Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Someone please clarify context about passports

There needs to be a sentence in the article clarifying why so many South Ossetians have Russian passports; that this was something that Russia offered to all former Soviet citizens when the USSR collapsed. That the people in territories such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia took up the offer because it provided them social services that the government of Georgia would not give them.

Basically, there needs to be some context here. They weren't all suddenly given passports in the past month.

I'm sure I remember reading some sources about this... Esn (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Russia doesn't offer its passports to all former Soviet citizens. But as I read, according to Russian laws any former Soviet citizens who born before 1992 (and their children before 18 years) can take Russian citizenship (i.e. Russian passport) if he/she abandons another country citizenship. This is called "repatriation". --Alexander Widefield (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BCC: Russia begins handover of Gori

[1]Russian troops are handing over control of the area around the town of Gori to Georgian forces, officials say. Who are these "officials" is what I'd like to know. It doesn't look like they're planning on going any further either way, which is good news. LokiiT (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Officials are probably some Army representatives or government figures. And I doubt Russian forces would move further, as it would drag us into a guerilla war. Now it's time for United Nations to place its peacekeepers there. --CopperKettle (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was I'm wondering if it's Russian or Georgian officials saying this. If it's Georgian, this is pretty significant news and very contrary to their usual "the sky is falling" statements. If it's Russian, well they've been saying things like that for 2 days. LokiiT (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you need a name it was major-general V. Borisov (RF Ministry of Defense representative) statement according this: http://www.interfax.ru/politics/news.asp?id=27124. He was second-in-command in VDV (Russian airborne forces) previously. (07:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. There are more detailed reports out now in most major media, Georgia has confirmed this as well. This should be added to the article asap. Unfortunately I can't do this myself right now. LokiiT (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Background first?

This is a point I made yesterday, but it wasn't taken up. In any military history article I ever remember reading on WP or elsewhere, the background comes first, followed by an account of the action, followed if necessary by the aftermath. Why has this convention been reversed here? Putting the "timeline" where it belongs, after the "background" section, wouldn't prevent it being seen or being edited. On the other hand, it would greatly improve the flow of the article. Of course, I could be bold and just do it, but the article is being edited so frequently that it would likely be reverted without explanation if there wasn't a consensus to do it first. So what do people think? Scolaire (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this should be switched, but not yet. Wait until this is out of the news and no longer a current event...visitors now likely want to see the latest news and history of the battle, further details on its background should fall below for now (in a sense, like a newspaper article). Now of course, I know Wikipedia is not a newspaper and articles should not be written like one, but in terms of this simple organization, I think it is better as it stands now...at least for a while. --70.181.209.123 (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I call on everyone to change that image!

Members of the Russian Army during a mission in Bosnia in 1996 after the Bosnian War.

The reasons are as follows: 1. That picture has been taken in Bosnia, not in South Ossetia. 2. The troops are not in the peacekeeping uniform. This distorts the perception of the Russian peacekeepers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pglukhov (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Looks like standard Russian military armor and infantry to me. Just like the Russians who invaded. It should probably stay70.192.159.112 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the Russians 'invaded', protecting the south part of the republic that was dissected in two during the turmoil of Russian civil war and assigned arbitrarily to Georgia. While the US soldiers 'freed' the Kosovo that was the heart of Serbia for nearly a millenium.. Funny how the verbs can shift the focus, Orwell is turning in his grave now. --CopperKettle (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See this: Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918-1920). --CopperKettle (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Its refreshing to see someone who also agrees with me CopperKettle. Clearly the picture does not depict peacekeepers, and the Russian reaction force of the 58th Army were not part of the peacekeeping contigent.75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image is potentially misleading. Unless someone can provide justification for it to stay, I will be removing it soon. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry CopperKettle, forgot to mention that the region currently known as South Ossetia has historically been a part of Georgia since at least the 12th century, inhabited by Georgians. Oh, surprise surprise, so has Abkhazia. If you are going to reference Wiki articles ya might want to check out that section at the bottom: See also See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably, yes; I'll read the article. But so was Kosovo. Serbia had no right to conduct ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Georgia has no right to do this in S.Ossetia\Abkhazia. Why one is called genocide by Western media, and the other is "restoring the control"? Northern Ireland was a part of.. you wont beleive it - Ireland! Why George Bush won't bomb Britain today and restore the justice? What's he waiting for? --CopperKettle (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article; looked @ the XII-th century; yes, there's a great map rightfully named of Georgia at peak of its military dominance, 1184-1225. You know, Russian Empire at the peak of its dominance had an outpost in Northern California and the whole Alaska to boot. --CopperKettle (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Our conversation is about Goergia. Ethnic cleansing was first mentioned by the Russian media but has been uncofirmed and the number of dead stated by the Russians as 2000 since the biginning of the conflict is referenced as unfounded in the article. Furthermore Serbians with a UN peacekeeping force displayed an inability to refrain from comitting attrocities. Georgians displayed no such aggression towards Ossetians or Abkhazians after the initial peacekeeping force of Russians and Georgians were set up. Additionally, NO NATION extended citizenship or pensions to Kosovoans while they were a part of Serbia. The US does not recognize the the IRA as a valid political entity, it is a British problem inside of SOVEREIGN BRITISH territory, just as the US did not consider the CHECHEN problem inside SOVERIEGN RUSSIA a US issue. Any more questions75.216.50.89 (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So we have a conflict greatly more complicated compared to Kosovo or Ireland; with all the patchwork settlements of different nationalities and with Russia crossing the line (issuing the passports and probably nudging the separatists to provoke the Georgians). But why did the Saakasvhili carry out such an assault when there are peacekeeping forces stationed in the region? This greatly reduced his chances of gaining popularity among the Ossetians. If there is no atrocities and such from Georgian Army, why the separatists were unwilling to return to Georgia for two decades? Maybe there is no military solution, and despite the 12th century maps' borders, there must be peacekeepers and peace talks for decades, like in Ireland, and any attack only throws back the progress. I agree that a neighbouring country ideally should not be made a peacekeeper, but why not oust Russia peacefully from this role; it was clear that an all-out attack will harm civilians and Russia will retaliate. --CopperKettle (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Copper Kettle I would ask you to look at a map of Georgia at the time it was included into the Russian empire, circa 1800. This map clearly shows South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including the region up to Sochi as a part of Georgia. You seem like a resourceful fellow, see if you can find it. Not on the internet, try opening a history book in your local library. if you can, try to actually look at it and understand the borders. These are the borders of SOVEREIGN GEORGIA. Russia had a right to protect it's peacekeepers. Russia did not have any foundation to base an invasion of Gerogia on.75.216.50.89 (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but will you all shut up? While the original point about the photo was relevant here, none of this most recent discussion has anything to do with improving the article. None of us care about your opinion of Russia, Georgia, or the war. If you want to argue any of these things, go to a forum or another appropriate place. In the mean time, if you have any suggestions on how to improve the article, based on reliable sources, then please do so. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://feefhs.org/maps/ruse/re-cac.html here's a map for you. Look the nuts and butter is Russia has been stirring the nationalist stuff to keep Georgia off-balance. Russia wanted Georgia back to control the North South energy corridor, why do you think Russia is so freindly with Iran? They wan't to transit Iranian oil and gas, and all pipeline based middle eastern oil and gas into europe. My honest opinion, totally POV, is that the conflict started, as we know because of rebel-georgian escalation as a result of rebels shelling Georgian vilages. We do not know who started the shelling. There are unconfirmed reports that after the Georgians took Tskhinvali, they pushed north to seal the Roki gorge only to find the Russians camped out at the entrance to the Ossetian side. Their artillery positions had also been shelling Georgian villages and positions. This explains why Georgia could not seal the roki gorge, a very simple and logical tacitcal move to stop the russians from bringing their main element south. A fierce fight ensued destroying this russian element which slowed the main russian element moving south but did not stop them because of Russian bombing sorties. This allowed Russia to proceed through the Roki gorge and set up in Java, and the Georgians conducted a tactical retreat with ambushes because Tkhinvali is a tactically indefensible position. After puonding the hell out of Tskhinvali the main Russian element poured in, the Georgians were in a bad position outside the city and tactically retreated again to Gori. By this time Putin had returned and someone ordered an escalation. The deciding factor in Tskhinvali was air superiority and Russia had it.

Nil, go edit something. nice talkig to you Copper75.216.50.89 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Don't forget: we were about to talk about the photo, not about the history of Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia! So far no reason for using that 10 year-old photo has been given. So I am deleting it. Supernova (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why undo without discussion?

I have adding an reference on Russian tanks photo taken in Gori. Why it is undo without discussion? Is it because the source is written byin Chinese? The undo seems to be vandalism--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Something to think about

Ok, forget the raped and probably murdered 25 year old innocent civilian. Your ability to properly format sentences in correct English with proper citations are more than enough to reconcile the serious pain and suffering of innocent peoples trapped in a human tragedy. With such excellent grammatical attention there is no need for any humanity. With any luck this thing will blow wide open and we'll have plenty of bloody atrocities to cite just like Darfur or Rawanda or Bosnia or Cambodia or etc., etc. Just be glad you live in a place that gives you that ability. That freedom.70.192.159.112 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC) please excuse oh great master, I forgot to tilde as instructed after my previous post

You seem to have come to the wrong place... The responsibility of wikipedia is as an encylopaedia in other words, to accurately document what has gone on, based on reliable sources. It is not our responsibility to prevent genocide; I suggest you talk to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, your government, your local newspaper/TV station, or someone else who can do something, if you want to try and prevent genocide Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoils of war

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNBg25n8qYjQyiQ-osgnmBJH6xSQ Russians and South Ossetians going house to house and looting, might be worth mentioning, maybe.70.192.159.112 (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1011311.html Ossetians, Cossacks and Chechens pillaging, might be worth mentioning, maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia6 Now Russians and irregulars burning AND looting villages, I don't know if that actually merits mention, but maybe, maybe75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This has already been mentioned in the article, which you clearly haven't actually bothered to read. LokiiT (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad Big t loki, I only wanted to display that the media we get is isolated to the area in and around South Ossetia. Russia controls most of NW Georgia. So this is not isolated. It concerns me greatly that all the media we get is controlled. again, my bad.75.216.50.89 (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[2]: August 13 timeline - ethnic cleansing; volatile ceasfire; ongoing military occupation.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do not see this mentioned in the August 13 timeline. It is referenced in the Aid section, but seeing as this is a new development in the conflict and part of the military operaion, involving Russians and irregulars (S. Ossetians, Cossacks and Chechens) as a military tactic not unlike Russian paratroopers carrying out raids on 11 August or the Abkhaz offensive mentioned on 12 August, it should be placed in the timeline. It is well sourced, citing your link and the previous articles.75.216.50.89 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

biased caption for demonstration photo

'Demonstration in Tbilisi for a free and undivided Georgia on August 12 2008.' isn't what i'd call unbiased.

What's wrong with this? This is just the title of the demonstration I guess. -- 81.195.26.211 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that two pictures of demonstrations with Georgians in front of the Russian embassy is too much for one article given there are no pictures of lots of demonstrations that took place in the Ukraine and Moscow against Saakashvili. Could you please delete at least one picture? Thank you. Supernova (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Anyone with a photo of demonstrations against Saakashvili should add it to the Russian statements section, ideally with a link to a subarticle if such a subarticle exists.Bdell555 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Report of anti-Georgian pogroms in Russia

A Georgian version of the Inter Press Service reports that Georgians are tortured and killed in the Russian cities. A mob of young neo-Nazis tortured to death 4 Georgians in Moscow and 17 Georgians were reportedly murdered in St.-Petersburg district. Georgians are also terrorized in Vladikavkaz. Thousands of Georgians are fleeing Russia, but they are not allowed to cross into Georgia and face a humanitarian crisis at the Russian border checkpoints.[3] Once this information becomes available in English, I think it should be included in our Wikipedia article. Thanks, --93.177.151.101 (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's travelled in Russia and seen the racism there, I'd be very surprised if there were NOT reports of Georgians being persecuted.Bdell555 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Brian, your remark is irrelevant and pejorative since racism can be found in Europe as well. You know better than anybody else how British youth is prominent for its pervasive violent attacks on African-looking teenagers . Thank you. Supernova (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Racism in Europe is condemned by Europeans themselves while xenophobia and attacks on foreigners are encouraged by authorities in Russia and tolerated by a large segment of Russian society.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A mob of young neo-Nazis tortured to death 4 Georgians in Moscow. Thats not all of russia now is it, neo nazi.--Jakezing (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres a difference between condemming something and not doing it--Jakezing (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear 93.177.151.101, this allegation:

"...attacks on foreigners are encouraged by authorities in Russia"

is a slander. The Russian government has never encouraged racism. Every case of attacks on immigrants has been condemned at a highest level.

Condemned, but not punished. The State Duma members overtly participate in ultra-nationalist demonstrations. GRU's ties with militant chauvinist groups are also well known.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This is the place to discuss ways to improve the articles, not editor's opinions of racism in Western Europe or Russia. And yes, this applies to Bdell, Supernova, Jakezing and 93.177 posts after the first. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

English-language reports plz. (Can't see any, so it's probably just a rumour only.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mamuka Kurashvili

Where was Mamuka Kurashvili when war has begun? In news showed as it with a column of peacemakers entered in Ossetia, and in this time wounded. Kachalov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurashvili is wounded. Reports are very scarce.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian armor massed near Zugdidi

Reuters. More than 100 Russian vehicles were massed two km (1.5 miles) from the centre of Zugdidi, a major town in western Georgia, a Reuters witness said.

"I counted 104 Russian army vehicles, including 40 armored vehicles, most of which are tanks," Reuters staff photographer Umit Bektas said by telephone from the city.

Bektas said their purpose was unclear.

He said the convoy included weapons such as rocket propelled grenades and was carrying Russian flags. Ongoing still. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

I think ...which the Human Rights Watch investigators called "suspicious" and "very doubtful" should be deleted. Anyone can find sources which calls any thing and any event suspicious and doubtful. We need only facts. More than 2,000 people were killed! It's not jokes, it's people's lifes. Shame on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taamu (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing might be changed, but your assessment that the numbers given by Russian/South Ossetian officials are facts despite being challenged by HRW and other sources is very POV. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you like the article to include Putin's claims that people were "sawed in pieces"?Bdell555 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch segregation

Help. We need help from other editors to stop a campaign to move, and then reduce or delete the Human Rights Watch reporting in this article. See the diff for an edit summary stating the editor's intent to marginalize the HRW reporting. This is a very serious matter, as once that editor has rearranged this fast-moving page, it will be difficult to evaluate and undo future edits leading to his or her stated goal. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Took to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to express my support for an ANI move, so do so here. I suspect Colfer is coming from the opposite ideological perspective I'm coming from, but his edits have been a necessary check to my own POV.Bdell555 (talk)

Something went haywire in one of my edits. I did not mean to remove any HRW material, sorry! Other editors restored it. As for ideological perspective, I am not working from one. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The HRW report is the only independent estimate of civilian casualties and should stay where it is. Everyone who have seen pictures from Tskhinvali probably understands that the talks about 2,000 casualties is total BS. This is not Hiroshima or even Hamburg or Dresden. Cityvalyu (talk · contribs) should stop his campaign aiming at marginalization of that source. Colchicum (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Colchicum. A lot of propaganda is going on. I think we should remove all highly biased and unreliable at the time of war statements of combatant's media (Russian, Georgian, and Ossetian) with regard to human rights violations, and only use statements by international human rights organizations and most reputable media outlets like New York Times.Biophys (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, please do be mindful of WP:3RR; looks like Cityvalyu and Colfer2 in particular are both at or near their limits for recent reverts on this subject (I know that 3rr is traditionally evaluated per-page, but on an article this active, good luck!). Since I am acting as an administrator in this context, I will take no stance in the dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked for help by starting this section. (Then I made my dumb edit.) Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Colfer2 made seven "Undids" yesterday in this article, as one can see from his edit history. As about his "ideological objectives", they are clear from : his undids. Biophys (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've reverted as much pro-Russian as pro-Georgian material (or "anti-" and "anti-"). You should give me a star for making so many "undid's" in an article that is getting slammed with so much POV material! Most of my edits have held up. My argument for the diff you cite was that the text should be improved and balanced rather than deleted. But I wasn't wedded to my opinion there either. This business about marginalizing HRW is different, and I strongly object to it. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For instance, I did a lot of work to improve this new article: 2008 protests against Russian aggression on Georgia. But enough about me. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't know that a "campaign" to protect this material is necessary, but I agree that as long as it is presented in an accurate fashion it belongs in the article. Whatever their agenda, HRW's reporters have provided details about the conflict that reflect "poor" behavior on the part of all combatants -- to me, that sounds pretty fair and balanced. The HRW material is relevant and I don't think can be seriously argued as bias or unreliable. It should stay. croll (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely HRW info should be present. For example their reports about the 1992-1993 war in Abkhazia were much more impartial than the majority of Western and Russian sources. Alæxis_¿question? 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press

Should not be italicized. It's a wire service, not a newspaper. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of media bias

This section is biased and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Aside from Kremlin and Russia Today allegations, it has links to "Antiwar.com" and to a guy who runs a blog. This view of "media bias" is held by a small minority and does not deserve such a big section. I think it should be removed. Does anyone else agree? Ostap 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all that is written sources, which specializze on popular scandals.--Woozeefy (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the section either has to go or be further expanded to cover allegations that the Russian media is in turn being biased. A Russia Today reporter, for example, has resigned saying he was filing reports that Russia Today refused to broadcast. Of course, that would make the section even bigger. I accordingly don't see another solution besides removing the section.Bdell555 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, moved here:

Allegations of media bias

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin accused foreign media of pro-Georgian bias in their coverage of the ongoing conflict between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia. "We want television screens in the West to be showing not only Russian tanks, and texts saying Russia is at war in South Ossetia and with Georgia, but also to be showing the suffering of the Ossetian people, the murdered elderly people and children, the destroyed towns of South Ossetia, and Tskhinvali. This would be an objective way of presenting the material," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said. Current Western media coverage of the events in the separatist republic is "a politically motivated version, to put it mildly," he said.

On August 11, 2008, the government funded Russia Today TV channel accused CNN of presenting video footage made by Russia Today in South Ossetia as pictures of bombed Gori.

