Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

More about August 7th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No more than just another speculation and personal opinion 195.218.211.3 (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Could you explain please, how and why secondary sources which simply discuss primary ones could be "most reliable and should be preferred"? They provide POVs and theories, nothing more. Finalyzer (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Biophys. Primary sources provide direct, unmediated information about the object of study, object of study being Aug 7 events, not the Red Star article or its subsequent retraction. Secondary sources, such as the Red Star article, cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. A tertiary source is a relative term. But all this is semantics. My point was that you cannot in good faith base a theory on a single retracted article from a source which you wouldn't otherwise even consider reliable. Billyblind (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Yet he continues to revert war even though there is an obvious dispute and he hasn't given a coherent argument yet. LokiiT (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only they passed through the tunnel, but they could see Tskinvali:

We were doing exercises,” captain Sidristy’s story starts. “This was relatively close to the capital of South Ossetia. Nizhny Zaramakh is a wilderness area in North Ossetia. We made camp there after our scheduled exercises, but on August 7th, the order came to move out towards Tskhinvali. We were raised to a state of alarm, and went on the march. We arrived, settled in, and already on August 8th the fire came down with such force that many even lost their bearings. No, everyone understood that Georgia was preparing something, but it was hard to even imagine what we saw. Immediately after midnight, a massive shelling of the city and peacekeeping positions was started. They hit it from all types of weapons, including artillery rocket systems.”

Analysis

1.The regiment, which is permanently posted in the township of Prokhladny, close to Nalchik, [Kabardino-Balkar Republic], after finishing its exercises (August 2nd), was stationed to Nizhny Zaramag.

2.Nizhny Zaramag is located several kilometers from the northern entrance of the Roki tunnel, and a border station and customs office is located in this town.

3.On August 7th, the regiment received the order to move out toward Tskhinvali, was raised to a state of alarm, and before the end of the day, managed to arrive to its objective destination.

Nothing at article tells about its objective destination. Nothing at article tells that they arrived there before the end of the day. I don't even see a point to discuss this dubious article when both sides agreed that some Russian troops has been moved through the Roki tunnel on August 7[1]. BTW, the main facts of the Red Star article are presented there, as well as remark that "After a query by The Times about the article, the Russian newspaper published an article last Friday in which the captain said the correct date for the advance to Tskhinvali was Aug. 8."Finalyzer (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

4.After midnight, the lights of the bombardment of Tskhinvali could be seen from the regiment’s position.

Bad journalism - authors fantasies to impress the reader. In fact, it's written more likely as if not just "lights of the bombardment", but the city itself can be seen from there. But this does not matter, because author describes it happening on the morning of August 8th! And there are other obvious mistakes - no wonder this article was pulled out! 195.218.211.3 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

5.The site of the regiment’s position is not specified, but it is evident that the regiment passed through the Roki tunnel. Since:

• There would be no point in raising the regiment to a state of alarm to advance it two kilometers to the entrance of the Roki tunnel. With such a formation, the tail end of the column would still be in Nizhny Zaramag.

• Being located to the north of the Greater Caucasus Mountain Range [which the tunnel crosses], it would impossible to observe the lights of an artillery attack of Tskhinvali.

It would impossible to observe anything even from Java, since both Java and Tskhinval located in deep depressions separated by numerous hills. 195.218.211.3 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

6.Going on the basis of the words, “we arrived, settled in,” one can draw the conclusion that the column did not as yet spend the night by the side of the road, but unloaded in a place where it was possible to provide the military personnel with food and a night’s rest.

And entirely wrong one - according to the Statute, regiment can "settle" anywhere, actually the term deals with measures aimed at safe (not comfortable!) rest, ie setting the camp guards, dispersing personnel and vehicles and such. 195.218.211.3 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

7.Between the Roki tunnel and Tskhinvali, there is only one such place: Java.

Conclusion: the 135th motorized rifle regiment entered the territory of South Ossetia before the start of Georgia’s attack on Tskhinvali.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: user Biophys doesn't know military matters and region topography well enough to make any global conclusions! 195.218.211.3 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is interested your original research, that is the sort of thing you write in a blog. None of it can be used in the article, in fact none of it can even be taken as truthful considering your history in this article. That original report you quoted, or story should I say, was denied by Moscow and therefore can't be taken as fact either. LokiiT (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

denied by Moscow - naturally denied what else? But some days too late and not before this information has widely spread ;) The fact is in the world and will be confirmed by other different and independent sources: regular Russian troops were inside SO before a certain date. Elysander (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You sure have an active imagination. Hearsay doesn't get reported as fact. Intel reports do. LokiiT (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but until then the embarrassing second paragraph needs to be removed. Billyblind (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New York Times: Georgia Offers Fresh Evidence on War’s Start

"A new front has opened between Georgia and Russia, now over which side was the aggressor whose military activities early last month ignited the lopsided five-day war. At issue is new intelligence, inconclusive on its own, that nonetheless paints a more complicated picture of the critical last hours before war broke out.

Georgia has released intercepted telephone calls purporting to show that part of a Russian armored regiment crossed into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia nearly a full day before Georgia’s attack on the capital, Tskhinvali, late on Aug. 7.

Georgia is trying to counter accusations that the long-simmering standoff over South Ossetia, which borders Russia, tilted to war only after it attacked Tskhinvali. Georgia regards the enclave as its sovereign territory."

Georgia Offers Fresh Evidence on War’s Start (NYT) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/europe/16georgia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=georgia&st=cse&oref=slogin

Calls Intercepted From Georgian Cellphone Network http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/europe/16verify.html?ref=europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.196 (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys' reverts

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

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

NOTE: personal attacks are incivil. Ottre 09:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, LokiiT provided an explanation for Biophys' behavior. Biophys himself has obviously refused to answer my questions and address my concerns, which I find extremely annoying and bad behaviour, BTW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Offliner (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Strength" and "Casualties and losses" sections of the infobox

It's possible that I don't understand a point, but... In “Strength” section S.Ossetian and Abkhazian forces are mentioned like “XXX (not)including reservists; unknown number of volunteers”, but Russian forces are mentioned as “XXX regulars[...]; unknown number of irregulars”. Later in “Casualties” section Abkhazians are mentioned in form “X soldier killed, Y wounded”, S.Ossetians - “Unknown killed, XX militiamen captured”, but Russians are mentioned like “XX soldiers killed, YY wounded, Z captured; Unknown number of losses among the volunteers”.

At first, in “Strength” section volunteers were mentioned only for S.Ossetia and Abkhazia, but not for Russia- so if they don’t exist, I can’t understand the way how they can be lost.

At second, what irregulars on Russian side were meant?.. (Pubkjre (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I only know that I saw with my own eyes on Russian TV, that independent russian medias had captured informations of local army administrations, stating more than 2290-3000 dead russian soldiers during the conflict and that the russian government feverishly tries to keep the corpses hidden in unknown massgraves near Vladicavcas or saying that those killed men were georgians ( a russian intilligence source also states 3000 dead georgians but not russians, while all georgian Brigades except the 2nd and 4th, which lost total 170-230 men still have the full personal strenght ). If they were georgians, why would russia beeing so exhausted hiding georgian corpses ? - BTW, no single person thought about the fact, that the main part of russian soldiers who took part in the operation, had no family members.

Ossetia fallout in Ukraine

This just in: The government of Ukraine is in effective collapse over its position on South Ossetia. The Wikipedia article on the event states the following:

"The 2008 Ukrainian political crisis was sparked by the armed conflict between Russia and Georgia that started in early August. The crisis began with a dispute between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko over Ukraine's reaction to the conflict. The President has presented support for Georgia and strong criticism of Russia whereas other parties have professed a more balanced position towards the two parties of that conflict. Following a vote on a bill to limit the President's powers in which the Prime Minister's Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko voted with the opposition Party of Regions, Yushchenko's Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc bloc withdrew from the governing coalition. On September 16, 2008 the collapse of the ruling coalition was officially announced.[2] "

Does this information have any relevance at this point to the article, and if so, where do we put it and in how much detail? DerekMBarnes (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the information is in the article already. I'll consider this talk section closed. DerekMBarnes (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph has become a joke

The lead paragraph needs some major rewriting, because as it stands now it is a major embarrassment to Wikipedia. The whole thing basically consists of bickering over who started the war and completely misses the point of the lead, which according to WP:LEAD should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." If the lead paragraph is not fixed by other editors I am going to be bold and do a long revert back to when it actually resembled something coherent.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Long revert back" is not a good option. If you want to rewrite introduction, do it in current version and using text of the introduction from an older version if you wishBiophys (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is fine now. Also note the meaning of the word incursion. Ottre 19:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ossetian casualties update

Methinks infobox needs to be updated. According to http://www.redstar.ru/2008/09/12_09/3_01.html, SO officials say number of confirmed civilian deaths raised to 700, estimated stated as "around 1700" (i guess it's still 1692 figure available for some time), "some 500 improvised graves already explored, another 200 just found". I will try to find more detailed and direct links. 195.218.211.3 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the infobox, at one time there were a certain number of Russian planes noted as being shot down, is this no longer infobox worthy? Menrunningpast (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure 4 Russian Planes were shot down. You can put that in as soon as Georgia admits to how many planes it had destroyed as well. Or you can just keep it simple. I don't think anyone's hiding the fact that Russia lost 4 planes, but Georgia's losses in aircraft should be noted as well. 68.164.117.251 (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are simply not more than 150 dead civilian ossetians. High casulties are amongst the illegal formed armed groups of Kokhoiti, which actually do not really exist anymore after the georgian offensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.67.137 (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Condoleeza Rice speech

While Rice was extremely critical of Russia's handling the crisis, there is an interesting quote from [3]

The conflict in Georgia, thus, has deep roots. And clearly, all sides made mistakes and miscalculations. But several key facts are clear:

On August 7th, following repeated violations of the ceasefire in South Ossetia, including the shelling of Georgian villages, the Georgian government launched a major military operation into Tskhinvali and other areas of the separatist region. Regrettably, several Russian peacekeepers were killed in the fighting.

These events were troubling. But the situation deteriorated further when Russia’s leaders violated Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – and launched a full scale invasion across an internationally-recognized border. Thousands of innocent civilians were displaced from their homes. Russia’s leaders established a military occupation that stretched deep into Georgian territory. And they violated the ceasefire agreement that had been negotiated by French and EU President Sarkozy.

Notably, she did not mention anything about Russia's invasion before the Georgian attack, thus basically saying that Georgia started the attack and provoked Russia into a full scale war. (Igny (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

It's actually deliberately vague. Different propaganda techniques do not mix well. This one is a study in Half-truth. Give it some time. Billyblind (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good start. Here are my proposals at this point:

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

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

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

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

At this point in the discussion I have written, but not posted, a new edit for the Timeline section. The revamp covers most points discussed here, save for the suggestion of removing the bullet-point format (which I am still considering). I have posted the edit on my user page as I did before, and hope to see no less than three editor's critiques posted here. (I will wait this time, I swear.) DerekMBarnes (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal is mostly fine. However, I strongly feel that the days of actual war (8th-12th) and the actual warfare events should receive more coverage (the war being the main subject of this article.) I have written an alternative proposal for the days 9th-12th on my user page. For the rest of the days your proposal is fine. BTW, I think the timeline would be much clearer if it was written in present tense. Or is there some wikipedia rule which says timeline should be written in past tense?Offliner (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually read any style guidelines on the matter; I was just following what was already there. I'll investigate WP's position on it (mostly so I don't look like a hypocrite :D). As for your proposal, it's a lot of new material, but your sources seem credible. I think with a little finessing and proper reference notation, we can integrate it into the overall edit. 71.50.0.35 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: There appears to be no set standard for timelines in Wikipedia; however, there are noted timelines in other articles which appear to exemplify a preferred method. I have modified my protoype edit to accomodate this format; personally, I think it's much better. Have a look for yourselves. (P.S., slipped in signing last comment. A thousand pardons.) DerekMBarnes (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Offliner above that the actual fighting (which unit was where, doing what) should be given more emphasis. Preferably still in a non-day-by-day style (say, with headlines "fighting in SO"/"fighting in Abk"/"air raids" or something similar). However, your proposed version is a huge improvement on the current timeline. --Xeeron (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing or able, Xeeron, perhaps you could write your own version of the summary of events. Then we could look at what you're talking about and give you our input. Meanwhile I'll try to integrate Offliner's material into the prototype on my user page over the course of this weekend. Still waiting for one more review!
DerekMBarnes (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

After thinking this over for a while, I now strongly agree with User:Xeeron in that timeline should be altogether replaced by something describing the war in normal sentences. And it should be shortened up. Take a look at the article Battle of Tskhinvali, it's much clearer and interesting than the current horribly messy timeline of this article. I'd drop out everything that happened before the beginning of the war (7th August), since this article is about that particular war and not about the events which happened before that. I also think that DerekMBarnes' proposal for the 7th entry on the timeline is still too big and messy. For example, the Security Council part should be removed, since the meeting failed to make anything substansial (telling the reader that the SC held an empty meeting on 7th really isn't that important). Offliner (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use parts of the article Battle of Tskhinvali in the text which is to replace the timeline? That article already describes some major battle events in clear prose. Take a look at my User page, it now has an extensively modified (shortened) version of the entire article. The events after 10th August are still missing though. Offliner (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start; the "war" section does look much more organized. References are still a bit messy, though, and "further developments" could use some refinement or merging. We'll see what others think; starting a new discussion would probably attract more attention to the idea. DerekMBarnes (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian market pays for the war

According to Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns the Russian market has lost a third of its value and it's partly because of the war in Georgia. Only on August 8 Russia saw about 7 billion dollars outflow.[4]. Närking (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this [5], maybe this drop has nothing to do with the war. This Burns might manipulate the figures for political gain... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course the drop in Russia is part of what's happening in the rest of the world also. But what several analytics mean is that the war has made it even worse in Russia.

By the way here are also the latest news from the Crimean Verkhova Rada who demands a recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. [6]. Närking (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I also saw that here [7]. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A global crisis was building for years and now that it has begun a few things have become clear: a) it has shown that the Russian authorities are able to competently handle a crisis and b) that the Russian economy is more resilient than perhaps some suspected. This is good news for investors and for Russia itself, for the country should be able to easily ride this one out. Sorry for those hoping for a repeat of August 1998.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fairy tales .. the reality is another .. only one inner Russian source [[8]] ;) Elysander (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

More about the diving market in Russia here [9]: "Aside from global problems, and falling oil prices, there is another factor: politics. Russia's military conflict with neighbouring Georgia, the battle over the oil company TNK-BP and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's criticism of the mining company Mechel - which resulted in a massive fall in its share price - have all made some investors decide it is time to leave Russia. Uncertainty over what lies ahead in Russia's relationship with the West, and with business, is undoubtedly a factor." Närking (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What is clear is that blaming the war for the stock market's problems is convenient to anyone who doesn't understand economics, and undoubtedly everyone who opposed the war will throw out that fashionable explanation, including Condi in her latest speech. The fact is that stock market problems were evident weeks before Russia intervened in Georgia and that the war only played a small part in a much larger, global picture. For every pundit you find blaming the war, there are others taking a different (and I think a more sensible) view.[10].--71.112.145.102 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Todays morning all russian stock trade was stopped again, this time because of huge overgrowth :) 195.218.210.175 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And here you see why [11]. Närking (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a translation of this[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Doesn't Russia have a huge over $20 billion surplus? Don't they make $1 billion a day on oil? Isn't their buget balanced? Also, when you're at war your economy generally drops a bit, b/c you are wasting your own production in bombs, ammunition, etc - in addition to fixing the Diplomatic fallout. As for investors in Russia, investing in general is falling, and it has no links to this war. Think about it - you've invested millions in Russia, are you really going to stop investing over a "controvercial" war? If a country defended its citizens, that means more loyal consumers. If investors fall out for political reasons, Russia can always get more real investors, and political investors whine too much anyway. Case in point: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article185.html http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/08/yourmoney/mrussia.php http://russiatooat.blogspot.com/2008/04/russias-fiscal-surplus-and-oil-revenue.html For people who cannot extract facts from reading: 2007 Russia deficit: $24 billion. 2008 Russia surplus: $23 billion. From 2007 to 2008 Russian economy made a pure profit of over $47 billion! As for investors, the war is wildly popular in Russia (I guess they think it's ok for their country to defend their citizens): "Additionally, about 70 percent of stock market sales is accounted for by domestic investors who are flush with oil-generated cash and eager to support homegrown corporate talent. When foreign investors bailed out of Russian bellwether stocks in mid-January, domestic investors swooped in and bought on the dip." So stop using the Economist Line of "Russia's in fiscal trouble due to the war" Narking. It just isn't true. 67.101.50.138 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NYT article "Georgia Offers Fresh Evidence on War’s Start"

"Georgia has released intercepted telephone calls purporting to show that part of a Russian armored regiment crossed into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia nearly a full day before Georgia’s attack on the capital, Tskhinvali, late on Aug. 7."

Georgia Offers Fresh Evidence on War’s Start a nice article from the NYT about the controversy surrounding who is or isn't the agressor. Grey Fox (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They probably haven't heard of Occam's razor. Billyblind (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No doubt we are to see even more fresh post factum accusations from georgian side, hehehe 195.218.210.144 (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, so the Russians knew the exact location of Georgia's military but had no clue their phone lines were tapped? And why is this "evidence" coming out now? US is rabidly pro-Georgian, whereas Wikipedia is neutral, so I want to wait until an unbiased (not US/UK on one side and not Russia/Nicaragua on the other) source analyzes the tapes. This "evidence" should be kept out of the article, or at the very least labeled "controvercial". Also, if you know that Russians are about to attack you, why give them an exuse? Is the tie eater admitting his mental state? It just doesn't make sense. 67.101.50.138 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the tie eating video is real or faked? Kislorod (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This article in NYT is an interesting thing...

1) "The commander, a colonel, approached and said, ‘The guys with you should check the vehicles.’ Is that O.K.?"

Really, is this O.K. that invading forces wasting the time and asking somebody to check them?..

2) "A B.M.P. is a tracked armored vehicle that vaguely resembles a tank. It was one of the principal Russian military vehicles seen in the war, and in the peacekeeping contingent."

A BMP-2 is the principal Russian IFV (Infantry fighting vehicle) at this moment, but it will be not correct to say "A BMP is the principal Russian IFV", because BMP is a term which literally means IFV. And there are many IFVs in the world whose have tank-like form... (Pubkjre (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

And, btw, it's not tracked, it's wheeled. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

BMP-1/2, and BMP-3 too, are tracked. But BTR series (Russian term "BTR" means APC - Armoured Personnel Carrier) BTR-60/70/80 are wheeled. The Russian Army uses BTR-70 and BTR-80 (it also uses APC-like wheeled vehicle named BRDM-2, but formally it isn't an APC, and the "BRDM" abbreviation can be translated as Combat Reconnaissance/Patrol Vehicle). Also, the most world's IFVs are tracked, I know very few wheeled IFV... But there are many wheeled APCs, and also there are many tracked APCs too. (Pubkjre (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Moved humanitarian impact to its own article

Since this article was getting rather long, I moved the humanitarian impact section to its own article. In my opinion, this article should concentrate more on the actual war and less on its impacts or on reactions to it. Now the question is, how could we best summarize the humanitarian impact part on this page? Any suggestions? Offliner (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one could move some content to other articles, but only after leaving abequate summaries here, and after asking opinions of others and waiting for reply. The unilateral deletions of huge segments of sourced text by you are unacceptable. You should build consensus first for such changes.Biophys (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, making bold edits to see how others react is one way of starting the discussion. Offliner (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To User:Biophys: since you reverted my edits, I'd like to hear what exactly did you not like in it? Offliner (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pfff, I just noticed that Biophys didn't just revert those of my edits which were trying to shorten the article (the shortening has been discussed on this talk page, btw), he also reverted ALL my earlier edits which didn't have ANYTHING to do with shortening! Those earlier edits did NOT remove anything from the page, they just added material. And he did this all without telling us what exactly he thought was wrong with those edits! His only comment to his revert: "rv - unilateral deletion of large texts without discussion." Sigh. This is just so completely frustrating and bad behavior (and he has done this before too). To Biophys: if you continue to do this and refuse to explain yourself and your reverts, I'm going to ask a moderator to give you a warning, since I find this completely unacceptable behavior. Offliner (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That behavior is typical of him. I too know how frustrating he is. -YMB29 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

The strategic war map is wrong, first of all the georgian navy didn't moved anywhere and second, the russian aggression cannot be ever called a counter attack because georgia didn't attack Russia. Let us call it a Russian invasion and aneccion of two seperatist georgian regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.36.191 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us call it "stopping the genocide attempt and demilitarisation of war criminals regime" :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.211.34 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think the map is wrong, you should try to come up with reliable sources which confirm that. Offliner (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are maps, I just dont know how to add —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.87.216 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You can place the links here. Grey Fox (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Still MUCH to long

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

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

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

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

Some other parts that could need shortening are:

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

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

Russian statements on withdrawal

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

Doesn't it look strange that the news about actual withdrawal dated Sep 16 (actually Sep 13), but the statement about continuous presence is supported by news dated Aug 20? Enerjazzer (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I tried to bring accross the message that during the withdrawal, there was considerable confusion in the media about the withdrawal and also about the eventual positions after the end of the withdrawal. I guess the last sentence of that section could also be deleted, it is not all that essential. --Xeeron (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Other (in Russian order of battle)

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

Not only volunteers, but "irregulars" too. And not only in "Russian order of Battle", but in Russian parts of infobox too. No irregulars were officially sent to S.Ossetia or Abkhazia by Russia. So there are foreign volunteers (include Russian ones) in S.Ossetian or Abkhazian armed forces, but there are no volunteers/irregulars on Russian side. (according to Russian sources, I don't see good sources in English)

And I have a question… S.Ossetia and Abkhazia are mentioned as belligerents in the beginning if the article. In this case I don’t understand why are there only two sides in "Combatants" section and why are Abkhazian and S.Ossetian armies mentioned in Russian order of Battle? I think that S.Ossetia and Abkhazia, those are the belligerents, should have their own descriptions, and their armies should be mentioned is such descriptions.(Pubkjre (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

In answer to your question: At least for SO, that might be because there is no information. Check Military of South Ossetia. Not a big lot in there to include. --Xeeron (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... But what about volunteers and irregulars on Russian side? I think that "Russian irregulars", "pro-Russian irregulars" and "foreign volunteers in SO forces" aren’t the same things.

