontent about Georgia. So blindly just for bush speech about occupation of Georgian city Poti wouldn't be a rational step.Dprohorova (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

Ukraine's President has reportedly decreed that Russian vessels blockading Georgia must ask Ukraine's permission to return to Crimean ports. This strikes me as an important development, since it could create a notable confrontation if Moscow does not comply. But in which section should we address developments that might expand the war beyond Georgia?Bdell555 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This should and be included in the article and added to the "Reactions to the conflict" section. Victor Yuschenko is continuing restrictions on the Russians fleet more and more.[11] Ukraine has also supplied weapons to Georgia in the conflict. [12] Now Ukraine may even face a major conflict with Russia. [13] There should be a whole subsection about Ukraine. --BoguslavM 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone is repeatedly removing the picture of the Georgian soldiers

Georgian troops training to expel the anti-Russian Chechen rebels from Georgian territory in 2002 during the Second Chechen War.

At the same time, picture of the Russian soldiers is not being removed. (And I guess shouldn't be, too, because why?) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Bosnia in other place of the world. But Chechnya is near. (I do not have rights for editing)--Woozeefy (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly removed that picture because I believe it is not releveant to the current article. Ground: the picture portrays Georgians during the second Chechen war. Secondly, there is no evidence that they are indeed fighting the Chechen rebels. Chechens + Second Chechen war = no relevance. However, I would suggest changing the comments to simply "Georgian troops" or "Georgian troops were trained by American instructors and have an American-made uniform." Your comments? --Supernova (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone ever said they are "fighting"? Uploader said they are training. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And, uh, Chechens = relevance. Former Chechen rebels-turned-Russian-soldiers now ravage Georgia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That explanation should be nearby in the article. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. But I still believe that the comment of the picture should be geared to the article. It is posted in the section "Georgian order of battle". I would suggest a short comment: "Georgian troops at a military training with American instructors". Again, any references to the Chechens are not relevant and the allegations that "the Chechens are now looting in Georgia" are rumours unless any reasonable source of information is provided. --Supernova (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Humanitarian impact in Georgia

This section remains extremely small. The following sources should be added:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia6 "Georgian villages burned and looted as Russian tanks advance"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/georgia_russia "Russian troops and paramilitaries rolled into the strategic Georgian city of Gori on Wednesday, apparently violating a truce designed to end the conflict that has uprooted tens of thousands and scarred the Georgian landscape."

This paragraph should also be moved from the South Ossetia section to the Georgia one:

"According to reports in the Russian Novye Izvestiya, the UK Guardian, and Sky News, Ossetian irregulars were looting and burning Georgian villages in South Ossetia and near Gori on August 13.[90][91][92] Human Rights Watch said their researchers "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians". The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be “decisive and tough” measures taken against looters.[93]"

aristotle1990 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. Do it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, should be, but instead people care more about the claims of some bloggers(!) about "pro-Georgian bias in the world" than about confirmed news of militiamen burning villages. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"These men were killers"Bdell555 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "caring" more about one or the other, but of presenting a full picture of what has been reported in reliable sources. You maybe be right about the "bias" section but I would have preferred to expand and correct it rather than to delete it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to edit this article (this talk page is superb news source :) ), but maybe consider including aid in Georgia section as well - several countries are giving them help (I know for sure that Latvia has already sent humanitarian aid /reportedly 4 tons of bandages and artifical blood/ and money, also heard that other Baltic States and USA is going to provide humanitarian aid and suspect other countries and organizations also are going to, so...) ~~Xil (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I just added information about German, Canadian, French, Spanish, Latvian, Lithuania, Estonian, and Polish aid:

Canada has pledged $1 million in aid, Germany $1.5 million. According to its foreign ministry, France will send "30 metric tons of supplies." Spain is working with the Red Cross to help refugees, and has contributed half a million euros in aid.

Latvia has sent to Georgia "A cargo of humanitarian aid of medical items from state reserves consisting of 4,000 containers of blood products and 20,000 gauze bandages to the value of 20,000 lats was sent to Georgia on 12 August. In addition, the Government allocated 100,000 lats from contingency resources to assist Georgia in overcoming the consequences of the war. The money will be utilised according to current exigencies and on the basis of the information provided by Georgia about its needs in the course of rendering crisis relief." Lithuania has thus far given to Georgia 86,000 euros' worth of aid in sleeping bags and medical supplies. Estonia and Poland have sent, in addition to humanitarian aid, computer experts to fend off cyberattacks.

(I am pasting what I wrote here because I am aware that there are continued edit-wars, some of which may be government-sponsored.)

aristotle1990 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the section. I think it is now substantially better and more comprehensive.

"Georgia claimed Russia had bombed airfields and civil and economic infrastructure, including the Black Sea port of Poti. Between eight and eleven Russian jets reportedly hit container tanks and a shipbuilding plant at the port.[96][97] The BBC reported that "In one air strike the pilot missed the intended military base, instead hitting two apartment blocks" in Gori, and the reporters "saw injured civilians being pulled from the buildings."[98] Regarding this incident SkyNews reported that "a military installation had been hit in Gori and surrounding residential apartments had been badly damaged."[99] Journalists referred to the situation in Gori as "chaotic".[98] Georgia has alleged that Russia is committing ethnic cleansing against ethnic Georgians.[100]

Reuters reported an attack on the civilian Tbilisi International Airport, though Russia claims this is misinformation.[101][102] Georgian State Minister for Reintegration, Temur Iakobashvili also denied this, stating, "There was no attack on the airport in Tbilisi. It was a factory that produces combat airplanes."[103]

According to reports in the Russian Novye Izvestiya, the UK Guardian, and Sky News, Ossetian irregulars were looting and burning Georgian villages in South Ossetia and near Gori on August 13.[104][105][106] Human Rights Watch said their researchers "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians". British journalist Andrew Wilson (of the London Times) reports that he was assaulted and almost killed by Ossetian fighters.[107] The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be “decisive and tough” measures taken against looters.[108]

Witnesses report the burning and destruction of Georgian villages (especially around Gori) as Russian troops retreat, mostly by South Ossetians. A "BBC reporter in Gori reported that Russians tanks were in the streets as their South Ossetian separatist allies seized Georgian cars, looted Georgian homes and then set some homes ablaze." Georgian officials say that Gori was targeted for looting and attacks on both military and civilian sites, which may be in violation of a ceasefire agreement.[109][110]"

aristotle1990 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also becoming increasingly worried at the profusion of Russian media sources for controversial topics. The article has effectively been spammed with links to Russian websites, which in tone and substance display a clear pro-Russian bias. aristotle1990 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Senaki

The Russians passed through on the 11th, departed, and are there again on the thirteenth. So the New York Times, who were there. [14]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Aide and Accusations they encouraged Georgia to attack S. Ossetia

In case you guys missed this. I'm not going to get involved in this article but I think you all should be tracking this story about Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser having been a lobbyist for the govt of Georgia who's brought McCain over there. Wash Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated press, another Wash Post.

Three articles state or infer McCain promoted all this:

• Politico.com's accusations McCain and assumedly Scheunemann actually encouraged Georgia to bomb the heck out of S. Ossetia.The article on the topic, says in part:

McCain, who publicly confronted Putin in Munich last year, may be the most visible — and now potentially influential — American antagonist of Russia. What remains to be seen is whether the endgame to the Georgia crisis makes McCain seem prophetic or headstrong and whether his muscular rhetoric plays a role in defining for voters the kind of commander in chief he would be....To critics, McCain’s stance is grandstanding with little effect beyond riling a nuclear power. ...McCain has led the harsh denunciations of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, though neither he nor any other leader has suggested that the West has any real way to blunt Moscow’s ultimate intentions. He’s also faced the accusation that his encouragement of Georgia’s dramatic defiance of Russia helped trigger the crisis. (A McCain aide dismissed that notion, saying Russia’s provocations forced Georgia’s response.)

• Robert Scheer, SF Gate, Georgia War a Neocon election ploy
• CBS: Getting Georgia's war on Carol Moore 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

• • Duly noted; but this is a footnote to McCain's remarks, which aren't here. There should be an article on the broader diplomacy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything McCain and Obama say or do can be seen as nothing more than an attempt boost their own popularity. LokiiT (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MORE just to keep on top of this as relevant info breaks:

• NY Times - McCain to Send His Wingmen to Georgia - he also denies he encouraged the war.
• NY Times: In Split Role, McCain Adviser Is Sometimes a Lobbyist
• Reuters: Quotes by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili including complains that McCain is just words and not actions. (What other revelations might follow?) Carol Moore 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

War Ongoing

So the war isn't over yet? The Russians said no provocations will go unanswered.Yuhi33 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The war did not end. its was halted as a ceassfire argument, not a total cessation of all hostilities for now til the end of time. get it stragt. Smith Jones (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A cease-fire just means that you stop fighting, the war isn't over until russia crushs georgia, or whatever its goal is, or russia stop fighting and a peace is formed. Essentialy a cease-fire is still war, which is why the korean war is 50 years long.--Jakezing (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Righst report

Human Rights report just came out, please include this in the aticle: HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT: Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted [15], "The remaining residents of these destroyed ethnic Georgian villages are facing desperate conditions, with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go. "Tanya Lokshina, researcher in the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch." Iberieli (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is ethnic cleansing. All ethnic Georgians will be evicted from the South Ossetia and Kodori Gorge, just as it happened in Abkhasia.Biophys (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, we know already. However, many Wikipedia editors care more about what the Russian Minister says and even what some "9/11 thruther" dude thinks about the world response than about the confirmation of the persecution of Georgians - hey, it's "probably bias too". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any pro-Russia editors as of late. All I see is you same few bitching and moaning about non-existent bias in this article while trying to remove the Russian POV completely, and succeeding, which is proof that there are more anti-Russians editing this article than neutral or pro-Russian editors. And I don't see HRW calling it ethnic cleansing. In fact they didn't even report on any deaths, did they? LokiiT (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about you - and your pushing of the "bitching and moaning about non-existent bias" (by the Russian Minister, Russian world-propaganda TV, a "blogger", and the guy who actually believes "Jews Did WTC"). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? .... can we stay on topic here? Where does HRW say there was ethnic cleansing? Where do they say that South Ossetians murdered Georgians at all? The human conditions of the Georgian villages look similar to the earlier HRW report on what the Georgians did to South Ossetia (no food, water or medical supplies, hiding in basements etc..) LokiiT (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that, now I know what Ethnic cleansing is! No, seriously, if the South Ossetians are guilty of Ethnic cleansing then so is Georgia. My guess is that neither of them are, but you'll probably accuse me of being a Russian patriot for taking a neutral stance like that. Russia is Satan, after all, and so are their allies. LokiiT (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They call me Captain Obvious not without reason. "No, seriously, if the South Ossetians are guilty of Ethnic cleansing then so is Georgia." So, what territory Georgia systematically emptied of a minority/majority/any ethnic group? Village burning is ensuring Georgians won't get back there. See what Abkhazians did to the Georgian majority(!) in Abkhazia through the 1990s. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about the 20-30,000 Ossetians from Tskhinvali who were forced from their homes and fled to Russia? I guess destroying a city with tanks doesn't count, they have to be burned down. LokiiT (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about the more than 50,000 Georgians from Gori who were forced from their homes and fled to Tbilisi? I guess destroying a city with bombs doesn't count, so this why I meant "village burning" and not merely war. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rights group confirms reports of abuses by both sides in South Ossetia http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hu5kLlyMAmxUFutHnkRPqmeGregg

Russia exaggerating South Ossetian death toll, says human rights group http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Adjpro (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch says it has witnessed South Ossetian fighters looting ethnic Georgians' houses and has recorded multiple accounts of Georgian militias intimidating ethnic Ossetians.

Oh boy, you mean to tell me that both sides were greatly exaggerated into being the forces of Satan? Excuse my sarcasm. LokiiT (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the terms "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" are getting tossed around a bit too freely by both sides, as far as I'm concerned. Looting is not the same as ethnic cleansing, and firing batteries of rockets into a city is not the same as genocide. Both are contemptible and deplorable behavior -- and should be accurately reported in the article -- but neither amounts to the systemic annihilation of a people. Maybe if we stop tossing around those words quite so much and back off from the sarcasm a bit, there can be a little less bickering and a little more constructive editing of the article, including accurate representation of casualties and propaganda that was or is being peddled by both sides. croll (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, trying to pass the HRW report as confirmation of "ethnic cleansing" against Georgians is wrong and IMO dishonest.

The HRW would only make such a grave accusation backed up by overwhelming evidence proving so and not because it found some villages looted and on fire.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conflict" rather then "war"

I think that this article should be renamed "South Ossetia Conflict" instead of "South Ossetia War". Althought this might seem to be getting too deep into symmentics, I believe that the use of "war" creates bias. As this is a current event, this conflict may in the future become a war however at the preset time I would not classify it as such. Let me know what people think about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaketaylor88 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK- let's rename all "wars" to conflict !! This has been discussed before --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian–Ossetian conflict is an another (related) article. This one should be rather called along the lines of "Georgian War". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They called the "Cold War" a war a nobody fired a shot, so "war" isn't necessarily inappropriate even if the physical violence was limited.Bdell555 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody fired a shot? What was Viet Nam? Korea? Afghanistan? All of those were proxy wars involving both superpowers. LokiiT (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually lots of shots were fired in the Cold War. (And this one may be well the first war of Cold War II.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Techniqly, the US hasn't been in a war since WW2. And it wont be cold war 2, the colrd war had alot behind it, including how anti communist the US was, with more important matters that don't exist now.--Jakezing (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Georgian–Ossetian conflict refers to the ethno-political conflict in Georgia's former autonomous region of South Ossetia, which evolved in 1989 and developed into a civil war", tells Georgian–Ossetian conflict. It should be renamed to "war" as suggested by Captain. Many millions died during wars of the "Cold war". The misleading word here is "Cold".Biophys (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO the term "war" perfectly defines the present situation. Calling it "conflict" would be an understatement.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

USA in infobox??

Should the USA be included in the infobox, due to there "humanitarian Efforts", which are run by the US Military? -Marcusmax (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They're not pat of the armed conflict. Supplies do not equal military forces. LokiiT (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Combat --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hmm..

TBILISI (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's pledge to send aid to Georgia means that the U.S. military will take control of the ex-Soviet state's ports and airports, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said on Wednesday. "You have heard the statement by the U.S. president that the United States is starting a military-humanitarian operation in Georgia," Saakashvili said in a television address. "It means that Georgian ports and airports will be taken under the control of the U.S. defense ministry in order to conduct humanitarian and other missions. This is a very important statement for easing tension."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081302202.html

"a military-humanitarian operation" complicates which is which

Adjpro (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about when the US airlifted those 800 Georgian soldiers plus supplies? That seems like a military action (regardless of the reasoning behind it). Christiangoth (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably US soldiers delivering aid (what they often do around the world in disaster and conflict zones). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose adding USA in info box. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Adding USA to the infobox makes no sense. I pray we never have to.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We should not include this until it happens; and the US position is that it will not happen. (This means about as much as the Russian and Georgian official positions, but still...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. When the U.S. delivers aid to other countries in the form of food, medicine, whatever, it is (to my knowledge) always done by the Air Force's strategic airlift and/or National Guard. It may be a function performed by the military, but it is fundamentally a humanitarian aid mission, not a military one, and adding the US to the list of combatants would be grossly misleading and contrary to the intent of that part of the infobox. croll (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HRW on the Russian "genocide" lies and their consequences

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

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

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

"By day five of a conflict one normally expects that there is some kind of list of the dead and injured, or at least an indication of their age and gender. But here there is no information. Absolutely nothing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We gotta find some way to blame other peoples actions on those commies! LokiiT (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Georgians call Russians "Bolshevists" for some reason. Maybe because of what happened in 1921. Who's "we"? Some western/Russian/international human rights conspiracy? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The most evil "Russian" of all time was in fact a Georgian, I don't think they have any right complaining about their oppressive Soviet history. LokiiT (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian turned Russian imperialist. Living in Moscow, speaking in Russian. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So what's your point? Georgia produced one of the biggest mass murders of all time. it's not like he could have "accomplished" anything out of Georgia. This conversation is boring me, you apologists need to get some new material or at least pretend to be neutral. LokiiT (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And he was half-Ossetian. What's YOUR point, and of your stupid "We gotta find some way to blame other peoples actions on those commies!" comment? What "apologist material" did you mean? What would be "neutral" without "pretending"? Please, tell me. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And what about when the Georgian president claimed Russia had taken over Gori and was advancing on the capitol? What about his genocide accusations? "I am directly accusing the Russians of genocide" ... more balanced western media. LokiiT (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what about it? What consequences? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what consequences festering hatred towards a country based on lies can have. Clearly you see no problem with that, but history does. I feel sorry for Russians living in the Baltic states right now, I'd hate to be them. LokiiT (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you say their houses are going to burn like during the pogroms of Georgians in Georgia by Russia's irregulars? Tell me also, will Russia call "genocide" and invade, too? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No you're right. Lying about genocide is fine when Georgians do it. They're so small and helpless and democratic. LokiiT (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic here? Arguments should be for or against inclusion of particular material. That means they address questions like whether the source is reliable, whether there is undue weight, etc.Bdell555 (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian casualties are not exaggerated. They say less than 200 killed - it's more probably (way) too low than too high. And the Russian "genocide" claim was first and never ceased. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this information has been added to the article. Ostap 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Added. aristotle1990 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Ossetians are a distinct Iranian ethnic group. Iranians is not humans for western HRW. And do u understand result after blitzkrieg, after using Georgian multiple-launch rocket system (MRLS) 08/08/2008 at night? You saw volley MLRS? So statistic quite realistic. --Woozeefy (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All Western media representatives, to my knowledge, were stationed in Tbilisi and Gori and could only report second-hand about Tskhinvali. I find it amusing, that all their claims continue circulating even after being disproved, while reports from Tskhinvali are blanketly discarded as propaganda. If a tree falls in a forest and CNN is not around to hear it, does it make a sound? Gleb (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This report comes from people in Tskhinvali. I might add that the Russians were not letting foreign journalists into South Ossetia for several days, from either the north or the south, so what were they supposed to do?Bdell555 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The report elaborates on lootings in neighboring villages, which is a problem but a different problem. It also admits lack of concrete information on Tskhinvali casualties, which is not surprising. In every disaster people initially work with estimates. It appears that Tskhinvali central hospital was largely non-existent as of August 8. I was not aware of foreign journalists not being allowed into South Ossetia. Do you have a link? Gleb (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They are based in Tskhinvali; they went outside Tskhinvali to see what's going on. I could go and track down cites about journalists being turned back but I didn't record them. Anything I put into an article, of course, I'll provide a source for.Bdell555 (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A problem with the Russian "estimates", is that the number of deaths they claim don't make sense compared to the number of wounded. There would be far more wounded if there were so many deaths. HRW explains this in another source.Bdell555 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As reported by Russian Ministry of Defence via RIA on 08/08, Georgian military are finishing off wounded peacekeepers and civilians. This would explain disproportionate numbers. Source is in Russian: http://www.rian.ru/defense_safety/20080808/150205875.html Also, there is no shortage of photos of scorched bodies consistent with use of MRLs in populated areas. Gleb (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And you know that the scorched bodies are not the crews of the scorched tanks, right? Anyway (yes, you guessed) NOT A FORUM etc. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How does NOT A FORUM apply to citing a valid source containing information relevant to the topic - HRW on genocide? Gleb (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a very different problem - as far as I know, the Georgian army was not followed by horders of armed looters. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Iranians is not humans for western HRW" Good sir, you are very wrong. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if I can trust human rights watch. "Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived anti-Western, anti-China, and anti-Israel bias while others have criticized it for having a pro-Western and pro-Israel bias. According to a report in the Egyptian press, "the government often accuses human rights groups [including Human Rights Watch] of importing a Western agenda that offends local religious and cultural values."[10]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch#cite_note-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by What Max (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually, when someone reports something unflattering about a country's activities, that country denounces the reporter as having a bias. Given that HRW has been accused of having both a pro- and anti- Western bias (accusations that are mutually exclusive), I think that probably means they're pretty fair in their reporting. croll (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

About 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment

The 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment of VDV (Template:Lang-ru) is under direct subordination of VDV Command and in structure of VDV (see his history and COA for example, on [16]Template:Ru icon and VDV-structure at [17]Template:Ru icon). It is under GRU operational subordination only. Alex Spade (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What now?

Which section is marked for the new events of the conflict? Where should the events after the ceasefire be put into?

Roughly speaking, current events are at the end of "Summary" and at Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not obvious from the main page.

Would you consider putting a link in the main article to the specific section of the "timeline" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just renamed the section "Timeline of events" to more closely match the subsidiary article's title. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos from South Ossetia

Here you go. They're copyrighted, but nevertheless interesting.

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551

Talk about evil Russians bombing the single building in Gori and peaceful Saakashvili with his democratic regime "suggesting to lay weapons". These were taken while travelling from Vladikavkaz through Java and to Tskhinvali. This is not something your news channels will show to you. Instead they'll stick with the same single bombed building in Gori. -- 81.195.27.134 (talk)

By the way, the writings on the tank say "Chechnya", "Chechnya", "Chechnya", then "Jamadarians" (dunno what's this) and "422 east, Chechnya". Apparently, the tank belongs to Chechen divisions -- 81.195.27.134 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The inhumanity shown in a lot of those pictures of bodies just left along the side of the road is awful. This photo [18] especially upset me because it appears as if someone threw a tree branch on the burning body for amusement?? I almost vomited. I pray to God that he give these poor souls a peaceful rest.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is war and they're not a burial squad. There's nothing you can do to the dead, but you can protected the ones who are still alive. -- 81.195.27.134 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To use a joke from red vs blue "All we have is pistols and rifles"--Jakezing (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"By the way, the writings on the tank say "Chechnya", "Chechnya", "Chechnya", then "Jamadarians" (dunno what's this)"

It means they're Yamadayevtsy - the men of Sulim Yamadayev, a Chechen warlord (and Hero of Russia) now federally wanted in Russia. (sic) Btw, Tskhinvali was also hit by Russian artillery fire and especially air power. If you want to see how the Russian Army (and specifically, the 58th Army) behaves during combat in a city full of "Russian citziens", see the pictures from Grozny. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, NOT A FORUM. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh shut up already--Jakezing (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos on Front Page

I don't know where to put this, but the picture of 'Georgian Rocket Launchers' from Novosty on the front page is almost certainly Russian rocket launchers. It's generally agreed that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvalli occurred at night and by the early morning they were in the city. So why is the picture of the supposed bombardment of Tskhinvali nearer to midday? If the attack was a surprise, its unlikely that Russia photographers would be on hand behind the lines to film Georgian artillery. Moreover, the damage patterns in Tskhinvali as described by Human Rights Watch is not consistant with bombardment from a multiple launch rocket system, but is much more consistant with conventional artillery. If this is Georgian artillery in the photograph, then its almost certainly not firing at Tskhinvalli, and the claim from Russian press that it is makes the whole picture that much more suspect. The AP has shown pictures of Russian armored columns containing large numbers of BM-21 'Grad' launchers (I'm fairly certain this is the type shown in the photo), so we know that the Russia military is using those weapons in theater. Yes, Georgia does have BM-21's in theater and may have even used them at some point and maybe even on Tskhinvalli (I've seen nighttime video footage that is more convincing), but given the origin of the picture it is far more likely to be Russian rockets in the photograph. - Celebrim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.19.254 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This terrible war

I think that the really bad thing about the war is that the so called world community does not care about Georgia. If USA is really the "defender of liberty", it should give Russia, say, 24 hours to leave Georgia, just like Serbia had to leave Kosovo during the war there. Instead, Russia has been given a blanc card to continue with an extended "peacekeeping" operation on foreign soil - and Georgia has to promise never to defend itself against Russia in the future. Since Russia wont accept an international peacekeeping mission, the rest of the world gives Russia a nod to take care of the problem´. Technically, Georgia is not a sovereign country anymore. Lotta2 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When the war is over, there should be a section called "aftermath" dealing with issues such as sovereignty and implications on international law. Right now, it seems a bit premature to speculate. --Hapsala (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

USA have no right to break peacekeeping operation of any other country. If USA do this, it will not be "defender of liberty", but fighter against liberty. Магистер (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Frontpage sentence

"Russia calls an end to its military offensive in Georgia and agrees to a European Union plan for a ceasefire and peace talks, amid reports of more fighting around the city of Gori."

Looting, wanton destruction and murder is not "fighting". Of the fighting there's little and not with regular Georgian army. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't talk about the frontpage here. Naurmacil (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do report about anything too, but this will be reason for nothing. Магистер (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the captain's point was that the Main Page sentence does NOT reflect the information we have been receivingAndrew's Concience (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We have been receiving information that someone has received reports? Магистер (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Russian columns drive back and forth, loot Georgia, burn villages, but the Georgians were not provoked so far so it's not "fighting". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You forget about Ossetian army and Ossetian "volunteers".Магистер (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To "fighting" two sides are needed. Reports of any "fighting" are few, like "Russia claims to shoot down UAVs". Georgians are now probably wary to not get provoked again, so the Russia would not say they "broke ceasefire" and resume whatever they are planning to do now. Anyway, give me reports of fighting or let's make this into something along the lines of the "reports by of widespread looting and wanton destruction by pro-Russian irregular forces". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russian columns drive back and forth, loot Georgia, burn villages" - by "Russian columns" you mean regular Russian army, right? So you found sources proving Russian regular army forces "loot Georgia, burn villages"? If so, please share. Thanks. Enerjazzer (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and The Guardian says there's no fighting because... there's practically no one left to fight on the Georgian side.

For most of the day there was no sign of the Georgian army. After five days of ferocious bombardment by Russian warplanes, it appears not to exist. With rumours swirling of an imminent Russian attack on Tbilisi, however, Georgia mustered a platoon of 50 soldiers, who took up positions 10 miles down the road from where the Russians appeared to have parked up for the night. (Amid promise of peace, Georgians live in terror · Russian militia accused of orgies of looting and rape)

Unless "a new partisan war against the Russians" starts. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A FORUM

I was nice and didn't delete, instead posted "THIS IS NOT A FORUM" message.

This is what user Naurmacil did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=edit&undoafter=231793571&undo=231793752

Deletion of my friendly message with the comment: This is not a forum for This is not a forum comments. Be contributive, or fuck off

MODS: please take care of him. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Obvious, could you, please, stop whining and be objective?

You seem to behave EXACTLY like your role model, Mr. Saakashvili: first start the fight, and then whine till someone maybe helps you. So far, I'm tired of your crap that is more about your very biased opinion of the conflict rather than the quality of the article. (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

• Poligraf, please do not apply the word "whine" to the action of a person. You may think it is a right word, but it does not help this discussion if you state something which may inflame the other party, as that might lead to this discussion becoming extremely unproductive. I do not know if Captain Obvious has been trying to insert a bised point-of-view into this article. If he has, then he should be told not to continue doing that. However, Captain Obvious is right in stating that this talk page is not a forum. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of 2008 South Ossetia war. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

I'd delete all this discussion, but instead I just reminded you - and I've got "fuck off" in return while deleting my reminder. And you whine about what now? You surely have no opinion, right? And analyzed my actual contributions to the article, right? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I have said to Poligraf, please do not say something which might inflame the other party, such as "You surely have no opinion, right?", as that might cause this discussion to become extremely unproductive. You were right to state that this talk page is not a forum, and I hope the discussion will now end, as a result. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think qa good reading of WP: Civil Would help you all.--Jakezing (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

according to X media, 'allegedly'...

This is grammatically redundant. If a reporter reports something, and Wikipedia says that the reporter reported that as opposed to just stating whatever was reported as a fact, it's already clear to the reader that the claim isn't any stronger that the reporter's reporting. Adding "allegedly" one top of that doesn't change the truth status of the claim. Wikipedia isn't saying the claim is necessarily true when it says "Y media said something happened". To change that to "Y media said allegedly something happened" is to simply add a redundant word. Wikipedia is not claiming the reports are true or have been proven true when "allegedly" is not added on top.Bdell555 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

bdell555,

regarding three reverts.. i hav not violated 3rr so far otherwise i would not be able to type this

regarding redundancy, repeating the same georgian point of view using american and british while also including "unreliability" issues makes the whole part redundant..anyway why repeat the same lines with the same point repeatedly? why cant you form a single sentence and give all citations continuously ..or instead you can adopt my suggeation to use a single line "russia and georgia traded charges of genocide and looting" which would suffice...

else please note that including such blatantly biased text like 'ossetian looters', 'killed by ossetian'...by an editor 'without any contribition by him / her to wikify it to neutrality' constitutes cheap plagiarism..

please know that using capitals in all words in all (most) edit summaries is not wiki policy..please check wiki guidelines.. so stop abusing me using lies (abt violating 3rr)...Cityvalyu (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see you violated 3RR. I said that was 3 reverts. A violation requires 4, and getting banned isn't automatic anyway unless an admin notices it and decides to take adtion. All text was attributed, as far as I could see, and if it wasn't you weren't correcting that but doing something else.Bdell555 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that if the media have reported something as "allegedly" then we should as well. However we should not put words into someone's mouth and if someone reports something as fact, then obviously should not say they have reported it as allegedly Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Financial Market Reaction section

I recommend removing the information on the Russian stock market and currency drop last Friday. It is not clear that this was due to the war and could have mostly been due to the 5% drop in the price of oil. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Ostap 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On to Tbilisi?

So why exactly do we need the entire AP report about the convoy east of Gori? It's disproportionate when we have given one paragraph to each day before, and the convoy hasn't actually gone to Tbilisi. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling Reference Box

I tried to add a scrolling box to the reference section in order to reduce the page size and condense for easier reading. However, it looked great in the edit review but when I tried to save it I got this message:

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. If you did not add the link yourself, it most likely was added by another editor before being blacklisted. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted link before you can save your edit. If you are attempting a section edit, note that this block may even be due to blacklisted links in other sections. If you need help removing the blacklisted link, post a message at Wikipedia:Help desk. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page.

The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: overflow auto height Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.

Anyone have any ideas why? I checked the blacklist's on wiki but couldn't find anything there.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS deprecates scrolling boxes. Unexpected results like this are one reason why. I have no idea which link is blacklisted, if any; the whole result might be server overflow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been talk of bad ref links all over this article. Maybe when you loaded the scroll box wiki picked one or more of them up. Heaps of ppl have been asking for ref links to be cleaned up, which I guess you were doing so kudos for that.Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AHH! Thx but alas it looks like it will continue to fail because I just read the WP:MOS and they do indeed discourage scrollboxes :( Looked good in the edit preview though :)--Jmedinacorona (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling Reference Box II

I was able to create a scrolling reference box for the reference section. If this causes havoc with your browser please revert the edit. I did this as an attempt to reduce the article display size for better viewing.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BLASTED USER: I would call this entire thing a fiscal disturbance according to the factors of 'western involvement', today it occured to me, that this was message board particle as well --- saying if the internal-infuriation gets like this it will -- then there was the presidential satire of the number of presidents in russia outnumbering the number of people in georgia all of whcih remember oddly a diff'rent strokes reference, because of this behaviour -- I say let 'em crash... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.238.188 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please block this page or, at the very least, give it an NPOV

I've had it. Someone is repeatedly removing my edits, made in good faith, and is replacing them with poorly written pro-Russian propaganda. I'm no fan of Georgia, but when the only sources in a section are lurid, state-sponsored Russian media tales of Georgian atrocities, the section needs change. I added to the section about humanitarian conditions in South Ossetia the NPOV tag and the Human Rights Watch report discounting the (obviously grossly exaggerated) Russian statistics. The former was removed, the latter watered down and placed at the bottom. What is this?

Regnum news agency[96] and Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs were found in Tskhinvali. He also reported that a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians.[97] A South Ossetian reservist reported there were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.[97]

At a meeting with South Ossetia refugees at a makeshift hospital camp in Alagir on August 9, eyewitnesses told the Russian Prime Minister that Georgian troops had set fire to a house with several young women inside. "They were rounded up like cattle, shut into the house, and set on fire. In another place, we saw a tank run over an old woman who was running away with two children. We saw how they slashed up an 18-month child," a refugee said.[98] Russian sources cited the representative of South Ossetia administration Irina Gagloeva asserting that Georgia opened an irrigation canal to flood the basements of Tskhinvali in order to prevent people from hiding in the basements of the buildings during bombings.[99]"

Regnum, the mouthpiece of the Russian government, is used as a source in a war between Russia and Georgia? Human Rights Watch, an infinitely more credible source, is downplayed and ignored? This was my original paragraph, added below the South Ossetian government casualty figure:

Human Rights Watch, however, calls the Russian death toll figure of 2,000 unfounded and a result of "propaganda." Doctors in Tskhinvali "had provided figures that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue," although "there have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments." The investigation is ongoing.

This is the "new and improved" (i.e., vague and badly written) version, conveniently placed at the bottom of the page:

Nevertheless, alleged that [sic] "The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful," she said. "Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics." Doctors in Tskhinvali said that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of atleast [sic] 44 people (those brought to the city morgue) were dead although "there have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments." The investigation is ongoing.[100]

Let's move to the section on Georgia, shall we?

British journalist Andrew Wilson (of the London Times) reports that he was assaulted and almost killed by ,according to him, "Ossetian fighters".[107]

"Ossetian fighters" needs quotation marks while "a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians" does not? The Times is a perfectly reliable source, and there is no reason to think that the people who were going to kill him (he was saved by his journalist status) were not South Ossetians.

Witnesses report burning and destruction of Georgian villages (especially around Gori) as the Russian troops retreat, 'allegedly by South Ossetians'.

There are no allegations here. It is now a fact, confirmed by many reputable and consistent sources (CNN, the Times, AP, Humans Rights Watch) that the South Ossetians are looting Georgian villages and occasionally burning houses. THESE ARE NOT ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT - THESE ACCOUNTS ARE COLLECTED ON THE GROUND BY INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS.

And now we come to the most delicious part of all this:

Human Rights Watch researchers also allegedly saw (within quotes) "armed Ossetian militia members in camouflage fatigues" taking household items out of houses in the village of Nizhnie Achaveti and loading them into their trucks. Explaining the looters' actions, an "Ossetian man" allegedly told Human Rights Watch that they are entitled to take things from Georgians now – because they lost their own property in Tskhinvali and other places. The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be "decisive and tough" measures taken against looters.[109] The Guardian cited witnesses who reported "an orgy of looting, burning, murdering and rape" against Georgians carried out by Chechen and Ossetian "volunteers". However the guardian reported it was impossible to verify the claims.[110]

In case the reader doesn't understand that these are completely false allegations, that there are quotes around the "disputed allegations" (note the quotes!) is spelled out right before! How convenient! "Ossetian man" - well, I'm sure the Georgians are planting villagers who speak Ossetic in the face of dozens of Russian tanks just to fool Human Rights Watch! And, of course, the claims of the "guardian" (capitalization is so passé!) are "impossible to verify", but those of the Russian media-government are not only fully verifiable but in fact are to be relied upon as central sources! And how! aristotle1990 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately, wikipedia is ochlocracy. So, the Russian mob rules. Administrators do not want to intervene. Cofer2 made seven reverts in this article today, but no one cares.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a ochlocracy, the fact is that there are way too many editors at the moment, some of them have bias.

Let's give a month, when things cool down we, NPOV editors, will have a easier time removing the propaganda from the article.

You should add a tag to the article.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire "Timeline" section is certainly non-neutral. The bias is obviously toward a pro-Russia POV. Not only is it full of biased language; it's full of persuasive argument. If this was our writing standard, we would need to include a whole other section that includes all the arguments that Georgia would use to justify their actions seeing that all Russia's arguments are included in this section. The "Georgia" part of the "Humanitarian" section is also blatantly non-neutral, putting everything in quotes as though nothing within quotes is 'verifiable'. I've attempted to make a few very minimal edits that should not upset the biased crowd but will help with the credibility factor, but seems that I will be wasting my time to work any more on this as other neutral editors are having no luck with their edits sticking. I am not taking any sides either, but this article currently is substandard for a Wikipedia current event article that has been around for as long as it has been. The mods certainly need to step in at some point if things don't settle down and even out within the next few days. Efrafra (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of terms?

Looking through the article, I see a lot of terms like : "South Ossetian Troops", "Abkhazian troops" and I'm sure I saw earlier "South Ossetian Army".

The Issue I see here is IF South Ossetia & Abkhazia are in fact "regions" of Georgian administation. How then did the come by their own "Army" & "Troops" OR are these some sort of millia?

Surely if we were to recognise the Independance of these regions they could have their own militaries, but in the INFO BOX it says : (Unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia & (Unrecognized) Republic of Abkhazia. So that means that this article doesn't recognize their independence, which could be argued is POV. Alternatively if we remove "Unrecognized" then we have a POV issue also.

I didn't change these things because I didn't want to start an edit war or anything but some consensus would be helpfull.

Do we: Recognize the Independence of S.O and Abkhazia (Not what Wikipedia is for) Do we: Refuse to recognize the Independance of S.O and Abkhazia (Same problem) Or do we: Leave it ambiguous. ie. just, South Ossetia. and just, Abkazia.Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The two mentioned regions remained de-facto independent for almost 20 years; there's an ample time to make an army, irrespective of the fact of official recognition. For example, the Kosovo Liberation Army was (and is) called that despite the fact that Kosovo is still not recognised by many countries and Serbia still considers it a part of its own territory. CopperKettle (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough I'll leave troops as troops and armies as armies. Any thoughts on how we should word the Independance or lack thereof. I was thinking, as stated above just, South Ossetia & Abkhazia.Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should leave the point of independence an ambiguous one, that is, until there's a stamp from some UN official on some UN resolution. As of now, even Russia, as far as I know, does not recognise them as independent states. CopperKettle (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• A region/province/whatever can be a belligerent without being a nation. Such belligerents typically have troops. If uniformed, organized and officered, those troops can be termed "soldiers" and have status as such under the Geneva Conventions, all without anyone's recognizing the independence of the entity that fields them. If a belligerent fielded troops in corps strength with tank, artillery and air support, I would call it an "army" because of their capability, not out of any legal status. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll change the info box to reflect wikipedia's NPOV policy and leave the rest. As soon as someone reads the introduction they're gonna get the picture. Saying (Unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia seems a bit convoluted to me (perhaps even weasel words).Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• sigh*...... Or I won't because the page is protected :). Can someone pls change it 4 me.Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

I have seen several people suggest an aftermath section. Today on BBC New there was an analysis of the conflict by Paul Reynolds I wrote this summary of the article and would like to add it to the article:

BBC News analysis Paul Reynolds considers Russia, Vladimir Putin, the South Ossetias, and 'Old Europe' as the clear winners in the recent conflict. Stating that Russia has sent a "clear signal about its readiness to assert itself" and that Germany and France will feel validated in their concern about admitting Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Mr Reynolds identified the losers as the casualties of the conflict, Mikheil Saakashvili, the truth, and 'the West'. With the United States and United Kingdom claiming that Mr. Saakashvili was cautioned to exercise restraint in the build up to the conflict the West suffers from both an ally losing a conflict and the ally disregarding advice.[19]

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia so I didn't want to be bold and just add it sense it is a touchy issue. Also, it might be to soon to add an aftermath section. Joseph Godwin (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i think it's too soon to say it's over. We're still getting, albeit unconfirmed reports that there is still violence being carried out in the region despite the ceasefire. I think even if it is over, aftermath should at least wait till the U.N enquiryAndrew's Concience (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this really isn't the touchy part. aristotle1990 (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is too soon as well. IMO the actual aftermath of this conflict is months if not years away. The West is still thinking about which sort of punishment Russia should suffer for these actions.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the frame of mind of mountain peoples, I'm sure the final end of this conflict is generations away, and was pushed decades further by the Saakhashvili's barrage of a city on the eve of the Olympic Games, just after the promise of peace. Such feats will be remembered and enmities might run for generations. The hysteria in Western media just adds another splash of dirt to this dirty war. --CopperKettle (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording at the beginning

I quote from the beginning:

..During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali...

how come there's no mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city? Was there a discussion on this? This should be mentioned, because the soft wording is clearly misleading. If there's a disagreement, the disagreement should be noted, but without the mention of a massive (albeit from some points of view) attack on the city the beginning of the article, as it seems to me, is skewed in favor of Georgia.

