Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Russia's Real Objective

Well, since Russia's real objective is to reach the pipelines and probably cut them off, so Europe would not have any alternative to Russian oil, can the article contain more information in this sense? Also another objective might be a show of force do discourage small countries who border Russia to join the NATO. The article does not mention these problems, so I think there is a NPOV problem here...

In fact pipelines are not real objective. This is only one of versions about it. My version of real objective is to prevent bombardment of Tskhinvali, even if it costs of destroying all Georgian Armed Forces. Both these versions are without sources, so they can't be placed in article. --MaratL (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If a reliable and notable source can be found for this, then it possibly could be included in the article so long as it was qualified with "think thank X said that ..." or "political commentator Y said that ..."Greenshed (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia's real objective is to drive all Georgian troops from South Ossetia, only then can Russia start talks. This can be verified through many resources. Russia doesn't care about the pipeline, and in fact BP denies the claims that the pipeline got bombed. Weather82004 (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why is Russia still advancing deep into Georgian territory? They are 20km away from Tbilisi. Does this count as "protecting Russian citizens? I think not...

Russia has made it clear that they have not had any intentions to invade Tbilisi. They are in deep territory to prevent the advancement of Georgian troops to South Ossetia; so they are still protecting the Russian citizens that are still trapped in rubble in Tskhinvali. Georgian troops were killing innocent civilians on the streets and throwing grenades at cellars where women, children, and the elderly were hiding. This has been confirmed by many journalists, eyewitnesses, and there is video proof. Georgia is not victim here at all (they never were), it is South Ossetia/Russia that is victim. Weather82004 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and when your beloved dictator invades the next Eastern European country that wont do his bid, we'll see what kind of propaganda you'll churn out then. Druworos (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia wasn't a recognized country, it was Georgia invading Georgia practically (Even though 60% of south ossetians are Russian citizens.) Plus South Ossetia is not in Eastern Europe. Weather82004 (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it is, as current definitions of Europe in the region have its border ending at the Ural Mountains in Russia. As for Russia's intentions... Doesn't this look oddly like Kosovo, which Russia was against? The real irony in all of this is that Reuters and CNN don't seem to be condemning either side... 74.78.179.186 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia were mere pretexts for what Russia really intended. Since NATO now stretches across a arc around what was the former USSR, from the Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Russia now finds itself somewhat surrounded. If Georgia were to be allowed in NATO alongside Ukraine, then Russia would have a very long border with NATO, with no states in between. By attacking Georgia, Russia wanted to show NATO members that the region is insecure, and that by allowing Georgia into the alliance, the small country might drag the entire alliance into an unwanted war. Russia actually wanted to destabilize NATO, and the situation in the 2 small separatists regions offered it a perfect excuse. Qubix 81.180.224.38 (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

By attacking Georgia, Russia don't want to show anything. Russia want only rescue its citizen. The only way is destroying Georgian Offensive. Other ways are impossible because of Saakashvili itself. BTW what we are discussing? The war or the article? :)--MaratL (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Journalists

Please do not remove anything without consensus. Several editors edited this section and only one removed it. If you think that they must be among other casualties, move them there, but DO NOT REMOVE AT ALL please. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

These reports can be noted, but I think it's undue weight to give it its own section. Thus, I've merged it into the humanitarian part. Superm401 - Talk 00:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a statement from a tabloid "journalist" as it was both off topic for the section in which it appeared and because, as a tabloid, there are questions as to the statement's credibility. It effectively alleged war crimes were being committed by the Georgians and, frankly, I think that ought to be better sourced and verified if such claims are going to be included. croll (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the tabloids are unreliable? They were clearly correct about John Edwards' affair with his mistress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.154.166 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tabloids are not reliable sources. While that doesn't mean the assertions or statements contained in a tabloid are automatically false, nor does it mean they are credible or true. (E.g., In the United States, tabloids also publish stories about hybrid human-bat babies and Hilter living to be 110 years old in a Brazilian hideaway.) If the Georgians are summarily executing helpless Russian soldiers (which is the clear implication of the otherwise vague phrase "finishing off" but is also something that not even the Russian government is claiming), then provide a reliable source. croll (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I've spoken with an admin. If the edit war won't stop I'll propose this article for full protection. Every non-minor edit should be discussed on this talk page first and reasonably supported. If people spent their time implementing something what was agreed on here then it's ridiculous to delete it without any discussion. I repeat myself, this is not sandbox of 1 or 2 people. toxygen (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For a why? I have not seen too complicated edit conflicts. We can discuss anything. Semiblock is enough. Please don't block article. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I try to avoid the most. I am not against any edit to the article when it is discussed and agreed on in here. But recently some users took it to their own hands. I'm aware of that there are lots of emotions going on here and every user has his own POV which he tries to render in his edits. That's why I try to avoid adding anything to this article and only supply news & resources on this talk page for others to use. So I would like everyone to respect others edits and delete them only when given rational approval on this talk page. toxygen (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not moderate the article. I think you want to provide your POV by blocking the article. There are no edit wars. All is normal. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide diffs to convince me (or any other admin) of uncontrolled edit warring. I agree with Alexander that things have been quite calm, considering. Edits don't always have to be discussed first on talk. If there's disagreement, then people should go to talk. But plenty of significant edits have gone through without issue. Superm401 - Talk 00:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin is not the Commander

Please do not add him to infobox. Vladimir Putin is only a prime-minister at now. Commander-in-Chief is Dmitry Medvedev. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

he is the de facto commander, medvedev was handpicked by him purposely to be his puppet, AND he has met with russian generals in the region right after flying home from beijing.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only an unproved opinion. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He is the de facto leader of Russia. And is calling the shots in this conflict. From the BBC, "Russian PM Vladimir Putin seems to be taking the decisions" [1] LCpl (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only an unproved opinion. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From the TimesOnline: "The fighting in Georgia has answered the question that world leaders have been asking since Vladimir Putin stepped down as President this year: who runs Russia? The answer, of course, is Mr Putin." [2] LCpl (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of those links are essays and opinions from non-Russians. Yes, everyone knows that Putin is still extremely powerful, but the fact remains that the President of Russia is the commander-in-chief of the Russian military, while the Prime Minister is confided to policy matters. --Tocino 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the opinion only. De jure only the President of Russia is the Commander-in-Chief. Prime-minister in any war is NOBODY. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for interjecting my two cents here, but Winston Churchill most certainly ran England during WWII... 74.78.179.186 (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm... Great Britain, Russia.. two completely different nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.199.218 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging by his comments across this article and his own talk page, I think it's pretty safe to assume that Alexander Widefield here is quite a likely culprit for NPOV infringements himself. Take caution. Or wait, is that only "unproved opinion only" ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.96.21 (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What the NPOV infringements of mine? Please cite them :-( Vladimir Putin is in fact not the Commander. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the local military command requires the President or Prime Minister's permission to do anything, he already has permission to be in Georgian territory so far as required to protect the people and territory of S Ossetia and Abkazia. .

202.92.40.8 (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

permission by whom? certainly neither the international community nor the sovereign state of Georgia. Druworos (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Winston Featherly

There no citation attached to the ref tag. As a result, the references are showing an error. ' Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named turkish-journalist-was-wounded'. --Patrick (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember I've added the name for ref, now I fix it. See below, I found video with him on Channel One website. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That was my doing. It is taken care of. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

About American journalist

See video with him, time near 02:45. His name like Winston Faderly or may be Winston Faderley, he says he's from Alaska, all his crew were killed except him. He is in Tskhinvali hospital basement on video. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Winston Featherly' See here --Elliskev 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed :) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Images and Georgia's OOB

If it wasn't so difficult uploading images (with working permission), the page could now have over 600 to chose from (in my possession). However, I could upload a couple of screenshots from the Norwegian news channel TV2 Nyhetskanalen's coverage of it (I have recorded from Friday, Saturday and Sunday), so there could be some OK images until better photos become available.

Secondly, I might be able to help with the Georgian OOB - for a starter, Military of Georgia page has a list of the army's formation. Formations in direct vicinity of the fighting is 1st Infantry Brigade, Separate Tank Battalion, Artillery Brigade. Of course it is important to stay critical, but all these formation's participation makes sense, as tanks and artillery were used.

I might be able to find more at a better source specializing on nation's armed forces.

Realismadder (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the over 600 non-free images like the TV screenshots? If so, we can not accept them. Superm401 - Talk 01:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the 600 is normal photos, and I know those cannot be used (sadly) - but screenshots of the Norwegian news channel's coverage of the crisis. Realismadder (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"300 dead (200 soldiers)"

What does that mean? Are the 100 civilians? If they are, why the double standard of having the thousands of other civilian deaths in a 'general' section? --Leladax (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the 2000 is probably inflated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is that a serious answer? Why don't you remove it then? Hypocrites.. --Leladax (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are some pictures from Tskhinvali: [3], [4]. Where are the 70% destruction and 2,000 civilian casualties (over 6% of the total population, a very high figure for a couple of days of conventional warfare in such a small town)? Definitely it doesn't look like Hamburg in 1943 or Dresden in 1945. Colchicum (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TU-22M Backfire?

Has it been confirmed that it was a TU-22M Backfire that was shot down as I heard that the Russian military claimed it was a TU-22 Blinder (presumably an elint/recon variant) that was shot down? 192.136.16.3 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

→ no idea which version of Backfire was shot down, but I have info on weapon used to bring it down: Russian made SAM S300 (nato reporting name - Vega) 87.206.61.201 (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it was old Ukrainian-origin S200. Will see sources hmm.. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

How can you call wikipedia an independent encyclopedia after publishing this article? Everybody who reads it PLEASE pay attention to the references ALL OF THEM ARE RUSSIAN! and please just think about one thing: why Russian military base is in Georgia? Would for example USA like russian soldiers in the states? and those so called peacekeepers are recognized only by russians themselves, Please google russian peacekeepers to see their equipment.

The United States has a base in Cuba, why wouldn't Russia have one in Georgia? After all, if you remember correctly, Georgia and Russia used to be apart of the same side, often sharing their troops so that they would not hesitate to kill the other's people in the event of an uprising. They learned that after watching the Chinese (who have since adapted this strategy using troops from different regions) tanks being stopped by one lone man in a shirt and tie during the uprising in Beijing. Also, could you please sign your comments? Thank you. 74.78.179.186 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is several articles and frequent updates by Civil Georgia if you look in the references. The peacekeepers consist of a contigent of Georgian, Russian and Ossetian troop and are UN-mandated and monitored. I can't answer the military base one, but I answered what I can, cheers! Attilavolciak07 (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Most media about this conflict are russian, because the russians have a lot of media in this area and the russian gouverment is interested in showing the world their point of view. Western or other foreign journalists could show the other side of the conflict, but they are simply not als well established in the area as russian. They need time to gather and confirm information. Until then, we have to take what we can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.252.165 (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm... and what do you think western massmedia will find out there? Witnesses of russian agression? Do anybody still believe Saakashvili after he told all those things: 1) Russia started aggression (So why do georgian soldiers in such quantities with tanks and aviation were there? May be because THEY prepared to attack ossetians?); 2) russian destroy ossetian capital, but why do georgian Grads fire, and not russian? 3) it were russian, who make genocide on ossetians (but why do ossetian refugees run in Russia, not in Georgia and why do Russia help them? Of course it doesn't interest western massmedia!), 4) Saakashvili says he wants peace, but georgian Grads continue fire upon Tshinvali, tanks crush elders and children and HIS army do not let russian to evacuate wounded and civilians from there? 5) Saakashvili during several days have been telling that russian attack Gori, Tbilisi and so on, but even Reuters (is it western agency, isn't it?) tells, their correspondents were in Gori and saw no army at all; may be russian are invisible? 6) did anyone see video, how Saakashvili runs from "russian bombs": [5]? It's only circus, don't you think so? But of course western massmedia are simply not there, and when they do, they will find out ONE burned up house (I'm sure it will be burned up by georgians themselves) and gonna show it the whole world: 'Oh, what a bad guys this russians!' Western massmedia are already falsificating facts. One of numerous examples: [6]. "Некогда уважаемый канал CNN выпустил в эфир, казалось бы, нейтральную новость, даже предоставив слово российской стороне в лице постоянного представителя России при ООН Виталия Чуркина. Однако в подстрочнике CNN выдал текст, прямо противоположный тому, что говорил Чуркин о геноциде осетин со стороны грузинских агрессоров: в уста российского представителя вложили фразу о том, что "сепаратисты атаковали русских миротворцев в Южной Осетии". То есть это осетины уничтожили свои села, а вторгшиеся грузинские военизированные отряды совершенно ни при чем. Все это сопровождается заголовком: "Кровь на улицах. Россия бомбит грузинские города"." If briefly — CNN shows, how Churkine says, that georgian troops attacked russian peacekeepers, but subtitles contains ABSOLUTELY OPPOSITE THING: it were ossetians who attacked russian. There's no point to believe Saakashvili and western massmedia at all: they are interested in Russia destruction. So decide yourself, do western massmedia will tell YOU truth or they will continue lie you, as they do all this time.

Gori?

I have received meesages that Gori is under attack, I know there has been airstrikes but I mean ground attacks. People claim Russia has started the Gori offensive. Is there any link to prove this, because it seems very important because US troops are stationed there and in leads to th East/West Highway.Attilavolciak07 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In Gori was only one bomb, but this bomb hit an armament depot near apartments. About 60 civilians were wounded. Ru magister (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All the reports about the Russians atacking/invading/bombarding Gori turned out to be false, according to this:

As the conflict has raged, Russia and Georgia are locked in an increasingly ferocious propaganda war. Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, had claimed on Sunday that Gori was under “massive” bombardment as Russian troops attempted to take the town. It was, at best, a questionable claim — one of many made by both sides. The Daily Telegraph has maintained an almost continual presence in Gori since hostilities began and witnessed no such assault. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2542751/Georgia-Chaos-and-panic-as-people-flee-the-Russian-advance.html (Lennie 03:22 GMT 12.08.08)

Stances

I think the sections between the lead and the background: "Russian Stance", "Georgian Stance", "International factors", etc. should be moved elsewhere. They are breaking the flow of the article. Putin's quote in the Russian stance is a some sort of evaluation of the conflict. It probably should go to other leader's opinions. "Georgian stance" is basically a duplicate of the lead. I do not think we need it in that form nor that this is the Georgian official narrative Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Attilavolciak07 (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The stances/claims by sides (as opposed to more factual information) could be moved to International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia War or elsewhere. Besides, the "Georgian stance" does not really describes Georgian stance.Biophys (talk)

Bias

The article is being increasingly dominated by the Russian nationalistic POV and is turning into a slur against Georgia. Wikipedia should be a neutral source. The introduction of this article is written in the style which would better fit Mr. Zhirinovksy's website. The article also lacks the information about the Russo-Ukrainian marine stalemate. Also, the U.S. accuses Russia of using the South Ossetia crisis as a pretext to overthrow the elected Georgian government. Please add these and other details from international media outlets. Eg, http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/10/georgia.russia/index.html. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC has published the comparison of the armed forces of Georgia and Russian invaders (based Jane's Sentinel Country Risk Assessments). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7552908.stm --93.177.151.101 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Improper usage of word "there"

Under "August 11:"

"Western Officials again reiterated there fears that Russia..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.190.50 (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like that...just go ahead and fix it yourself when you see it.71.225.97.173 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Divide combat and diplomatic negotiatons

I think the parts of the article where diplomatic efforts, statements, negotiations, UNSC meetings, etc, should get their own section. The timeline is a bit uncomfortable to read the way it is now. Sarejo (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced text

The following text about advanced preparation of Russian forces for the attack has been deleted:

On August 4, five battalions of Russian 58th Army were moved to the vicinity of Roki Tunnel that links South Ossetia with North Ossetia

User:Superm401, please explain, why did you do that deletion?Biophys (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If I removed this, it was a complete accident (probably due to an edit conflict), and I apologize. Do you have a diff so I can see what happened? Superm401 - Talk 03:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. this series of your edits.Biophys (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, my bad. It think it's been fixed now. Superm401 - Talk 06:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

the road to Gori

should we add a battle box since russia is attacking Gori and advancing?

Does anyone know the news there? It is definetly big but I can't find much. Attilavolciak07 (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Both news source say Russia is getting ready and Civilians are pulling out.[7] [8]

Yes, I think they already shot preliminary tank blasts and artillery, I could be wrong. Attilavolciak07 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed title of this talk 216.36.153.161 (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is information coming in that an engagement is taking place on the road leading into Gori. A new page should be made. A link called The battle for Gori? under Aug 10 or 11. [9] Youtube of BCC also shows Russians targeting Civilian and/or non-military targets.

Please be mindful of Russian Intelligence Cyber attacks concerning the NPOV.--68.32.187.180 (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone make a article about the Russian advance onto Goir? And what happen too the navel battle bettwen The black fleet and the Georgian navy? --66.229.12.186 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Laughable bias

Ossetian rebels are "volunteers." Georgian irregulars are "American mercenaries." Georians "invade", Russians are "peacekeepers." What a bunch of hogwash -- it's impossible to even find a scintilla of truth in this article. There is a massive Russian disinfoprmation campaign going on on the network and this is just part of it. Letters to major newspapers and their article comments; blog comments; Wikipedia, etc. All just part of a vast and pre-planned effort to foist a Russian nationalist POV onto the net.

Russia did had Peacekeepers in the area but an Invasion force was sent and the peacekeepers were attach too them. But I agree on the Volunteers and the mercenaries part with you.--66.229.12.186 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shame on WIkipedia -- this whole article needs to be suspended. Volunteer editors cannot hope to keep up with internet mercenaries and government-sponsored data attacks. Kcmurphy88 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact almost all my sourced edits here have been immediately reverted by certain users. Only link to Ossetians survived. However another (apparently Russian) user misrepresented Ossetians as a nation of murderers, so I had to revert this garbage.Biophys (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well are they famous Ossetians or not? :P Druworos (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

user:LokiiT has just removed the info on the separatists' attack on pro-Georgian Ossetian administration. The overzealous pro-Kremlin users seem to be in control of this article. Please restore this valid information. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think the article is biased try putting the bias tag in the article so everyone can address the point. The bias tag is --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but the article seems to be locked. Another issue is the number of refugees mentioned in the summary box. It only cites the Tsar's version (34,000), while we also have the UN commissioner's report (1,100).see here I don't think that the leader of the principal belligerent country is more neutral and credible source than the UN officil responsible for the refugee affairs.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The most funny thing is that Georgia shows itself everywhere as a victim of Russia's Imperialism. No one even knows that Georgia broke diplomatic discussion a couple of days before the whole thing started. Same thing with actions, after breaking the discussions Georgia sent their troops to South Ossetia to "definitely" show Ossetians where is their "place" in Georgia. South Ossetia called for Russian help only. Time to stop Georgian propaganda either. P.S. USA and Israel did help Georgia before and druing the war. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Laughing at the article and blaming Russian conspiracies is not helpful. Make concrete and specific suggestions for improving the article, and we will listen. Superm401 - Talk 04:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know that everything Russians did was evil? Even their presence on the internet strikes fear in the hearts of good, decent people, like those in the Baltics and Poland, who are probably the most peaceful humans on earth. Please from now on assume bad faith when dealing with these communist/tsarist/satanist Russians. (This reply might be sarcastic) --Tocino 04:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't helpful either. Superm401 - Talk 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I say that if you actually lived in Poland, this wouldn't seem all that funny to you? Let alone the Baltic states. Druworos (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone down, Superm401 & Tocino, and stop sanctifying yourselves.

concrete and specific suggestions have been made, but they have been downplayed. The information on the seccessionists' attack on pro-Georgian Ossetian officials have been deleted without any explanation. The article is unbalanced as the majority of cited sources are Russian. The "X.ru claims..." wording is not enough as each of such claims should be balanced by what a Georgian or international source says. B. Lynn Pascoe, the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, noted yesterday that the UN lacked information because of cyber-attacks on Georgian websites.[10] And the summary box mentions only Putin's version of refugees in North Ossetia, ignoring the data provided by the UN commissioner responsible for refugees.[11]--93.177.151.101 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources given before for the Georgia's provocation attack on South Ossetia were removed without discussion either.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia's provocation attack? The last thing Georgia wanted was war. The Russians instigated the separatists to attack Georgian villages, prompting Georgia to use force. It's a pity that a Pole is so vulnerable to Russian agit-prop. By the same logic, the 1920 war was also a Polish provocation.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure, and the German provocation in Gliwice was a Polish job... Georgians first attacked South Ossetia after breaking diplomatic relations with this country, South Ossetia called only for Russian help to defend its citizens. Georgian propaganda need to be stopped. "It's a pity that a Pole is so vulnerable to Russian agit-prop. By the same logic, the 1920 war was also a Polish provocation" - Don't make anymore statements like this or you will be reported for ban. You can't compare these too wars because they are occured in different places and situations.--Krzyzowiec (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Georgians first attacked South Ossetia after breaking diplomatic relations with this country". Right now South Ossetia is not country, Mr. Krzyzak. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that S.0. is not recognized as a country it's pretty clear that the people of that area feel they are independent. Regardless however you look at it country or independent province the area has it's own government independent of Georgia and was certainly capable and active in diplomacy prior to the war.--69.176.59.217 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Independent? From whom? Considering that over 50%++ of the SO populous applied for and received Russian passports which therefore made them Russian citizens? Russian's peacekeeping mission seems to have been an open door for them to gain control through the "backdoor" and justify their current actions. The neutrality and pro-Russian bias of this article is outrageous.Jmedinacorona (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And just as laughable are your statements about this so called bias. People here are trying their best to pick facts from the rivers of misinformation that are generously poured by Mass Media of US, Georgia and Russia. Do everyone a favor and keep your unnecessary statements to yourself. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And just how necessary is your reply to mine? I would take your own advice before you begin espousing it to others. Thank you. Jmedinacorona (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the UN refugee data. I'm looking for the removed secessionist info now (I remember it but diffs always speed things up). Superm401 - Talk 04:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to find more sources on it.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I finally found this info in the history (details regarding alleged shelling of Georgian villages), and put it back in the article. Superm401 - Talk 06:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Overview section

The overview section needs inline references just like the rest. If it's written twice, it needs to be referenced twice. Furthermore, the current form of the section reads a bit like original synthesis. Superm401 - Talk 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a synthesis! That is the meaning and purpose of an "overview", however that is not original research. I appreciate this is a controversial article, but the section I added is simply a summary of the timeline reports with a look at the maps. Most less informed readers will not have a map, and will get the impression that the fighting is concentrated in Tskhinvali, which it is not. All that is contained in the Overview is the compilation of referenced reports, but with a map plot. I can't really reference the Overview until there is a much better map included in the article. The Overview does not represent any statements or claims of either side, or claims of casualties, etc. If anyone finds anything in the Overview that they think is exhibiting bias, or is not referred to in the Timeline sections, please tag it with {{Fact|date=August 2008}} and I will attend to it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's a synthesis done by you (and other Wikipedia editors), it's original research. Superm401 - Talk 04:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently the article is a report on current affairs. All such reporting is usually preceded by a summary, or the "story so far" introduction. If you think there is something in the overview that is "original research" please put an {{Fact|date=August 2008}} in and as I already said, I will attend to it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider this "Saakashvili mobilized the Georgian reserve troops amid what he referred to as "a large-scale military aggression" by Russia" - is it all about a single Georgian battalion attempting to occupy Tskhinvali?! If the Russian aggression is large-scale, it probably seeks to outnumber that of Georgia. Given the Russian order of battle where I count at least five divisions, I put Georgian strength at at least two divisions, or more likely 3-4 brigades, each with 3-4 infantry battalions. Certainly the Georgian reports showed 152mm SP howitzers, and they are not standard issue in infantry battalions--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ever occur to you Russian aggresion is large scale so as to outnumber all of the Georgian army, not just the brigade in S. Ossetia? Druworos (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Handling bias

1) Do not tell us or complain us media is bias. Every media is bias in some sense. Do not pretend you are more impartial than the media. Just put the name of the author/date/where whenever making a reference so reader can decide it, not you decide it. 2) If the content is bias point out where it is. For example, ask for a UN resolution number if you doubt that there is UN resolution had endorsed peacekeeping. If there is POV point it out. Be precise and do not be bold. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be bold? Hopefully that's a mistake.

Genocide

I've put two genocide/ethic cleansing accusations into the article, one by each side. They should both be retained, as this issue has received significant coverage (and speculation):

1. "Medvedev, Putin accuse Georgia of genocide".
2. Owen, Elizabeth (2008-08-10). "GEORGIAN TROOPS WITHDRAW FROM SOUTH OSSETIA, RUSSIA BOMBS TBILISI AIRPORT". Eurasianet. Retrieved 2008-08-11. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--Superm401 - Talk 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The claims are rather weak and close to fairy tale at this level. Russia and accusing Geogria and vice versa. It could be helpful if there are witness from non-CIS member. Anyway thanks for your effort.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is independent reports on this. I read this the day Russian troops were massing on the border. An associated press reporter was quoting a refugee they had interviewed that said their village had been burnt to the ground and many civilians in it shot by Georgian troops. You can attack the AP anyway you like for bias but they still reported an act tantamount to genocide ... and the reality is exactly the same thing happened last time Georgia attacked South Ossetia (in 1991)

Some photos and videos (from Georgian's TV and RussiaToday) can be viewed here: http://community.livejournal.com/urban_decay/2158559.html?mode=reply

First one is a short movie from Georgian TV news. Soldiers shooting unarmed man. They don't want even try to hide these moment.

Second one is mix movie from South Ossetia - you can see and listen a lots of peoples whose life had been destroyed completely during the one night.

Photos not need to be commented at all.

An edit

"Background", paragraph one: "Saakashvili proposed a peace deal under which South Ossetia . . . " Pls change this to: "The President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, proposed a peace deal . . . ", and hypertext his name. Sstteevvee (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Refugee counts

LokiT has removed the UN refugee count, saying it is days old. He notes that their is a replacement from a BBC story. The problem is that new figure doesn't break down refugees by ethnicity. I'll put it in the infobox for now. Superm401 - Talk 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has to stop this edit war. The UN refugee count CAN be days old but Russian count isn't more detailed either.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

LokiT put the lumped figure in already, but it still would be better to have it broken down. Superm401 - Talk 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Amphibious landing in Abkhazia

There are several media reports that 4000 Russian troops (naval infantry?) made an amphibious landing in Abkhazia.[12][13] Other media said the naval task force included the guided missle cruiser Moskva, the "patrol boat" Smetlivy (actually a Kashin class destroyer) and three three large landing craft.[14][15][16] Another report says "includes three amphibious assault vessels, two anti-submarine warfare vessels, a reconnaissance ship, two minesweepers, two missile boats, a missile cruiser and a variety of aircraft".[17] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see pictures. How this works is that transports approach Abkhazia, and Georgian press release the statement because the transports "can" carry up to 4,000 troops, in theory--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect of the Russian offensive out of Abkhazia, that sure must seem like a wise comment to have made. Druworos (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

DEBKAfiles and Israeli involvement

I removed a statement claiming an Israeli involvement. The only source was DEBKA, which is not by any stretch of imagination a reliable source (see also the Wikiarticle Debka.com. There was also a link to a Russian language news report at РБК Daily, but Israel is not mentioned once in the article. All editors here you should really be more careful with their citations. Голубое сало (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is reliable. Biased does not equal unreliable. This is discussed more in detail #Israel_removed_from_body below because I didn't see your username (note that this is English Wikipedia and it's not at all clear to most people that "Голубое сало" = "BlueSalo". Superm401 - Talk 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia-Georgia war?

Should we create already article Russia-Georgia war per this and other sources?Biophys (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Russia is not the only belligerent, anyway it should be Russian-Georgian War in case the idea succeeds--TheFEARgod (Ч) 05:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should be "2008 Georgian-Ossetian war" or something similar because officialy Russia isn't at war with Georgia. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

De facto it is per the source cited above and others.Biophys (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that official declarations of war are not required. For example, Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union without any declaradion of war. USA did not declare a war on Iraq and only wanted "regime change" (like Putin wants for Georgia). So it goes.Biophys (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let alone the fact that a Georgia-Ossetia war is the exact equivalent of a Poland-Krakow war. lol Druworos (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to rename the article 2008 Georgia-Russia War or 2008 Georgian-Russian War. It is the best name that reflects has is happening. NerdyNSK (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweden evokes Hitler in condemning Russian assault

Sweden has evoked the memory of Adolf Hitler in condemning Russia's attacks on Georgia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia, saying the protection of Russians there did not justify the assault. "No state has the right to intervene militarily in the territory of another state simply because there are individuals there with a passport issued by that state or who are nationals of the state," ... "Attempts to apply such a doctrine have plunged Europe into war in the past... And we have reason to remember how Hitler used this very doctrine little more than half a century ago to undermine and attack substantial parts of central Europe," Foreign Minster Carl Bildt said in a statement. The Local --Hapsala (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall Poland killing German peace keepers or destroying cities in Poland that wanted to be part of Germany. What an idiotic statement. LokiiT (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum so GTFO or help IMPROVE the article--66.229.12.186 (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I deleted my comments, LokiiT has been a nuisance for multiple days on this article as I recollect, I reacted, I shouldn't.

"I don't recall Poland (...) destroying cities in Poland that wanted to be part of Germany." Well, there was Bloody Sunday (1939) in Bydgoszcz. But anywyay, I believe the comment was related to the 1938 Sudetenland crisis, followed by the German occupation of Czechoslovakia on the pretext of defending the ethnic Germans there (Volksdeutsche) from the Czech persecution. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

a)This article is not about Polish-German conflict, b)Bloody Sunday occured 3 days after the war started, c)Bloody Sunday was a German propaganda movement same as Attack on Gliwice Radostation and sabotage actions in Poland shortly before the war, all these actions were propaganda against Poles by German Nazis.

You may be slow, Mr. Anonymous, so I'll repeat: But anywyay, I believe the comment was related to the 1938 Sudetenland crisis, followed by the German occupation of Czechoslovakia on the pretext of defending the ethnic Germans there (Volksdeutsche) from the Czech persecution. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC

Comments from the west are irrelevant, we may as well quote nuclear phsysicists as quote politicians from USA, sweden, australia... we may put these quotes at the end in "stupid comments from stupid people"

However uneloquently the above statement is made it is in a sense fair. Why is the West; Europe and the USA even relevant in this conflict? I mean sure they have a small influence but that should mean they have a small role in the article. If say China wasn't involved in say the War in Iraq but 2/3's of the statements on that war were from the Chinese press and government it would be considered odd. So why is it ok for everyone in the West to jump on their soap-box and pretend like their opinions, words and actions are more important then the people doing the fighting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.140.247 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? It's important to Europe and the West because Georgia is a part of Europe and the West. 65.60.215.154 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and the West should up and do something, rather than issue pompous statements. Druworos (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel removed from body

BlueSalo removed Israel from the order of battle section and combatant statements. His explanation was "unsourced statement, see talk page" but I don't see what part is unsourced (Debka clearly provides all the info), nor do I see any comments by BlueSalo here. I've put the info back in, and would appreciate an explanation.

BlueSalo is still claiming it's unsourced, but as far as I can tell that's not true. Superm401 - Talk 05:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See above, DEBKAfiles and Israeli involvement. DEBKa files is not a reliable source, and the РБК Daily talks a lot about American involvement and not all about Israel involvement. So please remove this statement from the article. Although, as if it matters in this biased mess of an article. Голубое сало (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I found another source, the Jerusalem Post,[18] which I've added it in addition to DEBKA. I think that should be the end of this. Superm401 - Talk 05:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording to bring in it line what the Jeruselem Post actually writes. DEBKA is just not a reliable source, so we shouldnt use them. And as I said the RBK article does not even mention Israel once. Голубое сало (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I put back a mention of oil considerations, which was removed earlier. It uses a Ha'aretz source. Superm401 - Talk 06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reactions

Some countries should be reinstated ... in my opinion all of the permanent security council members should be included. Further more I think the EU, UN and CIS opinions should be added; other than that, perhaps nations/nonrecognized nations in the region should be included such as Abkhazia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. If the rest have a second page, so be it, it's fine.

Moved to International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to move all international reactions to another section. There is a potential for bias if we try to decide which reactions to include and which to exclude, but there are too many to include them all in the main article. The separate article for reactions is a useful solution. Christiangoth (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking (or typing) frankly, some international reactions are more important than others. Please examine (as an example) which countries are mentioned in the Kosovo declaration of independence article and which countries are mentioned in the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Kosovo is a good precedent ... I think the slavophiles will agree with me on that point! (j/k, they won't; it doesn't fit the "agenda".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All countries are equal so we can't place them in some order (except alphabethical) or jsut delete their resposne to the conflict. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Source or remove "1,600 South Ossetians killed and 90 wounded"

Btw, the claim like this (20 or so times more killed than wounded) is truly laughable. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Da, Yes! I'm in total agreement. Either 2,000 more have been wounded or 1,600 aren't dead.

Oh well, maybe, you know, the Georgians finished-off all the wounded. Like Putin said, it's GENOCIDE! *rimshot* --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the claim is very dubious, but Russia and South Ossetia have asserted at least the 1600 killed part.[19]. Per NPOV, I've put it back in. Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Captain, but now that the South Ossetians agree with Mr. Putin, I must abandon your obvious logic, 1,600 killed and 20 wounded it is! ... Georgians aren't stormtroopers after all, they were trained by Americans!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked and the claims of "90 wounded and 1,600 killed" are still in Google search but strangly not in the articles themselves. So I removed this. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's possible this is a confused, badly-worded reference, by the news media, to 90 soldiers being wounded while 1,600 civilians have been killed... but yes, let's leave it out for now. — Beobach972 (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Has south Ossetia made a statement about its dead combatants? I think they have put the civvies and combatants into 1 pot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's more than 1500 killed civils, and many uncounted ones is still laying under ruins. And it is not f***ing laughable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.203.168.97 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from James Jeffrey and Wesley Clark

The Chicago Tribune (and other sources) are carrying some remarks by United States Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey and retired General Wesley Clark. [20]

Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey was asked whether U.S. military intervention was on the table. "Our focus is on working with both sides," he replied, "with the Europeans and with a whole variety of international institutions and organizations to get the fighting to stop, get the two sides disengaged and get people back to the status quo ante, which we define as the 6th of August."

