Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:17, 15 August 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War at the Reference desk.

Template:Moveoptions

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abkhazia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbkhaziaWikipedia:WikiProject AbkhaziaTemplate:WikiProject AbkhaziaAbkhazia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Ossetia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (country) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

A news item involving Russo-Georgian War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 August 2008.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

Aftermath-all the below are proposals that will be sourced, add special meeting with NATO and Ukraine this week arranged by Polish FM

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", Lavrov "denied that Russian troops were anywhere near " 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/search/?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)

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)

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 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. A South Ossetian reservist reported there were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.

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. 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."

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 "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 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.

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".

"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. 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.

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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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, , 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 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)

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"), 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/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.

--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)

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)... 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.

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)

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 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."

--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)

Edit war

Please note that Captain Obvious is violating Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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-Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ,

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)

::I didnt threaten anyone. just pointed out the truth. A few Estonian punks dont stand a chance against hardened former Soviet VDV Afghan vets.--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:48, 15 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages. --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)

::::::::::::And YES, the war is still on, technically, as the Russian Army is still there, and is still engaged in a stand off with the gogies. So, yeah, the Westerners are right on this one. Unfortunately.--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:48, 15 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?

] 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 Misplaced Pages--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 . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

--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)

Not exactly, Carl. There WERE ethnic Georgian enclaves in Ossetia and Abkhazia, but now, most of those people either died or fled to Georgia. War is a terrible thing...--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:52, 15 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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." (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)

It looks good for now. It still might be able to use some background info from August 1-7, but it looks pretty neutral right now. LokiiT (talk) 01:22, 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. -- 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. -- DanteRay (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks; a fairly reasonable deduction, but it is a deduction. What the AP actually attests is reports of a planned handover, and then reports of a fall-through.

This is a problem with any mention of what the belligerents planned or tried to do, but did not actually perform. Such things should wait for the histories to be written, by men with access to the actual papers on each side. When I restore the now missing footnote, I will leave it out; we can give the Russians credit for leaving Gori when they do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 15 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. " —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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy"? So I know for future reference. dg (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it seemed like a lot of the videos were addressing potential future implications. (E.g., What does this mean with the Ukraine? Is this a shift in Russian policies towards former Soviet states? What about Latvians and Estonians and so on?) Trying to predict things like that is speculation or, as is called here, trying to be a crystal ball. For more information, check out What Misplaced Pages Is Not. Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert on Misplaced Pages policy, just trying to offer some information that I've picked up over time. Others might disagree with me. :) Cheers. croll (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Great big gap.

I can't fix it cause of the protection, but there's a massive gap where the background is supposed to be. I assume this was an edit gone wrong or something.Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's a format error that creeps up from inserting infoboxes and pictures. I'm not well-versed enough in Misplaced Pages's formatting functions to fix it, though. :( croll (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I use Firefox browser and the problem doesn't show up, but when I switched to IE I see the HUGE gap. I too don't know enough about Wiki formatting to fix it, but hopefully someone does cause it makes the article appear even more grossly larger than it already is.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All good now. Thanyou annonamous editor for fixing it :) Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Statements section -- should it be removed?

This seems like a variation of a trivia section. A long list of interesting facts but not properly incorporated into the article. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but the article is getting long and stuff like this really "should" be in the article itself (if it's relevant enough to be so included). croll (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AGREE I'm not altogether sure exactly what this section adds to the article and agree that if the statements were a precursor or in reply to an action by any of the players in this, it would be incorporated within whatever action took place. This article is already very long without this section.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was more usefull when we were all scrambling for information and we were putting up statements as they were reported. You're right though it's pretty redundant now and if we put up every single statement we'd need a separate page :). Remove it for sure. Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates to infobox

The war is not ongoing, it ended when the ceasefire was signed. This is clearly a Russian victory and there are plenty of sources that describe it as such. Georgians lose the Kodori Gorge previously held by Georgia and the Abkhaz also took a peace of Georgia proper as well. There are many sources that describe Georgia's loses in Abkhazia. What I'm not yet clear about is whether Russia will give back parts of South Ossetia that Georgia had control over prior to the war so I've left it out of territorial changes. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the ceasefire will hold for any longer time. The war may not be over just yet, so lets not be too hasty to change information prematurely. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How long does the ceasefire have to hold before we can write it in the article? I think it's safe to put it in the article because clearly Georgia does not have any real command and control or infrastructure capabilities to continue the war against Russia and Russia doesn't seem interested in moving against Tbilisi. If by some fluke that changes, we can update the article. If there are assymmetric combat against Russia a la post war Iraq, we can write another article about it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres a difference between cease-fire and lull in fighting.--Jakezing (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Point being? Both sides Georgia, Russia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia have signed the ceasefire. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your changes are entirely POV, unsourced and very much out of line. You make your initial statement and without concensus, go right on and edit the article with your POV? Even the Korean War, 55 years after a cease-fire has not been declared over--Jmedinacorona (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait till the Russian troops pull out at the very least. There's no rush to have this all done right now. It still wont make a GA for some time.

Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict is definitely ongoing--anything else is premature. Publicus 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Poti

The NYTimes e-story has changed; as best I recall they were more definite about it at 17:30 UTC than they were when they went to press, probably about 02:00, but they don't mention Poti now. I have summarized the print edition, and will return to this tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yamadayev, wanted in Russia "for seriour crimes", is a Russian commmander in Georgia

Russia's mini Oskar Dirlewanger.

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=1622 --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As I read, he was dismissed from commandment, but morally he is the leader of Vostok soldiers and they listen his commands. I.e. he is a commander de facto, not de jure. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "Russia points to media bias in coverage of S.Ossetia conflict". Retrieved 2008-08-11.
2. "CNN use footage of Tskhinvali ruins to cover Georgian report". Retrieved 2008-08-12.
3. "The real wake-up call of South Ossetia". Retrieved 2008-08-13.
4. "The Real Aggressor". Antiwar.com. Retrieved 2008-08-13.
5. "Russia exaggerating South Ossetian death toll, says human rights group". Guardian.

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Abkhazia articles
• Top-importance Abkhazia articles
• WikiProject Abkhazia articles
• B-Class Georgia (country) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (country) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Top-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics