Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 16 September 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.

NEW ARTICLE TITLE? Following multiple discussions, comments are invited at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Article_title.

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.

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.

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

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

Don't

• 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. Click here to start a new topic.

Lie about 'independent sources'

New Title consensus

As I said in a previous discussion, which got archived only days after being started the discussion over this article's title has clearly reached a consensus on the title. Of those supporting the current title only two had any significant editing history outside this particular subject. Most of those supporting Russian-Georgian War were long-time editors. At the same time of the seven opposing that two were from editors who hardly any, if any, editing history outside of these talk pages and another two expressed support Russian-Georgian conflict so their disagreement is with whether to call it a war or conflict rather than whether it was a Russian-Georgian situation. So rightly we can say there are 10 supporting Russian-Georgian with two suggesting it be called a conflict and eight suggesting it be called a war against three opposing it. What's clear is the established editors have reached a consensus that the current title is not appropriate and it should be changed to something on the order of Russian-Georgian war. I think the lack of action in this regard is appalling and growing increasingly annoying.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Feel free to change it. For those who opposed to the new title, there's always the possibility to change it again later. But for now, "south ossetia war" is very outdated and Russian-Georgian War is the best way to go. Alternative titles for the war can also be mentioned in the lead. Grey Fox (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's rename is as Russian-Georgian war per arguments provided in discussion. There are more than 200 thousand' Google hits for combination "Russian-Georgian war" (see here), and only 12 thousand for "2008 South Ossetia war". Even many Russian commentators consider this to be Russian-Georgian war. For example, Yulia Latynina tells this (an approximate translation): "I want to emphasize: this is Russian-Georgian war. The strike was conducted from two fronts: the Abkhazian and the South Ossetian fronts; approximately 25,000 Russian Army serviceman have been involved and several hundred tanks; rocket strikes have been conducted, and Russian strategic aviation completed sorties..." see here. Right now we have a disambig. page Russian-Georgian war. It should be renamed as Russian-Georgian wars (plural).Biophys (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved disambig. page, but we can not simply move this page because of the Russian-Georgian war, which is now a redirect. Instead all content of this page can be moved there using copy and paste. Can anyone do that? Biophys (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done per your recommendation and previous discussion of the article title. Now please modify content of the "Russian-Georgian war" accordingly. Some work should be also done with categories.Biophys (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest 2008 War in Georgia as the new title. This follows the pattern of other military articles such as 2006 Lebanon War and War in Somalia (2006–present). Russian-Georgian war is not a good title as it doesn't reflect the involvement of Abkhazia and South Ossetia which are now partially recognized states. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So, right now we have two copies. I did not delete anything from here for a reason. Perhaps we need two articles on this subject: one would be about Georgian-Ossetian conflict (e.g. this article; this is about an Ossetian insurgency within Georgia and suppression of this insurgency by Georgia), and another is about Russian-Georgian war which was a war between two internationally recognized countries.Biophys (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with separating them, I have no problem with two "Battle of Tskhinvali" articles, one for the Georgian offensive and the other for the Russian offensive. There should only be one broader article about the whole war itself. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what others tells. All content is currently here, so there is no any problems.Biophys (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the assesment that there is consensus against the title "2008 South Ossetia war". I also accept the decision of "Russian-Georgian war" as new title. However we might need admin help to move this article, the article should not be separated from it's editing history. The move should be done with the move tab so only an admin can do it now. Hobartimus (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Separating the two articles would be a split, slightly different process from a move. Hobartimus (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right, although we can keep edit history here... What I did only makes sense in a case of split. Maybe one should ask an admin.Biophys (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the Russian-Georgian war article because it was a copy-and-paste version of this article, which is inappropriate. If there is a consensus for a new title then this article should be moved to the new title. Let me or any admin know if help is needed. The two articles should not co-exist if they cover the same topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually both the Ugandan-Tanzanian War and Iran-Iraq War had other combatants but the conflicts are named for the countries involved and at least the latter is the commonly accepted usage. That's because while the countries involved had other parties, sometimes within the opposing country, it was generally recognized that those other combatants were being backed by the other country. In this case Abkhazia and South Ossetia's separatist governments were backed by Russia. If these were groups separate from both it would be different.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the Russian-Georgian war per arguments presented above. It is the most descriptive title for this article. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly popular throughout the net.

"Russia-Georgia+war"+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Russia-Georgia war" - 1,500,000

"Russian-Georgian+war"+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Russian-Georgian war" - 152,000

"Georgia-Russia+war"+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Georgia-Russia war" - 367,000--Kober 05:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have already answered you there, consensus has nothing to do with votes or who has which editing history. You have ignored that. You're just trying to push you POV here. Go read the rules of Misplaced Pages and try to understand what consensus is. -- 81.195.12.14 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear ip, tone down, please. We are trying to reach a consensus here per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. --Kober 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree with "Russian-Georgian war": as already stated, after the commencement of the inchote recognition of the two new states contesting that the number of combatants is four is POV and this title infers the non-recognition of South Ossetia and Akhazia, which is again POV. Bogorm (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the renaming to Russian-Georgian war. But maybe adding the year would be needed: Russian-Georgian war (2008) like in the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages. I fear there will be more wars to come. Närking (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Also, there was a war between the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic and the Democratic Republic of Georgia back in 1921. Once the article is renamed, the new title should be disambiguated.--Kober 08:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I urge you not to rename the article, because this would be a flagrant, reckless one-sidedness and POV ignoring the participation of two more countries! User:Narking extolled the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages, and I on my part would recommend the appearance in the Norwegian and in the Danish Misplaced Pages. Renaming it to Russian-Georgian war sounds as inane as renaming the Livonian war Russo-Polish war - complete one-sidedness. Bogorm (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant comparison. The Livonian war involved many European nations while the current conflict is a war between two sovereign UN member states - Georgia and Russia which supports two breakaway entities within Georgia. Note that Abkhazia and SO were unrecognized even by Russia at the moment of the August 2008 hostilities. That the two (ethnic, political, whatever) factions within Georgia fought on the side of Russia, does not change the essence of the conflict. It was/is the war between Georgia and Russia.--Kober 08:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to rename the article to "Russian-Georgian war", otherwise this would be a flagrant, reckless one-sidedness and POV ignoring the participation of only two sovereign countries! ;) Elysander (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• the new title shuld be Ossetian-Georgian war 2008. Becaus Russian is not a conflict site. Russian is only a peacekeepers on the board between two sites. The name Russian-Georgian war used only georgian propaganda.--Jaro.p (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Haha.--Kober 08:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hope Jaro.p is joking. If there hasn't been a war between Russia and Georgia how come they have signed a ceasefire agreement? Närking (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Jaro.p - any mention of "Russian" in the title is a pro-NATO and pro-Tiflis bias! (no joking on my part!) Bogorm (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This war has begun with an attack of the Georgian army on the Russian. So, this is Georgian-Russian war. Магистер (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any Georgian troops in Russia, but lots of Russian troops in Georgia. Närking (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! That's what can be called Misplaced Pages burlesque! Elysander (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a U.S.-Russian or NATO-Russian war. Why? If we think that Ossetian forces were a part of Russian military forces, and the Ossetian side was backed/supported by Russia, by exactly the same way we can think that Georgian side was backed/supported by U.S. and some other countries. Georgian army was armed and trained by America, there were American militaries in some Georgian military objects during the war, U.S. performs military logistics for Georgia during the war. (Pubkjre (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

The cogitation of Pubkjre seems sensible, I would like just to add "US and Israeli" (here clearly stated). Again, the mention of "Russian" in the title either has as a ramification the mention of "US" after the hyphen, or would be deprived of any impartiality. Bogorm (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that. If we include "Russia" in the title, we should include US as well. Since should we use official terms here, Russians troops weren't at war but at peacekeeping mission (nothing incompatible with the ceasefire treaty here). Should we try to ignore official terms and call the things by their names (something Misplaced Pages should not do, by the way), then not only Russia was at war but US too. Therefore I oppose the suggested title and support the suggestion to include "US" in the title. Something like "US, Georgia, Ossetia and Russia war" should be fine. -- 81.195.12.14 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking :) The war was fought between Russia's military and Georgia's. The US military was not involved. Grey Fox (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The transportation of Georgian militaries from Iraq to Georgia by U.S. Air Force planes is not an involvement, is it?.. "The U.S. military began flying 2,000 Georgian troops home from Iraq on Sunday, military officials said, after the Georgians recalled the soldiers following the outbreak of fighting with Russia in the breakaway province of South Ossetia." U.S. flying Georgian troops home from Iraq

Not so much as to call it a beligerent. The Georgian soldiers were allies in Iraq when Russia attacked Georgia. It's only natural that they returned to their country. Helping fellow allies is a duty and not a sin. What matters is that America's army was not involved. Grey Fox (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest either you remove Soviet Union from the Vietnam War box (the North Vietnam soldiers were allies, it is natural to boost them when the opposite power had rearmed the Saigon regime, helping fellow allies is obligation, what matters is that Soviet armz had not been involved) or we open a similar support section here and write under Georgia USA and Israel. I personally support the second solution Bogorm (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Georgians and Americans are allies in Iraq, but not in Ossetia! So, please just study the history... For example, during World War II before year 1945 Soviet Union and United States were allies in war against Germany, but not against Japan (in 1945 they become allied against Japan too). So if an American plane bombed Germany and landed in Soviet territory, Russians were able to refuel the plane and to allow it to go home due to their allied status, but if American plane bombed Japan and landed in Soviet territory, Russians were required to intern the crews of those planes up to the end of the war due to their neutral status. So, crews of American planes in Soviet Union were the friends if they were used against Germany and the prisoners of war if they were used against Japan in the same time! By the same way the usage of U.S. Air Force for the transportation of Georgian soldiers from Iraq to Georgia can imply one of the following: 1) U.S. were involved into the war in Georgian side (due to their alliance, if you like such words), or 2) U.S. did not officially recognize the state of the war between Russia and Georgia. (Pubkjre (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

...or we can change the article to something like "2008 Georgian Civil War", because before the involvement of the Russian Army it was a war between (formally) Georgian citizens,- similar to the American Civil War (1861–1865) (Pubkjre (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