He added that if the reports of Russian ships moving to blockade Georgia were true, it would be very troubling.

"We would be ... very, very concerned if, in fact, there is ground action inside of Georgia proper, that is outside of these areas of Abkhazia and Ossetia," Jeffrey said.

In the face of that, there appeared little the U.S. and its allies could do to, such as extending NATO combat air patrols to Georgia, as they were in 2002 to deter Russian interference in Lithuania. "There are already Russian aircraft over Georgia, so the chances of direct engagement [between Russian and NATO aircraft] is very high," retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said.

Should any of that be included? JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. If it should be anywhere, it would be the int. reaction article. But Clark is retired and Jeffrey is too low in rank. Superm401 - Talk 06:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey might be included in International Reaction, I think. He is in official capacity. Agreed on Clark. Druworos (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

I think that we should delete this section and just wait to the end of conflict for the official numbers, other way we have laughable and propaganda informations. Section is not even upgraded and as far as I know everyday during the war someone dies or is wounded.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They are the official numbers. Btw, everyone don't reinstate the other side's claims (like the Georgian about how many Russia lost). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What I added is what I saw on TV. They were bits of aircraft with one being distinctly a Su-25 and the other possibly the claimed Tu-22 given the size of the undercarriage (though I don't have good images to compare it to). The four T-72s were Georgian from the distinctive mods to the external package, though one didn't look damaged in any way, and in fact was claimed to have been captured (I would say abandoned for reasons unknown), and one BMP-2, though where there is one, there would be others--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the 1400 number: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL857385920080808?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0 -- Geleonit (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian order of battle

Media reports now say 9000 Russian troops and 350 armoured vehicles in Abkhazia alone.[21][22][23]

Deployed ships from the Black Sea Fleet are reported to include the guided missile cruiser Moskva and Kashin class destroyer Smetlivy.[24][25][26][27]

203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added all these news. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

Several Russian [28] [29] and English [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] language sources are reporting that Turkey has deployed naval elements off the coast of Georgia. Should this be included? JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reports say off the Georgian port of Batumi, which is only 10km from the Turkish border. It's possible they could be "on station" near Batumi but still inside Turkish territorial waters. There are other media reports that Turkey and Armenia are helping evacuate foreigners from Georgia, so this may be part of an evacuation plan. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The English sources are not exactly of a "reliable sources" kind. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It still could be inserted in the article as Russian claims - there already are Georgian volunteers from Azerbaijan based on single source and Russian reports on black soldiers (which could be from anywhere) ~~Xil (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt this. It would be very surprising (in fact worrying) if Turkey wasn't doing something like this. Batumi is a popular tourist destination for Turks and Armenians and Turkish Airlines suspended flights to Batumi on Sunday.[35] It would be logical for Turkey to have a contingency plan in case they needed to assist with evacuations. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Troops in Ossetia

Apparently a regiment of Vostok troops, loyal to Yamadayev, had been dispatched to South Ossetia, in order to fight alongside the Russian Federal troops, against Georgia. Here is the source: http://www.life.ru/video/4966 a video from a russian news agency. On an armored vehicle one can clearly spot a Chechen flag flying, and there are also bits of chechen speech, and the whole article itself relates to this story. I guess this can be an addition to the summary box, the sides of the conflict. There are also reports from kommersant newspaper, that some troops had been already spotted by South Ossetian refugess, engaging georgian troops. Here are the sources: http://www.kommersant.ru/news.aspx?NewsID=131308 http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1010079 Daud.fr (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Yamadaev's Chechen troops from Vostok are the units of the Russian Army, is there need to distinguish them from Russians? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Point there Alex. However, when it comes to Chechen Militias, one has to understand that their allegiance first lies with their local commander (Yamadayev is by the way officily wanted by federal government - wheird, huh?). The thing is, that they are ethnically recruited, and in a way it is more correct to call them as units of Pro-Russian Chechen Army. From this perspective, i guess it is not such a bad idea, to note their participation. It would definitely give a better insight on the participatin forces in this conflict. Daud.fr (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is commander of Vostok Yamadaev or not Yamadaev - it doesn't matter. Vostok unit is exists and it is the unit of the Russian Armed Forces. So we cannot distinguish them in infobox separately. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually i must say, that whoever updated the Russian order of the battle section, with the details concerning the Vostok battalion, kinda found here a golden middle, a perfect solution here. That makes much more sense, then separately distinguishing the unit in the box. I guess this whole issue is now sorted. 212.9.127.247 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not "loyal to Yamadayev" - the Hero of Russia Sulim Yamadayev was just declared federally wanted in Russia.(!) Those "loyal to Yamadayev" are with him wherever he is is hiding now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but according to the commersant article listed right there above http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1010079 , one of the apc's which had passed by the the correspondent, had the following painting on it: "Chechnya.Vostok.Yamadaev" :

Северная окраина Цхинвали. Из разорванного трубопровода хлещет вода, заливающая прилегающие улицы. Навстречу нам едет БТР с надписью "Чечня. Восток. Ямадаев". На броне — восемь хорошо экипированных бойцов. Они поднимают руку в приветственном жесте. Это, как и белые ленточки, опознавательный знак.

regardless of his status, i guess his troops yet remain loyal to him.

Kommersant has also article http://www.kommersant.com/p1008622/r_530/Vostok_battalion_Sulim_Yamadaev/ where he refers to him as "Hero of Russia and former commander of the Vostok (East) special battalion, who was fired after a dispute with Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov". On a sidenote, there were recently a number of armed incidents between Yamadayevtsy and Russians in Georgia, including fatalities, so those guys may be very confused and I guess their morale is not very high. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As of the "Vostok troops, loyal to Yamadayev" - I think they would be guys like those. (Georgia reported 90 deserted en masse last month "and requested that they be permitted to leave Abkhazia without anybody following them behind, or they would have to use force.") And yes, I wonder what if the wanted hero Yamadayev defected to Georgia and called on his men still with Russia to change sides. Yamadayevs already changed sides once when he defected from the separatists to the federals in Chechnya.) Sulim has also 2 remaining brothers (of the original 4), one of which is now also wanted by Russia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, can anybody give a source for federal wanting of Sulim Yamadaev? I read that federal wanting declared by Ministry of Interior, but Yamadaev is a soldier of Russian Army, and soldiers according to Russian Laws are declared in federal wanting only by Military Prosecutor's Office, but Military Prosecutor's Office does not confirm this. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Kommersant quoted investigators as saying they have testimony from witnesses and other evidence that Sulim Yamadaev murdered Usman Batsaev, but that the case must be investigated by military investigators, not civilian investigators. However, according to the newspaper, military investigators have refused to get involved in the case on the grounds that in 1998, when the crime took place, Sulim Yamadaev was a rebel field commander, not a Russian army officer. Still, Kommersant reported that other criminal cases in which Sulim Yamadaev figured have already been transferred to military investigators. The Russian military, however, has not declared Yamadaev a fugitive from justice."[36] Also, obviously, Yamadayev is wanted because Kadyrov wanted him to be wanted. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't wanna be annoying here...but found another source here http://www.utro.ru/articles/2008/08/11/758662.shtml, a russian news agency, which cites that apart from the Vostok and Zapad Units (the both should be added to the order of the battle section...someone deleted Vostok from it recently...??), which are already involved in fighting, the Commander of the Kadyrov controlled South unit, has organised a detachment of Chechen volunteers (not the chechen soldiers of Russian Army, but actual volunteers), from the of republic security forces loyal to Kadyrov. According to the article, there are around 600 volunteers, as the commander of the South Battalion, Anzor Magomadov said: "Under my command there are now 600 men, 200 are ready to leave in a matter 5 minutes, the other 400 will be ready in one hour". The same article mentions 20 volunteers from Karachaevo-Cherkessia, and hundreds from Dagestan. I guess some of the moderators could actually expand the section on the volunteers. Daud.fr (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FAQ?

Let's write FAQ for newcomers, like on Russian talk page?

For example:

I wish to rename the article to something between Georgia and Russia

Blah-blah-blah about main war theatre in South Ossetia.

The article is biased and pro-Russian!! (many exclamation marks)

Please do not say this, instead point out what sentence exactly is biased, we'll try to correct this.

etc.

--Alexander Widefield (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is a real mess

WP is just too popular these days. There are too many editors here, too many different agendas, and this article is already too long. I think this article should be locked for admins only. But before it's locked we should remove some of the cruft and weasel words. --Tocino 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but it looks a hundred times better than this morning. What do you have to improve the article? "Cruft" is not a word, what word are you trying to use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cruft is a word. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake ... it is! Thank you Gordon! But, as I read, it is computer jargon, not language jargon so "we should remove some of the [computer jargon]" doesn't really make sense in this article does it?

I think it looks worse. Someone with a pro-Georgia POV went in and revamped this article for the worse, IMO. Like now we are constantly referring to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as "separatists" and also the mention of mercenaries fighting for Georgia has completely disappeared from the infobox. Also, please read: WP:Fancruft --Tocino 06:56, 11 August 2008

They aren't separatists and they want to be in Georgia now again? Georgia says is it is using "mercenaries"? I think I missed these news. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tocino. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the term "separatist"? Anyway, I've put back the mercenary claim in a NPOV form. Superm401 - Talk 07:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They are separatists. Which country do you think South Ossetia and Abkhazia are located in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't say that they are or not separatist. According to your sentence Kosovo and Chechen people are separatist too. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They are, did you miss something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, most Albanian people in Kosovo are separatist, and an unidentifiable number of Chechens are separatist. Anything else you'd like to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins really don't like to protect articles just because they are getting a lot of attention. Superm401 - Talk 07:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Article is too long" is not argument for protecting. "WP is just too popular" too. "Too many editors" too. "Too many different agendas" too, and please prove that. Article cannot be locked by these. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a War. Of course there are two side. People are being destroyed. I think if we make sure that all of our sources are documented, we will be able to sort through it after the dust of the bombings has settled. Jason3777 (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope for this to happen in the near future, as soon as possible. -BStarky (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please lock this down to admins only, and even then be on guard. It's not trustworthy if it's open, it's just going to get propaganda machines from both side spouting their version of events. Mullingitover (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The contents are written poorly.

The contents of the article should be edited to provide more accurate information. The first paragraph is a large run on sentence. The 2008 South Ossetia war is a military conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia which gain military support from Russia, that began in August 2008 following several days of heavy fighting between the Georgian army and South Ossetian militias. Georgia launched a surprise military operation to recapture control of the unrecognised Republic of South Ossetia, a breakaway region of Georgia, saying the action was in response to separatist attacks on Georgian villages. South Ossetia denied the attacks occurred.

Should read more like this:

The 2008 South Ossetia Conflict is a military conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkazhia. Georgia gained independence from Russia in 1992, while South Ossetia and Abkhazia, smaller territories in Georgia, have remained close to Russia and are backed by Russia. The Conflict began in August 2008 after Georgia launched a military offensive to clear the South Ossetia region of separatists.

Whether or not I have the facts in a neutral term, the wording in the first sentence is incorrect.

I agree, good point. I changed it. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ru sites still blocked

It says in the article that ru sites can be accessible again, but I surely can't here in Tbilisi. So Reuters are wrong there. Narking (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

About use of word separatists

As I know word separatist (Russian: сепаратист) sound negative in Russian language, but in English language it is absolutely neutral word meaning those soldiers who fights for separation of their country. And nothing more. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From English Wikipedia :

"Separatism refers to the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial or gender separation from the larger group, often with demands for greater political autonomy and even for full political secession and the formation of a new state. Depending on their political situation and views, groups may refer to their organizing as independence, self-determination, partition or decolonization movements instead of, or in addition to, automatic, separatist or secession movements. While some critics may equate separatism and religious segregation, racial segregation or sexual segregation, separatists argue that separation by choice is not the same as government enforced segregation and serves useful purposes."

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why in the losses section it doesn't show Georgian losses in tanks and Airplanes?

Why in the losses section it doesn't show Georgian losses in tanks and Airplanes?

Because of no sources stating and confirming losses of tanks and airplanes. Georgian officials at the moment stated only about people killed and wounded. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. We found (non-Russian) news sources (listed in a section above) reporting that three Georgian aircraft were destroyed on the ground, but we didn't find any official Georgian sources, and we decided not to list the news reports' numbers in the casualties section. (Not sure why.) — Beobach972 (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At least one is confirmed Вести.Ru with link to video

(UTC)

Do sources have to be non-Russian?

[37] - 11 Georgians are captured in South Ossetia [38] - A Georgian ship is sunk by Russian fleet, unknown number of sailors died [39] - A Georgian plane (SU-25) was downed by Russian forces [40] - At the end of this article there is info about 12 Georgian tanks that were destroyed, the info is confirmed by couple other statments.

Mistake

In the section of OPPOSING FORCES is written that "152mm SpGH DANA self-propelled guns and RM-70 Multiple rocket launchers are from the Czech Republic". That is not true, they are from former Czechoslovakia. When you want to write where were they made in , DANA was made in Slovakia( in the city of Dubnica) and the rocket launcher is from Czech Republic. So please rewrite it.

When I wrote "Slovakia" (for DANA), some genius several times changed this to "Czechoslovakia". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone impartial actually witnesses the "volunteers from Russia" in battle?

I'm not sure if this is not just a sabre-rattling by the self-declared "Cossacks". (Also, did the South Ossetians come into North Ossetia to fight the Ingush in 1992?) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for truth. I have no position on the issue. If conflicting references exist, cite them; recognizing there are degrees of credibility, there are no 'impartial' witnesses to war.Mavigogun (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The volunteers are reported to be in Russian uniforms with white arm bands. I seen A picture of soldiers fitting that discretion.--66.229.12.186 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a picture like this but saying it's "Ossetian fighter". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin again

There are only commanders in the infobox. Vladimir Putin actually is not a commander. Of course, he may have a great influence on Russian politics and may be on Dmitry Medvedev, but this is a unsourced mere surmise. Even George Bush uses the opinions of his generals, advisors, etc. Please stop original researching, people. :-( It's unencyclopedic. You may write an article about Putin's authority and influence on Medvedev, but this does not make Putin a Russian Army Commander. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the presidents and defense ministers from the Battle of Tskhinvali while cleaning up this total mess of an article and inserted the actual Russian commanders - someone also find and post the Georgian ones (and the Georgian forces). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening wording: 3 opposing sides?

The opening was worded 'The 2008 South Ossetia War is a military conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.'; the syntax is ambiguous about which parties are in conflict with which -Georgia and South Ossetia are not in league against Abzhazia, for example. Altered syntax in attempt to clarify this distinction.Mavigogun (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo in Section August 11

Russian General Staff Second-in-Commander Alexander Nagovitsyn confirms on the briefing at noon that Russian Army lost another two Su-25 jets.[154] Also he confirmed 18 soldiers dead, 14 missing (with unknown faith).

It's "fate" not "faith". -- DanteRay (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's Nogovisyn (Poligraf (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Request for the Vostok Battalion article

Preferably including their time as a Chechen separatist unit. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Add information in section # 3.2 August 7 – August 8: Georgian involvement

Existing version : The United Nations Security Council held an emergency session in New York City and released a statement to express "serious concerns at the escalation of violence".

New version : The United Nations Security Council held an emergency session in New York City as per Russian Federation request and released a statement to express "serious concerns at the escalation of violence".

Lucidlook (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Vladimir Putin`s notice about political cynicism of the United States should be added in the same place were his critics concerning moving georgian troops from Iraq are mentioned. [[41]] -- 193.232.9.194 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction should mention Russian air strikes against Georgian settlements and facilities outside the South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflict zones. With Tskhinvali relatively peaceful right now, this bombardment campaign is the major point at issue between Russia on one hand and Georgia and the international community on the other. Please add the relevant information to the introduction. Thanks, --93.177.151.101 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Action of 10 August 2008"

Did this even happen? All we have here are the Russian military statements. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's a proper name. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merging that article into this one. D.M.N. (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirected back to here. WP:NOTNEWS. Especially not ones with sources that slim. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait to merge the article, more information will appear in the comming days. Also the title is a proper name there are dozens of articles with similar names check the articles discussion page to see the reasoning why.XavierGreen (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Before war.JPG

Please remove this pic immediately. I remember seeing this pic before it was appeared on Wikipedia/Commons, and I suspect that the licensing terms described on the pic page may not be true. We must confirm that the uploader is really the creator of the pic. Unless we do that let's remove it from the article. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Military analyst's opinion

Война в Южной Осетии - уроки (in Russian). --93.177.151.101 (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sherlock100" and the Battle of Tskhinvali article

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tskhinvali&diff=231204556&oldid=231204026 --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And again. I request protection of Battle of Tskhinvali from the newly registered users. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

second this--66.229.12.186 (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In case someone is interested

The prediction about attack on Tskhinvali rendered accurate. some other unsupported news:

• US Air forces delivered 800 Georgian soldiers from Iraq to Georgia.
• 127 of american military specialists working in Georgian army.
• 2 of them captured by Russian army to this moment.
• 9000 of Russian soldiers with 350 tanks enters to Abchazia already.
• Russian Air forces destroyed Sky control SAM center near of Tbilisi.
• Serbs in Belgrad demands Russia to let more than 1000 good will volunteers to join Russian army [[42]]

toxygen (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

~~Those two captured US military advisers were black people. Being black does not make you American.

