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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Is there enough references to list Abkhazia, North Ossetia, and others as actual Combatants? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As of my readings so far there is no reliable documentation that any group other than the Cossacks have committed any irregular forces to the South Ossetian conflict. To be sure they are probaly present, but there is no sourcing at this time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/09/russia.georgia1 I would also keep an eye to a second possible wiki if the Abkhazian front opens up, as appears might happen. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not normal usage to have a capital letter after a Colon_(punctuation) (even Wikipedia confirms it!), except for very special cases like quotations. We should not have a capital letter after colons in headings. The MOS rule about starting a header with a capital letter does not apply since the headers already start with a capital letter before the colon. NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We have a header "escalation of hostilities" and another "escalation" and it looks strange (two escalations only days apart, yes I know the one is about hostilities before official war, but the two escalations still sound strange). I say let's change the first heading to "towards the war" or something. NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The MOS says spaces in headings and between the heading and the next paragraph are optional, and I would wish to change the current headings to have spacings in order to make editing easier and make headings stand out in the edit window while we edit. This change will only be visible in the edit window. Anyone who prefers the current style? NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This Reuters article looks like a good reference for various points in the article. NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the war may have effects on the 2008 US elections based on what journalists write on NYTimes. Journalists interpret McCain response as more hawkish and Obama's response as more dovish. If voters are likely to get affected by this, perhaps we should add a small sentence in the article. NerdyNSK ( talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5911562/Georgia-declares-war We need to put this on there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 ( talk) 00:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Old news. Please read the article. What the Georgian President has been trying to do is gain legal powers in order to handle the invasion from Russia. Throughout the day Georgia has been asking for a ceasefire. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is getting WAY out of hand! Look at the size of it! Unless this page is archived soon, i will request an Administrator to do so.
I think it would be good to add somewhere that American persnnel at the embassy are being ransferred out. http://georgia.usembassy.gov/wm-080908.html
Just wanted to say that some of the recent upgrades, edits, and new content seem really nice. Good job people. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why did you erase reactions of governments/presidents and left there only some? I think a lot of people are interested more about international reactions to conflict than conflict itself. I found some informations in discussion instead of main page what I think is wrong.
There should be as much (important) statements of each states as possible. For saving place there could be split some similar statements together as actually now is with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. At least there should not miss statements of countries in region (for example Turkey could come into conflict, Kazahstan too and Ukraine wanted to go to NATO as well as Georgia...). But I would prefer much more states, so man can compare which countries are on "which side".
For future could be also good to have basic structure: state flag(s) and name(s) - date - statement, because we can expect more statements in next days and not only the last statement is important if you want to analyze development of international situation during war.
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.98.170 ( talk) 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a link to a page with all of the reactions. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 01:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The BBC reports here:[ [1]] that the UN is contradicting the Russian figure of 30,000+ refugees and believe there are between 4,000 and 5,000 refugees that have been evacuated to Russia. It names a further 2,400 as internally displaced. This article also quotes Mr. Putin saying that 'Georgia was committing "complete genocide"'. Furthermore, the English in the Humanitarian Impact section needs to be proofread and corrected, specifically the final sentence: "In Gori, where large of smoke are rising above the town, Russian warplanes hitted apartments instead of a military base, and there were civilians trapped inside buildings on fire. Journalists referred to the situtation in Gori as "chaotic"." Additionally, the Timeline section is misleading because it says on July 14th "US and Georgian forces started a joint military exercise at the Vaziani military base near the Georgian capital" ... This exercise has clearly been completed because there are only 130 American military advisers in Georgia now, but the article seems to imply the exercises are ongoing. I think the July 14th section should be deleted since it has nothing to do with the conflict. This yahoo.com news report: [ [2]] contains the same quote from Mr. Putin, I think it should be added to the Russian reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 ( talk) 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This sentence: "The US embassy in Georgia organised an evacuation convoy to leave for Yerevan on 10 August and a second one scheduled for 11 August and calls American citizens in the region to join them, while it also issued a travek warning." should be moved from the Escalation section to perhaps the International Reaction section properly under the US subheading. The evacuation does not contribute to the "escalation" of the conflict and is therefore misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 ( talk) 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In this talk header let's concentrate on finding useful images to add value tothe article. Let's start with Image:040 South Ossetia war.JPG which is a pic of Georgians during the 2004 conflicts. We already have one such pic (which is obviously better), but in the absence of other pics I wonder whether it would be useful for the reader to add a second pic as well. NerdyNSK ( talk) 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the CNN articles out today mentions the use of ballistic missiles against the civilian population of Georgia (Something akin to SCUDs I'd guess). I haven't been able to confirm this anywhere else. Can anyone confirm this?
It came from an "Senior Unnamed Bush Admin. Official". [3] LCpl ( talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of Russian POV within the article. Any ideas why this is happening? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 02:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above, most of the sourcing in this article is Russian centric. Russians have a far better mechanism to inject information into the International media. If it helps, you can reference some English language Geogian sources: civil.ge, georgiatoday.com, messenger.ge, rustavi2.com, eurasianet.org. There may well be bias in these sources as well, but I have always felt that given two opposing views, the intelligent reader can find a truth somewhere in the middle. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I plan on removing...
The word "surprise" from,
"Georgia launched a surprise military operation"
65.68.1.90 (
talk) :02:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
14th & 29th of July in Timeline 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This sentence in Humanitarian Impact: "Russian premier-minister Vladimir Putin promised to spend 10 bln rubles ($400 million USD) to reconstruct the infrastructure and facilities in South Ossetia. The sum may increase after a thorough estimation of losses is provided." Should have the figure in US Dollars and Roubles in parenthesis.
I suck at grammaticals. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt talks about the conflict and its wider implications:
"We live in a world in which principles and rules are important - if we are to preserve peace and avoid descending into a “hobbesian” chaos of numerous conflicts.
Evidence point at the recent escalation towards war in the Caucasus was triggered by the separatist leadership in South Ossetia when they launched their offensive Thursday morning. They might have had their own motives for trying to provoke a war between Russia and Georgia.
And then the one step of escalation followed the other – and suddenly there is war.
Russia is now justifying its large-scale aggressive action – including air attacks across the territory of Georgia – with an alleged constitutional duty to protect citizens of Russia wherever they happen to be located.
This is an extremely dangerous argument that runs contrary to key principles of international law as well as to the brutally learnt experience of European history.
Responsibility for the protection of the citizen and inhabitants of any state rests with the state concerned.
Every state has a responsibility to protect. But no state has the right to unilaterally intervene military in another state with the pretext of protecting its citizens.
In this case it should be noted that Russia has been handing out passport rather freely to the inhabitants of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There is little doubt that this has been part of a deliberate policy of gradually increasing Russian influence over these parts of Georgia.
The argument now used by the Kremlin to justify its intervention is not new in the history of Europe.
We have seen powers before claiming that the violations of the rights of holders of their passports or their nationality – by a previous Germany in Eastern Europe or a previous Serbia in former Yugoslavia – justify them sending their armies into these countries. We have seen the wars that have followed the application of that principle – and that is why it has repeatedly been made clear that it runs contrary to international law.
There are holders of Russian passport in numerous other European countries today. In many cases this is the result of historical circumstances. But in a Europe of increasingly open borders and accelerating integration – the Europe we seek! – we will increasingly see the holders of one passport living and working in another state.
Their rights should be protected like the rights of all others. With the European Court of Human Rights we have the most comprehensive trans-national system for the protection of human rights of any part of the world. This applies to Russians in other European countries as well to the very many non-Russians living in Russia.
A Europe in which we would accept the right of Russia to intervene in any country where there are holders of Russian passports – or the right of any other nation to intervene in the same way – would be a Europe sinking down again in the chaos and conflicts of the past.
That’s why this conflict now is not only about South Ossetia and Georgia - it is about principles fundamental to the peace and stability of all of Europe. And the defence of these principles should be the duty of each and everyone of us."
