Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 14

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 10

←

Archive 12

→

Deleted "uploaded to FOXNews.com on August 13."

The above seems to imply that the interview was edited, and it wasn't because I saw it live. Also, I have never seen a precedence for an upload date stated in an article in such a way as this. It's very weaselly. And there is no source except the date stated below the video of the interview on the Fox web site. Videos are transferred to the web site right after they are aired. I really don't understand how this is pertinent and only leads to confusion. The date is the same as the interview which is clearly shown in the link. So I'm going to delete this extraneous addition. Jason3777 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

19 August 2008 (Exchange of war prisoners)

The date of the exchange of prisoners cannot be the "end of the war" date. Do yo know any historical precedent??? That is why I deleted it. Taamu (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Death from above (HRW/UNOSAT)

Georgian villages in North Ossetia:

In Tamarasheni, UNOSAT’s experts counted a total of 177 buildings destroyed or severely damaged, accounting for almost all of the buildings in the town.
In Kvemo Achabeti, there are 87 destroyed and 28 severely damaged buildings (115 total).
In Zemo Achabeti, 56 destroyed and 21 severely damaged buildings (77 total).
In Kurta, 123 destroyed and 21 severely damaged buildings (144 total).
In Kekhvi, 109 destroyed and 44 severely damaged buildings (153 total).
In Kemerti, 58 destroyed and 20 severely damaged buildings (78 total).
In Dzartsemi, 29 destroyed and 10 severely damaged buildings (39 total).

The Goergian villages around Gori, Gori itself (the city), Upper Kodori, etc NOT counted.

And how much of destruction really in Tskhinvali? Only 98 buildings likely destroyed and 37 likely severely damaged (135 total).

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/28/georgi19712.htm

May be my English is not so good for that statement, but I think that ("Tamarasheni (Georgian: თამარაშენი) is a village in South Ossetia"), not North. 88.200.145.176 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure one can use these images, too. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, someone update the articles on these villages (the two who had them), as they were just burned down. (For example, Tamarasheni article has "The museum was severely damaged, on July 23, 1997, in a blast allegedly organized by local Ossetian nationalists." Now it's more like "The entire village was almost totally destroyed, in August 2008, by ~~local Ossetian nationalists~~ Russian and pro-Russian forces.") --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Where have you found the number of destroyed buildings in Tskhinvali? I couldn't locate it there... Alæxis_¿question? 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.hrw.org/features/georgia/satellite/UNOSAT_Damage_Atlas_Tskhinvali_Highres.pdf --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not quite. Two lower maps correspond to Tskhinvali so there are 81+98=179 destroyed buildings and 37+18=55 severely damaged ones. Alæxis_¿question? 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Still several times less than in the neighbouring Georgian villages only - not even counting in and around Gori and elswhere (guess the next report will deal with those). Guess it goes to the "Infrastructure damage" and "Humanitarian impact" sections, as well as the articles about the settlements. Bye. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed the opposite. Btw, then we should not forget Khetagurovo and other Ossetian villages of Tskhinaval and Znaur districts. Alæxis_¿question? 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to prove? Show me the number of homes that were destroyed, the number of facilities such as school, government and medical buildings. The number of people who actually lost their lives, because as far as I've read, the ones looting and burning down houses didn't kill the house owners, let alone in the night while they slept. Fox news might be interested in comparing a destroyed apartment building that housed a hundred people, or a kindergarten that educated thousands of children to a tiny hut that housed two and call that an equal amount of destruction, but as far as this article is concerned, what relevance does such a useless comparison have? LokiiT (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't kill? There are plenty of reports of the paramiliaries killing people randomly (apparently not on the "Balkan scale", though - the reporter witnessed the bodies, btw). Most of civilians in the town were evacuated, most of the men who remained were in militia. Russia claimed the town was "totally destroyed". It wasn't (it was a lie), but actually the Georgian villages were totally destroyed later (while the Russian "peacekeepers" looked on, after bombing and shelling these villages so the Georgian would withdraw AND the militiamen would move in). Btw: Russia also said it is investigating "genocide of 133 Russian citziens" in the town - I wonder why they won't investigate "genocide of thousands Russian citiziens" in Grozny, or let's say, the systematic murder of about 250 people in Samashki, once a huge scandal? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a beautiful quote about what the Russian government think about doing "genocide" on Russian citiziens when there's "firing" going on: "What the Russians did in Samashki is what the Germans did to us throughout the war," the weekly Moscow News said in one of many recent editorials in Russian newspapers condemning the killings. "But Russians did this to their own people. And that is unforgivable. What happened in Samashki during those days has only one definition," the paper concluded. "Genocide." (...) "This is warfare," said Gen. Anatoly S. Kulikov, the commander of Russian forces in Chechnya, at a news conference last week. "They fired at us. We did not fire first. It is true that 120 residents died, but they were people who resisted us and fought us."[1] It was 13 years ago, so I guess all guilty of this "genocide" (like Mr. Kulikov) are already - and still - in Russian prisons, am I right? Or maybe is the right of commiting "genocide" of Russians (and non-Russians) only reserved for Russians, and this is heroic, while it's a crime for anyone else? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, Tskhinvali is a town with apartment buildings so it's probably not fair to compare just the numbers of destroyed houses. Alæxis_¿question? 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Significant (visible from air) damage is practically only on small houses in the town. The both apartemnt building districts - on the east and south - are almost untouched, with one heavily damaged and one destroyed building. (And I remember looking at Grozny through Google Map few years ago, and whole parts of the city were LITERALLY leveled - just rubble or even entirely empty space with outlines of structures. Guess you can see Tskhinvali too.) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_3.jpg - School in Tshinvali; this is "undamaged" building for satellite. This is un-leveled building. Магистер (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very slight damage - broken windows, not even any hole in the brick wall (only a fragment of plasterwork fell); there are undamaged walls, doors, even curtains in the window. I'll show you some pictures from Grozny, so you'd compare (apartment blocks, okay? huge concrete structures, hard to smash, so it's not like "a straight shell"): [2] [3] [4] (now, it's a hole!) [5] [6] (quite an impressive "hole", too) [7] [8] [9] (it was a school I believe) [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] - ANYTHING like this in Tshinvali? (And who was found guilty for the Grozny's "genocide of Russian citiziens"?) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never compare Tskhinvali to Grozny, latter one was being destroyed one-building-at-a-time in the course of several years, mostly with direct fire aimed at known entrenched rebels in that house, with local civilians given escape route before fight. And even at the peak of destruction, huge portions of Grozny were untouched as well, because majority of the buildings were unsuitable for improvising strongpoints out of them. 195.218.211.16 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firing "for several years" on "that house"? Please tell me you're joking. Local civilians were actively prevented from escaping, many of those who tried to escape were killed (example and another). Many of those who remained and survived the attacks (such as this using ballistic missiles) were also killed (example and another). Please tell me what "huge part of Grozny" was "untouched", because I've seen it through Google Maps and EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE was destroyed (houses, apartement blocks, factories, the oil district, the city centre, the outskirts, the neighbouring villages, everything). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't play stupid, it's occasional firing "for several years" on yet another house. And i suppose you don't have anything better tharn obscure english-only propaganda BS wiki pages as a proof? :D And while you stared gmaps, i walked the city myself for about a month in 2002 (now it's completely rebuilt), and believe or not, most of my routes had very little or no damage alongside them, just because these particular areas were unsuitable for rugged defence anyway, hence never used by rebels and never bombed. I'm not saying that SOME blocks (mostly capital and administrative buildings) were heavily damaged, but that just SOME of them. 195.218.211.49 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia did not have such power. Shevarnadze's slogan "Georgia - for Georgians" is a pure nazism. Магистер (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such slogan, but anyway what position Mr. Shevarnadze holds in the Georgian government? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Shevardnadze, but his predecessor Zviad Gamsakhurdia said that and started this policy. 195.218.210.129 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

About half or so of destroyed buildings are actually in one small section of the town- probably this former Jewish quarter, or maybe the government district. There's also another cluster of destruction in northern-west part of the town and another in the central part, but not so concentrated. If you want, you can zoom at Google and check the every building hit, but for me it's practically all small houses. Btw, several Goergian houses are still burning when the photos are being taken. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we really need a section about the Ethnic cleansing now. Narking (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, did I read that right, that's "Only 98 buildings likely destroyed"??? Since when 98 destroyed buildings is NOT enough for something or SOMEONE? Are you suggesting there should be MORE? Please watch what you are writing.68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am rather suggesting that the Russians lied about the complete destruction of the town first, and also later while saying that over 700 buildings were completely destroyed, while only 179 seem to be destroyed according to the UN sattelite imagery experts. (Or maybe they counted the Georgian villages too? I don't think there are "more than 7,000" buildings in Tskhinvali.) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This was not interesting for HWR. Магистер (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"we should not forget Khetagurovo" - great, Russian unconfirmed (after 3 weeks!) /otherwise already forgotten propaganda stories/fairy tales in the Khetagurovo article, while Tamarasheni article has no word about being wiped out. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Most georgian villages around Tskhinval were legal targets: they were empty (population evacuated by georgians themselves before 8.08), and they were used for staging areas and artillery positions. So, one can't compare destruction (as a result of armed forces battling each other) of empty villages to merciless bombardment of the sleeping city! 195.218.210.146 (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Most ossetian houses in Tskhinvali were legal targets: they were empty (population evacuated by ossetians themselves before 8.08), and they were used for staging areas and artillery/machine gun/RPG positions. So, one can't compare destruction (as a result of armed forces battling each other) of empty town to merciless ethnic cleanisng after the ceasefire! Also "Tskhinval" is not a "city" and never was. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The truth is between your opinions, as usual. Mischa G (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just used his own statement to demonstrate something to him. But still, the point is that the rebels and the irregulars didn't cease attacks on noncomabants in North Ossetia and beyond after the ceasefire (and under the watch of the self-declared "peacekeepers", who at the very least did nothing to stop it - if not outright encouraged or even joined them). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You demonstrated nothing. First, Ossetians did NOT evacuate the whole town like georgians did in their villages, they sent off some children because of pre-war escalation of violence, that's all. Second, Grad can't target specific "houses" for that matter. And peacekeepers actually ARE defending noncombatants after ceasefire, i bet you don't even know there are numerous arrests of the so-called "volunteers". 195.218.211.16 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgians did not evacuate their villagers. Even now, after 3 weeks of ethnic cleansing, there are still Georgian civilians there (or at least were there very recently). Independent sources for "numerous arrests" plz. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, georgians did not evacuate ALL their villagers', for those mentally challenged. Only the people living in villages around Tskhinval - villages meant to be used by georgian armed forces in the fight. Distant villages weren't evacuated by georgians, weren't used by georgian army, and weren't consequently burned by ossetians. But some people there fled anyway because of poor conditions afterwar. Some ossetians still haven't returned as well from Russia. 195.218.211.61 (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"after 3 weeks of ethnic cleansing, there are still Georgian civilians there" - of course, there are - Pervy kanal reported about Georgian families who had fled their homes during the war (8-12 August) returning tranquilly to their villages and recommencing their life there. And I have no idea what cleansing you are referring to - there was a cleansing in Tskhinvali, but it was directed against Ossetians and lasted for 3 days, not weeks. If you are aware of other cleansings, please provide impartial evidence therefor. Bogorm (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The self-declared "peacekeepers", who at the very least did nothing to stop such events, available not only in Ossetia, but, for example, but not only, in Kosovo too (is case of "unfriendly" actions of albanian population against serbian one). So, "vae victis!" is a very, very old principle... (Pubkjre (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

