Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Media call it Georgia-Russia conflict

Most media now call this violence a "Georgia-Russia conflict". Let's move to 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict or 2008 Georgia-Russia War. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But, I do wish we could call it "The Invasion of Georgia". But, it's not PCorrect. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. No war has been declared between Georgia and Russia, and all of the conflict is restricted to South Ossetia, which is not part of Georgia.

You're totally wrong: South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. No war has been declared but Russia invaded Georgian territory. In fact that means war. Hitler as well hasn't declared war in 1939 but he started world war two. Soviet Russia as well hasn't declared war while attacking Poland and Finnland. Now Russia continues this policy. KubicaPOL (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

nien politicaly correct wise it is "The Invasion of Georgia" (or at least "the entry into sovereign Georgian territory by russian forces without permission") but that is an unhelful title and not one being widely used at this time so we stick to the more useful and common name title.Geni
Extremely POV suggestion and factually incorrect as Russian forces were already part of the peacekeeping contingent on the ground before the Georgian crackdown attempt. Asteriontalk 09:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The so-call peacekeeping is not recognized de jure or recognized anywhere in other Eastern Europe like Ukraine. When Russian troop attacks anywhere they are not originally related to the peacekeeping area (i.e. Ossetia), they are part of the war. I can't see Russia is already "there" in Tbilisi since 1992. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian peacekeepers ARE recognised by UN and were set there on UN mandate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.239.226.109 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian 'peacekeepers' are NOT under UN mandate, thety are under CIS mandate! And Russian agression is not carries by these forces, but by active Russian army deployed during last week. That's why it is agression/invasion/occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magradze (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the resistance to genocide. If the resitance to Hitler was aggression, than yes, it is. Russian peacekeepers operate under both United Nations mandate and 1994 Moscow agreement on cease-fire (that u call CIS mandate) --eugrus (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Give me the UN resolution number. Prove it. Otherwise it looks like Russian is the source of genocide. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The goverment of Georgia and the western world hide the real information about the war in Southern Osetia and tune the news about the war to produce prefigurated and distorted impressions.

The double standard in interpretation of what is going on there is of immense importance regarding moral, humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The watershed that separates the Western and the non-western sides observing the conflict brightly appears in informational sphere.

It is obvious for impartial observers the gap that lays between the Western propagandistic system, which inconditionnaly supports Georgia and its President, and the real state of things. The american president, the american governement, the nationalistic russophobic Ukraine leaders deckare, that Russia must not take part in this war jadged to be neo-colonial.

The russian prime-minister Vladimir Putin, who was recently in the refugee camp in the North Osetia, seing the physical tragic results of this war, declared yesterday, that the military operations of Georgian goverment against Ossetian civil polulation was the real genocide. And if it's not the genocide, then what's it?

The 7th august Georgia used the tactics of the "burning ground".Georgia dive-bombed the osetian villages and cities, erased trhe houses and living creatures with heavy tanks, killing everybody, who was on the way.

Pavel Zarifullin, the leader of International Eurasian Youth who was present in Zkhinvali yesterday, tells us, that the georgian soldiers recieved a command not to take prisoners. This is the reason, why the georgian soldiers killed the russian peacemakers straight off,shooting at the peace-makers's heads. The georgian soldiers made the ethnical cleansings. The georgian soldiers had to kill everybody - even old people, women and children.

During the battle for Zkhinvali, the central office of Ossetian TV was hardly attacked. The workers of the TV hide in cellars.Now all people, who are still alive, hide in cellars without any food, medicines and even water.The georgian soldiers are seeking for this cellars and are destroying them with chemical grenades.

About 4.000 people of South Osetia are killed.The georgian army blokades the possible ways of evacuation of wounded people.The cars with doctors and medical help are constantly attacked by snipers.

But, moreover Saakashili kills the georgian nation.The massmedia and the tv of Georgia tries their best to hide the real numbers of killed people of georgian army. But this numbers are presumably very high and is sure to grow in the near future.

Many young people of Georgia, who are mobilized, refuse to participate in the new Saakashvili adventure.

The georgian people now starts to hesitate - was the war with such the costs necassary? Now many people organize mass-meetings to protest against the tyrannical and the destructive politic of Saakashvili.

Now, nobody can predict closely the further development of the events.But, It's obvious, that Saakashvili is comdemned to death.

From the historical view it would be normal, if Saakashvili dies beeing doomed by his own nation.Many georgian dictators - recently it was the case of Gamsakhurdia -- were exectuted by the will of georgians deceived by their opportunistic and voluntaristic gouverning. To kill Saaskashvili is the task of georgian people itself. I think, it would be the best and effective gesture, which will show, that the georgians are not agree with the politics of this criminal and irresposibli extremist.

Source on the conflict from a very famous and recently deceased historian

According to the historian Igor Diakonov[1]:

(I. M. Diakonoff, The Paths of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 262 )

How is this relevant? Dismiss. Colchicum (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As it is the views of such a prominent historian it is certainly something which can be used in an article, such as Georgian-Ossetian_conflict, where it fits perfectly. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It is, but it absolutely doesn't relate to the war or the conflict. To something like History of the Ossetian people maybe. Colchicum (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say that? 75.61.101.124 (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with 75 and 71 here to a limited extent. It likely doesn't belong in this article, but it may belong in an article about the conflict in general since it is reflective of a historians opinion of whether Ossetia is definitely a part of Georgia and whether there is such a thing as an Ossetian people which is definitely related to the conflict. However since it's not likely related enough to this article, there's little point discussing it in the talk page here Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeepers

Are the Georgians refering to themselves as peacekeepers? The only sources we have for "Georgian peacekeepers" are from 2004 and 2006. They did invade South Ossetia, which is hardly peacekeeping. Unless we can find some more up-to-date sources calling the Georgians peacekeepers, we should refer to them as the Georgain Armed Forces, not Georgian peacekeepers. Saru (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the combatants called themselves "Peacekeepers". 65.68.1.90 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's plain stupid to call army which killed ~2000 civilian people a peacekeeper. Aggression in form of shelling the capital city full of people will hardly ever be peace keeping. toxygen (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources for ~2000, please. Putin the Great claimed that only tens has been killed so far. And yes, as to shelling the capital, try to recall Chechnya. Colchicum (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the Russians never claimed that to be peacekeeping but putting down terrorism by Islamist fanatics. The question asked by Saruman20 was wether there were Georgian troops with an offically recognized peacekeeping mandate. That Russian troops had a mandate recognized by treaty is known. I don't know if the same treaty involved Georgian troops (though it seems weird because a peacekeeping force is usually meant to be neither of the conflicting parties). 84.154.47.122 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reference the Wikipedia article on South Ossetia. Georgians, Ossetians and Russians all participated as Peacekeepers prior to the present conflict. That is what started all this, unofficial armed exchanges between rebels and Georgian peacekeepers which then escalated to a coordinated Georgian military advance.75.216.27.164 (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I know they call themselves peacekeeper. That is not enough. At minimum there must be some non-regional parties, not within Russia and Georgia, to say they are peacekeepers. I can't call them peacemaker because they call themselves peacemaker.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia Offers South Ossetia 10.5 billion roubles for reconstruction

As is reported by nearly all media that covers Russia properly. This should be added in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.135.250 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an amount listed in US dollars already on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is it listed in US dollars? To my knowledge she says she's offering the money in roubles and I see no reason to change that to U.S. dollar without even mentioning it. Naurmacil (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The usual solution is to post both numbers ;) But I just did that so don't worry. And the reason we use US dollars is because most people reading English wikipedia have no clue what 10 billion rubles is worth. LokiiT (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Details on..

What is the relationship between the United States and Georgia, and how is the United States involved in the conflict? Naurmacil (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The United States is not involved other than trying to defuse the situation, according to sources we have. Conspiracy theorists have been posting their speculation across the internet however.
Georgia and the US are allies. The United States trained Georgian soldiers and (I believe) they supplied them with arms. They held a military exercise together last month in Georgia. LokiiT (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That is all prior to the conflict. During the course of the conflict (the last 3 days) all sources point to America calling for a solution to the conflict, to my knowledge there is no evidence to the contrary.

Georgia is a staunch ally of the US and the countries have had a strong relationship since Georgia first extended it's invitation for US military trainers to retrain it's post-soviet army in 2001, much to Russia's chagrin. Currently there are 130 contractors and US DOD personal in Georgia http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/08/military_georgia_080808w/ in addition to Embassy/Consular staff and ex-pats and, as you can see, the bulk of US support is military and monetary in addition to political interdiction on behalf of Georgia, as well as that works.75.216.27.164 (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are 130 members of American military personal in Georgia, but any amount of training they provide in 3 days would not impact the course of the conflict, military units are not trained in 3 days. Now, a shipment of weapons or equipment would have an immediate impact on the situation on the ground, but there is no evidence towards anything of the sort. If there is evidence, post it here and it can be utilized accordingly.

We have been training Georgians since 2001! This is the current contingent of trainers. To the contrary, It is entirely possible that the US will use the opportunity of an expedited return of Georgian forces from Iraq to resupply and improve Georgian equipment.75.216.27.164 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, but until it happens, it remains only possible and not fact. Possibilities do not concern wikipedia.
Basically, if the U.S. is involved in military training in Georgia, we should mention it. We don't know how much exactly did they help in the conflict - but we know they are allied with Georgia and providing assistance. Naurmacil (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not speculation - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/gtep.htm or any number of other United States Government sites. I know quite well as I was there, but that is original research. Just look at the cite above. Dobbs (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


So, what we have at the moment

In the order of appearance:

I omit "invasion", "agression" etc. (because of POV) and "Caucasus War" (because it's not all the Caucasus there). Let's vote? ;) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, voting should not be used for making decisions here in Wikipedia, right? Instead, discussions should be used. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So, let's vote by discussion ;) See my opinion below for example. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As for me, I prefer 2008 War in Georgia because this title is best on describing all the situation. It's not "Georgia War", because this title means that there is only Georgia (even with Abkhazia and South Ossetia) is participating in the War. "War in Georgia" is very good. I think. ;) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • For much the same reasons, I prefer 2008 South Ossetia War. Yes, war extends beyond the borders of South Ossetia, arguably beyond the borders of Georgia, but at least for the moment, the war is being fought over South Ossetia. The problem with options 3&4 is that they leave out the South Ossetians. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    The fact that "there is only Georgia (even with Abkhazia and South Ossetia)" is POV by itself. For example, from Abkazia and South Ossetia's view point, there's NOT only Georgia, but Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well. -- 81.195.13.56 (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    Agree, I've forgot this :( --Alexander Widefield (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but the international community effectively does not care what Abkhazia and South Ossetia think. Not even Russia recognises them (though this may change).Representing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as completely separate states would probably be WP:UNDUE. In the title, "Georgia" covering both South Ossetia and Abkhazia is fine; in the actual article it is more difficult to distinguish. BalkanFever 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    That being said, I agree with the point above this subsection made by 81.x.x, and the similar point made by Ben Aveling. The conflict is still mostly about South Ossetia for now. Maybe this will change in a few days, we'll see. BalkanFever 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    Whether "international community" cares about this or not does not matter. This point is exactly the one that led to the war in the first place. If not for South Ossetia and Abkhazia declaring their independence, then there would be no war at all, wouldnt there? So taking one side in this question is more or less equal to taking a side in a war. -- 91.77.90.51 (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 2008 War in Georgia, 2008 Georgia-Russia War or 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict are fine for me because: the violence appears to take place all over Georgia rather than in Ossetia only, and the war is not only between Georgians and Ossetians but it's Georgians versus Ossetians, Russians, and Abkhazians. "Georgia-Russia conflict" is also how the BBC refers to the violence. NerdyNSK (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I like 2008 Georgia War, and 2008 Georgian-Russian War would also be fine, but not Georgia-Russia War or conflict. Conflict is already used for Georgian-Ossetian conflict which means it is long term --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
2008 South Ossetia armed conflict is a "state of war" ..not war..all 3 parties republic of S.Ossetia. , Georgia and Russia have not declared war on anyone !!! so, please change the misleading title..or give official citations to validate use of "war"..admin can do well to take note of this glaring discrepancy on a mai page article title...Cityvalyu (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
see down discussion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"The fighting had spread well beyond South Ossetia, with Russian airstrikes on Georgian cities and with thousands of Russian troops in the breakaway province of Abkhazia." – CNN --Elliskev 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whereas the only two recognized nations involved are Georgia and Russia, and whereas despite misinterpretation by some users of the meaning of Georgia's "State of War" there has been no formal declaration of war by either side to my knowledge, I believe that "2008 Georgian-Russian Conflict" is the most appropriate name at this time. If any formal declaration of war is made then we can change "Conflict" to "War," and if more nations enter the conflict then we can discuss how best to incorporate that fact into the name of the conflict. One thing to keep in mind should that occur is that nobody refers to World War I as the Austro-Hungarian-Serbian War despite the fact that these were the initial belligerents. Thus if more nations enter into the conflict then Georgia could potentially be overshadowed in the name despite its importance to the initial cassus belli. Christiangoth (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

American sources are unreliable on this one

Even Associated Press is incapable of not dissolving into "teh evil russians are teh evil". Be careful. --Leladax (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why we say "American media reports that..." or even "The Associated Press reports that..." BalkanFever 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If we say where the source comes from, it's not POV, it's a fact, and it can be useful for showing the propaganda and bias of all sides. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it POV to say "teh evil russians are teh evil"? POV does not refers to the content. Saying russian evil is not POV. Just try not pretend it is fact and put correct reference and that will be fine.
In my view, saying American sources are unreliable is same as saying russian is evil--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you can expect bias from a combatant's media. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

One can expect bias from any media. That's why we attribute statements. BalkanFever 11:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right BalkenFever. (Hypnosadist) 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, this is the english wikipedia and most of its users and editors are American. Be careful because I noticed they've gone into 'russia is teh evil of the world' in this one. --Leladax (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that most of the edits on this article have been made by Americans, although the majority of edits may have been made by people currently living in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
nationality is not revealed by edits..however british and american english media hold on to "ussr hatred" in the form of "russian hatred"
Of course, in your bias interpretation, but fortunately, wikipedia gives no credence to your bias interpretation.