--CopperKettle (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I propose this:

During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction(?, but were later disputed in a number of sources?).

I am sure that a statement like this, giving a clear snapshot of Russian perception of the pivotal moment, should be in the beginning of the article, if our aim is to present a balanced view on the conflict. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I support that. Mrcatzilla (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mrcatzilla; I'll wait for more comments. I'm not for a second succumb to our dear propaganda machine which is in a full swing now on Russian channels, but for the first time in my life I see the Western propaganda building up to the extent that reminds me of ours, and that should be fixed. --CopperKettle (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about? During the night and early morning Georgia, Reportedly launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction(?, but were later disputed in a number of sources?).

. Just to keep objectivity and avoid conflict on the talk page :).Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was no arguing about the fact that Georgia did launch an offensive. It has a right to fight for its territory, but not with just any means, and that is my aim here. My edit is aimed at bringing the ordinary-Russian-citizen's perception more into focus. As I see it, even the Second Chechen War, which was conducted as a reaction on direct incursions into our territory and on the Russian multiple-story buildings blown up, was supported less widely than the current operations of our army. And this is partly because the Western-oriented folks, including yours truly, see the clearly stilted reports on their favorite channels like BBC, CNN, etc. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reportedly" is redundant. It's implied for everything else. I agree with CopperKettle. It's supported by multiple sources already referenced by the article. It's also in the linked Timeline article.Gleb (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's no objections for several hours, feel free to add the proposed text into the intro, as I might be absent. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

REPORTEDLY??? Enough of this verbiage! It should be During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali. And this is not POV, this is facts. KNewman (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another variant:

During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction, but the extent of civilian casualties was later disputed (?heavily disputed, the alleged extent was criticized by, etc.?) by the number of sources.

--CopperKettle (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, but the point is the Georgians claim that the Russians "carpet bombed Tskhinvali" and while I personally believe this to be untrue. As long as there is a shadow of a doubt we can't refute EITHER claim. The ordinary-Russian-perception OR the ordinary-Georgian OR the ordinary Martian perceptions have no place in an Encyclopedia. If this was a News article, sure, but it's not. By using citations and sources we retain objectivity and "ideally" a neutral stance on any issue. Be it the colour of the sky or whether the holocaust really happened. It sucks sometimes but I believe it's what makes wikipedia truly great.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There were no significant Russian troops near Tskhinvali at that time. "Carpet bombing" by Russians may or may not have taken place and, given reliable sources should be mentioned, but putting it here would break the flow. Gleb (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

... The news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction. The extent of civilian casualties was later disputed by the number of sources. (same in separate sentences) would be easier to read IMO.Gleb (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew, we must abstain from any newsy hype. But the sad fact is, the beginning as it stands now reflects the, let's say, "ordinary American's" perception, and we either dilute it with the Russian, which is by the way corroborated by a vast number of sources (and we might drop in the Georgians' objections for the better stew), or leave the intro of the article as it is, skipping the pivotal moment, the merciless wiping out of a city, which is linked to the start of the war in the minds of tens of millions. I'm not proposing to add this words in the news fashion, as you noticed, and the wording is deliberately neutral: "according to Russian government sources" - and a reference might be added to some gov.ru site; "the extent was disputed" - this we could ramp up to "the extent was disputed, and, by some Georgians' claims, the bulk of the shelling itself was from the Russian side", though I do beleive this is preposterous; there might have been Russian-inspired provocations, but an all-out shelling from the Russian side would have been uncovered by now, it such a grisly thing could have happened. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew! Just look at that I've just read in the intro of the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[15] Blair said the actual trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.[16]

If the Wikipedia comminity found it right to place these alleged reasons in the second paragraph, why don't we place the alleged reasons of Russian military operation in the third paragraph here? You say " As long as there is a shadow of a doubt.." but in the case of the Bush&Blair's proposed reasons there is not only a shadow, there is a heavy raincloud of a doubt, and the cloud is unlikely to dissolve. Nevertheless, the clause was rightly put in the beginning, as it focuses the attention on the pivotal reasons for the US invasion into Iraq. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

CopperKettle, you're being perfectly reasonable about it and the only reason I'm nay-sayin is because I believe that your edit deserves mention. However if you add that in the way it is I fear that those "ordinary Americans" :) are gonna wake up in a few hours, see your edit, and revert it. I don't want that and neither do you. I'm not opposed to adding the content you propose.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If they revert it in spite of this discussion and our mutual agreement, and despite there being no substantial counter-arguments, this would amount to vandalism, and the administrators might be brought in for help. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have a problem now with the Iraq precedent, good find. I support your changes go for it.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanx! I do repeat that I try to be neutral, and personally I'm all for the heavy UN involvement, with Russia, US, and Georgia to be forbidden to play this dirty game. I'll go on and try to add the proposed text. --CopperKettle (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done; fix my English if you find any mistakes in style or grammar. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me, well written, in context. Not that I could have fixed it if it wasn't I still have a red name tag and the page is protected :(Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Red nametag? No problem, just start a page and fill it to the brim with preposterous userboxes. (0: --CopperKettle (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

CopperKettle, in your wording the "heavy shelling" and "humanitarian crisis" due to the initial advance of Georgian army into Tskhinvali are presented as facts, while they are among the things that are "according to Russian (government) sources". An increasing number of other reports disputes the extent of the initial destruction, as you rightly say yourself. Notice that the Iraqi War example you give starts with "according to", which makes it clear from the beginnig that these were the official US/British reasons given at the time. Your version presents the alleged heavy demolition of the city by the Georgians as a fact. If you want to follow the Iraqi War article, it would rather be something like:

During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[39] According to Russian sources there was such a heavy shelling that it laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis. The news of the shelling was extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction and Russia threatened to respond to defend South Ossetians against "a genocide by Georgian forces."[40][16] The extent of civilian casualties was later disputed in a number of sources.[41]

(This is based both on your original suggestion and the current version.) What do you say? 132.68.72.110 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine, in the view of the recent Human Rights Watch report. I agree. --CopperKettle (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, according to the Collins dictionary pretext is 'a fictitious reason given in order to conceal the real one'. Since we don't know the real reason of the Russian reaction it would be better to reword this passage. Alæxis_¿question? 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like "The Russian government's stated justification for entering Georgian territory was to protect its own citizens and to prevent "a genocide by Georgian forces" from this version. Alæxis_¿question? 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker so I do not know whether the "pretext" has a negative connotation in current usage. If you think so, then I agree to the change. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see that change myself in light of the HRW report. However, Alaexis is correct that "pretext" connotes a false or fictitious rationale. "Stated justification" would be better, IMO. croll (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone please clarify context about passports

There needs to be a sentence in the article clarifying why so many South Ossetians have Russian passports; that this was something that Russia offered to all former Soviet citizens when the USSR collapsed. That the people in territories such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia took up the offer because it provided them social services that the government of Georgia would not give them.

Basically, there needs to be some context here. They weren't all suddenly given passports in the past month.

I'm sure I remember reading some sources about this... Esn (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Russia doesn't offer its passports to all former Soviet citizens. But as I read, according to Russian laws any former Soviet citizens who born before 1992 (and their children before 18 years) can take Russian citizenship (i.e. Russian passport) if he/she abandons another country citizenship. This is called "repatriation". --Alexander Widefield (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Source does not contain quoted information

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/13/georgia.russia.war/index.html

as Source 11 supposedly states that Russia has lost; "74 Russian troops killed, 171 wounded and 19 missing in action" but the article has no mention of casualties other then to say that CNN could not verify the conflicting reports on casualties. Please can someone amend this article. This is yet again another example of an edit to Wikipedia which is unsourced which reflects poorly on the Russians ... hardly NPOV is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it with a new ref, [20], but next time you have to do it! Took about 5 seconds in Google News. I don't know what your NPOV complaint is, likely CNN removed the numbers from its article, or someone mixed up a ref. But thanks for pointing out the error. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected and the original poster is not autoconfirmed yet. He can't edit the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

REAL source: http://mil.ru/info/1069/details/index.shtml?id=49437 Магистер (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BCC: Russia begins handover of Gori

[21]Russian troops are handing over control of the area around the town of Gori to Georgian forces, officials say. Who are these "officials" is what I'd like to know. It doesn't look like they're planning on going any further either way, which is good news. LokiiT (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Officials are probably some Army representatives or government figures. And I doubt Russian forces would move further, as it would drag us into a guerilla war. Now it's time for United Nations to place its peacekeepers there. --CopperKettle (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was I'm wondering if it's Russian or Georgian officials saying this. If it's Georgian, this is pretty significant news and very contrary to their usual "the sky is falling" statements. If it's Russian, well they've been saying things like that for 2 days. LokiiT (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you need a name it was major-general V. Borisov (RF Ministry of Defense representative) statement according this: http://www.interfax.ru/politics/news.asp?id=27124. He was second-in-command in VDV (Russian airborne forces) previously. (07:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. There are more detailed reports out now in most major media, Georgia has confirmed this as well. This should be added to the article asap. Unfortunately I can't do this myself right now. LokiiT (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Background first?

This is a point I made yesterday, but it wasn't taken up. In any military history article I ever remember reading on WP or elsewhere, the background comes first, followed by an account of the action, followed if necessary by the aftermath. Why has this convention been reversed here? Putting the "timeline" where it belongs, after the "background" section, wouldn't prevent it being seen or being edited. On the other hand, it would greatly improve the flow of the article. Of course, I could be bold and just do it, but the article is being edited so frequently that it would likely be reverted without explanation if there wasn't a consensus to do it first. So what do people think? Scolaire (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this should be switched, but not yet. Wait until this is out of the news and no longer a current event...visitors now likely want to see the latest news and history of the battle, further details on its background should fall below for now (in a sense, like a newspaper article). Now of course, I know Wikipedia is not a newspaper and articles should not be written like one, but in terms of this simple organization, I think it is better as it stands now...at least for a while. --70.181.209.123 (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I call on everyone to change that image!

Members of the Russian Army during a mission in Bosnia in 1996 after the Bosnian War.

The reasons are as follows: 1. That picture has been taken in Bosnia, not in South Ossetia. 2. The troops are not in the peacekeeping uniform. This distorts the perception of the Russian peacekeepers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pglukhov (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Looks like standard Russian military armor and infantry to me. Just like the Russians who invaded. It should probably stay70.192.159.112 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the Russians 'invaded', protecting the south part of the republic that was dissected in two during the turmoil of Russian civil war and assigned arbitrarily to Georgia. While the US soldiers 'freed' the Kosovo that was the heart of Serbia for nearly a millenium.. Funny how the verbs can shift the focus, Orwell is turning in his grave now. --CopperKettle (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See this: Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918-1920). --CopperKettle (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Its refreshing to see someone who also agrees with me CopperKettle. Clearly the picture does not depict peacekeepers, and the Russian reaction force of the 58th Army were not part of the peacekeeping contigent.75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image is potentially misleading. Unless someone can provide justification for it to stay, I will be removing it soon. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry CopperKettle, forgot to mention that the region currently known as South Ossetia has historically been a part of Georgia since at least the 12th century, inhabited by Georgians. Oh, surprise surprise, so has Abkhazia. If you are going to reference Wiki articles ya might want to check out that section at the bottom: See also See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably, yes; I'll read the article. But so was Kosovo. Serbia had no right to conduct ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Georgia has no right to do this in S.Ossetia\Abkhazia. Why one is called genocide by Western media, and the other is "restoring the control"? Northern Ireland was a part of.. you wont beleive it - Ireland! Why George Bush won't bomb Britain today and restore the justice? What's he waiting for? --CopperKettle (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article; looked @ the XII-th century; yes, there's a great map rightfully named of Georgia at peak of its military dominance, 1184-1225. You know, Russian Empire at the peak of its dominance had an outpost in Northern California and the whole Alaska to boot. --CopperKettle (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Our conversation is about Goergia. Ethnic cleansing was first mentioned by the Russian media but has been uncofirmed and the number of dead stated by the Russians as 2000 since the biginning of the conflict is referenced as unfounded in the article. Furthermore Serbians with a UN peacekeeping force displayed an inability to refrain from comitting attrocities. Georgians displayed no such aggression towards Ossetians or Abkhazians after the initial peacekeeping force of Russians and Georgians were set up. Additionally, NO NATION extended citizenship or pensions to Kosovoans while they were a part of Serbia. The US does not recognize the the IRA as a valid political entity, it is a British problem inside of SOVEREIGN BRITISH territory, just as the US did not consider the CHECHEN problem inside SOVERIEGN RUSSIA a US issue. Any more questions75.216.50.89 (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So we have a conflict greatly more complicated compared to Kosovo or Ireland; with all the patchwork settlements of different nationalities and with Russia crossing the line (issuing the passports and probably nudging the separatists to provoke the Georgians). But why did the Saakasvhili carry out such an assault when there are peacekeeping forces stationed in the region? This greatly reduced his chances of gaining popularity among the Ossetians. If there is no atrocities and such from Georgian Army, why the separatists were unwilling to return to Georgia for two decades? Maybe there is no military solution, and despite the 12th century maps' borders, there must be peacekeepers and peace talks for decades, like in Ireland, and any attack only throws back the progress. I agree that a neighbouring country ideally should not be made a peacekeeper, but why not oust Russia peacefully from this role; it was clear that an all-out attack will harm civilians and Russia will retaliate. --CopperKettle (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Copper Kettle I would ask you to look at a map of Georgia at the time it was included into the Russian empire, circa 1800. This map clearly shows South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including the region up to Sochi as a part of Georgia. You seem like a resourceful fellow, see if you can find it. Not on the internet, try opening a history book in your local library. if you can, try to actually look at it and understand the borders. These are the borders of SOVEREIGN GEORGIA. Russia had a right to protect it's peacekeepers. Russia did not have any foundation to base an invasion of Gerogia on.75.216.50.89 (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but will you all shut up? While the original point about the photo was relevant here, none of this most recent discussion has anything to do with improving the article. None of us care about your opinion of Russia, Georgia, or the war. If you want to argue any of these things, go to a forum or another appropriate place. In the mean time, if you have any suggestions on how to improve the article, based on reliable sources, then please do so. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://feefhs.org/maps/ruse/re-cac.html here's a map for you. Look the nuts and butter is Russia has been stirring the nationalist stuff to keep Georgia off-balance. Russia wanted Georgia back to control the North South energy corridor, why do you think Russia is so freindly with Iran? They wan't to transit Iranian oil and gas, and all pipeline based middle eastern oil and gas into europe. My honest opinion, totally POV, is that the conflict started, as we know because of rebel-georgian escalation as a result of rebels shelling Georgian vilages. We do not know who started the shelling. There are unconfirmed reports that after the Georgians took Tskhinvali, they pushed north to seal the Roki gorge only to find the Russians camped out at the entrance to the Ossetian side. Their artillery positions had also been shelling Georgian villages and positions. This explains why Georgia could not seal the roki gorge, a very simple and logical tacitcal move to stop the russians from bringing their main element south. A fierce fight ensued destroying this russian element which slowed the main russian element moving south but did not stop them because of Russian bombing sorties. This allowed Russia to proceed through the Roki gorge and set up in Java, and the Georgians conducted a tactical retreat with ambushes because Tkhinvali is a tactically indefensible position. After puonding the hell out of Tskhinvali the main Russian element poured in, the Georgians were in a bad position outside the city and tactically retreated again to Gori. By this time Putin had returned and someone ordered an escalation. The deciding factor in Tskhinvali was air superiority and Russia had it.