No more than you're joking when you're suggesting that Russian have fought in this war. By all means they were fighting on a peacekeeping mission. No matter how much America wants to call this a war, facts are facts, right? One side attacked the other, the work of peacekeepers is to stop that eve through the use of force. Who said anything about war? Did Russian troops take Tbilisi and threw Saakashvili away? I did not hear about it.
On the other hand, how can you call USA not involved? Whose battle ships do you think are now in the Black Sea? What are they doing there? Bringing humanitarian aid, water and toilet paper? On a military cruisers with a nuclear warheads on board! Laughed my ass off. Whose instructors have trained Georgian assasins and whose weapons were supplied to them? Who rearms Georgians now, after they've proven themselves prone to unmotivated agression? And that's even when they have no relations to the conflict at all! They're not even peacekeepers. Georgia isn't a part of NATO. USA has no reasons even to be there.
So I don't get it, why should we take some speculations about Russians being at war (although they were perfectly legal as peacekeepers) and ignore facts about Americans arming and supporting Georgians (although they had no reason and excuse to do so whatsoever). -- 81.195.15.149 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of order if I may. As per WP:DASH, the title should be Georgian–Russian War with "–" not "-". I suggest Georgian–Russian War so that it matches Georgia–Russia relations, that article being decided upon by placing alphabetical first; my reasoning for all Category:Bilateral relations of Russia articles is that by naming by alphabetical first, and consistently across the board, importance of one country over another can't be implied. Additionally, any move would require Category:2008 South Ossetia war to be renamed also. If I may make a suggestion, whilst there seems to be consensus to Georgian–Russian War or Russian–Georgian War (with the – not - of course), the category will be decided by the larger community. Not all editors are interested in this article, so may have missed move discussion, as I did believe it or not, but by placing the category up for discussion a larger cross section of the community can supply input also. Thoughts? --Russavia 12:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep the discussion for the dedicated page please people. For now, this article can be moved to Russian-Georgian War. If the discussion over time gives different results it can always be changed to something else. Grey Fox (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• oppose move. I don't see where's the consensus. 9 vs 7 isn't consensus (Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Article_title) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I said this already two of those seven only differed on whether it was a war or a conflict and were supportive of the characterization if t between Russia and Georgia. Two others were editors who have largely only edited in this article and the talk pages. So you can only really count three of those votes as being opposed. It's very clear that there is a consensus for a name change and the preferred name is clearly Russian-Georgian War. Whether that should be Russia-Georgia War, Russian-Georgian conflict, or whatever is of no consequence because it's a minor dispute. What matters is there is a clear consensus this was between Russia and Georgia and should be named for those two belligerents. In fact, it's downright stupid this article is keeping this title which was only used because at that point it did only involve South Ossetia. There's no way anyone can argue it was simply a war over and in South Ossetia. Maintaining the current title is just a direct attack on the consensus in Misplaced Pages that this title is not suitable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the move. Russian-Georgian War is currently the most-used term in international mass media, mainly in the English-language media.--MaGioZal (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussion whether you agree or disagree with moving the article. Second of all, there will be no moving of the article because there is no consensus on the issue, despite some people here trying to quickly rush the issue to a closure. It is far too close to call and at this point there seems to be no consensus.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. The title is fine since the war was about SO. And the move is premature anyway. --Tone 19:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Only the start of the war was about South Ossetia. Abkhazia is bigger both in terms of population size and territory. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Fox-9589 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia isn't mentioned in the other proposed name, too --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move as per my comments above. Also, this is not a vote. There is significant opposition to move this article to "Russian-Georgian War" so there is no consensus and it should not be done. The opinions of IPs also matter and they do not carry any less weight. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose the move since there's no consesus. Seriously, people, what do you expect when you suggest to move article "for now" even thought there is no consensus and even no majority of votes. -- 81.195.15.149 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose whats the war called? Well a lot of international media call it the South Ossetian war. war.http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2421911.0.3_this_is_no_longer_about_the_future_of_a_tiny_faraway_country_but_about_the_nature_of_the_world_order_in_the_21st_century.php

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0902/1220301234332.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/31/russia.georgia1 http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2008/08/russia-georgia-europe-nato http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/08/25/russia-ossetia-gergiev-oped-cx_jfl_gap_0826georgiaart.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/2985/53/ http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080822/w0822114A.html So until we have a consensus, outside wikipedia, we should not move the article. As this is only about a 'for now' solution then why even move it. Why not leave it where it is, for now, and move it when the dust has settled and there is a common name form the war.]

The dust has already fuckin' settled. I only say "for now" because there's no way of knowing what specific title will become the most popular, but for now simply to acknowledge the broad scope of the conflict the currently most popular title should be used.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous biased editor suggested that vote count is irrelevant and I agree, that editor's vote doesn't count. What matters is how many established or at least reasonably diversified editors voted a certain way and whether their arguments hold any water. Not a single argument for keeping the current title can be justified in any way. The arguments on POV are coming from pro-Russian editors, many of whom have not edited outside these talk pages. It's not biased to suggest this was a war between Russia and Georgia even the Russian media agrees on this point. The fact of the matter is this current title does not even come close to reflecting the broad scope of the war. This article is linked from the conflict box for former soviet union conflicts as the Second South Ossetia War. That's just garbage because this conflict also saw Abkhazia not only seizing the Kodori Gorge, but extending its territory to the Inguri River. This war started in South Ossetia, but only a complete idiot would suggest this title represents the scope of the conflict. This name was put in place before the conflict spread, once the conflict spread this should have been immediately moved to another name and it still should be. There is not a single viable argument for keeping this title and everything is against keeping this title. The failure to act represents the most pitiful form of POV pandering I can imagine.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to you, multiple times, the standard, post-WWII military naming conventions state that a war MUST be named after the location WHERE it is fought. Nearly every war, and every major war, following WWII shares this concensus. This war was NOT fought in Russia. Therefore "Russia" and/or "Russian" should not be anywhere in the title. There is no failure to act here, only the following of military naming consensus. You cannot just alter 63 years of military historiography based on your own whim, and claim that whomever disagrees is an idiot. The title stays, and unless you can counter-argue my point, I suggest you stop spamming to get the title changed in different places. You are welcome to debate me here, and considering that you have already lost the debate in yet another discussion over this title, so I'll just copy and paste. You can call this war the 2008 South Ossetian War or the Georgian-South Ossetian War, but you cannot contradict military historiography. 72.245.7.236 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of offensive language has no place on this (or any other talk page), it does however neatly demonstrate that the dust has not yet settled on this war. The active fighting has stopped (but at this time it is only a cease fire not a formal ending of hostilities (by the way was there ever a formal start to hostilities?)). I also wonder how we define most popular, by number of Goggle hits, by the number of third party reliable sources, by the number of non-pro Russia POV pushers who agree with a user (by the way I would ask users to stop assuming bad faith, I am not pro Russian, nor am I pro Georgian)? Nor can you start to dismiss editors right to have their views respected and listened to just because they may have an agenda, there are many who voted for the name change who appear equally biased, should their voices be ignored too? There is plenty of non-Russia media that call it the South Ossetian war, are they not the most un-biased source to use?]

I'm no party to that damned war. The dust has settled on the war. The articles are now in the post-conflict analysis period and even getting into simply relating it as a historical event. The most commonly used title is Russia-Georgia conflict/war. The only thing that comes close is War in Georgia. South Ossetia war is not even in the runnings for most popular name. The consensus and outside factors clearly indicate this article should be renamed. I submit that considering this the discussion should no longer be about whether there is a need for a rename, but whether it should be Russia-Georgia conflict/war or War in Georgia. As far as pulling out bias it's at least somewhat more reasonable to include them if they're not anonymous editors with no real editing history outside the talk page. However, even if one discounts pro-Georgian or anti-Russian votes South Ossetia War still comes out as being opposed and the Russian-Georgian characterization as most popular. One should also consider the quality of the argument. Those given for the current title are weak or just plain dumb. Those given against Russian-Georgian War are flawed such as the argument no war was declared or no consensus on such a war existing was reached, but the current title says there's a war and it's clearly agreed it's war without being declared as such just like many other undeclared wars. Another argument was that Abkhazia and South Ossetia aren't include in the title, but various other wars and conflicts include parties backed by one country that fight primarily within the opposing country. This fact does not change that these wars refer to the countries involved, rather than internal groups backed by either side because it is seen primarily as an extension of the conflict between the two countries. The argument about POV is illegitimate because it really isn't POV as both Russian and Western media have characterized it as such. In short there is no substantive argument against that name, no substantive argument for the current one, and as such the consensus is clear that the current title cannot stand and should be changed, most likely to Russia-Georgia War.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree with the title of 2008 SO War because it so clearly ignores that Abkhazia is also involved, as odd is that sounds. This Should most likely be called and I am agreeing with Pubkjre The 2008 Georgian Civil War as both parties are were part of Georgia regardless how many other outside belligerents are involved. I don't think that simply because the media have thrown a title to it should mean that it is politically or geographically sound. As for contradicting military historiography I can recall WWI being called The Great War and some Japanese text books claiming that the invasion of China was a political intervention , no bad will intended its that we shouldn't rely on such old fashioned methods to tag things it could represent a bias. XChile

But Georgia's not in a Civil War. Russian Peacekeepers were fired upon. The biggest group of casualties were Russian Civvies in Tskhinvali. Plus Abkhazia did very little fighting in the war. And they are included in a separate section - the "Battle of Kodori". You cannot include the name of every single belligerent in the title, otherwise wars would have big ass names. Also, we're talking Post-WWII naming convention, and WWI wasn't post-WWII. 68.165.239.10 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove my last ppost?]

I pointed out how your argument was wrong already. Misplaced Pages does not operate by precedents. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be making names up or giving an article a title which is not only inconsistent with the scope of the article, but is also in contradiction with the almost unanimous agreement that this is not a South Ossetia war. It's about what is the most commonly used name for the conflict. The most common formal name is Russia-Georgia War or Russia-Georgia Conflict or some variation. It doesn't matter if it's Russian-Georgian, Georgian-Russian, Georgia-Russia or whatever. The agreement is very clear that this was a conflict between Russia and Georgia with Russia backing Georgian separatists in addition to fighting directly against Georgia and is named accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to stop lying Mr. Devil's Advocate, because I do have the screenshots via powerpoint, with me proving you wrong, not the other way around. You have never brought up the "Misplaced Pages does not operate by precedents" argument before. However, you are again wrong, because when documenting a war, Misplaced Pages must abide by historical conventions, and the historical conventions very clearly state that since WWII all wars must be named by the location that they are being fought in. Period. There are no exceptions. As for your argument about the "most common formal name" - are you suggesting that Misplaced Pages must throw away objectivity and go with majority rule? Furthermore, if historical documentation is written without precedents, and this is indeed a history or recent history article, and a military history article at that, how should history be written? Without precedents? Dare I mention the Kosovo precedent? The Iraq precedent? The Israeli-Lebanon precedent? Are you naturally uncomfortable with precedents? I don't see you complaining here: http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Lebanon_War - even though one could argue that Hezbollah aerial mortar fire did hit Israel. Way to be selective Mr. Devil's Advocate, way to care for minority rights. 68.167.1.72 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You forget to mention that Georgia was backed by US, but that's not the reason to call it US-Russia war. Same as you wouldn't rename Vietnam war into "US-Soviet war", even while both were here.

