![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Volunteers arriving in South Ossetia - president's envoy 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Estonian president called for end of talks to have a treaty with Russia in regards to cooperation and called idea of partnership with Russia a mistake [1] -- Molobo ( talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
To everyone that's done work on the article...here. There's just so many edits to the page its mindboggling. Feel free to copypaste to your talk page. -- Spencer T♦ C 21:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree 194.116.199.218 ( talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In the first section nammed "Summary", the sentence : “In the early 2000s, it was reported that 95% of the native population in South Ossetia adopted Russian citizenship.[26]” is sourced with a russian newspaper website and appears to me to be false. At least it must be written : "Russia reported that..." or "Russia claims that...".
Can an administrator protect this article, can you protect it from propaganda (from both side..) ? thanks. MaCRoEco ( talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also feel that the following paragraph is biased: "On August 8, 2008, Russia sent troops across the Georgian border to South Ossetia to stop Georgia’s massive offensive against its breakaway territory in which some 2,000 civilians (at least 1000 [29] ) and about 20 Russian peacekeepers were killed. In five days of fighting the Russian forces recaptured the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory.[30] Georgia retreated from its offensive in South Ossetia, then claimed to be defending itself against "Russian aggression."[31] Russia responded to the charge in the United Nations, saying Georgia had started the war by conducting a military operation against South Ossetia.[23]" Popersman ( talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"On August 8, 2008, Russia sent troops across the Georgian border to South Ossetia (to stop Georgia’s massive offensive against its breakaway territory). In five days of fighting the Russian forces (recaptured) the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory."
The sections in parenthesis still strike me as non-neutral, and use of the word "recaptured" implies that Tshkinvali was taken from the Russians by the Georgians and then "recaptured" by the Russians, which is of course not the case. It should read "Captured".
I've seen on other articles references put in a scrolling box to save space. I don't know how to do it but may I suggest doing it here, 313 references and growing is too many to display at once. Terlob ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"Neither state has been diplomatically recognised by any member of the United Nations."
What about Russia? -- Calibas ( talk) 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2008 South Ossetia war → ? — I believe that the name of this article should be changed, because the current name-2008 South Ossetia War-implies that combat is restricted to South Ossetia, which is inaccurate, and could be considered misleading. In previous discussions, some have stated that we should wait until after the war is concluded before selecting a new name. I understand the reasoning behind that argument, but I believe a provisional name, at least, should be inserted that is more reflective of the suituation in Georgia. I personally believe the new name should be 2008 War in Georgia, as no side is discriminated against in the title, which has been a concern about the proposed "Russia-Georgia War 2008" new name (South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not listed), and all of the fight is happening within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia. Any other suggestions are welcome, obviously.—
86.146.241.248 (
talk)
22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Since this discussion does not involve an original suggestion for a name, but instead is a discussion to find a number of suggestions, and then draw a consensus on one, please could you state "support" followed by the new name you would like to see this article have, if you support the article being renamed. Thank you in advance. 86.146.241.248 ( talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
doktorb words deeds 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe the fact that the war is ongoing means that we can't select a title that is more reflective of what is going on in Georgia. The fighting has extended outside of South Ossetia, and I believe the name of the article should reflect that. 86.146.241.248 ( talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on your suggestion about capitalizing "war", I have adjusted my vote. Thank you for stating your idea. 86.146.241.248 ( talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also agree on Russo-Georgian War as it follows past precedent. For example the Russo-Swedish War, Russo-Japanese War, and Russo-Turkish War among many others. XavierGreen ( talk) 07:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Now the the invasion of Georgia is over there is an Aftermath section which would be usefull. All the below can be sourced
We could include consequences of the invasion:
-- Molobo ( talk) 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We can discuss how to phrase and source this. -- Molobo ( talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You can easily say the Tactical victory was a Diplomatic loss. To the above Tsarist
There's more because I am not brain washed by a government controlled press. I also don't do any Kiddie BS like the 'OL switch-a-roo when trying to convince someone of my side of the story( It's quite pathetic that copying a bunch of kiddies and thinking its fooling us, if your going emulate our culture do it right). I only have to contend with left or right leaning press. IF we see bombs parts with NATO or the USA written on it you better get out your pitch fork and get back to your government controlled farm so you can be safe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.64.87 ( talk) 04:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Today serious hostilities ended and the ceasefire agreement was signed by both sides. As a result, I put in today's date as the end of the conflict. The result is the ceasefire agreement signed by both sides, which essentially restored the status quo ante bellum. TSO1D ( talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think its way to soon to officially call the war over. Prime minster Putin announced it would not stop until President Mikheil Saakashvili was removed for 'war crimes'. Yet a half hour later the President of the Russian Federation announced it has signed a cease-fire agreement sponsored by the European Union, but immediately bombed the Georgian city of Gori once more until all known incidents of fighting stopped abruptly and the Russian invasion force halted it's advance into Georgia.
75.179.172.189 (
talk)
00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
Do we have a link that says Georgia and Russia both actually signed a peace agreement? the_paccagnellan ( talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Signed or Unsigned since the acceptance of the ceasefire Russian tanks have moved within 12 miles of Tbilisi. 24.0.64.87 ( talk)
I think it is clear to everyone that Moscow accomplished all of its military goals. They retook S. Ossetia from Georgian troops, they suffered comparatively minimal losses and had total domination of airspace. Georgian goals, obviously, have not been met. Their military has suffered an embarrassing defeat. I think the "result" needs to reflect this.-- 71.112.145.102 ( talk) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we have many reports that Russia violated the cease-fire today and sacked the city of Gori and are heading toward the Capital, annexed military supplies at a Georgian base, and fired on or returned fire on the Georgian army.
Additionally a American journalist has been wounded and two others killed in a cross fire, while Abkahzian troops advanced into Georgian territory, Russia denies all these claims though.
The war is still ongoing unfortunately, in my option.
Sorry, i keep forgeting to sign it.
75.179.172.189 ( talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade rat
In talking with some friends, someone told me that one of Georgia's primary concerns about S. Ossetia is that it has a militarily strategic position in the mountains separating Georgia from Russian. According to this person, one of the few tunnels through the mountains between Russian and Georgia opens into S. Ossetia. By controlling S. Ossetia, Georgia (or Russian) is able to better control access to that passage. I haven't been able to verify whether this is true or not, but if it is I think it's an interesting strategic interest worth including in the article if it can be documented. croll ( talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently at work and our websense blocks me from news sites. I was just listening to jjj radio here in Australia. They had a report on "Georgian claims of Russian ethnic cleansing" and I figured this was the same tired old back and forth accusation we've been hearing, but then I heard this interview on there with the Georgian President, and I quote: " We have confirmed reports of the Russians carrying out ethnic cleansing within Georgian territories as well as Russian internment camps outside of the South Ossetian capital, where they have been performing ethnic cleansing and executions". Now I'm not sure if this is propaganda but true or not these Georgian claims are usefull to this article. Please can somone look into this because I'm stuck at work. Andrew's Concience ( talk) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The BBC has also reported on looting, burning, and armed robbery in Gori, committed by South Ossetian irregulars and civilians following the Russian army. I can't find any documentation on this except hearsay. Obviously, this is inflammatory and needs to be substantiated. -- 67.163.163.28 ( talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me kindly what is picture of Russian Army in Bosnia[ [2]] doing in this article? Request removal. 68.151.34.161 ( talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The timeline section was massively cut because the article was too long with it all in. However, the section is now far too short, unreferenced, and grammatically incorrect. A compromise between the earlier and current versions is obviously necessary. Superm401 - Talk 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is the Georgia version of timeline. can be used to balance the article. -- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 06:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I said "some of Wikipedia editors", not ALL. For the evidence of continuing violence, please see the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website [4]. I'm just back from Gori to Tbilisi and I know what I'm talking about.-- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
When people update the references can they check to see what it comes out as? The references section is a mess! I'm going to try and clean it up a bit, but someone else can do a better job on #12, 13, 48, 88, 89, 143, 144, 145. Lihaas ( talk) 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A user commented in my video on this wikipedia article: " I think in this article they missed that part that Georgia and S.Ossetia made an agreement (in ealy 90s) not to attack each other and allow Russian to be peacekeepers on their border to prevent any conflict. On August 8th Georgia attacked peacekeepers and neaby villages and city of Tchenvally. Then Russia responded and.. so on.."
so, should that be added to the article? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mdupont (
talk •
contribs)
07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Bombing of the residential district, and later the cluster bombing of the demilitarized (and mostly abandoned by residents, too) city that killed the Dutch journalist and several other people after the Georgian army completely withdrew from the city. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 08:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The US defense official said about 8,000 to 10,000 Russian troops have moved into South Ossetia.
It does NOT mean there are "8,000-10,000 Russian soldiers". It means there 8,000-10,000 additional (invasion) Russian soldiers in South Ossetia, ONLY - in addition to thousands formal (former) pecekeepers, and thousands of reinforments to Abkhazia (5,000-6,000 offically, I think), and also further thousands in the Navy and Air Force.
Jesus. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That's why that phrase was put in after the 'thousands of other troops entering Georgia'. Learn to read before editing, damn.
Sides at the beginning of the conflict:
Georgia | South Ossetia | Russia | |
---|---|---|---|
Army | 30,000 [1] | 3,000 [2] | 100,000 in the region [1] |
Tanks | 200 [1] | 87 [2] | 620 in the region [1] |
Aircraft | 9 [3] | 0 [2] | 320 in the region [1] |
This is not including Abkhazia and not really needed now, as it should be about troops involved in Georgia and including reservists and volunteers. Moved here so anyone would use it for something if needed, or maybe change and update or hwatever. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 09:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Btw, it's possibly incorrect: "Georgia has 230 tanks and 12 combat aircraft." [5] -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have an information about Russian loses and causualities according to Georgia. They were stated by Georgian National security council. So, Russia lost abot 400 persons of military stuff and 21 air crafts (planes and helicopters). Put this information on.
It seems key elements of this conflict are missing. I don't know where they belong -- a timeline, background, context, significance section?
First would be U.S. physical support for Georgia, specifically returning 2,000 Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia to fight, August 11.
Here are some of many links
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=5548608&page=1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080811/wl_mideast_afp/georgiarussiaunrestustroops_080811180651 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia8?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/airforce_georgian_airlift_081108w/ http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_georgia_flyinghome_081008/
And these links noting U.S. Georgia joint military exercises the weeks before the conflict: July 15, 1,000 U.S. troops started a three week long military exercises with the Georgians.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1556589920080715 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/15/europe/EU-GEN-Georgia-US-Military.php
Next would be U.S. Russian rivalry over energy transportation through Georgia.
The BBC notes in its Georgia country profile “Moscow's key rival, the US has a major interest in security and stability in the country, having invested heavily in an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan via Georgia to Turkey. The Georgian armed forces have been receiving US training and support.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102477.stm
The Associate Press asserts “A U.S.-backed oil pipeline runs through Georgia, allowing the West to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil while bypassing Russia and Iran.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/09/MNDG127U55.DTL
James Traub in the New York Times, also notes the key role energy transport plays in Russian U.S. differences. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
U.S. Russian conflicts over energy transport is similarly emphasized by the Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag02.html
Seems about half the reports on the fighting mention the pipeline -- lots of discussion of whether Russia bombed or tried and missed the pipeline etc.
I put these in discussion so as not to interfere with anyone's work so far —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjpro ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
July 31 was ended "Immediate Response" NATO training at Vaziani Military Base (near Tbilisi), with 1000 US military specialists (from United States Army Europe, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1st Battalion 121 Infantry Regiment Georgian National Guard (Atlanta, Georgia) and 5045th General Support Unit.) Ru magister ( talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The US will use military aircraft and naval forces to deliver humanitarian aid to the region. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7559252.stm I can't confirm weather Russia has assured safe passage, will the flights be escorted by US fighters? Will the ships be war ships or support ships? -- Josephdurnal ( talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Joseph. Must have lost it in the shuffle. I think the U.S. role could be made clearer, seems a little buried. The pipeline needs to be cited in the article. Here is another link: Mainstream German media interview with U.S. “pipeline negotiator” about role of oil pipeline in the war and U.S. Russian rivalry http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,571855,00.html This is another good link from Der Spiegel in which various news outlets comment on the war and oil – each outlet’s political position is identified. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,571291,00.html Where do you (or anyone else) think this belongs? Adjpro ( talk) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the Russians must have made a decision not to get directly involved with the U.S. Der Spiegel’s headline is “proxy war,” by which they mean the West supporting the fight against Russia through Georgia, but this does not really comment on Russia’s acceptance of this arrangement. Being Wikipedia we have to wait for another media outlet to analyze this point. I was looking over the Causes section of the WWI Wikipedia entry and it seems the current war also needs a section on causes, though, of course, it would be less authoritative. It seems that some of the same categories could be useful. Right now the Background section with Georgian, Russian, and South Ossetian “Interests” limits the focus to national conflicts rather than opening it to larger economic and political issues.
Here are the causes from the WWI Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wwi 1 Causes 1.1 Arms race 1.2 Plans, distrust, and mobilization 1.3 Militarism and autocracy 1.4 Balance of power 1.5 Economic imperialism 1.6 Trade barriers 1.7 Ethnic and political rivalries
Maybe this entry could be a model in other ways: Rearrange the existing entry to have a Chronology section, and (soon) War Crimes, Technology, Opposition to the war, Literature sections. There are Wikipedia models for organization of a war entry, right now this one is too disorganized. Adjpro ( talk) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or has the war been taken out of this article altogether? The article is 74kB long, yet it jumps straight from "Background" to "Peace plan". Scolaire ( talk) 09:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the move of the war's details is somewhat confusing, especially for someone who's been following the article daily.
Also unclear is what the status (as of August 13) of the conflict really is. There are mentions of "ceasefires" and the "peace plan," but I have not yet seen anywhere that both sides have agreed to any particular version of the plan. Does anyone have information regarding this? the_paccagnellan ( talk) 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, my main point is, why call it "2008 South Ossetia war" if it's about anything and everything except the war? Scolaire ( talk) 11:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ya I liked the daily updates here too. 129.42.208.183 ( talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
They're explained in the hidden text next to them. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 09:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There was no discussion about it, only opinion that it's POW, because we need information about percantage of Russian military budget to Russian GDP. But it doesn't mean that we must delete sources and information: it means we need information about Russia.
Such information indicate who planned the war costs. We knowthat the groth of Geprgian military budget was from 0,5 % GDP (2005) up to 6 % GDP (2008). Why is it POW? Because it's indicate real planns of "small peacefull young democrasy" wich under pressure of "coward Red Bear"??? -- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 10:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The detailed desciption of how this war started and it's progress day by day, with sources appears to have been deleted. This is unfortunate since some crucial information, like the run-up to the War has been lost as a consequence Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah it was moved to the Timeline article. Forget this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Villages in Georgia were being burned and looted as Russian tanks followed by "irregulars" advanced from the breakaway province of South Ossetia, eyewitnesses said today.
"People are fleeing, there is a mood of absolute panic. The idea there is a ceasefire is ridiculous," Luke Harding, guardian.co.uk's correspondent said.