Complete miss. Kosovo - self-declared "Russian peackeepers" (again) got there before NATO(!) and remained there until 2003 or so. NATO forces did not invade Serbia proper after the ceasefire and the Albanian irregulars trailing behind them did not pillage, say, Novi Sad - they also did not invade (or actually even bomb) Montenegro so they would secede from the new Yugoslavia already in 1999, because it was actually "Kosovo War" and nothing else. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I speak about NATO as “peacekeepers”, not Russians. And I speak, for example, about the Serbian children whose were machine-gunned in the village Gorazdevac in 2003. "The incident sparked a wave of anti-Serbian violence across Kosovo. It was widely blamed on Albanian extremists but the culprits have not yet been found." Wikipedia: Goraždevac

Also I can speak about something like this: “It is imperative that Kosovo authorities and the EU-led mission protect minorities from the violence that has been a persistent feature of Kosovo’s postwar history. In addition to physical protection from the Kosovo Police, EU police and NATO forces, ending the cycle of violence means prosecuting those responsible for the crimes.” Human Rights Watch: Protecting Minority Rights Key to Kosovo’s Future

So, not only Russian "peacekeepers" are impossible to prevent crimes... (Pubkjre (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

At least russian peacekeepers (i mean real ones, those stationed in SO before war) prevented mass murder there, a task failed by fainthearted western peacekeepers in Srebrenica for example. After such things, burning of empty houses is no big deal, really. 195.218.211.16 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Burning of empty houses is a crime, but… Army is an instrument for bombing and shooting. Army kills and destroys. It isn’t intended for preventions the crimes, for protections the civil rights and so on. Those tasks are tasks of a police- either the civilian police or military one. Regular forces usually have a better discipline than irregulars. But the units or regular Russian army couldn’t be the police for Ossetian irregulars. Again, army bombing and shooting, but not inquesting and arresting. So, please, don’t mix military operations with postwar peacekeeping ones. Peacekeepers should prevent such crimes as soon as possible. Army has another tasks.(Pubkjre (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

They did what? The Russian contingent in SO was defeated - the Georgians were defeated by the invasion force - and there is not a slightest shadow of evidence that Georgia prepared a massacre there (or even the ethnic cleansing in the kind of what Russia did - absolutely nothing happened to Ossetians in the Goergian-controlled territory like in Tbilisi, no looting, no hostage-taking, so why would they persecute those in the Kokoity's after his gang would be chased back to Russia?). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They did that: stand and fight! And no, they weren't defeated - they fought until reinforcements arrived, and several georgian assaut attempts were repelled. Georgians never controlled a whole town. Btw, during the war "absolutely nothing happened" to about one million georgians living in Russia as well. :) Nobody cares about dispersed population here. And there was indeed hostage-taking in SO by BOTH sides (first swap of civilian hostages happened only yesterday afaik, shown on TV) 195.218.210.129 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"absolutely nothing happened to Ossetians in the Goergian-controlled territory" - this is a mendacious allegation - the Georgian genocide troops (according to prime minister Putin) slaughtered 1492 civil Ossetians and destroyed 20% of all buildings of Tskhinvali. Does that sound like "absolutely nothing" ??! Bogorm (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"according to prime minister Putin"... Oh, yeas, of course! Btw, 84.234.60.154 was referring to tens of thousands of Ossetians living outside South Ossetia.--Kober^Talk 07:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Then he should have written "in Georgia proper" or "in Georgia itself", because the vicinity of Tskhinval was Georgia-controlled territory for 2-3 days and many ordeals happened as a result. Bogorm (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Houses not only had been burned, but Georgian villages in Ossetia are still burned. Ossetian government does nothing to really stop burning… It’s a pity, but all ethnic conflicts are similar to each other. (“These events predominantly involved attacks by ethnic Albanians on Kosovo Serbs and some other minority groups. Nineteen people died and over 950 were injured in the violence and there was large-scale destruction of property. Over 4,000 people were forced to flee their homes.” Amnesty International press release).

But about “no hostage-taking” please be careful… It’s required to find the sources, of course, but one Russian TV channel (“Channel 5”, if I’m right) reported that hostage taking and exchanging now is in use by both Georgian and Ossetian sides… (Pubkjre (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

The truth is out of both opinions... Most georgian villages around Tskhinval(i) really were legal targets in war time _if_ artillery positions were there. Georgian side must not use those positions until civilians were evacuated, or must not to place such positions in and near those villages. And, by conventions, those villages can not be legal targets after the end of military actions... Also, there are no reliable information about the time when georgian civilians leaved their villages - before the war or during it.

But ossetians had not heavy weapons in Tskhinval(i), so objects in those town could be used against georgians only if georgians came into the town (unlike artillery positions in georgian villages, whose could be used to bombard Tskhinval(i)). If georgians wanted to start combat in Tskhinval(i), the conventional way was to allow ossetian civilians to leave the town. After that, houses in Tskhinvali would be legal targets. BUT. Ossetian civilians were not evacuated from the town! Also it's reported that georgians fires to civilians whose tried to escape from Tskhinval(i). (please note that there are only two roads from Tskhinval(i) to other part of S.Ossetia - one of them go through georgian villages and was blocked long before the events, the other road go around those villages, but it has been reported that it was under fire of georgian artillery) (Pubkjre (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

According to Georgia, the rebels broke the truce by firing not just artillery, but heavy artillery (120 mm pieces that they were not supposed to have there in first place, according to the 1990s truce - but they had) and killing 10 Georgian peacekeepers and civilians in the villages. Ossetians evacuated their civilians, that is children, women and old people (leaving a very large militia, of course, which means masses of male "civilians" ready to take arms and don some kind of uniform at any time, which they did), they also brought volunteers from Russia. In short, they were fully prepared and the "civilians" left were mostly militiamen. The evacuation was not secret, it was totally official: "Women, children and old men remove from several villages of Znaursky area and Tskhinvali. Evacuation has begun on August, 2nd 2008г., informs RIA Novosti news agency." (August 5th, 2008) At the same time, Georgian villages would be never (NEVER) be a "legal targets" for pillage by the Ossetian marauders AKA militiamen, because looting and arson of civilian property is a war crime (as is hostage taking, not to mention murder). The whole point is the Georgian villages were destroyed mostly in the attacks outside combat (and in great part even after the ceasefire). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if we want to speak about war crimes performed by Ossetian side, we need to recognize Ossetians as neither rebels no separatists, but as an independent country. Otherwise S.Ossetia just can not sign correspondent conventions… …and in this case such crimes can be interpreted as ordinary civilian crimes, not war ones… Well, S.Ossetia has the factual independence at that time, so we can speak about factual war crimes.

"we need to recognize Ossetians as neither rebels no separatists, but as an independent country" - are you joking? Wikipedia is not kremlin.ru. War crimes may be commited aby anone in the war. Furthermore, the Russian government and military leadership are command responsible for the actions of the militias composed of the allegedly "Russian citiziens", armed by Russia, and working together with regular forces in the Russian-controlled territory. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a joke, but a terminology problem… Conventions in most part have been written for combatants, whose represents their countries. For example, some declarations bans the use of fragmenting, explosive, or incendiary small arms ammunition during wars among the co-signatory nations. It notably leaves out instances of war with non-signatory nations, conflicts with undeveloped nations, or military operations in their own colonies and possessions.

Also, Ossetian military forces, like Abkhazian ones, are not a part of Russian Army, they have their own leaderships and commanders, they execute their own military operations themselves. Factually they are independent, by allied with Russians, military forces, and they can work with and without Russian Army.

So, are there reliable sources whose show that attacked outside the combat Georgian villages were attacked by both Russian and Ossetian forces, and not only by Ossetian ones?(Pubkjre (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

And one note… The conventions have been violated in all wars in 20th and 21th century by all sides whose took part in those wars…

About the broken truce and killed Georgian peacekeepers and civilians in the villages… According to Ossetia, the truce has been broken several days before by firing from Georgians side to Tskhinval(i) and Ossetian villages, and several Ossetians were killed and wounded… Each side can to say something like it about another one…

Your sources say the Ossetians start the evacuation or ready to start it. They don’t say that the evacuation has been completed. So, than I speak about Ossetian civilians, I speak about conventional noncombatants like women with children and old people. And there are many such noncombatants in Tskhinval(i). “Vera, a pharmacist from Tskhinvali, spent 8 days in a basement with her 6-month-old son Vitaliy. They drank water with worms and ate old cheese. Although Vitaliy is sleeping he still sucks on his mother's breast.” KP journalists found the survivors at a refugee camp for South Ossetians outside Vladikavkaz

But yes, of course, the destruction of Georgian villages in the attacks outside combat is a war crime.(Pubkjre (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

-- Utruk (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I would like to highlight following facts.

The images available for download from HRW cannot be considered as "high detailed" as declared on HRW site. Google Map provides maps both in higher resolution and image quality.
Images provided by UNOSAT in PDF documents have very bad quality (resoultion) and pretty high compression level.
Source of analyzis of images is U.S. Departament of State - HIU.^{[citation needed]} U.S. Dept. of Statie is interested party. Almost any document contains following description.

Source(s): Satellite Data : WorldView-1 Resolution : 50 cm Imagery Dates : 19 August 2008 Copyright : Digital Globe (2008) Source: U.S. Department of State – HIU Access Rules : NextView "EULA" - 2008 Additional Imagery: Formosat-2 (2m pansharpened) Image Copyright : NSPO 2008 Image Date : 19 August 2008 GIS Data : USGS, UNEP, UNOSAT Damage Analysis : UNOSAT Projection : Pulkovo 1995 GK Zone 8N Datum :Pulkovo 1995

http://s60.radikal.ru/i168/0808/a4/11a1cdefa824.jpg

Therefore something is wrong with this damage report from UNOSAT.

There are ground photos which prove either low quality or bias of analysis. For example peacekeepers barraks were destroyed, however in the report from UNOSAT they are marked as intact. http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/k/r/krig42/IMG_0248.jpg

There are no satellite high resolution images (at least of Google Maps quality) of damages of Tskhinvali available in the public access, therefore entrie satellite analysis is not verifiable.

I suggest to exclude this text "On August 29, Human Rights Watch published a report showing satellite images released by the UN program UNOSAT, said to indicate that widespread torching of ethnic Georgian villages inside South Ossetia has been carried out by Russian and Ossetian militias.[29]" I think this phrase should be removed as it give reader false impression that Tskhinvali wasn't/or barely damaged and the Georgian villages the only side that suffer damage. Material for this report looks biased, unreliable and created by interested party.

"The new satellite images, taken by a commercial satellite on August 19, were analyzed by experts of the Geneva-based UNOSAT program, which is part of the UN Institute for Training and Research and produces satellite-derived mapping in support of UN agencies and the international humanitarian community. UNOSAT experts identified visible structures on the images that were likely to have been either destroyed or severely damaged. The expert analysis indicates clear patterns of destruction that are consistent with the evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch researchers working in the region." --84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is already time to create article Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Ossetia? Biophys (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In Ossetia? It's elsewhere in Goergia too, and it is continuing even as we talk. "The United Nations refugee agency on August 29 said thousands of people living near the administrative border dividing Georgia and its breakaway region of South Ossetia are fleeing towns and villages amid reports of incursions by Ossetian militias."[19] Btw, according to what I know, there is still no ethnic violence directed AGAINST Ossetians (in case if someone 'missed the news' - tens of thousands of Gerogia's Ossetians live outside NO). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but let's be constructive. Do you think such article is needed, and what exactly title would you suggest?Biophys (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if not an article at least a section in this one. I would say it's full scale ethnic cleansing now and I fear those Georgians will never be able to go home to their villages as long as the Russian "peacekeepers" are there. And of course their homes are also burned down. Narking (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A note of the intro:

"justified by Moscow as necessary due to the presence of Russian citizens within Georgian territory."