Nil, go edit something. nice talkig to you Copper75.216.50.89 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Don't forget: we were about to talk about the photo, not about the history of Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia! So far no reason for using that 10 year-old photo has been given. So I am deleting it. Supernova (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why undo without discussion?

I have adding an reference on Russian tanks photo taken in Gori. Why it is undo without discussion? Is it because the source is written byin Chinese? The undo seems to be vandalism--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Something to think about

Ok, forget the raped and probably murdered 25 year old innocent civilian. Your ability to properly format sentences in correct English with proper citations are more than enough to reconcile the serious pain and suffering of innocent peoples trapped in a human tragedy. With such excellent grammatical attention there is no need for any humanity. With any luck this thing will blow wide open and we'll have plenty of bloody atrocities to cite just like Darfur or Rawanda or Bosnia or Cambodia or etc., etc. Just be glad you live in a place that gives you that ability. That freedom.70.192.159.112 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC) please excuse oh great master, I forgot to tilde as instructed after my previous post

You seem to have come to the wrong place... The responsibility of wikipedia is as an encylopaedia in other words, to accurately document what has gone on, based on reliable sources. It is not our responsibility to prevent genocide; I suggest you talk to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, your government, your local newspaper/TV station, or someone else who can do something, if you want to try and prevent genocide Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoils of war

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNBg25n8qYjQyiQ-osgnmBJH6xSQ Russians and South Ossetians going house to house and looting, might be worth mentioning, maybe.70.192.159.112 (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1011311.html Ossetians, Cossacks and Chechens pillaging, might be worth mentioning, maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia6 Now Russians and irregulars burning AND looting villages, I don't know if that actually merits mention, but maybe, maybe75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This has already been mentioned in the article, which you clearly haven't actually bothered to read. LokiiT (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad Big t loki, I only wanted to display that the media we get is isolated to the area in and around South Ossetia. Russia controls most of NW Georgia. So this is not isolated. It concerns me greatly that all the media we get is controlled. again, my bad.75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[22]: August 13 timeline - ethnic cleansing; volatile ceasfire; ongoing military occupation.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do not see this mentioned in the August 13 timeline. It is referenced in the Aid section, but seeing as this is a new development in the conflict and part of the military operaion, involving Russians and irregulars (S. Ossetians, Cossacks and Chechens) as a military tactic not unlike Russian paratroopers carrying out raids on 11 August or the Abkhaz offensive mentioned on 12 August, it should be placed in the timeline. It is well sourced, citing your link and the previous articles.75.216.50.89 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign press (AP, The Guardian) at last get to Tskhinvali and this is what they see

During a visit Tuesday arranged by the Russian government, journalists from The Associated Press and other Western media were escorted into the city aboard armored vehicles.

Reporters witnessed more than a dozen fires in what appeared to be deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods and saw evidence of looting in those areas.

The heaviest damage from the recent fighting appeared to be around Tskhinvali's government center. More than a dozen buildings in the area were little more than scorched shells.

Several residential areas seemed to have little damage, except for shattered windows, perhaps from bomb concussions.

Russian army agitprop tour backfires, as little-to-no evidence of their wild claims:

Army Col. Igor Kononenko showed off a civilian neighborhood, once part of the old Jewish quarter, that sustained extensive damage. He said that was proof the Georgians targeted civilians.

"This street is very small, tanks can't go through here," he said, arguing there was no military reason for the Georgian military to shell the neighborhood.

However, the district stands on a hillside in the line of fire between Georgian rocket position and Tskhinvali's government center, located around the university. Some civilians in the area conceded Georgian fire at the government building might have fallen short.

At the regional hospital, doctors said the patients were moved to the basement during Georgia's bombardment of the city, and had to do without light, water or toilets. The dungeon-like rooms still stank of sewage Tuesday, while sheets and bandages were stained with blood.

Dr. Tina Zhakarova, who said the hospital had treated 224 patients during the fighting, called the Georgian assault on the city an act of ethnic cleansing.

Noting the medical facility had been damaged, she held out a handful of shrapnel to reporters. Doctors can protect people from disease, she said. "How can we protect them against this?"

But from the outside, the hospital appeared to have only light damage, either from bullets or shrapnel. Most of the windows were shattered.

Russian army officers said a Georgian missile pierced the hospital's roof and caused damage not visible on the outside. But they refused to show reporters the destruction, saying it was not safe.

Maybe the best:

Outside town, dozens of houses burned along the main road. A Russian officer said some of the buildings had been burning for days and others were damaged the previous night during an airstrike by a single Georgian plane.

When an AP photographer rode through the same villages Monday morning, none of the houses was burning. The fires only began Monday night, more than 24 hours after the battle for the city was over

Heavy damage in Tskhinvali, mostly at gov't center

I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny. Much (much) more damage (UN: "most destroyed city on earth"[23]), many more casualties, much more bigger city too, so I guess you'll be totally outraged. Right?

One sentence also bolded with no comment. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you are not following your on advice above that "This is not a forum"? While your suggestions on sources to improve the article are of course welcome, your irrelevant/off-topic, unnecessarily inflammatory comments are not, and liable to result in pointless arguments Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#The_wording_at_the_beginning - propagandist couldn't shut up about the demands of the "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city", "the heavy shelling laid the city in ruins," "the merciless wiping out of a city" and what not. But, not only the damage is limited, not only was inflicted by both sides during a regular battle, but also the rebels seem to be destroying "deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods" of the city right now, during "ceasefire". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, let's remember that the whole invasion was justified both internally in Russia and internationally by the Russian claims of "more than 2,000 killed", "settlements wiped-out and city in ruins" and "complete genocide". Now we know it was all lies. I repeatedly proposed this article to be named "War in Georgia", with no effect. Frankly, now I think it should be rather called "Looting of Georgia", becaue thi is what is going on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, there is so much propaganda in our articles at the moment. E.g. in the Timeline article: South Ossetia government representative Irina Gagloeva stated the morning of August 11 that Georgia opened the irrigation canal, supposedly in an effort to flood the basements of Tskhinvali buildings with an intention to prevent civilians from hiding from bombings. (according tu Lenta.ru) ... So shouldn't be the streets in Tskhinvali under water at the moment, when it was true? -- DanteRay (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you know? The water is in the basements, obviously. There are no wounded in Tskhinvali because the Georgians finished off the wounded. There are no bodies because the Georgians ate the bodies. The article is perfectly fine and neutral, representing both POVs, that is the Russian propaganda jut as much as South Ossetian. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of Russian sources does look doubtful now, given reports from Human Rights Watch in South Ossetia and the fact the western media reporting from Tskhinvali were moreover under Russian escort. But let's be calm professionals here as opposed to sarcastic or taunting and discuss problem material on a case-by-case basis.Bdell555 (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't realised, the soapboxing and offtopic comments of other contributors is not an excuse for you to start soapboxing and making offtopic comments. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "offtopic comments", as they meant to change the article to include "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city" in prominently the article, while reality was that merely "patches" of the city (more like a town) were heavily damaged through admittably questionable artillery support tactics during the battle, mostly in the government district. Btw, "near-almost-destroyed city" is an intereresting phrase. As of the hospital, HRW says it actually has been hit in the roof by a Grad rocket - but also said that "there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded" admitted into this (the only) hospital in the town. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed offtopic. While the suggestion of a source was welcome, this comment "I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny." added nothing useful to the discussion, was provocative and was not a real suggestion for adding content to the article. Nor was "btw, the whole story turns out to be just like the fairy tale of "Jeningrad". As I've said several times, you are welcome to propose sources to add to the article, but interspersing this with your own provocative comments is NOT' acceptable Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's see what the other journalists in the group say about a trip with Colonel Kononenko (btw, the whole story turns out to be just like the fairy tale of "Jeningrad"). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

British The Guardian:

Several truck-mounted rocket launchers were a sign of Moscow's intent to hold Tskhinvali at all costs. Approaching Tskhinvali, the group of reporters was transferred to armoured personnel carriers because of the risk of fire from Georgian snipers, said the Russian officers leading the trip.

In villages close to the city there were many burned out houses, and others were still ablaze. In the city itself it was clear that claims the city had been levelled to the ground by artillery were exaggerated. However, it was also evident that while some neighbourhoods were intact, there were patches of terrible destruction.

'I've never heard anything so monstrous as people shelling a hospital' - Tom Parfitt travelled to Tskhinvali, in a trip organised by the Kremlin, to witness first hand the destruction caused by the battle for South Ossetia

Some residential areas were hit during the fighting ("patches" of destruction, including one "whole street of 100 meters" just south of the gvt centre - the same one AP said might be hit by accident because of ground elevation), others not at all ("intact"). In all, Russian claims "clearly exaggerated". Nearby Georgian villages are looted and burning. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AP Google update of the original AP report also contains this:

An AP photographer saw irregular troops near burning homes in ethnic Georgian villages, and there was evidence of looting in those areas.

At an Ezeit electronics store with smashed windows, a few appliances stood outside, but most of the stock seemed to be gone.

Nearby, a man in dark glasses, camouflage and a Kalashnikov assault rifle drove a tractor hauling what looked like a large refrigerator partly visible under a blanket. A car went down the road with two new satellite dishes on top.[24]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down there buddy, none of this is even news. BBC had a report out like 24 hours ago talking about all this and showing pictures. Take your own advice and stop using this as a forum/soap box to get out your frustrations. Go for a jog or something, work on other articles; take a break, you clearly need one. LokiiT (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Russians aren't letting western journalists into the Gori area (never mind South Ossetia) to see what's been going on there: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/georgia.russia4 Bdell555 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, BBC.

As the Russian military moved deeper into Georgian territory on Wednesday, thousands of people continued to flee towards Tbilisi.

It is a mass exodus that Georgia's capital cannot cope with. Many schools and kindergartens across the city are full of displaced people. (...) The testimonies of those who have fled villages around South Ossetia are consistent, but with all roads blocked and the Russian military now in charge of the area, the scale of alleged reprisal killings and lootings is difficult to verify. But despair and fear is, unmistakably, on the rise here. (...) "The government says only 120 people have been killed, but it is not true," she said.

"In Gori, I saw lorries full of bodies being delivered to the hospital every day. So many people have died, why is the government lying?"

Georgians fear revenge attacks

Saying about the claims of the Georgian government downplaying the real number of the killed Georgians - it probably does, as I already wrote elsewhere (in opposition to the Russian claims of "total genocide" and what not). It may be a lie but a different kind of lie, one not sparking what BBC called "revenge attacks".

Also, there was a discussion ealrier here on talk page about that South Ossetian militiamen should be called "army". It's not an army, an army has a clear chain of command (and accountibility), and they're bands of armed looters who go around in civilian cars and tractors - and doing looting. It's a militia(s) or at best paramilitary, unruly irregulars. It's not army and the "South Ossetian military" may be maybe these 3,000 guys with Russian tanks at the first day of war, and not everyone and his brother handed-out some kind of uniform, dark glasses and a rifle and told to avange "genocide". "Volunteer" is not the right word - US Army is volunteer, that is professional (as opposed to, say, the mostly conscript Russian). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

biased caption for demonstration photo

'Demonstration in Tbilisi for a free and undivided Georgia on August 12 2008.' isn't what i'd call unbiased.

What's wrong with this? This is just the title of the demonstration I guess. -- 81.195.26.211 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that two pictures of demonstrations with Georgians in front of the Russian embassy is too much for one article given there are no pictures of lots of demonstrations that took place in the Ukraine and Moscow against Saakashvili. Could you please delete at least one picture? Thank you. Supernova (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Anyone with a photo of demonstrations against Saakashvili should add it to the Russian statements section, ideally with a link to a subarticle if such a subarticle exists.Bdell555 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian has seized American made (Weapons?) & Equipment and their subsequent technology from the Georgians

Russia informed Georgia's Interior Ministry that its troops will remain deployed around the city of Gori, near South Ossetia, for as many as three days, ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said... In Gori, Russian troops are transporting seized Georgian military equipment ( which is supplied by the United States)... [25]24.0.64.87 (talk)

It's no secret that Georgia is considered an "ally" by the United States. That said, this kind of information has the potential to be misleading without additional context. Counter-example: Most of Georgia's tanks, APCs, and aircraft are of Soviet/Russian design and manufacture. Does that mean Russia is actually supporting both Georgia and S. Ossetia? Of course not. But the way you present the above implies that the United States is doing something nefarious or evil. Let's all try to keep stuff in perspective here. croll (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two separate things: "made by" and "supplied by". These weapons were supplied by USA for Georgia, while the USSR weapons are leftovers of the Soviet era. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

True, I agree with the first post as for the second (part), technically accurate however it's obvious that that are looking for anything western and more advanced as history would state the information should acknowledge Russians known history of "acquiring" the West's technologies by what ever means possible, one more report:

Georgia's coast guard said Russian troops burned four Georgian patrol boats in Poti on Wednesday, then returned Thursday to loot and destroy the coast guard's radar and other equipment...The same APTN crew followed Russian troops on the outskirts of Poti as they searched a field and a forest at an old Soviet military base for possible Georgian military equipment.[26]

24.0.64.87 (talk)

Okay, let me rephrase this. Has anyone bothered to read the Bloomberg article the first post actually cites? There is no claim in the article that any of the siezed equipment was supplied by the U.S. It doesn't specify whether it was US-supplied or, as has been said, Soviet "leftovers". Ergo, it does not belong and the source is being misrepresented as saying something that it does not. The source can be used to show that the Russian's are seizing Georgian military equipment, but it is neither accurate nor responsible to claim that the siezed equipment was supplied by the U.S. which, I repeat, infers that the U.S. is doing something nefarious such as smuggling in weapons to the Georgians, which, again, nobody is claiming. croll (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand this as my own POV, I didn't want to change the title, but I did somewhat. In any case it still note worthy because the Russians are still seizing Georgian war supplies and further is significant because of the place in which is occurring outside the "conflict zone".--24.0.64.87 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Report of anti-Georgian pogroms in Russia

A Georgian version of the Inter Press Service reports that Georgians are tortured and killed in the Russian cities. A mob of young neo-Nazis tortured to death 4 Georgians in Moscow and 17 Georgians were reportedly murdered in St.-Petersburg district. Georgians are also terrorized in Vladikavkaz. Thousands of Georgians are fleeing Russia, but they are not allowed to cross into Georgia and face a humanitarian crisis at the Russian border checkpoints.[27] Once this information becomes available in English, I think it should be included in our Wikipedia article. Thanks, --93.177.151.101 (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's travelled in Russia and seen the racism there, I'd be very surprised if there were NOT reports of Georgians being persecuted.Bdell555 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Brian, your remark is irrelevant and pejorative since racism can be found in Europe as well. You know better than anybody else how British youth is prominent for its pervasive violent attacks on African-looking teenagers . Thank you. Supernova (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Racism in Europe is condemned by Europeans themselves while xenophobia and attacks on foreigners are encouraged by authorities in Russia and tolerated by a large segment of Russian society.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A mob of young neo-Nazis tortured to death 4 Georgians in Moscow. Thats not all of russia now is it, neo nazi.--Jakezing (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres a difference between condemming something and not doing it--Jakezing (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear 93.177.151.101, this allegation:

"...attacks on foreigners are encouraged by authorities in Russia"

is a slander. The Russian government has never encouraged racism. Every case of attacks on immigrants has been condemned at a highest level.

Condemned, but not punished. The State Duma members overtly participate in ultra-nationalist demonstrations. GRU's ties with militant chauvinist groups are also well known.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This is the place to discuss ways to improve the articles, not editor's opinions of racism in Western Europe or Russia. And yes, this applies to Bdell, Supernova, Jakezing and 93.177 posts after the first. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

English-language reports plz. (Can't see any, so it's probably just a rumour only.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

August 14 Human Rights Watch Report

I'm concerned about adding all of the material in this report because it may increase the amount of material discussing the humanitarian impact to undue weight. Perhaps just the section below, which appears to mention the worst of the problems, and/or select elements from the rest of the report should be incorporated:

.... Russian officers at the checkpoint told Human Rights Watch that the road closure was due to the massive looting taking place in Georgian villages along the road.

However, moving back from Tskhinvali to Java on the evening of August 13, Human Rights Watch researchers saw, for the second day running, houses that were ablaze in several Georgian villages. They had clearly just been torched. One counterintelligence officer of the South Ossetian forces claimed to Human Rights Watch that: “We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.”

The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man... http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm Bdell555 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That is an informative quote. Many statements by combatant side in this section are probably propaganda/disinformation. We should leave in this section only statements by human rights organizations (like your quote) and by most reputable news outlets, such as New York Times, etc.Biophys (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A doctor at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital who was on duty from the afternoon of August 7 told Human Rights Watch that between August 6 to 12 the hospital treated 273 wounded, both military and civilians. She said her hospital was the only clinic treating the wounded in Tskhinvali. The doctor said there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded and added that all of the wounded were later transferred to the Russian Ministry of Emergencies mobile hospitals in South and North Ossetia. As of August 13, there were no wounded left in the Tskhinvali hospital.

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's best to site sources from both sides. Western related media is biased.

--What Max —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As of the basements

Also, Human Rights Watch saw several buildings that bore traces of heavy ammunition as if fired from tanks at close range. There was some evidence of firing being directed into basements, locations where civilians frequently choose as a place of shelter.

One thing:

At a crossroads in the north of the city there was evidence of a fierce fire fight. Three destroyed Georgian tanks were slewed across the road, a mess of ash and twisted metal. The heavy turret of one tank had been tossed across the street, falling through a shop front. Nearby on the ground lay a human foot. (...) "Those tanks in the street, we hit them with rocket propelled grenades from the basement."[28]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Related to this point about firing while proximate to civilian habitations:

Whenever someone starts telling us about shelling in Tskhinvali, it is important to keep in mind exactly what Tskhinvali is. It is not a city somewhere in the middle of a republic that is being fired upon by saboteurs. On three sides, Tskhinvali is surrounded by Georgian villages. The edge of Tskhinvali is a military outpost. South Ossetian forces fire from there into the Georgian villages, and the Georgians respond with fire of their own. To help keep Georgian fire from hitting civilians in the city, all the South Ossetians would have to do is move their military base forward a couple hundred meters.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1189525.html (other excerpts from this source were cited by Svante Cornell writing on the New York Times website)Bdell555 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

German TV has a short video clip from behind Russian lines. The German speaking reporter alleges ethnic cleansing.Bdell555 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mamuka Kurashvili

Where was Mamuka Kurashvili when war has begun? In news showed as it with a column of peacemakers entered in Ossetia, and in this time wounded. Kachalov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurashvili is wounded. Reports are very scarce.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian armor massed near Zugdidi

Reuters. More than 100 Russian vehicles were massed two km (1.5 miles) from the centre of Zugdidi, a major town in western Georgia, a Reuters witness said.

"I counted 104 Russian army vehicles, including 40 armored vehicles, most of which are tanks," Reuters staff photographer Umit Bektas said by telephone from the city.

Bektas said their purpose was unclear.

He said the convoy included weapons such as rocket propelled grenades and was carrying Russian flags. Ongoing still. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Please note that Captain Obvious is violating Wikipedia Guidelines by deleting messages he doesn't want to see (1, 2) and adding clearly provocative comments to them. At the same time he allows himself to write such things as

I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny.

I think it's a clear violation of those policies he himself tries to force on others. Moreover, he shows that attitude for quite a time now. Wikipedia is not a forum nor is this a place for people to force their POV. Rules are written for everybody. Please do something about him. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The chronologically first instance you invoke was hiding (not deleting) of your comment to Captain Obvious and his response to it. Your comment contained phrases like "Epic lol. Seriously, you're brainwashed to ashes.", "you're just an anti-Russian propagandist" and other personal remarks, like accusations of hypocrisy, provocations and religious fanaticism. The second case is that he deleted the same passages - after you reverted it and demanded he does not hide it. However opinionated and sarcastic Captain Obvious might be, it seems that he refrained from personal remarks on you. We should all remember about WP:NOTFORUM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that my comment was full of personal remarks, but that was after several days of him saying "I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already" et cetera and not listening to anything the other side says to him. I do not understand how his "Wikipedia is not a forum" lectures correlate with his own messages. Also he did make a personal remark calling me "Captain Russia" - I guess the tradition of calling people Captains is in his blood. And then again, if we agree that this is not a forum and if we delete personal remarks why keep his constant attacks at Russia which accompany his every message? It's not like I'm that patriotic and all, but this is just nasty. That's nationalism to me. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed way too many off-topic messages from both sides going on here and as I've stated before, despite his lectures on "not a forum" Captain is not following his own advice. Note that nether side's behaviour is justified by the other side's failure to behave properly Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Motives for war

There has been much discussion of both sides' justification of their actions, but little as to their reasons for them. I think it would give a greater insight into events if some motivation were suggested. For example, one media outlet suggested that Russia is "building a soviet state".

• Unless there's significant discussion of this in reputable sources, it would violate WP:NOR. And speculation is, of itself, suspect. It might be worth looking into this when the dust settles, but with the conflict ongoing there's really no way to say what the true motives are. 23skidoo (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

I think ...which the Human Rights Watch investigators called "suspicious" and "very doubtful" should be deleted. Anyone can find sources which calls any thing and any event suspicious and doubtful. We need only facts. More than 2,000 people were killed! It's not jokes, it's people's lifes. Shame on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taamu (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing might be changed, but your assessment that the numbers given by Russian/South Ossetian officials are facts despite being challenged by HRW and other sources is very POV. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you like the article to include Putin's claims that people were "sawed in pieces"?Bdell555 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch segregation

Help. We need help from other editors to stop a campaign to move, and then reduce or delete the Human Rights Watch reporting in this article. See the diff for an edit summary stating the editor's intent to marginalize the HRW reporting. This is a very serious matter, as once that editor has rearranged this fast-moving page, it will be difficult to evaluate and undo future edits leading to his or her stated goal. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Took to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to express my support for an ANI move, so do so here. I suspect Colfer is coming from the opposite ideological perspective I'm coming from, but his edits have been a necessary check to my own POV.Bdell555 (talk)

Something went haywire in one of my edits. I did not mean to remove any HRW material, sorry! Other editors restored it. As for ideological perspective, I am not working from one. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The HRW report is the only independent estimate of civilian casualties and should stay where it is. Everyone who have seen pictures from Tskhinvali probably understands that the talks about 2,000 casualties is total BS. This is not Hiroshima or even Hamburg or Dresden. Cityvalyu (talk · contribs) should stop his campaign aiming at marginalization of that source. Colchicum (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Colchicum. A lot of propaganda is going on. I think we should remove all highly biased and unreliable at the time of war statements of combatant's media (Russian, Georgian, and Ossetian) with regard to human rights violations, and only use statements by international human rights organizations and most reputable media outlets like New York Times.Biophys (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, please do be mindful of WP:3RR; looks like Cityvalyu and Colfer2 in particular are both at or near their limits for recent reverts on this subject (I know that 3rr is traditionally evaluated per-page, but on an article this active, good luck!). Since I am acting as an administrator in this context, I will take no stance in the dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked for help by starting this section. (Then I made my dumb edit.) Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Colfer2 made seven "Undids" yesterday in this article, as one can see from his edit history. As about his "ideological objectives", they are clear from : his undids. Biophys (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've reverted as much pro-Russian as pro-Georgian material (or "anti-" and "anti-"). You should give me a star for making so many "undid's" in an article that is getting slammed with so much POV material! Most of my edits have held up. My argument for the diff you cite was that the text should be improved and balanced rather than deleted. But I wasn't wedded to my opinion there either. This business about marginalizing HRW is different, and I strongly object to it. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For instance, I did a lot of work to improve this new article: 2008 protests against Russian aggression on Georgia. But enough about me. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't know that a "campaign" to protect this material is necessary, but I agree that as long as it is presented in an accurate fashion it belongs in the article. Whatever their agenda, HRW's reporters have provided details about the conflict that reflect "poor" behavior on the part of all combatants -- to me, that sounds pretty fair and balanced. The HRW material is relevant and I don't think can be seriously argued as bias or unreliable. It should stay. croll (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely HRW info should be present. For example their reports about the 1992-1993 war in Abkhazia were much more impartial than the majority of Western and Russian sources. Alæxis_¿question? 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Vladikavkaz

Has the city Vladikavkaz been also occupied by the Russian army, does anyone know ? Prunk (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be a joke?.. Alæxis_¿question? 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vladikavkaz is PART of Russia.. So they need not occupy it. --141.210.133.237 (talk) 1you prov7:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote (from the link you provided): Vladikavkaz is the capital city of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Russia. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear they decided not to take Atlanta after all. --Illythr (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press