duplicity of western media best surmised by comparisons of its reactions in

ossetia with kosovo,

comparing hiter's unfullfillable demands(1939) for invading countries with us's similar demands on iraq before invading a sovereign nation,

comparing the coverage of german action of evicting millions of jewish civilians (before ww2 ended) with allied action of evicting more millions of german civilians (after ww2 ended)...

use of atomic weapons by usa on an imperial warring (but losing) japan and preaching iran to not to develop use nuclear weapons deterrant when israel is a proven 'conventionally(weapons-wise) superior' aggressor of all surrounding arabs (like imperial japan)-(see attacks on palestine, egypt, syria, lebanon and iraq/iran's facilities...Cityvalyu (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose to remove the whole section of "American sources are unreliable on this one". This is nothing but spread hatred against America.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why a Chinese (I believe you are) should be that concerned about false information against the U.S. when the U.S. media so blatantly give out false information on China. That said, it's really none of your business what others discuss here. If you do believe they're breaking some Wikipedia rules, you may report. But you can't stop a discussion nor ask for its removal. Thanks. Naurmacil (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is because talk page is not a media complain page. This is grossly disrespect to talk page guideline as a whole. This is not some kind of branched subject matter, but start at a wrong place! Can you point out what is the value for editing this page by saying "American sources are unreliable on this one"? You can say anything just because you think it is right. I am asking for remove that and I am not bluntly removing that. You are the second time getting emotional today.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
kitty hawk's assertion is dubious considering he does not object to "evil russia" and says the above comment is hate smear on us when not a single phrase like "evil USA" or "aggressor nation, usa" or "UN disrespecting USA" has occured!! speaking the obvious truth can be uncomfortable to those who get exposed..that cant be helped!! certainly it is not a hate smear--mere facts! 117.193.32.105 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that whenever we use any source, even the best American sources like Washington Post, NT, and so on, the country (US) should be mentioned in brackets. It is important to mention it in the article, not just to give link to the wikipedia page of this source. USA and it's NATO allies (and Israel) are all allegedly can be pro-Georgian, therefore these sources should not be regarded as neutral but should be treated equally with Russian and Georgian sources. This is why in my reference to "Washington Post" in "Georgian order of battle" I have added the remark: "(US source)". --Victor V V (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Google hits confirm most popular names

There are 3'920 Google hits for "South Ossetia War", 13'200 hits for "Georgia-Russia War", 55'200 hits for "Russia-Georgia War", 29'700 hits for "Russia-Georgia conflict", 9'500 hits for "Georgia-Russia conflict", 64'200 hits for "Georgia-South Ossetia conflict", 113 hits for "South Ossetia-Georgia conflict", 176 hits for "South Ossetia-Georgia war", and 242 hits for "Georgia-South Ossetia War". NerdyNSK (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Based on the above, it looks like the two most popular names are "Georgia-South Ossetia conflict" and "Russia-Georgia War", but the first name appears to be infected with pages describing the previous conflicts, so I think the best option is 2008 Russia-Georgia War. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree on best option. We need to establish whether Russia is just enforcing its mandate as peacekeepers or they are escalating the situation beyond that. We need a clear definition of the difference to include Russia to the title of the article. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In the German media they don't call it war but conflict. -- DanteRay (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion above Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Better to keep new comments about a move down here. Easier. BalkanFever 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a popularity contest. "South Ossetia War" is used outside Wikipedia, and I think it's a more descriptive and specific name than "2008 Russia-Georgia War". Superm401 - Talk 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
While I doubt whether a popular name should be used, I have to ask Superm401, how could you claim '"South Ossetia War" is used outside Wikipedia' when it is mostly known (at least in google) as "Russia-Georgia War"? You argument are contradicting your point of view.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The most popular name is not the most useful in this case. "South Ossetia War" is also common on Google. Superm401 - Talk 18:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
While it's all well and good to be specific the conflict is now dying down in South Ossetia and growing in Abkhazia. We can't continue to justify this title now since it already involves more than South Ossetia and it's going to be completely ridiculous to call this the 2008 South Ossetia War when most of the fighting shifts to Abkhazia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've said repeatedly that if the theatre expands far afield of South Ossetia, we can consider changing the title. That hasn't happened yet. Troops have been massing at the Abkhazia borders, but from what I can tell there hasn't been much if any fighting there. Superm401 - Talk 18:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What you're suggesting here is like that: "South Ossetia independence" gives 1200 Google hits while "South Ossetia part of Georgia" gives 5000 Google hits, so we should side with Georgia and claim that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. That's just ridiculous. Wikipedia should be neutral, period. Naming the article "Russia-Georgia War" implicitly suggests that Russia is the aggressor (how else it's possible to have a war between these two on the Georgia's land?). No matter how many people share that point of view, it's just point of view. Wikipedia should name articles in a way, that's netural. If sides do not agree on how to call the war, it's incorrect to take one side or the other. It's not a question of what's popular. -- 91.78.160.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • There's a common thing to name article according to the cause, place, or even time, of events. How do you like Great Northern War, Winter war, and Battle of Ice?Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    Exactly. That's why the article is named "South Ossetian war". Because it's the cause and the place of war at the same time. -- 81.195.27.246 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    But the "South Ossetian" is only a smoking gun. Russo-Japanese War is not mostly taken in Russia nor Japan, but in Ching dynasty land (not China, Ching is not China). We still refer it as Russo-Japanese War without respecting where it is taken.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, because, first off, China was not involved, while South Ossetia was. Second, the "Ching dynasty land" was actually occupied or directly under the sphere of influence of Russia, so, yes, they actually took place mostly in Russian land. End of Chinese history lesson. Naurmacil (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There are all so other wars with the Russo prefix, the Russo-Swedish War and the Russo-Turkish War as well as others. Just because russia comes first does not mean that they started the war or anything else. The Sino-Japanese War was not started by china nor was the Russo Swedish War started by russia. I vote for Russo-Georgian War as the title as it accurately describes the conflict. XavierGreen (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Azerbaijani citizens of Georgian decent join the war on Georgian side