Carl Bildt: "The principles at stake"
Hapsala ( talk) 03:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Or put it in his bio or something. Maybe we could find a way to link to it. ?? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Bloomberg is reporting [4] that Russia is deploying elements of the Black Sea Fleet as a naval blockade and has already turned away one ship. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this map - at least for the moment, South Ossetia is still part of Georgia, so labelling the south side of the border as Georgia is misleading. It ought to carry the name of whichever Georgian province it is. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a note at the bottom to clarify. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asked the uploader on commons to change it. Waiting for his reply. Balkan Fever 02:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia has brought 6,000 troops into Georgia and a further 4,000 troops by sea and is preparing to attack Georgia at dawn, a Georgian Interior Ministry official said early on Sunday.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA423150.htm
w need this in the article , NOW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 ( talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have added this to the section on August 10th, since the reference dates itself as August 10th GMT. I have noted the source, the Georgian Interior Ministry, and used the word "claimed." Christiangoth ( talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Claimed, I live right next to the coast, soldiers came, I say them! They are killing people for gods sake!!!
Please hide
65.68.1.90 (
talk) 03:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Theri lining people up!! Why isnt nato doing anthing? This is my country!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 :Are you joking? What do you want from nato? Thousand of Osetians were killed. Note that Georgian had not such death toll of innocent people. Georgian soldiers are still on S Osetia territory. The conflict can't stop immediatly. Russian peacekeepers are trying ti stabilize situation in region.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Russia_plans_to_move_naval_ships_toward_Abkhazia_US/articleshow/3347607.cms its not just the Georgian Interior Ministry. "Parts of the Black Sea Fleet are moving towards Abkhazia" 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 03:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10georgia.html?em 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The BBC is reporting this as well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552012.stm
I believe the reactions of neighboring countries are more important then that of England Estonia, Latvia and etc. VartanM ( talk) 03:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Good question. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
How about limiting it to current Permanent Security Council Members? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
EU and UN already in a section. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Reuters is reporting [5] that Russia has begun using strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's an anonymous source. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Article says: Dmitry Medvedev, the South Ossetian secessionist envoy in Moscow, claimed that...
You might check Google/Yahoo cache 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Could this section be moved up a little? Ostap 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Now with Abkhazia launching an offensive in the Kodori Valley, shouldn't the title of the article be changed? How about 2008 Georgia War? -- Tocino 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The term "Russian Invasion" is being used a lot. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I prefer, "The Russian invasion of Georgia" ... 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's really not up to us to decide who started the war here and now. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 04:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Let's not get into a debate about who started it, please. If we rename the page, it's not going to have the word "invasion" in it. I'd like to hear from other users: keep this title (for the time being) or a new location? Balkan Fever 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that one country has gone into another without their permission in order to conduct war against them. I stand by my suggestion. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, no arguing about invasions. Stop. Read WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. I too think the current title is fine. Balkan Fever 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, to completely ignore the word "Invasion" because of a POV is not justified. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, so what do people think about the title 2008 Georgia War ? -- Tocino 04:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm misspelling this I think. But how about the "Caucusus War" ? (prefer the other though ;) ) 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. How about the "Second Caucuses War" ? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Good point. It would be an orginal work of sorts. I withdraw it. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it really does need to be changed. OK, I vote The Georgia War. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I won't change it. Unless everyone agrees. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking it that everyone is in agreement? And, that a simple copy and paste will work? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks... And, I am not going to. Rather someone else did it anyway.
65.68.1.90 (
talk) 06:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe Russia-Georgia War is quite appropriate and is a name used around though in terms of sounding good Russo-Georgian War seems most appropriate. I have been thinking South Caucasian War, but not sure if that works. Certainly this is no longer about South Ossetia and so some sort of name change has to be made. In the intermediate period Russia-Georgia War seems sufficient and if some other name gets coined later on it can be changed. Georgian war is ridiculous though.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We anon users would thus have to login huh? But, then nobody would know where we are from. But, I haven't moved pages in years. I hate edits... 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Don't do it. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
At least while (let us hope) the conflict stays relatively confined to the South Ossetia region, "South Ossetia war" is the most appropriate title. Regards, Ben
Maybe someone would be willing to do a News search of various titles and see what is most popular at present? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian escalation of the conflict has resulted in a widening of the overall war. If this Wiki's intent is to encompass the overall conflict, than a renaming is in order. If the Wiki's intent is only to monitor the South Ossetian conflict, than a new Wiki should be started addressing an Abkhazian front or a Georgian-Russian war. I believe that sources represented here clearly show a war of Russian agression against Georgian sovereignty and any future name should reflect this aspect, i.e. the Russian invasion of Afhganistan. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the following Skynews Report from Gori, Russian bombers actually hit Georgian military facilities (including munitions warehouse) and it was the ensuing blast that hit civilian apartments. See http://news.sky.com/skynews/video?videoSourceID=1576830 Russian journalist Artem Drabkin (who is currently working for ITN), who also was in Gori shortly after the bombing, also had reported in a Russian forum that bombers hit the munitions warehouse (that is located almost in the center of town, in violation of safety regulations) and apartments were hit by exploding munitions from that warehouse. See http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1663299.htm (in Russian), http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1663266.htm (in Russian)
I suppose it is worth mentioning in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.192.171 ( talk) 06:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, there are numerous reports from various news agencies citing that stray bombs struck apartments in Gori. I think we should be a little more dicretionary. A single Russian media source does not outweigh numerous reports from other media sources and thereofore does not warrant mentioning, otherwise integrity of the article will erode. If more sources appear supporting this claim, then mention is warranted. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 06:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | [Their correspondent] said a military installation had been hit in Gori and surrounding residential apartments had been badly damaged | ” |
I agree these apartments have been hit. My understanding of numerous previous articles is that Georgian Barracks were hit and additionally apartments in Gori center, which is not close to the Barracks. No one puts army Barracks next to civilian housing. Anyway, I am only stating that we need more sources to contradict the previous reporting. As I said before, if additional sources support this claim, then it should be mentioned. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose "Background" demands such economy information.