Should not be italicized. It's a wire service, not a newspaper. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be renamed

The war has not only taken place in South Ossetia as the article title currently suggests, but in many other places in Georgia such as Abkhazia, Gori, the Black Sea, Zugdidi and outskirts of Tibilsi, ect. So we need to have another name for this article. Ijanderson (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read this discussion of the matter. This article should not be renamed until the real world agrees what to call it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson, welcome to the mess that is this discussion page. :) As Septentrionalis noted, this has been discussed several times before (although most if not all of those conversations are now in the archives) and there is a concensus that although the article will need to be renamed eventually, we should wait until the non-Wikipedia world (i.e., the real world) decides what that name is going to be. Thanks. croll (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the notion this is until there's a decision what this will be called off Wikipedia so far South Ossetia War is not what they're talking about. The majority of reports have some variation of Russia-Georgia War. Most are either calling it, Russia-Georgia conflict, Georgia-Russia conflict, Russian-Georgian War, so on and so forth. All major media agree it is between Russia and Georgia with the separatist republics being little more than Russian toadies. In fact, Russia-Georgia conflict seems to be overwhelmingly the most used name for what's going on. It's used more than pretty much all the other names combined. I believe it is actually the only term that brings up more than 1,000 results on Google News, going at around 1,500. Since that seems to be the most widely used name for now, I believe this should be the name used here. South Ossetia War comes up in only a few dozen sources for comparison. I think this name should be changed to the one most widely used and later if some other name emerges it can be changed. There's another outstanding issue in that the campaign box lists this as the 2nd South Ossetia War, but it also is the 3rd Abkhazia War, but we can't very well have both links going to the same article. Given the nature of the conflict having articles for the Abkhaz front and Ossetian front, including operations near the separatist regions, seems reasonable while this remains a more general article about the conflict overall.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is arguing this is the most common name. But policy states that when there is no consensus for a move, the page stays at the current location therefore we tend to stick with whatever the first contributor called it. If you'd read the discussion linked above, you'd note there is almost consensus not to move at the current time and from what I can tell, this discussion has been held nearly everyday so there is no point revisiting it unless you're bringing something new to the discussion which you don't appear to be. As for splitting this article, I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it, and would strongly oppose splitting now given that the article is still in a major state of flux. Premature splitting tends to result in a royal mess with excessive duplication of content and effort, and often leads to a bunch of unmaintained articles which may suggest the war is still ongoing 3 years from now. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoewever, when mainstream sources converge on the same variant, we should move the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Defense Secretary: Russia seems to be withdrawing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401611.html?hpid=topnews

From the article: "Russia appears to be withdrawing its forces from positions inside Georgia in initial compliance with a cease-fire agreement"..."Russian forces have practically ceased air operations in Georgia and are cooperating with U.S. military deliveries of humanitarian supplies for Georgia."

If this holds true, then the conflict appears to have ended, and we should edit the infobox accordingly.

Alphabravo11 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. This isn't the first sign that has been hailed as the end of the war, and we are not Wikinews. Robert Gates isn't there, and is an official source; no more reliable than the Russian or Georgian ones, and less knowledgeable. Statesmen have been known to predict things in the hope that they would then come true. (And today's news also includes the Russian commander at Gori saying it would take him 48 hours to be ready to withdraw.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a few days. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One source declaring that Russia "appears" to be withdrawing, does not constitute definitive evidence that this conflict has reached its termination. We shall have to wait, as you have suggested Alphabravo11, before more solid proof has emerged to show that the war has ended. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When all sides officially declare that "war is over", it is indeed over. Not yet.Biophys (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Autocomment

I removed the autocomment facility. It discourages editors who arrive here with an idea from looking to see if we've already discussed it, which means we get a half-dozen discussions on the same topic. I don't see why this is a good thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

War is not "ongoing"

I changed the status in the info box, this war is not "ongoing", its already over, Georgia lost.--SergeiXXX (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look up two sections. It isn't over until it's over, and there is a Georgian army in being. It may be that history will eventually decide it ended Wednesday; there may be guerilla warfare for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as occupation of Georgian territory continue (especially beyond the Abkhasia and S. Ossetia), this conflict is "ongoing". Russian forces were not withdrawn.Biophys (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The conflict is still ongoing until the international community recognizes that it's over. And there's many different perspectives being reported right now; it's impossible to say whether it's over or not right now. 23skidoo (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The conflict is still ongoing until the international community recognizes that it's over. And there's many different perspectives being reported right now; it's impossible to say whether it's over or not right now. 23skidoo (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not "occupation". Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not Georgian territory. Havent been so since 1992.--And the Georgian Army is shattered. And there is no "guerilla warfare" against the Russian Army in either Abkhazia or S. Ossetia. They Russians are seen as liberators by both peoples. Everyone there is on Russia's side. If there is "guerilla warfare", its against Georgia. SergeiXXX (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course the war is ongoing! For example Russians together with different bandit groups such as cossacks were looting in and around Gori today. And they still are in Poti in the west. By the way Estonian military volonteers arrived to Tbilisi today. Narking (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not Estonian military volunteers, but volunteers for humanitarian mission. Statements from Estonian Foreign and Defence ministries. [29], [30]

SergeiXXX, when you said "

Be prepared to recieve back the coffins of your brave "Estonian military volonteers".", you were breaking WP:CIVIL. You may be thinking, "Hold on, Narking was saying that cossacks are looting Gori, why is he not being punished?" Narking was stating what he believes is a fact. It is POV, imo, but he is stating it as a fact. Sergei, your comment was a threat. There is a difference between stating what you believe is a fact, and stating a threat, and WP:CIVIL does not allow threats. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Estonian military volunteers definitely live up to their reputation, arriving 2 days after the war has ended... Óðinn (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page must not be used to state anything regarding the 2008 South Ossetia war itself. This talk page is reserved for comments relating to the article. I would also like to say that a consensus by Wikipedians needs to be obtained before the infobox states the war is over. Due to the conflicting news stories being broadcast by many major media outlets, I cannot see such a consensus emerging atm. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide reliable sources stating that war is still going on? Óðinn (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian has the following article [31]. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the phrase "There is no way to independently verify these accounts"? Óðinn (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Óðinn, please provide some reliable sources that state that the war is over. atm, both sides have agreed a ceasefire, which is not the same as agreeing that the war is over. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bild (German newspaper) Quote: „Gegen 13 Uhr hörten wir, dass die Dörfer um Gori wieder unter Artilleriefeuer standen." (Translation: Aroung 1. PM we heard that the villages around Gori were attacked by artillery.). And they have two journalists in Gori. -- DanteRay (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When all sides officially declare that "war is over", it is indeed over. Not yet.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it's just a ceasefire when I remember it correctly. -- DanteRay (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Btw: You also might have a look on this video from today. They describe that the war should be over but in fact isn't. They still hear shootings and grenade-explosions, fire in the villages around Gori, more and more Russian troops on Georgian soil ... -- DanteRay (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Allright, the German sources are somewhat more convincing... Óðinn (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bild is not much better in any way than The Sun and is not a reliable source for anything, especially not for such controversial topics like wars. There is absolutely noone who thinks it can be used as a source in the German Wikipedia. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right that Bild has a lot of crap in their newspaper, but at the end of the day, they have guys down there in Gori, and you just have to look at the video. It's okay to have doubts about the texts they write, but they don't fake videos. -- DanteRay (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also other newspapers report about shootings and explosions: Zeit, AP reporting about explosions etc ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteRay (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of OSCE

There is no mention of OSCE in the article. While we're at it, there's only little and outdated in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war also. --Vuo (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for removal and maybe more info about information warfare?

[[Image:Geogiacasualities.jpg|thumb|right|A Georgian man cries as he holds the body of his relative after a bombardment in Gori, 80 km (50 miles) from Tbilisi <ref>http://www.javno.com/en/foto.php?id=19&rbr=7941&idrf=381645</ref>]] This photo is faked. Here are the rest of the fake photos:

http://img12.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/1/2/f/8/9/12f89bef0459a49e1d9549a40e6514c4_full.jpg

The man pictured is wearing very clean clothes, and the "corpse" has no apparent damage (maybe the wound is on the back?)

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/7/6/7/1/a/7671af3567d5056d5e7ac87f0c362367_full.jpg

Same "corpse" turned over. No wound on the back, eh?

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/9/c/e/0/7/9ce078f42e63002a83c19031665beb61_full.jpg

The guy from the first picture is dressed up and ready for a new show

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/7/6/7/1/a/7671af3567d5056d5e7ac87f0c362367_full.jpg

Check out how the corpse is hanging onto the woman's shoulder! Do all corpses do that?

--Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Until a reliable source tells: "this photo is fake", nothing should be removed, because your analysis represents WP:OR.Biophys (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Logic isn't a reliable source? If you can tell it's fake, it does not belong in Wikipedia--Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's still OR. First, the one where the so-called corpse is holding onto the woman - I don't see anything saying the person being carried is dead. As for the other photos, your interpretation of them is 100% POV and OR unless you can provide a reputable source saying the photos are fake. I'm sorry, I have to side with Biophys on this. 23skidoo (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) It isn't. Have you tried reading WP:OR? Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your logic isn't a reliable source. Read WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V. The picture is not faked. It was taken by Gleb Garanich, a reputable Reuters photographer. It is his reputation vs. "reputation" of anonymous bloggers participating in informational warfare, such as you. Go away, please. This is a copyvio, however, but it is another issue. Colchicum (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the image is liable to be deleted within 7 days since I doubt it can be used under NFCC so the issue is somewhat moot IMHO. Do we even have a good source for that image? It claims to be from Reuters but so far the only sites hosting it are hardly reliable. If we can't find a good source which clearly links it to Reuters, it probably should be speedied. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is a blatant copyvio of [32]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair call. However the fact the image is from Reuters pretty much defeats the original argument (unless one wants to put forward the conspiracy theory that all news photos are faked). 23skidoo (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at least know we know it really is from Reuters. But as I hinted at above, it's unlikely this can be used under NFCC being a commercial media image that is not iconic Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's faked at all and I really wish we could keep it here. If someone wants to try and make a case for fair use, that's probably the best bet. Otherwise, it's gonna be gone pretty soon as I've tagged it as a copyvio. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures 1 and 3 do appear to be the same person in different clothing, interesting. It was probably made by the Georgian government. Removing a picture isn't original research. There are plenty of pictures we have to choose from based on logic and reason. Where is the reliable source that says we must use these pictures in the article? A choice to use any picture could be "original research" based on what you're saying.LokiiT (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NYT Photo: Gleb Garanich/Reuters -- DanteRay (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I undid my own edit for now. But I still think it's obvious Georgian (Western?) propaganda. Haven't you been reading the news lately? All newspapers in New York, such as Daily News, NY Post and NY Times are spilling georgian propaganda all over, with authors' last names ending in "shvili". --Mrcatzilla 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to sign your post again as your username didn't go through. And again, you're espousing a POV that we can't use in Wikipedia. The fact the media happen to be using Georgian reporters should come as no surprise, considering it's not one of those countries that would have a strong western media presence. I don't even know if it rated a field office for the AP. And do you think there would be any different accusations made if the reporters were Russian??? Or American? Why don't we just ignore this event completely then? There's no way to cover it without knee-jerk reactions of propaganda coming from somebody. 23skidoo (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, would it be good to add to the information warfare section a few sentences about fake images distributed to media? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no independent third-party source saying they're faked. The images in question could have been taken and doctored to make them appear fake, and then planted in order to discredit the original. WP:OR. Let's wait until there's some reliable evidence, no based on OR, that there are faked images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Declared war

Something that might be worth noting is the fact Georgia actually declared war in this case. This needs to be verified with a source, but I believe this might be the first major conflict in years in which an actual declaration by one of the parties has been made. Technically (so I understand but I may be wrong) the US never actually declared war when it went into Iraq, or even when the 1991 Gulf War broke out. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 2000 were never a declared war. Etc. Again, I may be wrong, but this would make this conflict additionally notable if it is in fact the first outright declared war in recent years. (I'm not counting the War on Terror). 23skidoo (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Declared a state of war. How this differs from the declaration made in the Gulf War should have a source from an international lawyer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean that "state of war" in which it gave their leader more power, that wasn't a decleration, that was just a way of saying "martial law". Also, the Us hasn't declared war since 1941--Jakezing (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a customary property of declarations of war, at least for those countries whose leaders have limited powers to begin with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html. Магистер (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=461&info_id=7227 : 14:30 The Parliament approved ordinance of the Declaration on the State of War and full mobilization'. Магистер (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath-ABM shield placed in Poland-invasion of Georgia influenced Polish decision to agree.

Consequences of Russian invasion of Georgia: ABM shield will be placed in Poland.ABM shield treaty will contain statement about American military help in case of invasion by "third party" In previous days Polish officials said Georgian invasion influenced their and American stance on the issue. [33] [34]

--Molobo (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox: "ethnically Georgian loyalist territories"??