Blogger James Poulos at The Guardian remarked that "As Russian columns advance into Georgia proper, columns in the American press fill with dire warnings and withering contempt for anyone so puerile as to ever trust a Russian... The anti-Russia lobby is giving the pro-Israel lobby a run for its money, hyping the settling of scores among two European, Orthodox Christian countries as more dangerous to the peace and security of the west than any clash of civilisations or jihad ever was... The anti-Russian reaction obscures the basic particularity of the Georgian situation, and all the history that informs it."

Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, a anti-interventionist advocacy website, stated that "The anti-Russian bias of the Western media is really something to behold: 'Russia Invades Georgia,' 'Russia Attacks Georgia,' and variations thereof have been some of the choice headlines reporting events in the Caucasus, but the reality is not only quite different, but the exact opposite. Sometimes this comes out in the third or fourth paragraph of the reportage, in which it is admitted that the Georgians tried to 'retake' the 'breakaway province' of South Ossetia. The Georgian bombing campaign and the civilian casualties – if they are mentioned at all – are downplayed and presented as subject to dispute."

What? Practically all of Russia's media is much more biased than this section claims the western media to be. This stuff here is only propaganda by Russia Today and RIAN (Russian state agencies) plus some bloggers' claims. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, too. This article needs a MAJOR cleanup overally. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. Balance it by adding and editing, not censoring. These claims are notable. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is so "notable" with the Russian propaganda websites whining about the world "bias" towards its enemy, and some bloggers writing something, to give this more space than the HRW report of village burning campaign which got zero space in the article?

Add it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Add it." or what?

And so, it was reinstated again. This is SO STUPID. So we've got:

1. RIAN (Russian propaganda outlet)
2. Russia Today (Russian propaganda outlet)
3. a blogger
4. some dude who allgedly hates interventions but don't care about Rssian interventions.
5. CNN - USA propaganda (add by --Ieee2008 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
6. BBC - USA propaganda (by British)
7. *.ge - Georgian propaganda
8. *.uk - British propaganda
9. times - yellow press
10. lenta.ru - yellow press
11. guardian - yellow press
12. HRW - USA propaganda
13. Condoleezza - pure USA propaganda
14. "Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog" - Anti-Russian PR at wiki.

Yes, it's all MUST-BE MATERIAL IN SERRRRRIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA (ANYONE CAN EDIT).

People, please keep removing this shit (I can't guard the article, besides there's this 3RR stuff). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. If you want you can create a separate article about propaganda in this war and place it there. This article is already too big. Let's focus on facts.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no place about it anywhere. Article about "propaganda in war" citing official propaganda outlets like some neutral observers? "Blogger James Poulos"? "A dude who wrote "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 And the Israeli Connection" for all people? Come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Add it? Look at this Associated Press report. Count the number of inconsistencies in Russian communcations that we'd have to add. "Russian at first denied that tanks were even in Gori but video footage proved otherwise", [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov "denied that Russian troops were anywhere near [Poti]" vs We have seen more and more Russian troops coming into the area all day etc etc. A person could probably fill a page detailing apparent bias in Russian sources. This section needs to go.Bdell555 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captinobvious, you seem to have some serious neutrality issues here. We can't disregard Russian media. I've seen some outright lies on my own American television over the past few days, there's propaganda coming from both sides. Where did all these anti-Russians come from who are hellbent on removing their point of view and think their own media is completely objective and trustworthy? It's not good, and unfortunately I can't put any serious effort into this article. LokiiT (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So find someone other than Russian propaganda, "blogger" and a conspiracy nutcase. Until then, get out with this. (Btw, this whole "genocide by Georgia" non-stop hate campaign thing in practcially ALL the Russian media, not only these government-run... and then they dare to whine about "bias"? oh, boy) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of quotation marks and the biased, if not ad-hominem ("Attack the attacker"?) term "conspiracy nutcase" hardly looks like a serious argument to me. True neutrality stops to exist the moment you discard sources simply based on the position they hold or held in the past, and in a conflict where every single reporting party has at least an emotional involvement, all you get to hear could be considered "propaganda" anyway - be it reporting what you want people to think or not reporting what you don't want people to think.

I vote for reinstating the "conspiracy nutcase"'s quotation, since it provides an opposing to the popular one view from a western source which at least appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Whether you like it or not, this is a viewpoint that also exists and deserves representation.

Also, why do I get the impression that the possibility of both parties not quite having a clean record as far as "ethnic cleansings" or "genocides" - which, I want to add, is a very questionable term to apply to lootings - in this war is outright discarded or ignored by the bulk of the posters - or at least the bulk of the posts, since some people appear to have an extraordinary urge to demonstrate presence - on this talk page? Can we please cut down on the black-and-white worldview? --87.170.212.163 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=231738472&oldid=231738034 - and again reinstated, with the reason "This should stay" (almost as good as "Add it.").

"This should stay" WHY again? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A better question is why not? Are you afraid of people finding out that their media might not be telling them the whole truth? Because that is the truth. Neither side is fair or objective in the least. The most neutral articles I've seen have been blogs and opinion pieces that wouldn't qualify as reliable sources. You accusing Russian media of being "propaganda" just because you don't like it is meaningless. Do you know for a fact that there was no genocide? Were you there? Then give the ol' flapper a rest and stop pretending that you know what's going on. None of us do, and that's why we report what both sides are saying. LokiiT (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I stopped watching Russian news reporting on the conflict after the channels began officially labeling the conflict "Genocide in South Ossetia," leading with it as the title of their programs and freely throwing the term around as if it were a synonym for "conflict." Genocide is something much more serious than what is happening in South Ossetia. 81.211.3.174 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC) (from Moscow)

I told you "why not" (look above). Now, you tell me "why yes" - why the Russian propaganda and opinion of "blogger" and a conspiracy nut are supposedly essentional for a self-declared encyclopedia? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Do you know for a fact that there was no genocide?" Yes - HRW found no evidence while finding evidence of atrocities by South Ossetians. If there was "genocide", they would have something more to report than about Ossetian militiamen who were captured by Georgians, beaten and released(!). The whole story was pure Russian BS. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Add it" referred to "the HRW report of village burning campaign which got zero space in the article". -Colfer2 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

9/11 is a good example. Yes, one can create a separate article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but such materials should NOT be included in main 9/11 article.Biophys (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some mainstream media have questioned the simple vision of the Georgian conflict. Charles King in the Christian Science Monitor: “The emerging narrative, echoing across editorial pages and on television news programs in the US, portrays Georgia as an embattled, pro-Western country struggling to secure its borders against a belligerent Russia…. Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html

Adjpro (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another mainstream western source talking about the Georgian/western propaganda campaign. LokiiT (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html "Russia illegally attacked Georgia and imperiled a small and feeble neighbor. (...) Russia has massively overreacted to the situation in Georgia. It has hit targets across Georgia, well beyond South Ossetia, and has killed both Georgian military personnel as well as civilians. The international community is right to condemn this illegal attack on an independent country and United Nations member." - Hey, but isn't it excatly what Karasin was whining about? Hey, world, it's peacekeeping! operation! Horrrrrible Georgian genocide! "So far at least, Russia's aims have been clear: to oust Georgian forces from the territory of South Ossetia, one of two secessionist enclaves in Georgia, and to chasten a Saakashvili government that Russia perceives as hot-headed and unpredictable." - as you see, the article is absolutely outdated. And you're trying to hard. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain and dog, Could you clarify what you think I'm trying too hard to do and what is outdated? In my mind, I am trying to work with people on this list to come up with a good entry. Noting that media may be simplistic does not seem to suggest anything about Georgian genocide. I appreciated your comments asking for entries to be better written, but what you just wrote is too flip and self-involved to be understood.

For some reason, what I wrote in response to Lokiit above did not come through. I rejected LokiiT's use of the word propaganda, because it implied dishonesty -- the article he cited only suggests "PR."

Thank you

Adjpro (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch says there is "a massive Russia propaganda machine" at work here. What I don't understand is why editors who apparently consider themselves "left wing" are effectively trying to attack the credibility of human rights groups. Reading HRW's stories on Gitmo, it seemed to me they are more "left" than "right". HRW has advocated for abortion legalisation, gay rights, and the abolition of capital punishment. Can someone explain this apparent contradiction to me?Bdell555 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of anti-Russian bias in Western media during this conflict. A lot of Saakashvili's lies were taken at a face value. Here is an inyteresting analysis in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, there are a lot of sources saying there is an anti-Western bias in Russian media. The point is that this section will get out of hand if you start including allegations from both sides about bias. You can't just have the allegations against the western media for NPOV reasons.Bdell555 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And again THE SAME ONE link. For the record, the title says "Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war", but the article itself says:

"Winners — Vladimir Putin: he made it clear to the world that Georgia had been the aggressor and that his soldiers were intervening to stop “genocide” (...) Losers — Mikhail Saakashvili: the picture of the Georgian President cowering from a Russian helicopter said it all".

Does not compute - "interesting" indeed. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point, obviously both Russian and Georgian media are biased, there is no point including claims to that effect, the question is whether outside media is biased.--Miyokan (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Four countries (de-facto): Russia, Georgia, Abkhasia and South Ossetia were directly involded in conflict. There is no sense to make any notion about their media bias - their bias is obvious. But the media of other countries (western or not) can be expected to be neutral. So, allegation of their bias is worth to be included. And... western media is considered 'independept' and 'neutral', aren't they?

Now about 'blogger'. The articla is placed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia1, while I can see separate button for blogs, and address is different and it looks different. Example: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/08/busted_how_america_turned_the.html. Please compare them: unlike previous, the second if clearly visible as blog. So, it looks to me that the text about Ossetia war bias is placed as article, not as blog. This means that notion about it should be restored because article in The Guardian on this topic is surely notable. This should be done because currently it's not neutral: I can see Russian (side of conflict) allegations vs. allegations of HRW (considered as neutral international organisation). Allegation on western bias placed in western media will fix the picture. 79.175.2.54 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No one could be treated as neutral instead of asia or africa... West wanted Georgia to enter NATO to do so they need to fulfill NATO restrictions. Country with unclear borders cant enter NATO. It is not an empty words, remember the reaction of Turkey after US officially acknowledge of Armenian Genocide, and remember that Georgia would be a great backup in that region. And US waste a lot of resource to reinforce Georgia army for that purpose. And Georgia fights with American weapons in this conflict! It would be very naive thinking that after that Bush simply agreed with Russian claims and express any discontent about Georgia. So blindly just for bush speech about occupation of Georgian city Poti wouldn't be a rational step.Dprohorova (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos on Front Page

I don't know where to put this, but the picture of 'Georgian Rocket Launchers' from Novosty on the front page is almost certainly Russian rocket launchers. It's generally agreed that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvalli occurred at night and by the early morning they were in the city. So why is the picture of the supposed bombardment of Tskhinvali nearer to midday? If the attack was a surprise, its unlikely that Russia photographers would be on hand behind the lines to film Georgian artillery. Moreover, the damage patterns in Tskhinvali as described by Human Rights Watch is not consistant with bombardment from a multiple launch rocket system, but is much more consistant with conventional artillery. If this is Georgian artillery in the photograph, then its almost certainly not firing at Tskhinvalli, and the claim from Russian press that it is makes the whole picture that much more suspect. The AP has shown pictures of Russian armored columns containing large numbers of BM-21 'Grad' launchers (I'm fairly certain this is the type shown in the photo), so we know that the Russia military is using those weapons in theater. Yes, Georgia does have BM-21's in theater and may have even used them at some point and maybe even on Tskhinvalli (I've seen nighttime video footage that is more convincing), but given the origin of the picture it is far more likely to be Russian rockets in the photograph. - Celebrim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.19.254 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling Reference Box II

I was able to create a scrolling reference box for the reference section. If this causes havoc with your browser please revert the edit. I did this as an attempt to reduce the article display size for better viewing.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BLASTED USER: I would call this entire thing a fiscal disturbance according to the factors of 'western involvement', today it occured to me, that this was message board particle as well --- saying if the internal-infuriation gets like this it will -- then there was the presidential satire of the number of presidents in russia outnumbering the number of people in georgia all of whcih remember oddly a diff'rent strokes reference, because of this behaviour -- I say let 'em crash... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.238.188 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please block this page or, at the very least, give it an NPOV

I've had it. Someone is repeatedly removing my edits, made in good faith, and is replacing them with poorly written pro-Russian propaganda. I'm no fan of Georgia, but when the only sources in a section are lurid, state-sponsored Russian media tales of Georgian atrocities, the section needs change. I added to the section about humanitarian conditions in South Ossetia the NPOV tag and the Human Rights Watch report discounting the (obviously grossly exaggerated) Russian statistics. The former was removed, the latter watered down and placed at the bottom. What is this?

Regnum news agency[96] and Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs were found in Tskhinvali. He also reported that a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians.[97] A South Ossetian reservist reported there were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.[97]

At a meeting with South Ossetia refugees at a makeshift hospital camp in Alagir on August 9, eyewitnesses told the Russian Prime Minister that Georgian troops had set fire to a house with several young women inside. "They were rounded up like cattle, shut into the house, and set on fire. In another place, we saw a tank run over an old woman who was running away with two children. We saw how they slashed up an 18-month child," a refugee said.[98] Russian sources cited the representative of South Ossetia administration Irina Gagloeva asserting that Georgia opened an irrigation canal to flood the basements of Tskhinvali in order to prevent people from hiding in the basements of the buildings during bombings.[99]"

Regnum, the mouthpiece of the Russian government, is used as a source in a war between Russia and Georgia? Human Rights Watch, an infinitely more credible source, is downplayed and ignored? This was my original paragraph, added below the South Ossetian government casualty figure:

Human Rights Watch, however, calls the Russian death toll figure of 2,000 unfounded and a result of "propaganda." Doctors in Tskhinvali "had provided figures that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue," although "there have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments." The investigation is ongoing.

This is the "new and improved" (i.e., vague and badly written) version, conveniently placed at the bottom of the page:

Nevertheless, alleged that [sic] "The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful," she said. "Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics." Doctors in Tskhinvali said that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of atleast [sic] 44 people (those brought to the city morgue) were dead although "there have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments." The investigation is ongoing.[100]

Let's move to the section on Georgia, shall we?

British journalist Andrew Wilson (of the London Times) reports that he was assaulted and almost killed by ,according to him, "Ossetian fighters".[107]

"Ossetian fighters" needs quotation marks while "a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians" does not? The Times is a perfectly reliable source, and there is no reason to think that the people who were going to kill him (he was saved by his journalist status) were not South Ossetians.

Witnesses report burning and destruction of Georgian villages (especially around Gori) as the Russian troops retreat, 'allegedly by South Ossetians'.

There are no allegations here. It is now a fact, confirmed by many reputable and consistent sources (CNN, the Times, AP, Humans Rights Watch) that the South Ossetians are looting Georgian villages and occasionally burning houses. THESE ARE NOT ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT - THESE ACCOUNTS ARE COLLECTED ON THE GROUND BY INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS.

And now we come to the most delicious part of all this:

Human Rights Watch researchers also allegedly saw (within quotes) "armed Ossetian militia members in camouflage fatigues" taking household items out of houses in the village of Nizhnie Achaveti and loading them into their trucks. Explaining the looters' actions, an "Ossetian man" allegedly told Human Rights Watch that they are entitled to take things from Georgians now – because they lost their own property in Tskhinvali and other places. The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be "decisive and tough" measures taken against looters.[109] The Guardian cited witnesses who reported "an orgy of looting, burning, murdering and rape" against Georgians carried out by Chechen and Ossetian "volunteers". However the guardian reported it was impossible to verify the claims.[110]

In case the reader doesn't understand that these are completely false allegations, that there are quotes around the "disputed allegations" (note the quotes!) is spelled out right before! How convenient! "Ossetian man" - well, I'm sure the Georgians are planting villagers who speak Ossetic in the face of dozens of Russian tanks just to fool Human Rights Watch! And, of course, the claims of the "guardian" (capitalization is so passé!) are "impossible to verify", but those of the Russian media-government are not only fully verifiable but in fact are to be relied upon as central sources! And how! aristotle1990 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately, wikipedia is ochlocracy. So, the Russian mob rules. Administrators do not want to intervene. Cofer2 made seven reverts in this article today, but no one cares.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a ochlocracy, the fact is that there are way too many editors at the moment, some of them have bias.

Let's give a month, when things cool down we, NPOV editors, will have a easier time removing the propaganda from the article.

You should add a tag to the article.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire "Timeline" section is certainly non-neutral. The bias is obviously toward a pro-Russia POV. Not only is it full of biased language; it's full of persuasive argument. If this was our writing standard, we would need to include a whole other section that includes all the arguments that Georgia would use to justify their actions seeing that all Russia's arguments are included in this section. The "Georgia" part of the "Humanitarian" section is also blatantly non-neutral, putting everything in quotes as though nothing within quotes is 'verifiable'. I've attempted to make a few very minimal edits that should not upset the biased crowd but will help with the credibility factor, but seems that I will be wasting my time to work any more on this as other neutral editors are having no luck with their edits sticking. I am not taking any sides either, but this article currently is substandard for a Wikipedia current event article that has been around for as long as it has been. The mods certainly need to step in at some point if things don't settle down and even out within the next few days. Efrafra (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about NPOV, I can't seem to find anything from Georgian side explaining WHY they moved their troops into South Ossetia(while Russia has plenty of excuses), does anyone have any info(and legit sources) on that? Would be nice if we find it now, rather than when the conflict is over. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Source does not contain quoted information

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/13/georgia.russia.war/index.html

as Source 11 supposedly states that Russia has lost; "74 Russian troops killed, 171 wounded and 19 missing in action" but the article has no mention of casualties other then to say that CNN could not verify the conflicting reports on casualties. Please can someone amend this article. This is yet again another example of an edit to Wikipedia which is unsourced which reflects poorly on the Russians ... hardly NPOV is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it with a new ref, [4], but next time you have to do it! Took about 5 seconds in Google News. I don't know what your NPOV complaint is, likely CNN removed the numbers from its article, or someone mixed up a ref. But thanks for pointing out the error. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected and the original poster is not autoconfirmed yet. He can't edit the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

REAL source: http://mil.ru/info/1069/details/index.shtml?id=49437 Магистер (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign press (AP, The Guardian) at last get to Tskhinvali and this is what they see

During a visit Tuesday arranged by the Russian government, journalists from The Associated Press and other Western media were escorted into the city aboard armored vehicles.