According to groong.usc.edu several ethnic Georgians of Azerbaijani citizenship in Qakh and Zaqatala regions of Azerbaijan have crossed the Azerbaijani-Georgian border to join the war against Russia. We should add this in the article and also in the infobox as a new party (Georgians from Azerbaijan) has joined the Georgian side. Baku87 (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They say the same. -- DanteRay (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we can add this under "strength" at the Georgian side, but I am unsure how to do this. Baku87 (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Both links come from the same source and it is not clear how many they are and what they represent (if forming military is illegal in Azerbaijan perhaps they'll volunteer to Georgian forces, otherwise what would you call them - Azerbaijani volunteers ? wouldn't that make it look as if Azerbaijan has joined the war ?) ~~Xil (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Xil, Azerbaijan had not joined the war but these are Azerbaijani citizens of Georgian decent volunteering to the Georgian army but anyway this is something worth mentioning, we should put this in the infobox under strength at the Georgian side as "Azerbaijani volunteers of Georgian decent, number unknown". And we should note it in the article aswell. Baku87 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been following this conflict since 8 August - there also have been rumors about Turkish and NATO forces in Georgia, it is very uncertaint - some unnamed people said something and we don't even now how many people are joining Georgia, perhaps it would be better to insert it somewhere else in the article or here ~~Xil (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we can add it, but we must state something like "According to some Azerbaijani sources..." --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats a good point Alexander, I believe this needs to be added in the infobox and some reference in the article itself but unfortunately the texting is to difficult for me I tried but I am not able to get it right, I have little experience working with infoboxes. Baku87 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I put a note in the infobox. Can you think of a good place to note it in the article? Superm401 - Talk 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I accidentally put it on the wrong side, but Ijanderson977 has helpfully corrected it. Superm401 - Talk 18:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this happened on 9th of August I placed it at the very end of that day, I think its good as it is, but suggestions are welcome Baku87 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think "Georgian order of the battle" would also be a good place as it is all about speculations on who is fighting on their side (black soldiers... sounds racist, what are they trying to say ? Isn't Georgians dark skined themselves ?)~~Xil (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes we should do that aswell, but do note these are volunteers. Anyways why has the note been removed fromt he infobox and for what reason? I dont see anyone saying anything about removing is, could this have been some vandal? Baku87 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about including the war's effect on the Olympic

Hi, I know this is a high visibility article at the moment, and normally wouldn't bother trying to edit it. However when I first heard about this 2 days ago (the Olympic opening ceremony fresh in my mind), my first thought was; What will happen between their athletes at the Olympics? So I scoured the article, but to no avail. Then this morning my prayers were answered, so how would we go about adding this to the article? i.e. what section etc Ryan4314 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't, because it doesn't have anything to do with the article --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
How so? Wouldn't it come under "International Reactions" or something, coz by that logic, the UK's reaction wouldn't be privy to inclusion either? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If it will have some effect we could state that in the article, but fortunately at now there is nothing to say ;-)
BTW, see photo of Russian and Georgian women on Olympics hugging one another :) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The link in my first post, is from the BBC and even has video! C'mon guys lets get some more opinions, yay or nay to inclusion? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my apologises. We must add this. Thank you. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
yay, IMO--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say yay, its relevant to current events as they stand and to be honest I'm surprised it wasn't included already. Justin talk 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Its an amzing show which i wished i had seen. Sports and culture have an amazing effect on changing hatred and feelings between people. Unfortunetley I would agree that this has no place in a war article as it is a result of the conflict as oppose to something that will affect it. so no to incluion. Kieraen (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Both countries have said they will remain at the Olympics.[1] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The strength of the Geogrian military

In the article (in the table) it is claimed that the Georgians have 82 aircraft (without any source): Just found a German news paper article with a table (based on The Military Balance 2008) claiming that they only have 9 aircraft. German News Paper Focus. Other German media use the same numbers. -- DanteRay (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian navy sinks Georgian ship

BBC News is reporting that the Black Sea Fleet has sunk a Georgian ship that fired on it and was carrying weapons shipments, more is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552908.stm zibzibzib (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} In the sentence

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that the Russian Federation begins operation "to force the Georgian side to peace"

the phrase enclosed to doublequotes is the well known UN term "Peace enforcement" translated to russian (as "принуждение к миру") and then back to english. You may want to make it a link for correctness.

I've wikilinked it, thank you. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Related, I hear the Turkish navy is maneuvering to prevent a naval blockade of Georgia. All I have is a Russian source. http://newsru.com/world/10aug2008/portvmf.html Canationalist (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another source. [2] If either of these sources is reliable, this could be a major development. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stategic Information

There seems to be a lack of strategic information in this article, and what strategic info there is seems to be scattered around and broken up among various sections. It might be a good idea to add a strategic section, and group together information such as total military forces engaged, total military forces of both sides, where Georgian Black Sea ports are and what their cargo capacities are, where the main road/rail routes are, where the main airfields are, etc. I couldn't even find a decent detailed map of Georgia in the article. The following is my view of the current strategic situation. I know it does not qualify as NPV, but it seems to be the best summary of the situation I can come up with at present, and might help give people some ideas about what variables are strategically significant. The main issue here from a strategic point of view is this: Modern weapons are so complex that they cannot be quickly manufactured. As a result, when a war starts (assuming it does not last very long), both sides pretty much have only what weapons they start off with. The side who looses the war is the one who either gives up first, or runs out of weapons and equipment first. A quick glance at the size of the Russian and Georgian militaries will show that even if the war does not escalate from where it is now, the simple fact is that the Russians can replace their losses, while the Georgians cannot. As a result, at this point, the Russians have the strategic upper hand, no matter what the tactical situation, so it is their choice as to how far they want to go in this war, and to what degree they want to win it. It's pretty clear the Georgians have either lost air superiority, or are in serious danger of loosing it, and that will limit their ability to move on the ground. This will give the Russians the initiative, and allow them to strike when and where they please (within the capabilities of the road system), while the Georgians will have a hard time responding quickly and effectively due the possibility of Russian air strikes. The Georgians will have the ability to go on the offensive as long as they still have armor. However, once their armored assets are depleted, they will effectively be limited to defensive operations. I doubt the Russians want to do much other than make a power show, because trying to take any significant part of Georgia would result in heavy guerrilla warfare. However, I think the Georgians are in trouble if they can't figure out how to get a lot more weapons quickly (especially more anti-aircraft capability), and the only way to get so many weapons so fast would probably be to ship them in via the Black Sea. The Russians are no doubt aware of this, and have thus mobilized their Black Sea Fleet to prevent any such interference by foreign countries, as well as possibly for other blockade operations if they feel they are required for some reason. Some of this is strategic fact, while some is just speculation, and while I know the speculation does not belong on Wikipedia, I think the facts do.

We're all trying to catch up to new events every day here. I don't think strategic information is that urgently needed - or that there is any credible information at all, since this conflict is ongoing. We might not figure out what really happened until much later. Naurmacil (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia has enough borders to other nations. If, for example, the US gouverment wants to support the georgian military, they definitively can sent them a lot of modern weapons quicker than on ship. They only need an nearby airport where they can load the Stuff from cargoplanes on trucks or maybe helicopters. They have enough partners in the area (Turkey is member of the NATO, other nations in the area fear russia an want good relations to the USA) and they have enough lightweight modern Anti-Aircraft-Systems.

Ukraine bars Russian warships from Sevastopol

Reuters is reporting [3] that Ukraine has barred Russian warships from returning to the naval base at Sevastopol. Russia accuses Ukraine of arming Georgia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • No, it doesn't. Please read more carefully: «reserved the right to temporarily bar Russian warships». --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And it says until the conflict is solved. What's your source for the conflict being resolved? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, hey, wait, what's your source that "Ukraine has barred" anything? Your article doesn't mention that Ukraine has barred anything. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The article continues to sneakily put the civilian casualties caused by Georgian forces in a general section

This is too transparent. --Leladax (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Civilian casualties are civilian casualties. They are always kept in "General" sestion, while combatant casualties have each its own section. That's what general section for.Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Nice double standard there. Combatant casualties are listed as military and non military, and when it gets to South Assetians, that make the bulk of the casualties - caused by Georgian forces - they are put elsewhere. --Leladax (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed sections

I removed two sections from the talk page per Wikipedia policy, one of which was a general discussion on the war with no relations to the article, and another which started out as an attack against editors in this article, accusing them of being web brigades - something we certainly don't need here. Thanks. Naurmacil (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Humanitarian section removed

Why was it removed with all of its info cluttered into other sections? It seems unorganized and hard to read now, I'd like to keep the humanitarian crisis as a section on its own for easy reading. LokiiT (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I second this. What the f*ck? It's looks like shit now :-( --Alexander Widefield (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian ship sunk?