He's very selective. We don't need to know that. People like him must realize that Misplaced Pages isn't Fox News/CNN. 68.167.1.72 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. It's Georgias and Ossethias/Abkhazians war. You can't take and throw their name out. Saakashvilis main target where Ossethians, not Russians. And I also don't think we can rename it only 'cos some users Googling it like "R-G war". Because you know, that many Western MassMedias /MM/ are still saying that it's Russia's who attacked first. So many ppls still think so, and they are still googling like this. So what? Should we rename it to "Russian agression against Georgia"? We can't be motivated by someones ignorance and misinformation. Misplaced Pages is a way to give knowlidge, that's as correct as possible. Not to create and suppot myths. --Oleg Str (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys we can argue as long as we can and hold as many votes as possible, but as it says on top of this page, wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not up to us to decide what the title of this war is, it's what used the most in mainstream media. I've checked, and gets 1.720.000 results on google. gets 1.170.000 results in google. only has 74.900 results. So yes, we should definitely go by Russia-Georgia war. Grey Fox (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the move. Russian-Georgian War. Well as much as it doesn't make sense to me naming it that way, since "Russia - Georgia war" seems to bringing up the most results then I think that we should name it as such, no sense in confusing people searching for this information it is the most relavent speaking in terms of time period. --XChile (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the move. Russia-Georgia war (2008). Apart from what has been said, the current title in effect buys Russia's propaganda cliche for the whole affair.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy claims Mr. Fox, and then he suggest to get the title going via majority vote. Demos = people, Kratia = rule, Democracy = Majority Rule. Furthermore, when people want to research a wikipedia article, they type "wiki" at the end of the thingy they're researching. So I typed in "Russia Georgia War wiki" and got this as the first result. There really is no confusion amongst the people searching, it is the very first link. Seriously, try it! Google it, it takes 5 seconds or less. Also, I've already cited the "2006 Lebanon War" having the exact same title, and no one complained back then. Are you guys trying to get Fox News to get its way on Misplaced Pages too? Mr. Muscovite, is the title "2006 Lebanon War" then according to your logic, Israeli propaganda cliche? Seriously guys, let's be reasonable here, let's not make stuff up, remember, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and no copy pasting from Fox News. And just for the record, the Kremlin is calling this war "Russia's Heroic and Triumphant response to the Georgian Attempted Genocide of South Ossetia, not the 2008 South Ossetian War.68.166.131.17 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Truly never heard about "Heroic and Triumphant response" :-). But it doesn't matter for now - it's only a small detail and for the rest I agree with you. What I want to say - it's common tone in Western MM to call it "Russian-Georgian war", so it's like already Russia attacked Georgia. Articles name should reflect how it was, not what someone "think" of. Now simple numbers to show common ignorance.

As Grey Fox sad.

There are 1.172.000 results for "Russia-Georgia+war" - so those ppls think that Russia attacked first, which is wrong.

There are 1.860.000 almost 100 000 more results for "Russian+aggression+against+Georgia" - which is common way of calling this war in the West, but it's obviously wrong and biased name. So should we rename it to "Russian aggression against Georgia"?

And there are more interesting facts - I've searched for another version of name you want.

There are 23.400.000 results for "Russia+Georgia+war" - wrong, 'cos it's like Russia attacked first.

There are 23.200.000 200.000 less! results for "Georgia+Russia+war" - which is more correct, because it shows that it's Georgia started the war. But those names didn't mention Ossethia and Abkhazia. Which isn't good. Nice we use realable sources for article, but for it's name we are using results of brainwashing and propaganda.

So should we rename article to "Russia Georgia war" only because most Googlers don't know how it was for real? The rules of Misplaced Pages are to give direction. We can't apply them so dumbly. --Oleg Str (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I think that this has gone on far enough. Whomevers name is first doesn't denote who started it, I just makes sense to name it as such so that people can find the article so it should be changed --XChile (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, or the Vietnam Conflict, occurred in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from 1959 to April 30, 1975." Vietnam War from Misplaced Pages. Why is it impossible to write something like that in the article to mention all known names of the war and so stop the "naming battle"?.. (Pubkjre (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)).

I might be missing the point here, but what is the problem with the move to "Russian-Georgian War (2008)", firstly, it was between Russia and Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhzia are not soverign nations, even if Russia has "recognised" them, no one else has, and the UN (in all it's irrellevance) hasnt either. Also both sides (Russia and Georgia) regard it as a war, there was a cease fire signed to bring an end to the fighting in the "war", there was a declaration of war, and Russia and Georgia are still technically at war as it was a cease fire, not a peace deal, and finally, it happens in 2008. There is no POV in that title, it is just a statement of fact, and minus the "2008" is the most commonly used name for this in the media. MattUK (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with you there. It's just been politicized here by certain users. Närking (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, for the umpteenth time - military conventions call the wars based on locations. Why is this so damn hard to get? Seriously, by following post-WWII military conventions I am magically biased for the Russians? Matt UK I strongly urge you to re-read the comments in this section before replying. I mean if you want to rename this one, how many wars that Britain has fought and yet kept their name out of the war should we renamed? As for your comments about the UN, this ain't a UN article. And 2008 is there for clarity. What year did the War of 1812 start in? If you would have done an iota of historical research - you would appreciate the clarity that 2008 provides. There's no politics here either Narking. It's post-WWII military naming conventions. You are welcome to find a counter-example. So yes Matt, you are missing the point here... 68.166.131.16 (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I was being a bit sarcastic, virtually all the media outside of Russia calls it "the Russian Georgia war", If you re-read what I said I did not recomend dropping the 2008 part from the title, as I in fact recomended "Russian Georgia War - 2008". In general the Falklands war is called exactly that, it isnt called the British liberation of the Falkland islands from Argentinian occupation, the same way that the Vietnam war isnt called the American fight against proxy forces of the USSR in Vietnam, its just called the Vietnam War, the list of examples could go on and on, there is no point because there are loads of them. They are named as such because that is the name in "common" usage, as such this should be called the Russian-Georgian war - 2008, being as that is the second most common name in use after the Russian invasion of Georgia, which would be classed as POV and so cant be used on here. Also "my comments about the UN"? Lets see, 99.99% of the worlds countries do not recognise South Ossetia or Abkhazia as soverign nations, and neither dose the worlds biggest extra-governmental organisation. Also if you really are as dedicated to all this as you claim you should be registered, and not an annon IP user, especially as you havent ever contributed to Misplaced Pages from your posing history before, so before you start throwing comments about I suggest you take a reality check, and if you are serious about being on Misplaced Pages, then register. MattUK (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Really matt. Everyone except Russia calls it the "Russian Georgia War": Really?

1. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/08/europe/EU-ANL-Georgias-Gamble.php

2. http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/08/south_ossetia_the_perfect_wron.php

These took me 30 seconds to find. If you press the issue I will look for and find much much more. As for your comment about my registration, etc, this article has nothing to do with that, just like your UN comments. And BTW, just from your comments anyone can tell that you are totlally biased. Some of the comments with which Matt UK enlightens us: "Vietnam war isnt called the American fight against proxy forces of the USSR in Vietnam" - actually Matt UK Ho Chi Mihn offered US a partnership before he went to the USSR, so Veitnamese as proxy forces of the USSR, your argument just doesn't hold up. Sure USSR supplied Vietnam, but to say that Vietnam was proxy of the USSR is the same as saying that Georgia is proxy of the US/UK/Israeli Forces, I don't think that's the message you want to send accross. Also I have said that the war is named after the REGION where it is fought, not the country. There's no country called Persian Gulf. Over 80% of the war was fought in the South Ossetian Region, the Battle of Tskhinvali, which undisputedly belongs to South Ossetia. Whether South Ossetia belongs to Georgia or not is disputed; whether Tskhinvali belongs to South Ossetia is not.

Now Matt wonders why I take such an interest in this one article and incorrectly points out that I've never commented before. I have, and whether Matt checks the history or not, is irrelevant. Furthermore, by attacking my lack of contributions Matt clearly shows that he really has no arguments against my actual point, as there really are none.

So I'll sum it up: the name of the article was challenged on several grounds:

1. Most of the media says so, and we should do so!

2. It would be easier to find.

3. Naming this the 2008 South Ossetia War is somehow Russian Propaganda.

These arguments are plain silly. If one googles "Russia, Georgia, War" in any order, and adds "wiki" at the end this is the very first article that pops up, so #2 is moot. Also Misplaced Pages shouldn't follow CNN "The Most Trusted Name in News" - who later alluded that Russian were responsible for 2,000 civvie deaths, whereas it is under 150, very trustworthy CNN, or Fox News who called MSNBC's FACT READING OF THE WAR "pro-Russian" and they're somehow supposed to be "Fair and Balanced". In truth CNN/Fox News/Sky News are massively pro-Georgian and have been so throught the war, Fox News even pulling the interview of a South Ossetian girl. The coverage of Georgia's attack on Tskhinvali was scarce, the coverage of Russia's response was abundant, very "Fair and Balanced". CNN trimmed Putin's 30 minute interview to 3 minutes, and after this we're supposed to trust CNN to show all sides, when Saakashvili gets unlimited time and Putin gets 3 minutes of CNN selected quotes? CNN/Fox News/Sky News have propagated (from propaganda) this war as the Russia-Georgia War to protray Russia as the attacker, despite the FACT that Russian Peacekeepers were fired upon first. The status of the Peacekeepers was legitimized by the Russo-Georgian Treaties. If you want to debate those, then create or look for articles regarding to those treaties and debate it there. In this case the Russian Peacekeepers, a part of the Russian Army, were fired upon, and when the Russian Army is fired upon it has this tendency to shoot back. Thus #1 and #3 are moot if Misplaced Pages is to be objective. The irony here is that people are calling the title "2008 South Ossetia War" Russian Propaganda, whereas their suggesting to amend it is blatant CNN/Fox News/Sky News Propaganda.

Now as to why this war is called the 2008 South Ossetia War. Military history convention dictates that wars occuring after WWII are named after the region that they are fought in: Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Iran-Iraq War, Sino- Vietnamese War, Falkland Islands War, Afghanistan (II) War, 2006 Lebanon War, (where I don't see Matt complaining in the comments about the pro-Israeli name, if one was to use his logic,) Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Persian Gulf War, Iraq War, Kosovo War, (not the US invasion of Serbia,) etc. Seriously guys you cannot just pander to CNN/Fox News/Sky News and yell "well uhh, majority says it, so it's uhh, gotta be right" - yeah and the majority thought their were WMDs in Iraq. Misplaced Pages should be OBJECTIVE! So the name stays! 68.166.131.16 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Absence of the internationally recognized sovereignty doesn’t mean absence of the sovereignty at all – please read Misplaced Pages. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have at least territorial sovereignty and de-facto sovereignty. Also please note that presence of the internationally recognized sovereignty doesn’t mean the presence of other forms of sovereignty. For example, People's Republic of China doesn’t exercise sovereign power over Taiwan, and by the same way Georgia didn’t exercise sovereign power over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Also, Kosovo War isn’t called “NATO- Yugoslavia” War or something like it, but Kosovo had neither de jure no de facto sovereignty at that time, so it was a simple international war.

And about names of the war used by medias… “When everyone is dead the Great Game is finished. Not before.” . It’s a Game of the great countries, and medias is the one of the fields of this Game... (Pubkjre (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

I kind of agree with Russia-Georgia war--Jaimevelasco (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose move I have only scanned through the above discussion, not nearly read everything. So maybe I don't have the best basis for a decision but for now I like "South Ossetia war" better than "Russian-Georgian-war". -- JanCK (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

...Just rename it to "2008 War in Georgia" if somebody wants the rename for the sake of the rename... (Pubkjre (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Nice reasoning, Pubkjre!

Don't say "Georgia Russia war" will make it easyer to find - typing "Georgia Russia war" in Google gives Misplaced Pages's "2008 South Ossetia war" on a second line in the list of results. You want to say second /2-nd/ line is "hard to find"? Pay attention - even no "Wiki" was added - I just didn't knnow 'bout that trick.