About the strength and armament of the SO and Abkhazian armies... There are many sources in the "opinion & analysis" category like this, and it’s a problem to found really good sources... But I think that it isn't a reason to join several belligerents into one... (Pubkjre (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

If you have the information, go ahead and add it. I don't think there was ever a deliberate decision not to have SO and Abk military separately listed. --Xeeron (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Military Situation in the Black Sea

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

This section makes no sense at all. Reverting back in a week or two. Ottre 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could elaborate on what you feel is currently lacking, it will be easier to fix. --Xeeron (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It can't be fixed. Needs to be split rather than summarised. Ottre 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Split into which parts? And where would those parts then be located? If you have a good idea how to make the section better, by all means go ahead and do it. --Xeeron (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyberwar

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

That's your opinion. It has to be mentioned that governmental websites were down for a few days. Ottre 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Added mention of the governmental pages. --Xeeron (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Link to Georgian MFA was already there, without need for specific link, likewise no need for link to diplomats at UN when there is a link to the MFA of Russia. Also removed SO news agency and the horribly POV non-official link (why was that there in the first place?). Further removed the topographic maps (nothing different than google maps really). --Xeeron (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Instructors & mercenaries

Turned the title around so the instructors would not be alleged (both sides agree they were present). Shortened much of the repeating statements. I left in the last sentence due to give some space to the mercenary allegations, but the sources for that were horrible. It would be great if someone could find the original report, so we do not have to cite a tertiary source speaking of "the unnamed source" while quoting a secondary source. --Xeeron (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

The first untrue, the second unsourced strong POV, the third completely irrelevant, none of them material deserving of a footnote. All gone now. --Xeeron (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction

Cut down the quotes to three, subsumized critical voices in the first sentence instead of giving several paragraphs. Equally shortened position of Italy and Germany/France. Also moved discussion about "who started it" to a different section. None of that was comming from international leaders (Ideally that part should be moved up towards a revised timeframe). --Xeeron (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Six point peace plan

Shortened the title. Cut away a lot of "who said what" with regards to the signing. Similarly cut down "fighting after signing" statements. Clarified the actual text with 3 quotes: russian official version(english), georgian official version(french) & NYT version (intermediate version with added points, french&english). --Xeeron (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

I completely removed this section. The information given here was redundant with the infobox: All numbers are present in the infobox already, the infobox even is more detailed on military losses. If additional information on civilian losses turns up in the future, it can be placed in the humanitarian impact sections, where a good part of that information already resides. --Xeeron (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. However, I plan to add info about equipment losses (tanks, AA systems, artillery pieces, etc.) if I come across some reliable numbers. If that happens, it would perhaps be better to create a new "casualties and losses" chapter, rather than putting everything in the infobox? Offliner (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is enough interesting data so that the infobox gets to crowded, you can make up a new section for material losses. I'd put it as a subsection of "combatants" though. --Xeeron (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Humanitarian impact

What about this chapter? Does someone else feel it could be shortened / summarized? If yes, what should be left? Offliner (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortening the article

In my opinion, this article is mostly a big piece of mess. It could definitely be made much readable by shortening it. (moving content to separate articles if it's not already there.) Any suggestions or comments on the edits which I tried to make? Offliner (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be shortened and I have been trying to do so. Of course trying to shorten the sections that have seen extensive edit warring might be a bit harder compared to the other ones. --Xeeron (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to summarise the "background" part, since it was very long and most of it was not central to this article (the war). Being just "background" information after all. All that background is, however, extensively covered it its own article Background of the 2008 South Ossetia war. I also tried to remove most of the "humanitarian response" part, since that also is covered in its own article. (my edits got reverted by Biophys). I invite everyone to take a look at those edits and tell me if you don't agree with something. Offliner (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is now a new proposal available on my user page! It includes the shortened version of the "background" and "humanitarian response" chapters, plus an attempt to replace the timeline with prose text describing the war. Most of that description is taken from Battle of Tskhinvali. The rest of that section ("further developments") is still under construction. I also plan to integrate the happenings on the Abkhasian front plus Russian activities inside Georgia proper. Any comments or objections to the proposal so far? Offliner (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you can refrain from trying to insert any content for a month or so. I would be more than happy to help you improve the flow of the sections under development, even take the references to review if need be. There is a lot of cross-referencing to be done; for, the article remains extremely overcited, and there is now a major problem of outdated language and broken citations (one example being the "regional command" of the South, a term used twice in the original, yet completely unreferenced now). This would require a week's worth (7-8 hours) of copy editing, and perhaps a couple of days, after resting, to verify the less obscure claims.

However, you obviously still deny the Russian administration occupied South Ossetia and believe that volume of anti-Russian sources constitutes tribunal-standard evidence of an invasion. I can't support your hatchet job on the "Background" and "International reaction" at all. Please bear in mind that after minor changes to the timeline by DerekMBarnes, half the information on Russia's withdrawal from Georgia proper was deleted. That is a lot of added chronology to restore, as it wasn't summarised properly in the first place. Perhaps certain, select paragraphs could be split, but the body of text must stay.

Again, I imagine it would take ~one month to reach a compromise. Ottre 16:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"you obviously still deny the Russian administration occupied South Ossetia and believe that volume of anti-Russian sources constitutes tribunal-standard evidence of an invasion" - I'm not sure what you mean with this. Could you be more specific? What exactly did you not like in my summary of the "background" chapter? What (if anything) would you drop out of the current version of that chapter (on this page)? About the "humanitarian impact" -chapter: I think it is very long and unnecessarily detailed in the current article, so proposed moving most of to the text to Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war, but have not yet written an adequate summary for the removed text on this page. If you agree that the chapter should be shorter, perhaps you could write a summary for it? Anyway, go ahead and make the changes you want. I appreciate your opinions. Offliner (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy for the next few days, but might be able to lay out the major problems by the weekend. If you're free to discuss it, that is. Ottre 08:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Result

Russian Victory ? Something like that is nonexistent and a big sign of Pro-Russian Nazism written down by vandalists.

1./ Russian Army totally missed the aim to completly crush the Georgian Army with it's infrastructur and command structure.

2./ The Russian Army totally missed Krml's aim to capture Tbilisi in 2 days, after the planned offensive against the Republic of Georgia and it's democratic government. It is mainly the merit of the georgian ground forces.

3./ Russia was not able trying to crush a single larger georgian infantry unit without terrifying casulties. Russia was also not able to break through a withdrawing enemy, which stopped firing at the enemy, because of the ceasefire agreement, but had to left a part of it's equipment, that later fell in the hands of seperatists, because of the still advancing russians ( georgians didn't fire a single time after ceasefire ). It was mainly the merit of the georgian artillery.

4./ The Russian Army was not able to move forward, after fierce resistance of splitted groups of georgian special forces in South Ossetia which took out several russian aircrafts and GRU squads. Georgian Commandos report of Russian Commanders who "ran faster with their heaavy cevlar vests, than their soldiers"

5./ The russian 58th army was forced to stop after artillery shells took out nearly the whole forward armored columns of it's 1st and 13th tank batallion, leaving 105-140 burning armored vehicles ( 76 T-72's and 12 T-80's were among the wrecks )

6./ Russia failed to hoist the russian flag on the georgian parliament.

7./ Georgia didn't capitulate

And Saaka's skull isn't stored in the Kunstkamera yet... what a disaster, all is lost, all is lost!! :))) 195.218.210.164 (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous, none of the above were military objectives to my knowledge. The stated military objective, "peace enforcement" in breakaway regions, was achieved on Aug 12, hence the result. Billyblind (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a unilaterally russian aggresive initiative. That still does not give for anyone the right to write down "Russian Victory" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.36.191 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia didn't hoist its flag on the parliament? Wow, I don't I even have to touch this one.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the Russian Army took out 70% of the georgian navy, nearly 80% of the Air Force and destroyed or looted several military bases. The true political intensions of Russia were allready confirmed by NATO and independent russian media sources few days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.36.191 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some sources please? forgot to log in [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Can we just archive this part of the discussion? Or does anyone sane want to argue that Russia's Victory wasn't a Major Victory? I mean 90% of the army gone, I'd consider that a crushing blow. Only a complete moron would set a 2 day objective to capture Tbilisi, and the Kremlin is far from moronic, Medvedev worked out a brilliant economic plan for Russia, Putin stabilized the country, not exactly dull people. 77 killed/missing and a few hundred wounded aren't terrifying casualties. 35 people die in China's nightclubs. Not a single Russian retreat was recorded after the 58th army entered Tskhinvali. And splitted groups by definition cannot offer fierce resistance as they are disorganized. You may want to study up Sun Tzu, Suvorov, or at least McArthur (the dad not the son) on military tactics. The Russian 58th Army had the initiative the entire time, and therefore could not, by definition be forced to stop. As for Russia planting a flag on Georgia's Parliament - umm, this war was over South Ossetia (and later Abkhazia) and Tbilisi just isn't located in South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Georgia begged for American aid and begged the EU to stop the Russians, but certainly that's not called capitulation; . The Russians did do a throughout job of destroying the proud Georgian military base at Senaki. So again, please can we just say Russian Victory or Russian Major Victory, the two are synonymous on wikipedia, and archive this section of the discussion so that I can look it up and laugh and laugh and laugh! Any objections to the archiving? 68.164.150.25 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"77 killed/missing and a few hundred wounded" is just what Russia says (and I believe it's as always about 3 times too low, but of course I have no proof for this - just sayin' from the Chechnya experience). Now, add the Ossetian and Abkhaz semi-regular troops and paramilitaries (all of them "Russian citziens"). Also add the Cossack, Chechen and other "volunteers" (even Ingush policemen was ordered to "volunteer", and many quit their jobs because they hate Ossetians). No figures for them at all? Oh well. --83.13.196.130 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

CIA factbook and US Miliary Experts claim a death-ratio of 1-max2 to 10 for Georgia. The US Military says, that the Georgian Army was not prepared for the offensive which was ordered by Saakashvili, but were able to bring massive casulties upon first russian armored columns and russian GRU forces, few of them allready died in the battle of Tskhinvali (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.83.86 (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

References for civilian casualties

The references provided in the infobox regarding civilian casualties are a joke and an embaressment. You could not possibly find more blatantly subjective, pro-Russian, anti-factual, sites. 132.185.240.122 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a challenge?! Please read WP:SOAP. Ottre 10:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: discussion mooted. Ottre 10:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The South Ossetian estimate is given by Russia Today and BBC, the Russian estimate is given by BBC and the Georgian estimate is given by a Georgian government website. What exactly is your problem? What anti-factual site are you talking about? LokiiT (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

August 7

I suggest a rewrite of the August 7 subsection, saying something like the following

• August 7 The exact sequence of events remains to be a controversy (with a link to a separate article which details all the reports with timestamps if possible). (Such and such entities) called for a detailed investigation of what exactly happened on that day what ultimately led to the war. Unquestionably, Georgia started shelling Tskhinvali at (such and such time) and started a full scale attack with (such and such troops). Georgia claims this to be a reaction to a Russian invasion, however such claims are not supported by the western intelligence.