Reporters witnessed more than a dozen fires in what appeared to be deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods and saw evidence of looting in those areas.

The heaviest damage from the recent fighting appeared to be around Tskhinvali's government center. More than a dozen buildings in the area were little more than scorched shells.

Several residential areas seemed to have little damage, except for shattered windows, perhaps from bomb concussions.

Russian army agitprop tour backfires, as little-to-no evidence of their wild claims:

Army Col. Igor Kononenko showed off a civilian neighborhood, once part of the old Jewish quarter, that sustained extensive damage. He said that was proof the Georgians targeted civilians.

"This street is very small, tanks can't go through here," he said, arguing there was no military reason for the Georgian military to shell the neighborhood.

However, the district stands on a hillside in the line of fire between Georgian rocket position and Tskhinvali's government center, located around the university. Some civilians in the area conceded Georgian fire at the government building might have fallen short.

At the regional hospital, doctors said the patients were moved to the basement during Georgia's bombardment of the city, and had to do without light, water or toilets. The dungeon-like rooms still stank of sewage Tuesday, while sheets and bandages were stained with blood.

Dr. Tina Zhakarova, who said the hospital had treated 224 patients during the fighting, called the Georgian assault on the city an act of ethnic cleansing.

Noting the medical facility had been damaged, she held out a handful of shrapnel to reporters. Doctors can protect people from disease, she said. "How can we protect them against this?"

But from the outside, the hospital appeared to have only light damage, either from bullets or shrapnel. Most of the windows were shattered.

Russian army officers said a Georgian missile pierced the hospital's roof and caused damage not visible on the outside. But they refused to show reporters the destruction, saying it was not safe.

Maybe the best:

Outside town, dozens of houses burned along the main road. A Russian officer said some of the buildings had been burning for days and others were damaged the previous night during an airstrike by a single Georgian plane.

When an AP photographer rode through the same villages Monday morning, none of the houses was burning. The fires only began Monday night, more than 24 hours after the battle for the city was over

Heavy damage in Tskhinvali, mostly at gov't center

I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny. Much (much) more damage (UN: "most destroyed city on earth"[5]), many more casualties, much more bigger city too, so I guess you'll be totally outraged. Right?

One sentence also bolded with no comment. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you are not following your on advice above that "This is not a forum"? While your suggestions on sources to improve the article are of course welcome, your irrelevant/off-topic, unnecessarily inflammatory comments are not, and liable to result in pointless arguments Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#The_wording_at_the_beginning - propagandist couldn't shut up about the demands of the "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city", "the heavy shelling laid the city in ruins," "the merciless wiping out of a city" and what not. But, not only the damage is limited, not only was inflicted by both sides during a regular battle, but also the rebels seem to be destroying "deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods" of the city right now, during "ceasefire". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, let's remember that the whole invasion was justified both internally in Russia and internationally by the Russian claims of "more than 2,000 killed", "settlements wiped-out and city in ruins" and "complete genocide". Now we know it was all lies. I repeatedly proposed this article to be named "War in Georgia", with no effect. Frankly, now I think it should be rather called "Looting of Georgia", becaue thi is what is going on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, there is so much propaganda in our articles at the moment. E.g. in the Timeline article: South Ossetia government representative Irina Gagloeva stated the morning of August 11 that Georgia opened the irrigation canal, supposedly in an effort to flood the basements of Tskhinvali buildings with an intention to prevent civilians from hiding from bombings. (according tu Lenta.ru) ... So shouldn't be the streets in Tskhinvali under water at the moment, when it was true? -- DanteRay (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you know? The water is in the basements, obviously. There are no wounded in Tskhinvali because the Georgians finished off the wounded. There are no bodies because the Georgians ate the bodies. The article is perfectly fine and neutral, representing both POVs, that is the Russian propaganda jut as much as South Ossetian. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of Russian sources does look doubtful now, given reports from Human Rights Watch in South Ossetia and the fact the western media reporting from Tskhinvali were moreover under Russian escort. But let's be calm professionals here as opposed to sarcastic or taunting and discuss problem material on a case-by-case basis.Bdell555 (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't realised, the soapboxing and offtopic comments of other contributors is not an excuse for you to start soapboxing and making offtopic comments. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "offtopic comments", as they meant to change the article to include "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city" in prominently the article, while reality was that merely "patches" of the city (more like a town) were heavily damaged through admittably questionable artillery support tactics during the battle, mostly in the government district. Btw, "near-almost-destroyed city" is an intereresting phrase. As of the hospital, HRW says it actually has been hit in the roof by a Grad rocket - but also said that "there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded" admitted into this (the only) hospital in the town. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed offtopic. While the suggestion of a source was welcome, this comment "I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny." added nothing useful to the discussion, was provocative and was not a real suggestion for adding content to the article. Nor was "btw, the whole story turns out to be just like the fairy tale of "Jeningrad". As I've said several times, you are welcome to propose sources to add to the article, but interspersing this with your own provocative comments is NOT' acceptable Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's see what the other journalists in the group say about a trip with Colonel Kononenko (btw, the whole story turns out to be just like the fairy tale of "Jeningrad"). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

British The Guardian:

Several truck-mounted rocket launchers were a sign of Moscow's intent to hold Tskhinvali at all costs. Approaching Tskhinvali, the group of reporters was transferred to armoured personnel carriers because of the risk of fire from Georgian snipers, said the Russian officers leading the trip.

In villages close to the city there were many burned out houses, and others were still ablaze. In the city itself it was clear that claims the city had been levelled to the ground by artillery were exaggerated. However, it was also evident that while some neighbourhoods were intact, there were patches of terrible destruction.

'I've never heard anything so monstrous as people shelling a hospital' - Tom Parfitt travelled to Tskhinvali, in a trip organised by the Kremlin, to witness first hand the destruction caused by the battle for South Ossetia

Some residential areas were hit during the fighting ("patches" of destruction, including one "whole street of 100 meters" just south of the gvt centre - the same one AP said might be hit by accident because of ground elevation), others not at all ("intact"). In all, Russian claims "clearly exaggerated". Nearby Georgian villages are looted and burning. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AP Google update of the original AP report also contains this:

An AP photographer saw irregular troops near burning homes in ethnic Georgian villages, and there was evidence of looting in those areas.

At an Ezeit electronics store with smashed windows, a few appliances stood outside, but most of the stock seemed to be gone.

Nearby, a man in dark glasses, camouflage and a Kalashnikov assault rifle drove a tractor hauling what looked like a large refrigerator partly visible under a blanket. A car went down the road with two new satellite dishes on top.[6]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down there buddy, none of this is even news. BBC had a report out like 24 hours ago talking about all this and showing pictures. Take your own advice and stop using this as a forum/soap box to get out your frustrations. Go for a jog or something, work on other articles; take a break, you clearly need one. LokiiT (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Russians aren't letting western journalists into the Gori area (never mind South Ossetia) to see what's been going on there: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/georgia.russia4 Bdell555 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, BBC.

As the Russian military moved deeper into Georgian territory on Wednesday, thousands of people continued to flee towards Tbilisi.

It is a mass exodus that Georgia's capital cannot cope with. Many schools and kindergartens across the city are full of displaced people. (...) The testimonies of those who have fled villages around South Ossetia are consistent, but with all roads blocked and the Russian military now in charge of the area, the scale of alleged reprisal killings and lootings is difficult to verify. But despair and fear is, unmistakably, on the rise here. (...) "The government says only 120 people have been killed, but it is not true," she said.

"In Gori, I saw lorries full of bodies being delivered to the hospital every day. So many people have died, why is the government lying?"

Georgians fear revenge attacks

Saying about the claims of the Georgian government downplaying the real number of the killed Georgians - it probably does, as I already wrote elsewhere (in opposition to the Russian claims of "total genocide" and what not). It may be a lie but a different kind of lie, one not sparking what BBC called "revenge attacks".

Also, there was a discussion ealrier here on talk page about that South Ossetian militiamen should be called "army". It's not an army, an army has a clear chain of command (and accountibility), and they're bands of armed looters who go around in civilian cars and tractors - and doing looting. It's a militia(s) or at best paramilitary, unruly irregulars. It's not army and the "South Ossetian military" may be maybe these 3,000 guys with Russian tanks at the first day of war, and not everyone and his brother handed-out some kind of uniform, dark glasses and a rifle and told to avange "genocide". "Volunteer" is not the right word - US Army is volunteer, that is professional (as opposed to, say, the mostly conscript Russian). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I thought our job here is to post facts and not POVaculate prematurely. Captain, I am a supporter of democracy and freedom as well, but you seem to be going overboard, how about you tone down a little? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian has seized American made (Weapons?) & Equipment and their subsequent technology from the Georgians

Russia informed Georgia's Interior Ministry that its troops will remain deployed around the city of Gori, near South Ossetia, for as many as three days, ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said... In Gori, Russian troops are transporting seized Georgian military equipment ( which is supplied by the United States)... [7]24.0.64.87 (talk)

It's no secret that Georgia is considered an "ally" by the United States. That said, this kind of information has the potential to be misleading without additional context. Counter-example: Most of Georgia's tanks, APCs, and aircraft are of Soviet/Russian design and manufacture. Does that mean Russia is actually supporting both Georgia and S. Ossetia? Of course not. But the way you present the above implies that the United States is doing something nefarious or evil. Let's all try to keep stuff in perspective here. croll (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two separate things: "made by" and "supplied by". These weapons were supplied by USA for Georgia, while the USSR weapons are leftovers of the Soviet era. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

True, I agree with the first post as for the second (part), technically accurate however it's obvious that that are looking for anything western and more advanced as history would state the information should acknowledge Russians known history of "acquiring" the West's technologies by what ever means possible, one more report:

Georgia's coast guard said Russian troops burned four Georgian patrol boats in Poti on Wednesday, then returned Thursday to loot and destroy the coast guard's radar and other equipment...The same APTN crew followed Russian troops on the outskirts of Poti as they searched a field and a forest at an old Soviet military base for possible Georgian military equipment.[8]

24.0.64.87 (talk)

Okay, let me rephrase this. Has anyone bothered to read the Bloomberg article the first post actually cites? There is no claim in the article that any of the siezed equipment was supplied by the U.S. It doesn't specify whether it was US-supplied or, as has been said, Soviet "leftovers". Ergo, it does not belong and the source is being misrepresented as saying something that it does not. The source can be used to show that the Russian's are seizing Georgian military equipment, but it is neither accurate nor responsible to claim that the siezed equipment was supplied by the U.S. which, I repeat, infers that the U.S. is doing something nefarious such as smuggling in weapons to the Georgians, which, again, nobody is claiming. croll (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand this as my own POV, I didn't want to change the title, but I did somewhat. In any case it still note worthy because the Russians are still seizing Georgian war supplies and further is significant because of the place in which is occurring outside the "conflict zone".--24.0.64.87 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out I was correct:

U.S.-Made Weapons

Russian troops seized U.S.- and Russian-made weapons in the Georgian town of Senaki, near Abkhazia, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, told reporters in Moscow. All shooting has stopped in Georgia, he said. [9]

--24.0.64.87 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Also something interesting about the joint training operation in July. Given that it's properly cited and Bloomberg is a reliable source, I have no trouble including that, though it might be more appropriate for the timeline article. Can't say I have strong feelings either way. Cheers. croll (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

August 14 Human Rights Watch Report

I'm concerned about adding all of the material in this report because it may increase the amount of material discussing the humanitarian impact to undue weight. Perhaps just the section below, which appears to mention the worst of the problems, and/or select elements from the rest of the report should be incorporated:

.... Russian officers at the checkpoint told Human Rights Watch that the road closure was due to the massive looting taking place in Georgian villages along the road.

However, moving back from Tskhinvali to Java on the evening of August 13, Human Rights Watch researchers saw, for the second day running, houses that were ablaze in several Georgian villages. They had clearly just been torched. One counterintelligence officer of the South Ossetian forces claimed to Human Rights Watch that: “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... http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm Bdell555 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That is an informative quote. Many statements by combatant side in this section are probably propaganda/disinformation. We should leave in this section only statements by human rights organizations (like your quote) and by most reputable news outlets, such as New York Times, etc.Biophys (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A doctor at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital who was on duty from the afternoon of August 7 told Human Rights Watch that between August 6 to 12 the hospital treated 273 wounded, both military and civilians. She said her hospital was the only clinic treating the wounded in Tskhinvali. The doctor said there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded and added that all of the wounded were later transferred to the Russian Ministry of Emergencies mobile hospitals in South and North Ossetia. As of August 13, there were no wounded left in the Tskhinvali hospital.

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's best to site sources from both sides. Western related media is biased.

--What Max —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HRW is not media, Mr. Genius. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I never referred to HRW as a "media". Since HRW allegations are currently reported by Western influenced media, the HRW should not be taken as the main source of information. HRW is a United States-based international non-government organisation that conducts research and advocacy on human rights, has been criticised in the form of commentaries from various organisations, journalists, and bloggers. What Max (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As of the basements

Also, Human Rights Watch saw several buildings that bore traces of heavy ammunition as if fired from tanks at close range. There was some evidence of firing being directed into basements, locations where civilians frequently choose as a place of shelter.

One thing:

At a crossroads in the north of the city there was evidence of a fierce fire fight. Three destroyed Georgian tanks were slewed across the road, a mess of ash and twisted metal. The heavy turret of one tank had been tossed across the street, falling through a shop front. Nearby on the ground lay a human foot. (...) "Those tanks in the street, we hit them with rocket propelled grenades from the basement."[10]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Related to this point about firing while proximate to civilian habitations:

Whenever someone starts telling us about shelling in Tskhinvali, it is important to keep in mind exactly what Tskhinvali is. It is not a city somewhere in the middle of a republic that is being fired upon by saboteurs. On three sides, Tskhinvali is surrounded by Georgian villages. The edge of Tskhinvali is a military outpost. South Ossetian forces fire from there into the Georgian villages, and the Georgians respond with fire of their own. To help keep Georgian fire from hitting civilians in the city, all the South Ossetians would have to do is move their military base forward a couple hundred meters.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1189525.html (other excerpts from this source were cited by Svante Cornell writing on the New York Times website)Bdell555 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

German TV has a short video clip from behind Russian lines. The German speaking reporter alleges ethnic cleansing.Bdell555 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

By whom, Russians or Georgians? Please, be more clear. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Please note that Captain Obvious is violating Wikipedia Guidelines by deleting messages he doesn't want to see (1, 2) and adding clearly provocative comments to them. At the same time he allows himself to write such things as

I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny.

I think it's a clear violation of those policies he himself tries to force on others. Moreover, he shows that attitude for quite a time now. Wikipedia is not a forum nor is this a place for people to force their POV. Rules are written for everybody. Please do something about him. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The chronologically first instance you invoke was hiding (not deleting) of your comment to Captain Obvious and his response to it. Your comment contained phrases like "Epic lol. Seriously, you're brainwashed to ashes.", "you're just an anti-Russian propagandist" and other personal remarks, like accusations of hypocrisy, provocations and religious fanaticism. The second case is that he deleted the same passages - after you reverted it and demanded he does not hide it. However opinionated and sarcastic Captain Obvious might be, it seems that he refrained from personal remarks on you. We should all remember about WP:NOTFORUM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that my comment was full of personal remarks, but that was after several days of him saying "I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already" et cetera and not listening to anything the other side says to him. I do not understand how his "Wikipedia is not a forum" lectures correlate with his own messages. Also he did make a personal remark calling me "Captain Russia" - I guess the tradition of calling people Captains is in his blood. And then again, if we agree that this is not a forum and if we delete personal remarks why keep his constant attacks at Russia which accompany his every message? It's not like I'm that patriotic and all, but this is just nasty. That's nationalism to me. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed way too many off-topic messages from both sides going on here and as I've stated before, despite his lectures on "not a forum" Captain is not following his own advice. Note that nether side's behaviour is justified by the other side's failure to behave properly Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious is deleting my comments as well. He seems to be dictating the information on this page based on his views of the war. Wikipedia is a general consensus of all opinions, his actions should not be permitted. What Max (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Motives for war

There has been much discussion of both sides' justification of their actions, but little as to their reasons for them. I think it would give a greater insight into events if some motivation were suggested. For example, one media outlet suggested that Russia is "building a soviet state".

• Unless there's significant discussion of this in reputable sources, it would violate WP:NOR. And speculation is, of itself, suspect. It might be worth looking into this when the dust settles, but with the conflict ongoing there's really no way to say what the true motives are. 23skidoo (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Vladikavkaz

Has the city Vladikavkaz been also occupied by the Russian army, does anyone know ? Prunk (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be a joke?.. Alæxis_¿question? 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vladikavkaz is PART of Russia.. So they need not occupy it. --141.210.133.237 (talk) 1you prov7:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote (from the link you provided): Vladikavkaz is the capital city of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Russia. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear they decided not to take Atlanta after all. --Illythr (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all Russian Army should occupy Moscow. Vladikavkaz can wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadimkaa (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be renamed

The war has not only taken place in South Ossetia as the article title currently suggests, but in many other places in Georgia such as Abkhazia, Gori, the Black Sea, Zugdidi and outskirts of Tibilsi, ect. So we need to have another name for this article. Ijanderson (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read this discussion of the matter. This article should not be renamed until the real world agrees what to call it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson, welcome to the mess that is this discussion page. :) As Septentrionalis noted, this has been discussed several times before (although most if not all of those conversations are now in the archives) and there is a concensus that although the article will need to be renamed eventually, we should wait until the non-Wikipedia world (i.e., the real world) decides what that name is going to be. Thanks. croll (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the notion this is until there's a decision what this will be called off Wikipedia so far South Ossetia War is not what they're talking about. The majority of reports have some variation of Russia-Georgia War. Most are either calling it, Russia-Georgia conflict, Georgia-Russia conflict, Russian-Georgian War, so on and so forth. All major media agree it is between Russia and Georgia with the separatist republics being little more than Russian toadies. In fact, Russia-Georgia conflict seems to be overwhelmingly the most used name for what's going on. It's used more than pretty much all the other names combined. I believe it is actually the only term that brings up more than 1,000 results on Google News, going at around 1,500. Since that seems to be the most widely used name for now, I believe this should be the name used here. South Ossetia War comes up in only a few dozen sources for comparison. I think this name should be changed to the one most widely used and later if some other name emerges it can be changed. There's another outstanding issue in that the campaign box lists this as the 2nd South Ossetia War, but it also is the 3rd Abkhazia War, but we can't very well have both links going to the same article. Given the nature of the conflict having articles for the Abkhaz front and Ossetian front, including operations near the separatist regions, seems reasonable while this remains a more general article about the conflict overall.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is arguing this is the most common name. But policy states that when there is no consensus for a move, the page stays at the current location therefore we tend to stick with whatever the first contributor called it. If you'd read the discussion linked above, you'd note there is almost consensus not to move at the current time and from what I can tell, this discussion has been held nearly everyday so there is no point revisiting it unless you're bringing something new to the discussion which you don't appear to be. As for splitting this article, I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it, and would strongly oppose splitting now given that the article is still in a major state of flux. Premature splitting tends to result in a royal mess with excessive duplication of content and effort, and often leads to a bunch of unmaintained articles which may suggest the war is still ongoing 3 years from now. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoewever, when mainstream sources converge on the same variant, we should move the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Defense Secretary: Russia seems to be withdrawing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401611.html?hpid=topnews

From the article: "Russia appears to be withdrawing its forces from positions inside Georgia in initial compliance with a cease-fire agreement"..."Russian forces have practically ceased air operations in Georgia and are cooperating with U.S. military deliveries of humanitarian supplies for Georgia."