I also want to add Falklands War /no GB-Argentina/, 1982 Lebanon War, 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict, 2006 Lebanon War (also known as the Second Lebanon War or Israel-Hezbollah war), 2007 Lebanon conflict, 2008 Lebanon conflict ;-).--Oleg Str (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont know whats wrong with your google right now because the first thing that it gives me when I search is Google news(Georgia Russian War) and Georgian Civil War ""wiki"" ;-) search done at(10:21 am September 16 Chicago time). That being said the only reasonable thing to do based on logic is to name it what the international media labeled as the Georgian-Russian War. This is going to make the artical easier to find and does not offend or insult any of the belligerants .--XChile (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the international media labeled this war as the "Georgian-Russian War", such name can be mentioned in the article. The Vietnam War has 4 or 5 names, for example... (Pubkjre (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Betraying both countries' mothers

It is just silly and rubbish that the russian officials state a number of death russian servicemen that can`t be more lower. Eyewitnesses report that Vladicavcas hospitals are full with uniformed corpses. How can it be that only 75 russians were killed, when the 2nd georgian brigade confirmed the knock out of at least 150 enemy soldiers in their war sector. The Gori Artillery Brigade brought devastating losses upon the russian 58th army first armored columns. 100-160 vehicles were confirmed as destroyed and at least 100-250 soldiers killed. It is the devastating effect of BM-21 Grad MLRS batteries and 2S7 Pion heavy howitzers. Nato soources and military experts estimate 1000 dead russians alone during the breakless artillery fire. Not to talk about the casulties of the illegals abkhazian and ossetian militia band formations. The Georgian army itself stated 113 killed servicemen ( 12 special forces members ) and at least 850 wounded. Of course this statement is also not true. local sources report 200 killed servicemen and 100 reservists.

So please respect the unknown number of dead soldiers and write down true imformations. Nobody counts military sources as the really true ones. So real numbers will appear in several month's or year's. Till then please write down "unknown number" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for those claims? LokiiT (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Or a photograph... Ottre (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

also, when NATO experts talk about 100s of killed Taliban, it comes out all are civilians..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, he can't prove anything, now i remember him - he's the same delirious kid who not so long ago wrote hilarious fantasies like "georgians repel russian attack, destroyng 8 T-72 tanks ( crew: 32 dead )", not even knowing that T-72 has crew of only 3 men! You can check his other fairy tales in archive12 for a good laugh :))) 195.218.210.176 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your worries about losses and once lived peoples killed, but you know. Saakashvili was talking about 500 tanks and 10-20 Russain airplanes shot down on a first day of the war. So I don't think we can put those 1000s of Russians just like this if there are no confirmation from more sources.--212.111.199.30 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not worry about conformations. The russian side itself confirmed on 12th of september that they have lost more than 1850 soldiers, 105 tanks and 10 BM-21 GRAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How predictable - not a single link yet again. 80.82.37.160 (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Colman - so let me get this straight. Georgia and Russia fights. Georgia inflicts 1850 casualties on Russia, loses 400 and then retreats? Source por favor mi dearest 68.166.131.16 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

Georgian officer killed near Russian post

Shots fired near a Russian checkpoint outside separatist South Ossetia killed a Georgian police officer Wednesday, and police accused Russian forces of hindering their investigation.

The shooting on the tense line where Georgian authority ends underscored the threat of violence in the area, even as Russia begins to withdraw forces still deep in Georgia a month after a war.

Automatic weapons fire from the vicinity of the Russian roadblock at Karaleti, on a main road leading into South Ossetia, hit the policeman at a Georgian checkpoint half a mile (a kilometer) away, Interior Ministry official Shota Utiashvili said.

The Georgians did not return fire and the policeman later died at a hospital, he said. Grey Fox (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

it's impossible to determine who is responsible for said shots--Jaro.p (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaro.p does not know, is it possible or it is impossible. The Gaague Court will determine, it is possible or not. By the way, the link to the case "Georgia versus Russia" should be recovered in the preamble - it is one of most important results of the conflict. dima (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I already know how that's going to end. The hague court will speak in favour of Georgia and Russia, who does not recognize the international crime tribunal unlike georgia, will tell that it's all a conspiracy against them. Grey Fox (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deat Grey Fox, may be you are member of Hague Court and you know better the situation. I hope you will bring the links as soon as you get them. While I am skeptic: In November 29-30, 1939, Soviet (perhaps, Russian) commanders also could believe, that it will not be revealed, who was first to open fire at the Finnish-Soviet border. Then, international organizations investigated the case, and expulsed the Soviet Union from the Ligue of Nation. As for the Russian-Georgian war, if the evidence is not obtained, then the actions of Russian military forces are not justified, and, therefore, should be qualified as aggression, according to the common definiton. In addiiton, the Russian version of events is self-contradictory. The official Russian statements about 2000+ victims should be cited in the article; it is very important point to understand what happened in Ossetia and vicinity. dima (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I like you "Soviet (perhaps, Russian)" :-). It was Stalin order to do so, Georgians. And yes, Georgians did it again ;-).--Oleg Str (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep ... indeed the Greatrussian chauvinist Stalin of Ossetian-Georgian origin did order that. ;)Elysander (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Domitori says: "In addiiton, the Russian version of events is self-contradictory. The official Russian statements about 2000+ victims should be cited in the article; it is very important point to understand what happened in Ossetia and vicinity"

Actually that one was preceded by the words "as many as" - which whatever "unbiased" media you watched clearly failed to report, or you failed to comprehend. Reading Interfax (www.interfax.com) although tedious, is a lot better then watching "unbiased" media that "reports" on the war. 68.166.131.16 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Important new info

Somehow i am barred from editing this article. There has been a series of reports in the Russian press that show that the units of 58th Army were ordered to move into South Ossetia thru the Roki tunnel on 7th Sept. See here Жизнь продолжается (Krasnaya Zvezda of Sept 3, 2008, - official RF Ministry of Defence paper) AND other links here: СМИ: российские войска вошли в Южную Осетию еще до начала боевых действий NEWSru.com Sept 11, 2008.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I included this yesterday in Timeline article. See also Georgian info. You are not prohibited from editing anything here. Please contribute.Biophys (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable English source. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (see WP:REDFLAG). If this information is true and reliable, rather than fringe media hearsay, it should be easily found in various popular English sources. Otherwise this can't go in the intro of all places, as it's unconfirmed and can't even be verified by non-Russian speakers. LokiiT (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement to provide English sources per WP:Verifiability. Please see below multiple Russian sources, including official newspaper by the Russian Department of Defense. You know Russian well enough to verify these sources.

Parts of 58th Russian Army moved to the Georgian territory through Roki Tunnel on August 7:

1. Soldiers from Perm are in the epicenter of war, News of Perm, 08.08.2008. A Russian soldier called home: "We moved there on August 7. All of our 58th army." Life continues,

NOTHING implies "there" is "South Ossetia" in this article. Actually he wrote "we WERE there on 7 - ALL our 58th army". But only 1/4 of 58th army ever crossed the border. 195.218.210.182 (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Red Star, an official newspaper of Russian Ministry of Defense, September 3, 2008 According to a Russian soldier in a hospital: "We received an emergency order to urgently move to Tskinvali on August 7. We came there, set up everything, and very soon, on August 8, this all started..." Yulia Latynina,

This article on the whole has strange time-space discrepancies. Btw "set up everything" is wrong translation. 195.218.210.182 (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so strange, just don't forget about timezones (it's a joke :) ). But seriously, Russian sources claim that Georgian attack against S.Ossetia was started at night of August 7, not in the morning of August 8 as in the timeline of this article. (Pubkjre (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

The article doesn't provide time or date of passing of Roki Tunnel. That's for sure... The better translation (Google snapshot 2 Sep 2008 15:43:20 GMT http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:b4aQl4aVFbkJ:www.redstar.ru/2008/09/03_09/2_03.html) would be: "We were at the camp at North Ossestia. On August 7 we got orders to move to Tskinvali. We got up by battle alarm and went on march. We came, stationed, and on August 8 it blazed there with such exceptional force...". I didn't translate word 'уже' since it could mean different things (or mean nothing as a simple emphasis) and it's unclear from the context what would be a proper translation. Further... "Some of our recons and tanks already moved to the city... After the morning briefing, at 10am, they (company of interviewed person) moved on the way to Tskinvali and than took position on the height which is above the road that leads to Tskinvali, just a few kilometers away". There aren't any indications of the date when the events took place. But Georgian (or any other sources on August 8th morning) didn't report about involvement of Russian tanks or troops into conflict. And in a live televised address President Saakashvili said that the breakaway region’s capital Tskhinvali was the Georgian forces “full control,” as well as most of the areas of the entire region, except of the Java district. http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18975 Most likely the events when the person was wounded took place on August 9. We are dealing here with pure speculations on the basis of vague reports. Finalyzer (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Differences in opinion between Mr. Bastrykin and the Prosecutor office of South Ossetia, "Journal Daily", September 11, 2008, "Before the war, on August 6, journalists who were sent in advance to cover the war... reported that they have seen 58th Army on the other side of the Roky tunnel" .

Russia claims other side of the tunnel as russian territory all the time. Both exits were constantly guarded by russian army units. 195.218.210.182 (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't provide any clear information about side of the Roky tunnel. Looks like the journalists have been sent to South Ossetia. The "other side" could be the Russian/North Ossetian side. After the citing, Latynina made suggestion that Russia made sure that in case of Ossetian attack on Georgian positions it will be "immune" to formal accusations. For me that's a clear indication that the "other side" is Russian/North Ossetian side. Finalyzer (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Russian army entered South Ossetia before the beginning of military action News.ru

Biophys (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Kommersant reports that the US has accepted the Russian version of events. The claims which are made in the sources used to try and introduce material need to be widely written about, because there is a majority of source who state no such thing. --Russavia 03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting that Biophys incorrectly trasnlated newsru article. The correct translation is

MEDIA: Russian army entered South Ossetia before the beginning of military action

That article is analysis of different Media reports showing different and contradicting statements. Please read Yellow journalism to see what I mean. (Igny (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages policy says "Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included."

I'm sorry but until you find a reliable English news source, this information cannot be kept in the article. I can't read Russian so there's no way to tell if you're twisting the meaning of the articles, and using a translator for huge articles like those is hopeless. Going back to the military magazine, don't you think it's a little strange that a government operated newspaper is reporting something that completely contradicts their official version of events? I do too, which is why I don't trust your interpretation. There's also the fact that Georgia actually took total control of Tskinvali, if any of you remember that. So Russian troops were there but they decided to just sit there for a while and let Georgia take over the city or what? None of it makes any sense and it contradicts all mainstream sources that I've read. LokiiT (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Independent observers (HRW and Russian Memorial foundation) unable to confirm genocide: http://voanews.com/english/2008-09-11-voa34.cfm--Mapto (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• • One of the references is, in fact, to a Krasnaya zvezda article -- an official mouthpiece of the RF Defence ministry.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of articles in Krasnaya zvezda about the same unit, and all others state 8/08 as a date they were scrambled into Ossetia! So it's most likely mistake of reporter, or wounded soldier she questioned. Otherwise it doesn't correspond with most other facts and behaviour of both sides. 80.82.36.246 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all four Russian sources (plus Georgian side) claim approximately the same. For example, Yulia Latynina:

Еще накануне войны, 6 августа, журналисты, посланные освещать борьбу героического осетинского народа против подлых грузинских захватчиков, простодушно сообщали, что видели «58-ю армию в полной боевой готовности по ту сторону Рокского тоннеля».