Georgian villages burned and looted as Russian tanks advance August 13 2008 11:40 BST -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This conflict might have set a new president for international law. As of now, it's obviously OK to set up "peacekeeping forces" in a foreign territory for an indefinite time, OK to hand out passports to people you are going to "protect", OK - as long as you are aggressive enough (and have a permanent veto in the UNSC... USA let Georgia down, and one might wonder what kind of future there is for that country... Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler have so much in common, and the latter would probably have been proud of his successor... 213.50.111.114 ( talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the peacekeeping forces, they were there according to UN resolutions of 1994. I quote one of them:
2. Notes with satisfaction the beginning of Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) assistance in the zone of conflict, in response to the request of the parties, on the basis of the 14 May 1994 Agreement on a Cease-fire and Separation of Forces (S/1994/583, Annex I), in continued coordination with the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), and on the basis of further coordinating arrangements with UNOMIG to be agreed by the time of the Council's consideration of the Secretary-General's recommendations on the expansion of UNOMIG. (Resolution 934, June 30th 1994)
Together with UNOMIG observers, their mission was to ensure stability in Abchazia and later in Ossetia. As for the Ossetian side, the peacekeeping forces consisted of contributions from all three parties (Russia, Georgia, South ossetia).
Besides, putting a peace-keeping force on foreign territory for an indefinite amount of time is one of the most prominent characteristics of UN and NATO anyway. Ever since the formation of such international councils and organizations they have intervened in unstable (and sometimes stable too) regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.168.192 ( talk) 03:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The word you're looking for is precedent. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
People! Kosavo is in a completely different set of circumstances- NATO had warned Serbia for a long time before the air campaign- but they where believed to have massacred 500,000 Albanians (later to be found at a lower number)
Russia had a pre-set invasion that invaded Georgia about 8 hours after Georgia crossed into South Ossetia- they gave no warning or anything its completely different.
And even so, two wrongs do not make a right.
75.179.172.189 ( talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
Also, who gives a rat's hindquarters about international law. Also those peacekeepers that were there indefinetly were on UN (idiots) orders.
Describing RM-70 or DANA as "western weapons" is totally incorrect, for one RM-70 was found in the inventories of most warsaw patch nations during cold war, ie DDR so on and actually uses the launcher from SOVIET BM-21 Grad system, so on. Somebody correct this please. All in all Slavic nations arent "western" no matter how much they are members of NATO or EU.
Tony Halpin and Roger Boyes. August, 13 article. Translation to the Russian.
"... Когда в Тбилиси нахлынули иностранные корреспонденты, команда бельгийских пиарщиков начала остроумную операцию по оповещению их с помощью электронной почты о так называемых агрессивных действиях России и о реакции правительства Грузии. Например, в воскресенье было разослано больше 20 писем, подтверждающих слова Грузии о российском вторжении.
Часть сведений, содержавшихся в них, оказалась явным преувеличением - как, например, утверждения об 'интенсивных бомбардировках Тбилиси' российскими самолетами, или о захвате Гори российскими войсками - но культура круглосуточных новостей заставила многие организации повторить их без независимой проверки".
http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/243210.html -- Niggle ( talk) 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war ... As foreign correspondents poured into Tbilisi a team of Belgian PR advisers launched a slick operation to keep them updated with e-mail alerts detailing the latest alleged aggressions by Russia and the Georgian Government’s reaction. On Sunday, for example, more than 20 e-mails went out to shape Georgia’s message that Russia had launched an invasion.
Some of the claims veered into outright exaggeration – such as stating that Russian jets were “intensively bombing Tbilisi” or that Russian troops had taken Gori – but the 24-hour news culture meant that many organisations repeated them without independent verification. ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece
-- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 12:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that also a part about not identified interests should appear. Even if it will be empty, because using hands of others is not new in wars.
War is always an interest of parties who sell military technique and who invest highly in this armament. We can find easily that US military assistance 2002 for Georgia was 31 889 000 USD. And Georgia bought a lot of military goods and services from Israel, Ukraine, etc.
Another moment: parties who want to weaken a competitor may be interested in his problems inside country. One of possible things may be already mentioned interests of Russia competeing with NATO in the region. Other possible things: most different Caucasian peoples (regarded often as hot tempered persons in the context of the former USSR) live spread in the whole Russia, many have important place in small local business of vegetable markets. Fightings between them and reactions of skinheads may complicated heavily interior order of Russia. Ruin of Russia as multicultural state can be profitable for those who had losses with arrest of Khodorkhovsky and similar as access to natural resources of Russia may be facilitated. Who has the best appetite for that in our world with changing climate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eglekuc ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
But is he for sure the new commander in Georgia now? -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 12:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
CNN is reporting that Russian tanks have entered Georgia again. A journalist comfirmed this. When questioned where they were heading they said "to Tblisi". Here is the link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/georgia_russia Attilavolciak07 ( talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this in the article yet? Attilavolciak07 ( talk) 13:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia [6] Russian troops entering Gori every day:
86.102.43.111 ( talk) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/explain/ -- 78.107.85.14 ( talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriosuly. I took a look at "Summary" section, and it's total crap:
The Telegraph reporters, in Gori on the 12th, did not see any Russian troops in the city.
What -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about "ethnical cleansing", as that is the term that does not appear in the BBC report. It does, however, reconfirm that the Russian forces are still pushing forward their military campaign despite what they say. So this should be added. Also, following the removal of detailed description of warfare timeline, the Wikipedia information has become seriously Russian-POV oriented, presented disputable facts I read for the first time, mostly Russian accusations against Georgia.
There is some info left about Georgia but just look at the "South Osetia" part, it has three times more information from Russian government controlled information sources than about Georgia. Also, the form in which Russian side of view is presented is mostly "There has been", "A witness has saw" while information Georgia presents is shown as "Georgia claims that", "Alleges that" etc. Basically if I would be Russian KGB member I wouldn't mind the currently presented information much.
There have been many international media confirmations and video footages with Russians bombing Georgia outside the disputed regions... could somebody put that all back up on page? Ghanopala ( talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/ukrainians/ 3 Su-25 and Tu-22 BTW, there were 2 other sources for that, but someone deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.169.5 ( talk) 13:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Block requested, kthx. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there are at least two versions of the AP story about their reporter talking to Russians south of Gori; one says "armored vehicles", the other says "tanks". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/33/holmogorow.6/0_18cf4_b990691_orig (near Gori). Магистер ( talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are all the pictures of either Georgian military or protests in Georgia? We should also include photos of public demonstrations in Russia against the Georgian aggression and the such to be politically neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.151.88 ( talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Giving two psychopaths bullhorns and letting them scream at each other is not aiding neutrality just because they are equally loud.
The Times are reporting that an "armoured column" of at least 100 vehicles is heading towards Tbilisi. The BBC confirms this. I'm going to add this to the article summary, barring any objections? J.F.Bargh ( talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This whole thing is completely confusing again. Are there Russian troops in Gori or not? From the Times: In particular, Moscow denied Georgian claims that 50 of its tanks were in Gori, the Georgian city near the Ossential border. The city had been abandoned by its authorities who had fled, said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian General Staff. "We cannot find anyone. How they were evacuated and what happened there is a mystery to us," he said. --> So they claim they have no troops in Gori, but then again, they say that they can't find anyone in Gori? That doesn't work. [8] -- DanteRay ( talk) 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"An AFP reporter saw Russian troops shouting: "Tbilisi, Tbilisi" but their destination was unclear." Jesus, people, press, everyone... -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Telegraph says that the Russian convoy is being "pursued by a large contingent of the world's media", so it sounds like a bit of a circus. I suggest we sit back a bit as opposed to jumping on very minute-by-minute report on where the Russians are going from the media. The larger story is what's happening in the villages around Gori. Bdell555 ( talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
From the article,
The reference itself says
This actually contradicts this report which says
So I suggest correcting or rephrasing that statement accordingly.( Igny ( talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
Also this this report confirmed:
Georgian officials said Russian troops had moved out of South Ossetia into Georgia proper, occupying the city of Gori while Georgian troops were retreating to the capital. But US defense officials said they were unable to corroborate the Georgian claims.
"We don't see anything that supports they are in Gori," said a defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't know why the Georgians are saying that." -- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My IP is 195.98.173.10 Georgians are better in words, than in swords. -- Niggle ( talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new user. This is my first discussion post (at least I think this is supposed to be a discussion post).
I was reading this article earlier this morning and it had a small table comparing both sides in terms of force strength levels. It had 2 columns with the Russians and separatists on column 2 and the Georgians on column 1. The first line had total number of available troops for both sides. The second had total number of tanks, third had the number of aircraft. There might have been 1 or 2 more rows, I can't remember. Reading this table made it easy to understand how each side compared.
Whoever removed this small table, could you put it back? Thanks. Mr-Encyclopedia-Man ( talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian troops are apprently pulling out http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia Attilavolciak07 ( talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just found it and thought it would worth noting. Attilavolciak07 ( talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Georgian news agency (fonded by EU) which was hacked by Russian FSB is back and fully operational. Please consult references from that site, there are too many Russian propaganda references which make this article more unbalanced. [11] Iberieli ( talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
that part of this page is highly inaccurate, as it fails to meation the conficts in Moldava, or in Central Asia, and that has to change.
...are notably missing from this article. Personally, public opinion in Russia would interest me the most. Russian Wikipedia article has a section on some non-government views in Russia, see #A comparison to the Russian Wikipedia (translation). GregorB ( talk) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian media and public information are controlled, including internet. Right it is impossible to know what public tells and knows. But the media due influence a lot of nationalism there. Of course the propaganda is more subtle then in Soviet times and to make it credible they allow controlled criticism of government to make media look credible.--
Molobo (
talk)
21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Web brigades. Also Reporters Without Borders put Russia at 144th place in the World Press Freedom Index from a list of 169 countries. -- Molobo ( talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In Russia people make donations and collect assistance for the aggrieved civilians of Ossetia. Ru magister ( talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And how does this connect to the information here ? As Carl Bildt noted such justifications were used in 1939 and 1938 by Germany.-- Molobo ( talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"Web brigades" in Russia are basically the same as "Think Tanks" in the West. No difference. 77.28.215.83 ( talk) 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Information published on 18th July 2008 that Chechen seperatists revealed they intercepted Russian plan to invade Georgia in August. The attack will be between 20 and 10 September using Kodori and Cchinwal. The plan was made and authorised by Putin. Reports movement of 8,000 soldiers to border with Georgia. -- Molobo ( talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The prediction is notable. Note that they are now two sourced statements regarding that the invasion was planned. -- Molobo ( talk) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
[13] A very good source, we could make good use of this Ijanderson977 ( talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Article: (Information warfare
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin accused foreign media of pro-Georgian bias in their coverage of the ongoing conflict between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia. "We want television screens in the West to be showing not only Russian tanks, and texts saying Russia is at war in South Ossetia and with Georgia, but also to be showing the suffering of the Ossetian people, the murdered elderly people and children, the destroyed towns of South Ossetia, and [regional capital] Tskhinvali. This would be an objective way of presenting the material," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said. Current Western media coverage of the events in the separatist republic is "a politically motivated version, to put it mildly," he said.[256]
On August 11, 2008, the Russia Today TV channel accused CNN of presenting video footage made by Russia Today in South Ossetia as pictures of bombed Gori.[257]
Cyberattacks and censorship)
Seems one sided and rather Russian bias. I know there are plenty of links to the opposing view. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of the press in Russia 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
( talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Reffering to the South Ossetians and Abkhazia government as 'Successionists' is pro-Georgian POV and incorrect. Russ It is not normal to refer to a country as Successionists unless they are fighting their initial war to secede from a larger country. In this instance, this is incorrect, since this is NOT the first conflict that these countries have been involved in. Hence they are not Successionists or a Successionist government.
This is not a POV statement, since on the same principle we should still refer to the USA as the Successionist government of the USA, due to the fact they faught a past war to suceed from Britain. We do not do so, hence it is both POV and incorrect to refer to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Successionist governments. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the fulcrum here is "international recognition". 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
So why not add internationally unrecognised (which is no longer really true) rather than successionist government? Both are equally long and one is factual (or at least it was) rather than blatently POV like successionist. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
However, this does make a rather long title. Republic of South Ossetia (internationally unrecognised). But it is no secret anyway given it clearly says so on it's own page. Also, past references to South Ossetia/Abygazia do not use the term 'seperatist government'. Including the page of the offending entity and the first Ossetian War, when the term 'seperatist' would actually be accurate. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should Wikipedia base it's definitions on the in my opinion 'Emporer has no Clothes' game of international unrecognition, rather than the actual facts of the matter. The actual facts of the matter (ie de-facto or 'in fact') are that those countries have not been de-facto Seccesionists for 16 years, because de-facto they have been independant for that long.
The position that De-Jure they are part of Georgia, is a POV position since the idea that De-Jure status stems from International recognition rather than de-facto reality is itself a POV, one which is not universally recognised, for instance by myself and obviously not by South Ossetia and Abkhazia either.
Since the definition of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians in this war as successionists is not a de-facto definition but a definition that is based upon a POV which elevates international recognition to the status of final legal arbiter and one which tacitly recognises the Georgian claim to those areas as valid, it is actually NPOV to describe them as 'unrecognised Republics' as opposed to 'successionist governments', since that is a factual statement (even if arguably they are now effectively recognised by Russia) as opposed to a POV statement based upon a particular legal theory of national independance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
However the Succesionist status normally ends when the nation has successfully gained it's independance from the country. I completely support the status of Succesionist for the last Ossetian war as NPOV, but not this one, since now South Ossetia is independant. For instance, we don't normally refer to the USA as 'the successionist government of the USA'.
Successionist in THIS War is a POV term, since South Ossetia/Abkhazia are no longer trying to secede from Georgia, they are already independant, just internationally unrecognised. The claim that they are still part of Georgia and trying to 'secede' from Georgia in this war is Georgian POV definately. Since the claim that de-jure South Ossetia is part of Georgia, is itself a POV position based upon a particular legal theory of independance.
It has nothing to do with Seccesionist being 'bad' or 'good' it's just in this particular War it is not factually accurate, except if you accept the Georgian POV or a particular disputed legal theory of independance. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 10:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
To break away from a country is to "secede" from it. The process is "secession" and those who undertake it are "secessionists". "Succession" is the replacement of one by another according to an orderly progression; the prince succeeds the king, or the vice president succeeds to the presidency. The prince and his secessionists secede from the kingdom until the king dies and the prince succeeds the throne according the order of succession. That said, doesn't South Ossetia want to join with North Ossetia as part of Russia? That's not exactly secession. The situation is analogous to that of Bosnia; as soon as Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia, the Republika Srpska seceded from Bosnia because they wanted not to have seceded in the first place. Surprisingly, it led to conflict. -- 67.163.163.28 ( talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if South Ossetia initially aimed to join up with North Ossetia as part of Russia. I'm pretty sure they want to be Independant rather than annexed by Russia, although they are very pro-Russian and have a close ties to Russia, which are going to get even closer by looks of things (if that were even possible).
I would demand some actual source from the South Ossetian government itself about it's intentions to join Russia before I would consider that a founded statement. Basically, I know of no statement in which the 'present' South Ossetian government actually states it's intent to become an official part of Russia.