Not true. I did not mention anything about color of their skin. Don't misinterpret these information. toxygen (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia mentioned the color of their skin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia mentioned the skin color color of some alleged mercenaries; however, those were not the two captured Americans referred to here. Begoner (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian casualties

Russia says that it has 18 dead. Are they revising the previous statement of 21 or is it 21+18 They also said that 14 are missing.

Why isn't it 21 KIA 150 WIA 14 MIA 2 POW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Give reliable (and official) source and I'll add this. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is already under August 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about infobox (Casualties and losses). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So the info under AUG 11 is unreliable information from an unreliable source? Why is it there then?

I think it is about 21+18 dead + 14 missing. But it's unclear from the news entry. Seeking for another source... --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian Azerbaijani volunteers

As we all know there are Georgian Azerbaijanis fighting along the Georgian side right now, but according to Azerbaijani media 2 volunteers have been killed and several wounded. I believe we need to add this in the infobox, Casualties and losses on the Georgian side. Any thoughts on this? Baku87 (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Georgian Azerbaijanis formed two volunteer battalions and has since valiatly defended the positions south of Tskhinvali along their Georgian compatriots. I did not know that there were fatalities. :( I'll try to verify the information. It should somehow be added into the article.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which confirm this? If you have then we can add this in the article Baku87 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

March article from Stratfor

This Stratfor article (you must be a member to see it), dated 20 March 2008, talks about the possibility of "a major confrontation between Moscow and Tbilisi, but also between Moscow and Washington". Would it be useful to note it somewhere? Perhaps a paragraph like "Stratfor on 20 March 2008 published an analysis in which it talked about the possibility of...etc". NerdyNSK (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 and Putin

User:Str1977 repeatedly add Putin as commander of Russian forces. This is a lie. Somebody tell him about 3RR rule and vandalism. I agree to add Putin while we add George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice to Georgian side. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And somebody tell User:Alexander Widefield about WP:AGF and WP:Civility and the meaning of the word "lie".

Putin has been directly involved in the conflict, much more directly than his President who is not a purely military commander either (neither is the defense minister). And the Georgian side contains two names that are not military commanders either. Mr Bush and Mrs Rice have not been involved at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin is not involved, he's acting like spokesman only. According to Russian Constitution only the President of the Russian Federation commands. I provide Constitution of Russia as my source. What source can you give? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he maybe be well the central figure behind the scenes like in the case of the early Second Chechen War when Yeltsin was president. It is unclear how much power Putin has. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The title at infobox is "Commanders". Change that to Central figures and add Putin, you're welcome. But while there "Commanders" written, Putin cannot be there. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin did get himself directly involved. And as long as ministers of defense, which are no military commanders either are present there, Putin must be included. If only the president commands, why are any others included? Either we include all relevant politicians (of involved groups, so no more "Bush too" nonsense) or we totally restrict it to men doing the fighting.

Ah, and Alexander, I am still awaiting your reply about your bad faith und uncivil remarks above. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing "Genocide" introduction

I would like to change the sentence within the introduction from,

which considers the Georgian operation to be an act of genocide

to,

the only country which claims the Georgian operation to be an act of genocide

Does anyone have any article that any other country claims it to be "genocide" ?? PlanetCeres (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia does not claim Georgian operation to be genocide. It claims Georgians commited genocide while doing the operation. IMHO, if at least tenth of the claims will prove true, Saakishvili will be very lucky to avoid War Crimes Tribunal. (Poligraf (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Please, just post to the actual question. PlanetCeres (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My POV because it's important to me: Don't get me wrong, my heart sincerely goes out to the dead, injured, traumatized, their families, and their friends. I am angered that the children and other innocents don't know why this is happening. And, that they will be relying on Georgian and Russian information to figure it out in the future. So, the hate will keep on going. I am angered at all sides for this conflict. And, consider it all of their failures and crimes. Please don't reply to this POV.PlanetCeres (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC video

Please add this video of a Russian air strike in which the BBC journalists were cought to the external links section. Thanks, --93.177.151.101 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

do you have an English version?

Found it, and its much better than the Russian one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7552958.stm

videos from Russia Today

How about videos from Russia Today? E.g. U.S. citisen POV, witnessing Ossetian Holocaust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRl3qArJO-o This page: War in Georgia obviously has pro-Russian content, but also contains numerous news film links. You could filter out propaganda, but you should not ignore facts. Alexander.Vasiljev (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro: Give voice to Georgia too (why the POV tag)

On August 8, Russia responded by moving additional troops across its official border with Georgia, bringing ground forces into South Ossetia and Abkhazia and launching airstrikes on targets elsewhere in Georgia. The Russian government stated its justification for entering Georgian territory was to protect Russian citizens (since most South Ossetians hold Russian passports[20][21]) and its peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia (Russia alleges 12 of its peacekeepers were killed by the initial Georgian attack and says it considers the Georgian operation to be an act of a "genocide" against Ossetians[22]), and to enforce the peacekeeping mandate given to it by the UN. Russian ships have begun patrolling Georgian Black Sea ports, although Russia denies this is a blockade.[23]

OK, so it's Russia. Now someone add that Georgia considers it a Russian invasion and occupation of their country, with the aims of "regime change" if not an outright annexation - and that they are "at war" with Russia. (With sources, of course.) May be in the same paragraph, and actually should precede's russia's reasoning because the war takes place there and not in Russia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)'

Remove POV tag when done (I'm going now). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't command us. Where is Russian POV? Exactly, please. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I bolded Russia's POV in the text. Gerogia's POV is: nothing in the introduction. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave one example below, here is another: "The Russian government stated its justification for entering Georgian territory was to protect Russian citizens (since most South Ossetians hold Russian passports[20][21]) and its peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia (Russia alleges 12 of its peacekeepers were killed by the initial Georgian attack and says it considers the Georgian operation to be an act of a "genocide" against Ossetians[22]), and to enforce the peacekeeping mandate given to it by the UN. Russian ships have begun patrolling Georgian Black Sea ports, although Russia denies this is a blockade." and I haven't read past the introductory section, the Russian POV is blatantly obvious.

It's sourced POV. Please feel free to add Georgian sourced POV. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I said I'm going. Please add Georgian sourced POV to make the article NPOV. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious is pointing out clearly. Gerogia has pointed out Ossetian are attack Gerogian who lives in South Ossetia. We should put the causu belli of Gerogian side.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Captain. This Guardian article may be of some help, I think. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article Captain Obvious, but something tells me Mr. Widefield won't help you out there!

I've simply retell news here in timeline sections. I didn't write introductions and reviews never previously, but I'll try later. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "regime change": U.S. suggests Russia wants "regime change" in Georgia.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Other news: Medvedev: Operations in Georgia Almost Complete, EU-Russia relations in jeopardy as bombs hit Tbilisi. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Further still

Also, there's (I think) no word(!) about the ant-Kokoity (and the official one, according to the international recognition) South Ossetian government of Dmitry Sanakoyev - whose office was targetted by the separatist artillery fire just before the war and who was a target of an landmine attack in July 2008, too. The Provisional Administration of South Ossetia controlled about 1/3 of the province before the large-scale conflict started - but the article and the infobox says implies the separatist Republic of South Ossetia represents and always represented whole of South Ossetia. (Similar case with Abkhazia.) The bias is really heavy. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Detailed Caucasus mineral map

Somebody removed the detailed Caucasus mineral map from the article and I inserted it again. If you have objections, raise them here. NerdyNSK (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Russian Bias is Sneaking back into the article.

For example sentence number two in the article: "Since Georgia gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, smaller territories within Georgia, which have been de facto independent nations since both fought and won wars of independence against Georgia in the early 1990's." This sentence is not proper English and is false. Georgia became independent from Russia April 9th 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.224.21 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

: What do you mean by "Russia"? Georgia was a part of USSR, not RSFSR. --eugrus (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

you are correct, the sentence is false because there was no USSR in 1992! Thank you Eugrus!

Eugrus, did you change 1992 to 1991? Because the improper English is still that of 4th grader rushing to finish their homework. Thanks for nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.224.21 (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the exact sequence of events in the early 90's is insifigicant, and the exact political arrangement of states in the USSR is largely irrelevant , except 1. The USSR did what Russia wanted, so really when anything was done, it was done for Russia. 2. When you say "georgia was a part of USSR", it would be more accurate to say a. it was captured and occupied, and b. it was Russians doing the capturing and occupying. Because this then leads to the situation with Georgia vs Abkhazia, S Ossetia and Russia.

Detailed description of fights in Tskhinvali by journalist present there

http://www.osradio.ru/?ent=11862 toxygen (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

a link to Lavrov's interview transcript

Here is the official transcript of the Lavrov's interview for BBC (from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs): http://www.ln.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/f68cd37b84711611c3256f6d00541094/f87a3fb7a7f669ebc32574a100262597?OpenDocument. Please add the link to the appropriate section of the page. I believe it's worth adding this link, for people how unable to watch the video. Enerjazzer (talk)

As Anxietycello (talk) removed the link to the video (Revision as of 17:34, 11 August 2008) as a dead link, I believe it's even more important now to put the link to the interview text. The interview explains the position of Russia very clearly. Enerjazzer (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

word separatists (2)

I wish to raise doubt to the use of wording "separatists", not because doubting this word is negative, but doubt whether this word is accurate. The Ossetian separatism is probably not a true one because they did not fight for separation of North Ossetian. They are fighting for separation of South Ossetian but they still claim consider Ossetian, not South Ossetian is a whole. Is there better wording to describe the people when their true intent is to become puppet instead of independent (at least having independent constitution without higher law)?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They want to separate from Georgia, which is their nation-state de jure, which makes them separatists by definition.

biased photo?

The photo labeled "Demonstration against the Russian intervention outside the Russian embassy in Tbilisi on August 8, 2008." can be considered biased (anti-Russian).

So why not to place another photo as well (http://img.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/11/picket/picture.jpg) with label like "Demonstration against the war outside the Georgian embassy in Moscow on August 11, 2008.". Source article, in Russian: http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/11/picket/ Enerjazzer (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Enerjazzer

My god! The demonstration is supposed to be running against Russian aggression (their wording). The label describing the the true intent of demonstrators is not "anti-Russian", Do not abuse the word "anti-Russian"--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree, it's incorrect to treat it as anti-Russian. Anyway, this photo is about what's going on in Georgia (involved in the conflict) regarding Russian acting (again, involved in the conflict on the other side). The second photo is about what's going on in Russia regarding Georgian acting, i.e. opposite side. I think it's good to have both on the same page, to keep it unbiased. Do you agree? Thanks. Enerjazzer (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Force size table

Here is the archived discussion regarding the force size table that I have restored to the article several times. Jim Furtado has removed it at least twice since the discussion with this diff calling my restoration "sneaky vandalism" and this diff referring to the reference discussion. I just found that he filed a 3RR report on me, in addition to accusing me of vandalism, sock-puppetry, and racism.

How you change the facts, first when you call my edit sneaky vandalism that is ok, when I respond and call your edit sneaky vandalism it is bad, You did it first, second I never accused you of racism just that the graph is racist because there is no such graph in either of the Iraq war articles, and ever since the Nazis everyone has always used this excuse against Russia, ooo Russia is so big we can never win against Russia because it is so big and has a Limitless amount of Men, even though the American British, Polish and all other Nations who attacked Iraq vastly outnumber it there is no such graph but as soon as Russia gets involved then immediate there is such a graph, therefore the graph is racist, it wills top being racist the second someone posts such a graph int eh Iraq war articles. Jim Furtado (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I never called any of your edits vandalism. I said it was a sneaky removal. And it was. I stand by that. --Elliskev 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, I don't care if the table stays or goes, but I think that the earlier decision that it should stay should stand unless it is decided otherwise. Can I get some input? --Elliskev 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there was enough discussion to put it back in. 3R not justified. Rediscuss maybe. PlanetCeres (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I also mentioned it here on the talk-page, but no one seems to have noticed it. There is a part with the aircraft where there's a citation needed. It says Georgia has 82 aircraft, but in reality they have only 9. (e.g. this is stated here and here. Both sources are based on The Military Balance 2008. -- DanteRay (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why won't somebody insert this information? In the article it says "citation needed" ... So, I bring a source (actually 2) and nothing happens. -- DanteRay (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The source is in German, which is fine. There's no problem with that. However, non-German speaking editors (like me) might not feel comfortable adding information that they can't personally verify. --Elliskev 13:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know the source is German, and that it's difficult for non-German-speakers, but one could use e.g. the google translation to check it, for example. I mean, not everyone understands Russian either, and there are many Russian articles linked. -- DanteRay (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Russian army includes 395,000 soldiers, the Georgian only 17,767. While in Russia's Air Force 160,000 organized, Georgia Air Force has only about 1310 soldiers. The Russian army has 23,000 battle tanks, 9900 armored for the crew transport, tens of thousands of artillery guns and 1736 combat aircraft available. Georgia has only 128 battle tanks, 44 armored transport, 109 artillery guns and 9 combat aircraft. (Translated with the google translation programm)

Actually, Russian army has more than 1 million soldiers (and this not including the MVD's Internal Troops, the FSB's Border Guards, etc). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Source for that? Furthermore, define the term "soldier". Those 395 000 thousand in the army, 160 000 in the air force, and I don't know how many in the navy. -- DanteRay (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC) PS: My information is backed-up by the Report The Military Balance 2008. This was published as a book, so one can use it as a source. -- DanteRay (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This source agrees with the count of nine. I have changed the count and added the source. --Elliskev 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Until there is such a graph in both the Iraq war articles, the graph should be removed. Ever since the Nazis people have always used Russia size against it saying ooo that is why we lost Russia is so big and has so many people. But the USA and the UK and all other coalition forces vastly outnumber Iraq but there is no such graph in either the Iraq war articles, that is why the graph should be removed, or a such a graph should also be installed in both the Iraq war articles, because anything else is racism vs Russia Jim Furtado (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For good or for ill, not every Wikipedia article has to match the exact format of every other similar article. There was a concensus demonstrated in the archived discussion and, based on that, the table should stay provided the information within it is sourced and accurate. croll (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jim Furtado has removed it again. I'm not going to restore it because I don't want to waste my time wading through another load of bullshit diffs that have nothing to do with anything in another bullshit 3RR report against me. --Elliskev 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just replaced it. I'm not going through the history and trying to figure out the truth or falsehood of the 3RR issue -- I'm assuming good faith on both of your parts -- but it does seem clear to me that the table belongs in the article. croll (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Just explaining that I was not willing to do a restore. The frustrated bitching just made me feel better about it. --Elliskev 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to Lock Article

Someone please remove all unrelevent information and completely lock the article to keep vandals like manchurian candidate and whatever other vandals are pushing this ghost recon thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowsgt87 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is semi protected, I suppose it should suffice for now. The Ghost recon thing was removed since it is indeed irrelevant. If there are other irrelevant info, please, point them out. --Tone 12:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote lead

I rewrote the lead and the warbox. Some of it was uncited, some parts were too long and some were plainly unreadable. Suggestions and objections welcome. Thanks. Naurmacil (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits:

• Explained Russian POV that it is 1. Defending its peacekeepers (Which is internationally recognized, as is explained in the source), 2. Preventing a "genocide". This is a claim, and thus the genocide is in quotation marks. 3. "Protecting its citizens", as South Ossetians mostly have Russian passports.
• Explained Georgian POV that the Russians had a "planned offensive", and that Georgia is defending itself from "Russian aggression". Again, both sourced.
• Add in civilian casualties, which include sources from Human Rights Watch and the Western media.
• Fixed grammatical and readability issues. Naurmacil (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I encourage all users to discuss before making substantial, unexplained changes to an article whereas another user has made changes immediately before. I also advise User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and User:El C to refrain from edit warring, as both have been blocked numerous times before for. [43][44] Naurmacil (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How did I edit war? Blocking myself by accident years ago doesn't count. Please review WP:BRD rather than engage in posturing and demagoguery. But, myself, I unwatchlisted this, so now there's one less admin overseeing the page, which I presume pleases you? El_C 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But what you did was revert a series of what I insist are very well-sourced edits, and several grammatical corrections I made, without any intent of discussing with me. That's what starts all edit wars, as you should know. It doesn't please me. There are plenty of trolls and edit warring here and admins are of course welcomed. Yes, you have been blocked before for edit warring, not just by yourself. It might offend you to point that out, and if so I apologize. Naurmacil (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If I undid any sourced edits, it was by accident (what, one time? that's warring? a singular edit?). I've not been blocked for edit warring, validly, which the log is clear about. But due to your underhanded tactics, I'm out. El_C 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious seems to have a problem with this part: "Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili claimed that the Russians conducted a "well-planned invasion." Russia responded to the charge in the United Nations, pointing out that Georgia had started the conflict.". He claims POV for the Russian response, saying that both sides blamed the other on starting the conflict. Now, first off, this is a Russian response. I'm simply adding both the Georgian and the Russian reasons, excuses, whatever you call them. I don't see why Russia's stated reason would be POV while Georgia's isn't. It seems like the user has a certain POV himself and believes that if we mention Russia's explanation, we're always having a POV. That is not the case. Second, Georgia started the war. It doesn't deny that at all. It blamed South Ossetian attacks, but those had been occurring for two decades, and Georgia blamed them for PROVOCATION, not for starting the war. It was Georgia who, immediately after signing a ceasefire, started the war. Georgia has an explanation - we may believe it, or we may not. But it started the war, justified or not, and Georgia had never denied that. Moreover, Captain Obvious re-arranged the paragraph, putting the "well-planned offensive" claim at the top. This does not correspond with the timeline. Georgia invaded first, and AFTER Russia responded, claimed that Russia had a well-planned offensive. Only that makes sense. It's also essential as the Russia responded to that charge specifically. Naurmacil (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have tried taking that into account, had you not been so eager to make false accusations. El_C 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I thought you're out, but of course you're always welcome back if you wish. Naurmacil (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But of course. Passive aggressive much? El_C 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian peacekeepers