If this holds true, then the conflict appears to have ended, and we should edit the infobox accordingly.

Alphabravo11 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. This isn't the first sign that has been hailed as the end of the war, and we are not Wikinews. Robert Gates isn't there, and is an official source; no more reliable than the Russian or Georgian ones, and less knowledgeable. Statesmen have been known to predict things in the hope that they would then come true. (And today's news also includes the Russian commander at Gori saying it would take him 48 hours to be ready to withdraw.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a few days. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One source declaring that Russia "appears" to be withdrawing, does not constitute definitive evidence that this conflict has reached its termination. We shall have to wait, as you have suggested Alphabravo11, before more solid proof has emerged to show that the war has ended. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When all sides officially declare that "war is over", it is indeed over. Not yet.Biophys (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Autocomment

I removed the autocomment facility. It discourages editors who arrive here with an idea from looking to see if we've already discussed it, which means we get a half-dozen discussions on the same topic. I don't see why this is a good thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

War is not "ongoing"

I changed the status in the info box, this war is not "ongoing", its already over, Georgia lost.--SergeiXXX (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look up two sections. It isn't over until it's over, and there is a Georgian army in being. It may be that history will eventually decide it ended Wednesday; there may be guerilla warfare for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as occupation of Georgian territory continue (especially beyond the Abkhasia and S. Ossetia), this conflict is "ongoing". Russian forces were not withdrawn.Biophys (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The conflict is still ongoing until the international community recognizes that it's over. And there's many different perspectives being reported right now; it's impossible to say whether it's over or not right now. 23skidoo (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The conflict is still ongoing until the international community recognizes that it's over. And there's many different perspectives being reported right now; it's impossible to say whether it's over or not right now. 23skidoo (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not "occupation". Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not Georgian territory. Havent been so since 1992.--And the Georgian Army is shattered. And there is no "guerilla warfare" against the Russian Army in either Abkhazia or S. Ossetia. They Russians are seen as liberators by both peoples. Everyone there is on Russia's side. If there is "guerilla warfare", its against Georgia. SergeiXXX (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course the war is ongoing! For example Russians together with different bandit groups such as cossacks were looting in and around Gori today. And they still are in Poti in the west. By the way Estonian military volonteers arrived to Tbilisi today. Narking (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not Estonian military volunteers, but volunteers for humanitarian mission. Statements from Estonian Foreign and Defence ministries. [11], [12]

SergeiXXX, when you said "Be prepared to recieve back the coffins of your brave "Estonian military volonteers".", you were breaking WP:CIVIL. You may be thinking, "Hold on, Narking was saying that cossacks are looting Gori, why is he not being punished?" Narking was stating what he believes is a fact. It is POV, imo, but he is stating it as a fact. Sergei, your comment was a threat. There is a difference between stating what you believe is a fact, and stating a threat, and WP:CIVIL does not allow threats. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

::I didnt threaten anyone. just pointed out the truth. A few Estonian punks dont stand a chance against hardened former Soviet VDV Afghan vets.--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Estonian military volunteers definitely live up to their reputation, arriving 2 days after the war has ended... Óðinn (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Once more, they are NOT military volunteers, notwithstanding what Russian media says. Please see official statements above. And insulting remarks by SergeiXXX and [[User talk:Óðinn|Óðinn] should be removed as off-topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.192.206 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page must not be used to state anything regarding the 2008 South Ossetia war itself. This talk page is reserved for comments relating to the article. I would also like to say that a consensus by Wikipedians needs to be obtained before the infobox states the war is over. Due to the conflicting news stories being broadcast by many major media outlets, I cannot see such a consensus emerging atm. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide reliable sources stating that war is still going on? Óðinn (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian has the following article [13]. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the phrase "There is no way to independently verify these accounts"? Óðinn (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Óðinn, please provide some reliable sources that state that the war is over. atm, both sides have agreed a ceasefire, which is not the same as agreeing that the war is over. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bild (German newspaper) Quote: „Gegen 13 Uhr hörten wir, dass die Dörfer um Gori wieder unter Artilleriefeuer standen." (Translation: Aroung 1. PM we heard that the villages around Gori were attacked by artillery.). And they have two journalists in Gori. -- DanteRay (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When all sides officially declare that "war is over", it is indeed over. Not yet.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it's just a ceasefire when I remember it correctly. -- DanteRay (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Btw: You also might have a look on this video from today. They describe that the war should be over but in fact isn't. They still hear shootings and grenade-explosions, fire in the villages around Gori, more and more Russian troops on Georgian soil ... -- DanteRay (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Allright, the German sources are somewhat more convincing... Óðinn (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bild is not much better in any way than The Sun and is not a reliable source for anything, especially not for such controversial topics like wars. There is absolutely noone who thinks it can be used as a source in the German Wikipedia. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right that Bild has a lot of crap in their newspaper, but at the end of the day, they have guys down there in Gori, and you just have to look at the video. It's okay to have doubts about the texts they write, but they don't fake videos. -- DanteRay (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also other newspapers report about shootings and explosions: Zeit, AP reporting about explosions etc ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteRay (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::And YES, the war is still on, technically, as the Russian Army is still there, and is still engaged in a stand off with the gogies. So, yeah, the Westerners are right on this one. Unfortunately.--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of OSCE

There is no mention of OSCE in the article. While we're at it, there's only little and outdated in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war also. --Vuo (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for removal and maybe more info about information warfare?

[[Image:Geogiacasualities.jpg|thumb|right|A Georgian man cries as he holds the body of his relative after a bombardment in Gori, 80 km (50 miles) from Tbilisi <ref>http://www.javno.com/en/foto.php?id=19&rbr=7941&idrf=381645</ref>]] This photo is faked. Here are the rest of the fake photos:

http://img12.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/1/2/f/8/9/12f89bef0459a49e1d9549a40e6514c4_full.jpg

The man pictured is wearing very clean clothes, and the "corpse" has no apparent damage (maybe the wound is on the back?)

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/7/6/7/1/a/7671af3567d5056d5e7ac87f0c362367_full.jpg

Same "corpse" turned over. No wound on the back, eh?

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/9/c/e/0/7/9ce078f42e63002a83c19031665beb61_full.jpg

The guy from the first picture is dressed up and ready for a new show

http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/7/6/7/1/a/7671af3567d5056d5e7ac87f0c362367_full.jpg

Check out how the corpse is hanging onto the woman's shoulder! Do all corpses do that?

--Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Until a reliable source tells: "this photo is fake", nothing should be removed, because your analysis represents WP:OR.Biophys (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Logic isn't a reliable source? If you can tell it's fake, it does not belong in Wikipedia--Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's still OR. First, the one where the so-called corpse is holding onto the woman - I don't see anything saying the person being carried is dead. As for the other photos, your interpretation of them is 100% POV and OR unless you can provide a reputable source saying the photos are fake. I'm sorry, I have to side with Biophys on this. 23skidoo (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) It isn't. Have you tried reading WP:OR? Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your logic isn't a reliable source. Read WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V. The picture is not faked. It was taken by Gleb Garanich, a reputable Reuters photographer. It is his reputation vs. "reputation" of anonymous bloggers participating in informational warfare, such as you. Go away, please. This is a copyvio, however, but it is another issue. Colchicum (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the image is liable to be deleted within 7 days since I doubt it can be used under NFCC so the issue is somewhat moot IMHO. Do we even have a good source for that image? It claims to be from Reuters but so far the only sites hosting it are hardly reliable. If we can't find a good source which clearly links it to Reuters, it probably should be speedied. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is a blatant copyvio of [14]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair call. However the fact the image is from Reuters pretty much defeats the original argument (unless one wants to put forward the conspiracy theory that all news photos are faked). 23skidoo (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at least know we know it really is from Reuters. But as I hinted at above, it's unlikely this can be used under NFCC being a commercial media image that is not iconic Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's faked at all and I really wish we could keep it here. If someone wants to try and make a case for fair use, that's probably the best bet. Otherwise, it's gonna be gone pretty soon as I've tagged it as a copyvio. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures 1 and 3 do appear to be the same person in different clothing, interesting. It was probably made by the Georgian government. Removing a picture isn't original research. There are plenty of pictures we have to choose from based on logic and reason. Where is the reliable source that says we must use these pictures in the article? A choice to use any picture could be "original research" based on what you're saying.LokiiT (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NYT Photo: Gleb Garanich/Reuters -- DanteRay (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I undid my own edit for now. But I still think it's obvious Georgian (Western?) propaganda. Haven't you been reading the news lately? All newspapers in New York, such as Daily News, NY Post and NY Times are spilling georgian propaganda all over, with authors' last names ending in "shvili". --Mrcatzilla 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to sign your post again as your username didn't go through. And again, you're espousing a POV that we can't use in Wikipedia. The fact the media happen to be using Georgian reporters should come as no surprise, considering it's not one of those countries that would have a strong western media presence. I don't even know if it rated a field office for the AP. And do you think there would be any different accusations made if the reporters were Russian??? Or American? Why don't we just ignore this event completely then? There's no way to cover it without knee-jerk reactions of propaganda coming from somebody. 23skidoo (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, would it be good to add to the information warfare section a few sentences about fake images distributed to media? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no independent third-party source saying they're faked. The images in question could have been taken and doctored to make them appear fake, and then planted in order to discredit the original. WP:OR. Let's wait until there's some reliable evidence, no based on OR, that there are faked images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Declared war

Something that might be worth noting is the fact Georgia actually declared war in this case. This needs to be verified with a source, but I believe this might be the first major conflict in years in which an actual declaration by one of the parties has been made. Technically (so I understand but I may be wrong) the US never actually declared war when it went into Iraq, or even when the 1991 Gulf War broke out. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 2000 were never a declared war. Etc. Again, I may be wrong, but this would make this conflict additionally notable if it is in fact the first outright declared war in recent years. (I'm not counting the War on Terror). 23skidoo (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Declared a state of war. How this differs from the declaration made in the Gulf War should have a source from an international lawyer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean that "state of war" in which it gave their leader more power, that wasn't a decleration, that was just a way of saying "martial law". Also, the Us hasn't declared war since 1941--Jakezing (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a customary property of declarations of war, at least for those countries whose leaders have limited powers to begin with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html. Магистер (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=461&info_id=7227 : 14:30 The Parliament approved ordinance of the Declaration on the State of War and full mobilization'. Магистер (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha Georgia never declared war, they were invaded so declared a "state of war". I'd love to see a source saying that Georgia declared war, haha there wont be a source, because they never did. Ijanderson (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath-ABM shield placed in Poland-invasion of Georgia influenced Polish decision to agree.

Consequences of Russian invasion of Georgia: ABM shield will be placed in Poland.ABM shield treaty will contain statement about American military help in case of invasion by "third party" In previous days Polish officials said Georgian invasion influenced their and American stance on the issue. [15] [16]

--Molobo (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox: "ethnically Georgian loyalist territories"??

The "territorial changes" item in the infobox currently says: Georgia loses control over the ethnically Georgian loyalist territories in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia as the conflict continues. I'm confused as to how the phrase "ethnically Georgian loyalist territories" could properly describe Abkhazia or South Ossetia. I would think it'd be more appropriate to say something like Georgia loses control over the ethnically non-Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Or is the infobox text trying to say something else that I'm not grasping here (such as referring specifically to ethnic Georgian enclaves within the two breakaway regions)? Richwales (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously what you're seeing are the "successes" of the No Child Left Behind act. Mission Accomplished! I was wondering what the heck "ethnically Georgian" is supposed to represent save for blatant POV for days now. Unfortunately, as the article is locked I haven't been able to correct it. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love my country, stupidly telling us that going under a table will rpotect us from a nuke and that they think teachijng us with out of date textbooks will help us, books made in 2008 using maps made in 2000.--Jakezing (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That phrase is about as clear as mud, but I think what it's trying to say is that within the breakaway regions of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia are villages and enclaves that maintained Georgian loyalties and ethnic identities. With the Russian "invasion" or "peacekeeping" or whatever, Georgia has lost contact with (and control of?) those places. croll (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, Carl. There WERE ethnic Georgian enclaves in Ossetia and Abkhazia, but now, most of those people either died or fled to Georgia. War is a terrible thing...--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I am not entirely sure that Georgia has lost control over all of them though. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• May I propose changing that portion of the infobox to simply: "Unresolved." As discussed ad nauseum in another topic here, the war is ongoing and trying to figure out where the territorial "boundaries" are going to be redrawn is nothing more than speculation until the Russians stop moving around. croll (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with croll's interpretation and suggestion. I disagree with the notion that 71... and Jakezing's comment have any relevance to the issue. Can we keep these discussions on topic, without the "I think America is stupid" editorializing? --Elliskev 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Handover

Russian troops tried to hand Gori back to Georgian authorities,

Such a claim requires a source, so we can see who says so. I looked at the two sources in today's timeline, and I don't see where this comes from. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

tried? LOL Colchicum (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reports of a collapse in negotiations on a handover of the town triggered a confrontation between Georgian and Russian troops at a checkpoint on the main road, a little over a mile from the center of Gori. No shots were fired, but Russian tanks quickly roared up in a display of might that forced the Georgians to pull back. [17] -- DanteRay (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not clear why the joint patrols failed, but it appeared that there was discord among personnel. Around 10 a.m. Thursday, a Russian Army major general ordered Georgian and Russian officers to patrol in pairs, but this did not last. “We had to go or there would have been shooting,” said a Georgian officer, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. More than 30 Georgian police officers left Gori and returned to a Georgian post outside the city; shortly afterward Russian troops fired five artillery rounds. Their target was not clear. [18] -- DanteRay (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks; a fairly reasonable deduction, but it is a deduction. What the AP actually attests is reports of a planned handover, and then reports of a fall-through.

This is a problem with any mention of what the belligerents planned or tried to do, but did not actually perform. Such things should wait for the histories to be written, by men with access to the actual papers on each side. When I restore the now missing footnote, I will leave it out; we can give the Russians credit for leaving Gori when they do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Would have been shooting

"We had to go or there would have been shooting," a Georgian officer said.

I think this comes under the same head as the section above: it's what a Georgian officer (unnamed) said the Russians (I think) would have done. We have enough trouble figuring out what the Russians did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline Aug. 9 - Abkhazia Offensive

This sentence below is in the timeline and seems so vague to me. Why did they begin an offensive? The reference mentions nothing about it beginning in the Kodori Valley nor does it mention that the 3,000 ethnic Georgian civilians were a part of the retreat? Am I missing something obvious?

"Also on August 9, an offensive was begun by the military of the Republic of Abkhazia in the Kodori Valley, the only region of Abkhazia that was, before the war began, still in effective control of Georgian loyalists. By August 13, all of the remaining Georgian forces, including 3,000 ethnic Georgian civilians, in the Kodori Valley had retreated to Georgia proper. [47]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedinacorona (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Both Abkazhaia and S Ossetia were mixed areas before 2008 South Ossetia war. Some villages/areas were controlled by them and some were by Georgia and there weren't really any real borders. Abkazai offensive started because it was possible to throw Georgian troops out and take control of whole area. It started with announce that there will be offencive and there will be safe passage for civilians and Georgian troops before they start actual fights against georgian troops if they want leave. Most civilians left, Georgian troops stayed. On august 12, Georgian troops retreated, but i don't know if there were fights or not.... --Zache (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There were. "Civilians who stayed" (Svan tribal militia) would stay even if the Georgian army decided not to fight there. They repelled the first Russian-Abkhaz attacks.[19] Georgian army eventually withdrew - I don't know if they did, but probably fought to the end (with the captives being the "part of population" now captured and mistreatred according to the Geo gvt). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It reads somewhat better now. I understood the why of it, it was just that the entry in the article seemed vague for someone coming to read it and having no understanding previously. It just kind of hangs there and I couldn't wrap my mind on how to make it more informative. Thx --Jmedinacorona (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

US Connections

I am requesting that someone edit the article to include a "US Connections" (or appropriately similar) section to talk about things like how it is being related to the Cold War (Georgia and the Baltic States who have recently openly supported Georgia are former Soviet republics - http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/world/2008/08/13/todd.russian.threat.cnn ) the recent Poland-US defense deal (which has upset Russia - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7561926.stm).

A good video with some good info: http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/bestoftv/2008/08/08/pilgrim.david.satter.interview.cnn

Danielgleckler (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I think you may have added a request for semi-protection on accident. I'm not an admin, but generally talk pages are not protected, and the main article page is already semi-protected. As for your suggested edits, it's definitely interesting stuff but it relates more towards long-term political issues and foreign relations, necessarily involving a certain degree of speculation. The first isn't very relevant to the article, and the second is generally against Wikipedia policy. (That aside, welcome to wikipedia. I certainly found the links interesting.) croll (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the welcome, and for pointing out my semi-protection request accident (still learning how to use everything). How exactly is the second "generally against Wikipedia policy"? So I know for future reference. dg (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it seemed like a lot of the videos were addressing potential future implications. (E.g., What does this mean with the Ukraine? Is this a shift in Russian policies towards former Soviet states? What about Latvians and Estonians and so on?) Trying to predict things like that is speculation or, as is called here, trying to be a crystal ball. For more information, check out What Wikipedia Is Not. Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia policy, just trying to offer some information that I've picked up over time. Others might disagree with me. :) Cheers. croll (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Great big gap.

I can't fix it cause of the protection, but there's a massive gap where the background is supposed to be. I assume this was an edit gone wrong or something.Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's a format error that creeps up from inserting infoboxes and pictures. I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia's formatting functions to fix it, though. :( croll (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I use Firefox browser and the problem doesn't show up, but when I switched to IE I see the HUGE gap. I too don't know enough about Wiki formatting to fix it, but hopefully someone does cause it makes the article appear even more grossly larger than it already is.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All good now. Thanyou annonamous editor for fixing it :) Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates to infobox

The war is not ongoing, it ended when the ceasefire was signed. This is clearly a Russian victory and there are plenty of sources that describe it as such. Georgians lose the Kodori Gorge previously held by Georgia and the Abkhaz also took a peace of Georgia proper as well. There are many sources that describe Georgia's loses in Abkhazia. What I'm not yet clear about is whether Russia will give back parts of South Ossetia that Georgia had control over prior to the war so I've left it out of territorial changes. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the ceasefire will hold for any longer time. The war may not be over just yet, so lets not be too hasty to change information prematurely. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How long does the ceasefire have to hold before we can write it in the article? I think it's safe to put it in the article because clearly Georgia does not have any real command and control or infrastructure capabilities to continue the war against Russia and Russia doesn't seem interested in moving against Tbilisi. If by some fluke that changes, we can update the article. If there are assymmetric combat against Russia a la post war Iraq, we can write another article about it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres a difference between cease-fire and lull in fighting.--Jakezing (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Point being? Both sides Georgia, Russia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia have signed the ceasefire. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your changes are entirely POV, unsourced and very much out of line. You make your initial statement and without concensus, go right on and edit the article with your POV? Even the Korean War, 55 years after a cease-fire has not been declared over--Jmedinacorona (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not generally source the infobox and my changes are called being WP:BOLD. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait till the Russian troops pull out at the very least. There's no rush to have this all done right now. It still wont make a GA for some time.

Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict is definitely ongoing--anything else is premature. Publicus 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Poti

The NYTimes e-story has changed; as best I recall they were more definite about it at 17:30 UTC than they were when they went to press, probably about 02:00, but they don't mention Poti now. I have summarized the print edition, and will return to this tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yamadayev, wanted in Russia "for seriour crimes", is a Russian commmander in Georgia

Russia's mini Oskar Dirlewanger.

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=1622 --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As I read, he was dismissed from commandment, but morally he is the leader of Vostok soldiers and they listen his commands. I.e. he is a commander de facto, not de jure. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

War map and timeline

[20] Detailed map and timeline of Russian air strikes in Georgia. Source: Georgian mInistry of Defense.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia: Russian Cluster Bombs Kill Civilians

New report by Human Rights Watch. [21] --93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"This is the first known use of cluster munitions since 2006, during Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon." This should also be mentioned in the cluster bomb article.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do it. (Asking/noticing people usually brings nothing on Wikipedia.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw: bombing of Gori notbale enough, now? (Plus killing of journalists including the Dutch and injuring of the Israeli one and a lot of attention/reports in the media.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all so strange. I'm absolutely sure, that the first time i've heard of cluster bombs, was report in russian media, accusing Georgians of their usage. There was video footage, showing unexploded allegedly western-made bomb found in Tskhinvali right after Russians took it. Wasn't that shown on some western media channel? And i didn't get it from the HRW report, but whether they've seen any evidence to russian cluster bombing, except photos and georgian doctors' statements? Cus, usage of cluster bombs for the purpose of destroying "warplanes producing factory" seems laughable to me - they're designed to take out uncovered people, not factory equipment safely hidden inside buildings. ETST (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of great non-copyrighted images

http://monolith.irsrv.ru/war/ http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551 Maybe we could use some of them for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.17.65 (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they're not copyrighted. They're all from the second source, where the text says: "Please, if you're going to publish these photos somewhere on the net, do mention not only Arkady Babchenko's autorship but also the fact that these photos belong to "The Art of War" almanac". While I do not know if this "belongs to" means they're copyrighted, I doubt these photos are released under GPL. -- 81.195.13.43 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, RIA Novosti allows us to use its materials (including photos) for free in "public free reference, educational and country-research (страноведческих) resources". Alæxis_¿question? 12:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See the their photos of Tskhinvali here. Alæxis_¿question? 12:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked Arkady Babchenko on the forum personally. Let's wait and see if he grants us permission to use the photos. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, he granted Wikipedia permission to use them (or anyone else, as long as they cite him as the author). Link -> http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=610#610

Guys, I don't know how to add pictures and photos to Wikipedia, or how to use them later, so this lays now onto your shoulders. I'm new here. So, pros, it's your time to use all those wonderful pictures. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbors the Yamadayevs

Vostok Battalion article requested. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, there's one already (covering also Zapad). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian reporter shot by snipers in Russian controlled Gori vide

[22] --Molobo (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• georgian show--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What ?

--Molobo (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC journalists look explode and some plane

[23] --Molobo (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

interesting video which clearly shows that the war is not over yet. -- DanteRay (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Definetely the war isn't over, however the video is older, but shows that the Russian military attacked civilians.--Molobo (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The video was filmed and appeared long before the cease-fire - I know because I watched it on the BBC when it was first reported - can't remember which day exactly but it was much earlier on in the conflict. I have to question though, can it be taken as proof that the Russian military deliberately targetted civilians? Even if their's evidence elsewhere, is this video proof of anything, except that maybe the aircraft was attacking targets at will? --ZedderZulu (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Longer video [24] --Molobo (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

unidentified plane fly far and sideview, but "rockets" explode about journalist. its bad staging, like Geogrian foto in Tskhinvali with multicolor pants.--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are claiming BBC is manipulating news and videos ? That would be a serious claim-anything to back it up ?--Molobo (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC is not serious populist company. --Ieee2008 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC is a serious media company. Ieee2008 is a not serious troll on the Internet. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am like you. "BBC" is like "RIA Novosti". Try make NPOV! --Ieee2008 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, since 1993 RIA Novosti is controlled by the Russian government. They are not an independent, reliable source. -- DanteRay (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And BBC is? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the BBC is things like "Alleged Anti-Israel Bias" (Israel being UK's friend country) and vandalising the article on US President George W. Bush by changing his middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker" on Wikipedia, not "being the official propaganda tube for British governments" (yes, plural - there are various governemnts there, freely elected). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My point: why is there a reason to believe western propaganda news instead of eastern propaganda, them being equally trustworthy? Let's keep it neutral, shall we? --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because BBC is not "western propaganda news" (Newsflash!!! WWII is over) and thus we are keeping it neutral. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Not western propaganda" says who? You? And who are you, might I ask? Stop pushing your POV. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the Free Press Index by Reporters Without Borders: Reporters Without Borders#Worldwide Press Freedom Index Ranking. Russia on Rank 144; United Kingdom (with BBC) on rank 24. -- DanteRay (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I think this index does not apply to wars in which the country takes a side. In fact, I believe info coming from any member of NATO should be treated with suspicion because of direct interest in this war. The only things we can trust are videos and statements supported by both sides of the conflict. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

UK did not take a side, and even if, it would didn't change a thing (see BBC Iraq war reporting). Congratulations for Eritrea for beating North Korea. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get that remark about Korea, but, in either case, it's your opinion against mine. NPOV appreciated. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

some soldiers robbing Gori-video from security cameras

[25] --Molobo (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• fake soldiers--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They're Ossetian rebels, not Russian soldiers, and the looting is mentioned in the article already. LokiiT (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"They're Ossetian rebels, not Russian soldier" That's a not a very convincing argument. For example RONA volunteers atrocities are counted as those of German responsibility despite them being non-Germans.--Molobo (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So LokiiT, is that an admission that we can stop qualifying the looting allegations as allegations? In order words, that we don't have to continue to have "According to western media outlet X, ..." all the time? State the facts like they are usually stated in Wiki articles, in other words?Bdell555 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Civilians

We have basically four categories of civilians affected by the war (forgetting Abkhazia for the minute):

• Ossetians living in SO - they were target of Georgian attacks, some took refugee in Russia
• Georgians living in SO - they were target of Ossetian shooting, now they are forced to flee and their houses are looted and destroyed
• Georgians living in Georgia proper - they suffer from the bombing
• Ossetians living in Georgia proper - there are reports that they are harrassed and some chose to take refuge in SO

I think this is four different stories that deserve four sections (or three if Ossetians living in Georgia are not important enough) Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev! But Ossetians houses is OK in SO ?? After Georgian MRL and other artillery?--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be the first ever looting by artillery, so I'm interested. Any details? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"destroyed"--Ieee2008 (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"looted and destroyed" --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And mixed ethnics?--Ieee2008 (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Georgians living in Georgia proper - they suffer from the bombing" No, they were also forced to flee (most of the refugees!) and their houses are looted and destroyed (like villages around Gori).

You also forgot the Georgians in Abkhazia (upper Kodori/Abkhazian AR), same thing as in SO.

And again, we hould stop pretending it's "South Ossetia war". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a fifth category, Georgians living in Russia - "there are reports that they are harrassed and some" are trying "to take refuge in" Georgia but are being denied exit into Georgia by Russian authorities.Bdell555 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And how about Russians living in Georgia (I mean citizens of Georgia)? They are harassed too. [26]--Namenlos Ein (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, we probably need a category for Georgians in Kodori. I assume there are not many Abkazians in Georgia proper nor Georgians in modern Abkhazia proper and nothing bad happens to Abkhazians in Abkhazia. Correct? Maybe we can join Ossetians and Russians living in Georgia together? I actually do not have any WP:RS on either of them Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Georgia, "Part of the population [of the upper Kodori and Tskinvali region] is under arrest and is subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment." --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Abkhazia has rather large Georgian (or rather Mingrelian) population in Gali district (about 50 thousand which is 1/4 of the country's population). I haven't heard about any abuses they suffered due to this conflict but more info might become available later. Alæxis_¿question? 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Information War

Do we need such section? We could use This Times article for the start Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should use an outdated article which is contradicting itself!

"Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war"

• Winners — Vladimir Putin: he made it clear to the world that Georgia had been the aggressor and that his soldiers were intervening to stop “genocide”
• Losers — Mikhail Saakashvili: the picture of the Georgian President cowering from a Russian helicopter said it all

Yes, thank you The Times. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if I'm the only one getting sick of you, Captain obvious, of using this discussion board as your own personal blog. You're making me want to side with the Russians out of spite. Here's a good quote for you and your "propaganda" whining. "“In the old days under Soviet rule we didn't believe a word of our own propaganda but we thought that information was free in the West and we longed for it,” said Katya, a middle-aged Muscovite. “But we have learnt since that the West has its own propaganda and in some ways it is more powerful because people believe it.”[27]

Oh yes, now your detailed response to my comment made it clear: Saakashvili won the PR war because he's the PR "loser", and Putin lost it because he's the PR "winner". Sorry, I didn't notice this obvious correlation the first time. Also, stop pretending to be neutral, it's really, really silly. Btw, send my greetings to Katya, a middle-aged Muscovite. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I think it's a good idea, but we would need a lot of sources to fill up three whole sections dedicated to those things. LokiiT (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the Times article seems to have pro-Russian bias but I am sure we could find sources with the opposing bias. We also have some experience in writing NPOV texts from POVed sources Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note for this conversation. Someone has to police name-calling and incivility. Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and the unsigned person he was fighting with should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Lihaas (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Video of Russian soldiers attempting to shoot journalists

[28] It seems that Russian Army freely shoots at civilians in Georgia. --Molobo (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• PS: "Russian soldier" speak with high pronounced accent.--87.117.137.224 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They are probably Ossetian or Chechen irregulars. Again, like in 1945, it wasn't the front line Red Army troops that went on the rampage in East Prussia so much as the following wave, who were less disciplined. I can't help but not the parallels, though, especially given all the reports that many of them are "drunk'.Bdell555 (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Novaya correspondent says Yamadayevtsy are not looting and not killing POWs (yes, he's reporting Georgian soldiers in basements being "shot on spot" during clean ups by irregulars, as well looting, destruction, and "absolute hatred").[29] (About Georgian soldiers who were left behind when Georgia declared ceasefire and retreated from SO, I remember a story of a soldier talking on his cell phone with these left behind and telling the journalist to "send the Red Cross" to them. Oh well. I guess no longer needed.) Ossetian militiamen/marauders are "Russians citiziens" armed and fighting alongside the Russian regular army, anyway, so the Russian leadership is criminally responsible for their actions and failing to stop them. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway since Russian Army is in control of those regions, all that happens by its units and its subordinates falls within their responsibility according to international law.--Molobo (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article in Novaya Gazeta is interesting. The correspondent says that his "opinion on Yamadayev's troops was transformed. This is a real family.. ..The Georgian prisoners are not abused [by the Chechens] , they are given water, food, cloth to cover themselves during the night. ..they are apt to transfer the prisoners further, to any detachment, but not to the Ossetians - because [the Ossetians] would kill [Georgian prisoners] right away".

Мнение о ямадаевцах я изменил. Это не батальон, это семья. Остались только те, кто не ушел к Кадырову. Отношения типа «эй ты, иди сюда» здесь немыслимы. Много молодых. Все воюют великолепно. С одним проговорили полночи. Он рассказал, как забрали в заложники его жену, чтобы он перешел к Кадырову, и как держали в плену его самого. Пытали. Но много и тех, кто воевал в первую Чечню.

Грузинских пленных никто не бьет, дают воду, еду, бушлаты на ночь. Это обычные мужики, резервисты. Они говорят, что за уклонение от мобилизации дают четыре года тюрьмы. Сдавать их собираются кому угодно, только не осетинам — убьют сразу.

--CopperKettle (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kettle for showing us how humanitarian and caring Russia is.Btw-prisoners ? Does it mean that Russia treats Georgians as Prisoners of War de facto reckognising the conflict as war rather then "peacekeeping mission" ? And if not on what charges and under what law Russia gives itself right to imprison people of another independent nation ?--Molobo (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

""Does it mean that Russia treats Georgians as Prisoners of War" - um, POW is an official status. It's a priviladge, actually. Russia never treated anyone as POW in any war since, I think, WWI. German prisoners of WWII? In Gulags (or shot). Polish prisoners of 1939? In Gulags (officers in POW camps, but later shot). Afghans? "Bandits" (in Afgan prisons or killed). Chechens? "Bandits" (in Russian "filtration camps"/prison colonies or killed). Civil War? Come on. Maybe except Finland - they even swapped prisoners (and the Red Army soldiers were then imprisoned or shot "for treason"). Didn't even sign Geneva, at least at the time of WWII (maybe later, but I'm not sure). Even American Cold War prisoners who were secretly brought to USSR from Korea or Vietnam all simply disappeared. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Video with translation (from Turkish to English)messages: Turkish say:"that must be georgian soldiers". Why "Molobo" has written "Russian soldiers"?--Shift register (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Because it turned out they were not Georgian.--Molobo (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Molobo! I'm not intending to "show" anything about "Russia", I've just translated a bit from the article describing that's going on there. In this region, there's always some fighting, as long as I remember from being a kid. The Chechen detachment, to the surprise of the correspondent (from an independent newspaper), showed rather high discipline. The fact that they (not some abstract "Russia") treat Georgians humanely means just that. On the down-to-earth level, in the thick of the battle, I don't beleive the soldiers are ruminating on what exactly their behavior means in the diplomatic gargon. Personally I do not see why during a peacekeeping operation there shouldnt be prisoners. There's no delineated border, regions of control and nationalities are intermixed in a patchwork pattern, and the Georgian invasion only mixed it more, so the peacekeepers have no stable line to guard between the nationalities; the guerilla detachments of Ossetians might kill the Georgians, the Georgians, if freed, may go on fighting, so the peacekeepers must detain them. --CopperKettle (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they (not some abstract "Russia") treat Georgians humanely I would like more credible sources then Russian newspapers. Russia is a the bottom of Free Press index and its media are completely controlled by the authoritarian regime that rules the state(that includes fake opposition parties and publications created to control resistance)--Molobo (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC) "In the thick of the battle, I don't beleive the soldiers are ruminating on what exactly their behavior means in the diplomatic gargon" At least here every soldiers needs to learn international law regarding warfare(Geneva Convention and so on). And the Russian soldiers long ago stopped being peacekeppers and became one of the sides, which finally ended in invasion of Georgia(plans of which were revealed month ago).--Molobo (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are independent newspapers in Russia, and a higly critical nation-wide radio, the Echo of Moscow (turned on beside me right now). Being at the bottom of an index does not equate to total media vacuum. If you are seeking the crystal-clear-one hundred percent-true media source in such a war, then you're the real idealist. As of Russian soldiers being one of the sides, thats your point of view, I do not agree to that, but you're free to have it. --CopperKettle (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Molobo :) Ur conspiracy theory is bosh :) See also WP:RELIABLE--Shift register (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you may imagine Russia as totalitarian, as you want, based on any evidence you possess(have you, at least, lived there, by chance?), but i think CopperKettle failed to deliver his point to you. Tell me, please, what exactly, do you think, these soldiers should do to their Georgian captives, based on international laws(which every soldier, especially not very educated Chechen, should know better than a lawyer)? Maybe, just release them, so they would be torn apart by Ossetians? Or, maybe, even give them back their weapons, so they could protect themselves, or just turn around and shoot the Russians in their backsides? Or, maybe, escort them to current Ossetian-Georgian border, wave a hand to Georgian snipers, and say "hello there, we have a couple of yours here"? It is easy to talk about laws, while sitting in a chair in front of your computer, but as far, as i concerned, those soldiers did alright. Of course, i'd be glad to see such report in western media too, but this one makes me seriously doubt all claims of seeing looting and rampaging Chechen barbarian hordes. ETST (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Novaya (Politkovskaya's paper for you) and Izmailov (a former Russian offcer who left the army in Chechnya to work as a journalist after receiving death threats from the military for acting as a whistle-blower after a massacre of civilians) are very credible sources. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Video and Media sources

Some of you is citing some facts that make me laugh. A video with Russian soldier with Chechen or Ossetian accent (belive me there is a big difference) trying to shoot a journalist / or media news where Russian troops occupated (!) Vladikavkaz (for those who doesn't know Vladikavkaz is part of Russia). Video and Media sources can be interpreted as you want. So, please turn on your brains before editing!Taamu (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"A video with Russian soldier with Chechen or Ossetian accent" In WW2 they were German soldiers that didn't know German so its nothing extraordinery. Russia controls many ethnic groups with many languages.--Molobo (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people from West call all people from former USSR Russians, so according to your POV I can say that Russians attacked Russians on 7 August. To avoid this kind of mistakes we need to clarify our statements. I already wrote about the confusion concerning Vladikavkaz, someone of wikipedians said that Russians occupated her own city, that is nonsense! Taamu (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You are talking about ethnic groups, not about citizenship. Since South Ossetians are Russian citizens it doesn't matter what the ethnic group is of Russian soldiers.--Molobo (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened is that, after that Turkish TV video, the Russians took them to Vladikavkaz for interrogation, according to the International Press Institute.Bdell555 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So it is now confirmed they were Russian soldiers. I noticed an notable fact-

The journalists had passed through an unmanned Georgian checkpoint into the South Ossetian capital There they were interrogated for a number of hours by Russian officials, asked to explain why they did not have Russian visas, and warned not to leave their rooms.