I keep calling on cutting this article down in size by moving parts of it into separate articles. I recommend creating a category so that maintaining all such articles is relatively easy, otherwise we may have a trouble with different articles contradicting each other (what we already can see now) (Igny (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

What do you think of my proposal for the 7th August part? Offliner (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• August 7 The exact sequence of events remains controversal (with a link to a separate article which details all the reports with timestamps if possible). (Such and such entities) with both sides claiming a differant timetables of evetns on August 7 that ultimately led to the war. both sides accept that Georgia started shelling Tskhinvali at (such and such time) and started a full scale attack with (such and such troops). Georgia claims this to be a reaction to a Russian invasion, however such claims are not supported by the western sources.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]]

What do you mean with this? Offliner (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What Im mean is that you 7th Auguat proposal did not read very well. What does 'remains to be a controversy' mean? This is a mixing of both past future, and posible, present tense. 'called for a detailed investigation of what exactly happened on that day what ultimately led to the war' is also badly worded. First of who called for this investigation and when ('The exact sequence of events remains to be a controversy called for a detailed investigation' makes no sence, again mixing tenses, moreover are you saying that the events need investigating or the contoversy?, or are you saying that there should be an investigation as to why there is no conrtoversy?)? Moreover has there actualy been any press releases made by any western intelegence agency, if not then all we can say is that western sources have questioned the Georgian version of events, it can be said that western media claim that western intelgence sources have said X, but untill it can be demonstated that this is the offical view you cannot claim they have said it, mealry that some one claims they have said it. [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Here is my proposal (full version is on my user page):

There are conflicting reports on which side started the war. According to the Georgian government, the war began on Aug. 7, at 11:30 p.m. when, according to Georgian intelligence reports, 150 Russian army vehicles entered South Ossetia through the Roki Tunnel, and the Georgian military launched an operation to "stop the Russian troops before they could reach Georgian villages." However, according to some western intelligence reports, Georgian forces began their artillery assault on Tskhinvali at 10:35 p.m. on Aug. 7, less than an hour before Russian tanks entered the Roki Tunnel. The official Russian view is that Georgia started the war, and Russian troops were sent in to protect Russian citizens in South Ossetia. Offliner (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already corrected the weasel wording of this paragraph. It wasn't much better than the Disinformation campaign article. Ottre 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Timing of the beginning of the war

From Spiegel [12]: "4:06 p.m. (7th August), the South Ossetian authorities reported that Tskhinvali had come under under attack from grenade launchers and automatic weapons. Fifty minutes later, they reported "large-scale military aggression against the Republic of South Ossetia." ", "According to Western intelligence sources, the Georgian artillery bombardment of Tskhinvali did not begin until 10:30 p.m. on that Thursday." From BBC[13]: "A series of clashes between Georgian and South Ossetian forces in the summer of 2008 prompted Georgia to launch an aerial bombardment and ground attack on South Ossetia on 7 August."

It looks clear to me that the war began on the evening (or afternoon) of 7th August, and not "in the morning of 8 August" as was stated earlier in the intro. Offliner (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No full scale war was going on in the afternoon of the 7th. I would have noticed since I was in Mtskheta at that time. I did see armoured vehicles going north while going back to Tbilisi in the evening. There were probably skirmish fightings going on at that time though. And in the evening Saakashvili talked to the nation on TV declaring ceasefire. Närking (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that "late in the morning" is correct. Again, note the meaning of the word incursion. Georgia says it engaged the enemy in open combat early in the morning. The general counsel of the United States says "military combat" began after Georgia moved into South Ossetia. In any case, no relevant authorities are saying warfare began on August 7. Ottre 09:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So I presume then that Goegia was only attacking defensless civilians? Of course not. Fighting began when two sides started shooting at each other.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)]]

In my opinion, the war began definitely on late August 7th. Almost all major sources say so. The beginning point of the war was not the incursion, but the extensive artillery barrage which was a preparation for it. I could quote tens of stories from major news sources which all say the war began on (late) August 7th. I'm not sure if you mean that "late in the morning of Aug. 8" or "... morning of Aug. 7" would be correct, but neither of them is justified in my opinion. Unless you can provide multiple very good sources for them. Offliner (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian attack at 10:35pm on Aug 7 is not disputed at the moment. I suggest adding all more or less reliable reports on when exactly Russian troops entered South Ossetia. The "exact" time seems to range from early morning of Aug 7 to early morning of Aug 8. Can we add references (from both sides) confirming (claiming) all these times? (Igny (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Is there any point? All "georgian references" are no more than post factum accusations anyway. 195.218.210.163 (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a point. Currently all the article says that different (reliable?) sources claim that Russia attacked first. But did any of these sources provide the exact timing? If these claims are taken as reliable, one must have exact timing, not merely unfounded claims, rumors, and accusations. For the balance of the article, we need "Georgian intelligence claimed that...", "Saakashvili claimed that..." and "Russian sources claimed that...", etc. (Igny (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

But don't forget to mention that all "georgian references" are no more than post factum accusations 195.218.210.141 (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"2008 South Ossetia war"

Wasn't there also a (ground) war in Abkhazia and elsewhere? --83.13.196.130 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out the section called "rename". Several editors (including me) are trying to get it changed, both others insist on South Ossetia war. --Xeeron (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on the introduction has to stop

The introduction is not the place to establish whether Russian troops moved into South Ossetia before Georgia attacked Tskhinvali or the other way round. There is a section for that purpose further down in the article, "Discussion about responsibility for starting the war". I deliberately rewrote the introduction without mentioning the timing of those two incidents. Since there is no clear consensus about this issue, please do not reinsert statements about the timing of either the attack on Tskhinvali or the movement of Russian troops through the Roki tunnel (or any other form of "this side acted first") into the introduction. --Xeeron (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Xeeron and think his version was just fine. But the sentence about Russian troops being ordered to move through the tunnel on August 7 just keeps coming back. I hope someone would tell me exactly why. And like I said, I strongly feel that if we include that statement then we need to include to opposite view too. Offliner (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support. I know your copy editing has been questioned before, but really, just revert this as vandalism. Ottre 10:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

(on this edit)The following is written in the NYT article:

“ Western intelligence determined independently that two battalions of the 135th Regiment moved through the tunnel to South Ossetia either on the night of Aug. 7 or the early morning of Aug. 8, according to a senior American official. ”

:So, it's wrong to write that "according to ... intelligence evidence of Georgia and some Western states ... units of Russia's 58th Army had already been ordered to move into South Ossetia ... early on 7th September" Alæxis_¿question? 09:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is certainly relevant from a moral point of view, but it is not one that needs to be solved in the introduction. No matter who did move first (btw, I found http://www.robert-schuman.org/doc/questions_europe/qe-108-en.pdf to be a very enlighting and brutally open text on the motives of both sides), this should not lead to a revert war in the most imporant part of the article. Therefore I tried to reformulate the introduction in a way that does not blame either side for starting the war. --Xeeron (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Becasue thats not what the quote says[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Could somebody point please, where is a reference for "Russian army and South Ossetian fighters aimed at seizing those parts of South Ossetia still held by Georgia" statement? Finalyzer (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I added two references for that statement. --Xeeron (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand neither "South Ossetian fighters" nor "Russian army" voiced intention to seize any parts of South Ossetia at the provided references. So, it's just pro-Georgian opinion. In this case it has to be removed from the introduction. Finalyzer (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And since there are declared intentions of Georgian side ("to establish full control over the break-away republic") we have to add declared intentions of Russian side. Finalyzer (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is in the source I added in pretty clear words: "Expulsion of Georgian troops and termination of Georgian sovereignty in South Ossetia and Abkhazia". --Xeeron (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is just Ariel Cohen's opinion. The declared goal is "to force Georgian troops to cease violence" http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080809/115914161.html Finalyzer (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources and that is exactly what Ariel Cohens article is. Medvedev's speech is a primary source. --Xeeron (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, how many different opinions would you like to add? Finalyzer (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Wait a second, since there's edit warring, the reader now gets no information? Is that how an encyclopedia works nowadays? I say but BOTH into the intro. Let the reader decide which is more relevant to the war declaration, the Russian troops movenment in the Kodori Tunnel Region, or the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali. Put both and let the reader decide, don't take the easy way out. It's a recent article on military history, and there are going to be uncertanties for at least five months, (would be more if the war was longer) that's going to last well into January or even February depending on how drunk people get in December/early January. It's ok to write "Russia did this" and "Georgia did this" dear reader we don't know, please decide which one led to war. 72.245.82.86 (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said no information? The information is in the article for anyone who is interested to read, but there is no need to weight down the introduction with longish claim and counter-claim parts just for the sake of POV pushers. --Xeeron (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, nothing controversial should be in the intro, only widely accepted facts. The controversial stuff with counterclaims can be added in the main body of the article. "termination of Georgian sovereignty in South Ossetia and Abkhazia" is obviously controversial and not accepted by everyone. That was the outcome, but to say it was the planned goal is wrong I think. That's not why they sent troops into Georgia. LokiiT (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid point. The introduction is not supposed to summarise anything about the opening warfare, per 2006 Lebanon War. You have removed all information about the Georgian incursion, early in the morning of August 8, yet leave the redundant sentence "Ongoing skirmishes between Georgian troops and South Ossetian rebels escalated into war"? Ottre 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be seen as pushing WP:CIVIL. I'm not here to argue; a further clarification is in order. You mean that following attacks by South Ossetian ethnic rebels, despite the fact that "regional command" and "separatists" is used in the timeline article, the conflict escalated into war. Why phrase it this way? Use something appropriate to the Georgian perspective, as they initiatiated the military conflict. This is to provide a sense of how the warfare intensified following Russian intervention, not vice versa. Secondly, it doesn't matter if Georgian troops moved into South Ossetia months beforehand, or how many days they had been sieging the capital, the only date that matters is August 8, when the secessionist government lost control of the region. Ottre 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, when Georgia launched a "ground and air based military attack"? South Ossetia is landlocked. Ottre 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, two sentences, nothing major. Although seeing how you were the people claiming the second link was too hard to find (being the second source down) you seem to have very little respect for the average reader. For crying outloud it's two sentences. It won't kill the reader, you make it sound as if I'm offering to present the World here, with claims and counter-claims. There are only two claims here, period. One Georgian, saying Russians were on the South Ossetian side of the Roki Tunnel with tanks, the other Russian, saying that Georgians launched an unprovoked attack on Tskhinvali. 72.245.3.111 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is about Georgian sovereignty, not the Russian intervention. Get that straight. Xeeron clearly has issues taking this in perspective, and everytime those two sentences are added he feels the need to add meaningless, overly-specific information. Ottre 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? "Article is about Georgian sovereignty, not the Russian intervention"?? Sorry, I disagree. The article is about the war being fought between Georgia, Russia, SO and Abkhazia, not anyones sovereignty. And my goal is to come up with a introduction that is a short description of the topic and at the same time not promoting one out of two points of view that are inserted there on a daily basis. --Xeeron (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, I thought this article was about the 2008 South Ossetian War? Isn't there an Article somewhere on Georgian Sovereignty? Also, Xeeron, you really can add two sentences. I totally promise you that's very breif. Here's a sample, you can read this, you can do this Xeeron: "On August 7th Georgian forces launched a brutal attack on Tskhinvali. The Georgians claimed that on August 7th Russian Forces have crossed through the Roki Tunnel with tanks." That's two lines, not an overly complicated read. 68.165.239.86 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Silliness in the Introduction Box:

On the Russian side it reads:

"Confirmed by Russia: Unknown killed, 41 militiamen captured[9]

71 soldiers killed, 340 wounded,[10] 6 captured[11] 3 Su-25s and 1 Tu-22M lost,[12]Unknown number of losses among the volunteers

Confirmed by Abkhazia: 1 soldier killed, 2 wounded[13]"

I recommend doing this:

"Confirmed by Russia: Unknown killed, 41 militiamen captured[9]

71 soldiers killed, 340 wounded,[10] 6 captured[11] 3 Su-25s and 1 Tu-22M lost,[12]

Unknown number of losses among the volunteers

Confirmed by Abkhazia: 1 soldier killed, 2 wounded[13]"

Or hitting enter twice before the Unknown number of losses among the volunteers. At the moment it looks quite silly, it looks as if the unknown number of losses among the volunteers involved aircraft. We know that's not the case. Also, it would be cool and make sense to have flags of Russia, N. Ossetia, S. Ossetia, Kossacks and Abkhazia, or at least the Cossacks, as a way to differentiate between the professional army, and the militia volunteers. It'd be helpful to the reader to! Any thoughts?