According to Georgian sources http://www.newsgeorgia.ru/geo1/20080705/42268795.html planned military costs at 2008 - about 0,99 billions of USD; all state budget incoms - 3,8 billions of USD. It looks like delirium. Is it possible to have military charges on 25 % of budget?!!! We need impartial sources, like SIPRI and so on: it should be dynamics data for 3-5 years. -- Niggle ( talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/georgia/army.htm while impressive, the rise is concurrent with Nato mandated minimum of 2% of GDP for MEP. the figure of 4.65% seems high, but the recent economic surge in the Georgian economy may account for that. It is no where near the 25+% seen in the Soviet Union prior to its demise. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"GDP" is not the same as "Incoms of the state Budget". If information in page Georgia - News is true, that means Georgia planned to spend on war the quarter of all public incoms (taxes, international loans, etc). I don't belive it is possible. It's provocation. -- Niggle ( talk) 07:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This blog has a screenshot of the cracked site. I wonder whether we can copy it without having problems with copyright. NerdyNSK ( talk) 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Propaganda and POV, has no place here. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
While it is great eye candy, it does not add anything to the article, we know Russian's are disrupting the internet. Save the space for quality maps and pictures. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, within an article that adresses specifically Russian information technology warfare or Russian propoganda. But here it only serves as propoganda to reinforce Russian intent against Georgia. I stand by my statement that the article states and describes the propoganda adequatly and we know it is being used therefore screenshots are not warranted. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 08:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, we cannot state here that deface of Georgian sites made by Russians (and deface of South Ossetian sites made by Georgians). We can't prove that and this is a POV. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 08:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia is not pulling out of South Ossetia. They're pulling their troops out of the capital to allow humanitarian workers in.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 07:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
They are pulling their troops because the city is in ruins. And because it is rather difficult to fight with russian army then with civilian Osetins. Georgians were asked to allow humanitarian workers in earlier, but they didn't accept them. 90.189.91.27 ( talk) 07:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
All POV. We do not know why Georgians are pulling out other than reason stated in the abovementioned article. No citation for Georgians disallowing humanitarian workers to enter conflict zone. Could it be they do not want humanitarian workers to die under Russian artillery bombardments? 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No sources for your information, if you have any please post. Both situations should be represented equally in the article or not at all. Part of the problem with this conflict has been a lack of good source intelligence from war correspondents within the conflict. As I stated above, propoganda through media manipulation can be expected as part of war. All sourced data should be conveyed equally until a better information source presents itself, if it does. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 08:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Interior Ministry was misunderstood it seems. According to Bloomberg Georgia is pulling out, but they have not pulled out yet despite reports saying they have. They said this is a temporary ceasefire and given the comments of the reintegration minister it is most likely to let in humanitarian workers so they can evacuate wounded civilians.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 08:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Saying hacking when meaning violation of law through computers or the Net is POV. The correct NPOV term is cracking. A hacker is an expert who knows lots about technology and is being creative with it out of curiosity and enjoyment. Hacking does not necessarily imply breaking into computer systems. Hacking is surely not about breaking the law or causing harm. Criminals who use computers or networks for personal gain, for breaking the law, or for causing harm are called crackers. Hacker and hacking are words commonly used in contexts where there is no question of legality, such as "I am hacking the software code" means "I am writing/modifying the software code". Hacking does not even imply relation with computer security, although a huge percentage of hackers know a lot about it. Hackers find employment as software consultants or security consultants in businesses and the government and they are the people who gave us marvellous software products such as GNU, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD/ OpenBSD/ NetBSD (the kernel of which is in MacOS X) and others that are making their existence known to most people through products such as Asus Eee (GNU/Linux OS). If you want to know why many times you read "hacker" or "hacking" in newspaper articles that refer to criminals, it is because the media (when they first had to write about criminals who used computers or the Net to realise crimes) had no idea how to refer to such people, and they stole the word hacker from the hacker community and changed its meaning to refer to criminals (who were never part of the hacker community). It was ignorance on the part of the journalists that made the word hacking so ambiguous now. However, by continuing using the word in the journalist's way, we add to this injustice by making our readers assume that whoever is described a hacker is a criminal, while this is not true (many computer experts self-identify as hackers). NerdyNSK ( talk) 07:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We can search for relevant or useful maps here (most are CIA public domain), and also consider whether it would be useful to use Image:Geo civil war map.jpg (example caption is "Georgia Civil War: 2008 was not the first time Russia intervened in Georgia"), Image:ICG Map of Western Georgia.JPG (example caption is "Abkhazia in Western Georgia"), Image:LocationGeorgia.png (caption: Location of Georgia), Image:Ossetia01.png (caption would be "Ossetians live in North Ossetia, which is in Russia, and in South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia. South Ossetian rebels want to unite with North Ossetia"), Image:Ossetia05.png (caption: Map of the South Ossetia region of Georgia), Image:Un-georgia.png (caption: Map of Georgia), Image:Flag-map of Georgia.svg (caption: Georgia's aim is to keep Abkhazia and South Ossetia within its sovereign state). NerdyNSK ( talk) 08:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The introductory phrase that starts the article says: "The 2008 South Ossetia War is an armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetian separatists which began in August 2008". This is misleading because it makes it appear as a simple conflict between Georgians and Ossetians, while in reality it is a conflict that involves: Georgians, Ossetians, Russians, and Abkhazians. We should change the introductory sentence to reflect the truth. NerdyNSK ( talk) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The sources of the Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide reports within the "Humanitarian Impact" section seem to be on the biased and unconfirmed side. And, a large portion of the article seems to have been written by Pravda. Anyone else agree? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 08:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we need a "Biased and/or Unconfirmed Reports" section. Because I don't want to be the guy that pulled something as serious as that. Or, the guy that let something as serious as that be claimed without unbiased confirmation. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 08:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I plan on moving,
"Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed Moscow had reports of "ethnic cleansing" in villages.[128] South Ossetian authorities say Tbilisi's actions amount to genocide. Vladamir Putin echoed this, characterizing Georgia's actions as "complete genocide."[129]"
out of "Humanitarian Impact" and into "Combatant Statements". Anyone disagree? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Currently article says that a Russian bomb hit a civilian building in Gori on 9 August. I think that is not true, Russian aircraft bombed an arms depot and exploding shells from the depot hit nearby civilian buildings. On photos it can be seen the building was not destroyed by a direct hit. I suggest it is mentioned that the target was the arms depot in Gori and civilians suffered from the exploding depot shells. 87.116.97.139 ( talk) 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I was checking carefully attack on Gori and other BBC coverage.
{{
editsemiprotected}}
It is necessary t include the videos about the attack on Gori, declarations of Georgian President and international leaders.
Georgian President declarations
Attacks on Gori
This article is slightly pro-Russian POV. Alexandre 10/08/2008 13:00 UTC
Unfortunately it is very pro-Russian... Qubix 82.208.174.72 ( talk) 14:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is some dispute on when " war" should be used. However, a war or act of war can be done without declaration. There is no requirement of declaration of war to make a war. Sometimes guns can be fired accidentally but you can't air strike civilian target of Gori and still claim that it is not a war. This is generally accepted that, when no declaration of war or ultimatum is make before act of war, this is a crime against jus ad bellum. No war can be just if it has not been announced nor threaten. However, that is still a war, just unjust war.-- Kittyhawk2 ( talk) 10:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
the same stupid discussion was going on regarding the 2006 Lebanon War, and there weren't two opposing countries, and even no state of war declared, and still, see its name -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the volunteers and irregulars from the infobox?-- EZ1234 ( talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think is NON NEUTRAL to have Russian "peacekeeping" is a POV from biased sources.. it can be mentioned that the Russians call it a peacekeeping operation, but to assume in the article and the infobox that this are "peacekeeping" is POV.. -- 76.19.149.244 ( talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I see where. You have a point. Should it have quotes around it? Or, deleted? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. It should be qualified that Russia believes it is acting in a peacekeeping capacity. But Peacekeeping forces are deffinatly not POV. I can't recall in the history of peacekkeping, except the former Yugoslavia conflict, where peacekeeping forces acted aggressivly to serve their own national interest. Irregular forces are not bound by the peacekeeping mandate and therefore should be recognized as combatants/agresssors. The only actors involved in the peacekkeping operation are Georgian, Ossetian and Russian Peacekeeping forces, NOT regular armed forces. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 06:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no accurate source which states the casus belli - this is exhibited in an article on The Economist website "The immediate cause of the fighting is unclear as claim and counterclaim abound. But what is clear is that a conflict which has been simmering for years, has at last erupted." [1] please remove all statements of the casus belli as there is no evidence form a relible source, esspecially if a source like the Economist stated it is no clear. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalcynic ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Website of Georgian ministry of foreign affairs is down due to cyberattacks and ministry is now publishing news in this website http://georgiamfa.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.54.154 ( talk) 09:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a link to "International Reactions" now. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 09:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"Old East German T-72 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles". I'm sorry, but T-72 ISN'T "Old East German" tank. It was designed in USSR. 195.248.189.182 ( talk) 09:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Geo_civil_war_map.jpg - this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf ( talk • contribs) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
the header "10 August: continued fighting and Georgian withdrawal" is too long and I consider shortening it to "10 August: Georgian withdrawal" or something like this (if the Georgian withdrawal is really confirmed). NerdyNSK ( talk) 09:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise excellent job here..