So it seems now Russia treats the Georgian territory as part of Russia demanding Russian visas to enter it.--Molobo (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How this conflict begins.

There is no mentioning in this article, that Georgia starts it massive offence. The article says "ceasefire agreement between Georgia and South Ossetia broke down, and Georgia sent a large military force into South Ossetia which reached the capital Tskhinvali." But that doesn't mean, that is is Georgia attacked Osethinans first. Then there is no mentioning also, that Georgians attacked and sieged Russias peacemakers base. We should add them.--Oleg Str (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I should admit I have a vested interest in the intro as I worked with some others who compromised a bit on developing its language. That said, I'm not sure I agree. The intro currently is fairly straightforward and necessarily brief (it's an intro). It says there was a ceasefire, it broke down for an unspecified reason, and Georgia invaded. If, as you claim, Georgia attacked the S. Ossetians first (which Georgia disputes), then... actually that's what the intro says. The ceasefire broke down, and Georgia invaded -- it does not say as fact that S. Ossetia invaded or bombed Georgia. The Russian peacekeeper stuff is also something that, personally, I think is better suited for the article and/or timeline, not the introduction, otherwise if we start including all that detail it can get bloated. That said, surely others will disagree and I don't doubt there is room for improving the Introduction, as long as its done collaboratively and constructively. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! :) croll (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said as usual, Carl.Bdell555 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion, now archived, about the wording at the beginning: here. We agreed to add the Russian Government's pretext and the general Russian impression of Georgian all-out attack. But later the Human Rights Report came out saying the humanitarian loss seems to be far from that you would expect from an all-out shelling of a city. --CopperKettle (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

As South Ossetia is not really where the war is taking place any more, but all over Georgia with the continued Russian attacks would this article be better off being renamed? Something along the lines of "Russian War on Georgia - 2008"? 81.149.82.243 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

With a slight modification "Russo-Georgian War" or "Russian Georgian War" I agree; as soon as Russia intervened they expanded the combat zone beyond South Ossetia, starting with the air and later with Tanks. (Russian War ON Georgia though would be considered POV). Jon (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you look through the archives linked at the top of this page, you'll see this topic has been discussed numerous times. (There is a lot of stuff in the archives, though, so I understand why you may not have found it.) In short, there is a concensus that agrees the article title will need to be changed -- there is agreement that the current title is not completely accurate. However, it's standard procedure to wait until the "real world" has decided on a name for the conflict before we change it, otherwise we risk having to change it every couple of days, and that requires fixing a lot of links within Wikipedia. So, you're right! It's going to happen. Just going to take a little while. And, who knows... perhaps if someone can do a review of recent news articles it will become clear the real-world has come to a concensus on what this mess is called. croll (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it a joke? If yes, check this one "American War on South Ossetia - 2008" Taamu (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And why American? (You Russian editors are incredible.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why American? Open your eyes and you will know why, captain. Taamu (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and US is not in infobox. Would you elaborate? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I lost the link but sometime yesterday I saw an article title linked to Fox News calling it the Russian Georgian War. I do note though that historians call most wars involving Russia as Russo [other combantant] Jon (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Result

Previously the article (some time yesterday US Time) was stating something like Georgia lost control over the enthicly Georgian portions of South Ossetia and Abzahia[sp?]. Now it's merely stating "cease fire taking place". I think the former is more accurate; it's clear that before the major fighting began that Georgia was in effective control of large parts of South Ossetia and now that they aren't in effective control of any of South Ossetia. And meanwhile there has been quite a bit of dispute over weather or not Russia is actualy taking anything more than a highly literial meaning of cease fire (re: perhaps not firing but still advancing after the cease fire was signed). Jon (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jon, if you can get through the sarcasm from some of the editors, check out the Infobox: "ethnically Georgian loyalist territories"?? section up above which discusses this. I changed to to say Unresolved and that has since been further edited, as you observed. Certainly, the territorial boundaries are still unclear for as long as Russian troops are moving around -- at least, they're unclear to us in the West as we haven't a clue about what Russia intends (we're obtuse that way).  :-) Anyway, I thought that original language was pretty confusing and also a bit speculative. I would argue against putting it back for now. croll (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sarcasm"? Where do you think the Georgian rfugees from SO and Abkhazia are from? Whose villages were looted and burn? (No prizes for guessing.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you from Georgia? If yes, please name me some villages that had been burned. P.S. Don't confuse South Ossetia with Georgia!!! Taamu (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I just did. What now? P.S. Okay!!! --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, Carl. There WERE ethnic Georgian enclaves in Ossetia and Abkhazia, but now, most of those people either died or fled to Georgia. War is a terrible thing...--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please first learn to read before directing others to "check out". And if you don't know such basics about the conflict, what are you doing here in first place? "Anyone can edit", but come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, what Taamu was asking for, was not a proof of existence of Georgian villages(i don't think he ever doubted that). Your edit amounts to you, Captain, have issued another one insult and haven't named a one single village, which had been looted and burned. Please, dial it down, Cap. ETST (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Kekhvi, Nizhnie Achaveti, Verkhnie Achaveti and Tamarasheni (SO) on August 12 for sure. Also, I wasn't even talking to Taamu (but to croll and regarding his claims of "sarcasm"). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain, I responded to some of your points on your talk page, where it felt more appropriate. As for the substance of this, the portion of the info box at issue has to do with territorial changes -- where the boundary lines have been "redrawn", so to speak, at the conclusion of the conflict. Regardless of whether the Georgian enclaves still exist or don't (as SergeiXXX alluded), that's irrelevant to the portion of the infobox that is at issue. One cannot determine where the territorial changes are until the conflict is over. As the conflict is not over (which, I admit, is subject to a rather lengthy debate), it is entirely speculative to determine where those boundaries are or will be. Peace. croll (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of propaganda from Captain Obvious

I'm rather disappointed at the allegations and at the words like "couldn't shut up". I've never considered myself a propagandist. I do not see a reason to remain silent then I see that the matieral is being presented with a preferential connotations to either side of the conflict. We should abstain from such things here, and remain neutral. I quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#The_wording_at_the_beginning - propagandist couldn't shut up about the demands of the "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city", "the heavy shelling laid the city in ruins," "the merciless wiping out of a city" and what not. But, not only the damage is limited, not only was inflicted by both sides during a regular battle, but also the rebels seem to be destroying "deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods" of the city right now, during "ceasefire". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--CopperKettle (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Should be rather "these who apparently believe in the propaganda without independent confirmation" or something. The Russian claim about "complete destruction" just turned out to be false/lies (just like the claims of "complete genocide", voiced by the Russian leaders on the highest level - and what it would even mean, that the Georgians just killed all Ossetians in the world overnight?). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My edit proposition was meant to present the Russian impression of the events and the pivotal pretext for Russian military reaction; it was worded carerully not to be states as sa fact, but rather be an analogoue of the "2003 War in Iraq" into, where the highly doubtable US allegations of WMD are presented as the pretext for the invasion. The Human Right Watch report later put the Russian claims into doubt. I don't see a propaganda here. For the first several days the Western sources were skipping over the fact of Georgian invasion and the Russian pretext, making it appear as a normal incursion into a province that's just seceded, when in fact S.O. has for almost 20 years been independent. Best regards --CopperKettle (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

US/Iraq - not "highly doubtful" but untrue (come on). Russian claim was always in doubt (propaganda), HRW & Western journalists on a Russian military trip(!) simply disproved it. SO was "independent" for about 15 years, so it's as much "almost 20" as "almost 10". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

US/Iraq was highly doubtful *cough* oil. Anyway, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we are to present facts in a neutral way, we are not to use adjectives/ describing words, leave that for the audience of the article. Describing words are POV. We are to give a balanced neutral view. Ijanderson (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious isn't fooling anyone, the only thing that has become obvious is that in 2008, 'democratic' countries are allowed to invade 'less-democratic' countries and the rest of the 'democratic' countries in the world will support their right to invade. The only thing that is obvious is that 2008 is no different from 1968.

Kokoity

The Kokoity government stated that they start a war with marauders and looters<:ref name=KokoytyKommersant/>.

This is ungrammatical, unclear, and has lost its source. I suspect that Kokoity is denouncing the Georgians, but since he was declaring this morning that "such things happen in war" when it is his people who are looting, I'm not sure how much weight to put on this. In any case, please clarify before restoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We've already got statements by the Russians that they will crack down on looters so I agree we don't need this.Bdell555 (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia

Can't we just call them breakaway Republics like CNN and save a lot of changes between unrecognized/seccesionist/and just regular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.56.121 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

fine by me. -- DanteRay (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean this: "The 2008 South Ossetia War began on 7 August 2008, and involves the country of Georgia, the Russian Federation and the unrecognised republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia which broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s", and change it to "...and the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."? I see no problem with that, would make it a bit more concise. croll (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Transnistria is called "breakaway", so this should be a normal term; yes then. --CopperKettle (talk)

Maybe we could keep the wikilink to Diplomatic recognition (currently attached to "unrecognized") so it looks like this: "...and the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."? croll (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does not mention the attacks on reporters

Russian and Ossetian troops opened fire on journalists on Thursday, excusing themselves by saying they did not know there were journalists in the car. [30][31][32][33][34][35]

I think the article should mention this issue. Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The video about Turkish journalists (discussed below) recorded 10 Aug, not in Thursday. For information about journalists in this war see Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Also, please add new sections at the bottom of the page. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Allegations of media bias

This section is biased and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Aside from Kremlin and Russia Today allegations, it has links to "Antiwar.com" and to a guy who runs a blog. This view of "media bias" is held by a small minority and does not deserve such a big section. I think it should be removed. Does anyone else agree? Ostap 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all that is written sources, which specializze on popular scandals.--Woozeefy (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the section either has to go or be further expanded to cover allegations that the Russian media is in turn being biased. A Russia Today reporter, for example, has resigned saying he was filing reports that Russia Today refused to broadcast. Of course, that would make the section even bigger. I accordingly don't see another solution besides removing the section.Bdell555 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, moved here:

Allegations of media bias

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin accused foreign media of pro-Georgian bias in their coverage of the ongoing conflict between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia. "We want television screens in the West to be showing not only Russian tanks, and texts saying Russia is at war in South Ossetia and with Georgia, but also to be showing the suffering of the Ossetian people, the murdered elderly people and children, the destroyed towns of South Ossetia, and Tskhinvali. This would be an objective way of presenting the material," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said. Current Western media coverage of the events in the separatist republic is "a politically motivated version, to put it mildly," he said.

On August 11, 2008, the government funded Russia Today TV channel accused CNN of presenting video footage made by Russia Today in South Ossetia as pictures of bombed Gori.

Blogger James Poulos at The Guardian remarked that "As Russian columns advance into Georgia proper, columns in the American press fill with dire warnings and withering contempt for anyone so puerile as to ever trust a Russian... The anti-Russia lobby is giving the pro-Israel lobby a run for its money, hyping the settling of scores among two European, Orthodox Christian countries as more dangerous to the peace and security of the west than any clash of civilisations or jihad ever was... The anti-Russian reaction obscures the basic particularity of the Georgian situation, and all the history that informs it."

Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, a anti-interventionist advocacy website, stated that "The anti-Russian bias of the Western media is really something to behold: 'Russia Invades Georgia,' 'Russia Attacks Georgia,' and variations thereof have been some of the choice headlines reporting events in the Caucasus, but the reality is not only quite different, but the exact opposite. Sometimes this comes out in the third or fourth paragraph of the reportage, in which it is admitted that the Georgians tried to 'retake' the 'breakaway province' of South Ossetia. The Georgian bombing campaign and the civilian casualties – if they are mentioned at all – are downplayed and presented as subject to dispute."

What? Practically all of Russia's media is much more biased than this section claims the western media to be. This stuff here is only propaganda by Russia Today and RIAN (Russian state agencies) plus some bloggers' claims. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, too. This article needs a MAJOR cleanup overally. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. Balance it by adding and editing, not censoring. These claims are notable. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is so "notable" with the Russian propaganda websites whining about the world "bias" towards its enemy, and some bloggers writing something, to give this more space than the HRW report of village burning campaign which got zero space in the article?

Add it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Add it." or what?

And so, it was reinstated again. This is SO STUPID. So we've got:

1. RIAN (Russian propaganda outlet)
2. Russia Today (Russian propaganda outlet)
3. a blogger
4. some dude who allgedly hates interventions but don't care about Rssian interventions.
5. CNN - USA propaganda (add by --Ieee2008 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
6. BBC - USA propaganda (by British)
7. *.ge - Georgian propaganda
8. *.uk - British propaganda
9. times - yellow press
10. lenta.ru - yellow press
11. guardian - yellow press
12. HRW - USA propaganda
13. Condoleezza - pure USA propaganda
14. "Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog" - Anti-Russian PR at wiki.

Yes, it's all MUST-BE MATERIAL IN SERRRRRIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA (ANYONE CAN EDIT).

People, please keep removing this shit (I can't guard the article, besides there's this 3RR stuff). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. If you want you can create a separate article about propaganda in this war and place it there. This article is already too big. Let's focus on facts.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no place about it anywhere. Article about "propaganda in war" citing official propaganda outlets like some neutral observers? "Blogger James Poulos"? "A dude who wrote "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 And the Israeli Connection" for all people? Come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Add it? Look at this Associated Press report. Count the number of inconsistencies in Russian communcations that we'd have to add. "Russian at first denied that tanks were even in Gori but video footage proved otherwise", [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov "denied that Russian troops were anywhere near [Poti]" vs We have seen more and more Russian troops coming into the area all day etc etc. A person could probably fill a page detailing apparent bias in Russian sources. This section needs to go.Bdell555 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captinobvious, you seem to have some serious neutrality issues here. We can't disregard Russian media. I've seen some outright lies on my own American television over the past few days, there's propaganda coming from both sides. Where did all these anti-Russians come from who are hellbent on removing their point of view and think their own media is completely objective and trustworthy? It's not good, and unfortunately I can't put any serious effort into this article. LokiiT (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So find someone other than Russian propaganda, "blogger" and a conspiracy nutcase. Until then, get out with this. (Btw, this whole "genocide by Georgia" non-stop hate campaign thing in practcially ALL the Russian media, not only these government-run... and then they dare to whine about "bias"? oh, boy) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of quotation marks and the biased, if not ad-hominem ("Attack the attacker"?) term "conspiracy nutcase" hardly looks like a serious argument to me. True neutrality stops to exist the moment you discard sources simply based on the position they hold or held in the past, and in a conflict where every single reporting party has at least an emotional involvement, all you get to hear could be considered "propaganda" anyway - be it reporting what you want people to think or not reporting what you don't want people to think.

I vote for reinstating the "conspiracy nutcase"'s quotation, since it provides an opposing to the popular one view from a western source which at least appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Whether you like it or not, this is a viewpoint that also exists and deserves representation.

Also, why do I get the impression that the possibility of both parties not quite having a clean record as far as "ethnic cleansings" or "genocides" - which, I want to add, is a very questionable term to apply to lootings - in this war is outright discarded or ignored by the bulk of the posters - or at least the bulk of the posts, since some people appear to have an extraordinary urge to demonstrate presence - on this talk page? Can we please cut down on the black-and-white worldview? --87.170.212.163 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=231738472&oldid=231738034 - and again reinstated, with the reason "This should stay" (almost as good as "Add it.").

"This should stay" WHY again? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A better question is why not? Are you afraid of people finding out that their media might not be telling them the whole truth? Because that is the truth. Neither side is fair or objective in the least. The most neutral articles I've seen have been blogs and opinion pieces that wouldn't qualify as reliable sources. You accusing Russian media of being "propaganda" just because you don't like it is meaningless. Do you know for a fact that there was no genocide? Were you there? Then give the ol' flapper a rest and stop pretending that you know what's going on. None of us do, and that's why we report what both sides are saying. LokiiT (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I stopped watching Russian news reporting on the conflict after the channels began officially labeling the conflict "Genocide in South Ossetia," leading with it as the title of their programs and freely throwing the term around as if it were a synonym for "conflict." Genocide is something much more serious than what is happening in South Ossetia. 81.211.3.174 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC) (from Moscow)

I told you "why not" (look above). Now, you tell me "why yes" - why the Russian propaganda and opinion of "blogger" and a conspiracy nut are supposedly essentional for a self-declared encyclopedia? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Do you know for a fact that there was no genocide?" Yes - HRW found no evidence while finding evidence of atrocities by South Ossetians. If there was "genocide", they would have something more to report than about Ossetian militiamen who were captured by Georgians, beaten and released(!). The whole story was pure Russian BS. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Add it" referred to "the HRW report of village burning campaign which got zero space in the article". -Colfer2 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

9/11 is a good example. Yes, one can create a separate article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but such materials should NOT be included in main 9/11 article.Biophys (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some mainstream media have questioned the simple vision of the Georgian conflict. Charles King in the Christian Science Monitor: “The emerging narrative, echoing across editorial pages and on television news programs in the US, portrays Georgia as an embattled, pro-Western country struggling to secure its borders against a belligerent Russia…. Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html

Adjpro (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another mainstream western source talking about the Georgian/western propaganda campaign. LokiiT (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html "Russia illegally attacked Georgia and imperiled a small and feeble neighbor. (...) Russia has massively overreacted to the situation in Georgia. It has hit targets across Georgia, well beyond South Ossetia, and has killed both Georgian military personnel as well as civilians. The international community is right to condemn this illegal attack on an independent country and United Nations member." - Hey, but isn't it excatly what Karasin was whining about? Hey, world, it's peacekeeping! operation! Horrrrrible Georgian genocide! "So far at least, Russia's aims have been clear: to oust Georgian forces from the territory of South Ossetia, one of two secessionist enclaves in Georgia, and to chasten a Saakashvili government that Russia perceives as hot-headed and unpredictable." - as you see, the article is absolutely outdated. And you're trying to hard. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain and dog, Could you clarify what you think I'm trying too hard to do and what is outdated? In my mind, I am trying to work with people on this list to come up with a good entry. Noting that media may be simplistic does not seem to suggest anything about Georgian genocide. I appreciated your comments asking for entries to be better written, but what you just wrote is too flip and self-involved to be understood.