On another point, why's Russia listed as the agressor? We know that's not the case. 68.164.150.25 (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please also read a discussion above. There are foreign volunteers (include Russian ones) on SO and Abkhazian side, there are no irregulars on Russian side. Volunteers whose served in Russian regular army, if any, aren't volunteers in this context. So neither volunteers no irregulars should be mentiond on the Russian side at all. (Pubkjre (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

"why's Russia listed as the agressor?" Because Russia was the aggressor. Georgia may have sent its troops into South Ossetia (which was a part of Georgia anyway) first (in reaction to repeated Russian backed attacks by the rebel militias based there) but Russia was the only participant to invade a foreign, sovereign nation and make war upon it. 132.185.240.122 (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The aggressor was the one who first started to killed innocent civilians in their sleeping beds for imperialist ambitions. Who did this again? LokiiT (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there was some treaty in 1992, that said something like "if Georgia shoots at Russian Peacekeepers and citizens staying in South Ossetia, it will be viewed as a declaration of war by Georgia on Russia". I don't think Saakashvili repudiated that one, which technically makes Georgia the agressor. Is the 1992 treaty mentioned in this article? It's rather relevant, considering the Russians used it quite often. 72.245.82.86 (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There was officially no such thing as "Russian Peacekeepers" to be as a separate force (it was supposed to be CIS operation and of course involving Georgia) and "citizens staying in South Ossetia" became "Russian citziens" only as the result of the 2000s hostile diplomatic actions by the Russian government (except the "South Ossetian government", which of course are mostly Russian citiziens who came from Russia). --83.13.196.130 (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Double checking your sources is good. I recommend you double-check the ones that say South Ossetians were only given Russian Citizenship in 2000-2008. That's factually incorrect, and I thought that Wikipedia was based on facts. Also, the majority of CIS forces were Russian Peacekeepers. But we can call them CIS Peacekeepers if you like. Bush calls the Iraqi Coalition "The Coalition of the Willing". I call it US + UK + a few thousand men. 68.165.239.86 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well part of the problem was fixed. Now why are the Russians still listed as agressors (first)? Even Condi Rice - the member of the anti-Russian US League said that Georgians shot first, come on folks. Fix it! 67.101.55.80 (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WAIT A SEC! Where did the Georgian Aircraft Losses go? They lost 4 Su-25s and some other stuff. You can put that it's claimed by Russia, but if you're placing air losses from one side, you need them up from another as well. Also, the Georgian casualties according to Russia, just as the Russian casualties according to Georgia should be up there as well. It's how we do all wars, why not do this one like it as well? 68.164.117.79 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you present a source on presenting Russian estimates of Georgian casualties, that can be added to the infobox. --Illythr (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why aircraft losses have to be included into the infobox, but no one considered tanks, guns, etc? Mind you, it was not a "bombing campaign" like Yugoslavia'99 but old-fashioned ground combat for the most part... And how about captured equipment then? - unlike combat losses, these numbers are better known 195.218.210.134 (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Infrastructure damage"

Georgia claimed Russia had bombed airfields and civil and economic infrastructure, including the Black Sea port of Poti. Between eight and eleven Russian jets reportedly hit container tanks and a shipbuilding plant at the port.[147][148] Reuters reported an attack on the civilian Tbilisi International Airport, though Russia claimed otherwise.[149][150] Georgian State Minister for Reintegration Temur Iakobashvili also denied this, reportedly stating, "There was no attack on the airport in Tbilisi. It was a factory that produces combat airplanes."[146]

What the heck? They ravaged Georgia, systematically burning and destroying both civilian and military (after "ceasefire") facalities, like the key railroad bridge (also after Russia-agreed "ceasefire"). They completely sacked Georgian villages in the Gori District including the city, and it's not only just the citiziens' apartment homes. The infrastructure damage exceeds $1bln according to Georgia. Also, here's the Goergian list (as of August 25, so before the Russian withdrawal from part of Gori District and thus incomplete). Someone fix it. --83.13.196.130 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Internet is awash in dubious and unverifiable allegations from all sides. Ones you cited wouldn't even remotely qualify as WP:V. Billyblind (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortening of article

Up till now, I have shortened&copyedited several subsections of the article to make it readable and more encyclopedic. However 3 sections are still left that are quite long and in need of copyediting: Background, Timeline and Humanitarian impact.

Out of those, Timeline is definitely the hardest, since it both needs the most work (converting from bullet-point day-by-day style to essay style) and has the strongest point of view conflicts in it. So before I start, I want to get some opinions from others about editing that section: Do you agree that it should be essay style? And are there other people willing to help with converting it, while trying to be as unbiased as possible? If I get around to reworking it, the new version would need some corrections to be sure. --Xeeron (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bullet points are quite encyclopedic. Also, we are getting new data on this war, so it may not be the best time to make it into an essay. I mean we still don't know Georgian military casualties, nor do we know S. Ossetia civvie casualties as a large number of them are missing and may or may not be dead. As for shortening it, I don't feel that's encyclopedic, because some events just cannot be short, especially a war where we have to present all sides of the issue. Just my thoughts. We do know that overall less then 2,500 civillians, and maybe as few as 550-700 on both sides, primarily the South Ossetian side. Furthermore neither side is quick at publishing their battle tactics, much to my chagrin, the Russians probably want to use them as a weapon vs. US/NATO/Israel/Ukraine (the people who trained Georgia) and the Georgians don't want to admit being that badly defeated. Israel/Ukraine and most of NATO have also offerred Russia a deal to withhold their tactics from publication, and everyone's waiting for the US, which is of course in no rush to do anything except invade. Anyways, I don't think there's a point in polishing the article that's a work in progress. 68.164.117.79 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bullet-point style is more suited for Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Essay-style timeline in the main article would make it more comprehensible. Also, the effort of maintaining the two articles in agreement would be less. Billyblind (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

References to Russian media rumors

the modification http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=241926880&oldid=241925496 is destructive. Indication of internal contradictions is important. The references are very relevant. dima (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources based on the dubious claim that "whole army was at Tskninvali on August 7" should be considered as rumors. Wikipedia isn't a place for rumors. You can create separate page about rumors of the war if you'd like to promote the Russian media rumors. Finalyzer (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The obvious internal contradictions based on sources - unintentionally presented by several Russian medias at different dates - are naturally the target of such editors who are preferring Russia's conflict interpretation. ;) Elysander (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed several times, here Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#Important_new_info and here Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_16#More_about_August_7th, clearly without consensus, and yet, the dubious references are still here. Let's remove them this time and come up with consensus what exactly and why should be added. Finalyzer (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Many authors indicate this; it should be considered at least as point of view. Over-vice, the article should be renamed to Russian official interpretation of Russian-Georgian war (2008). dima (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it's Russian sources for English article we should at least clearly indicate the dubious and contradicting nature of the claims instead of simply adding them as sources for the same claim as the Georgian at New York Times. Separate page would be the best option for such details IMO. Finalyzer (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a question: What happened to WP:3RR? Dr.K. (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, good to know, thanks for the noticing. Finalyzer (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher

It is stated that Rohrabacher used "unidentified" sources. However as a senior member of the foreign affairs committee, I believe the source he used was the US Intel available to senior members on foreign affairs committee. The article should include that Dana is a senior member of the foreign affairs committee, and that's where he got his intel from, rather the then unidentified and implicitely questionable source. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that sources have to be verifibale by other editors. So by all means provide a link so we can all see this, if not it is OR. Now which US intelgence agencies provided the intel, if they are not identifeid then they are unidentified. Moreover you state that you belive he used those sources, not that he did. Now did he use them or not? Can you provide evidance that he based his statments of In tel or not?[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Well in that case I feel that it should at least be mentioned that Rohrabacher is a senior member in the House Of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, not just some crazy congressman as the article implies. Not being a senior HoR member, I don't have access to that intel. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 21:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems fair to say he is a snior member of the commitie.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Update made. Please Archive. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Estonian Cyberwarfare?

The Estonian Cyberwarfare played a minute, if any role in the conflict. Why are the 2007 Cyberattacks on Estonia even mentioned at the end of the article? Can anyone explain this to me? If not, it'll be gone in 24 hours. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have to read this page to see that. Reverted. Ottre 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Inforbox on Georgian Troops is Old

Georgia had around 40,000 troops, not 17,500 - that source is old. Someone removed the previous data, which was correct and placed an old source instead, thus trimming down the Georgian forces from 40k to 17.5k a neat trick. "Georgia had a total of 17,500 active personnel in its armed forces in 2002." That's from his source. 2002, it's 2008. Can someone re-update it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The information about the number of South Ossetian troops is ludicruos

The article states that the South Ossetian forces had 18,000 members plus unknown number of volunteers. This is utterly ridiculous: The whole population of South Ossetia is 70,000 with more than 20,000 of those being Georgian (highly unlikely to be in the South Ossetian army). Can anybody really expect people to believe that 18,000 out of a 50,000 population are in the army? Plus volunteers if that were not enough? Please remove this piece of Georgian propaganda and stick to the facts. I also echo the previous topic that the claim that the Georgian armed forces only total 17,500 is bogus. Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.173.82 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the source that is given for this number. The source states that the South Ossetian armed forces number 3,000 with 15,000 reservists. However, the source also states that the Georgian armed forces number 29,000 with 100,000 reservists. This is conveniently ignored. As a general rule, I don't think that the reserve forces should be included in the total number of combatants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.173.82 (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have edited it to mention the number of reservists seperately from regulars. 3000 regulars is a for more realistic number, considering the 15000 reservists as really amounting to anyone who can be sent to fight out of the muster role basically, from a population of 70,000 people. I don't know why the actual size of the South Ossetian army wasn't mentioned seperately from reserves, I guess it was so the Georgian army would seem more heroic and manly I guess. 79.76.132.46 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: How should this article be named

I admit I am involved in this article, so my opinion on this may be biased. However here is the summary of the suggestions/arguments, feel free to expand them just keep them brief if possible. The arguments above are mainly about popularity of the names and/or their official usage. (Igny (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

• South Ossetia war (current)
• War in Georgia
• Russia-Georgia war
• South Ossetia War for Independence (why not?)

I Belive that Caucasus conflict has been mentioned. I also beleive that at least one of the links (UN) called it Georigian crisis[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Please see here:Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Article title. Biophys (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Patriotic ad on Georgian TV

A few weeks ago, I ran across a one-minute TV spot aired on Georgian Public Broadcasting. I'm told it includes about a dozen Georgian actors and singers urging viewers to "stand together so our country can survive", and culminating with several of them saying "მე მიყვარს საქართველო" (me miq'vars sakartvelo — "I love Georgia"). It's entirely in Georgian, so it was clearly intended for domestic consumption within the country. Is anyone familiar with this video or its background? Would it be appropriate to include some mention of the video somewhere in this article? Richwales (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. A bunch of people are angry about the war? Well, so what? A lot of people are angry about the war in both Georgia and Russia... and France and USA and probably even some in Trinidad and Tobago etc.Kislorod (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail, to see what relevence this has[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)]]

You would be ticked too if Russia instigated and annexed parts of your country like they are doing with Georgia.

75.179.183.114 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Jade rat

Article should be included

I think that since there has been so much talk about Russian "brutality", this should also be included. This is the truth about what the Georgian Army did in Tskhinval, from an account by an eyewitness. --SergeiXXX (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing when I saw the report on Russia Today with an interview with a lady from the Stalin museum in Gori, who stated that the Russian troops were not going on a rampage as is often reported, and even mentioned Gori residents taking Russian troops food and water on the outskirts of the town. Link here. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats about as compelling as having a Serbian talk about the Brutality of the Albanians...

75.179.183.114 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

New evidence of Russian aggression before Georgia assaulted rebel positions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/europe/16georgia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=Georgia%20offers%20Fresh%20evidance%20on%20war's%20start&st=cse&scp=1

Should we add a new section to the article?

75.179.183.114 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603322.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

75.179.183.114 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

The section you want to add already exists. Check the "Discussion about responsibility for war and starting it" sub-section. Info about who started the war and who claims what should be added there.

About posting the entire NYT or WP article here on the talk page: Check that you are not breaking the GFDL licence. I am pretty sure we can not post entire articles in the normal article and most likely that goes for the talk page as well. Simply posting a link and a short summary is enough for readers on the talk page anyway if you want to raise awareness. --Xeeron (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Car Bomb Attack against Russian Peacekeeping HQ

I've added an article about the terrorist attack on Russian Peacekeeping Forces (or Russian Army) in South Ossetia's capital of Tskhinvali and a biased POV editor deleted it without bothering to discuss it here. I'm new to Wikipedia - so if anyone can tell me who tries to not report terror attacks on wikipedia, which user, or how I can find out, I would greatly appreciate it. This is unacceptable. You don't just delete a whole section because you don't like it, especially one dealing with terrorists. Are you sympathizing with them? You didn't even bother to change it, you just deleted it. It was well sourced too, three sources for three sentences. Are you engaging in edit wars over not reporting a terrorist attack? What is your overall purpose here? I am fairly certain that you have at least violated one Wikipedia Rule, and if it happens again, I will not hesitate to report it, I have zero tolerance on subjective terrorist reporting, or terrorist hiding. I've had friends in 9/11 and in Beslan. Just letting you know mystery persona. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And BTW - if you think something I wrote is biased, you are welcome to discuss it here. Discussion I am open to, deleting the basic facts of the act I'm not. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You should try moving it to 2008 Georgia–Russia crisis, as it is not part of the war. If you want to read up on Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is a good place to start. --Xeeron (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree! Additionally it doesn't make sense to cite different sources but then using phrases which preferring definitely only one view. Elysander (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it does bare some relevance to the article as it is directly affecting the aftermath. From my understanding the final Russian withdrawal from the buffer zones is a key event in the actual ratification of the cease-fire. The peace process regarding this war is still on-going and this explosion is being pinned by both Governments on the other with the accusations that the other side is attempting to undermine the peace-process. This event is significant to the war in my mind. I do agree on the re-write though; even if (hypothetically) the facts were presented fairly, the passage was not written in a balanced way in my opinion.--ZedderZulu (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the policy WP:TERRORIST. Grey Fox (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, ok and why was the EU condemnation of the attack deleted? How was that biased? Please do tell, do tell. And Georgia didn't offer condolences. How was that biased? Again do tell. All you did was change the order of the sentences, to somehow make it sound better, and removed several FACTS! Also, those soldiers were heroes to Russians. That's another FACT. Granted, I should have used Car Bomb instead, which the astute leader will equate to terrorism anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricWarrior007 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for posting your opinion everywhere, wikipedia is not a forum. Your material simply doesn't fit in this article, but on the conflict page. Also your piece does not include the number of georgian officers killed after the war already ended, those are also significant and Russia never gave out their "condolances" either. Grey Fox (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here it is, Georgia officer killed near Russian post Grey Fox (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Actually Mr. Grey Fox the Russians did offer condolences to their own troops. Well done on replying to my fact questions with incorrect facst of you own. You are truly a credit to Wikipedia. As for "posting my opinion everywhere" - if I may direct you to Xeeron's suggestion that I "should try moving it to 2008 Georgia–Russia crisis, as it is not part of the war." Furthermore, it's not my opinion, it's factually based, unlike your claim about Russian Condolences. Reading Comprehension is truly a wonderful thing to have. Here's a Chinese source on the issue Mr. Grey Fox, may I, on your behalf, inform them not to post their opinions everywhere? http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6509384.html Aside from calling the Russian soldiers heroes and the EU's condemnation, againt both facts, they pretty much mirror what I wrote before them. If you truly think that you can respond to facts with lies, such as "Russia never gave out their "condolances" either" I urge you to stop. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place , wrong time! 1) Post war events don't actually belong to this war article. Check whether another article, a new article (or perhaps a special aftermath/ceasefire section in this article) is fitting your stuff! Maybe a time line of such post war events could be helpful. 2) Yesterday i had to registrate two different versions of this "terrorist attack". Yours mentioned and additionally one according "Kommersant" ( cited via Swiss NZZ [[14]] ) that Russian soldiers did move the suspicious car(s) to their headquarters themselves where one exploded. It makes no sense to insert agency news or dependent online news which permanently will be updated shortly after the event . Elysander (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Grey Fox was implying that Russia never offered condolences to the Georgians killed in the separate attacks.

Yes I was. Grey Fox (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the attack in Tskhinvali and the attacks on Georgian police\military personnel do belong here and should be included somewhere in this article in events that occurred in the lead up to a (eventual) finalised peace treaty. To repeat my own opinion, the conflict is still only in a state of cease-fire. As far as I'm aware, Georgia views Russia as having not fulfilled its commitments to the peace plan yet because its forces are still in the buffer zone. Until then, I don't think the two countries are at peace at all. And all the while, in my view these incidents are risking prolonging the conflict.--ZedderZulu (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Grey Fox can imply whatever he wishes, but the FACT is that the Russians did offer condolences to the families of the dead and the wounded. They gave the wounded unlimited healthcare and sent a handsome money sum to the dead. They've also stated that they're offering condolences on Russian TV Stations. As per the two Georgians killed, sniping people in disputed territorry is a tad different then making a car bomb go off in the center of Tskhinvali, the city that Georgians shelled with rockets from GRAD rocket launchers in August for several days. And Mr. Grey Fox I urge you to be more specific. And if post war events don't belong in this article, why is there Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Wouldn't that be post-war? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get what I meant, Russian government officials didn't give out condolances when a Georgian officer was shot near a Russian checkpoint, a while before this car bomb went off. Why should Georgia offer condolances when it's the other way around, and Russian officers are killed? The fact that you differentiate between those two incidents demonstrates you're biased when it comes to conflict. As for the recognition by Russia, it's a direct result of the war. This slow type of guerilla warfare however was already happening before the war, and will probably continue in the future as well. BTW, It's better to never call people "supporters of terrorist" again because there's several policies against that such as WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQUETTE. Grey Fox (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't make it clear, it's not my problem. You said Russia did not offer condolences, you didn't specify to whom. And your inability to tell the difference between sniping and a car bomb does not make your argument that I'm baised, sound. The Georgians were killed in a bufferzone. The Russians were killed in the center of Tskhinvali. 3 civillians also died. So again, if you cannot tell a difference between a car bomb and sniping, please don't use that inability of yours to call me biased. In addition, if everyone calls it a terrorist act, even the US:

"In Washington, US State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood said: 'The United States deplores the October 3 bombing in Tskhinvali in the Georgian region of South Ossetia, which killed seven Russian troops and at least four others. 'We extend our deep condolences to the families of all the victims. We condemn whoever was responsible for this crime, and call on all parties to implement and adhere to all aspects of the ceasefire.'" [15]

and you implicitly support the action such as saying "Why should Georgia offer condolances when it's the other way around, and Russian officers are killed". A Car Bomb in which civillians are killed is a terrorist attack, that's been established for quite a while, and you seem to be supporting it...HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, how's attacking the Peacekeepers HQ in Tskhinvali not a direct result of the war? And I'm the biased one? I urge you to study the difference between Sniping and Car Bombs before calling others biased and lecturing them on civility. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you still consider it perfectly acceptable for Russians to kill a Georgian officer, but once it's (possibly) the other way around you go mad. There's no difference between the type of attack because the outcome is the same. I also don't see the US calling it a "terrorist attack", they just condemn the attack. And yes, a car bomb targeting civilians is usually dubbed terrorism, but civilians weren't targeted as far as anyone knows. Military personel were targeted, civilian casualties during such an attack usually fall under Collateral damage unless civilians are deliberately targeted. Like how Ossetian forces have been looting and destroying thousands of Georgian homes in S. Ossetia and carried out an ethnic cleansing campaign supported by Russia. You don't care about any of that, but once somebody strikes back you call it "terrorism". Once again read the policy WP:TERRORIST, because to be blunt, nobody cares about your personal moral judgement. Grey Fox (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you don't seem to get different types of attacks. When war was on I had no trouble with Georgian and Russian troops killing each other, so your argument about me only caring whether Russia is hit back or not is moot. Furthermore a Car Bomb is considered a terrorist attack, Georgian special forces, or "Georgian Police" getting killed by Russian military or "Russian Peacekeepers" are not. You seem to have no trouble dismissing civillian lives. When a person signs up for the military, it is his choice. When a civillian gets shot, it's not his choice. You seem to fail to get that fundamental principle, yet have no trouble calling me biased. And you still failed at answering my question as to how attacking peacekeepers in HQ in Tskhinvali not directly related to the war, can you please answer, or are you going to give another "fact" and call me biased instead. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A typical debate! One serious incident which will be reduced to a 3-line-sentence few weeks ahead. And still assertions stand against assertions. Is it an "attack" or more an "accident" ? Who is responsible for what? Russian soldiers moved a suspicious car from the buffer zone to their HQ themselves. If no remote-controlled bomb can be ascertained no planned attack on Russian HQ has taken place. Who did drive this suspicious car? Russians speak about Georgians, Georgians say it must have been Ossetians. As I said above some news are inserted in this article too early. Elysander (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A car blowing up in the city center is an accident? So let me get this straight. The car had been rigged with explosives, and you are calling this an accident? Sorry about your family dear neighbor, my TNT just caused an accident. Riiiight. There's nothign to debate here. A Car Bomb is a Terrorist Attack, sniping isn't. It's the type of actions, rather then the country that contemplated these actions. If the Russians were sniped and the Georgians were Car Bombed, I'd call out the Russians on it. And Russians don't blow up their soldiers after the latter have achieved a massive victory. South Ossetians wouldn't dare. Who does that leave? Zombies? Or Georgians? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, this is just your personal opinion. Shooting dead a Georgian officer is also a violation of the peace treaty. Above all, car bombs are still accepted as legitimate warfare as long as they don't target civilians specifically. If apparently civilians died during the explosion that's tragic of course, but still military personel were targeted, and they fall under collateral damage. Apart from having been used in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Russia's southern caucasus region by chechen and other insurgents, Russia has made use of them as well. Before this war broke out Ossetian/Russian forces have made extensive use of them, see Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. And again, per the WP:TERRORIST policy, neither "terrorist" or "freedom fighters" are accepted because they both aren't neutral and unencyclopedic. Grey Fox (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why Terrorism article aren't neutral and unencyclopedic, isn't it? Don't take such words out of context, please. (Pubkjre (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Bravo Pubkjre! Watch out though, Mr. Grey Fox may cite WP:Terrorism again. Also Grey Fox, it's not just my personal opinion. In a gang fight, if one gangster shoots another one dead, (as in sniping) the gangster doesn't usually get maximum jail time. If someone detonates a carbomb, even if it's done on a military base, they get maximim punishment, be it maximum jail time or a trip to the morgue. So the legal systems World, from Germany to Sudan, agree with my opinion, as you falsely dub it. It's not my opinion, it's a fact of every known legal system. A car bomb is a crime punishable by maximum sentence, and it usually is punished by maximum sentence, much like a terror attack. Sniping is not. When a Russian worker died to a sniping attack from a Georgian village, I didn't call that terrorism. I'm not deluded, to me car bomb and sniping are two different things, and that's how every functioning legal system treats them. It is interesting how you call my fact an opinion, and try to impose your opinion as a fact on everyone else, via the sheer power of repeating it many times, even though every known functioning legal system thinks otherwise. This fails to work on people not addicted to Fox News, Dear Grey Fox. And you stated that Russian recognition of Georgia should stay in this article because it is a direct result of the war. I ask you, how's a car bomb/terrorist attack on Tskhinvali not a direct result of the war? Please try to answer this question prior to repeating what you said earlier yet again.... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant personal opinion. Check your own sources again and add the Guardian article: [[16]] The Guardian is able to divide between biased views and facts. What you did offer to us as facts Guardian described it as opinion or assertion in quotes. Additionally Guardian is pointing in contrary to your former POV section to open questions. Elysander (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"it's a fact of every known legal system" One more ridiculous claim, not backed up by any evidence. --Xeeron (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elysander, if you can please tell me where exactly the Guardian disagrees with what I'm saying? I've said that a car bomb is a terrorist attack, whereas sniping is not, and the Guarding quotes several official sources, one at the end of the article, saying that it was a terrorist attack and has nothing about sniping. How does that contradict my argument again, I just don't get it, perhaps you would care to explain instead of posting slander? Show me the exact Guardian quote. Can you? Dear Xeeron - you are welcome to disprove it. All you have to do is just name one legal system, that is legitimate, where a car bomb is treated the same as sniping. Please name just one. Shouldn't be too hard, unless you're the one trying to slander me for presenting facts that you don't like. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ... but now it will be too ridiculous. Where did Guardian confirm or underline, it is a terrorist attack? It presents the views of both sides and points to open questions. What Guardian did it's careful journalistic work - what you did in your article insertings days ago was pushing one single-side view by choosing a certain title and formulating a not neutral the sources surrounding text as everybody can read and Guardian did avoid. ;) Elysander (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 11:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So if you make ridiculous claims without any back up, it is up to me to disprove? Haha. Rather up to you to bring some evidence in the first place. Just to humor you, I'll point you to Murder and especially Premeditated murder which show no difference in the choice of weapon. Not that I guess you will pay this any more attention that the numerous attempts to educate you about using Google. --Xeeron (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian said it was a Car Bomb Attack, and Car Bomb attacks are considered terrorist attacks, see Islamabad attack and Tomothy McVeigh. Wow, I guess if it's Timothy McVeigh it's a terrorist attack, but if its possibly Georgians, it's not. Wow, just wow. Also, sniping doesn't show clear intent for murder, especially since no one saw the crime taking place. A Car Bomb does show intent for murder. Way to prove yourself wrong Xeeron. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The car bombs you are talking about targeted civilians explicitly. Grey Fox (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have more or less given up trying to discuss with HistoricWarrior007. His posts defy basic logic, he does not seem to read the replies posted to him and his view of the issue is set in stone (and, of course, always correct). Wasted time to reply further. --Xeeron (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A attempt to repel a invading force is not a "terrorist" attack, a "terrorist" attack would be a attack on civilians in that manner. This was a attack against military personal during a hostile occupation of a sovereign country. Just because the means of the attack was a car dose not alone qualify it as a "terrorist" attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.183.114 (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear user 75.179 - perhaps you haven't heard this, or you forgot to read the article, but the war's over. I recommend you actually READ the article, before commenting on it. The Article gives two dates for the war's end, and they're both in August. The car bomb attack occurred in October. Also if Georgian forces think it's legitimate, why aren't they saying so? Xeeron, isn't your personal attack on me violating a wikipedia policy? Also, killing special forces in disputed regions, or "police" is what you consider pre-emptive murder? And after that you dare call me a 'waste of time'? I don't think that I'm the one defying logic here. As for Grey Fox - the car bombs I was referring to did not explicitely target civillians. McVeigh's targeted the FBI, an organization the has more rights, AND more responsibilities then the average civillian. The Islamabad Car Bomb, according to a BBC article, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7630024.stm - claimed that Fidayeen-e-Islam whose aim was to kick "The purpose of this attack is to kick American crusaders out of Pakistan" especially US Marines. So in short, if Muslims do it, it's terrorism. If Saakashvili does it, it's self-defense. For pointing this out, I'm called the Biased One. Wonderful. Surprisingly the editors calling me biased all want to get this article's name changed. Coincidence? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fact and Fiction

In the box it says that "Fewer than 100 killed in South Ossetia according to Human Rights Watch". However the actual article reads: "I don't understand where the number of 1,500 comes from," Lokshina told reporters. "Thank God, civilian deaths are not measured in thousands," she said, adding that the number of civilians who died appeared to be "fewer than 100." Lokshina said it was impossible to determine the precise number of casualties at this point." She said that it appears that fewer then 100 were killed, whereas the article presents as if it's a fact, claimed by the HRW, clearly misrepresenting Lokshina's qoute. Go Bias! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to make the edit? Or do we all love bias? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an independent estimation. So far every number is an estimation. Grey Fox (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was the Human rights watch group's number deleated?

I think the pro- Russian people have launched a censorship campaign once again, the Human rights watch's number was deleted and placed a "impossible to know" in it's place. I think it should be re-instated to maintain neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.183.114 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, stop editing it! HRW is a independent source- and they took that number from local hospitals on the 11th- the vast majority of those admitted where military casualties, with some 56 civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.183.114 (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am truly wondering if pro-Georgian editors have mastered the art of reading my posts. I've said that if you want to qoute the HRW - you MUST qoute them correctly, and not out of context. When they say "we think the number of casualties is XYZ" and you say the HRW asserts that "the number of casualties is XYZ" - you are in fact being biased. HRW article said that they're not sure, whereas you are saying that they are asserting it. This is called BIAS. Also, not every number's an estimation Grey Fox - the Russian planes lost are at 4, not an estimation. Stop making stuff up to suit your points. Please someone edit in HRW's full quote. In addition, edit in Memorial's full qoute as well, rather then the part that the pro-Georgian editors like. You shouldn't delete it, but give the reader the actual information, not merely the information censored by the pro-Saakashvili editors. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"The number of civilians who died appear to be fewer than 100". I don't see how this is not clear enough, and why it should be phrased differently. Yes they said it's impossible to determine the exact number (just like with almost every war), but according to them the real number is still below a hundred. Their independent estimation is extremely relevant and it's told explicitily that this number comes from HRW. BTW, you should Assume Good Faith more often. Grey Fox (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's compare the two: "Fewer than 100 killed in South Ossetia according to Human Rights Watch" vs. "The number of civilians who died appear to be fewer than 100". One is clearly assertive, the other one is suggestive. After me pointing this out 3 times, and you still failing to see the bias, how exactly am I supposed to assume good faith? Assertive and suggestive aren't synonyms in any encyclopedic sense and this is an encyclopedic article. I don't see you assuming good faith on the title issue dear Mr. Grey Fox, why don't you lead by example. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It used to say "Russia/S.Ossetia claims 1,500 killed" for quite a while, even though that was an estimation as well. For some reason you never had a problem with that. Grey Fox (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox - I have yet to see you correct any pro-Georgian bias here and there's quite a bit of it. Also, when it said South Ossetia/Russia claims 1,500 - the data was clouded, heck it still is clouded. It's unclear. So when you have a direct quote, I don't see why you have to replace it with your own version that shows pro-Georgian Bias, what's wrong with using the quote, word per word and not engaging in original research. Funny how you always qoute WP to editors whose viewpoints you disagree with, but never to editors whose viewpoints you agree with. Doesn't that make you biased? And back on topic - just use the damn actual quote, no need to paraphrase it. See WP:Original Research. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh, we don't need to add the full quote the infobox, it's completely unencyclopedic. The infobox simply lists the estimations from Russian, Georgian and independent human rights groups. Grey Fox (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

READ BEFORE COMMENTING!!!

Ok, I am getting a bit annoyed by educating all of the people who know little about the war or the article, but want to edit it. STUDY! A lot of the editors are tired of repeating our comments, over and over and over again. First thing you should do, is breeze through this page. That prevents repetition. Secondly you should read through the archives. Also read the article, and get the relevant info. out of it. And do independent research. Only then do you get to come here and edit.

Also, all of your edits need links and facts. Use Verbatim quotes, or as close as you can possibly get. Don't make stuff up. Although most military historians know that Saakashvili purged or mini-purged his army, we don't put that in the article because we cannot find enough relevant primary sources to back it up. He did a good job destroying that proof. So, either link it, or don't post it, if it's new information. If you are commenting, please READ the comments above you. (If I didn't respond to your comment addressed to me, it's most likely because I thought someone else already did a great job responding.) Gah! This is Wikipedia 101! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Added video to article

As we have permission from the Kremlin to use their site materials, I have added to the section 2008_South_Ossetia_war#Recognition_of_breakaway_regions, the video of Medvedev making his announcement on the recognition of A & SO. At the moment it is only in Russian, but still relevant, and I will attempt to find someone who has the ability to add English subtitles to the video. If anyone understands Russian and has this ability, please feel free to do it. I could add an English voiceover to the video, but I think my heavy Aussie accent would distract somewhat from the video itself. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Having a video is certainly cool, but the video is also, well, Russian. Meaning some 98% of the users of the English wikipedia will not get anything of what is said. As a side note: Why did you not add this to the more relevant International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia article? --Xeeron (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I added it to that article first, it's under Russia's recognition section. On the video information page is a link to the Kremlin website translation transcript. And I am searching for someone who is able to add subtitles to videos, that's beyond my technical capabilities. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I checked under Russia, not the text above. I'll remove the video here for now. On the other article it is more relevant so I'll leave it, but it should still get subtitles quickly; in an english speaking wiki all content needs to be in english. --Xeeron (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've actually added it back in, as there is absolutely no requirement for all content on English WP to be in English. It's just as relevant on this article, and we have the resources available to us, so we shouldn't be using a 'technical' snag to disallow their usage on WP. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that content on the English language wiki should not be in English? Seems pretty straight forward to me. In terms of policy, there is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which lists "Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project." as ones up for speedy deletion. As you know, speedy deletion is reserved for cases that are so clear that no discussion about the deletion is needed. In the end, there is a wiki in each language for a reason. --Xeeron (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are actually taking CSD out of context, as this only applies to articles. For example, if I were to start an article called Aeroflot, and its content was in Russian language, let's say like ru:Аэрофлот that article, then it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. What you are talking about is article content, and there is no such policy that states that images, or dare I say it, videos and other visual aids must be in English language. Of course, this is negated in this instance due to the providing of a link to the actual English language transcript. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be up for speedy deletion? Because using a language different from English is not appropriate. I can only guess why there is no general rule. Maybe it exists and I didn't find it, maybe it was not created because it would be problematic in articles dealing with foreign languages/countries/topic, maybe there have simply not been enough people yet argueing that the English wiki should not be fully English to make such a policy needed or maybe non-English content is dealt with under some other rule I don't know. All of that apart, the video does simply not add anything to the article for English speaking readers. What those need is the English version (and only the English version). --Xeeron (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, strike what I have said. I apologize: By being overly diplomatic and trying not to antagonize you (and being to lazy to type more), I was being unclear and let this be diverted to a subtopic. This is what I should have said to begin with:

Having that video here is a really crappy idea. It does (as all forms of pictures and non-text) lighten up the flow of the article, but thats about it for the positives. On the negative side:

• The video can not be understood by 98% of the readers here.
• It is a primary source. We have several secondary sources of the same event available and those are prefered by wikipedia.
• The video is by far not relevant enough to include here. We have a small summary section of another article and 2 sentences are fully enough to state the Russian action. No need for the equivalent for a full page of text talking.
• The video is strongly promoting the POV of one side, not neutral.
• Completely forwarding politicians speechs is not encyclopedic at all. We didn't have the transcript quoted in full here before the video for the same reason.
• If we start including strong POV topics, we are on a slippery slope towards this article being nothing better than a youtube like collection of propaganda. There are even more ridiculous attempts right now.