Basically, does the actual South Ossetian government actually state it's intention to join with Russia? Or is this an unsubstantiated media rumour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that they were offered such passports by the Russian government, given the regions economic dependance upon North Ossetia and probably more cynically so they would have a Casus Belli in case of this happening to defend 'Russian citizens'.
However a Customs Union does not mean the country has been annexed by another country or intends to be annexed. Is there any evidence that the South Ossetian government intends to place itself formally under Russian rule? I'm not saying that this is an unlikely possibility in the future, I just wish to know what the claims basis is, if there is any. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Until the secession has been finalized, it is still a secession. De Facto independence for any number of years is irrelevant, as the territories in question were never formally admitted to constitute a separate nation or separate nations, by either the international community, the existing sovereign state in question, or the neighboring regional sovereign states. If it is POV to use international recognition as a guideline for determining a state's status, what guideline do those who object to the term "Secession" suggest?
However the seccession has indeed been finalised in 1992, in that the initial attempt to seperate South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia was successful. In that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were able to win the first war against Georgia and Georgia was forced to withdraw from those areas.
The guideline that we suggest is actual de-facto existance and having managed to survive the initial war that the former controller of those territories has launched to reclaim them. That is to say, successfully seperated from the original State without bieng reconquered.
International recognition is irrelavant to the actual material existance of a state and their de-facto non-seperatistness (is that a word?), because as the saying goes.
The Emporer does in fact have no Clothes. Whether the existance of an independant state is recognised by a bunch of self-interested and not exactly unbiased foreign states who won't recognise independance unless it suits them, is irrelavant as to whether a country actually exists or not. Basically, the Emporer is naked whether everyone denies this is so or not.
And finally, to call them Seperatists, is to tacitly recognise the Georgian claims in this war, which is simply blatent POV. To call them unrecognised states is simply NPOV and factual, since it allows the reader to arrive at his own conclusions based upon their own theory of such things. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though French polticians brokered the peace plan, they did so in the capacity of EU-representatives if I'm not mistaken. If I'm right, I think that this is insufficiently reflected in the section on the peace plan. -- Jeroenm ( talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
http://life.ru/media/images/0808/1089004bdb5d4840f5b325ba767bfd20.jpg
American soldier captured by Russian Army in Georgia.
I love the Russian racism in all of this chasing of a "negro" ghosts in Georgia. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 09:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"No captured soldiers in this war." "No captured soldiers in this small military mission." Perhaps his name is a typo, and should actually be spelled Ru Minister... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 ( talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
i seriously doubt the united states would be dumb enough to let its personnel into the fighting, unless it was doing some secret mission recon or something. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph of "Humanitarian impact" subsection "South Ossetia" is a series of atrocity stories of murders by Georgian forces, sourced to the Russian press: civilians gunned down in basements, little old ladies are run over intentionally by tanks, numerous incidents of people herded into buildings and the buildings burned down.If the Georgian press or government spokesmen, or international press have issued any denials, these should be included in the section. War crimes are all too common, but so are false lurid atrocity stories in wartime, and the section seems POV. Edison ( talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are right, the Russian press (to my knowledge) is state-run and so would naturally emite what could be perceived as propaganda. I believe it is far, far to soon to allege war crimes (for either side) unless witnessed by independent sources. Georgian and Russian sources are completely unreliable- both will allege things- perhaps not lying but that is called fog of war. It won be until the war is over and the UN comes in that we can really begin to understand if any war crimes took place.
Therefore i suggest we do not put anything unless confirmed by independent sources based on independent eye witnesses. I believe it will prove to be far more accurate once everything is found out and will not play into the propaganda war.
75.179.172.189 (
talk)
16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
Man, Ru magister is the best the KGB (sorry, FSB) could come up with? I guess they aren't that concerned about wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 ( talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Added an NPOV tag - Edison's description precisely summarizes the situation. aristotle1990 ( talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a map showing the movement of Russian troops, the different battles and attacks. It could be added to the article. -- DanteRay ( talk) 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Russian are in Gori to feed people ( http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/feed/) and to maintain law and order (i.e. preventing crime, looting etc) as Gori left by Georgian authorities and Georgian police and is uncontrolled now ( http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=27084). There is an agreement between Georgia and Russia, on Aug 14 Georgian police is going to return to Gori, so Russian will leave it ( http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/14/gori/, http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=27124). Sorry, news are in Russian only Enerjazzer ( talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The AP is reporting that Georgia is claiming that Russian forces have entered Gori. [14] JCDenton2052 ( talk) 07:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Saba Tsitsikashvili, a local journalist in Gori, said Russian troops had occupied the main road on the edge of the city, but had not moved towards the centre. "People are in panic. This road where the troops are is about 2km from the centre, she said.", Guardian (11.8..
Finnish news agency STT writes in Iltalehti next (by guy whois in Gori), rough translation: "locals say that there is going on looting by unknown people with uniforms". Another one: "Terhi Hakala (head of the Finlands Etyj operation in Georgia) confirms that there is Russians in Gori and part of it is going towards Tblisi" I guess that she means this convoy (guardian).
Guardian has also news about looting and russians that they have troops near Gori (or least had). (this is pretty much same as in that CNN news above ). -- Zache ( talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian military checkpoint about 5 to 10 km from the city. Tanks, APCs, fuel trucks. ERR 13.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.113.230 ( talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about 'protect' them? They sacked the city! haven't you seen the video and reports from Fox and Sky news?
75.179.172.189 ( talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
Georgian for sure changed (I heard 160 killed). -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, anyone find sources and update (also for the Russian alliance and civilians), cause I'm going now. --
Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (
talk)
09:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
When did Russia "confirm" that 74 soldiers were killed? The latest confirmation was 21, 74 seems like a huge increase in the number reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 ( talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"...said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff.
Nogovitsyn said the conflict had killed 74 Russian troops, wounded 171 and left 19 missing in action. Officials have estimated at least 2,000 civilians were killed in South Ossetia." From CNN [17] 66.241.139.254 ( talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone edit the casualties section. It depicts false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by What Max ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The link isnt dead.. near the end of the page "Anatoly Nogovitsin, the deputy chief of staff, said at a news conference on August 13, that although no verified data was available, but “I’ve heard Georgia has lost 4,000 men.”"
There should be more data regarding lost military equipment,
Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia was just destroyed in the war, CNN showed Abkhazians taking down Georgian flag from the administrative building. Women and children fled at once (under fire), while the men (formal forces and ad-hoc tribal militia) remained and many were killed before they retreated with the Georgian army.
Same with the Georgian villages in South Ossetia, which were heavily bombed and the government (and witnesses according to media reports) say then brutally pacified by the Russian Army after government forces withdrew. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, do we know for a fact that Russia is not going to give back areas of South Ossetia that were Georgia controlled? My understanding is that the ceasefire calls for a status quo ante bellum. Abkhazia is a different situation as the Abkhaz forces are sort of not party to the cease fire agreement and they seemed to have done most of the heavy lifting in Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This picture is not relevant at all to the current events!
they is crazy genocider terrorist russian putin man tell me on tv must be true tv no lie state no lie -unsigned non englisher-
I was replying to Jakezing -- 66.241.139.254 ( talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"An Associated Press correspondent saw and spoke with Russian vehicles south of Gori, heading beyond the city."
So he actually spoke with vehicles ... that's pretty poor English. -- DanteRay ( talk) 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is barely one week old, let one year pass by then we will have a good article. Besides we have non-english speakers editing this article, this is an immense privilege to Wikipedia/English, I wished someone did the same to Wikipedia/Portuguese. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Human Rights Watch group said its researchers in South Ossetia had on Tuesday "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians." [18]
-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Report:
Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted
(Java, August 13, 2008) � Human Rights Watch researchers in South Ossetia on August 12, 2008, saw ethnic Georgian villages still burning from fires set by South Ossetian militias, witnessed looting by the militias, and learned firsthand of the plight of ethnic Ossetian villagers who had fled Georgian soldiers during the Georgian-Russian conflict over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire. [snip - read yourself]
-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No comment, eh? Maybe the pro-Russian editors say something about valiant Russian peacekeepers peacestruggling to end the Georgian genocide and how foreign advisors in Georgia are juggling the facts to make it look bad? SERIOUSLY NOW, someone use it prominently in the article, as it's the first confimation of massive war crimes (there's also some about the plight of South Ossetians, whose men joined the bands of militiamen who are now rampaging through the region, so you can comnpare it with wild the Russian claims of the last few days). -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire.
Not systematic?
Human Rights Watch researchers also saw armed Ossetian militia members in camouflage fatigues taking household items � furniture, television sets, heaters, suitcases, carpets, and blankets � out of houses in the village of Nizhnie Achaveti and loading them into their trucks
Is this what ypou called "combat in war zone"?
He said members of the South Ossetian militia came to his house on August 11, and tried to take away some household items. When he protested, they set the house on fire and left. The man said he had no food or drinking water; his hands were burned and hair was singed
Maybe this is combat?
In the village of Kekhvi, many houses were set on fire between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm on August 12 � they were ablaze as Human Rights Watch researchers moved along the road. Two elderly women from Kekhvi were weeping as they told Human Rights Watch about what happened in the village. One of them explained that the members of South Ossetian militias passed by the village and stopped at her house and �threw something� that set it on fire.
Combat yet?
A representative of the local administration in the town of Java told Human Rights Watch that the authorities had arrested two men who were looting the ethnic Georgian villages, but was adamant that they were not members of the South Ossetian militias. His colleague, however, said, �Isn�t that what they [Georgians] have been doing to us? These old people shouldn�t be complaining � they should be happy they weren�t killed.�
Not strategy?
International humanitarian law applicable to the fighting between South Ossetian militias and Georgian forces prohibits attacks on civilian property, as well as looting or pillaging. Individuals, including commanders, participating in the deliberate or reckless destruction or looting of civilian property are responsible for war crimes. International humanitarian law also prohibits �acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.�"
Not war crime?
No Georgians left in South Ossetia beyond few old people "with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go".
I guess it's "not ethnic cleansing" - actually, it's peacekeeping operation. Thank you Wikipedia. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Captain, read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_Villages
History teaches wisdom. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.162.145.242 (
talk)
03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Talion
"He told Human Rights Watch that the vast majority of the residents, including his family, fled the village when active fighting between Georgian forces and South Ossetian militias broke out on August 8, but he decided to stay to look after the cattle. He said members of the South Ossetian militia came to his house on August 11, and tried to take away some household items. When he protested, they set the house on fire and left. The man said he had no food or drinking water; his hands were burned and hair was singed � apparently as he was unsuccessfully trying to extinguish the fire � and he appeared to be in a state of shock. He said that there were about five to ten elderly and sick people left in the village, all in a similar desperate condition, and many of the houses were burned."
Is this statement mean that after destruction of Tskhinvali and 8-10 Ossetian villages (August, 7-8), Ossetians revenghe on property in Georgians villages without killing of somebody??? I'm not shure it's possible. Do you have any relatives or other peoples who from Caucasus? What do you know about blood feuds/vendetta tradition? I'm Russian. I was born in Sibiria, but now I study in Moscow. My grandfather was from [Avar|Caucasian Avars] (he died 2005), my mother was born in Dagestan. I only know that for deaths of my neighbors or my relatives i will find out person who did that, and kill him. It so called "The Law of the Highlanders". Talion. Do you remember Vitaly Kaloyev case? And I only know that Saakashvili will be punished.
So I don't trust to any statements that for the life of people in Tskhinvali Ossetians take only property of Georgians. And it means that after this actions of the Georgians, South Ossetia will NEVER forget and NEVER forgive Georgia. -- Niggle ( talk) 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What, Is Going On? Yahoo is showing they took gori and renewed offensive, and, what does russia say today? Honestly, i say this:
The claim to foreign soldiers being killed or captured in this section does not seem to be credible at this point. Interesting, yes, but I can't imagine it would have been this ignored by diverse media outlets. Well, maybe I can believe it, but barring verification of the story, or allegations of a cover up, I think it should be removed. Hiberniantears ( talk) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed it again. If this goes back into the article, it has to at least be in a different section. The majority of the Georgian order of battle section should not be about rumored mercenaries that have not been reported by media outside of Russia, let alone verified by the Russian media. Hiberniantears ( talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Some idiot posted that 74 russian soldiers killed with no SOURCE to confirm it just CNN ( american propaganda chanell ) it is unacceptable the russians official claim is 21 soldiers , and someone also changed georgian soldiers killed to 54 even though they admited of lossing over 200 few days ago, some people are obviusly double standard and wan't to make georgia look good ignoring the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiReFTW ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
When did Wikipedia:English become Wikipedia:Russian?? Did I miss the merger? Jmedinacorona ( talk) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just yesterday it had over 300 sources, several pages of text detailed information, and today about 160 sources only and most of the text deleted the article? What happened why was the article butchered like this? I could find no discussion on the talk page about this, did I miss something? Hobartimus ( talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
several places, because otherwise article becomes biased.
* 2.1 South Ossetian interests * 2.2 Georgian interests * 2.3 Russian interests
* 3.1 Demands to end conflict * 3.2 Ceasefire
Article is big, and it is very difficult to find quickly
information about the beginning of the war: who provoked
the conflict, who started the fire first. There must be a
direct link in the contents menu to the timeline section. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
130.207.140.229 (
talk)
20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently I see no link to the main timeline article in this article, so I am adding a link to this article. Christiangoth ( talk) 20:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Things what shoudl be updated or added to timeline:
-- Zache ( talk) 08:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we shoud add America's interest - it is trying to be an active player in the region. It is teaching Saakashvili ^-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Str ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine's President has reportedly decreed that Russian vessels blockading Georgia must ask Ukraine's permission to return to Crimean ports. This strikes me as an important development, since it could create a notable confrontation if Moscow does not comply. But in which section should we address developments that might expand the war beyond Georgia? Bdell555 ( talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
At the same time, picture of the Russian soldiers is not being removed. (And I guess shouldn't be, too, because why?) -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This section remains extremely small. The following sources should be added:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia6 "Georgian villages burned and looted as Russian tanks advance"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/georgia_russia "Russian troops and paramilitaries rolled into the strategic Georgian city of Gori on Wednesday, apparently violating a truce designed to end the conflict that has uprooted tens of thousands and scarred the Georgian landscape."
This paragraph should also be moved from the South Ossetia section to the Georgia one:
"According to reports in the Russian Novye Izvestiya, the UK Guardian, and Sky News, Ossetian irregulars were looting and burning Georgian villages in South Ossetia and near Gori on August 13.[90][91][92] Human Rights Watch said their researchers "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians". The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be “decisive and tough” measures taken against looters.[93]"
aristotle1990 ( talk) 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, should be, but instead people care more about the claims of some bloggers(!) about "pro-Georgian bias in the world" than about confirmed news of militiamen burning villages. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"These men were killers" Bdell555 ( talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Canada has pledged $1 million in aid, Germany $1.5 million. According to its foreign ministry, France will send "30 metric tons of supplies." [6] [7] Spain is working with the Red Cross to help refugees, and has contributed half a million euros in aid. [8]
Latvia has sent to Georgia "A cargo of humanitarian aid of medical items from state reserves consisting of 4,000 containers of blood products and 20,000 gauze bandages to the value of 20,000 lats was sent to Georgia on 12 August. In addition, the Government allocated 100,000 lats from contingency resources to assist Georgia in overcoming the consequences of the war. The money will be utilised according to current exigencies and on the basis of the information provided by Georgia about its needs in the course of rendering crisis relief." [9] Lithuania has thus far given to Georgia 86,000 euros' worth of aid in sleeping bags and medical supplies. [10] Estonia and Poland have sent, in addition to humanitarian aid, computer experts to fend off cyberattacks. [11]
(I am pasting what I wrote here because I am aware that there are continued edit-wars, some of which may be government-sponsored.)
aristotle1990 ( talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the section. I think it is now substantially better and more comprehensive.