Actually Moscow justified it due to:

1. Unprovoked Firing by Georgian forces upon Russian Peacekeepers. 2. Unprovoked Firing by Georgian forces upon Russian Civillians. 3. Going against the Treaty signed between Russia and Georgia in 1992 - (I'm bad with dates, someone check it).

It wasn't just due to the presence of Russian citizens, please make the edits. Much appreciated 68.164.118.38 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"[...]Last night, Georgian troops committed what amounts to an act of aggression against Russian peacekeepers and the civilian population in South Ossetia. What took place is a gross violation of international law and of the mandates that the international community gave Russia as a partner in the peace process. [...]

In accordance with the Constitution and the federal laws, as President of the Russian Federation it is my duty to protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they may be.[...]" D.Medvedev: Statement on the Situation in South Ossetia It's an official source of the statement of the Russian President, #2 in the References. So the protection of Russian citizens was used as a reason. But your are right: this reason isn't an only reason which was used by Moscow for justification. (Pubkjre (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Nice edit on the Intro. I'd only add the line that the Georgians attacked S. Ossetia's capital of Tskhinvali, without letting the civvies evacuate it. That could explain the civillian gap of this war, 1,450 S. Ossetian civvies to under 100 Georgian civvies. Something like: "when Georgia launched a large-scale attack against the [capital city of Tskhinvali of the] break-away region of South Ossetia [resulting in massive civillian casualties amongst the Ossetians who held Russian passports]" I've put in my suggested edits in brackets. 68.164.118.38 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange argumentation! Russia did allow evacuation towards Northossetia beginning with August 3; Tskhinvali was always "front village" in the last years. If not many civilians of Tsk. were evacuated who else ?? The question is still open whether militias and volunteers were counted too as civilians. Still: high estimations, only rather few confirmations. Elysander (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually 1 692 slain. 68.164.118.38 is completely right, finding some (reliable) sources denying the impeded evacuation of civilians would be more convincing and stringent than sheer cogitations. Bogorm (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia's prosecutor general sure is a reliable source... -- megA (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Erwarten Sie doch, dass er Georgier einladen würde, um die Leichen der Abgeschlachteten zu berechnen? Es ist unabwendbar, dass die Osseten/Russen ihre Opfer rekapitulieren, besonders wenn es keine andere Möglichkeit gibt (weil sie jetzt über die ganze Republik gebieten). Bogorm (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your English sure is strange... (This is no message board. If you want to send personal messages, use Talk pages.) And read up on independent sources. -- megA (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia is looking for Round 2 (small and peaceful)

                                                         US will fight to the end ...
                                                          
                                                            of Georgian Army

Georgians Eager to Rebuild Army. By C. J. CHIVERS and THOM SHANKER Published: September 2, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/world/europe/03georgia.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=THOM%20SHANKER&st=cse&oref=slogin

One brief, public discussion of American efforts came last Thursday, when Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference that Georgia was “a very important country to us” and that the United States intended to continue the military-to-military relationship.
“It’s going to be very important that the government of Georgia makes some decisions about what they want to do, and then I think the U.S. would be in a position to respond to that,” he said.
...
Defense officials in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, said that at a minimum they hoped to re-equip the army’s four existing brigades with modern equipment, and increase the size of the country’s air force. Georgia’s military now includes 33,000 active-duty personnel.
...
Georgia also hopes to acquire an integrated air-defense system that covers the country’s entire airspace, to arm its land forces with modern antiarmor rockets, and to overhaul the military’s communication equipment, much of which was rendered useless by Russian jamming during the brief war.
...
One option, Mr. Kezerashvili said, would include creating up to four more combat brigades. He said that training and equipping new brigades, re-equipping existing forces and installing a modern air-defense network could cost $8 billion to $9 billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.173.10 (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.173.10 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And once more about US military support of Georgia

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/03/white-house-treads-carefully-on-cutting-ties-with-/?page=3

WH careful on cutting ties with Moscow. Nicholas Kralev and Bill Gertz. Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European affairs, also called Russia's accusation that "foreign navy ships" are delivering weapons to the former Soviet republic under the guise of humanitarian aid "complete nonsense."
...
"We don't understand what American ships are doing on the Georgian shores, but this is a question of taste, it's a decision by our American colleagues," Mr. Putin said, according to Russia's Interfax news agency. "The second question is why the humanitarian aid is being delivered on naval vessels armed with the newest rocket systems."
Mr. Fried said the Russians are "trying to delegitimize any military support for Georgia - a country that Russia has attacked," adding that U.S. "military cooperation" with Georgia will continue "carefully" and "responsibly."

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush announces $1 billion in aid for Georgia. Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Desmond Butler contributed to this story from Washington, and Misha Dzhindzhikhashvili from Tbilisi, Georgia. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090301931_2.html

The United States has sent two military ships bearing aid to Georgia, and the USS Mount Whitney _ the flagship of the Navy's 6th Fleet _ steamed through the Dardanelles early Wednesday and was expected to pass through the Bosporus later in the day. The two Turkish-controlled straits link the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.
The new funds are also aimed at helping impoverished Georgia, wedged between Russia and Turkey on the Black Sea, to rebuild infrastructure and boost an economy that has been growing but is nowhere near grown.
Georgia wants to rebuild and modernize its badly routed military. Though U.S. officials emphasized that none of the current package was for military aid, there was no effort to rule that out for the future. Russia has accused the United States of delivering arms on the U.S. warships that have docked in Georgian ports with humanitarian supplies.
Rice said that $570 million of the funds will be made available in the remaining months of the Bush administration, though Congress will have to approve $200 million of that. That also leaves a sizable portion _ $430 million _ up to the budgeting discretion of next year's Congress and the new president.

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Second Cold War. -68.151.53.85 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you understand? It's only for peaceful solution: to protect THE FREEDOM and to support the DEMOCRATICE CHOICE of the Georgian people against "Putin-KGB-bloody- ... - somethingelseRussian". --195.98.173.10 (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Did neocons start the second cold war? Simon Tisdall guardian.co.uk, Wednesday September 03 2008 18:10 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/03/dickcheney.georgia

A senior administration official said Cheney and Saakashvili would study the implications of the crisis and discuss "a comprehensive long-term strategy by the international community to help Georgia recover, including the critical task of supporting the democratic choice of the Georgian people to integrate further with Euro-Atlantic institutions, including Nato". That means, among other things, continuing and possibly increased US military aid.
This statement should give pause to the architect of Russia's invasion, prime minister Vladimir Putin. Having been rebuffed earlier this year by France and Germany in its attempts to gather Georgia into Nato's fold, the Bush-Cheney team is now redoubling its efforts to bind the former Soviet republic to the west. If Europe won't help, the US will go it alone. Its powerful naval presence in the Black Sea is a token of this renewed and deepening commitment.

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please consult WP:NOTAFORUM.--Kober^Talk 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This information and sources (links) are corelate to the some divisions of the article. I just collect them to use it later. There were only 2 emotional replies. Sorry. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Update casualty figures

RussiaToday now has lists that state 71 Russian peacekeepers died and 341 were wounded:

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29884

Georgian losses have been updated several days ago and many places now have 263 Georgian troops as having been confirmed killed. Many sites have this news but it is originally from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSLS924220080828?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Sorry if I chose the wrong format. This is my first post here.

CommieRedM (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC) CommieRedM(Mariusz Kowalski)

Combatants Section

Why are there still no references listed for irregular forces under the Russian military section? There is an extensive and well cited section which makes accusations regarding mercenaries used by Georgia, but no reference to the Chechen, Cossack and Ossetian irregular forces present during the conflict.75.216.255.100 (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgian military action videos

Georgians in Tskhinvali bringing peace and freedom. Filmed on mobile phone camera by some georgian soldier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QJNYnbCVl4

I wonder if this video can be referenced in article though. -- 81.195.27.19 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Imitating the clever American armyman :) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Title consensus

I think it is pretty clear from looking at the relevant talk page that a consensus has emerged to rename this article to Russian-Georgian War or some variation of that name. I urge for this article to be moved to the agreed title.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you confuse consensus with majority in votes. By definition, consensus is when sides agree on something. The page you reference clearly shows the lack of consensus: those who support "Russian-Georgian War" and those who oppose it just write their opinions and their arguments and ignore the opposing side completely. If this is consensus, I'm the prince of Bel-Air.
Specifically, the most notable argument of supporters is "this is how it's called in the western press", and the most notable argument of those who oppose is "this is POV". Both stay unanswered. Speaking of which, to my mind opponents of renaming are right since this version of the title is definitely POV, and being NPOV comes before using the most popular title in Wikipedia rules. This is my personal view, but this does not change the fact that no consesus is met either for renaming or against it. -- 81.195.27.19 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, even in terms of majority of votes, the difference between "Support" and "Oppose" count was 2 at the moment of your comment. This is not even notable majority. -- 81.195.27.19 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose no clear consensus --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a very clear consensus, though you may not be happy with it as well as several biased editors. Most opposed to Russia-Georgia War supported Russia-Georgia conflict. So the characterization of it being between Russia and Georgia is clear and this is not POV, that's just a ridiculous allegation thrown out by people who actually are pushing a POV. The anonymous editor above has put up a video of Georgians shooting civilians. It seems clear most of the arguments for keeping the current title and opposed to Russia-Georgia War are coming from people who are themselves biased towards Russia, several of them with little to no edits outside of the talk pages on this article. Russia naturally doesn't want to paint it as a war between them and Georgia, but most neutral observers see it clearly for being just that. There is clear consensus that the current name should not stand and the name supported is Russia-Georgia War. I don't if you aren't happy about that, the consensus is there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact seeing your response to the anonymous editor's above section I seriously question your own neutrality in this area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against the title Russian-Georgian War (in fact I didn't even expressed my opinion on it) I'm just pointing the fact that there's no clear consensus (8 votes vs. 5 votes). If the 8 votes increase and make a crushing difference I will not have a choice but to agree. No need to take the discussion to the personal level. Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're just saying nonsense. Try reading my post before answering. What I said was that consensus IS NOT EQUAL TO having the majority of votes. How can I make this fact more clear than that?! Do you not understand this much or what? Why do you keep on insisting that "the majority of arguments are pro" and "you're just an anonymous biased editor"? What relation does this have to the concept of consesus?
Just for your information, I repeat it, consesus is having everyone agreed on something. As long as there are even a single argument against the decision which is supported by maybe a single anonymous editor, there is no consensus. No matter how much would you like to have it the other way, your point of view is just as biased as mine or somebody other's. Do not try to force your own POV here. -- 81.195.14.121 (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

a new discussion with just those two options must be created now, the other choices make confusion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bad idea. Consensus is usually reached by suggesting some new ideas which please everybody, not by cutting out not-so-popular options and choosing between the most popular ones. -- 81.195.14.121 (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction

There were 2 sections that I combined into one without deleting anything. However, since there is a separate link to a comprehensive article about the reaction, I recommend we delete the rest of the copy here or move it to the new page. USchick (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of a source

Please check this: "However these speculations contradict an unnamed US Defense official who said that there was no obvious buildup of Russian forces along the border that signaled an intention to invade.[48]"