For all of these reasons and for each of them alone, the video needs to be removed. --Xeeron (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that people are going to have a problem with such items. To go thru your points. Whilst audio may not be understood, a transcript is provided. Additionally, a search is currently underway to find someone who can add subtitles. Wikipedia policy dictates that primary sources may not be the only sources used to build an article, it is no way stops primary sources from being used. What we have on this article is two lines of Russian recognition, and a dozen or so "condemning" Russia's decision. Of course the video is going to give Medvedev's POV, we wouldn't expect him to read the same speeches as Saakashvili. There is nothing to say that POV materials can't be provided, but that all POVs are provided. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 lines about Russia's recognition, 1 line about georgia's response, 1 line about nicaragua and another 1 line about NATO/EU. In the next paragraph, there are 2 lines about NATO/OSCE about the recognition and 1 line about shanghai cooperation organisation. So I count in total 4 lines in favor, 4 lines against the recognition. Perfectly balanced. Except there is no Saakashivili video (and I don't want that in the article any more than the Medvedev one). --Xeeron (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The non-existence of a Saakashvili video is not reason enough to remove one of Medvedev. If a Saakashvili video is absolutely needed for the existence of this video, then contact the BBC and ask them for a CC licences on the video showing Saakashvili eating his tie. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Images and videos are rarely sources, their purpose is to illustrate the article, showing how things were done, an English user can see the body language of Medvedev, his mimic, decorations, etc. The movie is clearly labeled as "In Russian", so if anybody thinks that it is of now use to him or her, then he she would not click on the play button, thats all. The image is small on the spce and the crowding is not huge, the propaganda value is minimal (if any). In short I see how keeping the image improve the section of the article but I cannot see any significant drawbacks Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"an English user can see the body language of Medvedev, his mimic, decorations" you very nicely summed up why the video is irrelevant. This is neither an article about Medvedev, nor about body language, nor about Russian decorations. --Xeeron (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As Alex says the space taken up is minimal, we are not a paper encyclopaedia so we don't have size constraints. No this is not an article about Medvedev, nor about body language, nor about Russian decorations, it is an article about the 2008 South Ossetia War, of which one of the outcomes was the recognition by Russia of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and as the video if Medvedev's response to that recognition and why that recognition occurred, it is absolutely relevant to the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though we are not a paper encyclopaedica, we do have a size constraint. It is not in terms of "bytes on wikipedia's servers", but in terms of "amount of paper the reader is willing to read while trying to inform himself about the article". If that kind of attention span limit seems obscure to you, remember that wikipedia has (to my best knowledge) no book lenght articles, even though it contains hundreds or thousands of articles that describe topics which can be elaborated on more than book lenght.

However, I am willing to be convinced: Cite me an example of another wiki page using a completely non-english language video even though good secondary English sources are available for the same fact and I'll agree with keeping it here. --Xeeron (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out on a couple of occasions already, the video is not being used in the article as a source of information. It's being used as a visual aid. And there is absolutely zero policy which bars usage of a foreign language aid on WP, and even less so when an English transcript is provided in addition. A photo of the same thing could be provided on the article, however, this provides both a 'photographic' image in addition to a video for those understand Russian and want to listen to it, or listen to it and use the English transcript. And there's no policy against that either. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You said all that before, I and understood the meaning of your words. However I disagree with you and stand by my objections raised above. That is why I offered you to cite some other pages using videos in a similar way. If you cant find any, I will assume that the video's use here is out of line with wikipedia's video use (that is, editors of other articles rather agree to my points than your points) and remove it. --Xeeron (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If we were discussing article content, as opposed to visual aids in the article, that would be a case of WP:SYN. What we have here is a video which has been released under a free licence, which is quite unusual, as most countries keep complete copyright over such things, or don't release them at all; or copyrights are owned by media organisations. To say that this does not exist in other articles proves that its existence here is out of line with WP's video use (of which there is no policy which says it can not be used), is synthesis of the existence (or in this case non-existence) of one thing to prove fact of another thing. If you continue to disagree, I would suggest that you take it to WP:RFC to get outside opinion, because what you are stating above has no grounding in any policy of WP. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel like bringing it up at WP:RFC. You are the one trying to change the status quo of the article, so I'll leave it to you to post there (You'll notice I did so for the title change). --Xeeron (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to bring it up at WP:RFC, as I am not the one who is quoting all sorts of non-existent policies in order to removed free-licence material from this article. As everyone who has commented on the video (look below also, except for the IP contributor who is simply using this as WP:FORUM) has agreed, there is no problem with the video being on the section. You are the only one it seems who is intent on its removal, so I would suggest that you start a WP:RFC, and I will participate with that. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking- anything that comes from Russia is going to be completely unreliable. Only independent sites should be used, this is ludicrous- using a Russian source- absurd! Wiki is neutral not a propaganda outlet for the Soviets.

This "video" should be deleted, its like showing Michal moor's movie as to the history of the Iraq war.

75.179.183.114 (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

By the same way I can say that there are no independent and neutral sites in the English-speaking world, especially for the situation around Georgia. And not only for this situation... And not only in the English-speaking world... There are no sites in the world those are completely independent and neutral for all events in the world. (Pubkjre (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

What are you talking about? The war was between Russia and Georgia and Georgian rebels, 99% of the countries are independent. The main problem is the media in Russia is state controlled.

75.179.183.114 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Most of the world’s medias are controlled by governments or by business (or they are the business themselves), so there are no unbiased medias, and if you want to understand what's happened, it's required to analyze different reports... The main problem is that some governments are controlled by the business. So, I don’t know what’s better – medias controlled by the government, or medias and the government controlled by the business... (Pubkjre (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

But they are also third party, a Russian video cannot be called third party. Having said that this applies to sources, is this being used as a source ? If not then this does not apply.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)]]

This video isn't a big deal and I'm glad it's available, but I think it fits better in the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Grey Fox (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The video isn't being used a source, so it doesn't apply. Additionally, even if it were being used as a source of information, this is not disallowed by any WP policies, so long as entire articles are not being sourced to primary sources. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It does fit into International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, hence why its also there, but it also fits in with this article as well. We have free-licence materials available, and there is no real reason yet provided as to why it shouldn't be available on this article as well -- there is no other visual materials there which this particular video is restricting from being displayed. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because we can use it doesn't mean we have to use it. There's a hundred images of destoyed buildings in Tskhinvali on commons, yet we don't use them either. Why not? Because that turns this article in an even bigger unbiased mess. Furthermore the lone recognition of these republics didn't happen during the war and didn't mark the end of it either and as such is unrelated to this article. Grey Fox (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are images of destroyed buildings in South Ossetia, and of course we don't use all of them. And its got nothing to do with being biased, but has to do with space constraints (as in the page) - seen one destroyed building, seen them all - but here we have a different visual aid, and some people are against it...why? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xeeron, Grey Fox and others. The video must be removed 1)because it is in Russian and 2) because it is absolutely useless here, it doesn't inform us about anything.Keverich1 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact the audio is in Russian does not preclude its use here, particularly as an English transcript link was also provided. I challenge anyone who thinks the fact the audio is in Russian is prohibited by any policy or guideline on WP. As to it not informing us about anything, of course it does, it informs us on the reasoning of Medvedev in signing decrees recognising Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's independence, as a direct result of the conflict. Of course, it's so much more useful for people to stop farting about with illogical reasoning, and say why they are really against its inclusion. If one is against the inclusion of the video (with transcript), are they also against a photo of Medvedev taken at the same time being placed on the article? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to remove it, discuss it and then if Consensus is to remove it, then it can be removed. We have approx 5 editors so far who have agreed its presence poses no problem ( edit summary by Russavia) Maybe i have little problem to count to five ... but I'm sure there was never a definite consensus about inserting this senseless and redundant video which is only relevant for the body language of Medvedev, his mimic, decorations, etc. Elysander (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it redundant? Again, it is a video of THE major outcome of the war, and people want to discount its use here? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends how major you think it is. Russia (and the banana republic of nicaragua) are complete loners when it comes to recognizing these republics, and it's effect might be minimal. Grey Fox (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It reamainis to be seen what the major outcome of this spat is. But at this moment in time this is certainly one of the most significant parts of this sorry affair. Indead it could be argued that at this time it is the single most significant event to come out of this. But I agree that its place is in tghe section on internatioanl reaction, or a section on conequences.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

For example I remember Georgia recognized Chechnya's independence for a while, that didn't have much effect either. Grey Fox (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly for that analogy Georgia is less likly to crush the indepednace of a state recognised by Russia then Russia was to crush oone recognised by Georgia. Nor is it likly (Unless the Hockeybull come to power in the US) that the west would back Georgia in sufficiant strength to effect that situation[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Well, it only costed Russia about 15,000 troops. But you're right, Georgia won't be able to take back the regions, but that's not because Russia recognized them as independent. It's because their entire army covers them. Grey Fox (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say put the video in. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to show ALL points of view, including Medvedev's - that is rather important, considering that he was the Russian President during the war. The video is directly related to the war, and therefore warrants its attention to the article. [Slatersteven - if hockeybull comes to power, US economy goes bankrupt, so no money to send troops to Georgia, and I doubt anyone will go there for free.] Back to the video - bi-lingual speakers, such as myself, find the video rather informative. From what I'm noticing here, my linguistic skills are rather good, so I would be part of that target audience that speaks English. In addition, a transcript is provided. So saying the video is irrelevant is bullshit. Also, all media is biased; media bias alone does not warrant a video to be suspended from Wikipedia. Otherwise Fox News shouldn't be quoted at all, in any article. Post the video back up. Also Grey Fox - if you believe that the recognition of the regions is irrelevant to the article, please do delete the recognition link under the result header in the info. box. Otherwise, you have no claim as to not posting this video. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)