"Georgia claimed Russia had bombed airfields and civil and economic infrastructure, including the Black Sea port of Poti. Between eight and eleven Russian jets reportedly hit container tanks and a shipbuilding plant at the port.[96][97] The BBC reported that "In one air strike the pilot missed the intended military base, instead hitting two apartment blocks" in Gori, and the reporters "saw injured civilians being pulled from the buildings."[98] Regarding this incident SkyNews reported that "a military installation had been hit in Gori and surrounding residential apartments had been badly damaged."[99] Journalists referred to the situation in Gori as "chaotic".[98] Georgia has alleged that Russia is committing ethnic cleansing against ethnic Georgians.[100]
Reuters reported an attack on the civilian Tbilisi International Airport, though Russia claims this is misinformation.[101][102] Georgian State Minister for Reintegration, Temur Iakobashvili also denied this, stating, "There was no attack on the airport in Tbilisi. It was a factory that produces combat airplanes."[103]
According to reports in the Russian Novye Izvestiya, the UK Guardian, and Sky News, Ossetian irregulars were looting and burning Georgian villages in South Ossetia and near Gori on August 13.[104][105][106] Human Rights Watch said their researchers "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians". British journalist Andrew Wilson (of the London Times) reports that he was assaulted and almost killed by Ossetian fighters.[107] The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be “decisive and tough” measures taken against looters.[108]
Witnesses report the burning and destruction of Georgian villages (especially around Gori) as Russian troops retreat, mostly by South Ossetians. A "BBC reporter in Gori reported that Russians tanks were in the streets as their South Ossetian separatist allies seized Georgian cars, looted Georgian homes and then set some homes ablaze." Georgian officials say that Gori was targeted for looting and attacks on both military and civilian sites, which may be in violation of a ceasefire agreement.[109][110]"
aristotle1990 ( talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I am also becoming increasingly worried at the profusion of Russian media sources for controversial topics. The article has effectively been spammed with links to Russian websites, which in tone and substance display a clear pro-Russian bias. aristotle1990 ( talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Russians passed through on the 11th, departed, and are there again on the thirteenth. So the New York Times, who were there. [25]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In case you guys missed this. I'm not going to get involved in this article but I think you all should be tracking this story about Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser having been a lobbyist for the govt of Georgia who's brought McCain over there. Wash Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated press, another Wash Post.
Three articles state or infer McCain promoted all this:
So the war isn't over yet? The Russians said no provocations will go unanswered. Yuhi33 ( talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Human Rights report just came out, please include this in the aticle: HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT: Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted [26], "The remaining residents of these destroyed ethnic Georgian villages are facing desperate conditions, with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go. "Tanya Lokshina, researcher in the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch." Iberieli ( talk) 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Rights group confirms reports of abuses by both sides in South Ossetia http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hu5kLlyMAmxUFutHnkRPqmeGregg
Russia exaggerating South Ossetian death toll, says human rights group http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Adjpro ( talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this article should be renamed "South Ossetia Conflict" instead of "South Ossetia War". Althought this might seem to be getting too deep into symmentics, I believe that the use of "war" creates bias. As this is a current event, this conflict may in the future become a war however at the preset time I would not classify it as such. Let me know what people think about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaketaylor88 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
They called the "Cold War" a war a nobody fired a shot, so "war" isn't necessarily inappropriate even if the physical violence was limited. Bdell555 ( talk) 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Should the USA be included in the infobox, due to there "humanitarian Efforts", which are run by the US Military? - Marcusmax ( talk) 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm..
TBILISI (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's pledge to send aid to Georgia means that the U.S. military will take control of the ex-Soviet state's ports and airports, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said on Wednesday. "You have heard the statement by the U.S. president that the United States is starting a military-humanitarian operation in Georgia," Saakashvili said in a television address. "It means that Georgian ports and airports will be taken under the control of the U.S. defense ministry in order to conduct humanitarian and other missions. This is a very important statement for easing tension."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081302202.html
"a military-humanitarian operation" complicates which is which
Adjpro ( talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful. Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."
"The torching of houses in these [Georgian] villages is in some ways a result of the massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties. That is then used to justify retribution."
"[At the Tskhinvali hospital] 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue. Russian and South Ossetian officials have claimed that 1,400 people were killed in the first day of fighting, mostly in Tskhinvali."
"By day five of a conflict one normally expects that there is some kind of list of the dead and injured, or at least an indication of their age and gender. But here there is no information. Absolutely nothing."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we stay on topic here? Arguments should be for or against inclusion of particular material. That means they address questions like whether the source is reliable, whether there is undue weight, etc. Bdell555 ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope this information has been added to the article. Ostap 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"Iranians is not humans for western HRW" Good sir, you are very wrong. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont know if I can trust human rights watch. "Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived anti-Western, anti-China, and anti-Israel bias while others have criticized it for having a pro-Western and pro-Israel bias. According to a report in the Egyptian press, "the government often accuses human rights groups [including Human Rights Watch] of importing a Western agenda that offends local religious and cultural values."[10]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch#cite_note-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by What Max ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment of VDV ( Russian: 45-й гвардейский отдельный разведывательный полк ВДВ) is under direct subordination of VDV Command and in structure of VDV (see his history and COA for example, on [27](in Russian) and VDV-structure at [28](in Russian)). It is under GRU operational subordination only. Alex Spade ( talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Which section is marked for the new events of the conflict? Where should the events after the ceasefire be put into?
Would you consider putting a link in the main article to the specific section of the "timeline" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here you go. They're copyrighted, but nevertheless interesting.
http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551
Talk about evil Russians bombing the single building in Gori and peaceful Saakashvili with his democratic regime "suggesting to lay weapons". These were taken while travelling from Vladikavkaz through Java and to Tskhinvali. This is not something your news channels will show to you. Instead they'll stick with the same single bombed building in Gori. -- 81.195.27.134 ( talk)
"By the way, the writings on the tank say "Chechnya", "Chechnya", "Chechnya", then "Jamadarians" (dunno what's this)"
It means they're Yamadayevtsy - the men of Sulim Yamadayev, a Chechen warlord (and Hero of Russia) now federally wanted in Russia. (sic) Btw, Tskhinvali was also hit by Russian artillery fire and especially air power. If you want to see how the Russian Army (and specifically, the 58th Army) behaves during combat in a city full of "Russian citziens", see the pictures from Grozny. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, NOT A FORUM. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7 at the Reference desk. |
I think that the really bad thing about the war is that the so called world community does not care about Georgia. If USA is really the "defender of liberty", it should give Russia, say, 24 hours to leave Georgia, just like Serbia had to leave Kosovo during the war there. Instead, Russia has been given a blanc card to continue with an extended "peacekeeping" operation on foreign soil - and Georgia has to promise never to defend itself against Russia in the future. Since Russia wont accept an international peacekeeping mission, the rest of the world gives Russia a nod to take care of the problem´. Technically, Georgia is not a sovereign country anymore. Lotta2 ( talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"Russia calls an end to its military offensive in Georgia and agrees to a European Union plan for a ceasefire and peace talks, amid reports of more fighting around the city of Gori."
Looting, wanton destruction and murder is not "fighting". Of the fighting there's little and not with regular Georgian army. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and The Guardian says there's no fighting because... there's practically no one left to fight on the Georgian side.
For most of the day there was no sign of the Georgian army. After five days of ferocious bombardment by Russian warplanes, it appears not to exist. With rumours swirling of an imminent Russian attack on Tbilisi, however, Georgia mustered a platoon of 50 soldiers, who took up positions 10 miles down the road from where the Russians appeared to have parked up for the night. ( Amid promise of peace, Georgians live in terror · Russian militia accused of orgies of looting and rape)
Unless "a new partisan war against the Russians" starts. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7 at the Reference desk. |
I was nice and didn't delete, instead posted "THIS IS NOT A FORUM" message.
This is what user Naurmacil did:
Deletion of my friendly message with the comment: This is not a forum for This is not a forum comments. Be contributive, or fuck off
MODS: please take care of him. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to behave EXACTLY like your role model, Mr. Saakashvili: first start the fight, and then whine till someone maybe helps you. So far, I'm tired of your crap that is more about your very biased opinion of the conflict rather than the quality of the article. ( Poligraf P. Sharikov ( talk) 00:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
This is not a forum for general discussion of 2008 South Ossetia war. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
I'd delete all this discussion, but instead I just reminded you - and I've got "fuck off" in return while deleting my reminder. And you whine about what now? You surely have no opinion, right? And analyzed my actual contributions to the article, right? -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is grammatically redundant. If a reporter reports something, and Wikipedia says that the reporter reported that as opposed to just stating whatever was reported as a fact, it's already clear to the reader that the claim isn't any stronger that the reporter's reporting. Adding "allegedly" one top of that doesn't change the truth status of the claim. Wikipedia isn't saying the claim is necessarily true when it says "Y media said something happened". To change that to "Y media said allegedly something happened" is to simply add a redundant word. Wikipedia is not claiming the reports are true or have been proven true when "allegedly" is not added on top. Bdell555 ( talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
bdell555,
regarding three reverts.. i hav not violated 3rr so far otherwise i would not be able to type this
regarding redundancy, repeating the same georgian point of view using american and british while also including "unreliability" issues makes the whole part redundant..anyway why repeat the same lines with the same point repeatedly? why cant you form a single sentence and give all citations continuously ..or instead you can adopt my suggeation to use a single line "russia and georgia traded charges of genocide and looting" which would suffice...
else please note that including such blatantly biased text like 'ossetian looters', 'killed by ossetian'...by an editor 'without any contribition by him / her to wikify it to neutrality' constitutes cheap plagiarism..
please know that using capitals in all words in all (most) edit summaries is not wiki policy..please check wiki guidelines.. so stop abusing me using lies (abt violating 3rr)... Cityvalyu ( talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend removing the information on the Russian stock market and currency drop last Friday. It is not clear that this was due to the war and could have mostly been due to the 5% drop in the price of oil. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So why exactly do we need the entire AP report about the convoy east of Gori? It's disproportionate when we have given one paragraph to each day before, and the convoy hasn't actually gone to Tbilisi. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to add a scrolling box to the reference section in order to reduce the page size and condense for easier reading. However, it looked great in the edit review but when I tried to save it I got this message:
The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. If you did not add the link yourself, it most likely was added by another editor before being blacklisted. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted link before you can save your edit. If you are attempting a section edit, note that this block may even be due to blacklisted links in other sections. If you need help removing the blacklisted link, post a message at Wikipedia:Help desk. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page.
The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: overflow auto height Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.
Anyone have any ideas why? I checked the blacklist's on wiki but couldn't find anything there.-- Jmedinacorona ( talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the article, I see a lot of terms like : "South Ossetian Troops", "Abkhazian troops" and I'm sure I saw earlier "South Ossetian Army".
The Issue I see here is IF South Ossetia & Abkhazia are in fact "regions" of Georgian administation. How then did the come by their own "Army" & "Troops" OR are these some sort of millia?
Surely if we were to recognise the Independance of these regions they could have their own militaries, but in the INFO BOX it says : (Unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia & (Unrecognized) Republic of Abkhazia. So that means that this article doesn't recognize their independence, which could be argued is POV. Alternatively if we remove "Unrecognized" then we have a POV issue also.
I didn't change these things because I didn't want to start an edit war or anything but some consensus would be helpfull.
Do we: Recognize the Independence of S.O and Abkhazia (Not what Wikipedia is for) Do we: Refuse to recognize the Independance of S.O and Abkhazia (Same problem) Or do we: Leave it ambiguous. ie. just, South Ossetia. and just, Abkazia. Andrew's Concience ( talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK I'll change the info box to reflect wikipedia's NPOV policy and leave the rest. As soon as someone reads the introduction they're gonna get the picture. Saying (Unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia seems a bit convoluted to me (perhaps even weasel words). Andrew's Concience ( talk) 04:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have seen several people suggest an aftermath section. Today on BBC New there was an analysis of the conflict by Paul Reynolds I wrote this summary of the article and would like to add it to the article:
BBC News analysis Paul Reynolds considers Russia, Vladimir Putin, the South Ossetias, and 'Old Europe' as the clear winners in the recent conflict. Stating that Russia has sent a "clear signal about its readiness to assert itself" and that Germany and France will feel validated in their concern about admitting Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Mr Reynolds identified the losers as the casualties of the conflict, Mikheil Saakashvili, the truth, and 'the West'. With the United States and United Kingdom claiming that Mr. Saakashvili was cautioned to exercise restraint in the build up to the conflict the West suffers from both an ally losing a conflict and the ally disregarding advice. [30]
I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia so I didn't want to be bold and just add it sense it is a touchy issue. Also, it might be to soon to add an aftermath section. Joseph Godwin ( talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I quote from the beginning:
..During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali...
how come there's no mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city? Was there a discussion on this? This should be mentioned, because the soft wording is clearly misleading. If there's a disagreement, the disagreement should be noted, but without the mention of a massive (albeit from some points of view) attack on the city the beginning of the article, as it seems to me, is skewed in favor of Georgia.
-- CopperKettle ( talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I propose this:
During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction(?, but were later disputed in a number of sources?).
I am sure that a statement like this, giving a clear snapshot of Russian perception of the pivotal moment, should be in the beginning of the article, if our aim is to present a balanced view on the conflict. Best regards, -- CopperKettle ( talk) 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
. Just to keep objectivity and avoid conflict on the talk page :). Andrew's Concience ( talk) 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction, but the extent of civilian casualties was later disputed (?heavily disputed, the alleged extent was criticized by, etc.?) by the number of sources.
-- CopperKettle ( talk) 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[15] Blair said the actual trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.[16]
CopperKettle, in your wording the "heavy shelling" and "humanitarian crisis" due to the initial advance of Georgian army into Tskhinvali are presented as facts, while they are among the things that are "according to Russian (government) sources". An increasing number of other reports disputes the extent of the initial destruction, as you rightly say yourself. Notice that the Iraqi War example you give starts with "according to", which makes it clear from the beginnig that these were the official US/British reasons given at the time. Your version presents the alleged heavy demolition of the city by the Georgians as a fact. If you want to follow the Iraqi War article, it would rather be something like:
During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[39] According to Russian sources there was such a heavy shelling that it laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis. The news of the shelling was extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction and Russia threatened to respond to defend South Ossetians against "a genocide by Georgian forces."[40][16] The extent of civilian casualties was later disputed in a number of sources.[41]
(This is based both on your original suggestion and the current version.) What do you say? 132.68.72.110 ( talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
rasstanovka_sil
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Volunteers arriving in South Ossetia - president's envoy 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Estonian president called for end of talks to have a treaty with Russia in regards to cooperation and called idea of partnership with Russia a mistake [1] -- Molobo ( talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
To everyone that's done work on the article...here. There's just so many edits to the page its mindboggling. Feel free to copypaste to your talk page. -- Spencer T♦ C 21:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree 194.116.199.218 ( talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In the first section nammed "Summary", the sentence : “In the early 2000s, it was reported that 95% of the native population in South Ossetia adopted Russian citizenship.[26]” is sourced with a russian newspaper website and appears to me to be false. At least it must be written : "Russia reported that..." or "Russia claims that...".