For some reason, what I wrote in response to Lokiit above did not come through. I rejected LokiiT's use of the word propaganda, because it implied dishonesty -- the article he cited only suggests "PR."

Thank you

Adjpro (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch says there is "a massive Russia propaganda machine" at work here. What I don't understand is why editors who apparently consider themselves "left wing" are effectively trying to attack the credibility of human rights groups. Reading HRW's stories on Gitmo, it seemed to me they are more "left" than "right". HRW has advocated for abortion legalisation, gay rights, and the abolition of capital punishment. Can someone explain this apparent contradiction to me?Bdell555 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of anti-Russian bias in Western media during this conflict. A lot of Saakashvili's lies were taken at a face value. Here is an inyteresting analysis in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, there are a lot of sources saying there is an anti-Western bias in Russian media. The point is that this section will get out of hand if you start including allegations from both sides about bias. You can't just have the allegations against the western media for NPOV reasons.Bdell555 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And again THE SAME ONE link. For the record, the title says "Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war", but the article itself says:

"Winners — Vladimir Putin: he made it clear to the world that Georgia had been the aggressor and that his soldiers were intervening to stop “genocide” (...) Losers — Mikhail Saakashvili: the picture of the Georgian President cowering from a Russian helicopter said it all".

Does not compute - "interesting" indeed. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point, obviously both Russian and Georgian media are biased, there is no point including claims to that effect, the question is whether outside media is biased.--Miyokan (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Four countries (de-facto): Russia, Georgia, Abkhasia and South Ossetia were directly involded in conflict. There is no sense to make any notion about their media bias - their bias is obvious. But the media of other countries (western or not) can be expected to be neutral. So, allegation of their bias is worth to be included. And... western media is considered 'independept' and 'neutral', aren't they?

Now about 'blogger'. The articla is placed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia1, while I can see separate button for blogs, and address is different and it looks different. Example: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/08/busted_how_america_turned_the.html. Please compare them: unlike previous, the second if clearly visible as blog. So, it looks to me that the text about Ossetia war bias is placed as article, not as blog. This means that notion about it should be restored because article in The Guardian on this topic is surely notable. This should be done because currently it's not neutral: I can see Russian (side of conflict) allegations vs. allegations of HRW (considered as neutral international organisation). Allegation on western bias placed in western media will fix the picture. 79.175.2.54 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No one could be treated as neutral instead of asia or africa... West wanted Georgia to enter NATO to do so they need to fulfill NATO restrictions. Country with unclear borders cant enter NATO. It is not an empty words, remember the reaction of Turkey after US officially acknowledge of Armenian Genocide, and remember that Georgia would be a great backup in that region. And US waste a lot of resource to reinforce Georgia army for that purpose. And Georgia fights with American weapons in this conflict! It would be very naive thinking that after that Bush simply agreed with Russian claims and express any discontent about Georgia. So blindly just for bush speech about occupation of Georgian city Poti wouldn't be a rational step.Dprohorova (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fox News video with 12-year old girl and her aunt who arrived from the conflict zone

About media bias and propaganda war: I think everyone should watch this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ ) from Fox News to understand how US media is waging information war against Russia in order to support its puppet Saakashvili. They cut any info that doesn't correspond with their scheme. They don't need to know what the 12-year old girl and her aunt have to say, they don't need to hear truth because they already have their own "truth". It's the kind of stuff that was well shown in "Wag the Dog". Watch that movie once again and you'll understand what is really happening in the western media now. - Jake7 (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Dear user CopperKettle (if it was your who deleted this comment) - why the hell do you think that you can do such things without any notice and explanation?!! I ask administrators to ban this user for such actions! This is the Talk page!!! Which is ment to discuss issues, not to hide them! This video is the fact and is important in understanding why the "allegations of media bias" appeared! I thought it was enough that YouTube started to delete comments to this video in a large scale and seems to have freezed the counter so that this video couldn't rise up in popularity ratings so it could see more people. Now I see that someone wants that noone could here about this even on wikipedia! Where's the "freedom of speech" all the West was admired of?

PPS. And please, CopperKettle, do not erase this post this time, because I anyway will restore it! - Jake7 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was probably Captain Obvious and his doggy who erased your post, not CopperKettle. Concerning the topic: I think this is a very serious issue and I it should be in the article. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the piece when it aired, it was at the very end of Studio B. It was caused by a "Hard Commercial Break". Shepard Smith had no leeway and HAD to go to commercial because it was at the very end of the program. Shepard Smith anchors the only news programs on FOX, the others are pundits. In my opinion he anchors the most "fair and balanced" programing on FOX and that is why he gets the best rating. He just had to go to commercial. I've seen it happen at least 100 times on his show. It was unfortunate but the piece went over and he only had 4 seconds to close before the commercial and the following wrap up segment of Studio B. Fox reporters were being shot at by Georgians Thursday, and FOX was not happy about it. Reporting crews were running for their lives. I don't think this incident was media bias by Shepard Smith, he looked, in my opinion, to be truly upset that he had to cut the girls mother off. He has never appeared biased (except for Ole Miss football and the NY Giants). It was unfortunate and I felt very sorry for the young girl's mother. But in this case I do not feel it was Media bias.I firmly believe it was an segment overtime issue. Jason3777 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can not find my HTLM book so I can't do strikeout right now but the following sentence "In my opinion he anchors the ONLY "fair and balanced" programing on FOX." should replace the above "In my opinion he anchors the most "fair and balanced" programing on FOX". Jason3777 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I watched the video on YouTube and had not realized he gave the girl's aunt (who above I called her mother) 30 seconds after the commercial break to continue (must have been out of the room). This is not bias. Shepard Smith did all he could to be "fair and balanced". Jason3777 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I regularly watch Fox News, and I have witnessed many times when people have had to be cut off, even people who are saying something that fits in with the channel's alleged ideology, due to commercial breaks. As a result, the cut-off should not automatically be viewed as an attempt to silence what the two were saying. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. If you watch the link, you will find out that not only did she complete what she said- but it rolled for another couple of minuets afterwords.

2. The commercial break was nothing special- it actually seemed to have lasted longer then most small interviews FNC dose- i will guarantee you that whoever posted this doesn't watch FNC, nothing was out of place.

3. This is speculation on my part, but how dose a 12 year old girl tell the difference between two sides who wear the same uniform, who has been in Russia right after they fled- what proof do we have that they aren't being told what happened by the Russian state-run media?

4. more speculation, but since they quoted the Russian statistics (that have been challenged many times by independents) wouldn't it be same to assume they are just saying what they heard? In a combat zone you have no idea what is going on, its not until you are safe and looking at it from another prospective that you get a sense of what happened, and since the place they did that was in North Ossetia- they got a Russian state-media point of view. This seems to consider with their Russian quoted statistics.

I can guarantee that they didn't see the emblem on the side of the plane, and their have been questions raised about who exactly bombed the city- Georgian president claims Russia carpet bombed the city, while South Ossetia and Russia said Georgia shelled the city with artillery.

No doubt Georgia did damage to the city, heck we did damage to Baghdad and we are much more accurate than the Russians, but to imply Georgia was attacking civilians is going to far in reasonable assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, i can't watch this video at the moment, due to narrow inet bandwidth, but i, nevertheless, believe, that no media company would be stupid or careless enough to manifest its bias in such an obvious way, as an abruptly interrupted broadcast of ongoing material is. However, i want to compare my experience of watching media coverage on the Russian channels, with someone, who watched the western ones. First of all, in the russian news, since the very time the Russian troops entered Tskhinvali(but long before the Georgian government admitted it), there were numerous video reports containing interviews with ossetian civilians on what have happened to them. There, i wanna cite this (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990468.html?categoryid=14&cs=1) article (used somewhere in the refs of main page), which purpose was to disprove western media bias: "During the past few days, Russia’s state television" — russia-don't-really-have-any-freedom-of-speech crap removed — "has been running rolling news updates on the heavy fighting, interspersed with highly emotive photos of ethnic Russian refugee women and children shown to the accompaniment of classical music." Well, what can i say, of course, it's possible, that i could have missed such kind of reports, despite my intent monitoring of the topic, but, nevertheless, this kind of description looks to me like a some foreigner's idea of what a dumb russian propaganda might be looking like. The reports i saw, while certainly being "highly emotive", were

• a)not a series of photos, but a fully fledged video footage of interviews and burning streets.
• b)without any musical background, especially classical, or any other spirit-heightening one. (There was one speech-free short movie, though, made after "end of operation" statement by Medvedev, intended to show results of conflict, depicting casualties and destructions. But it's appeared long after the article did, and used some dark ambient music only).
• c)Most importantly, these, certainly, were not "ethnic Russian" refugees(from where? escaping what?), but ethnic Ossetian ones(in fact, i have seen no russian women or children or whatever refugees in these reports at all). Of course, it could have been a mistake of the editor, so stupid it is, but it strikes my eye, and i've thought it's worth mentioning.

The question is: was any footage from these reports shown in western media, the most remarkable one being the footage of the French President Nicolas Sarkozi himself, amidst the mob of Ossetian Tskhinvali citizens, trying to comfort a crying old woman, which btw was telling him "the same old fairytales" of Georgians sweeping basements, killing elderly woman and 2 kids with tank etc., and pleading him for EU-protection of S.Ossetia from Georgia? If not, then maybe someone will be able to find any links to them? The other thing i experience, is some derision in russian media concerning Saakashvili's western-directed cries for help, especially various staged video like "Tskhinvali under Georgian control"(where Georgian guys shoot at an unarmed citizen at the distance), "Saakashvili's public statement on invasion by Russia"(where he speaks in english, despite the fact, that hardly many georgians understand it), "Saakashvili under Attack"(where he cowers from nowhere to be heard russian bomber plane, while passing-by regular sitizens aren't doing anything of the sort) and so on. His press statements are also being laughed at, because, as it seems after listening to russian news, their only purpose is to frighten ordinary Georgian to death, with "russians are getting nearer with every moment, but i'll defend Tbilisi till i die" rant. Most notable being one of his statements about "50 russian tanks on the border of Gori", which was disproved by his own, Georgian Ministry Of Defence official stating "these were not 50 Russian tanks, but 3 Georgian BTRs". Maybe, someone can find some links on these? All in all, can anyone provide any similar details on western media coverage and impression of what's going on implied by it? I think, it will be very interesting, at least, and can be incorporated in the wikipedia article's media bias section, maybe in form of references to broadcast schedules or something. Ah, i've nearly forgotten, speaking about "Russian Accuracy", i have also heard a statement from russian military commander, that, in this conflict, they're using only precise-strike armaments "which, of course, cost much more, than conventional ones, but do not endanger lives of civilians". That, for the time being, concludes the list of news, i feel, didn't make it through translation barrier. I'm really sorry, guys, that i gave no links here, i just can't put much more effort in it right now. =(( ETST (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos on Front Page

I don't know where to put this, but the picture of 'Georgian Rocket Launchers' from Novosty on the front page is almost certainly Russian rocket launchers. It's generally agreed that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvalli occurred at night and by the early morning they were in the city. So why is the picture of the supposed bombardment of Tskhinvali nearer to midday? If the attack was a surprise, its unlikely that Russia photographers would be on hand behind the lines to film Georgian artillery. Moreover, the damage patterns in Tskhinvali as described by Human Rights Watch is not consistant with bombardment from a multiple launch rocket system, but is much more consistant with conventional artillery. If this is Georgian artillery in the photograph, then its almost certainly not firing at Tskhinvalli, and the claim from Russian press that it is makes the whole picture that much more suspect. The AP has shown pictures of Russian armored columns containing large numbers of BM-21 'Grad' launchers (I'm fairly certain this is the type shown in the photo), so we know that the Russia military is using those weapons in theater. Yes, Georgia does have BM-21's in theater and may have even used them at some point and maybe even on Tskhinvalli (I've seen nighttime video footage that is more convincing), but given the origin of the picture it is far more likely to be Russian rockets in the photograph. - Celebrim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.19.254 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling Reference Box II

I was able to create a scrolling reference box for the reference section. If this causes havoc with your browser please revert the edit. I did this as an attempt to reduce the article display size for better viewing.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BLASTED USER: I would call this entire thing a fiscal disturbance according to the factors of 'western involvement', today it occured to me, that this was message board particle as well --- saying if the internal-infuriation gets like this it will -- then there was the presidential satire of the number of presidents in russia outnumbering the number of people in georgia all of whcih remember oddly a diff'rent strokes reference, because of this behaviour -- I say let 'em crash... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.238.188 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please block this page or, at the very least, give it an NPOV

I've had it. Someone is repeatedly removing my edits, made in good faith, and is replacing them with poorly written pro-Russian propaganda. I'm no fan of Georgia, but when the only sources in a section are lurid, state-sponsored Russian media tales of Georgian atrocities, the section needs change. I added to the section about humanitarian conditions in South Ossetia the NPOV tag and the Human Rights Watch report discounting the (obviously grossly exaggerated) Russian statistics. The former was removed, the latter watered down and placed at the bottom. What is this?

Regnum news agency[96] and Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs were found in Tskhinvali. He also reported that a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians.[97] A South Ossetian reservist reported there were episodes when civilians were hiding in basements and Georgian soldiers would come in and gun them down.[97]

At a meeting with South Ossetia refugees at a makeshift hospital camp in Alagir on August 9, eyewitnesses told the Russian Prime Minister that Georgian troops had set fire to a house with several young women inside. "They were rounded up like cattle, shut into the house, and set on fire. In another place, we saw a tank run over an old woman who was running away with two children. We saw how they slashed up an 18-month child," a refugee said.[98] Russian sources cited the representative of South Ossetia administration Irina Gagloeva asserting that Georgia opened an irrigation canal to flood the basements of Tskhinvali in order to prevent people from hiding in the basements of the buildings during bombings.[99]"

Regnum, the mouthpiece of the Russian government, is used as a source in a war between Russia and Georgia? Human Rights Watch, an infinitely more credible source, is downplayed and ignored? This was my original paragraph, added below the South Ossetian government casualty figure:

Human Rights Watch, however, calls the Russian death toll figure of 2,000 unfounded and a result of "propaganda." Doctors in Tskhinvali "had provided figures that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue," although "there have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments." The investigation is ongoing.

This is the "new and improved" (i.e., vague and badly written) version, conveniently placed at the bottom of the page:

Nevertheless, alleged that [sic] "The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful," she said. "Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics." Doctors in Tskhinvali said that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of atleast [sic] 44 people (those brought to the city morgue) were dead although "there have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments." The investigation is ongoing.[100]

Let's move to the section on Georgia, shall we?

British journalist Andrew Wilson (of the London Times) reports that he was assaulted and almost killed by ,according to him, "Ossetian fighters".[107]

"Ossetian fighters" needs quotation marks while "a Georgian task force entered the city and burned a family alive in their house, and that a column of fleeing refugees was attacked by Georgians" does not? The Times is a perfectly reliable source, and there is no reason to think that the people who were going to kill him (he was saved by his journalist status) were not South Ossetians.

Witnesses report burning and destruction of Georgian villages (especially around Gori) as the Russian troops retreat, 'allegedly by South Ossetians'.

There are no allegations here. It is now a fact, confirmed by many reputable and consistent sources (CNN, the Times, AP, Humans Rights Watch) that the South Ossetians are looting Georgian villages and occasionally burning houses. THESE ARE NOT ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT - THESE ACCOUNTS ARE COLLECTED ON THE GROUND BY INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS.

And now we come to the most delicious part of all this:

Human Rights Watch researchers also allegedly saw (within quotes) "armed Ossetian militia members in camouflage fatigues" taking household items out of houses in the village of Nizhnie Achaveti and loading them into their trucks. Explaining the looters' actions, an "Ossetian man" allegedly told Human Rights Watch that they are entitled to take things from Georgians now – because they lost their own property in Tskhinvali and other places. The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be "decisive and tough" measures taken against looters.[109] The Guardian cited witnesses who reported "an orgy of looting, burning, murdering and rape" against Georgians carried out by Chechen and Ossetian "volunteers". However the guardian reported it was impossible to verify the claims.[110]

In case the reader doesn't understand that these are completely false allegations, that there are quotes around the "disputed allegations" (note the quotes!) is spelled out right before! How convenient! "Ossetian man" - well, I'm sure the Georgians are planting villagers who speak Ossetic in the face of dozens of Russian tanks just to fool Human Rights Watch! And, of course, the claims of the "guardian" (capitalization is so passé!) are "impossible to verify", but those of the Russian media-government are not only fully verifiable but in fact are to be relied upon as central sources! And how! aristotle1990 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately, wikipedia is ochlocracy. So, the Russian mob rules. Administrators do not want to intervene. Cofer2 made seven reverts in this article today, but no one cares.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a ochlocracy, the fact is that there are way too many editors at the moment, some of them have bias.

Let's give a month, when things cool down we, NPOV editors, will have a easier time removing the propaganda from the article.