83.86.200.194 ( talk) 10:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)sdspieg
Noone in the current situation expects the South Ossetian and Georgian forces to be acting as peacekeepers, otherwise this would not be called a war, but how about the Russian forces? I think we need a section on how the Russian peacekeeping forces are implementing their mandate on keeping peace in the current situation, i.e. we need to find an editorial approach on what is peacekeeping and what is warfare. Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ Work 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia is legitimate peacekeeper, there document signed by both legitimate sides (Russia and Georgia)
Russia is dividing two combatant sides Georgia and Osetia.
I happen to have access to unmodified, not media-influenced information directly from within the conflict. Is it ok to include this information to the article? toxygen ( talk) 11:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We need to make the article consistent on the alleged ceasefires. It currently says "After agreeing to a ceasefire, on August 7 Georgia launched a surprise invasion", but later "However, by the day's end [August 7], Saakashvili ordered a unilateral ceasefire." and "Following Saakashvili’s offer [of a ceasefire], attacks on Georgian-controlled villages in South Ossetia reportedly intensified." This is not consistent. Was it a unilateral ceasefire, an offer of a ceasefire, or did both sides agree? A BBC story says "sides agree to ceasefire", but it doesn't offer details. I think more information is necessary to justify the claim that this was an actual mutual agreement.
A separate issue is who violated the ceasefire first (if there was one, and not just an offer). The intro implies it was Georgia, but they claim South Ossetians attacked Georgian villages first. The Georgian claim should probably be noted alongside the Russian view in the intro. Superm401 - Talk 12:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not an English major, nor am I uptihght, but I was reading and this caught my eye as being fairly bad:
"Near 07:23 UTC it is reported according to a source in Russian Navy commandment that there are several Russian ships is moving to Georgia by sea. They are: the Flagship of Black Sea Fleet rocket cruiser Moskva, escort vessel Smetlivy, three large landing crafts and several security vessels. The source in Russian Navy commandment stated that Russian ships does not block Georgian coast, because "Russia is not in the state of war with Georgia". Georgian National Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia stated that Russian ships entered the Abkhazian port of Ochamchira. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on this."
It should be: "Near 07:23 UTC it was reported according to a source in the Russian Navy that there are several Russian ships moving to Georgia by sea. They are: the Flagship of Black Sea Fleet rocket cruiser Moskva, escort vessel Smetlivy, three large landing crafts and several security vessels. The source in the Russian Navy stated that Russian ships are not blocking the Georgian coast because "Russia is not in the state of war with Georgia". Georgian National Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia stated that Russian ships entered the Abkhazian port of Ochamchira. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on this."
Not big changes, but changes. There are other mistakes in the article and that is common in any article, but that just caught my eye. I took out commandment even though I'm sure it is command to keep the flow, though I'm sure you could mention that the eource is in the Russian navy's Command structure the first time it is brought up. -Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.53.96 ( talk) 12:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Should we have a article for the bombing of Gori like for the Al-Qaa air strike [11]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.12.186 ( talk) 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, people, please no. Let's keep it all in one article and later (I think the war will not continue too long) we will divide all these to sub-articles. This is for better editing. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice if the following link will be added: http://war.georgia.su/genocide.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.151.228 ( talk) 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite sneaky. -- Leladax ( talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
someone should add some pictures from the current conflict instead of the Military vehicles from other nations.-- 66.229.12.186 ( talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In the article it says: Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs were found in Tskinvali. He also reported that a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians.[148] A South Ossetian reservist reported that were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.[148]
This information comes from Russian Today. The question is whether there are other news agencies - whose countries are not involved in the conflict - which support this information. I think we all agree that we don't know what is going in South Ossetia, but this paragraph just seems to be usual war-propaganda. -- DanteRay ( talk) 14:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph has thoroughly been (once again) saturated by the Russian POV. Please fix this, the examples are too numerous and obvious for me to cut and past them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 ( talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the AP, Georgian forces are no longer present in South Ossetia and Georgia has declared a cease fire. No news yet on Russian reciprocation or lack thereof. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_south_ossetia (Signed ex post facto because I forgot earlier) Christiangoth ( talk) 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Any updates on Russian casualties? I see the Georgian casualties have fluctuated wildly over the past few hours. Any updates on the Russians? 71.147.53.96 ( talk) 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Shane
According to Ministry of Defence site exact numbers are unknown yet and will be counted later 81.25.53.32 ( talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I've been updating friends in Beijing, and they wnated to know.:)
71.147.53.96 (
talk) 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Shane
Only the firsy paragraph of Humanitarian Impact - In Georgia is about the humanitarian impact in Georgia. The rest should be moved up to the South Osseta section. 80.4.15.12 ( talk) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
If you go to Google Maps, you will see that there is no information whatsoever about Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. This blog has an image: http://www.lindsayfincher.com/2008/08/google_maps_censoring_the_sout.html I think this information should be added to the page.
This is under Aug 10 "Russian soldiers captured group of american mercenaries on territory of South Ossetia. Group was captured near of Zare village. Beside this, Dmitry Medoyev has already reported that among the corpses in Tskhinvali several bodies of black people who fought on the side of Georgia were found."
Is this trusted information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 ( talk) 15:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Self propelled guns and rocket launchers (and tanks and other materiel) mentioned in the article were sold to Georgia by the Czech Republic, not by Slovakia (where some of the arms were manufactured). I fixed this in the article.
Online article says CR sold 42 self guns 122 mm, 24 self propelled guns Dana, 6 rocket launchers, 10 tanks T55, 50 tanks T72 and 12 SU-25k planes since 2000. It refers UN register on conventional weapons ( [12] - registration needed). Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that a majority of all sources are originating from Russian media or Moscow Bureau's of international media. As I am aware at this time, there are no war correspondents in the field from international media sources. IMO this article is sliding to a seriously pro-Russian POV with many recent discussion attendees and article editors using poorly cited "accusations" or maintaing and updating only aspects of the article which are Russian POV. Please link up the article which states there is a Reuters correspondent in the field, as there is no direct war correspondent footage currently available at Reuters. A photographer did enter with the Russian military on the 10th of August. Explaing the significance of "American Mercenaries" (mercenaries work for highest bidder, and why Georgia can not have Black people enlisted in their military. Also, the casualty sections make no mention whatsoever of UNCONFIRMED numbers, nor any distinciton or refernce to civilian, Regular or Irregular (who can be mistaken for civilian) forces. There are no regular updates to combatant statemnts for the Georgian or Ossetian side, but repeted updates for the Russian side. Also repeated attempts have been made to sift out Pro-Russian wording, which continues to appear. To claim the BBC is biased and, at the same time repeatedly cite Russian language and .ru sources is clearly an attempt to "usurp" the information war. I mark this article as no longer maintaining a prefessional semblance of balance, but BIASED to Russian POV. 70.192.219.192 ( talk) 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Jakub
I find it odd that some are portraying media manipulation by the Russians, when it is Saakashvili who was trained by some US organisation in this very tactic. As to actual sources used, I suggest that users familiarise themselves with WP:RS; RIA Novosit, Kommersant, Vedomosti, ITAR-TASS, Russia Today, etc, etc are reliable sources for information, and any push by any user to disregard these sources and depend only on CNN, BCC, etc will be met with resistance by myself and hopefully other users. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So, I will continue to use Russian sources, because they are more quickly then any other, except may be Georgian, but I don't know Georgian language, however, I use Georgian opinion from Russian-language - but Georgian in nature - sources like http://www.newsgeorgia.ru and http://www.civil.ge - they are of Georgian origin, but in Russian, which I know a little. I prefer to use these sources before any English-language, because they are faster. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Under 10 August, Ivanov is not even mentioned in the Russia Today reference [124]. “This claim of relocation rather than withdrawal has been confirmed by Russian peacekeeping spokesman Vladimir Ivanov: "Georgia did not remove its forces from South Ossetia". "Our observation posts have spotted Georgian law-enforcement units, as well as artillery and armoured vehicles," he said.[124]” should be removed since it is not referenced material. Jason3777 ( talk) 18:18, 10 August 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Is there enough references to list Abkhazia, North Ossetia, and others as actual Combatants? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As of my readings so far there is no reliable documentation that any group other than the Cossacks have committed any irregular forces to the South Ossetian conflict. To be sure they are probaly present, but there is no sourcing at this time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/09/russia.georgia1 I would also keep an eye to a second possible wiki if the Abkhazian front opens up, as appears might happen. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not normal usage to have a capital letter after a Colon_(punctuation) (even Wikipedia confirms it!), except for very special cases like quotations. We should not have a capital letter after colons in headings. The MOS rule about starting a header with a capital letter does not apply since the headers already start with a capital letter before the colon. NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We have a header "escalation of hostilities" and another "escalation" and it looks strange (two escalations only days apart, yes I know the one is about hostilities before official war, but the two escalations still sound strange). I say let's change the first heading to "towards the war" or something. NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The MOS says spaces in headings and between the heading and the next paragraph are optional, and I would wish to change the current headings to have spacings in order to make editing easier and make headings stand out in the edit window while we edit. This change will only be visible in the edit window. Anyone who prefers the current style? NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This Reuters article looks like a good reference for various points in the article. NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the war may have effects on the 2008 US elections based on what journalists write on NYTimes. Journalists interpret McCain response as more hawkish and Obama's response as more dovish. If voters are likely to get affected by this, perhaps we should add a small sentence in the article. NerdyNSK ( talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5911562/Georgia-declares-war We need to put this on there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 ( talk) 00:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Old news. Please read the article. What the Georgian President has been trying to do is gain legal powers in order to handle the invasion from Russia. Throughout the day Georgia has been asking for a ceasefire. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is getting WAY out of hand! Look at the size of it! Unless this page is archived soon, i will request an Administrator to do so.