Can an administrator protect this article, can you protect it from propaganda (from both side..) ? thanks. MaCRoEco ( talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also feel that the following paragraph is biased: "On August 8, 2008, Russia sent troops across the Georgian border to South Ossetia to stop Georgia’s massive offensive against its breakaway territory in which some 2,000 civilians (at least 1000 [29] ) and about 20 Russian peacekeepers were killed. In five days of fighting the Russian forces recaptured the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory.[30] Georgia retreated from its offensive in South Ossetia, then claimed to be defending itself against "Russian aggression."[31] Russia responded to the charge in the United Nations, saying Georgia had started the war by conducting a military operation against South Ossetia.[23]" Popersman ( talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"On August 8, 2008, Russia sent troops across the Georgian border to South Ossetia (to stop Georgia’s massive offensive against its breakaway territory). In five days of fighting the Russian forces (recaptured) the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory."
The sections in parenthesis still strike me as non-neutral, and use of the word "recaptured" implies that Tshkinvali was taken from the Russians by the Georgians and then "recaptured" by the Russians, which is of course not the case. It should read "Captured".
I've seen on other articles references put in a scrolling box to save space. I don't know how to do it but may I suggest doing it here, 313 references and growing is too many to display at once. Terlob ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"Neither state has been diplomatically recognised by any member of the United Nations."
What about Russia? -- Calibas ( talk) 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2008 South Ossetia war → ? — I believe that the name of this article should be changed, because the current name-2008 South Ossetia War-implies that combat is restricted to South Ossetia, which is inaccurate, and could be considered misleading. In previous discussions, some have stated that we should wait until after the war is concluded before selecting a new name. I understand the reasoning behind that argument, but I believe a provisional name, at least, should be inserted that is more reflective of the suituation in Georgia. I personally believe the new name should be 2008 War in Georgia, as no side is discriminated against in the title, which has been a concern about the proposed "Russia-Georgia War 2008" new name (South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not listed), and all of the fight is happening within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia. Any other suggestions are welcome, obviously.—
86.146.241.248 (
talk)
22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Since this discussion does not involve an original suggestion for a name, but instead is a discussion to find a number of suggestions, and then draw a consensus on one, please could you state "support" followed by the new name you would like to see this article have, if you support the article being renamed. Thank you in advance. 86.146.241.248 ( talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
doktorb words deeds 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe the fact that the war is ongoing means that we can't select a title that is more reflective of what is going on in Georgia. The fighting has extended outside of South Ossetia, and I believe the name of the article should reflect that. 86.146.241.248 ( talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on your suggestion about capitalizing "war", I have adjusted my vote. Thank you for stating your idea. 86.146.241.248 ( talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also agree on Russo-Georgian War as it follows past precedent. For example the Russo-Swedish War, Russo-Japanese War, and Russo-Turkish War among many others. XavierGreen ( talk) 07:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Now the the invasion of Georgia is over there is an Aftermath section which would be usefull. All the below can be sourced
We could include consequences of the invasion:
-- Molobo ( talk) 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We can discuss how to phrase and source this. -- Molobo ( talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You can easily say the Tactical victory was a Diplomatic loss. To the above Tsarist
There's more because I am not brain washed by a government controlled press. I also don't do any Kiddie BS like the 'OL switch-a-roo when trying to convince someone of my side of the story( It's quite pathetic that copying a bunch of kiddies and thinking its fooling us, if your going emulate our culture do it right). I only have to contend with left or right leaning press. IF we see bombs parts with NATO or the USA written on it you better get out your pitch fork and get back to your government controlled farm so you can be safe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.64.87 ( talk) 04:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Today serious hostilities ended and the ceasefire agreement was signed by both sides. As a result, I put in today's date as the end of the conflict. The result is the ceasefire agreement signed by both sides, which essentially restored the status quo ante bellum. TSO1D ( talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think its way to soon to officially call the war over. Prime minster Putin announced it would not stop until President Mikheil Saakashvili was removed for 'war crimes'. Yet a half hour later the President of the Russian Federation announced it has signed a cease-fire agreement sponsored by the European Union, but immediately bombed the Georgian city of Gori once more until all known incidents of fighting stopped abruptly and the Russian invasion force halted it's advance into Georgia.
75.179.172.189 (
talk)
00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
Do we have a link that says Georgia and Russia both actually signed a peace agreement? the_paccagnellan ( talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Signed or Unsigned since the acceptance of the ceasefire Russian tanks have moved within 12 miles of Tbilisi. 24.0.64.87 ( talk)
I think it is clear to everyone that Moscow accomplished all of its military goals. They retook S. Ossetia from Georgian troops, they suffered comparatively minimal losses and had total domination of airspace. Georgian goals, obviously, have not been met. Their military has suffered an embarrassing defeat. I think the "result" needs to reflect this.-- 71.112.145.102 ( talk) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we have many reports that Russia violated the cease-fire today and sacked the city of Gori and are heading toward the Capital, annexed military supplies at a Georgian base, and fired on or returned fire on the Georgian army.
Additionally a American journalist has been wounded and two others killed in a cross fire, while Abkahzian troops advanced into Georgian territory, Russia denies all these claims though.
The war is still ongoing unfortunately, in my option.
Sorry, i keep forgeting to sign it.
75.179.172.189 ( talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade rat
In talking with some friends, someone told me that one of Georgia's primary concerns about S. Ossetia is that it has a militarily strategic position in the mountains separating Georgia from Russian. According to this person, one of the few tunnels through the mountains between Russian and Georgia opens into S. Ossetia. By controlling S. Ossetia, Georgia (or Russian) is able to better control access to that passage. I haven't been able to verify whether this is true or not, but if it is I think it's an interesting strategic interest worth including in the article if it can be documented. croll ( talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently at work and our websense blocks me from news sites. I was just listening to jjj radio here in Australia. They had a report on "Georgian claims of Russian ethnic cleansing" and I figured this was the same tired old back and forth accusation we've been hearing, but then I heard this interview on there with the Georgian President, and I quote: " We have confirmed reports of the Russians carrying out ethnic cleansing within Georgian territories as well as Russian internment camps outside of the South Ossetian capital, where they have been performing ethnic cleansing and executions". Now I'm not sure if this is propaganda but true or not these Georgian claims are usefull to this article. Please can somone look into this because I'm stuck at work. Andrew's Concience ( talk) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The BBC has also reported on looting, burning, and armed robbery in Gori, committed by South Ossetian irregulars and civilians following the Russian army. I can't find any documentation on this except hearsay. Obviously, this is inflammatory and needs to be substantiated. -- 67.163.163.28 ( talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me kindly what is picture of Russian Army in Bosnia[ [2]] doing in this article? Request removal. 68.151.34.161 ( talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The timeline section was massively cut because the article was too long with it all in. However, the section is now far too short, unreferenced, and grammatically incorrect. A compromise between the earlier and current versions is obviously necessary. Superm401 - Talk 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is the Georgia version of timeline. can be used to balance the article. -- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 06:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I said "some of Wikipedia editors", not ALL. For the evidence of continuing violence, please see the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website [4]. I'm just back from Gori to Tbilisi and I know what I'm talking about.-- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
When people update the references can they check to see what it comes out as? The references section is a mess! I'm going to try and clean it up a bit, but someone else can do a better job on #12, 13, 48, 88, 89, 143, 144, 145. Lihaas ( talk) 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A user commented in my video on this wikipedia article: " I think in this article they missed that part that Georgia and S.Ossetia made an agreement (in ealy 90s) not to attack each other and allow Russian to be peacekeepers on their border to prevent any conflict. On August 8th Georgia attacked peacekeepers and neaby villages and city of Tchenvally. Then Russia responded and.. so on.."
so, should that be added to the article? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mdupont (
talk •
contribs)
07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Bombing of the residential district, and later the cluster bombing of the demilitarized (and mostly abandoned by residents, too) city that killed the Dutch journalist and several other people after the Georgian army completely withdrew from the city. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 08:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The US defense official said about 8,000 to 10,000 Russian troops have moved into South Ossetia.
It does NOT mean there are "8,000-10,000 Russian soldiers". It means there 8,000-10,000 additional (invasion) Russian soldiers in South Ossetia, ONLY - in addition to thousands formal (former) pecekeepers, and thousands of reinforments to Abkhazia (5,000-6,000 offically, I think), and also further thousands in the Navy and Air Force.
Jesus. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That's why that phrase was put in after the 'thousands of other troops entering Georgia'. Learn to read before editing, damn.
Sides at the beginning of the conflict:
Georgia | South Ossetia | Russia | |
---|---|---|---|
Army | 30,000 [1] | 3,000 [2] | 100,000 in the region [1] |
Tanks | 200 [1] | 87 [2] | 620 in the region [1] |
Aircraft | 9 [3] | 0 [2] | 320 in the region [1] |
This is not including Abkhazia and not really needed now, as it should be about troops involved in Georgia and including reservists and volunteers. Moved here so anyone would use it for something if needed, or maybe change and update or hwatever. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 09:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Btw, it's possibly incorrect: "Georgia has 230 tanks and 12 combat aircraft." [5] -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have an information about Russian loses and causualities according to Georgia. They were stated by Georgian National security council. So, Russia lost abot 400 persons of military stuff and 21 air crafts (planes and helicopters). Put this information on.
It seems key elements of this conflict are missing. I don't know where they belong -- a timeline, background, context, significance section?
First would be U.S. physical support for Georgia, specifically returning 2,000 Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia to fight, August 11.
Here are some of many links
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=5548608&page=1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080811/wl_mideast_afp/georgiarussiaunrestustroops_080811180651 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia8?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/airforce_georgian_airlift_081108w/ http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_georgia_flyinghome_081008/
And these links noting U.S. Georgia joint military exercises the weeks before the conflict: July 15, 1,000 U.S. troops started a three week long military exercises with the Georgians.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1556589920080715 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/15/europe/EU-GEN-Georgia-US-Military.php
Next would be U.S. Russian rivalry over energy transportation through Georgia.
The BBC notes in its Georgia country profile “Moscow's key rival, the US has a major interest in security and stability in the country, having invested heavily in an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan via Georgia to Turkey. The Georgian armed forces have been receiving US training and support.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102477.stm
The Associate Press asserts “A U.S.-backed oil pipeline runs through Georgia, allowing the West to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil while bypassing Russia and Iran.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/09/MNDG127U55.DTL
James Traub in the New York Times, also notes the key role energy transport plays in Russian U.S. differences. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
U.S. Russian conflicts over energy transport is similarly emphasized by the Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag02.html
Seems about half the reports on the fighting mention the pipeline -- lots of discussion of whether Russia bombed or tried and missed the pipeline etc.
I put these in discussion so as not to interfere with anyone's work so far —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjpro ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
July 31 was ended "Immediate Response" NATO training at Vaziani Military Base (near Tbilisi), with 1000 US military specialists (from United States Army Europe, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1st Battalion 121 Infantry Regiment Georgian National Guard (Atlanta, Georgia) and 5045th General Support Unit.) Ru magister ( talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The US will use military aircraft and naval forces to deliver humanitarian aid to the region. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7559252.stm I can't confirm weather Russia has assured safe passage, will the flights be escorted by US fighters? Will the ships be war ships or support ships? -- Josephdurnal ( talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Joseph. Must have lost it in the shuffle. I think the U.S. role could be made clearer, seems a little buried. The pipeline needs to be cited in the article. Here is another link: Mainstream German media interview with U.S. “pipeline negotiator” about role of oil pipeline in the war and U.S. Russian rivalry http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,571855,00.html This is another good link from Der Spiegel in which various news outlets comment on the war and oil – each outlet’s political position is identified. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,571291,00.html Where do you (or anyone else) think this belongs? Adjpro ( talk) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the Russians must have made a decision not to get directly involved with the U.S. Der Spiegel’s headline is “proxy war,” by which they mean the West supporting the fight against Russia through Georgia, but this does not really comment on Russia’s acceptance of this arrangement. Being Wikipedia we have to wait for another media outlet to analyze this point. I was looking over the Causes section of the WWI Wikipedia entry and it seems the current war also needs a section on causes, though, of course, it would be less authoritative. It seems that some of the same categories could be useful. Right now the Background section with Georgian, Russian, and South Ossetian “Interests” limits the focus to national conflicts rather than opening it to larger economic and political issues.
Here are the causes from the WWI Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wwi 1 Causes 1.1 Arms race 1.2 Plans, distrust, and mobilization 1.3 Militarism and autocracy 1.4 Balance of power 1.5 Economic imperialism 1.6 Trade barriers 1.7 Ethnic and political rivalries
Maybe this entry could be a model in other ways: Rearrange the existing entry to have a Chronology section, and (soon) War Crimes, Technology, Opposition to the war, Literature sections. There are Wikipedia models for organization of a war entry, right now this one is too disorganized. Adjpro ( talk) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or has the war been taken out of this article altogether? The article is 74kB long, yet it jumps straight from "Background" to "Peace plan". Scolaire ( talk) 09:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the move of the war's details is somewhat confusing, especially for someone who's been following the article daily.
Also unclear is what the status (as of August 13) of the conflict really is. There are mentions of "ceasefires" and the "peace plan," but I have not yet seen anywhere that both sides have agreed to any particular version of the plan. Does anyone have information regarding this? the_paccagnellan ( talk) 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, my main point is, why call it "2008 South Ossetia war" if it's about anything and everything except the war? Scolaire ( talk) 11:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ya I liked the daily updates here too. 129.42.208.183 ( talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
They're explained in the hidden text next to them. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 09:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There was no discussion about it, only opinion that it's POW, because we need information about percantage of Russian military budget to Russian GDP. But it doesn't mean that we must delete sources and information: it means we need information about Russia.
Such information indicate who planned the war costs. We knowthat the groth of Geprgian military budget was from 0,5 % GDP (2005) up to 6 % GDP (2008). Why is it POW? Because it's indicate real planns of "small peacefull young democrasy" wich under pressure of "coward Red Bear"??? -- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 10:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The detailed desciption of how this war started and it's progress day by day, with sources appears to have been deleted. This is unfortunate since some crucial information, like the run-up to the War has been lost as a consequence Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah it was moved to the Timeline article. Forget this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Villages in Georgia were being burned and looted as Russian tanks followed by "irregulars" advanced from the breakaway province of South Ossetia, eyewitnesses said today.
"People are fleeing, there is a mood of absolute panic. The idea there is a ceasefire is ridiculous," Luke Harding, guardian.co.uk's correspondent said.