It is obvious that parts of 58th Army (19th Division indicated in one of the sources) were moved to the Georgian side of Roky tunnel on August 7 before the military action by Georgia. They stand there in a state of complete readiness until receiving an order to move. They (and apparently other forces from the Russian side of the tunnel) moved deeper to the Geogia around 23 pm on August 7 (that is according to Georgian sources). Hence, the Gorgian forces launced a counter-attack - as explains Latynina, based on Russian and Georgian sources (her report is a secondary sourcs). According to her, the counter-attack by Georgia was a right decision - from a military stand point.Biophys (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very strange kind of "counterattack" then - not on these presumed russian forces, but on peacekeeper battallion and sleeping city located other side of the region. Definitely NOT a "right decision from a military standpoint". And no one of georgian officials ever claimed any "russian invasion" up until morning of next day, 8/08. They only were saying "we're fighting separatists" and "restoring constitutional order" and such. Only after russian TV had shown armoured columns entering tunnel georgians cried about "invasion". :) So any additional russian forces (be it true or not) had absolutely no impact on georgian move - the whole operation was decided much earlier, there was a long buildup around the city (with small-scale actions securing the heights), sudden influx of western reporters in georgia just before conflict, long PR campaign in georgian media, etc etc. Btw Latynina is notorious anti-Kremlin conspirologist :) 80.82.36.246 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yulia Latynina? Her own article pretty much says she's a conspiracy theorist. That's another red flag. Wait for some reliable English sources to publish this material, it can be considered nothing but misinformation right now. LokiiT (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Redflag doesn't deal with language sources, LokiiT. English sources are prefered, but non-english sources can also be used if no replacement can be found (per wiki policies). Second of all none of this is presented as fact, but is written with the prefix "according to .." which makes it neutral. Third of all redflag asks for reliable exceptional sources. I don't see how a tabloid of the Russian military isn't reliable when it comes to their own actions. Grey Fox (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia has also constantly claimed that Russia drew up the plan for invasion long before the actual war broke out, so it should definitely have a place in the article, albeit not be presented as fact. Grey Fox (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said that Latynina is "an anti-Kremlin conspirologist"? Sources please. Some claim that she is "anti-democratic", "pro-Kremlin" or manipulated by her FSB sources, but that is a completely different thing, and even that was claimed by her opponents and is hard to verify.Biophys (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She's very clever - from time to time makes clumsy and naive (she's neither) seemingly "pro-Kremlin" analytics, pretending to let some "secrets" to slip out. Thats just another method to undermine your enemy. ;) But make no mistakes - real figures behind her are some disgraced oligarchs. 80.82.37.26 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like old-time Soviet newspeak. I know who you are, even though I do not know your name, a user with floating IP address.Biophys (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You sound as conspirologist yourself. :) As for me, i get an impression of "newspeak" and experience 1980s flashback when i watch western media :P Much closer to old soviet-style propaganda than modern russian ones, be it pro-putin or not. Latynina's schemes are obvious for anyone watching her for a long time, witnessing her initial appearances and her evolution later. Btw, blame my provider for floating IP, not me. I don't know these things well enough. :) 80.82.37.160 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reliable source to publish this. Seems pretty important for BBC, Reuters, CNN, Fox, AFP, the Guardian, Time, the Washington post, CBC, Speigel, IHT, New York Times, let alone any English-Russian sites like RussiaToday, RIA, Kommersant etc.. to all miss it. LokiiT (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And one of those original sources pulled the story (Russian defense ministry source, the only one that could be considered reliable) More evidence that it was a mistake/irresponsible journalism. LokiiT (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the times are important, not only the days… Biophys wrote that “parts of 58th Army were moved to the Georgian side of Roky tunnel on August 7 They stand there in a state of complete readiness until receiving an order to move. They (and apparently other forces from the Russian side of the tunnel) moved deeper to the Geogia around 23 pm on August 7”.

But Timeline of Russian Aggression in Georgia says that:

- at approximately 14:30, Georgian armed forces receive intelligence that Russian troops that had still not redeployed from July’s North Caucasian military exercises have been put on high alert and have received orders to prepare to march towards the Georgian border.

-At approximately 14:30, Georgian forces mobilize tanks, 122mm howitzers, and 203mm self-propelled artillery in the direction of the administrative border of South Ossetia, in an effort to deter further separatist attacks, and to be in a position to defend the Russian-Georgian border in the event that Russia invades.

-At 23:30, Georgian Government receive multiple human intelligence reports that about 150 armored vehicles and trucks with Russian soldiers are approaching the Roki Tunnel from Russia and moving towards Tskhinvali.

- At 23:50, for the first time, and in response to the entry of Russian armed forces into Georgian sovereign territory, Georgian armed forces enter military action—using armor, including tanks, 122mm howitzers, and 203mm self-propelled artillery system Dana.

So, it looks reliable that Russian forces entered S.Ossetia at 23:30 (11:30 PM) on August 7, and Georgian forces were moved in the direction of S.Ossetia at 14:30 (2:30 PM).

It’s a vision from one side. Another side reported at 23:58 (11:58 PM) on August 7 that “The town , include its center, is under fire from artillery and mortars during 25 minutes from Georgian villages The Georgian side fired from "Grad" systems to the village Tsunar” Tskhinvali was under fire again (rus). Sorry, but this page has no English version. The similar information is available in Georgia started an intensive firing on Tskhinvali (rus).

In this case Russian forces entered S.Ossetia at the same time when Georgian forces started the bombardment of Tskhinvali.

And finally, the question: at what day and time that war has been started exactly?.. (Pubkjre (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Still no reliable sources with this info, and the article still has not been added back to the Russian ministry of defense website. How long are we going to keep that disinformation in the intro just to please a few anti-Russians that need to find some way to blame Russia for the hostile actions taken by the Georgian government. LokiiT (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If we don't know when the war has been started, we can't say when Russian forces have been moved thought the Roki Tunnel - before or after the supported by artillery and rocket launchers Georgian attack on Tskhinvali and some Ossetian villages. Now it looks like that those events occurred at approximately the same time - near the midnight from August 7 to August 8. (Pubkjre (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Moreover, Georgian side themselves, officially (Georgian Timeline), claim that “Georgian armed forces enter military action” on August 7 (at 23:50/11:50PM by Georgian official version, at 23:30/11:30PM by version of Russian medias ( RIAN (rus),lenta.ru (rus))), not on August 8! I like Georgian sources! (Pubkjre (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

To me the source that I posted is important, because it is a joint effort (both by HRW and a Russian foundation (Memorial) to confirm casualties. I would doubt the moral ground of anyone who questions their findings. That's why I'd ask whoever has the privileges to do it, to add this reference to the article. --Mapto (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am Russian. Excuse, if there will be errors in the text. I badly know English. Clean all references, except the reference on "red star." In article it is written: "According to multiple reports". All other sources are secondary as refer on "red star." By such principle I can make 1000 sources of the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.186.230 (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Weasel wording and misinterpretation of the reference

I will not stand POV pushing using weasel words. So I will keep fighting the following awkward construction

The Financial Times August 26, upon analysing the information from multiple sources, concluded: "So swift was the Russian reaction that some analysts believe that,...

My reasons among others would be that FT did not analyse multiples sources, and that " some analysts believe something" was not a conclusion of that article. In fact, if you read FT, you will see that "some analysts" = Felgenhauer with his POV published in Novaya Gazeta. So basically you reference the Felgenhauer's POV as well as FT's comment on it. And do not try to make it sound as if FT reported a fact. In fact it is all a speculation.

Regarding, the witness report about the armored vehicles someone saw near the border. The reference reports correspondent's beliefs, not a fact. It also reported the official and quite reasonable explanation of what he saw, so please do not remove that sourced information.

From now on I will consider pushing this POV as a vandalism and will rv that without further explanation. I think I can not make myself any more clear. (Igny (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

I have warned you today about 3RR violation. Could you please revert yourself back? I have provided four sources above that satisfy WP:Verifiability. "Yellow press" is not an argument. Why an official newspaper by the Russian Department of Defense is an unreliable source? If you think sources are bad, please explain why. You are also welcome to place these sources at WP:RS noticeboard and ask opinion of other users.Biophys (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not care about the four sources you mentioned. You can readd your sources yourself. Other, more reasonable, editors will take care of that. What I care about I explained quite clearly in this section. (Igny (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

A reply to Russavia. This is nature of the news. Newly published materials override the published earlier. Right now we have the following: (a) four Russian sources, (b) statements by Georgian side that are more or less consistent with new Russian sources; (c) data about planning this operation by the Russian side in advance (evacuation of South Ossetian civilians several days prior to the war), sending Russian journalist to the area in advance to observe the coming war, and so on. One can not hide anything for a long.Biophys (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not your place to arbitrarily decide what is a reliable source, the FT meets all of Wikipedias requirements for a valid source, it is in fact a highly regarded source on Misplaced Pages for its factual accuracy. Breaching the 3RR rule because you don’t like it when other editors introduce verified facts from an accredited and reliable sources is not an excuse, you using your opinion to label edits “vandalism” is not a way to bypass the rules of Misplaced Pages to which we all have to abide as members of this community. If you continue in your actions in breach of the rules of Misplaced Pages I’m sure that (and I hope they do) take the relevant action against you. MattUK (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes and there is on important thing. Georgia will look "more" like aggressor if we will remember that this is "Georgia-Ossethia/Abkhazia war", not "Russia-Georgia war", as some editor offer to rename it and some other oppose it :-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Str (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who was the aggressor?

Those forces can be a result of Russian exercises, they done in response to Georgian exercises they done with Americans BEFORE Russians. Gyyysss? Are you here? Hello-o-o-o It's Georgia started all this mess, and had itself problems after. That is a clear fact. Don't put all upside down. Or better arrange yourself a "Conspiracy" srction where you will tell how Russia armed Georgia, and then made Saakashvili to start killing ppls.--Oleg Str (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Oleg, this is obvious. Please consider basic facts. Fact 1. Before the beginning of the war South Ossetia was recognized as a part of Georgia by all countries, including Russia - as she stated in numerous UN documents. Fact 2. Georgians did not try to occupy any part of Russsia (for example Chechnya). Fact 3. Russian soldiers occupied a significant part of Georgia. Fact 4. Russia declared occupied territories "independent states". Who is the aggressor? Imagine that Georgian military forces would came to help their Chechen "brothers" with Georgian passports when Russian forces attacked Grozny. That would be an aggression by Georgia. But this WP article failed to explain even such basic facts. It simply serves to promote Russian state propaganda by regarding Russian military action as a "counter-attack".Biophys (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact 1 Russia recognition was not unconditional! From the russian POV, if Georgia wants to secede from USSR in soviet borders, it should respect soviet secession procedure - ie referendums in all authonomous republics. What Russia did recognize however, was georgian right to incorporate disputed regions peacefully. Up until then, they remain "territories with unclear legal status". They can't be called even "separatist regions", because they declared their independence before Georgia! Fact 2 Georgians openly violated previous agreements even without officially renouncing them in a classic sneak attack fashion! Fact 3 Russian soldiers chased georgian army away from the conflict zones with no intention to "occupy" anything - the only goal was to destroy military hardware. Russians kept georgian administration (including the police!) in place in all settlements they passed briefly (except Gori - but they were asked to police the area by local georgians, because all georgian officials disappeared). After that, they pulled out most troops and only kept several checkpoints there. And now last russian soldier already left so-called "Georgia proper". That's less than one month "occupation"! Fact 4 Russia declared occupied territories "independent states". Yes, after 16 years of non-recognition and outright blockade - and only because Georgia screwed peaceful solution of its frozen conflicts. Goodwill cannot be tested forever 195.218.211.15 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed the most important facts: Georgia launched its military attack first; Georgia killed innocent civilians and Russian peacekeepers first; 90% of the S.Ossetia population doesn't want to be part of Georgia and has Russian passports by choice. Your comparison to Chechnya is nonsense. Chechnya invaded Russia proper trying to "spread" its separatism (ie. they were the aggressors), they also launched numerous terrorist attacks against the Russian population killing upwards to a thousand innocent civilians, including killing and raping school children for goodness sake, which completely justifies shutting them down. It's obvious that you're just some Russophobic ex-Soviet minority (Georgian? Estonian? Polish?) who'd call Russia the aggressor even if it responded to an unprovoked nuclear attack on its soil. LokiiT (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Chechnya invaded Russia proper trying to "spread" its separatism (ie. they were the aggressors)". It sounds like you blame the entire population of chechnya for the actions of a small group of bandits. The Chechen government opposed any of these acts and even wanted to assist Russia with preventing them. Also just as with South ossetia and Abkhazia, Chechens do not want to be a part of the Russian federation. So yes, we are dealing with double standards. Grey Fox (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chechen government blatantly violated 1996 peace terms at the very least - ie to police it's own territory. That's IF (big IF!) they were saying the truth and weren't involved in Dagestan themselves. They did absolutely nothing to "prevent" this. 195.218.211.15 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgian forces never attacked or occupied Russian terriory, but Russian forces attacked and occupied the Georgian territory. This is very simple.Biophys (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgian forces attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers and citizens. This is very simple. Perhaps our disconnect here is that you think territorial integrity is more important than human life. LokiiT (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguably, but Ossetians were attacking Georgians before that as well. Grey Fox (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And Georgians were attacking Ossetians before that as well. And it goes all the way back again and again and again... 195.218.211.15 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Though war has begun by Georgia, no Georgian army was in territory of Russia. Therefore Russia - an aggressor. 80.86.251.253 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Steping on another's territory isn't making him to be agressor or not. Starting the war IS making some one agressor. Georgians didn't "step" but killed alot of Russians. This ocupation was temporary. It's diffirent then Nazis Germany's occupation. Russians stayed there only for short period of time and now are going away. They didn't change government and stop from futher advance by their own decision. They also didn't claim any part of the Georgia. So the only easy_to_prove_by_clear_facts reason for their involvment in war defence of their citizens and stoping the war itself. Again - no capturing of property, no change of govmnt, no capruting of soil. Ossetians/Abkhazians/Georgians where attacking one each other through /those "ongoing skirmishes"/ the border from time to time - everybody knows. But O/A /Ossetians and Abkhazians/ where not making terrorism act is Tbilisi and so on.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New figure on confirmed South Ossetian fatalities