Just because Putin/Medevev refer the Russian forces as "peacekeepers" (which is nonsence as the forces are not sanctioned by the UN or any other respected international organization), WP is not bound to do the same. Hapsala (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They are peacekeepers. Yes, they're sanctioned by the UN. Internationally recognized, recognized even by Georgia. Check your facts. Naurmacil (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the mandate number of Security Council? If it is sanctioned it must have records in UN, where it is? This is pointless to make repeating baseless claim--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no proper mandate. And that migh become a major headache for the Kremlin in years to come. --Hapsala (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there are only 500 peacekeeping force of Russian side. If Peacekeeping force is attached to another belligerent force, it becomes totally unacceptable that they are still peacekeeping force.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no proper mandate. But the forces have been peacekeeping there for nearly two decades - and that's exactly what they've done. Kittyhawk2 is correct that if it is attached to a belligerent force which functions outside its mission, then it isn't functioning as a peacekeeping force anymore. But Russia insists that it is acting within its own peacekeeping missions. Other countries dispute him, but if that's what Russia claims, then yes, they're strictly peacekeeping forces. Naurmacil (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be extremely difficult to us to say what is within mandate and what is beyond mandate, when there is no such mandate. A peacekeeping force is a peacekeeping force only when it is working within a defined mandate. Otherwise it will becomes belligerent force. We must aware that the status of those peacekeeping force is disputed well before August. It is alleged that Gregorian villages within South Ossetia are constantly cleansed under the domination of the peacekeeping force. Is "peacekeeping force" only save face or de facto quo becomes a matter of opinion, because there is no defined mandate. And in my opinion, bombing of Gori is hardly acceptable as "within mandate" because it is not something Georgia has originally agreed for or accepted to for decades.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

More information on the UN peacekeeping mission is at the UN website. The UN mandate for UNOMIG was for a lightly armed police force (a multi-national unit), with orders to observe and monitor ceasefire compliance. It was only to fire in self defence, the unit was less then 200 strong. The Russian military 'peacekeeping mission', by comparison, is now engaged in active warfare. Even if we bend the term 'peacekeeper' to include all the Russian forces entering Georgia at this moment, it is hard to see how they can be considered to be acting under UN orders. --Defcon2 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not following UN orders. They never have been, and the article didn't say that. The peacekeepers also aren't peacekeeping. They're fighting. And Russia is guilty. But they're still peacekeepers de jure.Naurmacil (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I meant to say 'mandate', not 'orders'. Defcon2 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Azerbaijanis involvement

According to this site 50 ethnic Azerbaijani volunteers are now also heading to Georgia to fight alongside Georgians. Any thoughts on this? Baku87 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

Any reaction from Belgrade? So far the Serbian govnt has been quite loyal to the Kremlin, but this might not be exaclty what the Serbian nationalists were dreaming of. Hapsala (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

look it up

About 1000 serbian volunteers want to join to fight for russia. toxygen (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So national integrity is not so important when it comes to other countries? Hapsala (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love hypocrites don't you? I blame Pan-Slavism, since georgia isn't slavic, its free game on all the crap.--Jakezing (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT "Georgia vs South Ossetia" and/or "Georgia vs Abkhazia"

It's Georgia vs separatists and their separatist governments.

Pro-Georgian (Georgian) South Ossetian Abkhazian governments (along with territory controlled before the war, so not some virtual stuff) are Provisional Administration of South Ossetia (merged by some genius with the South Ossetia article - time to revert this) and the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. (Separatist entities being Republic of South Ossetia and... oh well, no article, but should be Republic of Abkhazia.)

Please remember this. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The "separatist" governments were chosen by the people. Kostan1 (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

...but the "loyalist" weren't, right? Last time I checked, there was democracy in Georgia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider it is civil war before Russian aggression. The word "civil war" is quite proper here.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Battle of Kodori Gorge included in the 2008 South Ossetia war? This battle is a separate conflict from the 2008 South Ossetia war as it involves Abkhazian forces supported by Russia troops.

Location

File:Mapgeorgia9847.jpg

Wikipedia's map of Georgia

Who deleted South Ossetia from the Location? The war started as invasion of Georgia to South Ossetia. Kostan1 (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious seems to think because South Ossetia is not recognized, then South Ossetia is in fact Georgia and so we should put it as Georgia. I tend to disagree because South Ossetians themselves are fighting Georgians, and thus it resembles a civil war more than an international conflict. But, whatever, I'm not in the mood of debating people right now. Naurmacil (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is in fact part of Georgia (please check your political world map), but actually it wasn't even what I meant - Russian aircraft stroke targets well beyond the disputed territory, making it not confined to South Ossetia (and Abkhazia). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And Georgia didn't bomb South Ossetia? It stays. Kostan1 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Georgia did bomb South Ossetia, making it war in Georgia. (If Georgia bombed North Ossetia, it would be "Georgia and Russia".) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Then Kostan1's point is valid. It started out as an invasion of South Ossetia. Whether Russia bombs Georgia or not is secondary compared to the fighting in South Ossetia. The Gulf War article does not mention Israel and Saudi Arabia as locations, despite them being hit by missiles. Naurmacil (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia atacked South Ossetia, that's why that location stays. Kostan1 (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The intro also says (copied): Russia responded by moving additional troops across its official border with Georgia, bringing ground forces into South Ossetia and Abkhazia and launching airstrikes on targets elsewhere in the country. So is it really only South Ossetia? --Tone 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your talking as if I deleted Georgia from the place. I kept it all. Kostan1 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For the last time: South Ossetia is officially inside Georgia - and about 1/3 of it was even formally controlled be Georgia before the war and not de-facto breakway (making it totally "Georgia", and not some different thing). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, and I'm already not the only one telling you. South Ossetia was atacked as South Ossetia, dont you get it?? It stays, Georgia stays to. Kostan1 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the Republic of South Ossetia (unrecognised by anyone) was attacked as the Republic of South Ossetia - from the territory of South Ossetia under the formal Georgian control. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the explanations again, a few people here explained you it. If you choose to ignore it that's your problem. SO stays at the location. Kostan1 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is another misunderstanding. What exactly is mentioned as Location:South Ossetia, Georgia - something like South Ossetia and Georgia (the rest of the country) or something like Chicago, Illinois (just an example to show actual inclusion a comma use may represent)? If we are clear on this one, it will be easier. --Tone 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because the conflict is NOT confined to South Ossetia (also Abkhazia and the "inner" Georgia). The thing is the probably Russian editors push the view (in which they may honestly believe, but I don't care) that South Ossetia (including the parts of the region that was even formally under the Georgian control, say, a month ago) is something different than Georgia. When in doubt, please see Wikipedia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kostan1 will not be troubling us for another 48 hours. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The original question in this thread about deleting the location of South Ossetia within Georgia has since been deviated into who started the war. Regardless of who started anything the location o South Ossetia is important to this article because it is the "2008 South Ossetia war" (which should be OssetiaN, but anyhoo...) Furthermore, even if the war is not confined to South Ossetia it started out as something to do specifically with the territory of South Ossetia as defined by the seperatist/breakaway/independent state/province/nation or however one wishes to describe it. With this in mind, the location of South Ossetia is integral to the article. Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Logical would be "South Ossetia and the rest of Georgia", except this is sounding POV. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I put POV tag as some other users insisted (through edit-warring) on "South Ossetia, Georgia". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First, you can't put a tag on a specific word. You just put a tag on the whole main-page article, about a single word, which is overreacting. Second, no other user has insisted that. Third, we're discussing this on the talk page. POV tags are used to attract users' attentions, not to prove your own point. Please stop using the tag as a means of proving your point. We're discussing about it right now. Naurmacil (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the discussion - I think Captain Obvious misunderstood something here. South Ossetia, Georgia is the same as, say, "California, United States". It means "South Ossetia, in Georgia". They're not separate. It means South Ossetia is within Georgia, just like you said. Naurmacil (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then it is clear that it should be written Georgia, not South Ossetia, Georgia. I don't see the problem with it. --Tone 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the use of the name Georgia includes South Ossetia since South Ossetia is not recognized even by Russia, the strongest belligerent in the conflict, as a separate nation. Saying that the war is occurring between Georgia and South Ossetia makes it sound like South Ossetia is being recognized by Wikipedia as distinct from Georgia. The most neutral thing to do is for Wikipedia to consider South Ossetia as included in the use of the name Georgia since the UN and every single nation includes it in that name. Christiangoth (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice relatively unbiased article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/world/europe/12georgia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

maybe some links can be replaced with this.

This Article...

http://mk.ru/blogs/MK/2008/08/10/society/365780/

It seems to imply rather heavy casualties during one phase of the Russian attack, so heavy that they had to retreat from the city, regroup, and come back later with more force. Google translate can sometimes muck it up, but could someone with better Russian help me understand this?70.131.218.57 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

The commander of the whole army was wounded. I have no idea how big their losses really are, but we have to use their official ones anyway (and yes, officially he was also wounded). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says that during first attack about 25 Russian APC and two tanks from 22-rd brigade were destroyed by Georgian army (they also claim that there were even more causalities on Georgian side) because main 58 army forces were still on move, and that ~160 Russian soldiers from peacekeeper forces were killed that night by Georgian snipers. Also they mentioned, that there is a rumor that one of Russian aircrafts was accidentally destroyed by Russian AA forces. But "Komsomolskaya Pravda" is re-a-a-ally not something you should listen too. It`s became synonymous to "yellow press" here for at least last five years.

I see. I brought it here for attention because it is being used in the Battle of Tskhinvali article.70.131.218.57 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

From the intro: "pointing out that Georgia had started the conflict"

As Georgia retreats from its offensive in South Ossetia, it claims that it is defending itself from "Russian aggression."[24] Russia responded to the charge in the United Nations, pointing out that Georgia had started the conflict.[25]

I think it is unacceptable. The Georgian POV is they responded to the continuing separatist provocations (including artillery attacks and roadside bombings) from the territory protected by the Russian "peacekeepers". Here, the Georgian fault is "pointed out in the United Nations" by Russia, except even without these citation marks. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It talks about Now, that is what they say. You are not even updated in the conflict! Kostan1 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please repeat but in proper English. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I give up Captain. First people here argued that russian and european media are biased and should not be referred. Now you want to push in Georgian statements despite the fact that they are not true. No source except Georgia can be referred to. Georgia was caught lying several times during this conflict, I really doubt their POV which seems to change every hour and is more like bluff game to me. Yesterday they wanted peace, today they have been shelling Tskhinvali again and even flooding it to avoid civilians to hide in basements. I don't think wikipedia should take in account what georgia is stating. Have a look at russian hostages case. Georgia denies everything, however it's clear russian citizens on vacations were not allowed to leave back for russia. I don't want to hold side of any party in this conflict, but you should take into consideration trustfulness of statements. If georgia lied several times then they should not be used as source for relevant information. E.g. I published several information on this talk page which were not supported by source because they were directly from army, but they proved to be correct after dozen of hours. These information could not be published because they did not have trustful source. If georgia is not trustful, their statements should not be published neither. I would like to know what other editors of article think of this. toxygen (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should rambling less (I didn't even read this) and instead try and explain why do you think this is a proper way to write the introduction. (How about Georgia pointed out it is defending itself from Russian aggression, eh?) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Russia denied that it is being aggressive. On the other hand, Georgia never denied that it started the war. The only difference is that Georgia says it was provoked, and South Ossetia denies. Please, check your facts. Naurmacil (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to you in the above section, Rewrote lead, Captain Obvious. I've also told you to read that. Apparently you haven't. Here's what I wrote. "Captain Obvious seems to have a problem with this part: "Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili claimed that the Russians conducted a "well-planned invasion."[1] Russia responded to the charge in the United Nations, pointing out that Georgia had started the conflict.[2]". He claims POV for the Russian response, saying that both sides blamed the other on starting the conflict. Now, first off, this is a Russian response. I'm simply adding both the Georgian and the Russian reasons, excuses, whatever you call them. I don't see why Russia's stated reason would be POV while Georgia's isn't. It seems like the user has a certain POV himself and believes that if we mention Russia's explanation, we're always having a POV. That is not the case. Second, Georgia started the war. It doesn't deny that at all. It blamed South Ossetian attacks, but those had been occurring for two decades, and Georgia blamed them for PROVOCATION, not for starting the war. It was Georgia who, immediately after signing a ceasefire, started the war. Georgia has an explanation - we may believe it, or we may not. But it started the war, justified or not, and Georgia had never denied that. Moreover, Captain Obvious re-arranged the paragraph, putting the "well-planned offensive" claim at the top. This does not correspond with the timeline. Georgia invaded first, and AFTER Russia responded, claimed that Russia had a well-planned offensive. Only that makes sense. It's also essential as the Russia responded to that charge specifically. Naurmacil (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)"

By the way, I changed the wording. Now it's "pointing out that Georgia had started the war by conducting a military operation against South Ossetia separatists". I think this avoids some confusion and is fairer to both sides. Georgia did start the war by conducting the first military offensive, although the conflict is not strictly defined - a conflict may have began when, allegedly, South Ossetians provoked Georgia. Naurmacil (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gori massacre and appeal to Wikipedians

Where is the information about Russian air strikes on civilian apartment buildings in Gori Georgia? Why is this information not included in the article? Why is this article using Russian sources which are obvious propaganda and anti-Russian POV? Where are the neutral users who can monitor the article? Why are some odd anti-Georgian claims taken from Russian sources and some not even referenced? After this tragedy, isn't it clear that Russia is a directly involved party and using their new agencies like Lenta.ru are not acceptable for NPOV guidelines? What Russian peacekeepers? This assumption is dead as of August 6. If you are using Russian sources, why not Georgian? In fact, Georgian news agencies are hacked by Russian government and many of them do not work (civil.ge as not yet been updated since its web site was hacked). Please monitor the POV pushing initiatives here by some users and limit Russian POV sources due to their obvious bias and anti-Georgian intent. There are plenty of western sources: CNN, BBC, Washinton Times, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. So far the article is unbalanced and overly using Russian biased sources, which makes this article not in compliance with Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. We Georgian users are unable to monitor this article or add any additional info due to the non-stop Russian bombardment. As I was writing this massage, couple of explosions were heard. So we are unable, in this state of war and hardship to offer our own input into this massive wave of information, most of which is run by Russian users which use Russian POV and bias sources. I appeal to Wikipedias with neutral views to limit Russian bias on this article and take references from neutral sources. I hope this carnage of our civilians will end soon and we will be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Iberieli (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We are happy to include new information from any trustful source. Could you supply us with some you claim to exist? toxygen (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• According to BBC, a single apartment block was hit in Gori by missed rocket.[45] Hardly a 'massacre'. It is already in article. Keep neutral, please.Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2529986/Georgia-conflict-Screams-of-the-injured-rise-from-residential-streets.html --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is link to Al-Jazeeras news clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGygucWyIp0 Gori part starts at 1:45 --Zache (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For the last time: Please stop using YouTube. Everyone. If something's on Al-Jazeera, link to Al-Jazeera. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We could perhaps use news-agencies from neighbouring countries like Azerbaijan and Turkey they all seem quite objective. Baku87 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some specific reason why not? If you noticed Al-Jazeera uses Youtube to host their videos in their own webpages also. Aka it is their official way to release videos. --Zache (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it's by some private user. If it's official account it's okay. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a short video about Saakashvili visiting Gory: Fox News, and here slightly larger version: some russian channel. Gori seems to be well-preserved.Alexander.Vasiljev (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In Gori was only one bomb, but this bomb hit an armament depot near apartments.Ru magister (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could this article

[46] be useful (for example for inclusion in the humanitarian part) or do you think that it is biased and/or not necessary? OelnJa (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

books and news organization are not advertisements because they back claims being made in the article as REFERENCES. If you were to include external links to NY Times or Time or Newsweek or whathaveyou then they would be advertisements too. If you find something worthy of mention then please cite it, while also rememebering that youtube is not a reputable source. Likewise vesti.ru. Certainly if you have videos to cite a point IN the article then please go ahead and cite them. (talk)14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Use discussion before adding the section back. Lihaas (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of lead complete

I rewrote the lead again, adding four parts to it: first, Georgia's reason for its military operation against South Ossetia. Second, South Ossetia's denials. Third, Georgia's ceasefire. Fourth, Putin's promise for a "logical conclusion". These pretty much sum up the conflict. I also expanded Russia's comment in the United Nations, which points out Georgia started the war - after what Georgia claims are provocations by South Ossetians. That's all. Naurmacil (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you added Russia's comment in the United Nations, you should also have added the Georgian and US envoys' suggestion that Russia is using the conflict to overthrow the pro-Western leadership of Georgia. As of now, the lead remains unbalanced and warrants the neutrality tag whether you like it or not. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags are used to attract attention. There's enough attention right now on the article in every aspect and discussion is going on in the talk page. Tags are NOT used to prove a point. Now, I added Russia's comment in the UN. I also added Georgia's insistence that it was provoked - which serves as a response to Russia's comment. Should I also add Russia's comment that Georgia is lying? Naurmacil (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Date format

I have tried several times to keep the date formats consistent in this article. Before I go at it again, can I get some input as to the preferred format? I originally chose dd Month yyyy unlinked. Suggestions? --Elliskev 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with dd month year but it must be linked because this is the only way to allow the Wikipedia software (mediawiki) to format the date according to the user's preferences: users can change their settings to make the software output the date in various formats (dd-mm-year, mm-dd-year, year-mm-dd etc), but the software can only do so when the dates are linked like 11 August 2008, otherwise if they aren't linked the software cannot recognise the dates. NerdyNSK (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I chose unlinked based on A) There was inconsistency in linking, and B) Recent changes to WP:MOSNUM have downgraded autolinking to "optional". There is a discussion at MOSNUM talk about this. I am with the camp that thinks that auto-formatted dates draw attention from high-value links while only providing benefit to the very small minority of readers that are registered and have date preferences set. The majority of readers do not benefit from this. However, I value article talk page consensus over my opinion on this. If others editors want linking, then linking should be used here. --Elliskev 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any more input? --Elliskev 00:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tskhinvali POV problems again

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Tskhinvali#Please_stop_putting_propaganda_about_.22genocide.22_while_the_conflict_is_going_on

(In addition, someone wrote Georgia claimed it lost 180 soldiers in the city, linking to the articles that didn't even contain number "180".)

