This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
(regarding this edit)
I don't understand why should "Bolshevik-led" be inserted here. It suggests that Bolsheviks inspired Ossetians' revolts of 1918-1920. This may be partially true but certainly Georgia's agrarian policies also played its part, to put it mildly. See this article for details. Anyway this article is not a place to determine which factor was more important so it would be more appropriate to just state that some hostilities happened without applying misleading descriptions. Alæxis ¿question? 15:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | During its brief tenure, the Menshevik government came across significant problems with ethnic minorities. There were difficulties with regard to the Abkhaz, Ossetian, and Ajarian minorities, and a major conflict with Armenia over Armenian-inhabited territories within Georgian territory.25 Already in the Winter of 1918, an uprising took place in today’s South Ossetia. This uprising was crushed by the Menshevik government’s People’s Guard, generating resentment among Ossetians against the Tiflis government; by the same token, this also open the way for Bolshevik inroads into the Ossetian areas. | ” |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Great_secondary_source
Illarionov's speech delivered to the Cato Institute in Ukraine on September 4 - an English summary by Paul Goble [2] Elysander ( talk) 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Economist: Summary of War - Mid of October >> [3] Elysander ( talk) 23:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, only had umm a couple inaccuracies - the first one is that in this "great" secondary source Illarionov repeteadly says that he has incomplete data. Placing a source with incomplete data into a controversial article isn't going to be productive. Also, the guy doesn't even answer the question "How come you knew of Russian movenments while the American Satellites didn't" - he initially tries to dodge it, and then mumbles some b/s about how the war was covered in Russian Mass Information Sources, while failing to provide more then one article of proof, and that article was refuted here already. Notice how in that particlular part, that wasn't post here, even the hosts politely make fun of him. How one can view this source as "great" is beyond me.
"С.БУНТМАН: Я бы хотел ответить человеку, который подписался как «главный редактор осетинского радио», на которое ссылается Илларионов. Он просит позвонить. Я бы попросил сейчас главного редактора осетинского радио прислать нам еще одну смску предметную – что главное, что не так, по вашему мнению, говорит Андрей Илларионов. Дальше. «Спросите у Илларионова, почему американские космические службы слежения не видели перемещения войск через Рокский тоннель 9 августа, а он знает?»
А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Я не знаю, почему кто-то сделал предположение, что я знаю, как действуют американские спутники и что они видят, чего не видят.
С.БУНТМАН: Нет, вы знали, что перемещались войска, а американцы не знали.
А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Дело в том, что для того, чтобы знать про перемещения войска, большей проблемы не представляет, потому что об этом сообщали российские СМИ, информационные агентства, и даже российское Министерство обороны регулярно публиковало сводки о прохождении маневров «Кавказ-2008» с середины июля до 2 августа, когда около 10 тысяч солдат и офицеров при поддержке как минимум 700 единиц бронетехники проводили маневры на Северном Кавказе. Правда, после завершения маневров 2 августа войска никуда не ушли, а остались на своих местах. Сообщения же офицеров и солдат, участвующих в этих маневрах, говорят о том, что часть участников маневров не только участвовали в маневрах на территории Северного Кавказа, не только вышли на перевалы, и довольно много об этом было публикаций и на сайте Минобороны, и в газете «Красная Звезда», но и перешли эти перевалы. И некоторые из них довольно подробно рассказывают о том, что «у нас были маневры на территории Южной Осетии». Некоторые рассказывают о том, что «мы в течение недели находимся на холмах, окружающих Цхинвали, и видим, как там происходят в течение недели обстрелы». То есть это все происходило до 7 августа.
М.ГАЙДАР: Американские спутники просто не читали СМИ.
А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Я не знаю, чем занимались американские спутники. Это все можно найти в российских газетах. Там достаточно подробно рассказывается о том, что и кто и как делал. И будничное повествование многих российских солдат и офицеров говорит о том, что по крайней мере для них в этом не было ничего удивительного, ничего ненормального. Они выполняли тот приказ, который они получили. И судя по тому, кто об этом говорит и рассказывает, как минимум четыре подразделения российской армии находились на территории Южной Осетии еще до 7 августа, включая 135-й мотострелковый полк и 22-ю бригаду спецназа. Кроме того, там же находились и некоторые танковые подразделения регулярных российских войск, которые участвовали поначалу в маневрах «Кавказ-2008», а потом оказались на территории Южной Осетии."
"Ask Illarionov how he knew about the Russian troop movenemnt, while the US Satellites didn't know?" Illarionov: "I don't know how American Satellites work" (failed dodge) "No you knew how the Russian troops moved, American satellites didn't, how'd you know?" Illarionov: "In order to know about Russian troop movenments you had to read Russian sources of mass information such as teh one about Operation Kavkaz-2008 that occurred from mid-July till the 2nd of August, when around 10,000 troops manuevered in the North Caucasian Region...as was reported in Russian Newspapers" "American Satellites just didn't read the Russian Newspapers!" I mean come on! He gets the info from the Defense Ministry and the newspaper Red Star - and we know these are always honest and reliable, right? B/S is never published in newspapers to sell them, right Mr. Hearst? 67.101.104.59 ( talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Keverich, please discuss your edits here before making them to the article. It is not acceptable that a 3 month collaboration on NPOV wording of the lead is destroyed by a newcomer. If you insist on your POV, please discuss, it is quite possible to come to an agreement.
This is not an endorsement of the current lead, there are still improvements to be made. However, clearly you are taking it in the wrong direction. ( Igny ( talk) 22:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC))
Once again the article invaded by anti-russian editor who wants to turn article around into "russian barbarian agression against poor democratic Georgia". Keverich1, please, consider the WP:NPOV rule. Garret Beaumain ( talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps mention or link to the wiki page on him concerning critique in conjunction with GW Bushs talk about "democratic outpost" or whatever he said, and the Democracy barometer which 2007 ranked Georgia below Russia in level of democracy. Its relevant information about the politicking around the conflict but not so sure about if its good to include here... DW75 ( talk) 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Russian edits can only be expected when a state behaves so brazenly. 76.237.239.102 ( talk) 06:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It is strange (if not an outright POV) that the article deals with Georgia's increased military expenditures, but says nothing about a series of proposals of autonomy for Abkhazia and S. Ossetia in the recent years. Not a single word is said about the ethnic Ossetian political groups supporting reunification with Georgia and Georgia's attempt to have them involved in the Russian-"mediated" negotiations. Also, for many years the Georgian and US governments have been urging Russia to allow an international monitoring of the Roki Tunnel through which the region has been flooded with weapons and mercenaries, but Russians persistently rejected all their requests. These are very important details which should certainly be mentioned in the Background section. -- Kober Talk 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Which term better describes what happened to the Georgian ships at Poti? I say they were scuttled because that's the accurate term and we have an article for it in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
What a clumsy Russian bear :) scuttling instead of giving them to the Abkhazians... sorry for soapboxing -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 14:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey they kept the Jeeps, to them it's all about quality construction. :D HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
My plan was to insert a conspectus of war's naval activities as summary in 2-3 sentences. I did check again several sources (conflict parties, third parties etc.) and must confess except blockading of Georgian coast by Russian navy nearly nothing is undisputed. Article's time line seems inaccurate or incomplete regarding naval activities. 1) Whether a skirmish on Black Sea has taken place or not is not clear. Only one fact seems sure one Georgian missile boat was hit. But whether it was sunk or could return to Poti habour - sources disagree. 2) Poti harbour ( military and civil part) was attacked two times by Russian airfore. It seems not clear whether and - if yes how many - non military ships, units of Georgian naval forces or coast guard were hit or blown up. 3) Poti harbour was raided and looted by Russian ground forces several times after Medvedev's official order to halt. The circumstances how Georgian ships were sunk during the raids differ from source to source. Therefore we should use rather "neutral" wording" 4) Could a part of the tiny Georgian fleet flee to Batumi? Or were observers unable to distinguish between Georgian Navy (regular forces) and Coast Guard? Elysander ( talk) 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Addition: I'm missing too Black Sea Fleet's landing operations on Georgian coast (some 1000s Russian ground forces and paratroopers) in time line. Elysander ( talk) 09:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the Georgian boat was sunk. Considering the Russians played video footage on their TV channels. And what observers are you talking about? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 13:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Only one example! Globalsecurity [6] - not so unreliable or so naturally POV orientated as others ;) >> On 09 August 2008 missile boat Tbilisi (206MP Vikhr, given by Ukraine in June 1999), was reported to have been hit by gunfire and sunk by units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet off the Abkhazian coast when allegedly entered a Russia imposed 'security zone' along with four other vessels. It was discovered on fire in the Georgian port of Poti on August 13, 2008. If this info is correct how can a sunk ship return to its harbour? All lines of this article must be checked after still existing tendency to edit warring expires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysander ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Do they have a primary source for this? Do you have a primary source? A sunk ship cannot return to its harbor, but someone could have mistaken a similar looking ship for it. I mean there was combat, with the Georgian ship sunk and the Russian ship damaged according to Ukranian sources !!! and there was no immediate response. Why report it several months after the war? Did they "lose" the boat reports just like they "lost" the tapes? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Wrong questions as often! This episode is only one example for article's corrupt status. It was asserted that a combat or skirmish has taken place on black sea. But different opinions and sources exist - about a skirmish between G and R, a simple shot on a Georgian unit (because allegedly entering Russian fleet's security zone), a Georgian gossip of a self-murderous attack on Russian navy too - and so on. Elysander ( talk) 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to post a primary source. You gave your opinion instead. If you keep on opining and failing to post primary sources in your arguments, I will simply ignore you and make the edits. This is Wikipedia, and no one is interested in your opinions that aren't backed up by factual evidence. The source you cited is a secondary source by all definitions. According to Wikipedia rules, primary sources (the ones that say the Georgian ship was sunk) beat secondary sources (the ones that say Georgia's ship was in harbor). Unless you can post a primary source, I will undo your edits via wikipedia guidelines. 67.101.104.59 ( talk) 00:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
LOLZ: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA560705.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/11/2330528.htm http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2373492,00.html http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=170964 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104258690&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In short quite a few sources stated that the Georgian Boat was sunk. For several months, there were no answers from Georgia. 2 months later, in come people like Grey Fox and Elyslander and tell us that the battle never took place. Where were you guys on August 11th? August 31st? Just like the Georgian tapes. I mean seriously, in two years are you guys planning to claim that the war never took place? Or that Russia was beaten off by the mighty Georgian Army? This is pure revisionism, covered in b/s propaganda. Two months later they "find out" that the boat was not sunk. Puh Lease! Now you'll claim that it never occurred, because the Russians didn't want to give out their naval position. People like you have already changed the Battles of Poti and Gori into the Massacres of Poti and Gori. Those who engage in Revisionist history are doomed to get screwed over militarily, and the greatest irony here, is that we have two revisionists, writing in the very war that proved historical revisionism to be b/s. Ain't irony great?
On a serious note, either the Georgian Navy confronted the Russian Navy (total Russian victory) or the Russian Navy and Air Force sunk the Georgian Navy without a fight (total Russian Victory). And your point in revising this, is? Either the Georgian Army ran away and proved poor training, or they got their asses kicked on the battlefield and proved poor training. I am just amazed at how desperate the pro-Georgian editors are at nitpicking to find those non-existant victories. "But they didn't sink the boat in combat, they sank it in the harbor - those Russians, clearly defeated!" Hahaha, cute. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the number cited for memorial was wrong all along, the source is pretty weak. Is there any newer/more complete source about Memorials estimate? -- Xeeron ( talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Still Inaccurate: South Ossetia: Russia and South Ossetian officials claim 1,492 South Ossetian civilians killed/missing (365 confirmed by September 25);[23][24][25] HRW claims 300-400 civilians killed[26] - HRW doesn't claim 300 - 400 dead civilians. BBC source tells that: The Russian prosecutor's office is investigating more than 300 possible cases of civilians killed by the Georgian military. Some of those may be Ossetian paramilitaries, but Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point". In my opinion HRW says Russian figure comes near reality. HRW as Memorial never did report exact numbers; they did always say original claims ( genocide, over 2000, 1500, 1600) were exaggerated or not appropriate to their own limited samples or the total numbers of wounded people etc.. Elysander ( talk) 10:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The sentence doesn't imply at all that HRW's figure is 300-400. It's in reply to the number put forward by Russia's prosecutor's office investegating possible deaths, meaning that HRW simply applauds an investigation into possible deaths. I also can't find any report of HRW that confirms such figures, neither on their site or news articles. In contrary, they often speak of "dozens" killed, figures always lower than a hundred. According to Tatyana Lokshina, deputy director, the amount of deaths in South Ossetia are below a hundred [10] [11] and since she represents hrw this can stay as their current figure. Grey Fox ( talk) 11:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As for HRW quoting Russian/Ossetian official figures, this is what they had to say in a letter to Sakaashvili: "We also reference the figures arrived at by Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor General’s office, which says it has documented 154 civilian deaths (its first published figure was 133). We have also noted that it is unclear whether the Prosecutor General’s investigation is distinguishing between civilians and volunteer militias, and if so, how. The many men in South Ossetia who took up arms to defend their homes are not military, but they are regarded as combatants under international humanitarian law and as such should not be counted among civilian casualties. The same issues are relevant to the list of more than 300 deaths compiled in South Ossetia by a commission of Russian and Ossetian public figures.
Human Rights Watch refers to these figures, but we do not cite any of them as a definitive number of civilian casualties. Likewise, we refer to casualty figures stated by the Georgian authorities of Georgian civilians with similar caveats. " Grey Fox ( talk) 11:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we clear how many civilians were in Tskh. and surroundings on 7/8 August? We know that SO - especially Tskh. - was systematically evacuated by Kokoity regime with beginning August. The majority of claimed, estimated or identified dead civilian on SO side belong very probably to Kokoity's "South Ossetian Forces". Elysander ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen up Grey Fox, first of HRW doesn't dispute anymore the numbers given by the Russians, furthermore they said that the Russian 300-400 number is a good starting point to determine the real number of killed, that 300-400 number is within the parameters of the 365 confirmed by the Russians. Also your reference says 273 wounded and 44 dead not 273 killed. Plus, I have not seen Memorial mentioned anywhere. Just give up already, HRW has withdrawn it's previous statements of less than 100 dead when they concured with the BBC's independent investigation. There you wanted a non-Russian investigation to be conducted, BBC did it, are you telling me that they are pro-Russian now also? The 1,200+ number may or may not be exagarated, I don't realy know, but the 365 number is certainly true based on the investigation by the Russian prosecution ministry, the BBC team and HRW's assesment. There, three separate opinions. 89.216.236.45 ( talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Igny and also I said it before the 100 number you are putting is OUT OFF DATE, how plainly can I say it more. OUT OFF DATE, OUT OFF DATE. HRW earlier said the number 100 yes, but now they are thinking that the 300-400 number may be right. For God's sake what do you want, do you want the president of HRW to come to your door and say it to you out loud. How I hate arguing with editors that are focused only on one source and not on the other ten. Listen, the Russians say 300-400. The BBC article, which you constantly remove which is not NPOV of you, says that genocide was conducted and they concure with the Russians, and finally HRW concurs with the 300-400. There three sources. THREE. 100 is no longer the starting point for them. Give it up already Gre Fox. 89.216.236.45 ( talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
So a compromise
Or some variant thereof. Will it work? ( Igny ( talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
Ok I tried to make a compromise version that's in good chronologic order. Grey Fox ( talk) 20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(re-indented) 365 civilian deaths, they are disputed by whom? By you? The HRW approved the estimate, BBC reported, Milliband did not say anything against. Georgia is not in a position to argue as they do not have access to the scene, any their estimates can only be speculations and can not have any ground. So who disputes this estimate? ( Igny ( talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC))
(reindent) Elysander and others. I have been claiming that it is you who are manipulating the source by removing a crucial part from it. Without this part, the quote does sound ambiguous, do they approve the estimate or do they approve the investigation or do they say "keep lowering the estimate, you are on the right track"? The word "it" is often ambiguous in this sense, and even in Russian the teachers ask you to rephrase the sentence to avoid such ambiguity. The original quote does not sound ambiguous, and I have numerous references which agree with me. How do you even dare to claim that other respectable sources can not quote such a simple sentence correctly, while at the same time you keep misquoting it? ( Igny ( talk) 13:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC))
For the last time, the Russian Procurator's Office is investigating the deaths, i.e. they found the dead bodies and are investigating what caused the deaths. They're not talking, or saying, they're working. Shish. Why's that so damn complicated! Gah! Grey Fox - if the Marines are saying they're removing the mines - you probably don't want to go to that area. If the Marines are removing the mines and confirming it, you do want to go to that area. When in doubt - qoute it out - qoute verbatum. Shish - making a big deal out of 1+1=2, trying say say that's it's really 2.1 sorry, still was 2 the last time I checked. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 07:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Rather silly discussion. At this time only exact quoting of the relevant original source is needed. Tomorrow it can be already replaced by a new information. Who is against exactly quoting the phrase of the BBC original source (as one user obviously is) is suspicious to be only interested in pushing his own POV interpretation of the BBC source.
Elysander ( talk) 11:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Human rights watch has later admitted that the picture evidence they have does NOT show Russian made cluster bombs but rather Israeli-made M-85s of the same type Israel used against Lebanon. Georgia has purchased such cluster munitions from Israel, Russia produces their own cluster munitions and has not(to anyones knowledge at least) purchased any such from Israel. Georgia has also later on admitted to their use, while Russia has stated that they have not used such during the conflict.
http://www.pr-inside.com/group-georgia-acknowledges-dropping-cluster-r782239.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/01/georgia.russia
This makes the claim about Russian use and reference 123 extremely biased and should be removed.
DW75 81.224.32.80 ( talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Have to dig deep on the HRW site to find the source, and they have moved it at least once already so the link i had is now invalid.
Ok found another page at HRW that is at least relevant:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/02/georgi19737.htm
Also this one touches the matter slightly:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/01/georgi19722.htm
It is somewhat problematic however that HRW maintains that a find that its previous identification was wrong in two cases, does not change their stance in the other cases despite having been proven wrong about it twice... Add to that that the HRW went to the media massively about the initial claim, but just about buried the contradicting evidence(although the above clarification page is at least an improvement). Because of that im far more inclined to believe what "Norwegian Defense Research Establishment" says than HRW, as they have shown themself to be possibly biased.
While trying to find this, i found this site: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/09/hrw-continues-f.html its level of bias is up for question but the pictures shown are fairly good and relevant and as far as i can tell the statements are at least not incorrect(ie the HRW claims that Russia used RBK-250s are simply wrong according to the pictures, regardless anything else) although i havent had time to go through it all yet.
And perhaps adding this information to the text would be better than removing it. As it would show further how onesidedly this conflict has been handled overall in the media. DW75 ( talk) 16:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No, that site can probably not be used as a source. Still their argumentation and pictures, at least regarding that the pictures clearly does not show airdropped munitions, well there should be someone who went through it more seriously? DW75 ( talk) 17:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The initial Reuters analysis of the footage says it likely was a mortar round, his death is supposed to have happened during a bombing attack and yet he is supposed to have been killed by a cluster munition from an artillery rocket? They have tv-footage but cant even decide on airdropped or not? Only thing supporting the possible use of cluster munitions seems to be that so many in the group was injured, but that by itself is nothing since a bad luck hit of the supposed mortar round could easily have equal effect. And of course "propelled by a type of rocket that is only found in Russia's military arsenal", despite the fact that im yet to see even a single picture of Russian-made cluster munitions, as every single picture sofar clearly shows the type of munitions and submunitions both that Georgia used, and only theirs. Also, even now, there still havent been even the slightest hint from Russian troops leaving the area that Russia used cluster munitions and while lies or halftruths isnt a new thing, its still flat out denied at all levels without a hint of doubt.
DW75 ( talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch's summary on 10 October 2008 - not in September [21]:
Intriguing: "*2. Russian forces used indiscriminate weapons, particularly Grad and Uragan rockets in civilian areas, during the counter-offensive" Except when I clicked on the link to the claim (HRW does source it's claims) I found this:
"Meanwhile, Russian television on August 12 aired video images of Grad and Uragan rockets being fired into the Kodori Gorge, an area of Abkhazia that had been under Georgian control." - oi, Russians are firing at civvies, run for yer lives, but then I kept reading and found this: "Human Rights Watch learned that about 1,500 people, almost all of the population of the Kodori Gorge, had been evacuated before the shelling started." Whoopsie, so the area isn't actually populated by civillians. Hmm, intriguing, and as I kept on reading, I found no evidence of the Russians actually firing the missiles into these areas. Like HRW person said: "“These are all indiscriminate weapons when used in populated areas, as they cannot be targeted against only military targets and therefore risk causing unnecessary harm to civilians,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “They simply shouldn’t be used in areas where there are civilians.”" - and they weren't. Looks like HRW primary sources contradict HRW secondary sources. " http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/12/georgi19594.htm" Whoopsie.
Also, in comparison to what the Goergians did, i.e. shot into apartment buildings, the looting was of a lesser degree of crimes. This happens in warfare. In the Kosovo crisis, NATO could not prevent the refugee crisis of 200,000 Serbians fleeing, even though the Serbs did not use Grads against Albanians. Nor could they prevent Church burning. Here the Russians did a decent job, in comparison to what NATO did in the Kosovo crisis. Also, in reference to #5, HRW will call anything that's not upto their standards a failure, and thus over 90% of the areas that HRW monitors are failures, according to the HRW, because they know that failure gets the press. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps some clarification is needed. Are we saying that the article should say that both Russia and Georgia have been critised over human rights issues (something like 'During the conflict both sides appear (accordiing to HRW) to have shelled civilain areas')?[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 14:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)]]
HRW released a new report on the use of cluster munition from both sides: [23] Grey Fox ( talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
here. Go ahead and discuss. ( Igny ( talk) 04:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
My, my, my the NY Times AND OSCE going for Russia or neutral on this one? Damn, how bad did Georgia mess up? "Neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary, as Mr. Saakashvili insists."
BTW, anyone still want to argue about those tapes: "Georgia has released telephone intercepts indicating that a Russian armored column apparently entered the enclave from Russia early on the Aug. 7, which would be a violation of the peacekeeping rules. Georgia said the column marked the beginning of an invasion. But the intercepts did not show the column’s size, composition or mission, and there has not been evidence that it was engaged with Georgian forces until many hours after the Georgian bombardment; Russia insists it was simply a routine logistics train or troop rotation."
Hey, hey, hey - let the fun begin: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/europe/06cluster.html?ref=europe
Oh and I just loved this: "Georgian military forces fired more cluster munitions during their war with Russia in August than originally thought, and some of the weapons may have malfunctioned, causing civilian casualties when they fell short of military targets and hit Georgian villages, according to new research by Human Rights Watch" Told Ya! Boo Yah! So much goodness.
"Beyond that, two people have been reported killed and three wounded by Georgian duds since the war, Human Rights Watch said. " - Strange no civvie deaths attributed to Russian duds.
Also, Georgian Leadership - not very intelligent: “We have found dozens and dozens of duds, and none of them had a self-destruct mechanism,” Mr. Gogia said. ROFL. Umm, first off, the "self-destruct" mechanism activates when a person nears a dud in an inappropriate manner. Either the Mr. Gogia isn't talking about cluster bombs, or he's not intelligent. When you step on a cluster dud, innappropriately - it goes BOOM. "Unexploded bomblets scattered over broad areas can kill and maim people for years." In other words BOOM. "De our Georgian duds are special - dey don't explode, unless dey recieve a phone satellite order from Mr. Saakashvili."
And going back to the first article, there's this: “The Georgians have been quite clear that they were shelling targets — the mayor’s office, police headquarters — that had been used for military purposes,” said Matthew J. Bryza, a deputy assistant secretary of state and one of Mr. Saakashvili’s vocal supporters in Washington.
Bryza - deputy assisant secretary of state being pro-Georgian. Now where were those editors claiming the US was impartial on this war?
Finally, I cannot wait to hear from the pro-Georgia editors on this one. (Also note that when the NY Times cited a pro-Russia claim based on "a confidential source" - I didn't use it either.) HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 08:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
On 7th August the article says (quoting the Washington Post source directly): "Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze."
I guess the first two sentences could be interpreted in three ways: 1) the W.Post reports the first two sentences as facts, 2) the first two sentences are opinions of the W.Post editor, 3) the first two sentences were said by Gurgenidze (as was the third one.)
My personal interpretation is number 3. What do you think? After the OSCE report (which said no artillery fire came from the Ossetian side in the hours before the start of Gergian bombardment), one could strongly suspect that "Ossetian artillery fire resumed around 2 pm" is not a fact (although the Georgian assaut began at 10 pm, so I don't know if 2 pm lies inside "hours before the Georgian attack."
Right know the reader of our article probably doesn't know which of the 3 interpretations is the right one (or does he?) Therefore I think we should clarify that passage somehow. Offliner ( talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not a big difference, but I like h2 better. Main reason being that it gets rid of the the ugly "timeline" header (the whole article should be about the war, so having a timeline about the war seems redundant and odd).
In any case, introducing the sub-headers was a great idea, it is a good step forward and should make the conversion from bullet point style to full text style easier. -- Xeeron ( talk) 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Some paragraphs in the timeline (7th and 8th August) are getting very long. But as long as we use the bulleted timeline format, there is no way to break up those into multiple paragraphs, or at least I don't know how to do that. I suggest we get rid of the timeline format and convert in to normal prose. Are there any objections for doing that? Offliner ( talk) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I got rid of the bullet timeline format. But there is still lots to be done. Especially the subchapter titles I used are not neutral enough, but I couldn't come up with anything better yet. Offliner ( talk) 01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
So, I made some bold edits to get rid of the timeline format and to expand the description of actual warfare (which probably should be the main focus of this article.) This solution is probably far from perfect (expecially the subchapter titles aren't that good), but I hope that people who do not agree with it would make specific improvements instead of reverting everything I've done. Offliner ( talk) 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't agree! IMO change of time line structure comes too early. We have still problems to "save" a compromise version of article's leader. The time line bears much more controversial stuff than the leader; it is - as I already said - full of errors, bad compromises, POV parts of both sides, unsourced or incorrectly sourced informations etc.pp. And it doesn't make sense to change time line structure before a corrected and rather undisputed time line at all exists. Alone choosing subsection's titles can lead to permanent conflicts. Offliner has already selected titles which meet primarly his personal or one conflict party's view. Elysander ( talk) 13:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Guys, do you really want us to start arguing our heads off? As i can see, everybody quickly jumped into action and relevant and useful info gets removed right now, not without NPOV suffering. Really nauseating thing to look at. I can't understand, why all of you, article-shortening apologists, won't give it a rest already? Isn't it obvious, that best thing you can do for the sake of NPOV, is to just state all claims and counter-claims in the article - a content, which is kept better in timeline format? Not to convert it to "prose" - a style, which usually cannot hold more than seemingly one-and-only true-and-factual description of events. Now, which one will that be? Seriously, that won't lead us to any good, so i urge all editors, especially those, who are now deleting material under the pretence of "converting to prose", to cease their activities and revise/discuss all the changes made. Bold editing of result of 4-months-worth of efforts in NPOV wording isn't actually a very good idea. 212.192.164.14 ( talk) 11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Are we sure that at all places of this article a consistent system is used? Elysander ( talk) 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably clear from the context that the bold-highlighted below is a reference to a version of events offered by Georgian officials:
On the morning of Aug. 7, after a night of Ossetian artillery fire, Yakobashvili said, he traveled to Tskhinvali for a meeting with the separatists that the Russians had convened at a Russian peacekeeping base. "Nobody was in the streets -- no cars, no people," he said in a conference call with reporters Aug. 14. "We met the general of the Russian peacekeepers, and he said that the separatists were not answering the phone." Yakobashvili left.
Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, who spoke in a telephone briefing Aug. 14.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600502_pf.html
If one wants to contend that this is the 'truth' as observed by Peter Finn of the Washington Post, who was very likely not on the scene, then I think you are being unreasonable. For one, this version of events, as truth and not contention, doesn't square with the observations of other sources on August 7, particularly OSCE sources. In any case, this entry is provided to explain my corrections of November 10. Haberstr ( talk) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.regnum.ru/news/1066443.html -- 93.80.81.109 ( talk) 14:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
NYT - Report Faults All Parties in War in Georgia - Nov 18 2008 - [26] Elysander ( talk) 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Russian infantry treated civilians in a disciplined fashion, but the Russians allowed South Ossetian forces to loot and set fires in the ethnic Georgian villages north of the separatist capital, the report determined. Amnesty International’s researchers “documented unlawful killings, beatings, threats, arson and looting” by armed South Ossetian groups, the report said."
Wait a sec, so Georgia attacks a Russian Base and civillian targets in Ossetia, and Russia is supposed to stop Ossetians from reprisals, while focusing their assault on Georgia? What planet are the HRW people from? Also I've yet to see documented killings. I mean there were threats, arson and looting, I won't dispute that, and beatings also existed - if you define a beating as physical contact, irregardless of whether it causes harm or not, then yes, but killings?
Also - haven't I always been saying this line: "Russian infantry treated civilians in a disciplined fashion" - I await your apologies for dubbing me pro-Russian. 68.165.238.34 ( talk) 03:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Check the original statement on AI site, then compare with the NYT 'analysis' article. In the original document, there are four main points Amnesty makes:
Does that differ from what the NYT says? To me, it definitely does. FeelSunny ( talk) 23:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, before the next person comes along and reverts that part, please first scroll down the article and read this sentence in 2008_South_Ossetia_war#Recognition_of_breakaway_regions: "On 26 August 2008, Medvedev agreed, signing a decree officially recognising the two entities".
After 26 August 2008: Recognised (by Russia & later Nicaragua). Before 26 August 2008: Unrecognised. It is really that simple. -- Xeeron ( talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has too much reverting and too little talking William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
We probably should use a consistent format throughout the article. Which one would be preferred? I'd say "X August." Offliner ( talk) 18:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR says to stick with whichever version of English was first established in an article, unless the subject has a strong tie to the UK or the US . The article history shows "8 August" as the initial usage established on August 7, so this date format and UK spelling and grammar seem to be the ones to be used exclusively in the article.(edited to say UK) Edison ( talk) 16:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
http://exiledonline.com/ames-antiwarcom-interview-on-the-bullshit-war-in-georgia/
His newspaper called the war play by play, actually visited the place, pissed off Putin enough to get kicked out of Russia, are recognized by the Progressive Media as Gonzoistically Honest (that's a good thing) and they're generally credible when it comes to Russia, at least none of their articles have been refuted as easily as say the NY Times tape "article", which got pwned by Der Spiegal, that came out the same day. Interesting interview, incorporate what you can in the paper. The Interview nicely sums up how Lefties view the South Ossetia War in the US.
Also, Putin's and Saakashvili's interviews should be incorporated, in Putin's case the full version, not the CNN version.
Putin's Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwC5q-zMQnw&feature=related (if anyone could find the full English Translation, go for it! I'm sure that someone could find Saakashvili's interview without the tie-chewing as well. 67.101.54.25 ( talk) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you think should be the goal of those two sections? I'd suggest the following:
Any thoughts? Offliner ( talk) 06:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Time for another split somewhere I think? The article is 160k, moving out about 50k should be good enough. It would take forever to load on slower connections.
Background has its own spin off, so the part on this page can certainly be cut further. Maybe somehow the humanitarian part, the reactions and/or the combatants can be spun off too. This relatively minor was really seems to be a victim of both Wikipedia's recentism, and the sudden popularity of the wikipedia project. (the first non battlefield skirmish of a war since Wikipedia's global presence I'd imagine) Lihaas ( talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
(regarding this edit)
I don't understand why should "Bolshevik-led" be inserted here. It suggests that Bolsheviks inspired Ossetians' revolts of 1918-1920. This may be partially true but certainly Georgia's agrarian policies also played its part, to put it mildly. See this article for details. Anyway this article is not a place to determine which factor was more important so it would be more appropriate to just state that some hostilities happened without applying misleading descriptions. Alæxis ¿question? 15:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | During its brief tenure, the Menshevik government came across significant problems with ethnic minorities. There were difficulties with regard to the Abkhaz, Ossetian, and Ajarian minorities, and a major conflict with Armenia over Armenian-inhabited territories within Georgian territory.25 Already in the Winter of 1918, an uprising took place in today’s South Ossetia. This uprising was crushed by the Menshevik government’s People’s Guard, generating resentment among Ossetians against the Tiflis government; by the same token, this also open the way for Bolshevik inroads into the Ossetian areas. | ” |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Great_secondary_source
Illarionov's speech delivered to the Cato Institute in Ukraine on September 4 - an English summary by Paul Goble [2] Elysander ( talk) 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Economist: Summary of War - Mid of October >> [3] Elysander ( talk) 23:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, only had umm a couple inaccuracies - the first one is that in this "great" secondary source Illarionov repeteadly says that he has incomplete data. Placing a source with incomplete data into a controversial article isn't going to be productive. Also, the guy doesn't even answer the question "How come you knew of Russian movenments while the American Satellites didn't" - he initially tries to dodge it, and then mumbles some b/s about how the war was covered in Russian Mass Information Sources, while failing to provide more then one article of proof, and that article was refuted here already. Notice how in that particlular part, that wasn't post here, even the hosts politely make fun of him. How one can view this source as "great" is beyond me.
"С.БУНТМАН: Я бы хотел ответить человеку, который подписался как «главный редактор осетинского радио», на которое ссылается Илларионов. Он просит позвонить. Я бы попросил сейчас главного редактора осетинского радио прислать нам еще одну смску предметную – что главное, что не так, по вашему мнению, говорит Андрей Илларионов. Дальше. «Спросите у Илларионова, почему американские космические службы слежения не видели перемещения войск через Рокский тоннель 9 августа, а он знает?»
А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Я не знаю, почему кто-то сделал предположение, что я знаю, как действуют американские спутники и что они видят, чего не видят.
С.БУНТМАН: Нет, вы знали, что перемещались войска, а американцы не знали.
А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Дело в том, что для того, чтобы знать про перемещения войска, большей проблемы не представляет, потому что об этом сообщали российские СМИ, информационные агентства, и даже российское Министерство обороны регулярно публиковало сводки о прохождении маневров «Кавказ-2008» с середины июля до 2 августа, когда около 10 тысяч солдат и офицеров при поддержке как минимум 700 единиц бронетехники проводили маневры на Северном Кавказе. Правда, после завершения маневров 2 августа войска никуда не ушли, а остались на своих местах. Сообщения же офицеров и солдат, участвующих в этих маневрах, говорят о том, что часть участников маневров не только участвовали в маневрах на территории Северного Кавказа, не только вышли на перевалы, и довольно много об этом было публикаций и на сайте Минобороны, и в газете «Красная Звезда», но и перешли эти перевалы. И некоторые из них довольно подробно рассказывают о том, что «у нас были маневры на территории Южной Осетии». Некоторые рассказывают о том, что «мы в течение недели находимся на холмах, окружающих Цхинвали, и видим, как там происходят в течение недели обстрелы». То есть это все происходило до 7 августа.
М.ГАЙДАР: Американские спутники просто не читали СМИ.
А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Я не знаю, чем занимались американские спутники. Это все можно найти в российских газетах. Там достаточно подробно рассказывается о том, что и кто и как делал. И будничное повествование многих российских солдат и офицеров говорит о том, что по крайней мере для них в этом не было ничего удивительного, ничего ненормального. Они выполняли тот приказ, который они получили. И судя по тому, кто об этом говорит и рассказывает, как минимум четыре подразделения российской армии находились на территории Южной Осетии еще до 7 августа, включая 135-й мотострелковый полк и 22-ю бригаду спецназа. Кроме того, там же находились и некоторые танковые подразделения регулярных российских войск, которые участвовали поначалу в маневрах «Кавказ-2008», а потом оказались на территории Южной Осетии."
"Ask Illarionov how he knew about the Russian troop movenemnt, while the US Satellites didn't know?" Illarionov: "I don't know how American Satellites work" (failed dodge) "No you knew how the Russian troops moved, American satellites didn't, how'd you know?" Illarionov: "In order to know about Russian troop movenments you had to read Russian sources of mass information such as teh one about Operation Kavkaz-2008 that occurred from mid-July till the 2nd of August, when around 10,000 troops manuevered in the North Caucasian Region...as was reported in Russian Newspapers" "American Satellites just didn't read the Russian Newspapers!" I mean come on! He gets the info from the Defense Ministry and the newspaper Red Star - and we know these are always honest and reliable, right? B/S is never published in newspapers to sell them, right Mr. Hearst? 67.101.104.59 ( talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Keverich, please discuss your edits here before making them to the article. It is not acceptable that a 3 month collaboration on NPOV wording of the lead is destroyed by a newcomer. If you insist on your POV, please discuss, it is quite possible to come to an agreement.
This is not an endorsement of the current lead, there are still improvements to be made. However, clearly you are taking it in the wrong direction. ( Igny ( talk) 22:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC))
Once again the article invaded by anti-russian editor who wants to turn article around into "russian barbarian agression against poor democratic Georgia". Keverich1, please, consider the WP:NPOV rule. Garret Beaumain ( talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps mention or link to the wiki page on him concerning critique in conjunction with GW Bushs talk about "democratic outpost" or whatever he said, and the Democracy barometer which 2007 ranked Georgia below Russia in level of democracy. Its relevant information about the politicking around the conflict but not so sure about if its good to include here... DW75 ( talk) 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Russian edits can only be expected when a state behaves so brazenly. 76.237.239.102 ( talk) 06:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It is strange (if not an outright POV) that the article deals with Georgia's increased military expenditures, but says nothing about a series of proposals of autonomy for Abkhazia and S. Ossetia in the recent years. Not a single word is said about the ethnic Ossetian political groups supporting reunification with Georgia and Georgia's attempt to have them involved in the Russian-"mediated" negotiations. Also, for many years the Georgian and US governments have been urging Russia to allow an international monitoring of the Roki Tunnel through which the region has been flooded with weapons and mercenaries, but Russians persistently rejected all their requests. These are very important details which should certainly be mentioned in the Background section. -- Kober Talk 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Which term better describes what happened to the Georgian ships at Poti? I say they were scuttled because that's the accurate term and we have an article for it in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
What a clumsy Russian bear :) scuttling instead of giving them to the Abkhazians... sorry for soapboxing -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 14:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey they kept the Jeeps, to them it's all about quality construction. :D HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
My plan was to insert a conspectus of war's naval activities as summary in 2-3 sentences. I did check again several sources (conflict parties, third parties etc.) and must confess except blockading of Georgian coast by Russian navy nearly nothing is undisputed. Article's time line seems inaccurate or incomplete regarding naval activities. 1) Whether a skirmish on Black Sea has taken place or not is not clear. Only one fact seems sure one Georgian missile boat was hit. But whether it was sunk or could return to Poti habour - sources disagree. 2) Poti harbour ( military and civil part) was attacked two times by Russian airfore. It seems not clear whether and - if yes how many - non military ships, units of Georgian naval forces or coast guard were hit or blown up. 3) Poti harbour was raided and looted by Russian ground forces several times after Medvedev's official order to halt. The circumstances how Georgian ships were sunk during the raids differ from source to source. Therefore we should use rather "neutral" wording" 4) Could a part of the tiny Georgian fleet flee to Batumi? Or were observers unable to distinguish between Georgian Navy (regular forces) and Coast Guard? Elysander ( talk) 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Addition: I'm missing too Black Sea Fleet's landing operations on Georgian coast (some 1000s Russian ground forces and paratroopers) in time line. Elysander ( talk) 09:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the Georgian boat was sunk. Considering the Russians played video footage on their TV channels. And what observers are you talking about? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 13:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Only one example! Globalsecurity [6] - not so unreliable or so naturally POV orientated as others ;) >> On 09 August 2008 missile boat Tbilisi (206MP Vikhr, given by Ukraine in June 1999), was reported to have been hit by gunfire and sunk by units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet off the Abkhazian coast when allegedly entered a Russia imposed 'security zone' along with four other vessels. It was discovered on fire in the Georgian port of Poti on August 13, 2008. If this info is correct how can a sunk ship return to its harbour? All lines of this article must be checked after still existing tendency to edit warring expires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysander ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Do they have a primary source for this? Do you have a primary source? A sunk ship cannot return to its harbor, but someone could have mistaken a similar looking ship for it. I mean there was combat, with the Georgian ship sunk and the Russian ship damaged according to Ukranian sources !!! and there was no immediate response. Why report it several months after the war? Did they "lose" the boat reports just like they "lost" the tapes? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Wrong questions as often! This episode is only one example for article's corrupt status. It was asserted that a combat or skirmish has taken place on black sea. But different opinions and sources exist - about a skirmish between G and R, a simple shot on a Georgian unit (because allegedly entering Russian fleet's security zone), a Georgian gossip of a self-murderous attack on Russian navy too - and so on. Elysander ( talk) 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to post a primary source. You gave your opinion instead. If you keep on opining and failing to post primary sources in your arguments, I will simply ignore you and make the edits. This is Wikipedia, and no one is interested in your opinions that aren't backed up by factual evidence. The source you cited is a secondary source by all definitions. According to Wikipedia rules, primary sources (the ones that say the Georgian ship was sunk) beat secondary sources (the ones that say Georgia's ship was in harbor). Unless you can post a primary source, I will undo your edits via wikipedia guidelines. 67.101.104.59 ( talk) 00:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
LOLZ: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA560705.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/11/2330528.htm http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2373492,00.html http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=170964 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104258690&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In short quite a few sources stated that the Georgian Boat was sunk. For several months, there were no answers from Georgia. 2 months later, in come people like Grey Fox and Elyslander and tell us that the battle never took place. Where were you guys on August 11th? August 31st? Just like the Georgian tapes. I mean seriously, in two years are you guys planning to claim that the war never took place? Or that Russia was beaten off by the mighty Georgian Army? This is pure revisionism, covered in b/s propaganda. Two months later they "find out" that the boat was not sunk. Puh Lease! Now you'll claim that it never occurred, because the Russians didn't want to give out their naval position. People like you have already changed the Battles of Poti and Gori into the Massacres of Poti and Gori. Those who engage in Revisionist history are doomed to get screwed over militarily, and the greatest irony here, is that we have two revisionists, writing in the very war that proved historical revisionism to be b/s. Ain't irony great?
On a serious note, either the Georgian Navy confronted the Russian Navy (total Russian victory) or the Russian Navy and Air Force sunk the Georgian Navy without a fight (total Russian Victory). And your point in revising this, is? Either the Georgian Army ran away and proved poor training, or they got their asses kicked on the battlefield and proved poor training. I am just amazed at how desperate the pro-Georgian editors are at nitpicking to find those non-existant victories. "But they didn't sink the boat in combat, they sank it in the harbor - those Russians, clearly defeated!" Hahaha, cute. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the number cited for memorial was wrong all along, the source is pretty weak. Is there any newer/more complete source about Memorials estimate? -- Xeeron ( talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Still Inaccurate: South Ossetia: Russia and South Ossetian officials claim 1,492 South Ossetian civilians killed/missing (365 confirmed by September 25);[23][24][25] HRW claims 300-400 civilians killed[26] - HRW doesn't claim 300 - 400 dead civilians. BBC source tells that: The Russian prosecutor's office is investigating more than 300 possible cases of civilians killed by the Georgian military. Some of those may be Ossetian paramilitaries, but Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point". In my opinion HRW says Russian figure comes near reality. HRW as Memorial never did report exact numbers; they did always say original claims ( genocide, over 2000, 1500, 1600) were exaggerated or not appropriate to their own limited samples or the total numbers of wounded people etc.. Elysander ( talk) 10:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The sentence doesn't imply at all that HRW's figure is 300-400. It's in reply to the number put forward by Russia's prosecutor's office investegating possible deaths, meaning that HRW simply applauds an investigation into possible deaths. I also can't find any report of HRW that confirms such figures, neither on their site or news articles. In contrary, they often speak of "dozens" killed, figures always lower than a hundred. According to Tatyana Lokshina, deputy director, the amount of deaths in South Ossetia are below a hundred [10] [11] and since she represents hrw this can stay as their current figure. Grey Fox ( talk) 11:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As for HRW quoting Russian/Ossetian official figures, this is what they had to say in a letter to Sakaashvili: "We also reference the figures arrived at by Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor General’s office, which says it has documented 154 civilian deaths (its first published figure was 133). We have also noted that it is unclear whether the Prosecutor General’s investigation is distinguishing between civilians and volunteer militias, and if so, how. The many men in South Ossetia who took up arms to defend their homes are not military, but they are regarded as combatants under international humanitarian law and as such should not be counted among civilian casualties. The same issues are relevant to the list of more than 300 deaths compiled in South Ossetia by a commission of Russian and Ossetian public figures.
Human Rights Watch refers to these figures, but we do not cite any of them as a definitive number of civilian casualties. Likewise, we refer to casualty figures stated by the Georgian authorities of Georgian civilians with similar caveats. " Grey Fox ( talk) 11:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we clear how many civilians were in Tskh. and surroundings on 7/8 August? We know that SO - especially Tskh. - was systematically evacuated by Kokoity regime with beginning August. The majority of claimed, estimated or identified dead civilian on SO side belong very probably to Kokoity's "South Ossetian Forces". Elysander ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen up Grey Fox, first of HRW doesn't dispute anymore the numbers given by the Russians, furthermore they said that the Russian 300-400 number is a good starting point to determine the real number of killed, that 300-400 number is within the parameters of the 365 confirmed by the Russians. Also your reference says 273 wounded and 44 dead not 273 killed. Plus, I have not seen Memorial mentioned anywhere. Just give up already, HRW has withdrawn it's previous statements of less than 100 dead when they concured with the BBC's independent investigation. There you wanted a non-Russian investigation to be conducted, BBC did it, are you telling me that they are pro-Russian now also? The 1,200+ number may or may not be exagarated, I don't realy know, but the 365 number is certainly true based on the investigation by the Russian prosecution ministry, the BBC team and HRW's assesment. There, three separate opinions. 89.216.236.45 ( talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Igny and also I said it before the 100 number you are putting is OUT OFF DATE, how plainly can I say it more. OUT OFF DATE, OUT OFF DATE. HRW earlier said the number 100 yes, but now they are thinking that the 300-400 number may be right. For God's sake what do you want, do you want the president of HRW to come to your door and say it to you out loud. How I hate arguing with editors that are focused only on one source and not on the other ten. Listen, the Russians say 300-400. The BBC article, which you constantly remove which is not NPOV of you, says that genocide was conducted and they concure with the Russians, and finally HRW concurs with the 300-400. There three sources. THREE. 100 is no longer the starting point for them. Give it up already Gre Fox. 89.216.236.45 ( talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
So a compromise
Or some variant thereof. Will it work? ( Igny ( talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
Ok I tried to make a compromise version that's in good chronologic order. Grey Fox ( talk) 20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(re-indented) 365 civilian deaths, they are disputed by whom? By you? The HRW approved the estimate, BBC reported, Milliband did not say anything against. Georgia is not in a position to argue as they do not have access to the scene, any their estimates can only be speculations and can not have any ground. So who disputes this estimate? ( Igny ( talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC))
(reindent) Elysander and others. I have been claiming that it is you who are manipulating the source by removing a crucial part from it. Without this part, the quote does sound ambiguous, do they approve the estimate or do they approve the investigation or do they say "keep lowering the estimate, you are on the right track"? The word "it" is often ambiguous in this sense, and even in Russian the teachers ask you to rephrase the sentence to avoid such ambiguity. The original quote does not sound ambiguous, and I have numerous references which agree with me. How do you even dare to claim that other respectable sources can not quote such a simple sentence correctly, while at the same time you keep misquoting it? ( Igny ( talk) 13:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC))
For the last time, the Russian Procurator's Office is investigating the deaths, i.e. they found the dead bodies and are investigating what caused the deaths. They're not talking, or saying, they're working. Shish. Why's that so damn complicated! Gah! Grey Fox - if the Marines are saying they're removing the mines - you probably don't want to go to that area. If the Marines are removing the mines and confirming it, you do want to go to that area. When in doubt - qoute it out - qoute verbatum. Shish - making a big deal out of 1+1=2, trying say say that's it's really 2.1 sorry, still was 2 the last time I checked. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 07:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Rather silly discussion. At this time only exact quoting of the relevant original source is needed. Tomorrow it can be already replaced by a new information. Who is against exactly quoting the phrase of the BBC original source (as one user obviously is) is suspicious to be only interested in pushing his own POV interpretation of the BBC source.
Elysander ( talk) 11:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Human rights watch has later admitted that the picture evidence they have does NOT show Russian made cluster bombs but rather Israeli-made M-85s of the same type Israel used against Lebanon. Georgia has purchased such cluster munitions from Israel, Russia produces their own cluster munitions and has not(to anyones knowledge at least) purchased any such from Israel. Georgia has also later on admitted to their use, while Russia has stated that they have not used such during the conflict.
http://www.pr-inside.com/group-georgia-acknowledges-dropping-cluster-r782239.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/01/georgia.russia
This makes the claim about Russian use and reference 123 extremely biased and should be removed.
DW75 81.224.32.80 ( talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Have to dig deep on the HRW site to find the source, and they have moved it at least once already so the link i had is now invalid.
Ok found another page at HRW that is at least relevant:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/02/georgi19737.htm
Also this one touches the matter slightly:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/01/georgi19722.htm
It is somewhat problematic however that HRW maintains that a find that its previous identification was wrong in two cases, does not change their stance in the other cases despite having been proven wrong about it twice... Add to that that the HRW went to the media massively about the initial claim, but just about buried the contradicting evidence(although the above clarification page is at least an improvement). Because of that im far more inclined to believe what "Norwegian Defense Research Establishment" says than HRW, as they have shown themself to be possibly biased.
While trying to find this, i found this site: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/09/hrw-continues-f.html its level of bias is up for question but the pictures shown are fairly good and relevant and as far as i can tell the statements are at least not incorrect(ie the HRW claims that Russia used RBK-250s are simply wrong according to the pictures, regardless anything else) although i havent had time to go through it all yet.
And perhaps adding this information to the text would be better than removing it. As it would show further how onesidedly this conflict has been handled overall in the media. DW75 ( talk) 16:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No, that site can probably not be used as a source. Still their argumentation and pictures, at least regarding that the pictures clearly does not show airdropped munitions, well there should be someone who went through it more seriously? DW75 ( talk) 17:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The initial Reuters analysis of the footage says it likely was a mortar round, his death is supposed to have happened during a bombing attack and yet he is supposed to have been killed by a cluster munition from an artillery rocket? They have tv-footage but cant even decide on airdropped or not? Only thing supporting the possible use of cluster munitions seems to be that so many in the group was injured, but that by itself is nothing since a bad luck hit of the supposed mortar round could easily have equal effect. And of course "propelled by a type of rocket that is only found in Russia's military arsenal", despite the fact that im yet to see even a single picture of Russian-made cluster munitions, as every single picture sofar clearly shows the type of munitions and submunitions both that Georgia used, and only theirs. Also, even now, there still havent been even the slightest hint from Russian troops leaving the area that Russia used cluster munitions and while lies or halftruths isnt a new thing, its still flat out denied at all levels without a hint of doubt.
DW75 ( talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch's summary on 10 October 2008 - not in September [21]:
Intriguing: "*2. Russian forces used indiscriminate weapons, particularly Grad and Uragan rockets in civilian areas, during the counter-offensive" Except when I clicked on the link to the claim (HRW does source it's claims) I found this:
"Meanwhile, Russian television on August 12 aired video images of Grad and Uragan rockets being fired into the Kodori Gorge, an area of Abkhazia that had been under Georgian control." - oi, Russians are firing at civvies, run for yer lives, but then I kept reading and found this: "Human Rights Watch learned that about 1,500 people, almost all of the population of the Kodori Gorge, had been evacuated before the shelling started." Whoopsie, so the area isn't actually populated by civillians. Hmm, intriguing, and as I kept on reading, I found no evidence of the Russians actually firing the missiles into these areas. Like HRW person said: "“These are all indiscriminate weapons when used in populated areas, as they cannot be targeted against only military targets and therefore risk causing unnecessary harm to civilians,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “They simply shouldn’t be used in areas where there are civilians.”" - and they weren't. Looks like HRW primary sources contradict HRW secondary sources. " http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/12/georgi19594.htm" Whoopsie.
Also, in comparison to what the Goergians did, i.e. shot into apartment buildings, the looting was of a lesser degree of crimes. This happens in warfare. In the Kosovo crisis, NATO could not prevent the refugee crisis of 200,000 Serbians fleeing, even though the Serbs did not use Grads against Albanians. Nor could they prevent Church burning. Here the Russians did a decent job, in comparison to what NATO did in the Kosovo crisis. Also, in reference to #5, HRW will call anything that's not upto their standards a failure, and thus over 90% of the areas that HRW monitors are failures, according to the HRW, because they know that failure gets the press. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps some clarification is needed. Are we saying that the article should say that both Russia and Georgia have been critised over human rights issues (something like 'During the conflict both sides appear (accordiing to HRW) to have shelled civilain areas')?[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 14:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)]]
HRW released a new report on the use of cluster munition from both sides: [23] Grey Fox ( talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
here. Go ahead and discuss. ( Igny ( talk) 04:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
My, my, my the NY Times AND OSCE going for Russia or neutral on this one? Damn, how bad did Georgia mess up? "Neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary, as Mr. Saakashvili insists."
BTW, anyone still want to argue about those tapes: "Georgia has released telephone intercepts indicating that a Russian armored column apparently entered the enclave from Russia early on the Aug. 7, which would be a violation of the peacekeeping rules. Georgia said the column marked the beginning of an invasion. But the intercepts did not show the column’s size, composition or mission, and there has not been evidence that it was engaged with Georgian forces until many hours after the Georgian bombardment; Russia insists it was simply a routine logistics train or troop rotation."
Hey, hey, hey - let the fun begin: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/europe/06cluster.html?ref=europe
Oh and I just loved this: "Georgian military forces fired more cluster munitions during their war with Russia in August than originally thought, and some of the weapons may have malfunctioned, causing civilian casualties when they fell short of military targets and hit Georgian villages, according to new research by Human Rights Watch" Told Ya! Boo Yah! So much goodness.
"Beyond that, two people have been reported killed and three wounded by Georgian duds since the war, Human Rights Watch said. " - Strange no civvie deaths attributed to Russian duds.
Also, Georgian Leadership - not very intelligent: “We have found dozens and dozens of duds, and none of them had a self-destruct mechanism,” Mr. Gogia said. ROFL. Umm, first off, the "self-destruct" mechanism activates when a person nears a dud in an inappropriate manner. Either the Mr. Gogia isn't talking about cluster bombs, or he's not intelligent. When you step on a cluster dud, innappropriately - it goes BOOM. "Unexploded bomblets scattered over broad areas can kill and maim people for years." In other words BOOM. "De our Georgian duds are special - dey don't explode, unless dey recieve a phone satellite order from Mr. Saakashvili."
And going back to the first article, there's this: “The Georgians have been quite clear that they were shelling targets — the mayor’s office, police headquarters — that had been used for military purposes,” said Matthew J. Bryza, a deputy assistant secretary of state and one of Mr. Saakashvili’s vocal supporters in Washington.
Bryza - deputy assisant secretary of state being pro-Georgian. Now where were those editors claiming the US was impartial on this war?
Finally, I cannot wait to hear from the pro-Georgia editors on this one. (Also note that when the NY Times cited a pro-Russia claim based on "a confidential source" - I didn't use it either.) HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 08:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
On 7th August the article says (quoting the Washington Post source directly): "Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze."
I guess the first two sentences could be interpreted in three ways: 1) the W.Post reports the first two sentences as facts, 2) the first two sentences are opinions of the W.Post editor, 3) the first two sentences were said by Gurgenidze (as was the third one.)
My personal interpretation is number 3. What do you think? After the OSCE report (which said no artillery fire came from the Ossetian side in the hours before the start of Gergian bombardment), one could strongly suspect that "Ossetian artillery fire resumed around 2 pm" is not a fact (although the Georgian assaut began at 10 pm, so I don't know if 2 pm lies inside "hours before the Georgian attack."
Right know the reader of our article probably doesn't know which of the 3 interpretations is the right one (or does he?) Therefore I think we should clarify that passage somehow. Offliner ( talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not a big difference, but I like h2 better. Main reason being that it gets rid of the the ugly "timeline" header (the whole article should be about the war, so having a timeline about the war seems redundant and odd).
In any case, introducing the sub-headers was a great idea, it is a good step forward and should make the conversion from bullet point style to full text style easier. -- Xeeron ( talk) 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Some paragraphs in the timeline (7th and 8th August) are getting very long. But as long as we use the bulleted timeline format, there is no way to break up those into multiple paragraphs, or at least I don't know how to do that. I suggest we get rid of the timeline format and convert in to normal prose. Are there any objections for doing that? Offliner ( talk) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I got rid of the bullet timeline format. But there is still lots to be done. Especially the subchapter titles I used are not neutral enough, but I couldn't come up with anything better yet. Offliner ( talk) 01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
So, I made some bold edits to get rid of the timeline format and to expand the description of actual warfare (which probably should be the main focus of this article.) This solution is probably far from perfect (expecially the subchapter titles aren't that good), but I hope that people who do not agree with it would make specific improvements instead of reverting everything I've done. Offliner ( talk) 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't agree! IMO change of time line structure comes too early. We have still problems to "save" a compromise version of article's leader. The time line bears much more controversial stuff than the leader; it is - as I already said - full of errors, bad compromises, POV parts of both sides, unsourced or incorrectly sourced informations etc.pp. And it doesn't make sense to change time line structure before a corrected and rather undisputed time line at all exists. Alone choosing subsection's titles can lead to permanent conflicts. Offliner has already selected titles which meet primarly his personal or one conflict party's view. Elysander ( talk) 13:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Guys, do you really want us to start arguing our heads off? As i can see, everybody quickly jumped into action and relevant and useful info gets removed right now, not without NPOV suffering. Really nauseating thing to look at. I can't understand, why all of you, article-shortening apologists, won't give it a rest already? Isn't it obvious, that best thing you can do for the sake of NPOV, is to just state all claims and counter-claims in the article - a content, which is kept better in timeline format? Not to convert it to "prose" - a style, which usually cannot hold more than seemingly one-and-only true-and-factual description of events. Now, which one will that be? Seriously, that won't lead us to any good, so i urge all editors, especially those, who are now deleting material under the pretence of "converting to prose", to cease their activities and revise/discuss all the changes made. Bold editing of result of 4-months-worth of efforts in NPOV wording isn't actually a very good idea. 212.192.164.14 ( talk) 11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Are we sure that at all places of this article a consistent system is used? Elysander ( talk) 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably clear from the context that the bold-highlighted below is a reference to a version of events offered by Georgian officials:
On the morning of Aug. 7, after a night of Ossetian artillery fire, Yakobashvili said, he traveled to Tskhinvali for a meeting with the separatists that the Russians had convened at a Russian peacekeeping base. "Nobody was in the streets -- no cars, no people," he said in a conference call with reporters Aug. 14. "We met the general of the Russian peacekeepers, and he said that the separatists were not answering the phone." Yakobashvili left.
Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, who spoke in a telephone briefing Aug. 14.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600502_pf.html
If one wants to contend that this is the 'truth' as observed by Peter Finn of the Washington Post, who was very likely not on the scene, then I think you are being unreasonable. For one, this version of events, as truth and not contention, doesn't square with the observations of other sources on August 7, particularly OSCE sources. In any case, this entry is provided to explain my corrections of November 10. Haberstr ( talk) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.regnum.ru/news/1066443.html -- 93.80.81.109 ( talk) 14:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
NYT - Report Faults All Parties in War in Georgia - Nov 18 2008 - [26] Elysander ( talk) 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Russian infantry treated civilians in a disciplined fashion, but the Russians allowed South Ossetian forces to loot and set fires in the ethnic Georgian villages north of the separatist capital, the report determined. Amnesty International’s researchers “documented unlawful killings, beatings, threats, arson and looting” by armed South Ossetian groups, the report said."
Wait a sec, so Georgia attacks a Russian Base and civillian targets in Ossetia, and Russia is supposed to stop Ossetians from reprisals, while focusing their assault on Georgia? What planet are the HRW people from? Also I've yet to see documented killings. I mean there were threats, arson and looting, I won't dispute that, and beatings also existed - if you define a beating as physical contact, irregardless of whether it causes harm or not, then yes, but killings?
Also - haven't I always been saying this line: "Russian infantry treated civilians in a disciplined fashion" - I await your apologies for dubbing me pro-Russian. 68.165.238.34 ( talk) 03:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Check the original statement on AI site, then compare with the NYT 'analysis' article. In the original document, there are four main points Amnesty makes:
Does that differ from what the NYT says? To me, it definitely does. FeelSunny ( talk) 23:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, before the next person comes along and reverts that part, please first scroll down the article and read this sentence in 2008_South_Ossetia_war#Recognition_of_breakaway_regions: "On 26 August 2008, Medvedev agreed, signing a decree officially recognising the two entities".
After 26 August 2008: Recognised (by Russia & later Nicaragua). Before 26 August 2008: Unrecognised. It is really that simple. -- Xeeron ( talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has too much reverting and too little talking William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
We probably should use a consistent format throughout the article. Which one would be preferred? I'd say "X August." Offliner ( talk) 18:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR says to stick with whichever version of English was first established in an article, unless the subject has a strong tie to the UK or the US . The article history shows "8 August" as the initial usage established on August 7, so this date format and UK spelling and grammar seem to be the ones to be used exclusively in the article.(edited to say UK) Edison ( talk) 16:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
http://exiledonline.com/ames-antiwarcom-interview-on-the-bullshit-war-in-georgia/
His newspaper called the war play by play, actually visited the place, pissed off Putin enough to get kicked out of Russia, are recognized by the Progressive Media as Gonzoistically Honest (that's a good thing) and they're generally credible when it comes to Russia, at least none of their articles have been refuted as easily as say the NY Times tape "article", which got pwned by Der Spiegal, that came out the same day. Interesting interview, incorporate what you can in the paper. The Interview nicely sums up how Lefties view the South Ossetia War in the US.
Also, Putin's and Saakashvili's interviews should be incorporated, in Putin's case the full version, not the CNN version.
Putin's Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwC5q-zMQnw&feature=related (if anyone could find the full English Translation, go for it! I'm sure that someone could find Saakashvili's interview without the tie-chewing as well. 67.101.54.25 ( talk) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you think should be the goal of those two sections? I'd suggest the following:
Any thoughts? Offliner ( talk) 06:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Time for another split somewhere I think? The article is 160k, moving out about 50k should be good enough. It would take forever to load on slower connections.
Background has its own spin off, so the part on this page can certainly be cut further. Maybe somehow the humanitarian part, the reactions and/or the combatants can be spun off too. This relatively minor was really seems to be a victim of both Wikipedia's recentism, and the sudden popularity of the wikipedia project. (the first non battlefield skirmish of a war since Wikipedia's global presence I'd imagine) Lihaas ( talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)