I think it would be good to add somewhere that American persnnel at the embassy are being ransferred out. http://georgia.usembassy.gov/wm-080908.html
Just wanted to say that some of the recent upgrades, edits, and new content seem really nice. Good job people. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why did you erase reactions of governments/presidents and left there only some? I think a lot of people are interested more about international reactions to conflict than conflict itself. I found some informations in discussion instead of main page what I think is wrong.
There should be as much (important) statements of each states as possible. For saving place there could be split some similar statements together as actually now is with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. At least there should not miss statements of countries in region (for example Turkey could come into conflict, Kazahstan too and Ukraine wanted to go to NATO as well as Georgia...). But I would prefer much more states, so man can compare which countries are on "which side".
For future could be also good to have basic structure: state flag(s) and name(s) - date - statement, because we can expect more statements in next days and not only the last statement is important if you want to analyze development of international situation during war.
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.98.170 ( talk) 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a link to a page with all of the reactions. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 01:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The BBC reports here:[ [1]] that the UN is contradicting the Russian figure of 30,000+ refugees and believe there are between 4,000 and 5,000 refugees that have been evacuated to Russia. It names a further 2,400 as internally displaced. This article also quotes Mr. Putin saying that 'Georgia was committing "complete genocide"'. Furthermore, the English in the Humanitarian Impact section needs to be proofread and corrected, specifically the final sentence: "In Gori, where large of smoke are rising above the town, Russian warplanes hitted apartments instead of a military base, and there were civilians trapped inside buildings on fire. Journalists referred to the situtation in Gori as "chaotic"." Additionally, the Timeline section is misleading because it says on July 14th "US and Georgian forces started a joint military exercise at the Vaziani military base near the Georgian capital" ... This exercise has clearly been completed because there are only 130 American military advisers in Georgia now, but the article seems to imply the exercises are ongoing. I think the July 14th section should be deleted since it has nothing to do with the conflict. This yahoo.com news report: [ [2]] contains the same quote from Mr. Putin, I think it should be added to the Russian reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 ( talk) 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This sentence: "The US embassy in Georgia organised an evacuation convoy to leave for Yerevan on 10 August and a second one scheduled for 11 August and calls American citizens in the region to join them, while it also issued a travek warning." should be moved from the Escalation section to perhaps the International Reaction section properly under the US subheading. The evacuation does not contribute to the "escalation" of the conflict and is therefore misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 ( talk) 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In this talk header let's concentrate on finding useful images to add value tothe article. Let's start with Image:040 South Ossetia war.JPG which is a pic of Georgians during the 2004 conflicts. We already have one such pic (which is obviously better), but in the absence of other pics I wonder whether it would be useful for the reader to add a second pic as well. NerdyNSK ( talk) 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the CNN articles out today mentions the use of ballistic missiles against the civilian population of Georgia (Something akin to SCUDs I'd guess). I haven't been able to confirm this anywhere else. Can anyone confirm this?
It came from an "Senior Unnamed Bush Admin. Official". [3] LCpl ( talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of Russian POV within the article. Any ideas why this is happening? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 02:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above, most of the sourcing in this article is Russian centric. Russians have a far better mechanism to inject information into the International media. If it helps, you can reference some English language Geogian sources: civil.ge, georgiatoday.com, messenger.ge, rustavi2.com, eurasianet.org. There may well be bias in these sources as well, but I have always felt that given two opposing views, the intelligent reader can find a truth somewhere in the middle. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I plan on removing...
The word "surprise" from,
"Georgia launched a surprise military operation"
65.68.1.90 (
talk) :02:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
14th & 29th of July in Timeline 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This sentence in Humanitarian Impact: "Russian premier-minister Vladimir Putin promised to spend 10 bln rubles ($400 million USD) to reconstruct the infrastructure and facilities in South Ossetia. The sum may increase after a thorough estimation of losses is provided." Should have the figure in US Dollars and Roubles in parenthesis.
I suck at grammaticals. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt talks about the conflict and its wider implications:
"We live in a world in which principles and rules are important - if we are to preserve peace and avoid descending into a “hobbesian” chaos of numerous conflicts.
Evidence point at the recent escalation towards war in the Caucasus was triggered by the separatist leadership in South Ossetia when they launched their offensive Thursday morning. They might have had their own motives for trying to provoke a war between Russia and Georgia.
And then the one step of escalation followed the other – and suddenly there is war.
Russia is now justifying its large-scale aggressive action – including air attacks across the territory of Georgia – with an alleged constitutional duty to protect citizens of Russia wherever they happen to be located.
This is an extremely dangerous argument that runs contrary to key principles of international law as well as to the brutally learnt experience of European history.
Responsibility for the protection of the citizen and inhabitants of any state rests with the state concerned.
Every state has a responsibility to protect. But no state has the right to unilaterally intervene military in another state with the pretext of protecting its citizens.
In this case it should be noted that Russia has been handing out passport rather freely to the inhabitants of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There is little doubt that this has been part of a deliberate policy of gradually increasing Russian influence over these parts of Georgia.
The argument now used by the Kremlin to justify its intervention is not new in the history of Europe.
We have seen powers before claiming that the violations of the rights of holders of their passports or their nationality – by a previous Germany in Eastern Europe or a previous Serbia in former Yugoslavia – justify them sending their armies into these countries. We have seen the wars that have followed the application of that principle – and that is why it has repeatedly been made clear that it runs contrary to international law.
There are holders of Russian passport in numerous other European countries today. In many cases this is the result of historical circumstances. But in a Europe of increasingly open borders and accelerating integration – the Europe we seek! – we will increasingly see the holders of one passport living and working in another state.
Their rights should be protected like the rights of all others. With the European Court of Human Rights we have the most comprehensive trans-national system for the protection of human rights of any part of the world. This applies to Russians in other European countries as well to the very many non-Russians living in Russia.
A Europe in which we would accept the right of Russia to intervene in any country where there are holders of Russian passports – or the right of any other nation to intervene in the same way – would be a Europe sinking down again in the chaos and conflicts of the past.
That’s why this conflict now is not only about South Ossetia and Georgia - it is about principles fundamental to the peace and stability of all of Europe. And the defence of these principles should be the duty of each and everyone of us."