I just saw this Reuters article the other day. It claims that the South Ossetians now report that they have found 500 of their dead. Perhaps it would be good to update the article with this information?

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL953954020080909

"Preliminary information received by the investigation team by questioning neighbors and relatives showed that over 1,600 people died in South Ossetia as a result of the invasion by the Georgian army," South Ossetia's Prosecutor-General, Taimuraz Khugayev, told Interfax news agency.

"From those, at this time, investigators have found the circumstances of death and burial places of 500 people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.239.210 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Their figure of over 1500 dead is already listed since the day the conflict began, as well as debunked by human rights organisations. Grey Fox (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

HRW didn't debunk anything. They visited one hospital and said the figures were "suspicious" or something, and the legitimacy of their statements are in question by other independent human rights movements. This 500 figure is confirmed through investigation, it's entirely separate from the 1500 estimate. LokiiT (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

How many militias and volunteers are included in both countings (estimate/ confirmed) ?? Elysander (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

HRW gave an independent analysis LokiiT. Who "confirmed" them? As long as it's the government, it's nothing but an allegation. Let them show some proof, we live in a world where someone is innocent until proven guilty. As for "other independent human rights movements", you do realize that the "human rights group" cited in that Russian source is run by a member of the Public Chamber of Russia right? Grey Fox (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All your points are completely irrelevant. The 500 figure is official, it's not "alleged" anymore than the 100 some odd Georgian deaths that were cited by the Georgian government, and it's certainly more reliable than the shallow HRW report. And you're wrong if you think we live in a world like that. In my country you get hauled away and tortured first, proven guilty or innocent second. Any guesses as to what country I live in? I'll give you a hint, we created modern day "democracy". Don't be so naive. LokiiT (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No they are relevant. An official number is not necessarily a true number and since it comes from a Primary Source it should not be presented as fact, also official is a relative term (Georgia's number can also be considered "official"). I have no idea what country you live in LokiiT, maybe one where if you criticize your government you "accidently get shot in the head?. Grey Fox (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And HRW is funded by US and European governments. Your point being? --Russavia 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There are more obvious conflicts of interest than that with HRW. We already went through that though .

I don't know what you're after, but HRW is well-respected, the "human rights group" cited in that Russian report has no reputation whatsoever and is a direct attachment of the public chamber of Russia (aka a primary source). Grey Fox (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well respected by anti-Russian groups, but which a respected HR group in Russia has warned to take their reports with a grain of salt. And the organisation which you are trying to castigate with your own POV, is the recipient of numerous EU grants, and funnily enough for a group which you say has no reputation, has a prominent link to your favourite anti-Russian mouthpiece (Novaya Gazeta) right there on their website. Your own POV has no place here, so long as a reliable source reports it, we'll place it, and the Russophobes will not be allowed to remove Russian POV from this or any other article. --Russavia 21:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're rather uncivil at the moment Russavia. I would agree with you if it the cited source was indeed from the "Moscow Bureau for Human Rights", but so far I haven't seen this link at all. "Olga Kostina" works for a self-acclaimed human rights organisation known as "Soprotivleniye (resistance)". If that's part of the Moscow Bureau, please show me. Grey Fox (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pieter, I haven't seen you provide any proof of this connection, are you making it up? And you completely ignore the fact that HRW has conflicts of interest in this matter, they're government funded and they have connections with the Georgian government. Their report is less reliable than the S.Ossetia or Russian investigations. All I see in your posts is that you like one better than the other, that's it.

And I live in America, the land of the free. We don't get shot in the head, we get tortured and held indefinitely without a trial. Sounds like something Stalin would do doesn't it? There are no good guys or bad guys like you seem to think. There are only national interests. LokiiT (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just a small point here, they aren't government funded, and I made that comment above as a ridiculous response to a ridiculous statement, but throw enough mud and it will stick. --Russavia 21:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just a small point here, the links on HRW funding by EU were circulating here ever since HRW had their say. Calling the facts, mentioned in these links, a "government funding" or not, is rather a matter of taste, unless we're going to incorporate it into the article(something like "alleged government funding" phrase can find its place in the dedicated article). Frankly, all of you are just going over the same arguments, that have already taken place here. Aren't you all grown tired of this yet?

@LokiiT: "There are no good guys or bad guys like you seem to think. There are only national interests." Thank you, LokiiT. You can't imagine, how i'm(a russian) glad, that someone in America understands that. That means to me, there is one man less to be enangered by "good guys vs bad guys" rhetoric, spouted by governments in pursuit of their "national interests", to the point, when we'll become ready to kill each other. That means to me, we're one step farther from WW3. I'm, from my side, promise you to never forget this truth, too. ETST (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all I can find on the given source LokiiT, like you I don't speak Russian so I did my best on the english web. Here is a source that Olga Kostina is a member of the public chamber, and here's another . And no I don't think anyone is "good" in this conflict, I'm just after neutrality here. I haven't seen proof that HRW is connected to the Georgian government, only original research concerning a single member, which hardly changes anything. Grey Fox (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, please stop fueling anti-national feelings in WP ("anti-Russian groups", "anti-Russian mouthpiece", "Russophobes", etc.). Calling other users "Russophobes" in uncivil, especially if some of them are Russians.Biophys (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, why do so many Russian editors call everyone who doesn't flat out support Russia a "russophobe". When I criticize my own government (in the Netherlands) that doesn't make me "anti-Dutch" either right? Or LokiiT who above criticizes his own government. Does that make him an "americaphobe" ? Grey Fox (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the case. They argue in favor of Russian government, not Russian people. Everyone usually protects something where he belongs, or where his sympathy belongs.Biophys (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticizing your own government is different from criticizing other countries governments. If I were Canadian I would be an anti-American without question. Why would I care what some other country did in its own borders? The reason I criticize my government is because I want it to change, because I have to live here. LokiiT (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what you've been doing in the past as well. I guess that makes you anti-Georgian right? Grey Fox (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because edits indicate it? Edits only taken from one or two sources with an intent to present only one POV. There is nothing wrong with criticism so long as it is balanced, and unfortunately, from many editors, there is no balanced editing, only editing to push their POV. --Russavia 21:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And you're not one of them right? Well anyway you should Assume good faith a little more often. We were discussing the reliability of sources here. HRW watch called Russia's allegations of 2000 deaths and "genocide" dubious, and it's not the first time Russia has been criticized for their dubious casualty figures (like in the chechen wars). You don't expect this article to start presenting the "genocide" as fact, based soully on primary sources right? Grey Fox (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

When did they say that? Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war‎. Ottre 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Timeline of events" - What to save, what to lose, and how to keep it that way

A few days ago, I made a fairly extensive edit to the article section titled "Timeline of events." It consisted mostly of fixing grammar errors, making the material readable style-wise, and removing information that seemed inappropriate for a short summary that linked into a larger article. (The fundamental content was mostly unchanged.)

Today I looked at it again. While a few of my changes were recognizable, it was just as messy-looking as before, many awkward phrases had been restored, and the same information I had felt cluttered the article was back.

Rather than make a second attempt at editing it myself, I've decided to consult the group on the matter. To be addressed:

• What information is needed in this section, and what information can be reserved for the larger else-located timeline?
  • Do certain statistics, or all statistics, clutter the article?
  • What constitutes "trivia" information?
• What is the proper style format for a timeline such as this?
  • How is the timeline most readable?
  • How should information within each date point be organized?
• How can we make the timeline as neutral as possible?
  • What in this section isn't neutral?
• After we've addressed all these problems, how do we keep them from coming back?

I'd like to see some extensive discussion on this before this talk page gets archived. Unfortunately that seems to happen for this article rather quickly. I invite anyone with editing access to contribute their opinions and ideas. Thank you for your participation and assistance. DerekMBarnes (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to do several things at once, but there a couple of faults that I notice from just a minute of reading.

• The first sentence states that events prior August 2008 are listed in another article, yet the car bombing on July 30th is described in detail. You can't leave this out of the timeline, of course, so perhaps change to a {{see also}} link instead.
• The events on August 5 need to expanded upon, because we don't need to say that "Russia troops and amoured vehicles were en route towards Tskhinvali" on August 6. That belongs in the timeline of events article.
• A lot happened on August 7, yet the wording makes no sense. What does the phrase "multiple reports in the Russian media" mean, exactly? The units of Russia's 58th Army were ordered to move into South Ossetia through the Roki tunnel on September 7th and already were inside South Ossetia on that date? Such reports must be linked or proven. There are mainly reports that tell the opposite.
• August 8 relies too heavily upon anecdotal evidence. The fact that the extent of civilian casualties was later disputed in a number of sources, is unverified.
• a six point peace plan → a six point peace plan
• A lot happened on August 15, yet the wording makes no sense. What time of day did the United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travel to Tbilisi?

These are all obvious mistakes. Ottre 00:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good start. Here are my proposals at this point:

• Transfer ALL casualty statistics from the summary to the full timeline article, as well as some of the information regarding size and mobilization of forces. In this section, that much detail is overkill.
• Clean up the references; many of them are longer than the paragraph they're contained in. A simple ref title and link to the source would probably suffice for most.
• STYLE: The line breaks are just adding to the confusion in the format. Remove them, or find a readable alternative where breaks are necessary.