Please wtach this page for the further reports of the babies "knived" by bloodthirsty Georgian genociders. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These reports of bloodthirsty Georgian genociders running over old women with tanks and "kniving" babies has just been edited into the main War in South Ossetia article, can someone please remove TheCheeseManCan (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of Mercenaries

Proposal: Create a section on use of mercenaries in this conflict

The Russian FM alleges use of Azerbaijani and Ukrainian mercenaries whilst the President of Georgia alleged in a BBC interview "Several hundred Chechen mercenaries had crossed through the tunnel to bolster Russian forces" Both claims appear in several interviews. and perhaps deserving of their own section. 86.143.189.22 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Chechen mercenaries" are the Vostok Battalion (or "Battalion East"). (I requested an article already.) Their commander until very recently was the former Chechen separatist field commander Sulim Yamadayev and his younger brother as his deputy, both now federally wanted in Russia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the other editors think that "45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment" (never heard of them) deserves an article (so it's as "45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment"), but the Vostok and Zapad, who are a very famous (and Zapad also very infamous) don't, so they are just as Vostok and Zapad. Funny that. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont know about the other people joining the war, but there are Azerbaijani volunteers they are not mercenaries. Please dont confuse this, there are rarely any mercenaries of Azerbaijani origin. Again these are Azerbaijani volunteers. Baku87 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's plain wrong to call these guys mercenaries. They are members of the federal army, and thus soldiers, not the mercenaries. Otherwise using same logic, since the georgian army is not base on conscription any more, but contract, every georgian soldier is a mercenary too.Daud.fr (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They would like to called PMC

Just a piece of comic relief

To make editors relieved a bit :) Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC) [47]

:) --eugrus (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not really funny. I'm not Georgian, but I still care about everyone involved in the conflict, including Georgia. This makes light of thousands of deaths and unnumbered other hardships. Christiangoth (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, go for comic relief when Russian tanks are rolling into Budapest. It's the iron curtain all over again. Druworos (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Civil Georgia article request

As it has none yet. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Civil Georgia is the most visited English-(Georgian-Russian) language news resource on Georgia. Its website has recently displayed the following notice[48]:

"Civil.ge server is under permanent DDOS attack, therefore it may fail to respond again. Please subscribe to the Google Groups mailing list, in order to receive civil.ge news updates. Civil.Ge blog operates on http://civilgeorgia.blogspot.com."--93.177.151.101 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant an article about the website here on Wikipedia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, give it a redirect from Civil.Ge (or vice-versa). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename War in Georgia

2008 South Ossetia war doesn't reflect the reality. - SSJ ☎ 16:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"War in Georgia (2008)" (there more wars in Georgia). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

German and Belgish sources call it "Caucasian War" -- DanteRay (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't know about the actual Caucasian War, I guess. Also, the fighting is confined to Georgia so far. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the war called in the news mostly? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A proper historian would refer to this article as the Russo-Georgian War. Many news articles are refering to it as the russian georgian war, but use past wars as an example. Russo-Swedish Wars Russo-Turkish Wars Russo-Kazan Wars the list goes on and on. XavierGreen (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

War in Georgia (Wallstreet Journal)

Georgia-Russia conflict (BBC)

Caucasian Conflict (Hürriyet, Turkey)

Caucasian Conflict (Moscow News) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteRay (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

About "Caucausian Conflict" - there are LOTS of conflicts in Caucasus. But on the other hand, there were many wars in the Persian Gulf and even the wars in Iraq, too... If Russians really invaded "inner" Georgia, "War in Georgia (2008)" should be the name for now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• With due respect, a proper historian wouldn't call the war anything, yet. What it eventually gets called may be something compeltely different, depending on what happens, and when, and how the war comes out. In the meantime, the existing title is reasonably clear and does not pose ambiguity problems. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • And the present title is not a proper name (war would be capitalized) and is therefore relatively intelligible as a holding position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose we rename the article Russo-Georgian War (2008). - SSJ ☎ 18:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I never understood this haste to rename articles, i.e. move them. In a few weeks we will probably have ten or so redirects, just because of this constant moving. The last move was already totally uncalled for, being based merely on hairsplitting and capitalisation nonsense. Please keep it where it is until the whole picture where events are going is clearer. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New Article

Apparently it is time to start Russian invasion of Georgia (2008) Tamokk (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be taking Georgian POV. Also look just above. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Moldova reaction

Is there any statement of the Moldovan officials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.72.252 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Try International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Georgians from Azerbaijan

Not Azeris or officially Azerbaijani forces, so no Azerbaijan flag please. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is nothing here is official.. there is no official declaration of war and Azerbaijani volunteers involvement is undeniable. Baku87 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Propaganda War

Naurmacil removed my previous edit and explained: "remove war propaganda - a UK source claims they're fighting propaganda. What makes you think the UK source isn't propaganda itself? It's unlikely, but it's purely POV."

So what is not a propaganda? However, please notice that both sides accuses "the other side" of using propaganda. So it is clear that at least one side uses propaganda, then it is enough to talk about a propaganda war. In addition it was UK website of Reuters. Reuters is not a reliable source? Please answer. I decided to rewrite it a bit and added again.

Besides, it would be great to extend the 'information warfare' paragraph because today it is almost as important as real warfare. Kieraf (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One more note to Propaganda Section. Georgian President Saakashvili is often appealing to Georgian in English, while the only official language in Georgia is Georgian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadimkaa (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction (again)

I think it would be good to note that Georgia declared martial law. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And also to say that Russia promised to "punish" the Georgians and repeatedly called their leadership "criminals". And what's up with the Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia had promised working with Georgia and other participants of the conflict for a "logical conclusion" of its peacekeeping mission.[25] upbeat ending? What? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reuters say, Georgia did not cease fire

GORI, Georgia, Aug 11 (Reuters) - At least six Georgian attack helicopters bombed targets in the region around the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, a Reuters witness said.

The action appeared to countermand a Georgian declaration of an end to military activity over the separatist region.

The reporter said the helicopters flew from Georgia proper and attacked targets just over the de facto boundary with South Ossetia, sending dark smoke billowing into the air.

Russia had earlier accused Georgia of shelling Russian troops, which drove Georgian forces from Tskhinvali this week. [49]

It is unclear whether "Margarita Antidze" witnessed or it is another reporter. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Margarita Antidze is accredited Reuters reporter. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia Conducting Cyber Warfare... Again

Russia has been conducting an ongoing cyber warfare against Georgian websites. Georgia: Russia 'conducting cyber war' 65.68.1.90 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Casus belli

Obviously this conflict has been boiling for some time, but is there an agreed upon incident that caused the current situation we have now? --PiMaster3 ^talk 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian forces violated a ceasefire with secessionists and began an all out offensive to retake South Ossetia, Russia's Casus Belli is that Russian Citizens and its own peacekeepers were threatened. The Russians also a day later alleged ethnic cleansing by Georgia 83.104.138.141 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• There has been sporadic cross-fire between Georgian and Ossetian military during the last week before conflict. Both sides accused each other in opening fire first. Georgia views this as casus belli, as they insist that Ossetians were first to open fire. Ossetians say, that Georgians were first.Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this so it can be put into the article? --PiMaster3 ^talk 17:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is already described in article, isn't it? August 1 – August 7: Towards the war.Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not "Ossetian military", but "South Ossetian separatist paramilitary". "Crossfire" is a wrong word - both were firing at each other's positions and villages, while Georgian vehicles were also repeatedly blasted by roadside bombs (including in an assasination attempt against the local leader, whose office at a police station was later also hit by separatist artillery). In short - increasing clashes (the Russian "peacekeeping" forces did not do anything, maybe except arming separatists, flying aircraft over Georgian territory, and shooting down Georgian drones over Georgia). In the end the Georgians offically called uniliteral ceasefire, but separatists allegedly attacked once again - at this point Georgians went all ballistic, and Russia invaded to "enforce peace", they say (and since then they do warkeeping despite the Georgian withdrawal and ceasefire offers). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia did not cease fire.[50] Saakashvili may say whatever he wants, but it remains empty words. He is experienced in information war: he knows, news agencies will cite his words, while their reports about what actually is going on will be late, as many of them don't have their correspondents at the place.Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you don't understand what "offer" means. Did Russia hold fire? No? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear casus belli. Unfortunately, the introduction implicitly misrepresents the South Ossetian "leadership" as genuine leaders of a "national liberation movement". Actually, Kokoity owns a gambling business in the St. Petersburg and he even lives there, not in the South Ossetia; most other members of his government are actually Russian FSB people. This is a classical puppet state own by Russia. So, Russia protects something that already belongs to her. That is one of the reasons. There are many others.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't we state the reports of all sides as conflicting accounts of the cassus belli? Christiangoth (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bildt to broker peace

Only a day after he compared the Russian doctrine with that of Adolf Hiler, Sweden's Foreign secretary and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Carl Bildt goes to Georgia in a bid to bring Russia and Georgia to the negotiating table. [51] Hapsala (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Russia will negotiate with this demagogue. --Tocino 17:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the Russians might listen to Mr. Bildt, who actually has expertice and a network like few other European politicians. Hapsala (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. And with whom Russia will negotiate? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Carl Bildt was openly pro-georgian. French president Sarkozy will be better.Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop putting civilians casualties on a general section when numbers don't suit your POV

It harms the image of wikipedia. --Leladax (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

URGENT The 'overview' is only a military strategy overview and in no way an overview of the whole situation.

'nuff said. --Leladax (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this section should be completely rewritten and updated, changed into something else and elsewhere, or even deleted. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't all discussion on the English version of the Wikipedia be in English? Jon (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Point out the mistakes then. --Leladax (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Georgian refugees

Isn't it more now? Gori alone was 50,000 (and it's reportedly battle zone now, and for sure half-empty when it was bombed), so I think it must be more than 20,000 total now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we have overlooked this fact. The town of Gori has been fully evacuated and thats about 50.000 people, in total Georgia has 70.000 displaced people as of 11th August, another thing is these are not refugees but displaced people because its all happening inside Georgia Baku87 (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

About the title of the article

It should not be called “2008 Russian invasion of Georgia” or “2008 Russian-Georgian War”?--MaGioZal (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russo-Georgian War is just redirect. (Oh well, now everything is redirect.) I still think it should be "War in Georgia (2008)". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are right, simply because this war spread out beyond the South Ossetia, to Western and Central Georgia. They are talking already about occupation of Zugdidi. Let's wait for more opinions though?Biophys (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

With the reports of the fighting now in undisputed Georgia, I think something like Russo-Georgian War should now be the title of the article. Jon (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with War in Georgia (2008) or may be 2008 War in Georgia, but not with "invasion" or something like it. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To describe the ongoing conflict in the best way, the title of this article should be in my opinion, “Georgian-Russian War”. -Eurocopter (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia and Russia is not only sides in the conflict. There are also Abkhazia and South Ossetia at least. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I like 2008 Georgia War. --Tocino 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"War in Georgia" looks better describing the situation than "Georgia War"

Then why don't we call the Iraq War the War in Iraq? Or the 2006 Lebanon War the 2006 War in Labanon? Why isn't this article called 2008 War in South Ossetia? By changing it to 2008 Georgia War all we are doing is replacing South Ossetia with Georgia. --Tocino 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I support a new naming along the lines of what's been described above, considering the conflict has spread far beyond South Ossetia. 2008 War in Georgia seems most foolproof, as it doesn't discount the separatist groups as in Georgia-Russia War. Then comes the wait to see what the media will eventually dub this. Joshdboz (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with captain obvious. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russo-Georgian War or War in Georgia (2008) - SSJ ☎ 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All this is jumping the gun (as the Olympians would say). If we don't wait to see what other people call it, we'll only have to move the article again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The conflict will never have one official name. We can't wait, the current title does not reflect reality. - SSJ ☎ 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming this article "Russo-Georgian War" is the same as calling Iraq War "USA's agression against Iraq". Until sides agree on how to call the events, or at least until it becomes clear as day that there's going to be a full-scale war, Wikipedia must be neutral. -- 91.77.91.192 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 armed conflict in Georgia would be all that, and is agnostic w.r.t. "war". Best for now. --Mareklug ^talk 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I support that. -- 81.195.13.190 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian casualties

First it 70 soldiers dead and 150 civilians (Georgian claim) Then 300 soldiers and civilians dead (Georgian claim) Then 300 dead, most soldiers (Georgian claim) Then 200 soldiers and 100 civilians (Georgian claim) then 100 soldiers and 200 civilians (Georgian claim) and now it is 52 soldiers and 40 civilians killed (Georgian claim)

What gives?

Some information is missing

You guys have put information about 4 aircraft Russia has lost but there is no information about Georgian units lost , I read from varius reports and pages that claim all sort of aircraft from Su-25 to Mi-8 to Mi-24 to UH-1 that was downed by russian airforce , why is this not posted?

http://interfax.ru/news.asp?id=26169

12 georgian tanks destroyed , and another report of a repelled attack where 19 were destroyed , but there is no information about it.

There is also no information about russian tanks destroyed.

Georgia hasn't confirmed it. Georgia said they have destroyed 40 Russian tanks and shot down 19 aircraft, should we add those numbers too?

Georgian casualties

They keep on changing, from 300(mostly soldiers) to 300(Mostly Civilians) to 200 soldiers to whatever it is now. Anybody have any solid info?70.131.218.57 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

What is now is "the latest bodycount" by the Health Minister. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mkays, thank you.

Now it is 200 again. WHAT THE FAK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There was this guy who wrote a new section here that probably did it. He seemed very pro-Russian. If, indeed, the 52 soldiers and 40 civilians killed is the Georgian claim, then it stays until new info is found.70.131.218.57 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

User Top Gun is repeatedly pushing South Ossetian tales of "genocide" and "knived babies" into the Battle of Tskhinvali

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tskhinvali&diff=231268392&oldid=231255757

He calls it "Details", "Accusations of genocide", "Tskhinvali Destroyed", and "Quotations during the battle" (separatist tales of bloodthirsty Georgians only). (Names of the chapters.)

My version free of propaganda stories (but still including the separatist claim of 1,400 killed).