This reference does not make such claim. This is OR. It only tells that US military new nothing in advance. A lousy job on their side, basically.Biophys (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A direct quote from the article: "But the official said there was no obvious buildup of Russian forces along the border that signaled an intention to invade." LokiiT (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is citation out of context. One should read the entire text of the source. It simply tells that US intelligence had no any information whatsoever.Biophys (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest we add to put it in context? And what happened to your accusation of "OR"? LokiiT (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about US not having any information whatsoever. The US may have had the best intelligence regarding the troop movement in the area due to satellite monitoring etc. The article says precisely that. (Igny (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

But according to many other publications, Russian forces were actually moved to the North Ossetian side of the tunnel several days before the attack. So, US intelligence failed miserably.Biophys (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can also recall a large scale "military exercise" by Russia along the borders of Georgia a few weeks before the war. Here it is [20]. Grey Fox (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You probably mean Caucasus Frontier 2008 and Immediate Response 2008. These exercises have just ended so most of the troop movement (which was probably witnessed by some of the sources Biophys mentioned) could be (and probably was officially) attributed to end of these exercises. Is there a direct source which says that they saw Russian tanks entering Ossetia before the official date of 8th of August? I do not think so. (Igny (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

Yea that's what I meant. I didn't mean anything by it though, thanks for the links. Grey Fox (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clear anti-Georgian bias in the photos

All three photos are signs of major anti-Georgian bias, by showing two destroyed buildings and slapping "destroyed by Georgia" underneath them without giving the same leeway to Georgia by showing pro=Georgian photos. In addition to showing "burnt Georgian tank" why not show a "burnt Russian tank"? Ive seen a few, or the destroyed frogfoots? Why do we have three pro-Russian propaganda photos? at least put up 3 pro-Georgian photos, perhaps two Georgian buildings destroyed by Russia and South Ossetia and a destroyed Russian tank.

Jade Rat (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

you are free to find them.. Watch out for copyright rules --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clear "pro-Georgian bias" in the video, was done by the hands of georgian soldiers. Bringing peace and freedom in Tskhinvali. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QJNYnbCVl4 --195.98.173.10 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The claims that the buildings were damaged from Georgian shelling can be removed. According to Georgia and it's president himself, most buildings in Tskinvali were actually destroyed by Russian artillery. We're not allowed to pick who destroyed them. Also having 5 pictures of damaged buildings in Tskhinva and only one of Georgian towns is an example of wp:undue so there should be less. Grey Fox (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait the images are from osinform.ru If I recall correctly those images were speedy deleted before, as osinform used pictures from poti and pulled them off as Tskinvali. Anyone remember? Grey Fox (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup here it is: [[21]]. Someone put them up for speedy deletion please. Grey Fox (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Put what up for speedy? Can you not read the source page?

Эти работы распространяется на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 (CC-BY-SA).
Вы можете без ограничений распространять данные работы, изменять и использовать её в любых (в том числе коммерческих) целях при условии указания оригинального авторства и сохранения данной лицензии в производных работах.
Источник - ИА ОСинформ.

Seems pretty clear to me that the only reason people want them deleted is their own POV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you even click the link I provided? Osinform images have been deleted before because they used copyrighted images and pulled them off as their own. Even worse, they pulled off destroyed Georgian settlements as Ossetian settlements. Grey Fox (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't need to click the link (although I did) as the photos which were in doubt was due to it being very unclear as to whether permission was granted or not. Now that there is a very clear licence, we can use them. If in doubt about any particular photos then raise the issue, but I have placed the photos on my own watchlist, and I will remove any speedy notice that anyone places; discussion needs to take place on them if you want them deleted, but due to the very clear Commons licence being stated on their site, then there's not much that can happen. And to answer the other thing; all media outlets f*** up from time to time, OsInform is not the only media outlet in the history of the world that has stuffed up in the past, but that is no reason to delete all of their photos when now the licencing is clear --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is. Back then the license was exactly the same and the three images were deleted anyway. If you're going to remove speedy deletion notifications then you can get blocked for being disruptive so watch out for that. Also blatantly stealing copyrighted images, like the propaganda site osinform did, and pulling them off as your own is not what a call an acceptable "f*** up". Grey Fox (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Being disruptive is putting things up for speedy, rather than taking them to discussion. I've just been through the Osinform website and found a few pages of photos which we can use under the licence, and other photos that we can't. As to retort of being a propaganda website, that's ones POV, no more POV than saying that BBC is British propaganda; it's neither here nor there what type of site it is, all we care about is licencing. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What? I see you're comparing a seperatist website (which steals images and miscaptioned them) with the BBC! Anyway a discussion can take place after an image has been nominated for deletion. I don't need your approval to do that. Grey Fox (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On what basis you are saying Osinform website is unreliable? It is a separatist website does not mean it is unreliable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On the fact that it has stolen images and falsified image captions before in the past? Also it's a highly partisan source, which calls georgians fascists etc. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Grey Fox (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has images from partisan source. See Image:GaoRongRong.jpg in Persecution of Falun Gong. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the point is that osinform has lost its reliability after the affair I linked you. It proves that don't make the images themselves. Note that I'm not against images, but these images can be the completely different from what osinform says can be seen. Grey Fox (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright I double checked, and the "stolen image" might not have been from osinform actually but from a user who pretended it was from osinform. Maybe we can use images from osinform. However their captions can still be dubious and must not always be granted as truth (per WP:REDFLAG). Also there shouldn't be more images of destroyed ossetian settlements than destroyed georgian settlements per wp:undue. Cheers all. Grey Fox (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Section "Reactions to the conflict" demands new part

It should be "Interior political consequences" or something similar.

An open letter, published by the Georgian daily Rezonansi on September 4 and signed by over eighty individuals and organizations, has called for the launch of a public debate on recent developments.
The letter, signed by representatives of human rights groups, academic circles, journalists and some public figures, says that “for a broad public debate on the problem” it is necessary “to set the Georgian Public Broadcaster free of the authorities’ censorship.”
“Extensive propaganda is currently underway, blaming the catastrophic consequences [of the conflict] on everyone – an aggressive Russia, an ignorant West (which, it is claimed, ignored the Georgian leaders’ warnings); the opposition; Russian spies, etc. – everyone, but not the authorities themselves,” the letter reads.

‘Time for Tough Question has Come’ http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19400

Police arrested Tsotne Gamsakhurdia, son of late Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, at Tbilisi airport on Wednesday evening, September 3, the Georgian Public Broadcaster reported.
...
Tsotne Gamsakhurdia’s lawyer told the Georgian Public Broadcaster that her client strongly denies the charges against him and had refused to plead guilty.
Similar charges were brought against Shalva Natelashvili, the leader of the opposition Labor Party, in November, but were later dropped.

Son of Late President Arrested for Alleged Espionage. Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 4 Sep.'08 / 12:51 http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19395

“Those who have failed to fulfill their duties will of course be dismissed, or downgraded,” Batu Kutelia, the deputy defense minister, told Rustavi 2 TV on September 3. “Evaluation is ongoing following combat activities about how systems worked.”

Some Key Army Officials Dismissed Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 4 Sep.'08 / 20:21 http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19402

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what?

How the hell did a POV of this caliber end up in "Results" section? Ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians in South Ossetia.[5] Remove it. Not only it is doubtful that this could be considered a "result", this is not even close to being NPOV. -- 81.195.15.25 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not "verification needed", just remove it entirely. I do not see why "ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians" should be in the "results" section at all. Should we put "ethnic cleansing of south ossetians" in the results too then? "American media spouting propaganda about Russians being agressors"? After all, this is a "result" too and it's just as biased as the one that's currently in this section. -- 81.195.14.121 (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of south ossetians has not been established by human rights organisations and/or other international observers (in fact it has mostly been debunked), ethnic cleansing of georgians has been. In fact, even the president of South Ossetia has admitted it (see the source). Note that the same info is present in the infobox of War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). Grey Fox (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Has been" is not an argument, that's just your point of view. There are no "has beens" in Wikipedia. Everything needs to be proven by reliable sources. In this case, 1. the fact of ethnic cleansing (now we have only a link to a Guardian article, which is obviously not enough), 2. the fact that "ethnic cleansing" is recognized by BOTH sides (or it could not possible be included as a "Result", since "Results" suggests everyone agrees to these claims) and 3. that it's a fact that matters enough to be included as a result of war.
So far, not even one of these three conditions have been met. This is just a biased claim and moreover if we include "ethnic cleansing" as a result, then why not include "american media spouting propaganda about Russians being agressors" as well? There're no differences between these two claims and their suitability for "Results" section.
So I request removing this line from results entirely. -- 83.237.24.209 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can provide you with many more sources, 209. But the most important thing is that the president of South Ossetia has admitted the ethnic cleansing. The president of South Ossetia is what I'd call an exceptional source. So we have the Georgian side and Ossetian side admitting it. And yes of course it's a result of the war, see the infobox of the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993), there's a notion too. Once human rights organisations and/or the president of Georgia admit any "ethnic cleansing of ossetians" we can add that as well. Grey Fox (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(To Grey Fox-9589) Your belittling of the Ossetian genocide (the notion is Putin's, not mine) is appalling: here you can read in pure Russian about 'international delegation of MP from European Parliaments (целых четыре автобуса, four full buses) expressing their consternation, from which I deign to render two in English (in future they could be incorporated in some articles):

1) "К сожалению, я не вижу ни одного из тех депутатов, которые приезжали в Тбилиси, чтобы они увидели южноосетинскую сторону этого ужасного конфликта."

1) "Unfortunately I do not behold anyone from these MPs who arrived in Tiflis to see (here) the South Ossetian side of this horrendous conflict" (Latvian MP)

2) "о, что мы увидели здесь, не идет ни в какое сравнение с человеческой моралью." - "what we have seen here, is incomparable with human moral." (Ukrainian MP)