You should add a tag to the article.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire "Timeline" section is certainly non-neutral. The bias is obviously toward a pro-Russia POV. Not only is it full of biased language; it's full of persuasive argument. If this was our writing standard, we would need to include a whole other section that includes all the arguments that Georgia would use to justify their actions seeing that all Russia's arguments are included in this section. The "Georgia" part of the "Humanitarian" section is also blatantly non-neutral, putting everything in quotes as though nothing within quotes is 'verifiable'. I've attempted to make a few very minimal edits that should not upset the biased crowd but will help with the credibility factor, but seems that I will be wasting my time to work any more on this as other neutral editors are having no luck with their edits sticking. I am not taking any sides either, but this article currently is substandard for a Wikipedia current event article that has been around for as long as it has been. The mods certainly need to step in at some point if things don't settle down and even out within the next few days. Efrafra (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about NPOV, I can't seem to find anything from Georgian side explaining WHY they moved their troops into South Ossetia(while Russia has plenty of excuses), does anyone have any info(and legit sources) on that? Would be nice if we find it now, rather than when the conflict is over. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Source does not contain quoted information

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/13/georgia.russia.war/index.html

as Source 11 supposedly states that Russia has lost; "74 Russian troops killed, 171 wounded and 19 missing in action" but the article has no mention of casualties other then to say that CNN could not verify the conflicting reports on casualties. Please can someone amend this article. This is yet again another example of an edit to Wikipedia which is unsourced which reflects poorly on the Russians ... hardly NPOV is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it with a new ref, [36], but next time you have to do it! Took about 5 seconds in Google News. I don't know what your NPOV complaint is, likely CNN removed the numbers from its article, or someone mixed up a ref. But thanks for pointing out the error. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected and the original poster is not autoconfirmed yet. He can't edit the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

REAL source: http://mil.ru/info/1069/details/index.shtml?id=49437 Магистер (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign press (AP, The Guardian) at last get to Tskhinvali and this is what they see

During a visit Tuesday arranged by the Russian government, journalists from The Associated Press and other Western media were escorted into the city aboard armored vehicles.

Reporters witnessed more than a dozen fires in what appeared to be deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods and saw evidence of looting in those areas.

The heaviest damage from the recent fighting appeared to be around Tskhinvali's government center. More than a dozen buildings in the area were little more than scorched shells.

Several residential areas seemed to have little damage, except for shattered windows, perhaps from bomb concussions.

Russian army agitprop tour backfires, as little-to-no evidence of their wild claims:

Army Col. Igor Kononenko showed off a civilian neighborhood, once part of the old Jewish quarter, that sustained extensive damage. He said that was proof the Georgians targeted civilians.

"This street is very small, tanks can't go through here," he said, arguing there was no military reason for the Georgian military to shell the neighborhood.

However, the district stands on a hillside in the line of fire between Georgian rocket position and Tskhinvali's government center, located around the university. Some civilians in the area conceded Georgian fire at the government building might have fallen short.

At the regional hospital, doctors said the patients were moved to the basement during Georgia's bombardment of the city, and had to do without light, water or toilets. The dungeon-like rooms still stank of sewage Tuesday, while sheets and bandages were stained with blood.

Dr. Tina Zhakarova, who said the hospital had treated 224 patients during the fighting, called the Georgian assault on the city an act of ethnic cleansing.

Noting the medical facility had been damaged, she held out a handful of shrapnel to reporters. Doctors can protect people from disease, she said. "How can we protect them against this?"

But from the outside, the hospital appeared to have only light damage, either from bullets or shrapnel. Most of the windows were shattered.

Russian army officers said a Georgian missile pierced the hospital's roof and caused damage not visible on the outside. But they refused to show reporters the destruction, saying it was not safe.

Maybe the best:

Outside town, dozens of houses burned along the main road. A Russian officer said some of the buildings had been burning for days and others were damaged the previous night during an airstrike by a single Georgian plane.

When an AP photographer rode through the same villages Monday morning, none of the houses was burning. The fires only began Monday night, more than 24 hours after the battle for the city was over

Heavy damage in Tskhinvali, mostly at gov't center

I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny. Much (much) more damage (UN: "most destroyed city on earth"[37]), many more casualties, much more bigger city too, so I guess you'll be totally outraged. Right?

One sentence also bolded with no comment. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you are not following your on advice above that "This is not a forum"? While your suggestions on sources to improve the article are of course welcome, your irrelevant/off-topic, unnecessarily inflammatory comments are not, and liable to result in pointless arguments Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#The_wording_at_the_beginning - propagandist couldn't shut up about the demands of the "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city", "the heavy shelling laid the city in ruins," "the merciless wiping out of a city" and what not. But, not only the damage is limited, not only was inflicted by both sides during a regular battle, but also the rebels seem to be destroying "deserted ethnic Georgian neighborhoods" of the city right now, during "ceasefire". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, let's remember that the whole invasion was justified both internally in Russia and internationally by the Russian claims of "more than 2,000 killed", "settlements wiped-out and city in ruins" and "complete genocide". Now we know it was all lies. I repeatedly proposed this article to be named "War in Georgia", with no effect. Frankly, now I think it should be rather called "Looting of Georgia", becaue thi is what is going on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, there is so much propaganda in our articles at the moment. E.g. in the Timeline article: South Ossetia government representative Irina Gagloeva stated the morning of August 11 that Georgia opened the irrigation canal, supposedly in an effort to flood the basements of Tskhinvali buildings with an intention to prevent civilians from hiding from bombings. (according tu Lenta.ru) ... So shouldn't be the streets in Tskhinvali under water at the moment, when it was true? -- DanteRay (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you know? The water is in the basements, obviously. There are no wounded in Tskhinvali because the Georgians finished off the wounded. There are no bodies because the Georgians ate the bodies. The article is perfectly fine and neutral, representing both POVs, that is the Russian propaganda jut as much as South Ossetian. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of Russian sources does look doubtful now, given reports from Human Rights Watch in South Ossetia and the fact the western media reporting from Tskhinvali were moreover under Russian escort. But let's be calm professionals here as opposed to sarcastic or taunting and discuss problem material on a case-by-case basis.Bdell555 (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't realised, the soapboxing and offtopic comments of other contributors is not an excuse for you to start soapboxing and making offtopic comments. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "offtopic comments", as they meant to change the article to include "mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city" in prominently the article, while reality was that merely "patches" of the city (more like a town) were heavily damaged through admittably questionable artillery support tactics during the battle, mostly in the government district. Btw, "near-almost-destroyed city" is an intereresting phrase. As of the hospital, HRW says it actually has been hit in the roof by a Grad rocket - but also said that "there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded" admitted into this (the only) hospital in the town. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed offtopic. While the suggestion of a source was welcome, this comment "I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny." added nothing useful to the discussion, was provocative and was not a real suggestion for adding content to the article. Nor was "btw, the whole story turns out to be just like the fairy tale of "Jeningrad". As I've said several times, you are welcome to propose sources to add to the article, but interspersing this with your own provocative comments is NOT' acceptable Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's see what the other journalists in the group say about a trip with Colonel Kononenko (btw, the whole story turns out to be just like the fairy tale of "Jeningrad"). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

British The Guardian:

Several truck-mounted rocket launchers were a sign of Moscow's intent to hold Tskhinvali at all costs. Approaching Tskhinvali, the group of reporters was transferred to armoured personnel carriers because of the risk of fire from Georgian snipers, said the Russian officers leading the trip.

In villages close to the city there were many burned out houses, and others were still ablaze. In the city itself it was clear that claims the city had been levelled to the ground by artillery were exaggerated. However, it was also evident that while some neighbourhoods were intact, there were patches of terrible destruction.

'I've never heard anything so monstrous as people shelling a hospital' - Tom Parfitt travelled to Tskhinvali, in a trip organised by the Kremlin, to witness first hand the destruction caused by the battle for South Ossetia

Some residential areas were hit during the fighting ("patches" of destruction, including one "whole street of 100 meters" just south of the gvt centre - the same one AP said might be hit by accident because of ground elevation), others not at all ("intact"). In all, Russian claims "clearly exaggerated". Nearby Georgian villages are looted and burning. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AP Google update of the original AP report also contains this:

An AP photographer saw irregular troops near burning homes in ethnic Georgian villages, and there was evidence of looting in those areas.

At an Ezeit electronics store with smashed windows, a few appliances stood outside, but most of the stock seemed to be gone.

Nearby, a man in dark glasses, camouflage and a Kalashnikov assault rifle drove a tractor hauling what looked like a large refrigerator partly visible under a blanket. A car went down the road with two new satellite dishes on top.[38]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down there buddy, none of this is even news. BBC had a report out like 24 hours ago talking about all this and showing pictures. Take your own advice and stop using this as a forum/soap box to get out your frustrations. Go for a jog or something, work on other articles; take a break, you clearly need one. LokiiT (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Russians aren't letting western journalists into the Gori area (never mind South Ossetia) to see what's been going on there: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/georgia.russia4 Bdell555 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, BBC.

As the Russian military moved deeper into Georgian territory on Wednesday, thousands of people continued to flee towards Tbilisi.

It is a mass exodus that Georgia's capital cannot cope with. Many schools and kindergartens across the city are full of displaced people. (...) The testimonies of those who have fled villages around South Ossetia are consistent, but with all roads blocked and the Russian military now in charge of the area, the scale of alleged reprisal killings and lootings is difficult to verify. But despair and fear is, unmistakably, on the rise here. (...) "The government says only 120 people have been killed, but it is not true," she said.

"In Gori, I saw lorries full of bodies being delivered to the hospital every day. So many people have died, why is the government lying?"

Georgians fear revenge attacks

Saying about the claims of the Georgian government downplaying the real number of the killed Georgians - it probably does, as I already wrote elsewhere (in opposition to the Russian claims of "total genocide" and what not). It may be a lie but a different kind of lie, one not sparking what BBC called "revenge attacks".

Also, there was a discussion ealrier here on talk page about that South Ossetian militiamen should be called "army". It's not an army, an army has a clear chain of command (and accountibility), and they're bands of armed looters who go around in civilian cars and tractors - and doing looting. It's a militia(s) or at best paramilitary, unruly irregulars. It's not army and the "South Ossetian military" may be maybe these 3,000 guys with Russian tanks at the first day of war, and not everyone and his brother handed-out some kind of uniform, dark glasses and a rifle and told to avange "genocide". "Volunteer" is not the right word - US Army is volunteer, that is professional (as opposed to, say, the mostly conscript Russian). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I thought our job here is to post facts and not POVaculate prematurely. Captain, I am a supporter of democracy and freedom as well, but you seem to be going overboard, how about you tone down a little? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian has seized American made (Weapons?) & Equipment and their subsequent technology from the Georgians

Russia informed Georgia's Interior Ministry that its troops will remain deployed around the city of Gori, near South Ossetia, for as many as three days, ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said... In Gori, Russian troops are transporting seized Georgian military equipment ( which is supplied by the United States)... [39]24.0.64.87 (talk)

It's no secret that Georgia is considered an "ally" by the United States. That said, this kind of information has the potential to be misleading without additional context. Counter-example: Most of Georgia's tanks, APCs, and aircraft are of Soviet/Russian design and manufacture. Does that mean Russia is actually supporting both Georgia and S. Ossetia? Of course not. But the way you present the above implies that the United States is doing something nefarious or evil. Let's all try to keep stuff in perspective here. croll (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two separate things: "made by" and "supplied by". These weapons were supplied by USA for Georgia, while the USSR weapons are leftovers of the Soviet era. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

True, I agree with the first post as for the second (part), technically accurate however it's obvious that that are looking for anything western and more advanced as history would state the information should acknowledge Russians known history of "acquiring" the West's technologies by what ever means possible, one more report:

Georgia's coast guard said Russian troops burned four Georgian patrol boats in Poti on Wednesday, then returned Thursday to loot and destroy the coast guard's radar and other equipment...The same APTN crew followed Russian troops on the outskirts of Poti as they searched a field and a forest at an old Soviet military base for possible Georgian military equipment.[40]

24.0.64.87 (talk)

Okay, let me rephrase this. Has anyone bothered to read the Bloomberg article the first post actually cites? There is no claim in the article that any of the siezed equipment was supplied by the U.S. It doesn't specify whether it was US-supplied or, as has been said, Soviet "leftovers". Ergo, it does not belong and the source is being misrepresented as saying something that it does not. The source can be used to show that the Russian's are seizing Georgian military equipment, but it is neither accurate nor responsible to claim that the siezed equipment was supplied by the U.S. which, I repeat, infers that the U.S. is doing something nefarious such as smuggling in weapons to the Georgians, which, again, nobody is claiming. croll (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand this as my own POV, I didn't want to change the title, but I did somewhat. In any case it still note worthy because the Russians are still seizing Georgian war supplies and further is significant because of the place in which is occurring outside the "conflict zone".--24.0.64.87 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out I was correct:

U.S.-Made Weapons

Russian troops seized U.S.- and Russian-made weapons in the Georgian town of Senaki, near Abkhazia, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, told reporters in Moscow. All shooting has stopped in Georgia, he said. [41]

--24.0.64.87 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Also something interesting about the joint training operation in July. Given that it's properly cited and Bloomberg is a reliable source, I have no trouble including that, though it might be more appropriate for the timeline article. Can't say I have strong feelings either way. Cheers. croll (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

August 14 Human Rights Watch Report

I'm concerned about adding all of the material in this report because it may increase the amount of material discussing the humanitarian impact to undue weight. Perhaps just the section below, which appears to mention the worst of the problems, and/or select elements from the rest of the report should be incorporated:

.... Russian officers at the checkpoint told Human Rights Watch that the road closure was due to the massive looting taking place in Georgian villages along the road.

However, moving back from Tskhinvali to Java on the evening of August 13, Human Rights Watch researchers saw, for the second day running, houses that were ablaze in several Georgian villages. They had clearly just been torched. One counterintelligence officer of the South Ossetian forces claimed to Human Rights Watch that: “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... http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm Bdell555 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That is an informative quote. Many statements by combatant side in this section are probably propaganda/disinformation. We should leave in this section only statements by human rights organizations (like your quote) and by most reputable news outlets, such as New York Times, etc.Biophys (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A doctor at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital who was on duty from the afternoon of August 7 told Human Rights Watch that between August 6 to 12 the hospital treated 273 wounded, both military and civilians. She said her hospital was the only clinic treating the wounded in Tskhinvali. The doctor said there were more military personnel than civilians among the wounded and added that all of the wounded were later transferred to the Russian Ministry of Emergencies mobile hospitals in South and North Ossetia. As of August 13, there were no wounded left in the Tskhinvali hospital.

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's best to site sources from both sides. Western related media is biased.

--What Max —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HRW is not media, Mr. Genius. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I never referred to HRW as a "media". Since HRW allegations are currently reported by Western influenced media, the HRW should not be taken as the main source of information. HRW is a United States-based international non-government organisation that conducts research and advocacy on human rights, has been criticised in the form of commentaries from various organisations, journalists, and bloggers. What Max (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As of the basements

Also, Human Rights Watch saw several buildings that bore traces of heavy ammunition as if fired from tanks at close range. There was some evidence of firing being directed into basements, locations where civilians frequently choose as a place of shelter.

One thing:

At a crossroads in the north of the city there was evidence of a fierce fire fight. Three destroyed Georgian tanks were slewed across the road, a mess of ash and twisted metal. The heavy turret of one tank had been tossed across the street, falling through a shop front. Nearby on the ground lay a human foot. (...) "Those tanks in the street, we hit them with rocket propelled grenades from the basement."[42]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Related to this point about firing while proximate to civilian habitations:

Whenever someone starts telling us about shelling in Tskhinvali, it is important to keep in mind exactly what Tskhinvali is. It is not a city somewhere in the middle of a republic that is being fired upon by saboteurs. On three sides, Tskhinvali is surrounded by Georgian villages. The edge of Tskhinvali is a military outpost. South Ossetian forces fire from there into the Georgian villages, and the Georgians respond with fire of their own. To help keep Georgian fire from hitting civilians in the city, all the South Ossetians would have to do is move their military base forward a couple hundred meters.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1189525.html (other excerpts from this source were cited by Svante Cornell writing on the New York Times website)Bdell555 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

German TV has a short video clip from behind Russian lines. The German speaking reporter alleges ethnic cleansing.Bdell555 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

By whom, Russians or Georgians? Please, be more clear. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Please note that Captain Obvious is violating Wikipedia Guidelines by deleting messages he doesn't want to see (1, 2) and adding clearly provocative comments to them. At the same time he allows himself to write such things as

I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already. It was all just propaganda and you were duped by this provocation. But if you want to see "Russian city" destroyed, check Grozny.

I think it's a clear violation of those policies he himself tries to force on others. Moreover, he shows that attitude for quite a time now. Wikipedia is not a forum nor is this a place for people to force their POV. Rules are written for everybody. Please do something about him. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The chronologically first instance you invoke was hiding (not deleting) of your comment to Captain Obvious and his response to it. Your comment contained phrases like "Epic lol. Seriously, you're brainwashed to ashes.", "you're just an anti-Russian propagandist" and other personal remarks, like accusations of hypocrisy, provocations and religious fanaticism. The second case is that he deleted the same passages - after you reverted it and demanded he does not hide it. However opinionated and sarcastic Captain Obvious might be, it seems that he refrained from personal remarks on you. We should all remember about WP:NOTFORUM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that my comment was full of personal remarks, but that was after several days of him saying "I hope you Russia apologists will shut up already" et cetera and not listening to anything the other side says to him. I do not understand how his "Wikipedia is not a forum" lectures correlate with his own messages. Also he did make a personal remark calling me "Captain Russia" - I guess the tradition of calling people Captains is in his blood. And then again, if we agree that this is not a forum and if we delete personal remarks why keep his constant attacks at Russia which accompany his every message? It's not like I'm that patriotic and all, but this is just nasty. That's nationalism to me. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed way too many off-topic messages from both sides going on here and as I've stated before, despite his lectures on "not a forum" Captain is not following his own advice. Note that nether side's behaviour is justified by the other side's failure to behave properly Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious is deleting my comments as well. He seems to be dictating the information on this page based on his views of the war. Wikipedia is a general consensus of all opinions, his actions should not be permitted. What Max (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Motives for war

There has been much discussion of both sides' justification of their actions, but little as to their reasons for them. I think it would give a greater insight into events if some motivation were suggested. For example, one media outlet suggested that Russia is "building a soviet state".

• Unless there's significant discussion of this in reputable sources, it would violate WP:NOR. And speculation is, of itself, suspect. It might be worth looking into this when the dust settles, but with the conflict ongoing there's really no way to say what the true motives are. 23skidoo (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)