Any mod here: Please tell him to stop or something, thanks. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any mod: Please lock this article. Top Gun is now calling my objections to the war propaganda tales "complaints about the genocide", he is seriouly treating this stuff like confirmed facts. I can't handle him alone unless i play an edit war with him, which would be almost as silly. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his edit, I'm wondering why you, Captain Obvious, did remove large cited portions of the page. It gives Top's Gun's claim that you are pushing a POV credible. You also failed to give a summary of your edits. Please do not remove cited portions of wikipedia without leaving an edit summary again. It's considered vandalism. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog#Tskhinvali

I want revert this crap anymore, but I hope someone will take care of this. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am inserting the reports of 2,000 people killed which is being reported by CNN, BBC and other mayor news stations, I don't think their into war propaganda, for this conflict at least. Everything I have inserted into the article has been referenced. User Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog is trying to push his own point of view which he himself admited. (Top Gun)

I think the 2,000 claim is fine, but large tracts besides that do sound exactly like propaganda. make sure that you don't go overboard on hearsay, but keep the 2,000 mark as i HAVE heard that in many places. 70.131.218.57 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

You heard it in many places? That sounds like hearsay to me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Most Russian sources, CNN, Fox News, Reuters, the AP, etc, etc. Not saying it is correct, but it has been backed up with sources. The stuff about knifing babies and tanks running down old people has only been reported to Russian sources and can't be in any way verified. 70.131.218.57 (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Shane

Just because the reference is Russian doesn't mean it can't be verified or included here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Top Gun is now stealing (copy/paste) from the media sources

For example, The Sunday Times source:

Ordinary apartment blocks were pounded as the remains of Georgian tanks struck by rocket-propelled grenades stood burning in the middle of the street.[52]

Top Gun "writes":

Ordinary apartment blocks were pounded as the remains of Georgian tanks struck by rocket-propelled grenades stood burning in the middle of the streets.

Someone PLEASE do something about this guy. Like "go away". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So. Can I remove the stolen content - and keep it (and him) away from now on? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Forces Invading Georgia Proper

According to Reuters:

• "A Georgian official said on Monday that Russian forces had captured the Georgian town of Gori" but... "A Reuters reporter in Gori said: "We are right now driving through the town and I see no trace of troops or military vehicles. It is absolutely deserted.""[53]

• "Georgian declared an end to military activity over the separatist region." but... "At least six Georgian attack helicopters bombed targets in the region around the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, a Reuters witness said."[54]

Well isn't that interesting. Especially since this is coming from Reuters, there's no accusing it of being Russian propaganda. Looks like Georgia's plan to play victim is utterly failing on all levels. Crazytrain89 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The second opinion is not on topic. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Repositioned the above comment (by 65.68.1.90) as it was first misplaced in the middle of the Crazytrain89's comment. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian forces have taken the town of Gori and invaded Georgia proper. Russia Forces Move to Within 35 Miles of Tbilisi Monday, August 11, 2008 65.68.1.90 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But Reuters journalists do not see any Russians in Gori, the city is left empty. This misinformation from the Georgian side. --Eraser (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC correspondants (BBC News 5.30pm BST) have first person seen Georgian troops retreating from Gori and confirm they are in contanct with other correspondants inside Gori who have seen Russian soldiers in the streets. Russian deputy PM has denied this but he also denied that Russian soldiers had left Abkhazia for several hours after independant correspondants saw them on the offensive in Georgia proper. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Information from Reuters seems to me more credible, they receive first-hand info from their own correspondents. BBS's source must have confused retreating Georgian units with Russian soldiers. --Eraser (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"must have"? Why? Are you in Gori and know more about it? I doubt that. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not in Gori too, but article says that the Russian has already entered the Gori, without citing evidence against it. Let us follow NPOV. --Eraser (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from an article of the German news paper "Welt" [55]

Einwohner der Stadt Gori im georgischen Kernland bestätigten der Deutschen Presse-Agentur dpa in Moskau, dass ihre Stadt eingenommen sei.

Residents of the Georgian city of Gori in the heartland confirmed to the German Press Agency dpa in Moscow that their city was taken. (Translated with google translation, so you can check it yourself)

So, there is not only the BBC but also the DPA who say that Gori is under Russian control. When Reuters claims something else, it is not up to any one of us users to decide which one is right. Just take both. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fox, BBC, Welt, and DPA ?? It should be listed now. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN - Russian military pushes into Georgia

AP - Russia opens 2nd front in Georgia, seizing towns

AFP - Russia takes Georgian city as conflict worsens

ABC - Fighting Escalates Between Russia and Georgia

Summing up: There is Reuters vs. BBC / Welt / DPA / CNN / AP / AFP ... -- DanteRay (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no conflicting reports there. Reuters is the only one who quotes witnesses. The others are just repeating what Georgia is saying, which Reuters also does. Crazytrain89 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, learn how to read: Residents of the Georgian city of Gori in the heartland confirmed to the German Press Agency dpa in Moscow that their city was taken. (Residents = Eyewitness)

Btw: Reuters is in this case not an eyewitness, they claim that they spoke with other journalists in the city. -- DanteRay (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for the last? Reuters says "a Reuters reporter saw" nothing. But all we need do is summarize both; all we need is "a Reuters reporter saw no troops in Gori". This need not be inconsistent with the other reports; the Russians may have been out of sight or gone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Read in an article. I'll look if I find it again. And you are right this needn't be inconsistent. But at the moment the article only refers to Reuters and leaves the other umpteen sources out (which is just wrong in my opinion). -- DanteRay (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about attributing the claim that Gori has fallen to Lommaia, unless any of the other reports claim to know it of their own knowledge? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats how it looks at the moment: According to Georgian officials, the city of Gori, 40 miles (64 km) from the Georgain capital, has fallen to Russian forces.[163] Russian's defense ministry denied the information, claiming there were no russian troops on Gori. [164]. Also, this was confirmed by Reuters reporters James Kilner and Margarita Antidze, who said that there is no any "trace of troops or military vehicles, it is absolutely deserted".[165] This has also been stated by the British Foreign Secretarywho said '...British representatives on the ground and the media have reported that Russia has extended the fighting today well beyond South Ossetia, attacking the Georgian port of Poti ,and the town of Gori, ... I deplore this.'[166]

So the side from the Georgian officials is only backed-up with one source, but the Russian side which claims that Gori didn't fall is backed-up with many sources. And this doesn't reflect the reality. At the moment there are more sources (Welt, AP; AFP; DPA, BBC; ...) which say that it did fall. So it just seems totally biased. -- DanteRay (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fishy. I trust first-hand Reuters witnesses over some possibly made up citizen.Crazytrain89 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Reuters seems to be an old one at this point. Look it up on recent news. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New Reuters - Reuters - Georgia appeals for help over Russia "invasion"

65.68.1.90 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also according to CNN, the Georgians now doesn't really know whats happening in the air and land. The statements from the Georgian side must be taken from this point on with a doze of salt - "A U.S. military official told CNN that Russian attacks on Georgia -- including radars and communication systems -- have devastated the country's command and control system to the point where Georgian leaders may not have a clear idea of the situation on the ground.". Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/11/georgia.russia/index.html Aedile (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. In the end, tomorrow we will know whether Gori fell or not. Anf if it fell, all of you owe me ten bucks (deal?) ;) -- DanteRay (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, however, that the Russians claim to have attacked Senaki, in this report, at the other end of Georgia. That is an advance beyond the autonomous districts. So DanteRay may be rash, unless of course this is a one-way bet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt about Senaki, even the "Государственное информационно-аналитическое агентство Российской Федерации" (Российские военные заняли базу Минобороны Грузии - МИД Грузии - http://www.rian.ru/osetia_news/20080811/150287531.html ) confirmed it, the doubt is only about Gori, at least for the time being. Aedile (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC on Reuters side now. "Diplomatic sources who visited Gori on Monday evening later told the BBC that the town had not been taken. " (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7554507.stm) Aedile (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, diplomatic source ... could they be any more vague... What about this New York Times article?

I'll quote: To the east, civilians were fleeing Gori, a city south of South Ossetia that is a major staging area for the Georgian military. In Tblisi, an ambulance driver from Gori showed video footage on his mobile phone of fire in the city, and said Russian troops had taken over;

Again an eyewitness says that the city is under Russian control. -- DanteRay (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the Russians pulled up at the city limits rather than entering the city as earlier thought, similar to their raid on the Senaki military base where they withdrew after taking the base rather than holding it. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkish vehicles destroyed

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4642/turkfk4.png

Turkish vehicle destroyed in georgia

There are clearly Georgian letters on the vehicle... 130.89.238.141 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that Georgia has Turkish vehicles.

It is an Otokar Cobra, yes. However, it was most likely sold by the Turks to Georgia well before the war began.78.90.15.226 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maps of conflict area

Is anyone able to create/obtain maps of the conflict zones based on the news reports? I realize this might be hard to next to impossible because of conflicting information, sketchy details, and the rapid pace of the conflict, but if anyone is able to do this it would be much appreciated. MattW93 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From today But this one is under copyright - but one could use it as a resoure for creating a new map. -- DanteRay (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Best I could do, based on the area map and information in the article currently. There is almost nothing known about the current state of the northern part of the country or the important port cities - P'ot'i and the oil pipeline end point there was attacked, but that's about it. What isn't quite so obvious from the map: The country is, from a strategic point of view, cut in half now. --MartinSojka (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated map. Russian forces left Senaki (most likely after demolishing the military air base south of the city - a set of comparison satellite or areal photographs before and after the war could be useful later on, I guess), but entered the important port of Poti, at least according to some sources. I doubt much will change in the next hours, it's well over midnight in Georgia now. --MartinSojka (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The griever in pic 1 and 2 is not the same as the guy standing up in pic 3.

The guy standing in pic 3 is clearly not the guy in pic 4. they are similar, but not the same. I don't know why the dead guy in pic 1 and 2 is face down in pic 3. Maybe pic 3 was taken before 1&2. I don't know why the dead guy is so clean and with no apparent wounds. What is wrong with pic 5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SORRY I THINK SOME TOPIC WAS DELETED!

It was, and rightly so. Consult WP:TALK. All material not pertaining directly to improvement of this article will be deleted. Also see WP:OR. Colchicum (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian forces 25 km from Tbilis

Anyone got a public source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Shouldn't the image be changed to also show the Russian North Ossetia, which the South Ossetians reportedly would rather merge with? 86.56.43.231 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian OOB

Hello,

According to Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment about Georgia, the Order of Battle of the Georgian Army is the following:

• 1st Infantry Brigade (Gori)
• 2nd Infantry Brigade (Kutaisi and Batumi)
• 3rd Infantry Brigade (Gori and Akhaltsikhe)
• 4th Infantry Brigade (Tbilisi and Mukhrovani)
• 5th Infantry Brigade (Khoni)
• Artillery Brigade (Tbilisi)
• Independent Light Infantry Battalion (Saguramo)
• Independent Armoured Battalion (Gori)
• Air Defence Battalion (Kutaisi)
• Communication Battalion (Saguramo)
• Radio Reconnaissance Battalion (Tbilisi)
• Special Forces Brigade (Kojori)
• Military Police Battalion (Tbilisi)
• Medical Battalion (Saguramo)

Of these army formations, those marked with bold text would be in the area of operations on August 7-8. These I think should be included in the OOB section for Georgia, and perhaps the same with the 3rd Infantry Brigade (of course, this is only one source, but should be taken into consideration anyway).

BTW, I knew that a similar list is also on the Military of Georgia page, but better with confirmation from a second source. Realismadder (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide the link please? --Matthiasb (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn, forgot it - and it is part of the registered articles (I don't have it, but the military library on the Citadel in Copenhagen has).

But wouldn't the fact be a confirmation of the one on Military of Georgia page? I could of course go back and find the link. Realismadder (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace Talks

Im confused, are there any peace talks going on between the 2 countries right now? and is Russia advancing to the capital?Yuhi33 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia refused all peacetalks and Russia is advancing on the capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia never refused peace talks, they said they are willing as long as Georgian troops leave South Ossetia completely. Weather82004 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they said that while Saakashvilli on media channels claims that he call for truce and order Georgian troops to cease fire, there were no real negotiation attempts through official diplomatic channels and Georgian forces don`t stop fighting. Also some of Russian army officials said on that matter that now they treat Saakashvilli as a lair and would not listen to his words but rather would react only on actions: i.e. real cease of fire from Georgian side.

Every Georgian soldier in S Ossetia is either dead/captured/or hiding if lucky. Now their demand is that the Georgian army must surrender all of its weapons to Russia, that isn't a ceasefire, that is GAME OVER for the country of Georgia.

This shoul'd be an interesting to add

And, once regular Russian units pulled into the region, Georgia was left with no chance of victory whatsoever, as the whole of its army is roughly equivalent to one of Russia's motorized rifle divisions.

Therefore, since Georgia's projected blitzkrieg failed, it has lost the war - that much is obvious. On the other hand, it has clearly gained some political success, as Russia faces being labeled an aggressor by the international community.

Moscow indeed found itself in a viscous dilemma once Georgian forces invaded the self-proclaimed republic. Neither of its options was acceptable. It could either let down South Ossetians and be condemned by North Ossetians as a traitor, or begin an invasion of a sovereign state without a UN mandate and be condemned by the world at large as an aggressor. There was no other option available.

Russia chose the latter evil, wisely estimating it as the lesser of the two. It is preferable to be labeled an aggressor than a traitor. Incidentally, Russia is one of the five lucky nations having the right of veto in the UN Security Council - the only body authorized to define a country's actions as "aggression."

Aedile (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia have UN mandate for South Ossetia.Ru magister (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the mandate number of Security Council? If it is sanctioned it must have records in UN, where it is? -- DanteRay (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They have only a CIS mandate to maintain a certain number of peacekeepers, certainly not a UN mandate to take over the sovereign Georgian territory. Colchicum (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know number. It was renewed in this year. (It was every year since 1995)Ru magister (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't know the number, and for a good reason. It doesn't exist. It is a CIS mandate. Colchicum (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. This CIS mandate was adopted by UN and was renewed in this year by UN. Ru magister (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Source? A CIS mandate can only be renewed by the CIS. Colchicum (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L9286516.htm

or http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/areas/globalconflicts.htm (Russian peacekeepers was stayed instead of UN, CIS mandate was adopted as UN mandate.); http://eng.expert.ru/news/2008/06/19/geor_mir/ (this is the same mandate - see link before) Ru magister (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the first two doesn't contain a word about the U.N., the third one deals with Abkhazia, which is an entirely different peacekeeping mission. Sorry, you are wrong. Colchicum (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) see "their UN mandate"; (2) this was ONE mission, and the ONE mandate.

This mandate was renewed by UN 16.04.2008. (http://www.rg.ru/2008/04/17/gruzia-oon.html, http://www.ossetia.ru/analytics/mandat-mir)

English links for article:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unomig/index.html http://www.unomig.org/ Ru magister (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Please reread your own links. Once again, your links are only about Abkhazia (мандат наблюдателей в зоне грузино-абхазского конфликта, проект резолюции о продлении мандата наблюдателей ООН в зоне грузино-абхазского конфликта, UNOMIG was established in August 1993 to verify compliance with the ceasefire agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Abkhaz authorities in Georgia). The Abkhaz and Ossetian peacekeeping missions are managed separately and have different origin. This couldn't be one and the same mandate because the missions were established not simultaneuosly and by different treaties. Colchicum (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the official website of the UN mission in Georgia: [56]. It deals with Abkhazia only. South Ossetia is not even mentioned. Let alone the fact that this is an international observer mission and not a Russian peacekeeping mission. Colchicum (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. This about observers, not peacekeepers. As evidently from Mandate (http://www.unomig.org/glance/mandate/), peacekeepers have only mandate from CIS (not needed in renewing). Ok. And there no observation in South Ossetia (http://www.unomig.org/map_new.swf). But peacekeepers in South Ossetia - by the same mandate (it was the same military company), and this mandate was been acknowledged by UN, - but this is not "UN mandate". Thanks. Ru magister (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

name change?

This war isn't South Ossetia anymore. Perhaps we should call it a Georgian-Russian war? or is that too strong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.143.104 (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The war is still about South Ossetia, and will be. None of the countries ever declared an all out war. Weather82004 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Use stable sources

Some of the sources are already gone. Please care on whether the source you're using will still exist in some weeks (e.g. news.yahoo.com and any AP-Newsfeed disappears within 60 days) and make sure not to use dynamic links which change frequently. Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian troops left Senaki and have no plans to attack Tbilisi

The source is currently only in Russian but if it's true (as I hope) it'll appear elsewhere soon. Alæxis_¿question? 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC also said that "[Russian troops] later said they had left the town [Senaki]". Alæxis_¿question? 19:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It could be word games. You know, the troops that left Senaki have no intention to attack Tbilis but are going to besiege it while other units attack. There are reports the the Units that took Gori are only ~25 km from Tbilis.

It is worth noting that Senaki is the location of Georgia's largest airbase and thus an important military target for the Russians. It is reasonable to expect the Russians' attempt to neutralise it because the Georgians can launch air raids into South Ossetia and Abkhazia from the base. (Lennie 04:11 GMT 12.08.08)

Swedish journalists in Tbilisi reports

Some interesting notes by a swedish crew on site:

"A young colleague at one of Tbilis newspapers ensured us that she saw two bombs being dropped from a russian airplane at 4:00 AM in the morning in her neighborhood. However, we found no trace of any aerial attack there."

"As a large military transport flew over central Tbilisi on monday, terrified people started screaming that the russians were attacking. DN's pictures showed that the plane was in fact american."

"After getting reports of aerial attacks on both civilian and military targets in Tbilisi three nights on a row, DN tried to find one of these attacked areas with no success. We were told that the areas were "off limits""

Of course, this is open to interpretation and I'm not making any statement by this.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=814441

The newspaper is one of the biggest in Sweden so I'd say it's legitimate as a source.