Georgian villages burned and looted as Russian tanks advance August 13 2008 11:40 BST -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This conflict might have set a new president for international law. As of now, it's obviously OK to set up "peacekeeping forces" in a foreign territory for an indefinite time, OK to hand out passports to people you are going to "protect", OK - as long as you are aggressive enough (and have a permanent veto in the UNSC... USA let Georgia down, and one might wonder what kind of future there is for that country... Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler have so much in common, and the latter would probably have been proud of his successor... 213.50.111.114 ( talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the peacekeeping forces, they were there according to UN resolutions of 1994. I quote one of them:
2. Notes with satisfaction the beginning of Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) assistance in the zone of conflict, in response to the request of the parties, on the basis of the 14 May 1994 Agreement on a Cease-fire and Separation of Forces (S/1994/583, Annex I), in continued coordination with the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), and on the basis of further coordinating arrangements with UNOMIG to be agreed by the time of the Council's consideration of the Secretary-General's recommendations on the expansion of UNOMIG. (Resolution 934, June 30th 1994)
Together with UNOMIG observers, their mission was to ensure stability in Abchazia and later in Ossetia. As for the Ossetian side, the peacekeeping forces consisted of contributions from all three parties (Russia, Georgia, South ossetia).
Besides, putting a peace-keeping force on foreign territory for an indefinite amount of time is one of the most prominent characteristics of UN and NATO anyway. Ever since the formation of such international councils and organizations they have intervened in unstable (and sometimes stable too) regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.168.192 ( talk) 03:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The word you're looking for is precedent. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
People! Kosavo is in a completely different set of circumstances- NATO had warned Serbia for a long time before the air campaign- but they where believed to have massacred 500,000 Albanians (later to be found at a lower number)
Russia had a pre-set invasion that invaded Georgia about 8 hours after Georgia crossed into South Ossetia- they gave no warning or anything its completely different.
And even so, two wrongs do not make a right.
75.179.172.189 ( talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
Also, who gives a rat's hindquarters about international law. Also those peacekeepers that were there indefinetly were on UN (idiots) orders.
Describing RM-70 or DANA as "western weapons" is totally incorrect, for one RM-70 was found in the inventories of most warsaw patch nations during cold war, ie DDR so on and actually uses the launcher from SOVIET BM-21 Grad system, so on. Somebody correct this please. All in all Slavic nations arent "western" no matter how much they are members of NATO or EU.
Tony Halpin and Roger Boyes. August, 13 article. Translation to the Russian.
"... Когда в Тбилиси нахлынули иностранные корреспонденты, команда бельгийских пиарщиков начала остроумную операцию по оповещению их с помощью электронной почты о так называемых агрессивных действиях России и о реакции правительства Грузии. Например, в воскресенье было разослано больше 20 писем, подтверждающих слова Грузии о российском вторжении.
Часть сведений, содержавшихся в них, оказалась явным преувеличением - как, например, утверждения об 'интенсивных бомбардировках Тбилиси' российскими самолетами, или о захвате Гори российскими войсками - но культура круглосуточных новостей заставила многие организации повторить их без независимой проверки".
http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/243210.html -- Niggle ( talk) 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war ... As foreign correspondents poured into Tbilisi a team of Belgian PR advisers launched a slick operation to keep them updated with e-mail alerts detailing the latest alleged aggressions by Russia and the Georgian Government’s reaction. On Sunday, for example, more than 20 e-mails went out to shape Georgia’s message that Russia had launched an invasion.
Some of the claims veered into outright exaggeration – such as stating that Russian jets were “intensively bombing Tbilisi” or that Russian troops had taken Gori – but the 24-hour news culture meant that many organisations repeated them without independent verification. ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece
-- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 12:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that also a part about not identified interests should appear. Even if it will be empty, because using hands of others is not new in wars.
War is always an interest of parties who sell military technique and who invest highly in this armament. We can find easily that US military assistance 2002 for Georgia was 31 889 000 USD. And Georgia bought a lot of military goods and services from Israel, Ukraine, etc.
Another moment: parties who want to weaken a competitor may be interested in his problems inside country. One of possible things may be already mentioned interests of Russia competeing with NATO in the region. Other possible things: most different Caucasian peoples (regarded often as hot tempered persons in the context of the former USSR) live spread in the whole Russia, many have important place in small local business of vegetable markets. Fightings between them and reactions of skinheads may complicated heavily interior order of Russia. Ruin of Russia as multicultural state can be profitable for those who had losses with arrest of Khodorkhovsky and similar as access to natural resources of Russia may be facilitated. Who has the best appetite for that in our world with changing climate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eglekuc ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
But is he for sure the new commander in Georgia now? -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 12:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
CNN is reporting that Russian tanks have entered Georgia again. A journalist comfirmed this. When questioned where they were heading they said "to Tblisi". Here is the link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/georgia_russia Attilavolciak07 ( talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this in the article yet? Attilavolciak07 ( talk) 13:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia [6] Russian troops entering Gori every day:
86.102.43.111 ( talk) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/explain/ -- 78.107.85.14 ( talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriosuly. I took a look at "Summary" section, and it's total crap:
The Telegraph reporters, in Gori on the 12th, did not see any Russian troops in the city.
What -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about "ethnical cleansing", as that is the term that does not appear in the BBC report. It does, however, reconfirm that the Russian forces are still pushing forward their military campaign despite what they say. So this should be added. Also, following the removal of detailed description of warfare timeline, the Wikipedia information has become seriously Russian-POV oriented, presented disputable facts I read for the first time, mostly Russian accusations against Georgia.
There is some info left about Georgia but just look at the "South Osetia" part, it has three times more information from Russian government controlled information sources than about Georgia. Also, the form in which Russian side of view is presented is mostly "There has been", "A witness has saw" while information Georgia presents is shown as "Georgia claims that", "Alleges that" etc. Basically if I would be Russian KGB member I wouldn't mind the currently presented information much.
There have been many international media confirmations and video footages with Russians bombing Georgia outside the disputed regions... could somebody put that all back up on page? Ghanopala ( talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/ukrainians/ 3 Su-25 and Tu-22 BTW, there were 2 other sources for that, but someone deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.169.5 ( talk) 13:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Block requested, kthx. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there are at least two versions of the AP story about their reporter talking to Russians south of Gori; one says "armored vehicles", the other says "tanks". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/33/holmogorow.6/0_18cf4_b990691_orig (near Gori). Магистер ( talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are all the pictures of either Georgian military or protests in Georgia? We should also include photos of public demonstrations in Russia against the Georgian aggression and the such to be politically neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.151.88 ( talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Giving two psychopaths bullhorns and letting them scream at each other is not aiding neutrality just because they are equally loud.
The Times are reporting that an "armoured column" of at least 100 vehicles is heading towards Tbilisi. The BBC confirms this. I'm going to add this to the article summary, barring any objections? J.F.Bargh ( talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This whole thing is completely confusing again. Are there Russian troops in Gori or not? From the Times: In particular, Moscow denied Georgian claims that 50 of its tanks were in Gori, the Georgian city near the Ossential border. The city had been abandoned by its authorities who had fled, said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian General Staff. "We cannot find anyone. How they were evacuated and what happened there is a mystery to us," he said. --> So they claim they have no troops in Gori, but then again, they say that they can't find anyone in Gori? That doesn't work. [8] -- DanteRay ( talk) 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"An AFP reporter saw Russian troops shouting: "Tbilisi, Tbilisi" but their destination was unclear." Jesus, people, press, everyone... -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Telegraph says that the Russian convoy is being "pursued by a large contingent of the world's media", so it sounds like a bit of a circus. I suggest we sit back a bit as opposed to jumping on very minute-by-minute report on where the Russians are going from the media. The larger story is what's happening in the villages around Gori. Bdell555 ( talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
From the article,
The reference itself says
This actually contradicts this report which says
So I suggest correcting or rephrasing that statement accordingly.( Igny ( talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
Also this this report confirmed:
Georgian officials said Russian troops had moved out of South Ossetia into Georgia proper, occupying the city of Gori while Georgian troops were retreating to the capital. But US defense officials said they were unable to corroborate the Georgian claims.
"We don't see anything that supports they are in Gori," said a defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't know why the Georgians are saying that." -- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My IP is 195.98.173.10 Georgians are better in words, than in swords. -- Niggle ( talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new user. This is my first discussion post (at least I think this is supposed to be a discussion post).
I was reading this article earlier this morning and it had a small table comparing both sides in terms of force strength levels. It had 2 columns with the Russians and separatists on column 2 and the Georgians on column 1. The first line had total number of available troops for both sides. The second had total number of tanks, third had the number of aircraft. There might have been 1 or 2 more rows, I can't remember. Reading this table made it easy to understand how each side compared.
Whoever removed this small table, could you put it back? Thanks. Mr-Encyclopedia-Man ( talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian troops are apprently pulling out http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia Attilavolciak07 ( talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just found it and thought it would worth noting. Attilavolciak07 ( talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Georgian news agency (fonded by EU) which was hacked by Russian FSB is back and fully operational. Please consult references from that site, there are too many Russian propaganda references which make this article more unbalanced. [11] Iberieli ( talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
that part of this page is highly inaccurate, as it fails to meation the conficts in Moldava, or in Central Asia, and that has to change.
...are notably missing from this article. Personally, public opinion in Russia would interest me the most. Russian Wikipedia article has a section on some non-government views in Russia, see #A comparison to the Russian Wikipedia (translation). GregorB ( talk) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian media and public information are controlled, including internet. Right it is impossible to know what public tells and knows. But the media due influence a lot of nationalism there. Of course the propaganda is more subtle then in Soviet times and to make it credible they allow controlled criticism of government to make media look credible.--
Molobo (
talk)
21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Web brigades. Also Reporters Without Borders put Russia at 144th place in the World Press Freedom Index from a list of 169 countries. -- Molobo ( talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In Russia people make donations and collect assistance for the aggrieved civilians of Ossetia. Ru magister ( talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And how does this connect to the information here ? As Carl Bildt noted such justifications were used in 1939 and 1938 by Germany.-- Molobo ( talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"Web brigades" in Russia are basically the same as "Think Tanks" in the West. No difference. 77.28.215.83 ( talk) 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Information published on 18th July 2008 that Chechen seperatists revealed they intercepted Russian plan to invade Georgia in August. The attack will be between 20 and 10 September using Kodori and Cchinwal. The plan was made and authorised by Putin. Reports movement of 8,000 soldiers to border with Georgia. -- Molobo ( talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The prediction is notable. Note that they are now two sourced statements regarding that the invasion was planned. -- Molobo ( talk) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
[13] A very good source, we could make good use of this Ijanderson977 ( talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Article: (Information warfare
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin accused foreign media of pro-Georgian bias in their coverage of the ongoing conflict between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia. "We want television screens in the West to be showing not only Russian tanks, and texts saying Russia is at war in South Ossetia and with Georgia, but also to be showing the suffering of the Ossetian people, the murdered elderly people and children, the destroyed towns of South Ossetia, and [regional capital] Tskhinvali. This would be an objective way of presenting the material," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said. Current Western media coverage of the events in the separatist republic is "a politically motivated version, to put it mildly," he said.[256]
On August 11, 2008, the Russia Today TV channel accused CNN of presenting video footage made by Russia Today in South Ossetia as pictures of bombed Gori.[257]
Cyberattacks and censorship)
Seems one sided and rather Russian bias. I know there are plenty of links to the opposing view. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of the press in Russia 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
( talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Reffering to the South Ossetians and Abkhazia government as 'Successionists' is pro-Georgian POV and incorrect. Russ It is not normal to refer to a country as Successionists unless they are fighting their initial war to secede from a larger country. In this instance, this is incorrect, since this is NOT the first conflict that these countries have been involved in. Hence they are not Successionists or a Successionist government.
This is not a POV statement, since on the same principle we should still refer to the USA as the Successionist government of the USA, due to the fact they faught a past war to suceed from Britain. We do not do so, hence it is both POV and incorrect to refer to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Successionist governments. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the fulcrum here is "international recognition". 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
So why not add internationally unrecognised (which is no longer really true) rather than successionist government? Both are equally long and one is factual (or at least it was) rather than blatently POV like successionist. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
However, this does make a rather long title. Republic of South Ossetia (internationally unrecognised). But it is no secret anyway given it clearly says so on it's own page. Also, past references to South Ossetia/Abygazia do not use the term 'seperatist government'. Including the page of the offending entity and the first Ossetian War, when the term 'seperatist' would actually be accurate. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should Wikipedia base it's definitions on the in my opinion 'Emporer has no Clothes' game of international unrecognition, rather than the actual facts of the matter. The actual facts of the matter (ie de-facto or 'in fact') are that those countries have not been de-facto Seccesionists for 16 years, because de-facto they have been independant for that long.
The position that De-Jure they are part of Georgia, is a POV position since the idea that De-Jure status stems from International recognition rather than de-facto reality is itself a POV, one which is not universally recognised, for instance by myself and obviously not by South Ossetia and Abkhazia either.
Since the definition of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians in this war as successionists is not a de-facto definition but a definition that is based upon a POV which elevates international recognition to the status of final legal arbiter and one which tacitly recognises the Georgian claim to those areas as valid, it is actually NPOV to describe them as 'unrecognised Republics' as opposed to 'successionist governments', since that is a factual statement (even if arguably they are now effectively recognised by Russia) as opposed to a POV statement based upon a particular legal theory of national independance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
However the Succesionist status normally ends when the nation has successfully gained it's independance from the country. I completely support the status of Succesionist for the last Ossetian war as NPOV, but not this one, since now South Ossetia is independant. For instance, we don't normally refer to the USA as 'the successionist government of the USA'.
Successionist in THIS War is a POV term, since South Ossetia/Abkhazia are no longer trying to secede from Georgia, they are already independant, just internationally unrecognised. The claim that they are still part of Georgia and trying to 'secede' from Georgia in this war is Georgian POV definately. Since the claim that de-jure South Ossetia is part of Georgia, is itself a POV position based upon a particular legal theory of independance.
It has nothing to do with Seccesionist being 'bad' or 'good' it's just in this particular War it is not factually accurate, except if you accept the Georgian POV or a particular disputed legal theory of independance. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 10:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
To break away from a country is to "secede" from it. The process is "secession" and those who undertake it are "secessionists". "Succession" is the replacement of one by another according to an orderly progression; the prince succeeds the king, or the vice president succeeds to the presidency. The prince and his secessionists secede from the kingdom until the king dies and the prince succeeds the throne according the order of succession. That said, doesn't South Ossetia want to join with North Ossetia as part of Russia? That's not exactly secession. The situation is analogous to that of Bosnia; as soon as Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia, the Republika Srpska seceded from Bosnia because they wanted not to have seceded in the first place. Surprisingly, it led to conflict. -- 67.163.163.28 ( talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if South Ossetia initially aimed to join up with North Ossetia as part of Russia. I'm pretty sure they want to be Independant rather than annexed by Russia, although they are very pro-Russian and have a close ties to Russia, which are going to get even closer by looks of things (if that were even possible).
I would demand some actual source from the South Ossetian government itself about it's intentions to join Russia before I would consider that a founded statement. Basically, I know of no statement in which the 'present' South Ossetian government actually states it's intent to become an official part of Russia.
Basically, does the actual South Ossetian government actually state it's intention to join with Russia? Or is this an unsubstantiated media rumour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that they were offered such passports by the Russian government, given the regions economic dependance upon North Ossetia and probably more cynically so they would have a Casus Belli in case of this happening to defend 'Russian citizens'.
However a Customs Union does not mean the country has been annexed by another country or intends to be annexed. Is there any evidence that the South Ossetian government intends to place itself formally under Russian rule? I'm not saying that this is an unlikely possibility in the future, I just wish to know what the claims basis is, if there is any. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Until the secession has been finalized, it is still a secession. De Facto independence for any number of years is irrelevant, as the territories in question were never formally admitted to constitute a separate nation or separate nations, by either the international community, the existing sovereign state in question, or the neighboring regional sovereign states. If it is POV to use international recognition as a guideline for determining a state's status, what guideline do those who object to the term "Secession" suggest?
However the seccession has indeed been finalised in 1992, in that the initial attempt to seperate South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia was successful. In that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were able to win the first war against Georgia and Georgia was forced to withdraw from those areas.
The guideline that we suggest is actual de-facto existance and having managed to survive the initial war that the former controller of those territories has launched to reclaim them. That is to say, successfully seperated from the original State without bieng reconquered.
International recognition is irrelavant to the actual material existance of a state and their de-facto non-seperatistness (is that a word?), because as the saying goes.
The Emporer does in fact have no Clothes. Whether the existance of an independant state is recognised by a bunch of self-interested and not exactly unbiased foreign states who won't recognise independance unless it suits them, is irrelavant as to whether a country actually exists or not. Basically, the Emporer is naked whether everyone denies this is so or not.
And finally, to call them Seperatists, is to tacitly recognise the Georgian claims in this war, which is simply blatent POV. To call them unrecognised states is simply NPOV and factual, since it allows the reader to arrive at his own conclusions based upon their own theory of such things. Slayer of Cliffracers ( talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though French polticians brokered the peace plan, they did so in the capacity of EU-representatives if I'm not mistaken. If I'm right, I think that this is insufficiently reflected in the section on the peace plan. -- Jeroenm ( talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
http://life.ru/media/images/0808/1089004bdb5d4840f5b325ba767bfd20.jpg
American soldier captured by Russian Army in Georgia.
I love the Russian racism in all of this chasing of a "negro" ghosts in Georgia. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 09:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"No captured soldiers in this war." "No captured soldiers in this small military mission." Perhaps his name is a typo, and should actually be spelled Ru Minister... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 ( talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
i seriously doubt the united states would be dumb enough to let its personnel into the fighting, unless it was doing some secret mission recon or something. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph of "Humanitarian impact" subsection "South Ossetia" is a series of atrocity stories of murders by Georgian forces, sourced to the Russian press: civilians gunned down in basements, little old ladies are run over intentionally by tanks, numerous incidents of people herded into buildings and the buildings burned down.If the Georgian press or government spokesmen, or international press have issued any denials, these should be included in the section. War crimes are all too common, but so are false lurid atrocity stories in wartime, and the section seems POV. Edison ( talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are right, the Russian press (to my knowledge) is state-run and so would naturally emite what could be perceived as propaganda. I believe it is far, far to soon to allege war crimes (for either side) unless witnessed by independent sources. Georgian and Russian sources are completely unreliable- both will allege things- perhaps not lying but that is called fog of war. It won be until the war is over and the UN comes in that we can really begin to understand if any war crimes took place.
Therefore i suggest we do not put anything unless confirmed by independent sources based on independent eye witnesses. I believe it will prove to be far more accurate once everything is found out and will not play into the propaganda war.
75.179.172.189 (
talk)
16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
Man, Ru magister is the best the KGB (sorry, FSB) could come up with? I guess they aren't that concerned about wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 ( talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Added an NPOV tag - Edison's description precisely summarizes the situation. aristotle1990 ( talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a map showing the movement of Russian troops, the different battles and attacks. It could be added to the article. -- DanteRay ( talk) 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Russian are in Gori to feed people ( http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/feed/) and to maintain law and order (i.e. preventing crime, looting etc) as Gori left by Georgian authorities and Georgian police and is uncontrolled now ( http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=27084). There is an agreement between Georgia and Russia, on Aug 14 Georgian police is going to return to Gori, so Russian will leave it ( http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/14/gori/, http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=27124). Sorry, news are in Russian only Enerjazzer ( talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The AP is reporting that Georgia is claiming that Russian forces have entered Gori. [14] JCDenton2052 ( talk) 07:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Saba Tsitsikashvili, a local journalist in Gori, said Russian troops had occupied the main road on the edge of the city, but had not moved towards the centre. "People are in panic. This road where the troops are is about 2km from the centre, she said.", Guardian (11.8..
Finnish news agency STT writes in Iltalehti next (by guy whois in Gori), rough translation: "locals say that there is going on looting by unknown people with uniforms". Another one: "Terhi Hakala (head of the Finlands Etyj operation in Georgia) confirms that there is Russians in Gori and part of it is going towards Tblisi" I guess that she means this convoy (guardian).
Guardian has also news about looting and russians that they have troops near Gori (or least had). (this is pretty much same as in that CNN news above ). -- Zache ( talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian military checkpoint about 5 to 10 km from the city. Tanks, APCs, fuel trucks. ERR 13.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.113.230 ( talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about 'protect' them? They sacked the city! haven't you seen the video and reports from Fox and Sky news?
75.179.172.189 ( talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
Georgian for sure changed (I heard 160 killed). -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, anyone find sources and update (also for the Russian alliance and civilians), cause I'm going now. --
Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (
talk)
09:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
When did Russia "confirm" that 74 soldiers were killed? The latest confirmation was 21, 74 seems like a huge increase in the number reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 ( talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"...said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff.
Nogovitsyn said the conflict had killed 74 Russian troops, wounded 171 and left 19 missing in action. Officials have estimated at least 2,000 civilians were killed in South Ossetia." From CNN [17] 66.241.139.254 ( talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone edit the casualties section. It depicts false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by What Max ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The link isnt dead.. near the end of the page "Anatoly Nogovitsin, the deputy chief of staff, said at a news conference on August 13, that although no verified data was available, but “I’ve heard Georgia has lost 4,000 men.”"
There should be more data regarding lost military equipment,
Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia was just destroyed in the war, CNN showed Abkhazians taking down Georgian flag from the administrative building. Women and children fled at once (under fire), while the men (formal forces and ad-hoc tribal militia) remained and many were killed before they retreated with the Georgian army.
Same with the Georgian villages in South Ossetia, which were heavily bombed and the government (and witnesses according to media reports) say then brutally pacified by the Russian Army after government forces withdrew. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, do we know for a fact that Russia is not going to give back areas of South Ossetia that were Georgia controlled? My understanding is that the ceasefire calls for a status quo ante bellum. Abkhazia is a different situation as the Abkhaz forces are sort of not party to the cease fire agreement and they seemed to have done most of the heavy lifting in Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This picture is not relevant at all to the current events!
they is crazy genocider terrorist russian putin man tell me on tv must be true tv no lie state no lie -unsigned non englisher-
I was replying to Jakezing -- 66.241.139.254 ( talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"An Associated Press correspondent saw and spoke with Russian vehicles south of Gori, heading beyond the city."
So he actually spoke with vehicles ... that's pretty poor English. -- DanteRay ( talk) 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is barely one week old, let one year pass by then we will have a good article. Besides we have non-english speakers editing this article, this is an immense privilege to Wikipedia/English, I wished someone did the same to Wikipedia/Portuguese. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Human Rights Watch group said its researchers in South Ossetia had on Tuesday "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians." [18]
-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Report:
Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted
(Java, August 13, 2008) � Human Rights Watch researchers in South Ossetia on August 12, 2008, saw ethnic Georgian villages still burning from fires set by South Ossetian militias, witnessed looting by the militias, and learned firsthand of the plight of ethnic Ossetian villagers who had fled Georgian soldiers during the Georgian-Russian conflict over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire. [snip - read yourself]
-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No comment, eh? Maybe the pro-Russian editors say something about valiant Russian peacekeepers peacestruggling to end the Georgian genocide and how foreign advisors in Georgia are juggling the facts to make it look bad? SERIOUSLY NOW, someone use it prominently in the article, as it's the first confimation of massive war crimes (there's also some about the plight of South Ossetians, whose men joined the bands of militiamen who are now rampaging through the region, so you can comnpare it with wild the Russian claims of the last few days). -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire.
Not systematic?
Human Rights Watch researchers also saw armed Ossetian militia members in camouflage fatigues taking household items � furniture, television sets, heaters, suitcases, carpets, and blankets � out of houses in the village of Nizhnie Achaveti and loading them into their trucks
Is this what ypou called "combat in war zone"?
He said members of the South Ossetian militia came to his house on August 11, and tried to take away some household items. When he protested, they set the house on fire and left. The man said he had no food or drinking water; his hands were burned and hair was singed
Maybe this is combat?
In the village of Kekhvi, many houses were set on fire between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm on August 12 � they were ablaze as Human Rights Watch researchers moved along the road. Two elderly women from Kekhvi were weeping as they told Human Rights Watch about what happened in the village. One of them explained that the members of South Ossetian militias passed by the village and stopped at her house and �threw something� that set it on fire.
Combat yet?
A representative of the local administration in the town of Java told Human Rights Watch that the authorities had arrested two men who were looting the ethnic Georgian villages, but was adamant that they were not members of the South Ossetian militias. His colleague, however, said, �Isn�t that what they [Georgians] have been doing to us? These old people shouldn�t be complaining � they should be happy they weren�t killed.�
Not strategy?
International humanitarian law applicable to the fighting between South Ossetian militias and Georgian forces prohibits attacks on civilian property, as well as looting or pillaging. Individuals, including commanders, participating in the deliberate or reckless destruction or looting of civilian property are responsible for war crimes. International humanitarian law also prohibits �acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.�"
Not war crime?
No Georgians left in South Ossetia beyond few old people "with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go".
I guess it's "not ethnic cleansing" - actually, it's peacekeeping operation. Thank you Wikipedia. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Captain, read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_Villages
History teaches wisdom. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.162.145.242 (
talk)
03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Talion
"He told Human Rights Watch that the vast majority of the residents, including his family, fled the village when active fighting between Georgian forces and South Ossetian militias broke out on August 8, but he decided to stay to look after the cattle. He said members of the South Ossetian militia came to his house on August 11, and tried to take away some household items. When he protested, they set the house on fire and left. The man said he had no food or drinking water; his hands were burned and hair was singed � apparently as he was unsuccessfully trying to extinguish the fire � and he appeared to be in a state of shock. He said that there were about five to ten elderly and sick people left in the village, all in a similar desperate condition, and many of the houses were burned."
Is this statement mean that after destruction of Tskhinvali and 8-10 Ossetian villages (August, 7-8), Ossetians revenghe on property in Georgians villages without killing of somebody??? I'm not shure it's possible. Do you have any relatives or other peoples who from Caucasus? What do you know about blood feuds/vendetta tradition? I'm Russian. I was born in Sibiria, but now I study in Moscow. My grandfather was from [Avar|Caucasian Avars] (he died 2005), my mother was born in Dagestan. I only know that for deaths of my neighbors or my relatives i will find out person who did that, and kill him. It so called "The Law of the Highlanders". Talion. Do you remember Vitaly Kaloyev case? And I only know that Saakashvili will be punished.
So I don't trust to any statements that for the life of people in Tskhinvali Ossetians take only property of Georgians. And it means that after this actions of the Georgians, South Ossetia will NEVER forget and NEVER forgive Georgia. -- Niggle ( talk) 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What, Is Going On? Yahoo is showing they took gori and renewed offensive, and, what does russia say today? Honestly, i say this:
The claim to foreign soldiers being killed or captured in this section does not seem to be credible at this point. Interesting, yes, but I can't imagine it would have been this ignored by diverse media outlets. Well, maybe I can believe it, but barring verification of the story, or allegations of a cover up, I think it should be removed. Hiberniantears ( talk) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed it again. If this goes back into the article, it has to at least be in a different section. The majority of the Georgian order of battle section should not be about rumored mercenaries that have not been reported by media outside of Russia, let alone verified by the Russian media. Hiberniantears ( talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Some idiot posted that 74 russian soldiers killed with no SOURCE to confirm it just CNN ( american propaganda chanell ) it is unacceptable the russians official claim is 21 soldiers , and someone also changed georgian soldiers killed to 54 even though they admited of lossing over 200 few days ago, some people are obviusly double standard and wan't to make georgia look good ignoring the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiReFTW ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
When did Wikipedia:English become Wikipedia:Russian?? Did I miss the merger? Jmedinacorona ( talk) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just yesterday it had over 300 sources, several pages of text detailed information, and today about 160 sources only and most of the text deleted the article? What happened why was the article butchered like this? I could find no discussion on the talk page about this, did I miss something? Hobartimus ( talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
several places, because otherwise article becomes biased.
* 2.1 South Ossetian interests * 2.2 Georgian interests * 2.3 Russian interests
* 3.1 Demands to end conflict * 3.2 Ceasefire
Article is big, and it is very difficult to find quickly
information about the beginning of the war: who provoked
the conflict, who started the fire first. There must be a
direct link in the contents menu to the timeline section. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
130.207.140.229 (
talk)
20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently I see no link to the main timeline article in this article, so I am adding a link to this article. Christiangoth ( talk) 20:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Things what shoudl be updated or added to timeline:
-- Zache ( talk) 08:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we shoud add America's interest - it is trying to be an active player in the region. It is teaching Saakashvili ^-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Str ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine's President has reportedly decreed that Russian vessels blockading Georgia must ask Ukraine's permission to return to Crimean ports. This strikes me as an important development, since it could create a notable confrontation if Moscow does not comply. But in which section should we address developments that might expand the war beyond Georgia? Bdell555 ( talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
At the same time, picture of the Russian soldiers is not being removed. (And I guess shouldn't be, too, because why?) -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This section remains extremely small. The following sources should be added:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia6 "Georgian villages burned and looted as Russian tanks advance"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/georgia_russia "Russian troops and paramilitaries rolled into the strategic Georgian city of Gori on Wednesday, apparently violating a truce designed to end the conflict that has uprooted tens of thousands and scarred the Georgian landscape."
This paragraph should also be moved from the South Ossetia section to the Georgia one:
"According to reports in the Russian Novye Izvestiya, the UK Guardian, and Sky News, Ossetian irregulars were looting and burning Georgian villages in South Ossetia and near Gori on August 13.[90][91][92] Human Rights Watch said their researchers "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians". The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be “decisive and tough” measures taken against looters.[93]"
aristotle1990 ( talk) 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, should be, but instead people care more about the claims of some bloggers(!) about "pro-Georgian bias in the world" than about confirmed news of militiamen burning villages. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"These men were killers" Bdell555 ( talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Canada has pledged $1 million in aid, Germany $1.5 million. According to its foreign ministry, France will send "30 metric tons of supplies." [6] [7] Spain is working with the Red Cross to help refugees, and has contributed half a million euros in aid. [8]
Latvia has sent to Georgia "A cargo of humanitarian aid of medical items from state reserves consisting of 4,000 containers of blood products and 20,000 gauze bandages to the value of 20,000 lats was sent to Georgia on 12 August. In addition, the Government allocated 100,000 lats from contingency resources to assist Georgia in overcoming the consequences of the war. The money will be utilised according to current exigencies and on the basis of the information provided by Georgia about its needs in the course of rendering crisis relief." [9] Lithuania has thus far given to Georgia 86,000 euros' worth of aid in sleeping bags and medical supplies. [10] Estonia and Poland have sent, in addition to humanitarian aid, computer experts to fend off cyberattacks. [11]
(I am pasting what I wrote here because I am aware that there are continued edit-wars, some of which may be government-sponsored.)
aristotle1990 ( talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the section. I think it is now substantially better and more comprehensive.