Any other ideas? Any dispute over what's been proposed so far? DerekMBarnes (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think the timeline should be cleaned up and shortened. There's lots of obsolete / unnecessary information there. In my opinion, the timeline should concentrate more on describing actual warfare developements. I also support all of the proposals made above. Offliner (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The timeline should be altogether replaced by something describing the war in normal sentences. Stuff happening before the hostilities goes to background, stuff happening after roughly august 16th goes to the later sections of ceasefire or other sections describing events after the war. The bullet point style needs to go. --Xeeron (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

amount of S Ossetian civilians killed

Source: According to Ossetian "authorities", 1500 people were killed in the course of recent war. However, the Investigating commission of Russian Prosecutor's Office reports only 137 deaths. According to Human Rights Watch experts who have inspected the zone of conflict, it is more appropriate to talk in terms of tens of dead, rather than thousands. The deputy director of Moscow office of HRW says that those who are believed to be dead are currently undergoing medical treatment at Georgian hospitals. We should add to the article that the original figure for S.Ossetians believed to be have been killed in the war is actually much lower and that many are in Georgian hospitals. Ijanderson (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'd like to suggest to use a better source though. Grey Fox (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the article

To User:Biophys and Co. Congratulations on the nice work on the article. In the last few days since I was blocked and have not participated in this farce, you successfully managed to turn this article into a mirror of the yellow press. No I take the word "mirror" back, reading this article is the same as reading yellow press. Ballooning this article into a 150kb monster by copying and quite often misrepresenting every quote from any source which could anyhow damage Russia's or whitewash Georgia's images, I have no words, just wow. Factual accuracy of this article became beyond repair, one just can erase 50% of the article or just start from scratch. What a shame.

Anyways, I am looking at development of this article from the sideline for now. I just wanted all of you to know how amazed I am looking at this nice work. (Igny (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

If you're going to accuse the editors of pro-Georgian bias, the least you could do is cite where you see it in the article, section by section. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page citing the first twenty biased points you see, and I'll assess them for possible changes. DerekMBarnes (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That is too much work and I do not have time at the moment for this. I have decided to wait a few weeks before coming back to this article. I am sure that more information will be available by then, most of statements in this article will be proved/disproved, other editors will make intermediate fixes (hopefully for the better). I will come back later and see where it is heading. There is no chance that the article will survive in this current form (or in details) for long, why should I waste my time on this? Besides, I do not feel like participating in any more edit wars here at the moment and being blocked again and again. One thing I want to be fixed as soon as possible though. A 150kb monster article filled with POVs which can not be deleted "because it is all sourced" (noticed 300+ references?) is no way to write encyclopedia articles (Igny (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Here are some quick examples of his questionable edits in this article, I don't have a lot of time to dig deep:

• see also this discussion.
• If you read the article you can see he is wrong. When confronted, instead of saying he made a mistake or misread the article, he just changed his story and said it was "out of context" when it clearly isn't.

And you can see his more recent edits are for pushing that dubious material about Russian troops entering Georgia on the 7th, despite having no reliable sources, no English sources, despite the only reliable source having pulled the article from its website, and despite it contradicting every other source out there aside from Georgian government propaganda. Maybe I can assume good faith in that maybe he honestly believes what he's doing is "good", despite being in a dishonest manner, but I can't say that he's helping this or any other article with his edits. LokiiT (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the information from the lead as it placed WP:UNDUE weight on a view which is not widely reported, and the inclusion of which was only done to provide his own POV and desire to blame the evil Russians for everything. As its a fringe view it has no place in the lead. --Tovarishch Komissar 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This part of the article beginning is another pice "Within five days of fighting, Georgian forces were routed and Russian troops effectively occupied the country.". "Routed" means that they decide to leave on their own /like change their mind or smth/? No, they were driven away by force. "Russian troops effectively occupied the country" - they didn't even occupied the Capital of Georgia and hanged Saakashvili on a city square. So thats not an occupied the country. Please revert this to what was before. Also Russian justification of it's involvement in war was "cut out". --Oleg Str (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline for August 3rd-6th on the ground

The timeline for this article is very weak. I suggest the innuendo about who planed what when be moved out into another section, and replaced with actual events on the ground in the conflict regions. What was going on, in particular, from August 3rd through August 6th on the ground? Why did Georgia even feel the need to order the ceasefire of the 7th? The timeline doesn't indicate the actors, intensity, or location of the conflict(s) prior to the Georgian ceasefire. If there was something going on which prompted the ceasefire, why are we Misplaced Pages readers treated to third-hand reports of what politicians were or were not planning months before in that part of the timeline? Don't we deserve to know the facts on the ground or is this subject still controlled by the amateur propagandists more than the neutral editors? 69.228.205.135 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed chapter "Demands to end conflict"

I removed the subchapter "Demands to end conflict" because 1) it didn't say anything new that wasn't already said in the timeline and 2) because the first sentence was, I think, wrong. Here's the original sentence: "On 7 August 2008, a few hours before Georgia began its main offensive operation, Saakashvili ordered a unilateral ceasefire and called for talks "in any format"; reaffirmed the long-standing offer of full autonomy for South Ossetia; proposed that Russia should guarantee that solution; offered a general amnesty; and pleaded for international intercession to stop the hostilities."

Compare this with what the BBC's website says about the 7th August ceasefire: "Georgian forces and South Ossetian separatists have been exchanging heavy fire just hours after agreeing to a ceasefire and Russian-mediated talks."

So according to the BBC it certainly wasn't a unilateral ceasefire by the Georgian side. About the last part of the original sentence (full autonomy for SO, general amnesty, etc.) I don't know. The BBC page doesn't mention them. Also, if you take a look at the original sentence's source, it seems (at least to me) to have a strong anti-Russian bias. Doesn't seem like a very reliable source to me. To me, this subchapter seemed wrong and redundant. Offliner (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky on Ossetia-Russia-Georgia

Good geo-political background to events in South Ossetia in Chomsky's usual sarcastic style. Billyblind (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ordering

Why if in the article putted that at first Georgia attacked Tskhinvali and then russians answered, in a template of the article illustrated in the beginning Russian+allies forces, casualties, etc. and then Georgian forces? It can confuse. For example, Battle of Iwo Jima, Defense of Brest Fortress, etc. Fist - approaching side. --91.78.109.42 (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. Second. 68.166.131.16 (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetian Military Losses

Is there any information on South Ossetian MILITARY wounded/deaths? 70.131.220.19 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording of the introduction

The introduction says: "Within five days of fighting, Georgian forces were routed and Russian troops effectively occupied the country." However, Russia didn't occupy the country of Georgia. They occupied only parts of the country which can be seen from the map. If you take a look at the map, the occupied ares make up probably only about 1/8 of Georgia. So I think the wording "effectively occupied the country" is completely wrong, especially since the wording "effectively" isn't used in the source given. Why do we have to use this vague (and to me, wrong) phrase instead of an exact wording?

My second concern is with the use of the word "routed." As User:Oleg Str said above: "Routed" means that they decide to leave on their own /like change their mind or smth/? No, they were driven away by force."

I have tried to change both of these wordings in the past, but they haven been reverted. Why do we have to to use these inaccurate wordings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Offliner (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually using "routed" is ok because the verb means

To show the way to: conduct, direct, escort, guide, lead, pilot, shepherd, show, steer, usher.

They were shown the way out/ shepherded out/ escorted out/ led out/ guided out. These meanings all mean the same as driven out, and "routed out" is just a diplomatic way to say "kicked out". (Igny (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

All right :) Offliner (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see rout. (Igny (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

"According to subsequent reports in the Russian media, the units of Russia's 58th Army had already been ordered to move into South Ossetia through the Roki Tunnel on September 7th." Yes, on September they were not only ordered to move, but to remove too ;) But by the same way we can say that "Ongoing skirmishes escalated into war" not in the morning of 8 August 2008, but on 7 August 2008 near the midnight (see this discussion). (Pubkjre (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

What is the point of that sentence in the introduction? What is it trying to say? Why is it so important for it to be in the introduction? Is it trying to say something about "who started the war" or "when exactly it started"? If that piece of information is so important, why isn't it included in the summaries of the war written by major international newsagencies and newssites? Offliner (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Being a Fringe Theory, it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro, if at all. The article in Krasnaya Zvezda, the only marginally verifiable source, is only accessible through google cache, which makes it unacceptable for citation. I couldn't find any retraction. Conspiracy theories will no doubt abound, which with enough popularity may warrant an article of their own, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source and not the means for gaining such popularity. Billyblind (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

September 7th?! Bwahahaha, looks like our biased friend was in such a hurry to screw the article yet again, that he forgot to check dates properly! 195.218.211.56 (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out this new source: . It says: "At 10:35 p.m. on Aug. 7, less than an hour before Russian tanks entered the Roki Tunnel, according to Saakashvili, Georgian forces began their artillery assault on Tskhinvali." Our introduction says: "Ongoing skirmishes escalated into war early in the morning of 8 August 2008, when Georgia launched an artillery barrage of Tskhinvali." Offliner (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that "effectively" occupied is the most correct qualifier, for Russian purposes. Feel free to add a {{vague}} tag, but please do NOT remove content which has been assessed for language style and readability. Also, you will never get "when" the offensive was launched changed to "after" the offensive was launched, unfortunately. Ottre 07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe "effectively occupied" is best the wording? What does "effectively" mean in this context? Are there any sources which use that wording? I didn't understand the second part of your statement ("when"/"after" etc.) Could you please clarify? Offliner (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Routed

Hi there. I saw this edit, and just wanted to clarify. In English, the word 'routed' when used in a military context means, roughly, 'to drive off with a decisive victory.'

Main Entry:

5rout Listen to the pronunciation of 5rout Pronunciation: \ˈrau̇t\ Function: transitive verb Date: circa 1600

1 a: to disorganize completely : demoralize b: to put to precipitate flight c: to defeat decisively or disastrously <the discomfiture of seeing their party routed at the polls — A. N. Holcombe>2: to drive out : dispel

From here. Prince of Canada 08:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Saakashvili Lie? The West Begins to Doubt Georgian Leader (new Spiegel report)

The second page of this article reveals some important info that should be added to this article asap:

"One thing was already clear to the officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels: They thought that the Georgians had started the conflict and that their actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. In fact, the NATO officers believed that the Georgian attack was a calculated offensive against South Ossetian positions to create the facts on the ground, and they coolly treated the exchanges of fire in the preceding days as minor events. Even more clearly, NATO officials believed, looking back, that by no means could these skirmishes be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations."

"According to this intelligence information, the Georgians amassed roughly 12,000 troops on the border with South Ossetia on the morning of Aug. 7. Seventy-five tanks and armored personnel carriers -- a third of the Georgian military's arsenal -- were assembled near Gori. Saakashvili's plan, apparently, was to advance to the Roki Tunnel in a 15-hour blitzkrieg and close the eye of the needle between the northern and southern Caucasus regions, effectively cutting off South Ossetia from Russia."

"At 10:35 p.m. on Aug. 7, less than an hour before Russian tanks entered the Roki Tunnel, according to Saakashvili, Georgian forces began their artillery assault on Tskhinvali. The Georgians used 27 rocket launchers, including 152-millimeter guns, as well as cluster bombs. Three brigades began the nighttime assault."

"The intelligence agencies conclude that the Russian army did not begin firing until 7:30 a.m. on Aug. 8, when it launched an SS-21 short-range ballistic missile on the city of Borzhomi, southwest of Gori."

See, now do you guys understand why we must not use unreliable sources? Because in the mean time, when real reports containing the truth like this are being written up, we're basically spreading lies and hearsay, or at the very least a misleading, incomplete picture. It's not even relevant anymore whether or not Russian troops were moving towards Georgia on the 7th. Not even NATO is buying Georgias victim story. LokiiT (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without further comment the same source SPIEGEL in the same report ;) >>

"Is Saakashvili, who only five weeks ago had gained the West's sympathy as the victim of a Russian invasion, already dead politically? Last week he received support from an unexpected source, the Red Star, a newspaper published by the Russian Defense Ministry. The paper published remarks by an officer of the 58th Army, which Moscow has since denied. Nevertheless, the officer, ironically enough, fueled doubts as to the conclusion, by Western intelligence agencies and NATO, that Russian army units had not reached Tskhinvali until Aug. 9.

In the Red Star account, Captain Denis Sidristy, the commander of a company of the 135th Motorized Infantry Regiment, describes how he and his unit were already in the Roki Tunnel, on their way to Tskhinvali, in the night preceding Aug. 8. Did Moscow's invasion begin earlier than the Russians have admitted, after all?

Last week, Moscow investigators also conceded, for the first time, that the number of civilian casualties of the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali was not 2,000, as Russian officials have repeatedly claimed, but 134.

When asked about the account in the Red Star, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry told SPIEGEL that it was the result of a technical error. Moreover, the spokesman said, the official in question had been wounded and therefore "could no longer remember the situation clearly."

Last Friday Captain Sidristy, since decorated with the Russian defense ministry's order of bravery, was given a second opportunity to describe his version of the events to the Red Star. His unit, he said in his revised version, had advanced on Tskhinvali somewhat later than he had told the paper the first time.

As it appears, it is still difficult to separate truth and lies about the brief war in the Caucasus. " Elysander (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What does that tell us that we don't already know? I'm pointing out new NATO intelligence reports here. That information is somewhat irrelevant considering they took it into account when writing up their report. LokiiT (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument! SPIEGEL reports about unofficial papers but is generally more balanced than your view ;). It's the same game as the so-called official OSCE report weeks before. ;) Elysander (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What game? This isn't a game. The Spiegel report is reliable and contains important information. I'm sorry it doesn't conform to your anti-Russian POV but that's the reality. LokiiT (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Til now no official OSCE or NATO reports were released. SPIEGEL reports about different nonofficial papers, reports and statements in which indeed Georgia is to be made jointly responsible for the conflict and Saakashvili is strongly critized without forgetting the year-long provocations by Russia and Russian government's responsibility enhancing the conflict.

But the decisive question is still open: Were regular russian troops in Southossetia before a certain date ? Elysander (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, it has nothing to do with this article or the report. You're effectively trying to censor reliably sourced information because you don't like it, and at the same time trying to push unreliable, dubious reports for the opposite reason. Please stop reverting my edits. You have made three reverts to this article in under 24 hours. Please take heed to the WP:3RR rule. LokiiT (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! I did revert your fallacious quotation. NO NATO report was released on Sept 15 2008; SPIEGEL released a staff report at Sept 15 where different reports, statements etc. were accumulated. Your insertion is simply wrong. And you did delete a sentence in the lead with a source which the same SPIEGEL report exposed expressively. Elysander (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fallacious Quotation By LokiiT

However according to a NATO intelligence report released on September 15, "less than an hour before Russian tanks entered the Roki Tunnel, according to Saakashvili's claim, Georgian forces began their artillery assault on Tskhinvali." The report concludes that the Russian army did not begin firing until 7:30 a.m. on August 8, and that Georgia's actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. The NATO officers believed that the Georgian attack was a calculated offensive against South Ossetian positions.

The SPIEGEL report was released or published on Sept 15 2008 not a NATO intelligence report. SPIEGEL did cite directly or indirectly from nonofficial papers and confront these nonofficial papers with one of the known sources documenting Russian military presence in SO. SPIEGEL's conclusion: "As it appears, it is still difficult to separate truth and lies about the brief war in the Caucasus." Elysander (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what he did was a selective citation of a source that actually tells something completely different if to read the entire text. I tried to explain this to LokiiT previously (he does such things often), but he considered my advice as a "personal attack". Besides, this is misrepresentation of a claim made by a single source as fact. This should be fixed.Biophys (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This part actually should be omitted because it tries to lable Georgia the provacator. It should rather go on as such "The responsible parties for opening the conflict are still to be diterminded" because NATO did not officially declare who started it.-as arbitrary as that sounds. --XChile (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

More about August 7th

There are already articles (secondary sources) about publication in Russian Defense Department newspaper "Red Star", Matter of timing (Russian) by Ilya Milshtein:

Однако вовсе не этот случай обессмертил имя Сидристого. А всего лишь полторы строчки из его монолога: "7 августа пришла команда на выдвижение к Цхинвалу. Подняли нас по тревоге – и на марш". То есть 7 августа, примерно в те часы, когда президент Саакашвили вероломно объявлял о прекращении перестрелок, 135-й мотострелковый полк российской 58-й армии Северо-Кавказского военного округа входил в Южную Осетию. А в ночь с 7 на 8 августа, как всем известно, грузинский президент начал операцию "Геноцид".

В Кремле и в Генштабе ВС РФ точно знали сроки начала военной операции в Южной Осетии. Из своих эксклюзивных источников, которые прошляпила грузинская контрразведка. Ждали войны как манны небесной. Быть может, по каким-то своим каналам запустили дезу грузинскому руководству: у него развязаны руки, российская армия к отражению удара не готова. Военные самолеты, как в июле, "дабы охладить горячие головы", над Цхинвали тоже никто не запускал. Головы нужны были горячими. Более того: своих солдат ни о чем не предупредили, чтобы не произошло утечки. "Прибыли, разместились, – свидетельствует капитан Сидристый, – а уже 8 августа там полыхнуло с такой силой, что многие даже растерялись".

С блеском осуществленный план заключался в том, чтобы дать возможность Саакашвили совершить любые военные преступления, какие он только успеет совершить за сутки. Позволить ему обстрелять из "Града" спящий город. Заманить его танки в Цхинвали. И лишь потом выбить их оттуда, демонстрируя миру фашизм в тигровой шкуре, в его современном грузинском обличье. (Вообще получилось как с тобой тигрицей: ее выпустили побегать на воле, а в кустах сидел Путин с ружьем...) И, погнав армию Саакашвили до Гори и Тбилиси, с чувством глубочайшей внутренней правоты признать независимость Южной Осетии и Абхазии.

And so on.Biophys (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But again - the date is presented- August 7, but the time is not. Official Georgian version of this event is 23:30/11:30PM. Georgian forces officially entered military action at 23:50/11:50PM, but other sources give another time - not later than 23:30/11:30PM. Are there another information about time? (Pubkjre (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

No precise time. Main point: Russian forced were moved to South Ossetia before the beginning of Georgian attack according to all these sources.Biophys (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No precise time, no precise date (since it sets a date when they got an order to move to South Ossetia and says nothing about date or time they were on South Ossetian side of the tunnel), no precise info about who and why were ordered to move (the person was a part of peacekeeping unit that stationed at South Ossetia for long time). Finalyzer (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, the article is already a tertiary source, one of many regurgitating the same secondary "Red Star" source now only available from google cache. The only other source supporting the theory are the Phone taps which also cannot be cited here for more than one reason. I would expect more critical thinking from somebody with a handle like yours. Billyblind (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this article is a typical secondary source that discusses several primary sources, but mostly publication in Red Star. Secondary sources are the ones that most reliable and should be preferred per WP:Verifiability. This source discussed specifically the disappearance of Red Star article from the internet site and explains why it has been removed. Everything is consistent. Tertiary sources are other encyclopedias. Biophys (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Main point: Russian forced were moved to South Ossetia before the beginning of Georgian attack" - this information is disputed. That's why I've been against of including it in the introduction. The introduction is no place for facts which are not 100% sure. I think "who started the war and how it started" deserves its own chapter in this article. However, since I've been unable to remove the line in question from the introduction (my edits have been reverted), I have now tried to balance the intro by providing with two other statements: one from the Russian military and one from the Spiegel article. Offliner (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Still MUCH to long

This article is still much to long. Therefore I will try to dramatically shorten or cut several sections. I will leave a justification for each section here, so please reply here first instead of reverting. --Xeeron (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(copied from removed section below) This article is becoming more and more lengthy and certain parts of it need either to be omitted or have its own/different article The time line should be moved into its own article which there is one that already exists, The Humanitarian impact needs to be shortened or moved the the Humanitarian response to the 2008 South Ossetia war, Recognition of breakaway region should be omited. This article is getting to big. --XChile (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the shortening I am currently doing and commenting in the section above. --Xeeron (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In speaking terms of the end of various groups participating in the conflict at the end of the article yes I agree it should be omitted it didn't say that they were participating in the conflict.--XChile (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some other parts that could need shortening are:

• Financial reaction (but before shortening, this needs an update with newer sources)
• Timeline (I'll leave that one untouched since there is a special section up here on the talk page)
• Ceasefire & six point plan (also needs a clean-up) --Xeeron (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely that the article should be shortened, and irrelevant / obsolete information should be removed. IMHO, the article should concentrate more on the actual war, less on the reactions, implications and on "who said what." Offliner (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian statements on withdrawal

That section was cluttered with tons of statements about parts of the Russian withdrawal that might have been interesting at the time but are outdated and irrelevant now. The main facts of the controversy about the withdrawal have been kept, the rest is gone. I also renamed the title since the section contains not only Russian statements. --Xeeron (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Other (in Russian order of battle)

While it is likely that some groups of volunteers formed, it is very doubtful that they actually reached the conflict (seeing how the main road was also heavily used by regular Russian troops). Even if they did, the chances those volunteers were decisive at any stage amount to zilch. Unless there is a good source stating that there was actual fighting by non-SO/Abk volunteers, this should not be in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Military Situation in the Black Sea

This minor squabble was occupying a much to big part of the article. Now states fact (nato ships are there), NATO position, Russian position and leaves it at that. If WW3 does indead start in the black sea, we can expand again. Also changed the title to be more precise. --Xeeron (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyberwar

Much to much spotlight on petty internet vandals. Also removed the censorship part from the headline, since the article said precious little about censorship in Georgia and nothing about censorship in Russia. --Xeeron (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys' reverts

To User:Biophys, why did you revert the edits I made to the introduction? Please note, that I did not remove any information (other than the NATO part of "According to subsequent reports in the Russian media as well intelligence evidence of Georgia and some NATO states", which I could not find in the source given.) Instead, I added more sourced information to make the introduction more balanced, as I have stated above (and please, read my comments above.) Your argumentation for your reverts was "rv - that was supported by multiple sources." However, this argumentation is not valid, since the only thing I changed was the NATO part. I did not remove/change any other sourced information, therefore I cannot understand your argumentation at all. Note also that by removing the two sentenced I added, you were removing sourced information from the article. Please address these concerns. Offliner (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys will make an excuse to revert one small part of an edit and then revert the entire thing, like he just did now. This is just another example of his dishonest editing and POV pushing, he has a history of doing that. LokiiT (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The West Begins to Doubt Georgian Leader Spiegel Retrieved on 09-16-08

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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