Denying the murder of 1492 Ossetians is disquieting and non-neutral as is the exaggeration of the Georgiam casualties by calling them "cleansing" - the Russian forces have not targeted and demolished Georgian civil objects unlike the opposite side. Bogorm (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know where I belittled the killings of Ossetians here, Bogorm, and this seems completely off topic. I noticed you took the number "1492 deaths" for granted. Do you do that more often, blatantly assume figures from the Russian government? I advice you to be more critical, because according to human rights watch this number was a completely fabricated propaganda stunt. Grey Fox (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How reliable a source is or isn't doesn't matter in this case. This does not belong in the results section of the infobox, which is used only to describe the military result. Feel free to include ethnic cleansing within the article, but there should be no misuse the infobox by any side to push agendas.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the infobox, it's an important result of the war. It's also placed at the Abkhaz war page. If you're censoring this only then is it to push your agenda. Grey Fox (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a military infobox, so the result is used to show who was militarily victorious and who was defeated. Its scope does not include humanitarian issues and everything else which may have occurred as a result of the war. I could just as easily add "thousands of homes destroyed," "Russian condemnation of Georgia's actions," etc. These are all important results, but they have no place in the infobox. Simply because you can reference something doesn't mean you can indiscriminately add it to the infobox. This issue of misuse has been raised before; read the doc on the template's use and then the talk page. Further, using another article, which happens to also misuse the infobox, is not a legitimate argument on your part.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that page that prohobits the extended usage of the infobox. In fact there's even a seperate subsection "Notes" created to add more important information. Your words also contradict your actions. Why do you delete the information about the ethnic cleansing, but you leave "Russia's recognition" intact, even though that's not related to military info either? This proves that you're simply trying to censor information you don't like. Information about ethnic cleansing has more often been used, for years, in articles such as War in Abkhazia and Russian–Circassian War without any trouble. That is a legitimate argument on my part since you alleged that these actions violate certain unwritten rules. Grey Fox (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a political result, not a humanitarian one. In essence, the war led to the creation of two new countries. Since you insist on using articles, WWI does not include "Armenian Genocide" as a result, even though it was a widely documented event which easily trumps any ethnic cleansing in Ossetia in scale. If you went in an added it, it would be deleted. The infobox is not meant to be exhaustive. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A political result is not a military result though, and you intent on keeping that which proves you're simply trying to censor information. Also it did not lead to the creation of two new countries, the republics are only recognized by two countries. The box of WWI deals with a conflict on far bigger scale. To list all the humanitarian disasters of world war I wouldn't fit, that's also why there's a link which expands the aftermath. Grey Fox (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not censoring anything, as I have said before you can add the information within the article itself, where it belongs. What you are trying to do is make a WP:POINT by bringing undue attention to controversial material, which is only going to lead to more POV arguments. Second of all, this isn't an issue of two unrecognized republics mutually recognizing each other. Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abhkazia is a reality, it doesn't matter how many other countries disagree with Russia on the issue, and so ignoring the fact that Russia treats these two as separate countries is POV. And finally, adding even a fraction of the humanitarian disasters of this war will not fit either, and selectively choosing which is more important than the other is inherently subjective. We do not need to go down that road.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you referred to S. Ossetia and Abkhazia as countries which sounded like you personally recognized them as such, that's what I noted, nothing more. I don't know where your idea comes from that humanitarian disaster has no place in the infobox. The casualty seciton itself is an example of that. As an alternative information about ethnic cleansing can be placed in the Territorial Change, Casualties or Note section too. Grey Fox (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people losing their homes quite qualifies as "territorial change." Lots of sentimental value there, sure, but means nothing in terms of geopolitics. My personal opinion on Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence has no international relevance, but political recognition by other countries does. And people being forced to flee from their homes is already covered by the "refugees" section in the infobox. You are implying that this ethnic cleansing is execution of every Georgian in the area. It isn't. These people leaving their homes are refugees of a war leaving an occupied area, which is exactly what happened with Ossetians being forced to flee Georgia's assault on Ossetia's capital or risk death. There is no difference there except that you insist on using inherently POV phrases like "ethnic cleansing." Do you realize how easy it would be for someone to find articles claiming Georgian ethnic cleansing? Should that be added to prominent places such as the infobox because this is how a journalist chose to describe the situation? We shouldn't set such dangerous precedents. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing a couple of things, chocolates. Ethnic cleansing doesn't mean that the population was murdered. It means that they are chased away from a territory to archive ethnic homogeneity. Yes, there were thousands of Ossetian refugees as well, however they are allowed to return to their homes. The ossetian president has announced that Ossetians are allowed to return to their homes and Georgians not. That IS ethnic cleansing. Further more, and more importantly, it's also acknowledged by human rights groups. When you say that it's easy to find Russian journalists claiming ethnic cleansing of Ossetians you're right. However, this is an exceptional claim, and unless human rights groups acknowledge this, it's not good enough to go in, unlike the ethnic cleansing of Georgians which is now firmly established. Grey Fox (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what ethnic cleansing means: it's an unspecific term which holds inherently negative connotations and, by most people, is used synonymously with genocide. And that is what you and other editors are trying to paint here, an image of Georgians as victims to Russian and Ossetian evil. Are you surprised others are resisting? If you are, perhaps you don't understand why people have serious problems with your POV. So let me explain it. The Ossetian government is giving Georgian citizens a chance to leave, but the Georgian government apparently didn't extend the same courtesy when it commenced with rocket bombing of a sleeping city. That much human rights groups acknowledged as well. When the Ossetians have fled in fear or died, the Georgian military can march right in with no resistance and take it over. That isn't ethnic cleansing under the guise of a legitimate military operation? I can argue it is and use the same descriptive and outrage-inducing articles you choose to reference it in the infobox. The Russian president has called that genocide; in fact, South Ossetia is suing Georgia at the International Criminal Court for genocide. That seems like an important result; let's add that too, no? The point is, just because we can reference something doesn't mean it can be added anywhere to the article, and that's why we strive for a balanced view. Claims of ethnic cleansing have their place in the article, there is no censoring, but selectively choosing to emphasize one side's suffering in a prominent place is not a balanced view, and it's giving undue weight to a controversial subject, both of which are violations of policy. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Etnic cleansing is quite a specific term. It's sometimes accompinied by genocide and/or war crimes, but doesn't have to. I'm not trying to paint an image of "Georgians as victims to Russian and Ossetian evil", I'm after truth my self. I care about human rights no matter which party violates them, including if my own government is responsible (no not russia). Basically you've been arguing that Georgia was about to commit ethnic cleansing. This is complete WP:OR and none of that has been established by human rights organisations, in fact they've debunked it. Yes the Russian government has alleged genocide, and the South Ossetian president can sue the International Criminal Court (which Russia doesn't recognize) as much as they want, but they most likely won't succeed. The fact is that the words of the Russian and Ossetian authorities are primary sources, and as such nothing but allegations. The allegations have been debunked by human rights organisations so so far it's far from established. Unlike the ethnic cleansing of Georgians which has been established by pretty much all parties. You can't just delete those under the disguise of "undue weight" which is completely different. The only reason why it's a controversial subject is because you make it out to be and it doesn't seem like you have a problem with that, but with truth. Grey Fox (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's put this issue into perspective because it's shaping up to be a conflict between two editors. Frankly, old friend, I don't have the time nor the energy to continue to sit here and watch this issue drawl on and on and on. This is relevant to all editors of this article, so we ought to reach some sort of consensus with everyone, not just us. You and I may be the most vocal about it, but other people have either supported or removed the "ethnic cleansing" bit as well. Since you are so passionate about this issue, as a self stated truth-seeker the first thing you're going to need to do to build a legitimate case is find some actual sources, like from the third-party human rights organizations you're talking about. The journalist's blog which was being used before isn't a reputable source, nor will the Moscow Times article pass, considering that it doesn't even use the phrase. After gathering your sources, you can start by announcing it at the top of the talk page to attract editor's comments. If I am completely in the wrong with my opposition and interpretation of policy, you'll be able to gather the support you need to claim some sort of consensus.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is getting long winded and just as you I don't have all the time in the world. I refute that I'm overly passionate about this specific issue, but I know people are already on the move to create a seperate article on the ethnic cleansing of georgians. There's other places where this result of the war can be entered, such as in other parts of the infobox or in the lead. I disagree that we should simply led the majority decide on what to do because wiki is not a democracy, and the number of Russian users here largely outnumber Georgian users. As for the collection of sources, I had posted a small collection them under the section "Ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians in South Ossetia" including the one from human rights organisation memorial. For now I'll let the issue cool down for a while (meaning I won't engage in edit warring). Grey Fox (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

International reactions

I would like to propose this for inclusion under "international reactions": In August 2008, the international Russian government TV network Russia Today interviewed American dissident Lyndon LaRouche, on the topic of the 2008 South Ossetia war. LaRouche said it was "part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions." LaRouche also mentioned the role of George Soros in the Georgian government. [22] -Polly Hedra (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose that. If the opinions of LaRouche were of wide interest he'd be more widely quoted on the matter. Literally thousands of poepe have written articles or appeared on TV or radios shows giving their opinions. LaRouche's is one of the least significant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had bumped into other users reluctant to include non-governmental figures' statements in this article. I think it could be added here: Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. If governemtnt official, here: International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war Bogorm (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's lots of room for "prominent" people's opinions at Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Fits well together with people like Jean Marie Le Pen and Alexander Dugin. Narking (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, your stance towards Jonas De Geer (promulgated here) being now additionally propagated over Dugin and Jean Marie Le Pen is disquieting, and the hint is perchance caustic - WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR (concerning comparison between LaRouche, Dugin and Le Pen) Bogorm (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even you must admit that the "prominent" people's views at Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence surely don't show the whole spectrum of views about the declarations. It's clearly handpicked views to follow a certain POV. Narking (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep .. as usual :)) Elysander (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Noone restricts you both to expand them (GFDL licence) - provided that the personality is prominent and that there are sources. And they are not handpicked, since the Ingushetian opposition clearly represents the opposite view (the persons having taken a look should have comprehended it). Bogorm (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Kislorod has tried to balance your original POV article with "prominent people's opinions". Närking (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"your original POV article" - the article is not mine, if you do not comprehend that, then you should make yourself familiar with Wikipedia rules, stating that all articles are free for modification and are not ownerships of their contributors. That appertains to the first indispensable and important rules here, alas that you ignore it. Bogorm (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

biases like "Most refugees in the conflict are ethnic Georgians."

I suggest to the author of this claim to find a neutral, i. e. stemming neither from the combaant sides nor from any NATO member state, confirmation of his assertion, which has been marked as POV, oterwise the cliam would turn out to be rootless and misleading. Bogorm (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"More than 158,000 people were displaced during the recent conflict – 128,000 within Georgia and some 30,000 who fled to the Russian Federation. Prior to the latest crisis UNHCR has been working on behalf of some 220,000 previously displaced people in Georgia." The UN Refugee Agency. --Kober^Talk 07:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well. I retract from insisting on the POV - tag. Bogorm (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

However, I do not consider the expression "are ethnic Georgians" consistent with the quoted "were displaced ... within Georgia". Muse thereupon and consider rewording it in an impartial manner, exempli gratia: "most refugees fled to G." Other suggestions? Bogorm (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that current wording is POV. Most refugees within Georgia proper are obviously ethnic Georgians and most refugees in Russia are ethnic Ossetians. --Kober^Talk 07:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is far from obvious - in the article about the country the percentage of Georgians is 83% and there are significant other groups as Adjarians, Azaeri, Armenians, Jews and so forth (the last three being ethnically different from Georgins and comprising 17 %). So you cannot know how many of the alleged 128 000 were Georgians and how many from the other ethnicities, do not misrepresent them, please. And according to Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya the percentage of Georgians in Georgia is 66,8% here (I am well aware that this number includes SO and Abkhazia, but anyway it was interesting to quote.) Your usage of most confirms it and I would not concede to calling 2/3 "most". Bogorm (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What has the percentage of Georgians in Georgia to do with the 2008 displacement in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Gori? The persons displaced in 2008 come from the Kodori Gorge, South Ossetia, Gori and the nearby areas, right? The population of the Kodori Gorge and Gori was almost completely Georgian. As for SO, there are no significant segments of Azeri and Armenian population. Ossetians and Georgians form the largest communities. You're trying to eliminate the fact that the ethnic Georgians suffered most in the process of displacement.--Kober^Talk 08:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"ethnic Georgians suffered most" - I shall not agree therewith, until some sources for your claim: "the population of the Kodori Gorge and Gori was almost completely Georgian. As for SO, there are no significant segments of Azeri and Armenian population" ^{[neutrality is disputed]} are provided. Bogorm (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My sources are: the 2002 All-Georgia Census for the pre-war population data and the UNHCR reports for the recent displacement. And can you provide any source proving that there are substantial numbers of Azeris and Armenians in the IDPs from Kodori, Gori and Tskhinvali? --Kober^Talk 09:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First, take a look at here - 1000 Armenians in SO. And the results of the 2003 census in Abkhazia are here, with confirming the 1959 census. Claiming that none of these 80 000 Armenians did dwell in Kodori valley is dubitable. Bogorm (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The 2003 Abkhaz census did not include Kodori which was not then controlled by the separatists. On the other hand, according the 2002 Georgia census 1,956 lived in Kodori, including 1,912 Georgians and 1 Armenian. As for SO, the fact of 1,000 Armenians living there does not contradict the statement that most of the displaced persons are either Georgians or Ossetias. Now, I'm waiting for another round of nitpicking.--Kober^Talk 09:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I do not know whether you consider this Georgian census neutral and am not inquisitive, I sincerely hope that you do not expect non-Georgians readers to admit either its reliability or neutrality. Consider the diminition of Armenians between 1989 and 2003 - probably just because the 2003 census did not include the Kodori valley. Bogorm (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be quite ready to admit the reliability or neutrality of the Abkhaz census. Why is the Georgia census supposed to be unreliable?--Kober^Talk 15:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Caption for Image:Tskhinval after Georgian attack4.jpg