"Georgia claimed Russia had bombed airfields and civil and economic infrastructure, including the Black Sea port of Poti. Between eight and eleven Russian jets reportedly hit container tanks and a shipbuilding plant at the port.[96][97] The BBC reported that "In one air strike the pilot missed the intended military base, instead hitting two apartment blocks" in Gori, and the reporters "saw injured civilians being pulled from the buildings."[98] Regarding this incident SkyNews reported that "a military installation had been hit in Gori and surrounding residential apartments had been badly damaged."[99] Journalists referred to the situation in Gori as "chaotic".[98] Georgia has alleged that Russia is committing ethnic cleansing against ethnic Georgians.[100]
Reuters reported an attack on the civilian Tbilisi International Airport, though Russia claims this is misinformation.[101][102] Georgian State Minister for Reintegration, Temur Iakobashvili also denied this, stating, "There was no attack on the airport in Tbilisi. It was a factory that produces combat airplanes."[103]
According to reports in the Russian Novye Izvestiya, the UK Guardian, and Sky News, Ossetian irregulars were looting and burning Georgian villages in South Ossetia and near Gori on August 13.[104][105][106] Human Rights Watch said their researchers "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians". British journalist Andrew Wilson (of the London Times) reports that he was assaulted and almost killed by Ossetian fighters.[107] The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be “decisive and tough” measures taken against looters.[108]
Witnesses report the burning and destruction of Georgian villages (especially around Gori) as Russian troops retreat, mostly by South Ossetians. A "BBC reporter in Gori reported that Russians tanks were in the streets as their South Ossetian separatist allies seized Georgian cars, looted Georgian homes and then set some homes ablaze." Georgian officials say that Gori was targeted for looting and attacks on both military and civilian sites, which may be in violation of a ceasefire agreement.[109][110]"
aristotle1990 ( talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I am also becoming increasingly worried at the profusion of Russian media sources for controversial topics. The article has effectively been spammed with links to Russian websites, which in tone and substance display a clear pro-Russian bias. aristotle1990 ( talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Russians passed through on the 11th, departed, and are there again on the thirteenth. So the New York Times, who were there. [25]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In case you guys missed this. I'm not going to get involved in this article but I think you all should be tracking this story about Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser having been a lobbyist for the govt of Georgia who's brought McCain over there. Wash Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated press, another Wash Post.
Three articles state or infer McCain promoted all this:
So the war isn't over yet? The Russians said no provocations will go unanswered. Yuhi33 ( talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Human Rights report just came out, please include this in the aticle: HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT: Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted [26], "The remaining residents of these destroyed ethnic Georgian villages are facing desperate conditions, with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go. "Tanya Lokshina, researcher in the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch." Iberieli ( talk) 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Rights group confirms reports of abuses by both sides in South Ossetia http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hu5kLlyMAmxUFutHnkRPqmeGregg
Russia exaggerating South Ossetian death toll, says human rights group http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Adjpro ( talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this article should be renamed "South Ossetia Conflict" instead of "South Ossetia War". Althought this might seem to be getting too deep into symmentics, I believe that the use of "war" creates bias. As this is a current event, this conflict may in the future become a war however at the preset time I would not classify it as such. Let me know what people think about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaketaylor88 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
They called the "Cold War" a war a nobody fired a shot, so "war" isn't necessarily inappropriate even if the physical violence was limited. Bdell555 ( talk) 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Should the USA be included in the infobox, due to there "humanitarian Efforts", which are run by the US Military? - Marcusmax ( talk) 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm..
TBILISI (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's pledge to send aid to Georgia means that the U.S. military will take control of the ex-Soviet state's ports and airports, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said on Wednesday. "You have heard the statement by the U.S. president that the United States is starting a military-humanitarian operation in Georgia," Saakashvili said in a television address. "It means that Georgian ports and airports will be taken under the control of the U.S. defense ministry in order to conduct humanitarian and other missions. This is a very important statement for easing tension."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081302202.html
"a military-humanitarian operation" complicates which is which
Adjpro ( talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful. Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."
"The torching of houses in these [Georgian] villages is in some ways a result of the massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties. That is then used to justify retribution."
"[At the Tskhinvali hospital] 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue. Russian and South Ossetian officials have claimed that 1,400 people were killed in the first day of fighting, mostly in Tskhinvali."
"By day five of a conflict one normally expects that there is some kind of list of the dead and injured, or at least an indication of their age and gender. But here there is no information. Absolutely nothing."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we stay on topic here? Arguments should be for or against inclusion of particular material. That means they address questions like whether the source is reliable, whether there is undue weight, etc. Bdell555 ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope this information has been added to the article. Ostap 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"Iranians is not humans for western HRW" Good sir, you are very wrong. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont know if I can trust human rights watch. "Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived anti-Western, anti-China, and anti-Israel bias while others have criticized it for having a pro-Western and pro-Israel bias. According to a report in the Egyptian press, "the government often accuses human rights groups [including Human Rights Watch] of importing a Western agenda that offends local religious and cultural values."[10]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch#cite_note-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by What Max ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment of VDV ( Russian: 45-й гвардейский отдельный разведывательный полк ВДВ) is under direct subordination of VDV Command and in structure of VDV (see his history and COA for example, on [27](in Russian) and VDV-structure at [28](in Russian)). It is under GRU operational subordination only. Alex Spade ( talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Which section is marked for the new events of the conflict? Where should the events after the ceasefire be put into?
Would you consider putting a link in the main article to the specific section of the "timeline" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here you go. They're copyrighted, but nevertheless interesting.
http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551
Talk about evil Russians bombing the single building in Gori and peaceful Saakashvili with his democratic regime "suggesting to lay weapons". These were taken while travelling from Vladikavkaz through Java and to Tskhinvali. This is not something your news channels will show to you. Instead they'll stick with the same single bombed building in Gori. -- 81.195.27.134 ( talk)
"By the way, the writings on the tank say "Chechnya", "Chechnya", "Chechnya", then "Jamadarians" (dunno what's this)"
It means they're Yamadayevtsy - the men of Sulim Yamadayev, a Chechen warlord (and Hero of Russia) now federally wanted in Russia. (sic) Btw, Tskhinvali was also hit by Russian artillery fire and especially air power. If you want to see how the Russian Army (and specifically, the 58th Army) behaves during combat in a city full of "Russian citziens", see the pictures from Grozny. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, NOT A FORUM. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7 at the Reference desk. |
I think that the really bad thing about the war is that the so called world community does not care about Georgia. If USA is really the "defender of liberty", it should give Russia, say, 24 hours to leave Georgia, just like Serbia had to leave Kosovo during the war there. Instead, Russia has been given a blanc card to continue with an extended "peacekeeping" operation on foreign soil - and Georgia has to promise never to defend itself against Russia in the future. Since Russia wont accept an international peacekeeping mission, the rest of the world gives Russia a nod to take care of the problem´. Technically, Georgia is not a sovereign country anymore. Lotta2 ( talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"Russia calls an end to its military offensive in Georgia and agrees to a European Union plan for a ceasefire and peace talks, amid reports of more fighting around the city of Gori."
Looting, wanton destruction and murder is not "fighting". Of the fighting there's little and not with regular Georgian army. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and The Guardian says there's no fighting because... there's practically no one left to fight on the Georgian side.
For most of the day there was no sign of the Georgian army. After five days of ferocious bombardment by Russian warplanes, it appears not to exist. With rumours swirling of an imminent Russian attack on Tbilisi, however, Georgia mustered a platoon of 50 soldiers, who took up positions 10 miles down the road from where the Russians appeared to have parked up for the night. ( Amid promise of peace, Georgians live in terror · Russian militia accused of orgies of looting and rape)
Unless "a new partisan war against the Russians" starts. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7 at the Reference desk. |
I was nice and didn't delete, instead posted "THIS IS NOT A FORUM" message.
This is what user Naurmacil did:
Deletion of my friendly message with the comment: This is not a forum for This is not a forum comments. Be contributive, or fuck off
MODS: please take care of him. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to behave EXACTLY like your role model, Mr. Saakashvili: first start the fight, and then whine till someone maybe helps you. So far, I'm tired of your crap that is more about your very biased opinion of the conflict rather than the quality of the article. ( Poligraf P. Sharikov ( talk) 00:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
This is not a forum for general discussion of 2008 South Ossetia war. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
I'd delete all this discussion, but instead I just reminded you - and I've got "fuck off" in return while deleting my reminder. And you whine about what now? You surely have no opinion, right? And analyzed my actual contributions to the article, right? -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is grammatically redundant. If a reporter reports something, and Wikipedia says that the reporter reported that as opposed to just stating whatever was reported as a fact, it's already clear to the reader that the claim isn't any stronger that the reporter's reporting. Adding "allegedly" one top of that doesn't change the truth status of the claim. Wikipedia isn't saying the claim is necessarily true when it says "Y media said something happened". To change that to "Y media said allegedly something happened" is to simply add a redundant word. Wikipedia is not claiming the reports are true or have been proven true when "allegedly" is not added on top. Bdell555 ( talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
bdell555,
regarding three reverts.. i hav not violated 3rr so far otherwise i would not be able to type this
regarding redundancy, repeating the same georgian point of view using american and british while also including "unreliability" issues makes the whole part redundant..anyway why repeat the same lines with the same point repeatedly? why cant you form a single sentence and give all citations continuously ..or instead you can adopt my suggeation to use a single line "russia and georgia traded charges of genocide and looting" which would suffice...
else please note that including such blatantly biased text like 'ossetian looters', 'killed by ossetian'...by an editor 'without any contribition by him / her to wikify it to neutrality' constitutes cheap plagiarism..
please know that using capitals in all words in all (most) edit summaries is not wiki policy..please check wiki guidelines.. so stop abusing me using lies (abt violating 3rr)... Cityvalyu ( talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend removing the information on the Russian stock market and currency drop last Friday. It is not clear that this was due to the war and could have mostly been due to the 5% drop in the price of oil. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So why exactly do we need the entire AP report about the convoy east of Gori? It's disproportionate when we have given one paragraph to each day before, and the convoy hasn't actually gone to Tbilisi. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to add a scrolling box to the reference section in order to reduce the page size and condense for easier reading. However, it looked great in the edit review but when I tried to save it I got this message:
The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. If you did not add the link yourself, it most likely was added by another editor before being blacklisted. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted link before you can save your edit. If you are attempting a section edit, note that this block may even be due to blacklisted links in other sections. If you need help removing the blacklisted link, post a message at Wikipedia:Help desk. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page.
The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: overflow auto height Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.
Anyone have any ideas why? I checked the blacklist's on wiki but couldn't find anything there.-- Jmedinacorona ( talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the article, I see a lot of terms like : "South Ossetian Troops", "Abkhazian troops" and I'm sure I saw earlier "South Ossetian Army".
The Issue I see here is IF South Ossetia & Abkhazia are in fact "regions" of Georgian administation. How then did the come by their own "Army" & "Troops" OR are these some sort of millia?
Surely if we were to recognise the Independance of these regions they could have their own militaries, but in the INFO BOX it says : (Unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia & (Unrecognized) Republic of Abkhazia. So that means that this article doesn't recognize their independence, which could be argued is POV. Alternatively if we remove "Unrecognized" then we have a POV issue also.
I didn't change these things because I didn't want to start an edit war or anything but some consensus would be helpfull.
Do we: Recognize the Independence of S.O and Abkhazia (Not what Wikipedia is for) Do we: Refuse to recognize the Independance of S.O and Abkhazia (Same problem) Or do we: Leave it ambiguous. ie. just, South Ossetia. and just, Abkazia. Andrew's Concience ( talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK I'll change the info box to reflect wikipedia's NPOV policy and leave the rest. As soon as someone reads the introduction they're gonna get the picture. Saying (Unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia seems a bit convoluted to me (perhaps even weasel words). Andrew's Concience ( talk) 04:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have seen several people suggest an aftermath section. Today on BBC New there was an analysis of the conflict by Paul Reynolds I wrote this summary of the article and would like to add it to the article:
BBC News analysis Paul Reynolds considers Russia, Vladimir Putin, the South Ossetias, and 'Old Europe' as the clear winners in the recent conflict. Stating that Russia has sent a "clear signal about its readiness to assert itself" and that Germany and France will feel validated in their concern about admitting Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Mr Reynolds identified the losers as the casualties of the conflict, Mikheil Saakashvili, the truth, and 'the West'. With the United States and United Kingdom claiming that Mr. Saakashvili was cautioned to exercise restraint in the build up to the conflict the West suffers from both an ally losing a conflict and the ally disregarding advice. [30]
I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia so I didn't want to be bold and just add it sense it is a touchy issue. Also, it might be to soon to add an aftermath section. Joseph Godwin ( talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I quote from the beginning:
..During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali...
how come there's no mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city? Was there a discussion on this? This should be mentioned, because the soft wording is clearly misleading. If there's a disagreement, the disagreement should be noted, but without the mention of a massive (albeit from some points of view) attack on the city the beginning of the article, as it seems to me, is skewed in favor of Georgia.
-- CopperKettle ( talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I propose this:
During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction(?, but were later disputed in a number of sources?).
I am sure that a statement like this, giving a clear snapshot of Russian perception of the pivotal moment, should be in the beginning of the article, if our aim is to present a balanced view on the conflict. Best regards, -- CopperKettle ( talk) 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
. Just to keep objectivity and avoid conflict on the talk page :). Andrew's Concience ( talk) 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction, but the extent of civilian casualties was later disputed (?heavily disputed, the alleged extent was criticized by, etc.?) by the number of sources.
-- CopperKettle ( talk) 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[15] Blair said the actual trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.[16]
CopperKettle, in your wording the "heavy shelling" and "humanitarian crisis" due to the initial advance of Georgian army into Tskhinvali are presented as facts, while they are among the things that are "according to Russian (government) sources". An increasing number of other reports disputes the extent of the initial destruction, as you rightly say yourself. Notice that the Iraqi War example you give starts with "according to", which makes it clear from the beginnig that these were the official US/British reasons given at the time. Your version presents the alleged heavy demolition of the city by the Georgians as a fact. If you want to follow the Iraqi War article, it would rather be something like:
During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[39] According to Russian sources there was such a heavy shelling that it laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis. The news of the shelling was extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction and Russia threatened to respond to defend South Ossetians against "a genocide by Georgian forces."[40][16] The extent of civilian casualties was later disputed in a number of sources.[41]
(This is based both on your original suggestion and the current version.) What do you say? 132.68.72.110 ( talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
rasstanovka_sil
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).