This link isn't going to stay stable, I think, but here it is: Yahoo! News reporting that Russians sources are reporting that a Georgian ship was sunk after it attacked Russian naval forces. Not sure where it should be inserted. Kingnavland (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, already been inserted. I didn't see a wild flamewar on the talk page, sorry... Kingnavland (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing npov template

I suggest removing npov template which was added without specifying what is exactly POV, as required by the rules. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk)

User:RossF18, please specify what exactly is POV for us to reach a consensus and for your npov template to be kept. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk)

I second. At the moment all sentences are sourced and remarked with "According to NNN sources", where NNN = Russian, Georgian, everything else. This is not a violation of NPOV. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for an NPOV tag. The article shows all viewpoints fairly I think. His assertion that the intro is biased in baseless. Please say specifically what's wrong and what needs to be fixed here, using sources to back your viewpoint up. LokiiT (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please the NPOV article. The sections are wholly one sided. Russia is cast as a guardian angel and Georgia as a vile oppressor. The amount of quotes from Russian leaders is grossly disproportional to the amount of quotes from Georgian leaders. The conflict is an internal one and Russia’s invasion is cast as a rescue attempt of poor civilians – civilians who are in the territory of Georgia. Agree or not, the article is unbalanced. Also, there has been plenty of discussion. See above. And the addition of the NPOV article prompts discussion, not the other way around. Look at the template. It says that neutrality has been questions, and directs people to the discussion page. How would people know that there is a NPOV discussion without the NPOV template pointing them to the discussion page for this specific purpose. Also, you've started reverts first, so citing revert policy to me, even when I no longer reverted is king of hypocrticial. --RossF18 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You haven't attempted to improve the article yourself, you can't just come here and say "I don't like this", slap an NPOV tag on it and leave. If you want to add more Georgian quotes then do so. You're basically admitting that you're pro-Georgia and you want it to be more pro-Georgian. Sorry but all the facts are already here, just because they don't fit your viewpoint doesn't mean they're not true. We don't pander to patriots here, the article must stay objective and truthful. LokiiT (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with LokiiT. toxygen (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't resort to name calling. I am neither pro-Georgia, have never lived anywhere near the region, not a patriot and am fully U.S. citizen. One doesn't have do anything but point out the issue that needs to be addressed. Per Wikipedia policy. In fact, your insistence on reverts point to your true patriotic pro-Russian bias. So, I'd say your accusations ring very false. All of the attacks from Georgia read as "suprise" and "hostile" and "aggressors." All of the quotes from Russian leaders read as fact while the one Georgian quote has the big "allegedly" in front of it as if all Georgian leaders are liers as opposed to the truthful Russian leaders like Putin. There is not bias when seeking a neutral article. You might not agree, but my lack of agreement with you does not make me anything but a diligient editor who wants to improve an article. If you want you kick and scream when someone doesn't agree with you, get a blog. --RossF18 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
RossF18, be bold and improve the article. NPOV template is only acceptable if the talk page contains a list of claims which are considered POV. Your claims about POV are completely unsubstantiated. Please find a single place in the article where Georgians are called "hostile" or "agressors" by wikipedia editors. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk)
Please read the article. The quotes by the Russian authorities call Georgian actions "a crime against its own people." Funny how Russia was against Iraq invasion when Saddam was killing his own people to keep them under control, while when Georgia, a much more democratic country than Russia tries to retake controll, it's a crime. But, that's beside the point. What Russian authorities say is besides the point. What's important is not to cast their quotes in a more authoritative light than the quotes by Georgians. It's almost a forgone conclusion, it seems, that what Georgians are committing some crime while Russians are peacekeepers. Having a label peacekeepers originally doesn't justify full scale invasion into undisputed Georgia.--RossF18 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please do not discuss Russian politics, Russian authorities themselves, their crimes or anything. This is not a forum. You can do this anywhere else. Please stop. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You can improve article by citing more Georgian leaders. But Georgia has a little quotations from there. We are adding ALL what we can see in the news. We are not responsible why there are so few Georgian quotations, aren't we? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Primary source from the Georgian Foreign Ministry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.192.206 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
How can you confirm that this is REAL Georgian MFA? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No one says anyone is responsible for adding more Georgian quotes. Don't have to do anything. It's all optional. But that hardly makes for a neutral article. --RossF18 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not easy to accept the facts, having fell under the lies and distortions of the U.S. corporate media. Let's give this miserable user some time. Naurmacil (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
More name-calling. Nice. I like that. Resort to name calling when can't make a valid argument Naurmacil. It's very curious that so many quotes casting Russia in a good light come from Russian sources and yet I'm accused to listening to lies and distortions of the U.S. corporate media. You all must have a direct feed to my house. That's how you know where I'm getting my sources from. --RossF18 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If YOU want to say that article is not neutral, YOU must prove it before adding template. Here are so many editors and NOBODY says that the article is non-neutral. But you with almost no contributions. Help us if you can or please don't bother us with npov template. Sorry for impoliteness. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering all my minor contributions that seem "bad" to other editors are instantly reverted, I hardly have an insentive to spend more time hunting for sources when those will just be reverted as well. --RossF18 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so here's what happened. A bunch of users work days and nights to build up this article, surprisingly up-to-date, conflict-less and well-written for a political article. Then here you come, accusing them of having pro-Russian biases, citing the goddamned Iraq War, and putting tags over the article without the slightest effort to improve it. It's not a wonder they're pissed, alright? Go ahead. Point out what's wrong with the article. Put them on the freaking talk page and show us you're right instead of whining on and on. Fact is, you know nothing about the war. You know nothing about anything except what the Western media feeds you. Russia is an evil empire, Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant, blah blah blah. And that's all you want to hear. You can't stand it when you face the facts. You love your prejudices of the rest of the world, you love to listen to tales of an oppressive China and an expansionist Russia just so you feel better and more righteous as an American. Naurmacil (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems that people stopped reading my posts and just go straight to bashing. Also a nice development. I said that politics did not matter. My point was entirely different. And if you read Wiki guideleness, no one owns Wikipedia. Just because people work days and nights (no jobs?) on the article does not mean they own it and get to be pissed off at anyone. This is not their baby. And are you saying that Hussian was a nice guy. I have very favorable feelings toward Russia and I think Putin was a godsend to Russia. That has nothing to do with this article and its lack of neutrality. You bash me on bringing up Iraq War but then you jump right in and talk about something you know nothing about. I actually read and speak Russian, unlike the majority of editors here and get Russian television channeles. You know nothing period, and hardly anything about me. You're confusing my point with your own politics and disdain for the West. I never said Russia was anything comperable to an evil empire and there is really no difference between that statement and you calling Western media a monster that feeds us nothing but lies. Your ignorance and bias is leaking off your post. I think you self righteous reply goes a long way itself to show the lack of neutrality in the article if you were one of these authors who did nothing but write this article night and day. You seem to forget that being in U.S. and being a citizen and not living in Georgia does not mean that we're in some sort of bubble. If that's true, same goes for you. I don't think I've ever mentioned anything about China or anything else you're regurgitating. Thank you for proving my point, though. --RossF18 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, Hussein was not a "nice guy". One million Iraqi citizens' lives and five million refugees are a high price for his removal, though, and on a flimsy reason at that. I can't see how my comments reveal my own ignorance, but the fact remains that you have not raised a single point of content in the article, instead resorting to general accusations of Russian biases and inserting your own opinions of Russia's foreign policy. Indeed, there may be pro-Russian biases, but you haven't pointed out any. You say that Russians are cast as peacekeepers while Georgians are cast as aggressors in this article, but is there anything that may imply otherwise? So far, we don't know.
Of course we don't own the article, but when these contributors (not including me, and I wasn't referring to myself when I said those contributors who worked day and night) have been working on an article so long just for you to jump out and cry out biases, and without any evidence, there are some feelings there. Naurmacil (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I love it how the moment I point out bias in your own comments, you promptly cross them out. Love it. --RossF18 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I crossed it out as a courtesy, and as advised by some contributors. I'm not afraid of what I said, however, and if you like it I could unstrike them. Naurmacil (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your courtesy after slapping me in the face in writing. At least we've took a step in another direction.--RossF18 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears that this user has little interest in actual discussion. You still haven't talked about how exactly is the article POV, and if you aren't going to, you may leave the discussion right now. Naurmacil (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel backing Georgia & oil transport motives.

Could someone please incorporate this [4] article to wikipedia article? There is also interesting part regarding friday's attack:
Last year, the Georgian president commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel. These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday. In recent weeks, Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was “defensive.”
toxygen (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, in Background section may be? I don't know. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider Debkafile to be a reliable source because it exhibits a strong pro-Israel agenda and bias and a negative bias against various other countries. Also, this is a repost of a post that was apparently deleted by another user. Christiangoth (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Funny thing is that exactly this article, even though it's published on pro-israel site describes the facts regarding oil. And those facts render Israel in bad light: DEBKAfile discloses Israel’s interest in the conflict from its exclusive military sources:Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. toxygen (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Pro-Israel biases? The article seems to be giving out a lot of negative information about Israel. Or maybe they want to show off their military prowess? Anyway, this should be included. Along with the sentences about the U.S. assistance, as they are allies. Naurmacil (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I added a sentence about it in the lead for a start. We can add some information to the background section and some to the international responses (such as the "defensive" part and the Moscow threats to end relations with Israel). Naurmacil (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, should we add the U.S. and Israeli advisers as part of the Georgian forces? They do play a significant role in the Georgian military. Naurmacil (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, there are no sources that US and Israeli advicers fight on Georgian side now. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the article offers negative information on Israeli actions. There are those that might interpret the article's contents as portraying a strong Israel proactively looking out for its interests. The article could also be written with the agenda of swaying the opinion of Israel's people and the people of Israel's allies against Russia, since the article explicitly presents a reason for Russia to attack Israel. I believe that perusing not the article, but instead the site beginning with the homepage, demonstrates the bias of the site. Any site with such a bias must be considered unreliable. Christiangoth (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite the correct facts it contains gathered together? toxygen (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem particularly influenced by opinions. I believe its credible. Naurmacil (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not seen some of the statements that Debkafile is claiming made anywhere else. For example, Israeli advisors' involvement in the Georgian action seems to come only from them. Given this absence of other corroborating sources we can not assume that these are "correct facts" as Toxygen suggests. Since Debka has a strong bias and we can not assume what it is claiming to be fact, we should not use it. Christiangoth (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference links are broken

reference links are broken after 130s or so - I don't know how to fix them - thanks, everybody

User:Sarejo fixed it. toxygen (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Evacuation of foreigners

I don't know if this is relevant to the article but today the Italians and Israelis were evacuated from Georgia. Narking (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Any reference for this?. toxygen (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It might be good for a line each in the Israeli and Italian reactions to the conflict in the article dedicated to international reactions if its properly referenced. Christiangoth (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have a source except for what I've seen myself. The French here are still waiting for news from the embassy about evacuation. Narking (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On a Google news search, five hours ago: [5] Also Poland [6] and Canada [7]. Naurmacil (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this is all on the subject of international reaction, I think that the subject should probably be discontinued here and relocated in the talk page for the article specifically dedicated to the international reaction. Christiangoth (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts are incorrect

It Has Been Released, that Osseti broke the ceasefire, georgia went in to help, russian pigs came in to attack. check your facts before you post something that is completely biased. Russia is supposed to be the peacekeepers, and yet they are the ones attacking civilians. the only reason russia is in georgia is to prevent georgia from joining nato. CHECK YOUR FACTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.101.214 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) yeah article is getting bias atm..

Please provide your sources and we will add them to the article. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Check the Kool-Aid. Naurmacil (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

my sources are from the lou dobbs show, they had a hole segment on it yesterday, and it was confirmed by fox, the ap, and cbs, as well as many others. also putin himself came out yesterday and stated that georgia will never be let into nato, it is, always will be, and always was russia's backyard, where only russia is in control and if anyone is against this, then let them interfere. this is no longer a peace-keeping effort, this is an invasion. they have taken out our newly built military airport(built by the u.s. they have bombed our ports, stopping the oil pipeline which is the only alternative pipeline in eastern europe other than russia. germany and france said georgia's border troubles where the reason they didnt get accepted to nato. saakashvili said that now russia would ensure border troubles for good now, and that is what is happening. same sources as before, all facts can be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.101.214 (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NO media has reliable, precise and complete information about this war. Well, about ANY ongoing war. There are civilian casualitys on both sides, and the much better recherched reports from the past few years show, that both sides startet low scale military operations. This conflict, like most other conflicts, is NOT as easy as an holywood movie. There are not good and evil. There are a lot of angry, armed men who care more about nationalistic proud, revenge, power and money than about the lives of civilians. I would like to know much more about it now, but it will take weeks, month or even years to gather and, most important, confirm good information. But there are two interesting strategic facts: 1st the georgian armed forces had until yesterday 4000 of their best troops in Irak and Afghanistan - about 25% of there professional troops! And 2nd the russians startet their actions within less than 2 Days on large scale - NO army, not even the US or Israle, who are much quicker than the russian forces, can REact so fast. They definetively WANTED the war. What, by the way, does NOT necesarily mean that they started it...

Add to the "Combatants statements" section, please

Here is the official transcript of the Lavrov's interview for BBC (from the Russian Ministry of Foreing Affairs): http://www.ln.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps/7DA7151CCFE690B6C32574A00061BF06

http://www.vz.ru/society/2008/8/8/194738.html - "The Union of (ethnic) Georgians in Russia" called for the peaceful resolution of the conflict (on 8/8).

The picture states: "Georgia, wake up! Throw the bloodsucker away from your shoulders!". I'd add this picture for the NPOV as an addition to the "Demonstration against the Russian intervention". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not an opinion of combatant. Union of Georgians in Russia does not fight on any side and they are not officials of Georgia. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Alexander. Christiangoth (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It is then for the "International reaction" section. I'd still put the picture into the main article. (Poligraf (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

Unsupported claims

directly from russian army, if anyone finds it in media, i'll be glad: "Russian tactical commanding office expects new Georgian strike on Tshinvali tomorrow morning." this is ~4 hours old. so the attack is supposed to occur in next few hours. toxygen (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian Civil War

Georgian Civil War needs to be updated. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

why, you have new info on that conflict? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Just the small matter of a 2nd Georgian Civil War.  :-) I don't know if this should be seen as a continuation of that conflict, or a new one, but I think it needs to be referenced. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Overusing sources

Obviously the Russian media will be covering this war more thoroughly than other nations medias, but we need to be careful and not use the same sources over and over again. Right now I see about 8 citations in a row which link to the same site, Lenta.ru . --Tocino 22:06, 10 Ugust 2008 (UTC)

You deleted paragraph about Israel without discussing it here. Don't do that again. Source clearly supported what was written there. I added another reference [[8]]. Next time, ask before you do such delete. toxygen (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
calm down. no need to be aggressive Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Your response has nothing to do with this thread and is entirely inappropriate. But since you've brought it up, your first source has no quotes from Russia, just one little sentence at the bottom of the article that says "Russia puts some blame on the U.S., while U.S. puts blame on Russia." There is no evidence to support that statement. I trust the source but they did a terrible job and to me it sounds like hearsay. Finally your sentence about Israel is just plain trivial. Them training the Georgian army does not belong in the introduction of this long and important article. --Tocino 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please provide another sources. Lenta.Ru is the most quickly news site collecting news from near all agencies, not only Russian, but also Reuters, France Press, etc. Civil.Ge is very slow, another news sites is the same. Feel free to cite any other news sites and medias. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And also as I (and somebody else) find another sources we add them. Please don't think we are pro-Russian (or pro-Georgian). We are neutral at all. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers

How come when I add Azerbaijan volunteers for Georgia (well sourced) it is deleted, but its ok to have volunteers for Russia. This is biased and POV Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tocino is the one who edited it, he removed "Azerbaijani" and just added along with mercenaries, but the main thing is these are volunteers and not mercenaries, so it should be noted apart Baku87 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ij. It is still there. See where it says, "Unknown number of mercenaries and volunteers" ? --Tocino 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Azerbaijan should be noted seperatily as the same thing has been done with Russian volunteers Baku87 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually when this article was still young we listed all of the Russian volunteers separately (like we mentioned the Don Cossacks, the Terek Cossacks, etc. ) and it made the infobox pretty big. Later someone combined them so it's just a simple, "Reportedly hundreds of volunteers". I did the same to Georgian volunteers. --Tocino 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand now. Sorry for the inconvenience Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

According to U.S., Russia is trying to topple Georgian government

Please check this out, it needs to be mentioned but I don't know where to put it: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/10/un.georgia/index.html.

Here's a quote: "At an emergency session of the United Nations' Security Council, the U.S. alleged Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "must go."

"This is completely unacceptable and crosses a line," said the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, who made the allegation." Jason3777 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's to International Reactions sub-article, may be.. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems like it belongs in the main article as opposed to being buried in the International Reactions because it deals with an allegation of Russian intent for its actions. Jason3777 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It deals with a emergency session of the United Nations' Security Council and shows Russia's attitude to the UN. Another quote: "Churkin said Pascoe's briefing, which included a statement from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, "shows that the Secretariat of the United Nations and its leadership was not able to adopt that objective position that is required by the substance of this conflict.""Jason3777 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Put it in the section for the day it happened. It certainly relates to what's going on as Lavrov apparently did in fact say this to Rice. The Russians were angry at the U.S. for revealing their diplomatic communications. So in that sense this certainly is relevant as it suggests Russia may be planning to expand this conflict further into Georgia. This also seems evident given the attacks on Gori and the movement of Russian troops on the Russo-Georgian border and in Abkhazia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I put it under 11 August because that was when it occurred Georgia time. It's really hard to paraphrase news articles because they are so dense in the first place. Jason3777 (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lede cut

The stuff I cut here is WP:UNDUE in the lede, but it should fit in lower down in the article. Not sure where. The lede at the moment should be a factual summary of events to date, with maybe a little equally-balanced opinion. Not a whopping chunk of pro-Russia material. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is "Pro-Russia material" but I do agree with removing ti because, a lot of it was trivial such as the bits about the U.S. and Israel training the Georgian army, and also we don't need a quote from Putin in the intro when we already have a quote from Medvedev. --Tocino 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that too. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So-called pro-russian material is supported by pro-israel reference in which is mentioned that Russia threatened Israel with crisis in bilateral relations. The very similar fact was supported by second reference I added. So please, before you delete anything 1) read the source(s) 2) discuss deletion here before it happens. This article is not your sandbox, nor ours. We all make it together. toxygen (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
My problem is not with the sources used, it's how the material has been represented. I'm uncomfortable with the Russian self-justifications coming almost immediately before anything else 0 not to mention that the way it's phrased sounds like someone having a dig at the Israelis and the US for having dared train those dodgy Georgians. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Having just read this for the first time, that bit in the lede really sticks out. It's inappropriately detailed for that soon in the article, and stinks of a POV-push. It doesn't belong there. The lede is for the most general aspects of the conflict, not self-justifications and motives (ooh, that Israeli oil interest!). Antandrus (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
this topic already discussed..dont delete putin and medvedev statements which form the basis for russian response..shifting the past discussion below(Cityvalyu (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)):

Introduction too long and one sided.

The introduction continues down to,

According to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's intention is to defend the many civilians of South Ossetia who hold Russian citizenship. He said that it aims to force Georgia to accept peace and restore the status quo, and that it is acting within its peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia, and in line with the mandate issued by the international community.[18][19] "The actions of the Georgian powers in South Ossetia are, of course, a crime — first of all against their own people," Putin said and opined that the territorial integrity of Georgia has suffered a fatal blow. Putin said the government was ready to earmark up to $425 million for aid to the region. Medvedev said he was ordering the military prosecutor to document crimes against civilians (by Georgia) in South Ossetia. Russia also laid much of the responsibility for ending the fighting on Washington, which has trained Georgian troops.[20]

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili says his country is defending itself from Russian aggression and that Russian forces are bombing its civilian population.[21]

This seems to be too long and one sided. Anyone disagree? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, reference 20 does not seem to exist.

I'm suggesting removing from the end of ref 19 to ref 20,

Because the reference is bad and the material is covered later in the article. 65.68.1.90 (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever has fixed the reference. So, I am considering moving it to "Combatant Statements". Any problems with that? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This change is too major to not get consensus on it. Any opinions ? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I can fairly say that I have no opinion about the conflict, and I have the impression that the current introduction is too detailed about Russia's motives. This can be solved easily by moving the detailed part to the article text. But for some reason, my edit was reverted with the argument that "Russia's actions deserve intro". [9] I agree that Russia's actions deserve an intro, but none of Russia's arguments were removed... Cityvalyu, can you explain your reversal? Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
although no reason could be found in sijo ripa's first edit to shift the added sections(3 sentences), i assumed it was due to the "length factor"..so, i considered that and reduced by one sentence the added sections(2 sentences)... my edit summary should suffice for explaining my edits (and to avoid serving saakashvill's motive).. in a non neutral manner..nevertheless, a few arguments to consider are below..Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

argument1: the whole article and each and every section of it is too long (more than 80 kb- deserves split!?!)..efforts to form collapsible lists (see effort on "aug 9"section) were reverted too..i find the size of intro dwarfs in comparison to the individual sections..so it is relatively small anyway..Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

argument2: if saakashville's stand on the conflict deserves mention, then why accuse mentioning the russian stand? ... georgia could have had a single lined complaint about russian aggression in the breakaway republic of ossetia because it wanted to hide its own role in the preceding attack on 'its own people' (assuming ossetians are georgia nationalists)....just because the russians used more words (more clarity) to describe their response, it is not reason to delete them. if deleted, it serves the motive of saakashville who wants to hide georgia's preceding 'provoking unilateral acts in ossetia' from international attention and who may be wants to portray the event as "unprovoked", "unjustified", "unilateral aggression", "without locus standi" ..from the russian side..Everyone knows that's not the truth since GOERGIA PROVOKED..and russia was forced to respond(see argument3) ! Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

argument3: although i didnt add the following, i infact want to add in future the role of

1 refugee crisis (half the population!)--see indo pak war 1971 to get similarities

2 russia's duty to protect its citizens in the breakaway republic of ossetia (passport holders)

3 mandate to maintain peace in the breakaway province as a major regional power and since ossetia has never been integral part of georgia from 1990 s.

in the crisis as part of the intro to help wiki readers understand "why" this armed conflict occured in ossetia "now".Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

intro problem solved..seperate sections creatdCityvalyu (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
however, article is going past 105 kb s..and increasing every hour!!!Cityvalyu (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

I initally thought the present title (2008 South Ossetia War) was a good compromise. Fact is the war has now shifted beyond South Ossetia. I propose the article be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.72.59 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed to 2008 Georgia War, IMHO. --Tocino 22:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus about it. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The christian sciene monitor has called this thing the russio georgian war, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html XavierGreen (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The CS thing is bull, classic American press plus a little dumb speculation. Russia didn't bomb Georgia to halt refugees into Russia, for god's sake. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Naurmacil (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

USA MERCENARY CAPTURED

There has been already news about corpses of "black" merceneries. This Russian sorce (http://www.vz.ru/news/2008/8/10/195089.html) claims that an USA mercenary has been captured among other georgian diversants. He is said to be in good health condition.

I think this should be added, since it gives an interesting twist on who are the backstage players in this conflict :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad85 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure we should be including mercenaries in the Georgian forces strength description? At the moment there is so little evidence to support it that it's really nothing more than conjecture, so maybe we should refer to them as 'alleged mercenaries.' It might be an idea to put this into the Russian POV section.

That article seems overly sensationalistic. An black soldier has definitely been captured by the South Ossetians/Russians, but I wouldn't bite into the "USA mercenary" conclusion without a direct source (the vz.ru article above references another article that references a radio station... no confirmation on the "US mercenary" bit from any news agencies that I can find). According to this: http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/11/capture/ (sorry, Russian, cites an apparently nonexistent Interfax report), the 19 Georgians were captured near the village Zar (Зар), they do include one dark-skinned soldier, but nothing about him having anything to do with the US.Vectra14 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that this isn't just a black Georgian citizen? I mean, obviously there are very few of these, but few is not zero. The only description I have heard of him on which all of this US mercenary business seems based is that he is black, and being black and being Georgian are not mutually exclusive, even if it is uncommon to be both. Christiangoth (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

Ukraine has expressed strong disapproval of Russian actions and won't let Russian warships to return to their base in Sevostopol,Ukraine. According to Finnish newspapers website: http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Valkoinen+talo+Ven%C3%A4j%C3%A4+vaarantaa+suhteensa+USAan/1135238473501 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.250.108 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We know this. Thanks anyway. Naurmacil (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Israeli involvement

Much bigger then I would have thought. Is that shown here or should it be shown on the international reaction page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be shown here. If they're involved, they're not "international". Naurmacil (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo

I've actually lost any idea where to put this note, so I do it here. Please, ctrl+F: "Vladamir Putin echoed this". There is a typo in the name. It is in the section where Russians are cited. Stan (talk)
fixed, thanks :) --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Black vs Afro-American

Is word "black" looks like racism? I think no. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It depends on how you see it - "nigger" was a pretty neutral term, e.g. Nigeria, Niger, until whites started to use it pejoratively which made it a pejorative term. But I can't see how "black" is racist any more than "white". Naurmacil (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The names of those countries are completely unrelated to the word nigger, which derives from the latin word niger meaning black. The countries on the other hand are named after the Niger river whose name has a native African etymology. --86.135.177.93 (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The names of these countries come from the River Niger: not from the latin word Niger. It's a mangling of an African name (starting in the Medieval period). African-American or Black are acceptable for United States citizens of African decent. Afro - American was used briefly in the 1970's and is now archaic. 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's probably better than Afro-American. After all, if a black soldier was captured, he could just as easily be Canadian or British or French or Nigerian. --Elliskev 23:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any confirmation that he's actually an "American" African-American? There are multiple sources confirming that a non-white-skinned person was captured as part of the 19 Georgians but only a single radio station that source the "citizen of US" bit (http://izvestia.ru/news/news185341 -- references "Radio Ossetia", just like the citation in the current article.) I wouldn't take it for a fact that he is a US citizen or has anything to do with the US until there is further proof. After all, believe it or not, there *are* some black people that live in Georgia, Russia, and so on. Vectra14 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There are very few black people in Russia. As for the Caucasus, it is really hard to believe in black citizen of Georgia or, say, Chechnya. But still there are no evidences this guy from U.S. Vadimkaa
Definitely not. Definition from oxford dictionary: 2 (also Black) of any human group having dark-colored skin, esp. of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry : black adolescents of Jamaican descent.• of or relating to black people : black culture. I think the same term should be used as in source. toxygen (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's racist, I checked the dictionary and it didn't have any warning against its usage, and also I know it's used by some black people themselves (eg see terms like black power or Black Pride), so I think it's ok to use it. However, I saw that it can be capitalised. Thinking about this now, I am considering whether it would be better to make it "Black" rather than "black", but I am not sure. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not racist to American blacks unless you hate blacks, then you're racist. --Leladax (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is racist, an American with a black skin tone is an African American, don't kid yourself.
What about "black-skinned"? Anyway, not "African American" - nobody proofed he was from America. Vadimkaa
  1. ^ I. M. Diakonoff, The Paths of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 262
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War/Archive_4&oldid=1190122304"