I have expanded the caption of the image Image:Tskhinval after Georgian attack4.jpg to "Damaged buildings in Tskinvali after Georgian artillery bombardment". But the part "Georgian artillery bombardment" is removed by Narking (talk · contribs). Since the image is allowed in this article, I don't think it is a problem to include this part which is mentioned in the image description page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Narking's edit, as descrribed by you, is a clear POV insertion. Eery knowledgeable person knows which troops have destroyed Tskhinvali and demolished dozens of civilian buildings. Bogorm (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem in mentioning this when the image description page explicitly states it is due to Georgian artillery bombardment. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The depiction is copied from the Ossetian propaganda site. Given the extent of the fighting in Tskhinvali, it is impossible to know who caused this particular damage. Bogorm seems to think that Russians retook the city from Georgians by throwing flowers into the city.--Kober^Talk 09:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians in South Ossetia

While it is a tragic incident and should be covered in detail in the article if enough reliable sources are available, I am not sure if this should be mentioned in the "result" section of the infobox. It is certainly something which is not official and conducted unofficially by a certain group of people who do not represent the official position. I am not sure if this can be labeled as result of 2008 South Ossetia war. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can, and should. It's also covered in the infobox of War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). Besides the South Ossetian president has already announced that Georgian civilians are not allowed to return to their (destroyed) settlements, so it's conducted officially. Eduard Kokoity: "We do not intend to allow their return." Grey Fox (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We burned to the ground all Georgian towns and villages in South Ossetia

“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...[23]

'Putin has given us an order that everyone must leave or be shot'

Survivors in Georgia Tell of Ethnic Killings
Georgia: Satellite Images Show Destruction, Ethnic Attacks
HRW on ethnic cleansing in Georgia
Russia's buffer zone creates ghost villages in Georgia
'Ossetia Is for Ossetians, Let the Georgians Suffer'
Bukovsky: Brezhnev was better than Putin

Grey Fox (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then should we also mention that the "atrocities against the South Ossetian population by Georgian troops is prevented as a result of this war"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Atrocities that didn't happen? What makes you think they would have happened? You're just guessing. No we should not write about what "would have happened" but what happened. Grey Fox (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Atrocities without further explanation is POV statement. Bogorm (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree "atrocity" has vague definition. I am not saying to insert the exact wording in the article. I am saying what Putin called "genocide". Georgia committed genocide, Russians say. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Once genocide is acknowledged by international observers and human rights groups then sure. But so far, it's just an allegation from Russian autorities. According to human rights groups these figures are highly exaggerated and no genocide took place. Grey Fox (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But ethnic cleansing is also just an allegation from the Georgian authorities. Regarding the Kokoita statement, the Russian officials played that down, saying that Kokoita was just too emotional and did not mean what he said. Later Kokoita himself apologized for the statement. (Igny (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

It's not just an allegation from Georgians. It's been confirmed by independent sources, as well as, more importantly, human rights groups. If that's really true about Kokoity then show some sources, but for now his words confirm the policy of ethnic cleansing. The same happened in Abkhazia 15 years ago (albeit accompanied with thousands of murders) and Georgians still aren't allowed to return to their homes there, so I doubt the Kremlin cares either. Grey Fox (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

'Putin has given us an order that everyone must leave or be shot' ? Vladimir Bukovsky compares Putin and Hitler? Can we not make better use of common sense and not turn wiki into a tabloid? Billyblind (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Infrastructure damage and Humanitarian impact

Are not the Infrastructure damage and Humanitarian impact sections quite overlapping? Should these two sections be merged? The images of the destroyed buildings in the Humanitarian impact section are actually infrastructure damage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

West is rearming Georgia under cover of aid supplies

“

Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, said: "The rearming of the Georgian regime is continuting, including under the guise of humanitarian assistance."

”

[24] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction, "Medvedev alleges that..". Grey Fox (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Medvedev elucidates/discloses that" ? Bogorm (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Or "Medvedev hallucinates that..."--Kober^Talk 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.Bogorm (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for you when you said "discloses" Bogorm. This is the second time I notice you simply assume that everything Russian officials say is truth. But anyway, as long as it's not confirmed independently or by the west it's nothing but an allegation. Grey Fox (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"hallucinations" and "discloses" are not at an equal distance from the aurea mediocritas. Bogorm (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

President Medvedev (without verb, see above) about NATO naval vessels trespassing the Bosphorus:

“

продолжается вооружение грузинского режима, в том числе под флагом гуманитарной помощи . Целый флот отправили для того, чтобы оказать гуманитарную помощь. Интересно, как бы они чувствовали себя, если бы мы сейчас отправили гуманитарную помощь с использованием нашего флота в страны Карибского бассейна, недавно пострадавшие от известных разрушительных ураганов.

”

(bold - mine) [25]

“

The rearmament of the Georgian regime is going on, including under the coverage of humanitarian aid. They sent a whole navy for providing humanitarian aid. Interesting how would they feel, if we right now dispatch humanitarian aid using our navy to the Caribbean countries who suffered recently from devastating hurricanes.

”

Where does this fit best: here or International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war or somewhere else. The statement is crucial. Bogorm (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement is potentially significant and should be in both, the US section of International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war, and in 2008_South_Ossetia_war#Military_situation_in_the_Black_Sea in the main article, at least for the time being. "Said" already implies "alleged" in most other quotations and is good enough. Billyblind (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am adding it here, in the section you proposed. Bogorm (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC

Is it just me, or does anyone think that parts of this article from the BBC sounds strangely familiar to this one? For example, compare from the article:

The Ossetians are a distinct ethnic group originally from the Russian plains just south of the Don river. In the 13th Century, they were pushed southwards by Mongol invasions into the Caucasus mountains, settling along the border with Georgia.

to this one:

The Ossetians are a distinct Iranian ethnic group whose origin lies along the Don River. They came to the Caucasus after they were driven out of their homeland by Mongol invasions in the 13th century. Some of them settled in the territory now known as North Ossetia-Alania (currently part of Russia), and South Ossetia (currently part of Georgia).

Khoi khoi 03:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki article predates the BBC FAQ. The reporter probably used wiki in his research and neglected to reference it. What is your point? Billyblind (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC often condescends to uttering complete bosh - here their rootless essay to misrepresent Rudaki as Tajik has been rebuked. I urge you to proceed very circumspectly with this media when it reports on Iran or Russia - some users said above that Press TV is not reliable with regard to Israel, the same is true for BBC and Iranian people or Zimbabwe(they are banned from Zimbabwe, muse a bit upon the motive) or Russia (a swarm of plutocratic villains searched by Russian prosectors for commercial crimes put up there). Be prudent! Bogorm (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment made very little sense. Sorry (88.110.128.126 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Report from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

For your information the Commissioner for Human Rights has just returned from Georgia and has today published his report for everyone to read at [26] or [27]. Närking (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

a small group of our soldiers were able to wipe out an entire Russian military division, thanks to Israeli training ???

I would ask that someone link the word division to the wikipedia's page in that sentence, so we can all come to shock. Are you guys crazy? A military division is around 10,000 people in size. How can someone wipe out an entire division with a bunch of people? Well if they are civilians is possible(if you keep the victim in uncertanity as the Third Reich did), but if those 10,000 people fire back at you, i doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.211.99 (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain it to the Minister who figured it - Yakobashvili, Minister of State for Reintegration (even not war minister). It is his quote and is essential to mention it, so that the knowledgeable reader can induce some ratiocinations. Bogorm (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Will someone transfer that statement to the propaganda section, because it makes no sense here, or if not someone to clarify the size of a military division below his statement, or if you think that this is not propaganda, then insert these numbers into the section about Georgian claims about Russian casualties. Aedile (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean as "propaganda section" - this: Disinformation_campaign_during_the_2008_South_Ossetian_war ? If there is one, it forsooth does appertain thereto. Bogorm (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that statement is for there, but i don't see any other agreeing on this Aedile (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought Disinformation_campaign_during_the_2008_South_Ossetian_war concerns only the mass media coverage and their comportement during the war. I do not know whether it should go there... It is clear propaganda (or overestimated presumption), that is obvious, but we have not hitherto an article Propaganda in 2008 South Ossetia war. Probably a subsection? Bogorm (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the internal policy the people editing that page have agreed upon, but this statement is not for a encyclopedia. Never the less, the media already published this piece of "information" to the web, but for the moment it has not reached the western mass media, it only had a local "influence" in Israel(since it was published there), and of course for the needs of the domestic propaganda in Georgia. Will have to wait a day or two to see if these "brilliancy" reaches the media. Aedile (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are informed about the dispositions in Israel - the source is Washington Post, why does it not belong to an encyclopedia? Probably not in this article, but... show-off is not interdicted, as far as I know, provided that the notorioroty of the personality is established. Bogorm (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any supposed Israeli involvement should be well sourced. I wouldn't call Iranian newspapers well sourced at the moment, and the allegations of Israeli involvement should not deserve its own section. Limit it to good sources and one line is enough. Grey Fox (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The references are prudently and circumspectly picked up from different independent reliable news sources. The reader, who is kind of inquisitive about the sources, would have noticed that from 7 sources there is Washington Post(1 time), Press TV(2 times, Press TV is no newspaper), Segodnya (1 t., Ukraine), Den (newspaper)(1 t., Ukraine), one Israeli and Vremya novostei (1 time, Ru). Therefore derogating them seems to me insensible. Removing a section corroborated by 7 independent sources does not in the least sound convincing. Bogorm (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is competely based on 3 dubious sources, bogorm. First an Israeli newspaper, two Iranian newspapers and the statement of a Russian official. These are exceptional claims (Exceptional claims require exceptional sources) and by creating a header called "Israeli involvement" it confirms right away that any type of involvement is fact. The second paragraph is full of Original Research. Two Georgian ministers having an Israeli passport does not confirm that "Israel is involved in this war". Maybe Some of the ministers also have a Belgium passport. That, however, does not prove that Belgium is involved in the war. In my country for example a couple of ministers also have double passports. In fact, so does our queen. Grey Fox (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read more carefully - Saakashvili said that Israelis can be content because key positions of war and peace are in the hands of Hebrew people. And you try to refute Israeli invlvement, when this person says it explicitly?! Derogating every source which does not stem from NATO-member country seems disquieting and again unconvincing. Bogorm (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the sources. One of that is OSinform (Ossetian propaganda website) and the other are two Russian newspapers. Anyway, according to those, Sakaashvili talked about the Jewish community inside Georgia, which is something completely different than Israel. That's not enough to present "Israeli involvement" as fact, let alone dedicate an entire section to it. See WP:REDFLAG and WP:V. Grey Fox (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to underscore that the interview was for M..., a Jewish newspaper while S. was in Israel. Your mistrust of Russian sources is as fervent as mine in NATO-member states sources. That, however, does not entitle us to obliterate everything founded on Russian/NATO news, therefore we should keep this mistrust for ourselves, since nowhere in Wikipedia rules is an interdiction of either side to be found and should certes not. You seem to forget the Ukrainian and Israeli source. And disparaging Osinform.ru does not seem productive either. Bogorm (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional allegations require exceptional sources. Russian sources aren't bad per se, but often they are because of the lack of media freedom there, as well as the large amount of government influince. The same goes for Iran, especially concerning Israel. Press TV (the Iranian sources) is funded by the Iranian government (see the wiki page). OSinform is dubious for obvious reasons and completely fails WP:V. Also do you know the difference between a Jew and an Israeli? Grey Fox (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You also should see WP:OR. The claim from the Georgian government official only said that they have had Israeli training _before_ the war. That doesn't mean that Israel is involved in the war. Georgians received training from Americans, and perhaps Israeli's, for battle in Iraq. Grey Fox (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cease disparaging Russian and Iranian sources, this is a blatant US point of view, Luckily I do not cogitate about US sources! There is nothing exceptional in the claim, Saakashvili made the interview, whose content is straightforward about "key decisions in the hands f Hebrew people" and Gen. Anatoliy Nogovitsyn corroborates it by disclosing the training in October 2007, what exceptional is there?! Moreover, consider Ukrainian source, your vicepresident wants it in NATO (said last weekend), so its sources maybe are not so prejudicial? And one of the sources is Israeli, if you have not remarked! Bogorm (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of WP:V bogorm. The Iranian sources from the government can't go, not only is there no media freedom there, Iran is also the number 1 enemy of Israel and doesn't recognize it. You're simply tring to add propaganda sources which is rather disruptive. As for the Sakaashvili quote, again you don't seem to know the difference between a Jew and an Israeli. He spoke about Hebrew people, as in jews in Georgia, who are considered Georgians, not Israeli. Besides you're taking it out of context. Also Anatoliy Nogovitsyn is a member of the Russian government which makes it a Primary Source, which isn't good enough, again please read the sourcing policies. Grey Fox (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not disruptve to add Ukrainian and Israeli source, why on earth are you reticent about the Israeli source you erased yourself?! This interview was given, it is confirmed by 7 sources from 4 different and independent countries and if you expect me to add a link of the original interview in Hebrew, that is not going to happen, because I do not know the language! You probably do not know Russian too, and if so, abstain from removing disruptively Segodnya's and Vremya Novostei's articles, which you indulged to several times! Your effort to intimidate every user quoting Russian language sources other than the ~~Novaya gazeta~~ is simply harassment. Bogorm (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand most Russian with the use of translation devices, if I don't get something I ask my Russian colleagues Bogorm. I've explained to you above, multiple times, that the above sources aren't proper and can't be used. Some of the sources are ok (I've also said this) but then you pull them out of context which is a violation of WP:OR. For example, you don't know the difference between a Jew and an Israeli. Just because Jewish people live in Georgia it doesn't mean Israel is involved in the war. Grey Fox (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose - to write "Jewish involvement" so that you can blame me as conspracy-adherent and antisemit? I am not going to tumble into this pitfall, one of the sources has clearly the title "Involvement of Israel", so neither the adjective, nor the substantive are my figment! I am well aware of the difference of a Jew having an Israeli passport and one who has passport of another country, where he resides. In the case of the two ministers they have Isaeli passports and are Israeli, it is clearly stated! Bogorm (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't propose "Jewish involvment", there's no distinction to be made between a Georgian citizen and a Georgian-Jewish citizen. Sakaashvili only told Israel that to try and get support from them. The source that has "Involvement of Israel" is the Iranian one right? It simply can't go. As WP:V says, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As for 2 Georgian ministers having an Israeli passport, this says absolutely nothing about Israeli involvement and is WP:OR. There's also a minister in Georgia's parliament with a Russian passport. Why don't you start a section called "Russian help to Georgia" based soully on that? Grey Fox (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing in Infobox-2

Why is "ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia" removed from the infobox's Results section? It is a direct and one of the main results of this war. I understand that Russian editors do not want to see it there, but it is a well acknowledged fact, is it not?(PaC (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

You need to seek consensus before adding it back. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgian_civilians_in_South_Ossetia

Deleting this fact afterwards was already a not consensual act. Elysander (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You need consensus to add this to the infobox. It doesn't matter whether there is a section on it, there doesn't seem to be consensus that it belongs in the infobox. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And likewise there is no consensus to remove it from there either. Närking (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to racall that wikipedia putrs the onous on the insertion not delition of items in an article.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Look at the first topic at the top, its called "Wait, What?". Read the entire discussion held by me and Grey Fox-9589 (talk · contribs) and you'll know why it was deleted. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As well as why it keeps getting re-inserted. Grey Fox (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, talking about the infobox, there are other strange things in it, such as the war ended on the 12th and that 2000 Georgian soldiers from Iraq are mentioned in the Georgian strength. If the war ended on the 12th (which I don't think – Gori and Poti was taken after that), how can those 2000 soldiers from Iraq be mentioned since all of them hadn't arrived there yet. Närking (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When did the war end? Many people believe it ended on the 12th, when the last of Georgian troops were pushed out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia; in fact, some in the media have called it a "five-day war." Some might argue the occupation of Gori and Poti wasn't war, Russian troops came right in with no opposition from Georgian forces who all retreated to the capital. As for the 2000 troops, let's get realistic: would their presence have guaranteed Georgia's victory, honestly? However, for the sake of accuracy if we use the 12th as a date then we should make a note about the troops within the infobox.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now the date finally has been changed to the 16th which is the date used in most other Wikipedias (except for the Russian one). But of course those 2000 soldiers wouldn't have made much difference. But if the infobox should be correct, they shouldn't be there if they never made it there before the war was over. Närking (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, it can simply be dealt with in the article.

Here's a direct quote from General David Petraeus: US aircraft have started to fly some of Georgia’s 2,000 troops in Iraq back home to join the fight in the breakaway province of South Ossetia, General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq said today. The flights are ongoing to redeploy the elements of the Georgian contingent so that they can deal with the security issues in their country General Petraeus told The Times in an interview at his office inside Baghdad’s Green Zone. [28] Grey Fox (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I still do not see any real arguments as to why "Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia" should not be in the infobox. Yet it keeps getting removed. I think the fact of ethnic cleansing of Georgians is not denied by anybody here. It is well documented. It is a direct and one of the main results of this war. So what are the arguments for not putting this in the infobox, besides the desire to whitewash Russian actions by some pro-Russian editors?(PaC (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't think the pro-Russian editors are whitewashing Ossetian actions, considering these aren't Russian actions. At best, there is disagreement with assertions of "ethnic cleansing" of Georgians by the Ossetian government, but as South Ossetia is now an independent country (according to some countries) its leadership has the sovereignty to make its own decisions; Russia shouldn't have to go and police them. Although, yes, there is something to be said about Russia not vocally condemning such actions, if indeed it is ethnic cleansing. In any case, I've ask Grey Fox to start an appropriate discussion where all editors can state their view under a single headline so we can reach a consensus and decide what to do. If you have something to say, you can get it out of your system there. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I still did not find any arguments for not putting this info in the infobox. The "disagreement with assertions" is really irrelevant, it is a well documented, well sourced fact and it is already present in the article. The question is only why is it not in the infobox.(PaC (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

That wasn't actually an argument for or against inclusion, just me saying that blaming this on pro-Russian users trying to cover "Russian actions" doesn't actually make any sense considering the Russian state isn't cleansing any Georgians. As for why it shouldn't be included, my own views are that its inclusion is a violation of WP:POVPUSH and WP:DUE, which is exactly the reason controversial issues like this are not usually included in an infobox. Further, even if ethnic cleansing has occured, why exactly does it need to be included in the infobox? The article itself is not enough room? It seems people want to bring extra attention to the suffering of one side over the other, and the result is, and will continue to be, constant edit warring. Further, if we don't find a consensus here and someone goes and creates another article on the matter, which I suspect may happen, that would be an obvious violation of WP:CFORK. Anyway, if my interpretation of rules is wrong, there should be obvious support in favor of inclusion, which is why I'm pushing for the opinions of other editors for dispute resolution, especially a third party. I've seen a few admins editing the article, I'd like to have their take on the matter. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the only "argument" I saw here is "why exactly does it need to be included in the infobox?" Let me explain. The infobox contains main information about the war. Since ethnic cleansing of Georgians in SO is one of the main results of the war it should be included in the infobox. Does this answer your question? And sure, it would be nice to hear other editors' take on the matter. Especially a well argued one and not just "it shouldn't be there".(PaC (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Having legitimate reservations as to whether its inclusion violates several policies is the foremost issue in need of consideration. A clever argument isn't going to get you far; you cannot circumvent policy. As for the "it should go there just because it happened" argument, let's consider it: choosing what goes in and what stays out is an inherently subjective practice. You are arguing that it is important enough to stay, the burden of successfully arguing why it is important enough for exceptional prominence, such as in the infobox, and why it is important enough to risk future edit wars, falls on you. We need some common denominators, apparently. What will it be? What has caused the most news? Sure, let's add "worsening of relations between Russia and NATO," that's caused the most headlines. What has the most international relevance? How about "Russian hegemonic control of Caucasus tightens," I've seen plenty of this sensationalism in Western meda. What will cause the most moral outrage and help influence someone's negative view of one side before they've had a chance to read the article? If that's the case, you might have a point. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally some arguments. Let's get to the heart of it. So your point is basically that ethnic cleansing of Georgians in SO is not an important enough result of this war to be included in the infobox. Well, here's my justification: it is important enough to be included because it is the most unprecedented change in the demographics of this region since Mongol invasion, and it will largely determine the future fate of this region. Now please explain why this is not prominent enough for you.(PaC (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Hey PaC, aren't you a known sockpuppet? After an exhaustive review of evidence an admin determined that "Papa Carlo's primary purpose is to continue edit warring..." Wow, now there's a revelation. I guess I'm not surprised to find you here. Remind us again why anyone should take you seriously considering that you are an established troll who has absolutely no credibility? --71.112.145.102 (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha. I recognize the KGB-style intimidation techniques! No tavarish'. The admins admitted that this accusation was false. And do you have any actual point? (PaC (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

No one said the accusation was false, the admin who unbanned you did so in good faith after a heartfelt unblock request, with a suggestion that you spent some of your time editing articles "that pertain to non-controversial non-nationalistic topics," which would allow "fellow editors to see you are not here solely to pursue an agenda related to your nationalistic persuasions." You come back and the first thing you do is come and engage in another controversial anti-Ossetian issue? My point: you're a nationalist with a clear mission. Quit wasting everyone's time. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing my friend is called a personal attack. It is against wikipedia policy: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point." I will not sit here and argue with you on how and why I was blocked or unblocked. I will simply report you if you continue personal attacks. Consider yourself warned.(PaC (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

You don't need to argue with me about any of that, it's all archived on your talk page for everyone to see. I'm simply reminding you to follow some of the advice of the admins and try to contribute to Wikipedia outside of anti-Abhkaz-Ossetian scene you usually follow. After all, the was suggested by the admins to help repair your reputation, otherwise, as the admins rightly said, people become suspicious of your purpose here.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you continue with personal attacks. Do you have anything to say about the issue being discussed, or do you just hope to bury it in your silly ramblings? (PaC (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Please stop attacking PaC. Focus on the edits and discussion points, and not the editor. PaC has not edited much since then, and is being mentored as much as that is required, so please dont try to capitalise on the prior unblock, as you dont comprehend the details of it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw compare to the "Kosovo war" or "Operation Storm" infoboxes for example. Why "ethnic cleansing of Serbs" isn't there but "ethnic cleansing of Georgians" should be here? Especially considering the fact that most georgian refugees in SO were displaced/evacuated by georgian government before Saaka's sneak attack! 195.218.210.174 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem full of dubious claims. Grey Fox (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No more dubious than opposite claims 195.218.210.174 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Any reputable sources for you argument, can of course, be discussed here. Grey Fox (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

About biased sources... Do people know that representative of HRW in Georgia was (still is?)... Sandra Roelofs, better knows as the dutch first lady of Georgia? 80.82.54.32 (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of that. Can you source that? Grey Fox (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few sources in Dutch alleging that (e.g. [[29]]). Maybe the grandparent has a more definitive source. Billyblind (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not alleged in the article BillyBlind, just by a user who commented on it. Grey Fox (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 71.112.145.102's indignation against the light-minded inclusions of some deputable ethnic cleansing of Georgians. Here is the source, attention, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, commissary for Foreign affairs of the EU in Avignon:

“

The destructions in Georgia are not so large, as we supposed. The military infrastrucuture is damaged. The situation in the civil sector is by far better.

”

Russian: Разрушения в Грузии не так велики, как мы предполагали. Военная инфраструктура значительно повреждена. Ситуация с гражданским сектором намного лучше

I urge the adherents of the ethnic cleansing to present neutral evidence for their claims (neutral does not mean Bildt's inspirations, but some non-Russian, non-Georgian and non-NATO source (and non-Bildt, if possible)). Bogorm (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This quote of Ferrero-Waldner has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. And please do not quote Russian TV. Remember Bulgakov's "не читайте до обеда советских газет" (PaC (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

The sources have been presented here multiple times, Bogorm. Please read the previous discussions. Heck, Kokoity himself admits it:

We burned to the ground all Georgian towns and villages in South Ossetia

“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...[30]

And here are some more (already listed before by Grey Fox)

'Putin has given us an order that everyone must leave or be shot'

Survivors in Georgia Tell of Ethnic Killings
Georgia: Satellite Images Show Destruction, Ethnic Attacks
HRW on ethnic cleansing in Georgia
Russia's buffer zone creates ghost villages in Georgia
'Ossetia Is for Ossetians, Let the Georgians Suffer'
Bukovsky: Brezhnev was better than Putin

The question here is not whether the ethnic cleansing took place but whether to include this info in the infobox. (PaC (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Cease quoting Georgian propaganda and NATO-medias beyond the ocean, if you are to launch an assault on people quoting Russian sources, their (US) citizens were found with the passports in Poti, USA has been combatting for Georgia! Instead look at this film, showing how peaceful Ossetian inhabitants of Tskhinval faced the incursion of the 12 000 Georgian army and what has been inflicted to them. I suggest adding in the box "Ossetian genocide" with it as a source, any (stringent, not-POV) objections? Bogorm (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any non-Russian, non-Ossetian, non-propaganda sources supporting the prejudicious claims about "Ossetian genocide"? From what I can see, you uncritically accept the Russian news as the truth and denounce anything that contradicts your own POV as Georgian propaganda and "NATO media" (this latter thing is my favorite of your vocubulary).--Kober^Talk 13:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here is the source that the number of slain Ossetians is 1692 and it originates in a neutral state in the Caucasus conflict. As you see, I rely not only on Russian news ;) Bogorm (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But your source does. :) ""We have information of 1,692 dead and 1,500 injured as a result of the Georgian aggression," Russian Interfax news agency quoted Teimuraz Khugayev as saying." As you can see your source quotes a Russian state news agency quoting an Ossetian separatist officials. --Kober^Talk 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But in the NATO states such expositions are hardly to come across - as you see, Press TV represents the current officials of this country with their conclusions after counting the murdered, whereas these conclusions are being concealed by Western medias (there is a whole article about Western disinformation). Fortunately, the source is English-language and accessible for the most people of the Occident to make themselves familiar with these results. Bogorm (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Press TV is a newspaper funded by the Iranian government Bogorm, we can't use that. Grey Fox (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Press TV is no newspaper. Secondly, it is a prominent and reverend media which has acquired its article here. Thirdly, it may swerve to and fro from the neutrality, when discussiong the Middle East, but this here is not the case. Please, do not derogate it. I am not commenting the funding of the medias you rely on. Pervy Kanal is too government funded, but is the greatest media in the greatest country on Earth, its significance and reliability are indisputable. Bogorm (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha! No more questions for you, tavarish'.(PaC (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Ha-ha! That's real humour! Närking (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL ... thanks for not surprising plea in favour of state-controlled and synchronized medias against press freedom. ;) Elysander (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Bogorm seems to have quite a unique understanding of reliable sources. Grey Fox (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am rara avis, and proud of this. I must make a template for such people... Do not force me to be redundant - I stated clearly why Pervy Kanal is reliable source. Please, deign to remark, that whereas you are launching assaults on Russian and Iranian medias, I have not made any derogatory comments on any popular media with established article here (besides one, and quoted why it distorts other peoples' culture) and shall not! Bogorm (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

" According to a recent government publication, the Russian government controls 51% of its shares". So much for the reliability of Pervy Kanal Bogorm. I'm glad you're proud of yourself for being a "rara avis" but wikipedia is not a forum, this is not the place to express your opinions on political issues. We are after creating a well balanced encelopedia article. Grey Fox (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Israeli involvement in Georgia

Without having gone back thru history, I do recall some information on Israeli involvement in Georgia being placed in the article, only to be removed. Stratfor has published detailed analysis on Israeli involvement in the lead up to the Georgian attacks. This information needs to be mentioned within the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this information was ill-sourced, see "a small group of our soldiers were able to wipe out an entire Russian military division, thanks to Israeli training ???" Grey Fox (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an intersting article from iranian englishspeaking Press TV, from august:
"US, Israel forsook Georgia amidst storm"
The Hezbollah leader says Georgia's failure in Ossetia is a lesson to those who go on blind adventures with the US and Israeli support. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=66653&sectionid=351020203 --Ezzex (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Felgenhauer's POV in the background revisited

When I tried to determine what analysts FT meant when saying " some analysts believe that... " I found out that FT just referred to the same Felgenhauer's claim. A complete quote is

So swift was the Russian reaction that some analysts believe that, while it did not appear to precede the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali, as Mr Saakashvili claims, it may have been planned in advance, with Mr Saakashvili simply falling into a well prepared Russian trap. “It is now perfectly clear to me that the Russian incursion into Georgia was planned in advance, and a definitive political decision to complete the preparation and start a war in August was apparently made back in April,” wrote Pavel Felgengauer, a defence analyst and Kremlin critic, in Novaya Gazeta on August 14. “If a war has been planned, a pretext can always be found.”

No more "analysts" supported thia claim in FT's article. As this wiki-page gets huge, I insist on removing such redundant statements. Needless to say, I actually object having this POV in the article at all, unless there is an independent verification of Felgenhauer's claims. (Igny (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Felgenhauer, Novaya Gazeta, Jamestown Foundation. Only one person could be behind that, and I suggest watching his edits closely for overtly pro-Georgian anti-Russian sentiment, placing much emphasis on such POV at the behest of providing alternative POV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Interview with Putin

In german media was an interview with putin it was high disputed in german media and blogs cause at 1st it was just a short version published where many arguments of the russian side were dropped and so the neutrality of the media was critizied. here is the short version here you can find the long one. A comment by the journalists you can find here. Reports in other german medias u can find here and here for example. A consequence is that in future the ARD and Thomas Roth the journalist want more live interviews. --134.147.31.184 (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The translation provided here is by no means official, but it is absolutely amazing how much they cut out and even moreso, what they cut out totally changed the meaning of what was said. A prime example for what Russia was talking about in Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The usual disinformation. Interview with Putin was accompanied by Russian journalists. The complete interview stuff ( Putin -Roth) was unlocked by German ARD to use it after a short retention period. Several Russian TV stations did broadcast this interview ( differently between 5 - 40 minutes of r.a. 60 minutes) here.. ;) Elysander (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the article neutral - avoid Russian bias

There's huge pro-Russian bias in the article an we should avoid any kind of bias.

First the description of the war is wrong. It was a war between Russia and Georgia over the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abhazia, second the war started when the Russian forces invaded Georgia crossing the Roki tunnel, if there were any hostilities before Russian invavion of Georgian territory they should be described as a civil war in a separate article.

So, deliberate georgian attack on russian peacekeeping battallion is still a "civil war" to you?! Do tell about bias! 195.218.210.138 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday it seamed prette biased the other way, but it seams better today.--Ezzex (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any facts that would substantiate your claims? Everything you wrote above is clearly pro-Georgian POV. You simply want to express official POV of the Georgian government. This article is definitely a wrong place to so. Would you like this article to represent the POV of Russian government? Maybe we should even name it "Russian peacekeeping operation in South Ossetia" or present as such in text? Try to be neutral and stick to facts, please. Also cite your sources when you make such claims. 89.113.128.63 (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Third the belligerents are not stated correctly. Either we show the two main forces Russia and Georgia, or all 6 parties involved

Russia
pro Russian South Ossetian authorities
pro Russian Abkhazaian authories

vs.

Georgia
Pro Georgian Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia
Pro Georgian Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.196 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean Ossetian and Abkhazian loyalists. I'd support that if they participated in the fighting, but have they? Grey Fox (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia and the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia didn't have a military. In fact the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia had very little mandate at all to do anything. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Belligerency implies a sovereign power. Georgian loyalists hardly qualify. "Pro-Russian" this or that is a POV. Billyblind (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is just an obvious POV. It's your personal opinion that the war start when "whatever". Go blog about it or something, since Wikipedia, surprise, is not all about publishing your personal opinions on topics in question. -- 81.195.15.149 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling "South Ossetia" sovereign or independent is clearly a POV - this is a position of one side of the war. ^—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.196 (talk • contribs)

Technically he is right,

civil war –noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

South Ossetia and Abkhazaian are considered Georgian territory and is under definition a civil war. Jade Rat (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

That would make the Chechen Wars civil war as well, meaning that there's an ongoing civil war in Russia for 15 years now. Grey Fox (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically Algeria was part of France - so, algerian war for independence was "civil war in France" as well? :) 195.218.210.174 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as there were hostilities between Georgian government forces and separatist (or whatever we call them) forces it *was* a civil war, as soon as the Russians came in, it became an international war - this should be clearly stated if we want to keep everything in one article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.196 (talk • contribs)

Georgians attacking Russian Peacekeepers is not a Georgian Civil War. Otherwise the US is in a civil war in Iraq and Afghanisan. The Russians didn't come in, they were inside of Georgia, due to a treaty signed between Russia and Georgia, and UN approved. 72.245.7.236 (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, there is a nice sight of it as a civil war, as Ossethia oficialy is/was a part of Georgia. But then we need to say that there where two wars. First - G-O - is civil war. And after Georgians attacked Russian peacemakers/citizens there started international war. And this sounds senseless/complex/too long. I think it's work like it's called now.--212.111.199.30 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

SO was disputed region with unclear legal status - ie not a "part of Georgia" in a full sense of the word. It was a part of Soviet Georgia, but announced its wish for independence even before Georgia seceded from USSR. Same about Abkhazia. 195.218.211.44 (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)