The "territorial changes" item in the infobox currently says: Georgia loses control over the ethnically Georgian loyalist territories in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia as the conflict continues. I'm confused as to how the phrase "ethnically Georgian loyalist territories" could properly describe Abkhazia or South Ossetia. I would think it'd be more appropriate to say something like Georgia loses control over the ethnically non-Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Or is the infobox text trying to say something else that I'm not grasping here (such as referring specifically to ethnic Georgian enclaves within the two breakaway regions)? Richwales (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously what you're seeing are the "successes" of the No Child Left Behind act. Mission Accomplished! I was wondering what the heck "ethnically Georgian" is supposed to represent save for blatant POV for days now. Unfortunately, as the article is locked I haven't been able to correct it. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love my country, stupidly telling us that going under a table will rpotect us from a nuke and that they think teachijng us with out of date textbooks will help us, books made in 2008 using maps made in 2000.--Jakezing (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That phrase is about as clear as mud, but I think what it's trying to say is that within the breakaway regions of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia are villages and enclaves that maintained Georgian loyalties and ethnic identities. With the Russian "invasion" or "peacekeeping" or whatever, Georgia has lost contact with (and control of?) those places. croll (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I am not entirely sure that Georgia has lost control over all of them though. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• May I propose changing that portion of the infobox to simply: "Unresolved." As discussed ad nauseum in another topic here, the war is ongoing and trying to figure out where the territorial "boundaries" are going to be redrawn is nothing more than speculation until the Russians stop moving around. croll (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with croll's interpretation and suggestion. I disagree with the notion that 71... and Jakezing's comment have any relevance to the issue. Can we keep these discussions on topic, without the "I think America is stupid" editorializing? --Elliskev 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I just expanded the intro because it was way too small for an article this big and important. My goal was to present the facts as they are. I don't want any "genocide" accusations, none of that "they did this first" or "the sky is falling" statements, just verifiable facts of the conflict and the officially stated reasons that explain it. Here's what I wrote, all of it is basically from the same BBC article, which I think is a somewhat neutral source compared to most:

The 2008 South Ossetia war is a war that began on August 7, 2008, and involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The war began after a ceasefire agreement when Georgian forces launched a surprise military attack against the breakaway province of South Osseta, sending a large force and reaching the capital Tskhinvali. The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia said the operation was intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region, while the government said the troops were "neutralising separatist fighters attacking civilians". Russia responded the next day by pouring troops and armor into South Ossetia, in which the majority of citizens hold Russian passports, driving the Georgian troops out of Tskhinvali and taking complete control of the region and its outskirts. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated that their goal was "to force the Georgian side to peace", and that he "must protect lives and the dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are".

Any suggestions, POV problems, additions or improvements? Please add them here first and discuss it so we don't get into anymore revert wars. LokiiT (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that it's a quote, I think the phrase "neutralising separatist fighters attacking civilians" is a bit vague. My understanding of the Georgian position is that separatists from within S. Ossetia had been shelling Georgia with artillery of some sort, and this sparking the Georgian military response. In light of that, I'm unclear as to how much of a "surprise" attack this was, so I have a little question about that phrase (i.e., "launched a surprise military attack") but otherwise I think it's pretty fair and well-balanced. Nice work. croll (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the long run, do we want the war aims as most of the intro? Even War of 1812, where they are notoriously complicated, only has half a sentence. But if we are going to have them, this wording is probably reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Leads should summarize the article. This looks rather too much like the deprecated habit of beginning the story in the lead; which may explain Zache's comment below. (But to do that, we have to have all the article, which is not going to happen till the war ends.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should be that war beginned on August 1, with skirmishes between S-O and Georgia forces... or something like that. Point is that it started before Tskhinvali attack. --Zache (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In five days of fighting the Russian forces recaptured the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory. ... this was yesterday in summary section (which were renamed to timeline). Anyway i think this sums pretty nicely what happened in the battleground after Tskhinvali fights --Zache (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the intro will be quite different after this whole thing ends when we can sum the entire event up in a few paragraphs without using shifty "facts" and hearsay. Right now, current events are changing so fast and info is flooding in so quickly that it would take too much space to fit everything into the intro (imo). It would look like, well, the big section below where all that stuff is written in detail. Though perhaps what happened preceding the initial cease fire deserves mention. LokiiT (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"The war began after a ceasefire agreement when Georgian forces" - it will be Russian propaganda. Магистер (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit that removed the specific date, I don't think anyone would dispute that the actual war began when Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia. That's what every source I've read says, western and Russian media. LokiiT (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Magister, that's what the BBC timeline says, though I agree with the latest edit that changed it to say "broke down". LokiiT (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel a little silly as this is getting into semantics, but with the date issue: I'd probably agree with you that the "war" began on August 7, but I'd also probably agree that this "conflict" began on August 1. In that sense, it kind of relates to what we wind up calling this article. If we decide the article should stay focused on the "war", the events between 1 August and the 6 Aug would be relatively unimportant to the article, and should be put into a "background" subsection of the article. If we decide the article is about a "conflict", then the events leading up to the war are more important and the date should reflect them. Is it that important in the grand scheme of the article? *shrug* Again, thanks for trying to do a better intro. croll (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

LokiiT, Russian troops, who were and are most certainly a party to the conflict as opposed to "neutral" peacekeepers, were stationed in Tskhinvali and from their base in that city provoked the Georgian side over a long period. Anyone who lives in Gori, a place I've visited, can tell you that few days went by when there wasn't any shelling in the area. Russian provocations were continual. Why no mention of the Russian cyberattacks in July and the violations of Georgian airspace by Russian military aircraft? Why no account of how Russia was destablizing Georgia through the criminal leadership of South Ossetia such that serious economic and political development, the second phase of the Rose Revolution if you will, was impossible without dealing with a problem on its sovereign territory and imposing the rule of law? It's as if it is warmongering to buy heavy weapons for your SWAT teams when the criminals themselves have heavy weapons. You're pushing the Russian line that an aggressive, expansionist Georgia launched an attack from out of the blue sky of peace and harmony in violation of international law. The international consensus is that it is the Russians who are in violation of international law. If you are not going to call it what it is, a Russian invasion, then don't imply that the Georgians started it on August 7, either.Bdell555 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell555, while I have a feeling you and I might agree on what's going on behind the scenes, a lot of that is beyond the scope of this article and/or can't yet be substantiated by reliable sources. It's frustrating as heck, so all we can work with is what has been objectively established as true and then try to present in a balanced way the perspectives of both sides. While I might not agree with some of his arguments on this talk page, I do think LokiiT is acting in good faith with respect to his edits on the introduction. Let's try to keep these conversations constructive, otherwise they'll just spiral into more of the useless bickering that's running rampant. For instance, I think you're noticing some of the concerns I had about phrasing (e.g., the "surprise" attack), but we should come up with alternate ways to phrase that rather than assuming bad faith. croll (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me be specific about phrasing then. What is the reference to the passport status of South Ossetians doing if not to have Wikipedia justify the Russian invasion? Sweden's foreign minister, Carl Bildt, who is also chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, has rejected that Operation Himmler for what it is: No state has the right to intervene militarily in the territory of another state simply because there are individuals there with a passport issued by that state or who are nationals of that state... we have reason to remember how Hitler used this very doctrine little more than half a century ago to undermine and attack substantial parts of central EuropeBdell555 (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also disagree with you that the essence of the background I've described couldn't be reliably sourced. A variety of quotes from regional security and strategic analysts could be provided, for example.Bdell555 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"What is the reference to the passport status of South Ossetians doing if not to have Wikipedia justify the Russian invasion?" That was the stated justification by Russia. That's what I meant when I said "just verifiable facts of the conflict and the officially stated reasons that explain it."

What you're saying may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. That's a POV that can't possibly be proven right now. Russians have their version, Georgians have theirs, Americans have theirs. They all think "they're right", just like you do, but we can't favor any one of their versions. Only state completely verifiable facts. LokiiT (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see "Russia claimed that its actions were justified by..." preceding any mention of passports in that text you provided.Bdell555 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Read right below that, where Medvedev states he is obliged to protect Russian citizens. That wouldn't make much sense if South Ossetians didn't hold Russian passports. LokiiT (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting the argument as if the reader should accept it as obviously legimate, as opposed to an argument the Russians "claim" (or some such phrasing) is legitimate. You call for verifiable facts. Well, it's a verifiable fact that every government in the world does not recognize South Ossetia. The territory is sovereign Georgian territory. Yet your intro goes to considerable lengths to avoid acknowledgement of that fact. e.g. Georgia didn't launch a "surprise" attack against ITS breakaway province but rather THE breakaway province.Bdell555 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's biased because it uses the word "the" instead of "its"? Well that can easily be fixed, but I'll again point to the fact that all of this information is from BBC. The BBC called it "the" breakaway republic. And look at the beginning where it says "the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia", this seems to be making it very clear that Georgia legally owns both pieces of land. LokiiT (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell, what are you proposing in terms of alternate phrasing? No offense, but "it's" versus "the"? That's really getting into symantics, IMO. And I really don't think LokiiT is trying to present Russia's argument as legitimate. He tried to present both side's arguments/justifications without an injection of POV. How about this:

The 2008 South Ossetia War is a war that began on August 7 2008, and involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The war began after a ceasefire agreement between Georgia and the breakaway province of South Ossetia broke down, and Georgia Georgian forces launched a surprise military attack against South Ossetia, sending sent a large military force into South Ossetia which reached and reaching the capital Tskhinvali. The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia said the operation was intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region, while the government said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian seperatists. were "neutralising separatist fighters attacking civilians". Russia responded the next day by pouring troops and armor across the Georgian border and into South Ossetia, in which the majority of citizens hold Russian passports, driving the Georgian troops out of Tskhinvali and taking complete control of the region and its outskirts. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated that their goal was "to force the Georgian side to peace", and that he "must protect lives and the dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are," by which he was referring to the more than 30,000 civilians in South Ossetia who held Russian passports.

This is a significantly more neutral draft, in my view. Change "the unrecognised republics" to "Georgia's breakaway provinces" and I'd be satisfied. Of course, "the breakaway province of" in the next sentence could then be scratched as redundant. I might add that I think mention of a "ceasefire agreement" is to mention one antecedent of many possible antecedents that could be mentioned. But I don't object to it in your draft since it is neutrally phrased.Bdell555 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that is this sentence: "said the troops had been sent to end the shelling of Georgian civilians by South Ossetian seperatists" - This isn't said in the BBC article so you would need to find a reliably sourced quote from the Georgian government confirming that. LokiiT (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Very fair point. What about this, from the Chicago Tribune, about 2/3rds of the way down the article: "Thursday evening, Saakishvili called for a cease-fire and urged separatist leaders to resume talks on a peaceful settlement. But when separatists began shelling Georgian villages after Saakashvili's cease-fire call, Georgian leaders decided to move ahead with the assault. "Separatists opened fire in response to yesterday's peaceful initiative of the president of Georgia," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze in a televised address. "As a result, lives of civilians were under threat." [35] (Again, just to be clear, I'm presenting that to establish Georgia's provided justification for moving troops into South Ossetia, not as proof that the statement itself is true.) croll (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

LokiiT, I went ahead and updated the Intro just because it was getting progressively farther from what it was we were discussing here. I'm sure there are probably better, more international sources than the Chicago Tribune, and I'm totally open to changing the source or whatever. Just thought I'd be bold and revise the introduct based on our conversation here. Hopefully it meets to most peoples' satisfaction. croll (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The current version seems pretty balanced. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Handover

Russian troops tried to hand Gori back to Georgian authorities,

Such a claim requires a source, so we can see who says so. I looked at the two sources in today's timeline, and I don't see where this comes from. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

tried? LOL Colchicum (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reports of a collapse in negotiations on a handover of the town triggered a confrontation between Georgian and Russian troops at a checkpoint on the main road, a little over a mile from the center of Gori. No shots were fired, but Russian tanks quickly roared up in a display of might that forced the Georgians to pull back. [36] -- DanteRay (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not clear why the joint patrols failed, but it appeared that there was discord among personnel. Around 10 a.m. Thursday, a Russian Army major general ordered Georgian and Russian officers to patrol in pairs, but this did not last. “We had to go or there would have been shooting,” said a Georgian officer, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. More than 30 Georgian police officers left Gori and returned to a Georgian post outside the city; shortly afterward Russian troops fired five artillery rounds. Their target was not clear. [37] -- DanteRay (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline Aug. 9 - Abkazai Offensive

This sentence below is in the timeline and seems so vague to me. Why did they begin an offensive? The reference mentions nothing about it beginning in the Kodori Valley nor does it mention that the 3,000 ethnic Georgian civilians were a part of the retreat? Am I missing something obvious?

"Also on August 9, an offensive was begun by the military of the Republic of Abkhazia in the Kodori Valley, the only region of Abkhazia that was, before the war began, still in effective control of Georgian loyalists. By August 13, all of the remaining Georgian forces, including 3,000 ethnic Georgian civilians, in the Kodori Valley had retreated to Georgia proper. [47]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedinacorona (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

US Connections

I am requesting that someone edit the article to include a "US Connections" (or appropriately similar) section to talk about things like how it is being related to the Cold War (Georgia and the Baltic States who have recently openly supported Georgia are former Soviet republics - http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/world/2008/08/13/todd.russian.threat.cnn ) the recent Poland-US defense deal (which has upset Russia - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7561926.stm).

A good video with some good info: http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/bestoftv/2008/08/08/pilgrim.david.satter.interview.cnn

Danielgleckler (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I think you may have added a request for semi-protection on accident. I'm not an admin, but generally talk pages are not protected, and the main article page is already semi-protected. As for your suggested edits, it's definitely interesting stuff but it relates more towards long-term political issues and foreign relations, necessarily involving a certain degree of speculation. The first isn't very relevant to the article, and the second is generally against Wikipedia policy. (That aside, welcome to wikipedia. I certainly found the links interesting.) croll (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the welcome, and for pointing out my semi-protection request accident (still learning how to use everything). How exactly is the second "generally against Wikipedia policy"? So I know for future reference. dg (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)