Carl Bildt: "The principles at stake"
Hapsala ( talk) 03:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Or put it in his bio or something. Maybe we could find a way to link to it. ?? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Bloomberg is reporting [4] that Russia is deploying elements of the Black Sea Fleet as a naval blockade and has already turned away one ship. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this map - at least for the moment, South Ossetia is still part of Georgia, so labelling the south side of the border as Georgia is misleading. It ought to carry the name of whichever Georgian province it is. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a note at the bottom to clarify. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asked the uploader on commons to change it. Waiting for his reply. Balkan Fever 02:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia has brought 6,000 troops into Georgia and a further 4,000 troops by sea and is preparing to attack Georgia at dawn, a Georgian Interior Ministry official said early on Sunday.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA423150.htm
w need this in the article , NOW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 ( talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have added this to the section on August 10th, since the reference dates itself as August 10th GMT. I have noted the source, the Georgian Interior Ministry, and used the word "claimed." Christiangoth ( talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Claimed, I live right next to the coast, soldiers came, I say them! They are killing people for gods sake!!!
Please hide
65.68.1.90 (
talk) 03:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Theri lining people up!! Why isnt nato doing anthing? This is my country!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.213 :Are you joking? What do you want from nato? Thousand of Osetians were killed. Note that Georgian had not such death toll of innocent people. Georgian soldiers are still on S Osetia territory. The conflict can't stop immediatly. Russian peacekeepers are trying ti stabilize situation in region.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Russia_plans_to_move_naval_ships_toward_Abkhazia_US/articleshow/3347607.cms its not just the Georgian Interior Ministry. "Parts of the Black Sea Fleet are moving towards Abkhazia" 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 03:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10georgia.html?em 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The BBC is reporting this as well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552012.stm
I believe the reactions of neighboring countries are more important then that of England Estonia, Latvia and etc. VartanM ( talk) 03:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Good question. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
How about limiting it to current Permanent Security Council Members? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
EU and UN already in a section. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Reuters is reporting [5] that Russia has begun using strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's an anonymous source. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Article says: Dmitry Medvedev, the South Ossetian secessionist envoy in Moscow, claimed that...
You might check Google/Yahoo cache 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Could this section be moved up a little? Ostap 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Now with Abkhazia launching an offensive in the Kodori Valley, shouldn't the title of the article be changed? How about 2008 Georgia War? -- Tocino 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The term "Russian Invasion" is being used a lot. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I prefer, "The Russian invasion of Georgia" ... 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's really not up to us to decide who started the war here and now. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 04:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Let's not get into a debate about who started it, please. If we rename the page, it's not going to have the word "invasion" in it. I'd like to hear from other users: keep this title (for the time being) or a new location? Balkan Fever 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that one country has gone into another without their permission in order to conduct war against them. I stand by my suggestion. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, no arguing about invasions. Stop. Read WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. I too think the current title is fine. Balkan Fever 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, to completely ignore the word "Invasion" because of a POV is not justified. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, so what do people think about the title 2008 Georgia War ? -- Tocino 04:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm misspelling this I think. But how about the "Caucusus War" ? (prefer the other though ;) ) 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. How about the "Second Caucuses War" ? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Good point. It would be an orginal work of sorts. I withdraw it. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it really does need to be changed. OK, I vote The Georgia War. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I won't change it. Unless everyone agrees. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking it that everyone is in agreement? And, that a simple copy and paste will work? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks... And, I am not going to. Rather someone else did it anyway.
65.68.1.90 (
talk) 06:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe Russia-Georgia War is quite appropriate and is a name used around though in terms of sounding good Russo-Georgian War seems most appropriate. I have been thinking South Caucasian War, but not sure if that works. Certainly this is no longer about South Ossetia and so some sort of name change has to be made. In the intermediate period Russia-Georgia War seems sufficient and if some other name gets coined later on it can be changed. Georgian war is ridiculous though.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We anon users would thus have to login huh? But, then nobody would know where we are from. But, I haven't moved pages in years. I hate edits... 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Don't do it. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
At least while (let us hope) the conflict stays relatively confined to the South Ossetia region, "South Ossetia war" is the most appropriate title. Regards, Ben
Maybe someone would be willing to do a News search of various titles and see what is most popular at present? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian escalation of the conflict has resulted in a widening of the overall war. If this Wiki's intent is to encompass the overall conflict, than a renaming is in order. If the Wiki's intent is only to monitor the South Ossetian conflict, than a new Wiki should be started addressing an Abkhazian front or a Georgian-Russian war. I believe that sources represented here clearly show a war of Russian agression against Georgian sovereignty and any future name should reflect this aspect, i.e. the Russian invasion of Afhganistan. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the following Skynews Report from Gori, Russian bombers actually hit Georgian military facilities (including munitions warehouse) and it was the ensuing blast that hit civilian apartments. See http://news.sky.com/skynews/video?videoSourceID=1576830 Russian journalist Artem Drabkin (who is currently working for ITN), who also was in Gori shortly after the bombing, also had reported in a Russian forum that bombers hit the munitions warehouse (that is located almost in the center of town, in violation of safety regulations) and apartments were hit by exploding munitions from that warehouse. See http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1663299.htm (in Russian), http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1663266.htm (in Russian)
I suppose it is worth mentioning in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.192.171 ( talk) 06:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, there are numerous reports from various news agencies citing that stray bombs struck apartments in Gori. I think we should be a little more dicretionary. A single Russian media source does not outweigh numerous reports from other media sources and thereofore does not warrant mentioning, otherwise integrity of the article will erode. If more sources appear supporting this claim, then mention is warranted. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 06:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | [Their correspondent] said a military installation had been hit in Gori and surrounding residential apartments had been badly damaged | ” |
I agree these apartments have been hit. My understanding of numerous previous articles is that Georgian Barracks were hit and additionally apartments in Gori center, which is not close to the Barracks. No one puts army Barracks next to civilian housing. Anyway, I am only stating that we need more sources to contradict the previous reporting. As I said before, if additional sources support this claim, then it should be mentioned. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose "Background" demands such economy information.
According to Georgian sources http://www.newsgeorgia.ru/geo1/20080705/42268795.html planned military costs at 2008 - about 0,99 billions of USD; all state budget incoms - 3,8 billions of USD. It looks like delirium. Is it possible to have military charges on 25 % of budget?!!! We need impartial sources, like SIPRI and so on: it should be dynamics data for 3-5 years. -- Niggle ( talk) 07:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/georgia/army.htm while impressive, the rise is concurrent with Nato mandated minimum of 2% of GDP for MEP. the figure of 4.65% seems high, but the recent economic surge in the Georgian economy may account for that. It is no where near the 25+% seen in the Soviet Union prior to its demise. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"GDP" is not the same as "Incoms of the state Budget". If information in page Georgia - News is true, that means Georgia planned to spend on war the quarter of all public incoms (taxes, international loans, etc). I don't belive it is possible. It's provocation. -- Niggle ( talk) 07:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This blog has a screenshot of the cracked site. I wonder whether we can copy it without having problems with copyright. NerdyNSK ( talk) 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Propaganda and POV, has no place here. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
While it is great eye candy, it does not add anything to the article, we know Russian's are disrupting the internet. Save the space for quality maps and pictures. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, within an article that adresses specifically Russian information technology warfare or Russian propoganda. But here it only serves as propoganda to reinforce Russian intent against Georgia. I stand by my statement that the article states and describes the propoganda adequatly and we know it is being used therefore screenshots are not warranted. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 08:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, we cannot state here that deface of Georgian sites made by Russians (and deface of South Ossetian sites made by Georgians). We can't prove that and this is a POV. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 08:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia is not pulling out of South Ossetia. They're pulling their troops out of the capital to allow humanitarian workers in.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 07:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
They are pulling their troops because the city is in ruins. And because it is rather difficult to fight with russian army then with civilian Osetins. Georgians were asked to allow humanitarian workers in earlier, but they didn't accept them. 90.189.91.27 ( talk) 07:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
All POV. We do not know why Georgians are pulling out other than reason stated in the abovementioned article. No citation for Georgians disallowing humanitarian workers to enter conflict zone. Could it be they do not want humanitarian workers to die under Russian artillery bombardments? 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 07:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No sources for your information, if you have any please post. Both situations should be represented equally in the article or not at all. Part of the problem with this conflict has been a lack of good source intelligence from war correspondents within the conflict. As I stated above, propoganda through media manipulation can be expected as part of war. All sourced data should be conveyed equally until a better information source presents itself, if it does. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 08:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Interior Ministry was misunderstood it seems. According to Bloomberg Georgia is pulling out, but they have not pulled out yet despite reports saying they have. They said this is a temporary ceasefire and given the comments of the reintegration minister it is most likely to let in humanitarian workers so they can evacuate wounded civilians.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 08:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Saying hacking when meaning violation of law through computers or the Net is POV. The correct NPOV term is cracking. A hacker is an expert who knows lots about technology and is being creative with it out of curiosity and enjoyment. Hacking does not necessarily imply breaking into computer systems. Hacking is surely not about breaking the law or causing harm. Criminals who use computers or networks for personal gain, for breaking the law, or for causing harm are called crackers. Hacker and hacking are words commonly used in contexts where there is no question of legality, such as "I am hacking the software code" means "I am writing/modifying the software code". Hacking does not even imply relation with computer security, although a huge percentage of hackers know a lot about it. Hackers find employment as software consultants or security consultants in businesses and the government and they are the people who gave us marvellous software products such as GNU, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD/ OpenBSD/ NetBSD (the kernel of which is in MacOS X) and others that are making their existence known to most people through products such as Asus Eee (GNU/Linux OS). If you want to know why many times you read "hacker" or "hacking" in newspaper articles that refer to criminals, it is because the media (when they first had to write about criminals who used computers or the Net to realise crimes) had no idea how to refer to such people, and they stole the word hacker from the hacker community and changed its meaning to refer to criminals (who were never part of the hacker community). It was ignorance on the part of the journalists that made the word hacking so ambiguous now. However, by continuing using the word in the journalist's way, we add to this injustice by making our readers assume that whoever is described a hacker is a criminal, while this is not true (many computer experts self-identify as hackers). NerdyNSK ( talk) 07:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We can search for relevant or useful maps here (most are CIA public domain), and also consider whether it would be useful to use Image:Geo civil war map.jpg (example caption is "Georgia Civil War: 2008 was not the first time Russia intervened in Georgia"), Image:ICG Map of Western Georgia.JPG (example caption is "Abkhazia in Western Georgia"), Image:LocationGeorgia.png (caption: Location of Georgia), Image:Ossetia01.png (caption would be "Ossetians live in North Ossetia, which is in Russia, and in South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia. South Ossetian rebels want to unite with North Ossetia"), Image:Ossetia05.png (caption: Map of the South Ossetia region of Georgia), Image:Un-georgia.png (caption: Map of Georgia), Image:Flag-map of Georgia.svg (caption: Georgia's aim is to keep Abkhazia and South Ossetia within its sovereign state). NerdyNSK ( talk) 08:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The introductory phrase that starts the article says: "The 2008 South Ossetia War is an armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetian separatists which began in August 2008". This is misleading because it makes it appear as a simple conflict between Georgians and Ossetians, while in reality it is a conflict that involves: Georgians, Ossetians, Russians, and Abkhazians. We should change the introductory sentence to reflect the truth. NerdyNSK ( talk) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The sources of the Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide reports within the "Humanitarian Impact" section seem to be on the biased and unconfirmed side. And, a large portion of the article seems to have been written by Pravda. Anyone else agree? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 08:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we need a "Biased and/or Unconfirmed Reports" section. Because I don't want to be the guy that pulled something as serious as that. Or, the guy that let something as serious as that be claimed without unbiased confirmation. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 08:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I plan on moving,
"Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed Moscow had reports of "ethnic cleansing" in villages.[128] South Ossetian authorities say Tbilisi's actions amount to genocide. Vladamir Putin echoed this, characterizing Georgia's actions as "complete genocide."[129]"
out of "Humanitarian Impact" and into "Combatant Statements". Anyone disagree? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Currently article says that a Russian bomb hit a civilian building in Gori on 9 August. I think that is not true, Russian aircraft bombed an arms depot and exploding shells from the depot hit nearby civilian buildings. On photos it can be seen the building was not destroyed by a direct hit. I suggest it is mentioned that the target was the arms depot in Gori and civilians suffered from the exploding depot shells. 87.116.97.139 ( talk) 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I was checking carefully attack on Gori and other BBC coverage.
{{
editsemiprotected}}
It is necessary t include the videos about the attack on Gori, declarations of Georgian President and international leaders.
Georgian President declarations
Attacks on Gori
This article is slightly pro-Russian POV. Alexandre 10/08/2008 13:00 UTC
Unfortunately it is very pro-Russian... Qubix 82.208.174.72 ( talk) 14:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is some dispute on when " war" should be used. However, a war or act of war can be done without declaration. There is no requirement of declaration of war to make a war. Sometimes guns can be fired accidentally but you can't air strike civilian target of Gori and still claim that it is not a war. This is generally accepted that, when no declaration of war or ultimatum is make before act of war, this is a crime against jus ad bellum. No war can be just if it has not been announced nor threaten. However, that is still a war, just unjust war.-- Kittyhawk2 ( talk) 10:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
the same stupid discussion was going on regarding the 2006 Lebanon War, and there weren't two opposing countries, and even no state of war declared, and still, see its name -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the volunteers and irregulars from the infobox?-- EZ1234 ( talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think is NON NEUTRAL to have Russian "peacekeeping" is a POV from biased sources.. it can be mentioned that the Russians call it a peacekeeping operation, but to assume in the article and the infobox that this are "peacekeeping" is POV.. -- 76.19.149.244 ( talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I see where. You have a point. Should it have quotes around it? Or, deleted? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. It should be qualified that Russia believes it is acting in a peacekeeping capacity. But Peacekeeping forces are deffinatly not POV. I can't recall in the history of peacekkeping, except the former Yugoslavia conflict, where peacekeeping forces acted aggressivly to serve their own national interest. Irregular forces are not bound by the peacekeeping mandate and therefore should be recognized as combatants/agresssors. The only actors involved in the peacekkeping operation are Georgian, Ossetian and Russian Peacekeeping forces, NOT regular armed forces. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 06:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no accurate source which states the casus belli - this is exhibited in an article on The Economist website "The immediate cause of the fighting is unclear as claim and counterclaim abound. But what is clear is that a conflict which has been simmering for years, has at last erupted." [1] please remove all statements of the casus belli as there is no evidence form a relible source, esspecially if a source like the Economist stated it is no clear. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalcynic ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Website of Georgian ministry of foreign affairs is down due to cyberattacks and ministry is now publishing news in this website http://georgiamfa.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.54.154 ( talk) 09:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a link to "International Reactions" now. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 09:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"Old East German T-72 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles". I'm sorry, but T-72 ISN'T "Old East German" tank. It was designed in USSR. 195.248.189.182 ( talk) 09:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Geo_civil_war_map.jpg - this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf ( talk • contribs) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
the header "10 August: continued fighting and Georgian withdrawal" is too long and I consider shortening it to "10 August: Georgian withdrawal" or something like this (if the Georgian withdrawal is really confirmed). NerdyNSK ( talk) 09:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise excellent job here..
83.86.200.194 ( talk) 10:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)sdspieg
Noone in the current situation expects the South Ossetian and Georgian forces to be acting as peacekeepers, otherwise this would not be called a war, but how about the Russian forces? I think we need a section on how the Russian peacekeeping forces are implementing their mandate on keeping peace in the current situation, i.e. we need to find an editorial approach on what is peacekeeping and what is warfare. Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ Work 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia is legitimate peacekeeper, there document signed by both legitimate sides (Russia and Georgia)
Russia is dividing two combatant sides Georgia and Osetia.
I happen to have access to unmodified, not media-influenced information directly from within the conflict. Is it ok to include this information to the article? toxygen ( talk) 11:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We need to make the article consistent on the alleged ceasefires. It currently says "After agreeing to a ceasefire, on August 7 Georgia launched a surprise invasion", but later "However, by the day's end [August 7], Saakashvili ordered a unilateral ceasefire." and "Following Saakashvili’s offer [of a ceasefire], attacks on Georgian-controlled villages in South Ossetia reportedly intensified." This is not consistent. Was it a unilateral ceasefire, an offer of a ceasefire, or did both sides agree? A BBC story says "sides agree to ceasefire", but it doesn't offer details. I think more information is necessary to justify the claim that this was an actual mutual agreement.
A separate issue is who violated the ceasefire first (if there was one, and not just an offer). The intro implies it was Georgia, but they claim South Ossetians attacked Georgian villages first. The Georgian claim should probably be noted alongside the Russian view in the intro. Superm401 - Talk 12:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not an English major, nor am I uptihght, but I was reading and this caught my eye as being fairly bad:
"Near 07:23 UTC it is reported according to a source in Russian Navy commandment that there are several Russian ships is moving to Georgia by sea. They are: the Flagship of Black Sea Fleet rocket cruiser Moskva, escort vessel Smetlivy, three large landing crafts and several security vessels. The source in Russian Navy commandment stated that Russian ships does not block Georgian coast, because "Russia is not in the state of war with Georgia". Georgian National Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia stated that Russian ships entered the Abkhazian port of Ochamchira. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on this."
It should be: "Near 07:23 UTC it was reported according to a source in the Russian Navy that there are several Russian ships moving to Georgia by sea. They are: the Flagship of Black Sea Fleet rocket cruiser Moskva, escort vessel Smetlivy, three large landing crafts and several security vessels. The source in the Russian Navy stated that Russian ships are not blocking the Georgian coast because "Russia is not in the state of war with Georgia". Georgian National Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia stated that Russian ships entered the Abkhazian port of Ochamchira. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not commented on this."
Not big changes, but changes. There are other mistakes in the article and that is common in any article, but that just caught my eye. I took out commandment even though I'm sure it is command to keep the flow, though I'm sure you could mention that the eource is in the Russian navy's Command structure the first time it is brought up. -Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.53.96 ( talk) 12:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Should we have a article for the bombing of Gori like for the Al-Qaa air strike [11]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.12.186 ( talk) 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, people, please no. Let's keep it all in one article and later (I think the war will not continue too long) we will divide all these to sub-articles. This is for better editing. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice if the following link will be added: http://war.georgia.su/genocide.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.151.228 ( talk) 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite sneaky. -- Leladax ( talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
someone should add some pictures from the current conflict instead of the Military vehicles from other nations.-- 66.229.12.186 ( talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In the article it says: Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs were found in Tskinvali. He also reported that a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians.[148] A South Ossetian reservist reported that were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.[148]
This information comes from Russian Today. The question is whether there are other news agencies - whose countries are not involved in the conflict - which support this information. I think we all agree that we don't know what is going in South Ossetia, but this paragraph just seems to be usual war-propaganda. -- DanteRay ( talk) 14:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph has thoroughly been (once again) saturated by the Russian POV. Please fix this, the examples are too numerous and obvious for me to cut and past them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 ( talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the AP, Georgian forces are no longer present in South Ossetia and Georgia has declared a cease fire. No news yet on Russian reciprocation or lack thereof. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_south_ossetia (Signed ex post facto because I forgot earlier) Christiangoth ( talk) 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Any updates on Russian casualties? I see the Georgian casualties have fluctuated wildly over the past few hours. Any updates on the Russians? 71.147.53.96 ( talk) 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Shane
According to Ministry of Defence site exact numbers are unknown yet and will be counted later 81.25.53.32 ( talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I've been updating friends in Beijing, and they wnated to know.:)
71.147.53.96 (
talk) 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Shane
Only the firsy paragraph of Humanitarian Impact - In Georgia is about the humanitarian impact in Georgia. The rest should be moved up to the South Osseta section. 80.4.15.12 ( talk) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
If you go to Google Maps, you will see that there is no information whatsoever about Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. This blog has an image: http://www.lindsayfincher.com/2008/08/google_maps_censoring_the_sout.html I think this information should be added to the page.
This is under Aug 10 "Russian soldiers captured group of american mercenaries on territory of South Ossetia. Group was captured near of Zare village. Beside this, Dmitry Medoyev has already reported that among the corpses in Tskhinvali several bodies of black people who fought on the side of Georgia were found."
Is this trusted information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 ( talk) 15:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Self propelled guns and rocket launchers (and tanks and other materiel) mentioned in the article were sold to Georgia by the Czech Republic, not by Slovakia (where some of the arms were manufactured). I fixed this in the article.
Online article says CR sold 42 self guns 122 mm, 24 self propelled guns Dana, 6 rocket launchers, 10 tanks T55, 50 tanks T72 and 12 SU-25k planes since 2000. It refers UN register on conventional weapons ( [12] - registration needed). Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that a majority of all sources are originating from Russian media or Moscow Bureau's of international media. As I am aware at this time, there are no war correspondents in the field from international media sources. IMO this article is sliding to a seriously pro-Russian POV with many recent discussion attendees and article editors using poorly cited "accusations" or maintaing and updating only aspects of the article which are Russian POV. Please link up the article which states there is a Reuters correspondent in the field, as there is no direct war correspondent footage currently available at Reuters. A photographer did enter with the Russian military on the 10th of August. Explaing the significance of "American Mercenaries" (mercenaries work for highest bidder, and why Georgia can not have Black people enlisted in their military. Also, the casualty sections make no mention whatsoever of UNCONFIRMED numbers, nor any distinciton or refernce to civilian, Regular or Irregular (who can be mistaken for civilian) forces. There are no regular updates to combatant statemnts for the Georgian or Ossetian side, but repeted updates for the Russian side. Also repeated attempts have been made to sift out Pro-Russian wording, which continues to appear. To claim the BBC is biased and, at the same time repeatedly cite Russian language and .ru sources is clearly an attempt to "usurp" the information war. I mark this article as no longer maintaining a prefessional semblance of balance, but BIASED to Russian POV. 70.192.219.192 ( talk) 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Jakub
I find it odd that some are portraying media manipulation by the Russians, when it is Saakashvili who was trained by some US organisation in this very tactic. As to actual sources used, I suggest that users familiarise themselves with WP:RS; RIA Novosit, Kommersant, Vedomosti, ITAR-TASS, Russia Today, etc, etc are reliable sources for information, and any push by any user to disregard these sources and depend only on CNN, BCC, etc will be met with resistance by myself and hopefully other users. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So, I will continue to use Russian sources, because they are more quickly then any other, except may be Georgian, but I don't know Georgian language, however, I use Georgian opinion from Russian-language - but Georgian in nature - sources like http://www.newsgeorgia.ru and http://www.civil.ge - they are of Georgian origin, but in Russian, which I know a little. I prefer to use these sources before any English-language, because they are faster. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Under 10 August, Ivanov is not even mentioned in the Russia Today reference [124]. “This claim of relocation rather than withdrawal has been confirmed by Russian peacekeeping spokesman Vladimir Ivanov: "Georgia did not remove its forces from South Ossetia". "Our observation posts have spotted Georgian law-enforcement units, as well as artillery and armoured vehicles," he said.[124]” should be removed since it is not referenced material. Jason3777 ( talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)