Any swedes are welcome to verify that the translations are correct.

Gori has fallen

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/08/11/afx5309917.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4507980.ece It's a full rout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.142.97 (talk • contribs)

This report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7554507.stm quoting diplomatic sources who went to the city this evening seems to suggest it hasn't.ZedderZulu (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, diplomatic source ... could they be any more vague... What about this New York Times article?

I'll quote: To the east, civilians were fleeing Gori, a city south of South Ossetia that is a major staging area for the Georgian military. In Tblisi, an ambulance driver from Gori showed video footage on his mobile phone of fire in the city, and said Russian troops had taken over;

Again an eyewitness says that the city is under Russian control. -- DanteRay (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is all very strange considering that the BBC's latest headline report on the conflict (last updated 21:39 GMT on August 11th) cites a Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman as saying that Russian troops were never in Gori:

The conflict over South Ossetia also appeared to have widened when Georgia accused Russia of capturing the town of Gori, just 76km (47 miles) from Tbilisi.

"This is a total onslaught," Georgia's National Security Council secretary Alexander Lomaia told the AFP news agency, adding that Georgian troops were pulling back to defend Tbilisi.

Russia's defence ministry quickly issued a statement rejecting the claim, saying there were none of its troops in Gori.

Later, a spokesman for the Georgian interior ministry told the BBC that there had never been Russian troops in Gori.

He said the Russian Army had taken up a position just outside the town after destroying a military base and admitted the Georgian army had fled the area without putting up a fight.

Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze then said.... and the article goes to outline more claims and counterclaims.

For the whole article see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7554507.stm

Perhaps this should be added to the section on the article about the claims surrounding Gori?72.27.174.160 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If Gori was abandoned without a fight, the Russians would have no reason to garrison it; on the other hand, if the Georgian troops fled pell-mell, how does Tbilisi know what's happening there? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All good questions, and further questions could be how did Tbilisi know for sure Gori was occupied in the first place as was being claimed? How does Tbilisi even know what's happening anywhere outside of Tbilisi (and even then, maybe even it doesn't know what's happening in Tbilisi itself)? However, quotes from reporters actually in Gori and from Georgian government spokesmen basically retracting the claim that Russian troops were ever in the town seem more credible on the surface than some ambulance driver who left the scene probably in hurry. If anything the truth is probably somewhere inbetween and Russian troops may have raided Gori as part of the operation to destroy a military base outside the town and then left as they probably have in Senaki. To be honest a lot of the Georgian officials seem like headless chickens and I personally find it difficult to reconcile most of the statements - one claim that "the majority of Georgian lands" or the "majority of Georgia's territory" were/is under Russian control is particularly perplexing even if we take for fact that Russian soldiers have occupied Gori, Senaki, Poti and a few other towns outside Abkhazia. That map DanteRay made shows supposed Russian frontlines (which I think is more embellishment than anything else since no one seems to be able to provide footage of these Russians soldiers in Gori, Poti and Zugdidi in this day and age of camera-phones) - but even if that map were 100% accurate, even a child in basic school should be able to quickly see that they don't constitute a majority of Georgia. This why I take all reports with a healthy dose of salt and will wait until after it is over before believing anything.72.27.174.160 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Genocide...

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has alleged that Georgia is responsible for a "complete genocide."

What is complete genocide? Every representative of the group of people the genocide is directed at - killed? Is there a partial genocide? Could this be a mistranslation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk • contribs)

The wording might be a translation issue. Even if the literal translation is appropriate, the actual meaning might be different. For example, the meaning might be something like "guilty of what is completely genocide." I don't speak Russian, so I can only speculate as to translation issues. Christiangoth (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually very simple: "Complete genocide" sounds more terrible than just "genocide". Of course, Russia did no genocide at all when tens of thousands (they were never even counted) of "Russian citiziens" were killed in the nearby Chechnya by Putin. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that your POV is not NPOV. This one is not the first of your emotional acquisitions of Russian officials. Maybe there was genocide (biggest city in the region with all it civil infrastructure was completely destroyed by Georgian bombing, which is clearly not that brilliant idea when you claim to just hunt for separatists and then reunite civilian population as a part of Nation), and maybe there was not (no names and no even precise numbers of civilian casualties are known from independent sources) -- both POVs are only speculations for now. Let's wait for HRW report, they are already there.

A bit of bad wording, a bit of mistranslation. Putin said that "Georgian army's actions in South Ossetia are a genocide to the fullest extent". "Complete" here is used like in "these people are complete trash", it's just that in Russian you can use "complete" in such meaning even with "genocide"... though that still sounds a bit strange. -- 81.195.13.190 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Transnistrian presence?

Footage that appears in this BBC report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552921.stm - around the 10 second mark - seems to show a red-over-green-over-red flag, appearing quite similar to the Flag of Transnistria. I seem to remember seeing suggestions that Transnistrians were volunteering to go to S Ossetia. This footage appears to suggest that Transnistrians may indeed have reached Tskhinvali, though that's impossible to prove just from the footage. But might it back up other potential sources? Is it relevant to the article? I think it might be interesting to add to information about pro-Ossetian volunteers, but needs more corroboration. What does everyone think? ZedderZulu (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'm very confused about it, but maybe it was a building of the Tskhinvali's town hall or other government building: Tiraspol is sister city to Tskhinvali so Ossetians could hang out Transnistria's flags. --Maciek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.239.213 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor typo, though ...

Could anyone go through the entire article and correct the typo?

Russian General Staff Second-in-Commander is Alexander Nogovitsyn, not Alexander Nagovitsyn.

According to this source it is Anatoly Nagovitsyn --Elliskev 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Typo

The fourth reference: "Human Rights Watch Counts South Ossetian Casualties, Displaced", Deutsche Wille (11 August 2008). Retrieved on 2008-08-11." It is not "Deutsche Wille" but "Deutsche Welle". I can't change it myself -- DanteRay (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Elliskev 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed Minir to Minor. King (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits by User:Theearthshaker

This user is doing a number of edits that are very close to vandalism. For example, he simply replaces "South Ossetian separatists shelled Georgian-populated villages" by "Georgian artillery shelled Ossetian villages" here, although sited source tells: "Gunfire delivered by South Ossetian armed units..." and so on. Please check this. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to protect this article from edits by newly registered users.

I fully agree that this user is engaging vandalism, and he has done it already several times.--Staberinde (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionble free images

The August 11: Russian advances section contains two images that are claimed by Daritto7117 (talk · contribs) to be his ("I created this work entirely by myself"), yet they are from two different fronts. Image:2749628284 40df4d2987.jpg and Image:Russian Troops ISO2008.jpg. I find this dubious. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename now

It is clearly time to rename this article to Russia-Georgia War or something similar. It is no longer about South Ossetia. It's a war between Russia and Georgia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is a war between Georgia on one side, and coalition of Russia and separatist South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on other. More than two combatants. And Russia became involved only a day after the war has begun. I still believe the current name reflects the cause of the war and the place of major events.Garret Beaumain (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Russia, separatists are Russian citiziens - Russians. The separatists governments include Russians from Russia and even most of their budgets comes from Russia. It's all "Russia" according to Russia in all but the last very formal recognition of the official partition of Georgia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Other then about half population of South Ossetia region having Russian passports, all of these are speculations. Russia never claimed South Ossetia or Abkhazia to be the part of Russian Federation, neither did recognize them as independent states. 77.87.119.11 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why the rush? The name is descriptive: everyone's war aims concern the disposition of South Ossetia. So long as the article remains on the main page there is no danger of readers' not finding it. Wikipedia is not a race. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So when it will be "the proper moment"? When the Russians reach Tbilisi? They already moved their ground forces beyond South Ossetia, and by this I don't even mean Abkhazia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I say We call it "Russian Coalition" as thats honestly what it is.--Jakezing (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be named 2008 armed conflict in Georgia. Calling it a war already is POV and smells like sensational journalism (suitable for headlines), as many major engagements took and are taking place outside Ossetia. Sinking the Georgian missile boat in Georgia's territorial waters (?) was not done to help Ossetia but either in self-defense or as part of intimidation, nor is the bombing of Georgian military targets throughout the country situated far from Ossetia proper, or conducting armed conflict in the Kodori Valley's gorge in eastern Abkhazia, with th participation of Abkhazia Air Force such as it is. Russia never declared war, either, and neither has Georgia, or the self-proclaimed governments of the breakaway republics. A "state of war" was proclaimed by Georgia's legislature for 15 days -- but that legalese is not exactly congruent with declaring war in international law. Why change it now? Because the proposed alternative is more apt, more NPOV and accurate, and there is no tenure for holding on to bad information on Wikipedia. Also, it has been argued elsewhere (on pl wiki) that other Wikipedias are calling it that, so why not us. Time to fix it, and start fixing it here, so it will be noticed and fixed everywhere. That would be careful editing with an eye for the consequences of casting information on Wikipedia for others. --Mareklug ^talk 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no declaration of war in Iraq either. There's no denying a state of war currently exists between Russia and Georgia. Just because neither is fully willing to acknowledge that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Russia has begun taking over cities and towns outside of Georgian separatist republics. This is war between Russia and Georgia, the title should be changed accordingly. It's ridiculous to call this the 2008 South Ossetia war when most of the fighting is now taking place outside of South Ossetia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I move that we change the name to either "Georgian-Russian War (2008), or alternately, the "2008 Caucasian War". The conflict has obviously expanded beyond South Ossetia not simply in terms of the front lines moving into Georgia, but also how Abkhazia is not directly involved with Ossetia but seized on the opportunity. And what of Ukrainain involvement?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is too small for "Caucasian War", Georgia too weak. Ru magister (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless we call it "Caucasian War" (and we shouldn't, it's just Georgia, Russia, and the breakaway states between them), all reference to "2008" is unnecessary and clunky. It should be one of the following:

Russo-Georgian War: Clear, classical name, easy to remember. Despite the political complexities mentioned, it sums up the situation on the ground better than pretty much any of the names I've seen.

South Ossetian War or South Ossetia War: Again, both simple, classical, easy to remember. The former is a bit more euphonic, but the latter variant parallels Iraq War and Vietnam War.

I would urge that "2008" not show up in the title; its placement is always infuriatingly difficult to remember (is it 2008 South Ossetia War or South Ossetia War (2008)?), besides the fact that it is unnecessary (is there any other Russo-Georgian War worthy of an article? Or any other South Ossetian War?) and frankly not euphonic. Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like laziness and failure to do your own research: Georgian-Ossetian conflict (1918-1920) and 1991–1992 South Ossetia War --Mareklug ^talk 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the classical 2008 Russo-Georgian War or 2008 Caucasian War. I oppose 2008 armed conflict in Georgia because it's quite clearly a war. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a unified command A vs. unified command B, and a host of randoms have taken part (maritime battle complete with a sinking, in territorial waters of Georgia; events in Abhkazia including its air force in action; armed civilian volunteers, Russians, in addition to regular troops, unlikely to be integratd into the Russian command structure; Georgian shelling of civilians in South Ossetia proper; Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages outside of South Ossetia; civilians killed in military-deserted Gori in Georgia proper by errant Russian air campaign) -- looks like 2008 armed conflict in Georgia to me would be least confusing and least POVy, since it is not a war yet but a whole bunch of semi-related events. A real Georgian-Russian war is probably yet to be fought. --Mareklug ^talk 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What is a war if not armed conflict Flick fliss floss (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article rename

Given that the Russians have advanced far into Georgian territory beyond Ossetia, opening a second front from Abkhazia, shouldn't this article be renamed to Russo-Georgian war (2008) or Russian invasion of Georgia (2008)? Martintg (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been no first-hand confirmation that Russia has advanced on the ground into Georgian territory beyond the outskirts of South Ossetia. These are all just claims made by the Georgian government. Reuters reporters said there was no sign of Russian military presence in Gori, while Russia says it has no intent to capture Georgian territory beyond South Ossetia. So no, the article name shouldn't be changed at this point. LokiiT (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The US has told AFP: "We don't see anything that supports they are in Gori. I don't know why the Georgians are saying that."[57] --SVTCobra (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting article. Georgians have been caught lying a few times already. They don't seem very trustworthy. LokiiT (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

With all their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies, amirite? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gori itself occupied or not, Russian incursions into Georgia are confirmed by both sides and this is all that Martintg claimed. Senaki is an undisputed example. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They left Senaki already after they drew the Georgian military out. They're not occupying any part of Georgia proper outside the outskirts of South Ossetia, which is obviously to prevent possible shelling attacks. LokiiT (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"They're not occupying any part of Georgia proper outside the outskirts of South Ossetia". I think you forgot South Ossetia and Abkhazia are both regions of Georgia (including their parts which were under actual government control before the hostilities). And you want to say, "oh, it's probably just incursions so it doesn't matter - like the bombings that didn't matter". That's cute. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not important if they occupy it at this very moment. They sure did. Also, no news they left e.g. Zugdidi. Neither city in the outskirts of SO. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact they left doesn't change the fact they were there. Russian reconnaissance troops were in Poti and a Russian ship was enforcing an exclusion zone around that port. This is clearly unrelated to South Ossetia now. Even if they haven't taken Gori there seems to be little disagreement that Russia has advanced into Georgia proper including areas near Gori like the main road which leads to the center of the city.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SO. Are we renaming this or not? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs to be renamed, independent confirmation by journalists on the ground of the Russian advance deep into Georgian territory here [58]. Martintg (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree but try the best avoid "Russian invasion" in the main article because that will incite pro-Russian camp. Nevertheless the so-called South Ossetia genocide is smoking gun.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Overview removed here

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#URGENT_The_.27overview.27_is_only_a_military_strategy_overview_and_in_no_way_an_overview_of_the_whole_situation.

{{Refimprovesect}} {{rewrite}} {{update-section}} After several years of dispute over the status of South Ossetia, Georgian troops (reportedly with Headquarters at Tirdznisi) conducted an operation to dislodge Russian peacekeepers from their positions, and occupy South Ossetia, notably its capital Tskhinvali.

Georgian forces advanced into South Ossetia along three axes:
In the western Ossetia-Georgia border sector

• Georgian troops advanced along the 40 km (25 mi) western border as far north as Kvaisi to a depth of some 5–15 km (3.1–9.3 mi). A separate axis of advance sought to occupy Znaur or advance beyond it to about 20 km (12 mi) into the Southern Ossetian territory. The advance was along the Qvirila river valley and the Zestaponi - Sachkhere railway.

In the southern Ossetia-Georgia border sector

• In the western sector of the front, Georgian troops advanced on a narrow front of some 4 km (2.5 mi) towards Avnevi and to Khetagurovo, although they did not succeed entering the later. An artillery unit was deployed in Avnevi.
• In the central sector of the front, the Georgian troops temporarily entered Tskhinvali, advancing on a narrow front of 4–5 km (2.5–3.1 mi), but primarily attempted to bypass it as an objective, while attempting to secure the Liakhvi River valley (Didi Liakhvi), and its road and railway as far as Kemerti 10 km (6.2 mi) away. Supporting artillery units were deployed in Kvemo-Nikozi and Ergneti to the southwest and southeast of Tskhinvali.
• In the northern sector of the front, the Georgian troops advanced along the Minor Liakhvi river valley (a tributary of Liakhvi ) on a wide front of 10–12 km (6.2–7.5 mi), between Prisi and Helchua, seeking to link this valley directions of advance with the central sector. Although they were able to penetrate as far as Vanati at the bend of the Minor Liakhvi, Kochati-Sarabuki villages were not taken, or occupied only temporarily. The Georgian troops were unable to take Dmenisi, a major village on the north-eastern flank of the advance, and the advance guard of the northern sector became almost cut off from the other forces forcing it to seek a breakout from a possible encirclement, and halting the overall Georgian advance.

During the 9-10 August the South Ossetian and Russian forces that had recovered from the initial Georgian offensive were able to bypass the Georgian troops in the Liakhvi valley from the northwest by advancing over Height 1134, and with a pincer offensive retaking Tskhinvali from the western outskirts of the city, cutting off Georgian troops in the valley to the north from their lines of communication, and forcing a general withdrawal of Georgian troops. To complete the encirclement, Russian troops occupied Height 1475 east of Tskhinvali, thereby also securing line of fire over the Prisi - Dmenisi road that runs along the northern sector of the Georgian front.

A separate sector of advance penetrated some 10 km (6.2 mi) into the Southern Ossetian territory along the Eastern Prone stream valley west of Liakhvi River.

In the eastern Ossetia-Georgia border sector
Georgian troops advanced on a broad front to a depth of 15–20 km (9.3–12.4 mi), occupying Akhalgor (Leningori) as far as Churpia stream, a source of the Ksani River, and after negotiating the mountainous terrain, entered the Liakhvi River valley from the east, seeking to link up with the forces advancing in the central sector of the southern border advance at Kemerti, and seeking to occupy Beloti, another of the larger cities in South Ossetia. This effectively cut South Ossetia in two, with the eastern third being cut off from the rest of the territory.

Salvage what you want (or not - nothing of this was sourced, after all). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this overview summarizes this map. I do not know the source of the map. (Igny (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC))