Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 1

Military info
Russian North-Caucasian military region have more then 100 thousands solders. 620 tanks, 200 APC, 875 Artitllery units Airforces 60 Su24, 100 Mig 29, 100 Su 25, 40 L-39 and 30 Su24MP, and 75 Mi24

South ossetia have 87 T72 and T55, 95 Art units (include 72 howitzers), 180 APC, no warplanes, 3 Mi8 (transport) 5 thousand solders and 15 thousands in reserve

Georgian army have 29 thousands solders (100 thousands in mobilisation) 165 tanks (T-72 and T-55), 180 APC, more then 200 art. units, 180 mortars 10 Su-25KM, 2 Su 25Ub, 6 L-39, 9 L-29. 28 Mi's helecopters (at least 3 Mi24), 6 Bell-212, and 6 UH-1H (presented by USA)

Taken from http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/08/08/forces/

93.92.202.124 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The merge
Wait with it. Wait to the end of the latest war for the merge. To obscure right now. Apperently, this is not just another part of the conflict but a real war. Just wait. We could always do it later.
 * OK. But I spotted seriois POV issues in the article. For example, Georgia could not declare war on SO as it not a separate country. Georgia said it was conducting an operation "to restore a constitutional order."--KoberTalk 22:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most sources agree that South Ossetia is a de-facto independent state. I dont known Georgian, and unfortinately since the war started my Ossetian friends are unreachable so they cant give and translate for me the Ossetian sources. That might explaine the POV, I use reliable sources but they are all Russian. And as a Georgian friend of mine told me there is heavy cencorship on the events in Georgia itself so there are no Georgian sources that could tell us more then we already told. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * South Ossetia has not been recognized by anybody, so it is a civil war. JoshNarins (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This may have been true when JoshNarins posted it, but the war is no longer merely internal. Christiangoth (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

biased Russian sources
Biased Russian sources should not be used, because they are merely quoting South Ossetian terrorists reports, ignoring official Georgian side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.1.129 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So South Ossetians are "terrorists", while Chechnyans are "freedom fighters"/"separatists"? Hmmkay. Anyway, both sides are present in the article currently. Esn (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (A portion of Kober's post has been removed because it was off topic to improving the article. Christiangoth (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)) Anyway, you did a good job on the article. Now it is more neutral and balanced.--KoberTalk 05:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't really do very much; mainly I just added back some info that had been deleted before, cleaned up the references to look a little neater, checked some of the news agencies reporting on the story and added a few more news. I don't think I have time to do anything major, so I hope others will continue the work. Esn (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Back on the Russian sources by 24.185.1.129, both those and the Georgian sources need to be taken with a grain of salt. At this point the most reliable is international media from netural countries with presence on the ground. (such as CNN, Fox, BBC.) Jon (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not correct: the media sources of NATO countries, such as listed above "CNN, Fox, BBC" can not be referred to as the sources from "neutral countries", because they support Georgia, following American directives. And this is the point outlined by Russian representative in NATO Rogozin who warned NATO countries and asked them to moderate pro-Georgian propaganda in their media sources: http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/08/note/ --Victor V V (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you prove that the BBC, CNN, etc are "following American directives"? By the very definition of the phrase, CNN, the BBC, etc are media from Neutral Countries because they are media sources in countries that ARE neutral!!! (Unless you know something I don't, NATO is not at war with Russia).SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can prove that whenever journalists from CNN, for example, start to express the opinion too much independent from the official line (it mainly refers to international issues. )I agree that in domestic affairs these sources try to be objective)), they are usually fired. Nevertheless, NATO countries are not NEUTRAL because NATO is a military alliance, which by definition and by its current moves (radars, rocket deployments) proves to be non-neutral. Trying to prove neutrality of NATO basing on the media-sources sources of NATO countries means a weak and biased position, too.

Therefore, I agree with Anthony Ivanoff (below) that "all the sources should be mentioned while stating to whom the statement belongs". --Victor V V (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A nation is not necessarily neutral if it is not directly involved. This is like saying that a towel boy is neutral in an American football game because he is not on the field during play.  The towel boy still has a team he hopes will win, and even supplies that team to help it.  The United States in WWII before the attack on Pearl Harbor is a classic example of a nation not directly involved but not neutral.  Christiangoth (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(Note: off-topic chatter removed.) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * biased western sources should not be used as well. CNN is totally POV. I think all the sources should be mentioned while stating to whom the statement belongs. There is information/bias war ongoing at the moment between West and Russia. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Ezzex (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely see some of the current sources for this article as problematic. I see Jon's point as a valid one; both Georgian and Russian sources should be treated with suspicion, as their reports can obviously be biased. As for the point raised by both Victor V and Anthony Ivanoff, I agree that it is possible that sources from neutral countries may also have either a pro-Russian or pro-Georgian bias, depending on the source in question. Using multiple sources from different neutral countries is likely to produce the most balanced view.


 * Media bias will occur in many places. The US media outlets of CNN and Fox certainly have both been respectively challenged as biased by detractors, as has the BBC. No single media source can be purported to be "the truth." However, we can seek for general consensus across media sources to filter for the most gross levels of bias. Seek to ensure these media sources each are independently reporting, not just "copycatting" each other, or pulling the same stories from the same basic newswire. Where possible, refer directly to government or NGO sites for their official observations and rulings, such as when I quoted from the UN site directly. Does that make it "truth?" No, but it makes it the official position of the UN. YMMV. --Petercorless (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You forgot to mention that there can be no neutral countries and neutral media now, too. Not only Russian or Georgian, but any other country's media source should be defined, mentioning the country or this source, for example "British media (BBC) or American media (CNN) claim that Russians are aggressors, bla bla bla". Then it would be neutral. --Victor V V (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I'm modifying the Casualties section of the article. The source used is RussiaToday, which does not quote its source regarding the Georgian casualty figure. Thus, I feel that "Up to 30 casualties claimed by August 8th" is the most appropriate wording until someone finds an official Georgian admission of casualties. The Russian casualties are backed up by a statement of a member of Russian military, so I think that can be considered as a reliable admission of casualties and does not need to be reworded. However, I'm taking out the words "officially" (if it's confirmed, it is obviously official) and "peacekeepers" (I feel the expression contains pro-Russian bias when used without quotes and pro-Georgian bias when quoted). Tritec (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A better Neutral Point of View solution is something like, "Russian sources have claimed there are a total of xx Georgian casualties, while Georgians have not yet reported a figure." NPOV does not mean just rejecting sources and perspectives out of hand.  We can't just completely exclude RussiaToday, Civil Georgia, CNN, or whatever.  The trick is not giving any of them undue weight.  Superm401 - Talk 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Petercorless (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

fn.64 has a link to a report, which gives prominence to a link to a video, which states that bloggers are comparing the Georgian president to Adolf Hitler (photos of the mustachioed one included). Seems like a sly way of using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda.--Shtove (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Current event tag
I've added the "current event" tag back in because this seems like one of the most important events right now internationally. If an escalating war involving a nuclear power isn't a "current event", what is? Esn (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A "current event" is a Wikipedia article which is being editted a couple of hundred times per day due to being a current event. I don't think this qualifies. — Nightstallion 08:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only the morning and there have been over 50 edits. I think it's well on track. Esn (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. Okay, you may be right. — Nightstallion 10:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR regarding Russia's involvement
Concerning this edit, is it really WP:OR if the Georgian president says that Russia is involved, and if Putin says that "retaliatory actions will be taken"? Esn (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian president or officials can say whatever they want, they are contradicted by Russian officials say that they are trying to keep the peace, not taking sides.--Miyokan (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * source. "But Putin, the former Russian president who is now its influential prime minister, condemned Georgia's "aggressive actions" and said his country would have to retaliate." Esn (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The video footages clearly showed the destroyed buildings in the Goergian towns and Russian jets flying over them. These incidents were also reported by EuroNews. --KoberTalk 09:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have links, Kober? Esn (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They may very well have been destroyed by Russian jets, but what matters is what side they are on, and Russia has said that they are not taking sides, despite what Georgian officials say. Your logic goes "Russia attacked them so therefore they are with the South Ossetia", which is a classic case of WP:SYNTH.--Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Putin's comments about "retaliation" are clear enough. However, I wouldn't object to waiting until more clear information is available. Esn (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can add "Russia (according to Georgia sources)" --windyhead (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Question for Miyokan: where/when exactly has Russia said that they're not taking sides? Is that sourced? Esn (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a late-night statement, appealed for efforts to prevent huge bloodshed. "It is not too late to avert massive bloodshed and new victims," it said. "Russia will continue efforts to avert the bloodshed and restore peace in South Ossetia.--Miyokan (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but that doesn't mean that they're not taking sides. The Georgians are saying the same thing, right? "restore constitutional order", "Despite our call for peace and a unilateral cease-fire", etc. Esn (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

News: unnamed number of Russian peace-keeper casualties: Esn (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian involvement
Interesting video

The source (life.ru) is by no means reliable (I haven't heard about it until today) but the video is interesting. Furthermore it's written there that: Как стало известно LIFE.RU, в сторону Цхинвала по единственной дороге, связывающей Южную и Северную Осетию, движется колонна бронетехники с российскими флагами. Это ракетные системы залпового огня "Град", 122-мм и 155-мм гаубицы, БТР и танки.

So, according to this source, a column of armed forces (including tanks, APCs, howitzers and Grad systems) under Russian flag moves by the Transkam towards Tskhinvali. Alæxis¿question? 10:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (A portion of this post has been removed because it is off topic to improving the article. Christiangoth (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)) Actualy, usualy it's reliable. But every monday and friday it has news like "Alla Pugachova died", "Ksenia Sabchak was fucked by aliens". As long as it doesn't come to showbiz it's reliable. They have a problem of lack of information. For example, Russia yesterday said they will sent peacekeepers to stop the war. So are those tanks are those peace keepers or are they taking Ossetian side? Check more sites on this one. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another source for info here, but I don't know how reliable that site is either. Esn (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Echo of Moscow a column of our forces entered Tskhinvali. That's rather reliable source. Alæxis¿question? 12:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Comment by Qubix made 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC) removed because it was off topic to improving the article. Christiangoth (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
 * (Comment by UBaHoB made at 08:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC) removed because it was off topic to improving the article. Christiangoth (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Comment by Qubix made at 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC) removed because it was off topic to improving the article. Christiangoth (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
 * (Comment by Anonymous removed because it was off topic to improving the article. Christiangoth (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
 * As for the suggestion to "Learn russian and read...", I think there is more convinient way: russian wiki page about ossetia war. You could even read it in your own language if you want to.
 * Alexander.Vasiljev (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyberwarfare
Ossetian source claims that Ossetian sites (http://osinform.ru/, http://cominf.org/) are under DDOS attacks now. I think this should be mentioned in the article.

Btw, I have now problems accessing Rustavi 2 site. Please try to go to this site and write whether you have succeeded. Alæxis¿question? 10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I havent it gave me a white page saying I'm not permitted to enter it, like a hardcore porn site or something. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gotten there finally. Probably it's just that too much people try to do it at the same time... Alæxis¿question? 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The main page works, as does the American server, but the Georgian server doesn't. Esn (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I can't access those two sites that you first mentioned. We need a reliable source about this in order to add it, though. Esn (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another source about it. I think we can safely write that 'according to the Ossetian side ...' Alæxis¿question? 11:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Apperently the Ministry of Foreign Affairs got defaced and pictures of a minister portraied as hitler were put op. Site currently not loading http://www.mfa.gov.ge/

09 Aug 2008 2:05:47AM EDT: no response from server, guessing servers are experiencing loads nearing levels of a DDoS attack (too many users?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.121.75 (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mea Culpa
Made a mistake trying to insert info that was already cited in the article. Just getting back into the swing of Wiki'ing again. Petercorless (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiblock
Please block this article from anonymous users. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am registered byt i cant edit the article, why is that? (wanted to add that the US is sending an envoy as reported here --Frodoqui  16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * click the lock icon at the top of the article, there is an explanation --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i see, it's because i am not yet "autoconfirmed", thanks! --Frodoqui (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Information about Georgians falling back
The information from Russian media about Georgian Military falling back from Tskhinvali is probably false, and not yet confirmed by any other medias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markuspint (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we'll say "it was reported by Russian media" until other sources come up. Esn (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Media in English language is slow, so we use Russian media (I know Russian slightly, but I don't know Georgian, that's why I used Russian sources). --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Channel One apparently has video of Russian tanks in Tskhinvali: Esn (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Better now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markuspint (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just in case, information in Western and even Georgian media is sometimes false too, let's not forget about it.85.202.113.34 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Put this on the Wikipedia main page already!
Support the motion here. Esn (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeeping
Watch out for that "Russian peacekeeping" violates WP:NPOV. --76.19.149.244 (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's their job description, not POV. Esn (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, mostly it just reads kind of strange; calls in mind Civ 2 under Democracy owning the UN world wonder you could declare yourself Peacekeeping to get around the normal prohibition against declaring war . Jon (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are peacekeepers, and as such are officially recognized by all interested parties - Georgia, South Ossetia, the USA, Russia and the CIS. Is there anything else to discuss about wording?85.202.113.34 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.202.113.34 (talk)

"Peacekeepers"
Stop pushing badly written, unsourced, broken English stuff.

This is really silly. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is sily is: 1. Calling peacekeppers sildiers. 2. The cause of the war is much more complicated. This time Georgia started it, Ossetians waited for the peace talks. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mirotvortsy ARE soldiers. Russian Army active duty soldiers. They are NOT United Nations troops.

Not to mention that "more than 10" is not "10" and "about 30" is not "30". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude mirotvortsi is peacekeepers in Russian. They have a mandate from the UN. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "sildiers", though. Srsly: Please come back when you learn some English. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Soldiers". When you write fast you make mistakes. The CIS sent those peacepeople, not Russia. See what the president of Kazakhstan said in Pekin. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They were sent by CIS not Russia. See leader of Kazakhstan in Pekin. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't resort to ad hominen to win your argument, please. "mirotvortsi" is "peacekeepers" in Russian. Esn (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright but they are still soldiers, with ammo, and so on. They are not UN peacekeepers. "mirotvortsi" is just how Russia sources call them. --windyhead (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mirotvortsi in not only in Russian, Russia also understands it's very differently (than your standard Blue Helmets from the UN). For Russia they defend "Russian citiziens" (whom they gave passports AFTER the secession). For Georgia they are Russian occupational troops defending a de facto annexation of the region by Russia - and now invaders ("150 armoured vehicles" crossing the official border). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the CIS decided to sent the soldiers. If they would want, Tbilisi would already be pizza. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Actually the CIS decided to sent the soldiers." You're right about "soldiers" (at least), but they are only Russian soldiers and commanded by only Russian commanders (and that, say, Georgia is in CIS but want them out, and out of their own territory). I don't know know what you meant by "If they would want, Tbilisi would already be pizza.", though, so please eleaborate? (Mirotvortsi "turning Tbilisi into pizza"? Is this what "peacekeepers" do?) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources call the killed Russians "peacekeepers", not soldiers. When the sources start talking about "soldiers", then we can call them soldiers. Offliner (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No wai. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Way!. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood When the sources start talking about "soldiers", then we can call them soldiers. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be clearly written they are Russian soldiers (with heavy weapons and combat aircraft) on what Russia and some of their allies call a peacekeeping mission to "defend the Russia's citiziens" - and not the Russian UN peacekeeping troops sent into a random region by United Nations. For the uninformed reader who would think otherwise. Plus, they just apparently crossed the official international border in a large number with tanks - and if true, this is an invasion (just as Georgians apparently also invade their own breakway territory). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're talking like a UN Peacekeeper and a Russian Peacekeeper are somehow different. UN Peacekeepers carried guns and bullets and were real soldiers trained to kill just like any soldiers. Peacekeepers ARE soldiers. They are the same thing. Just ask the Canadians who fought at Medak Pocket...stop making asinine comparisons. A peacekeeper is a soldier, full stop. Every peacekeeper is a soldier, but not every soldier is a peacekeeper, it is only one type of mission on which he may be employed.139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The UN is a much bigger organ than Russia whose words aren't better than those of Georgia. If they are peacekeepers or not, it's best to ommit that here because it carries a moral judgement. "Peace" is the problem. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In an armed conflict, if one side (or the other) sends fighting soldiers into battle, you cannot possibly call them "peacekeepers". There is no "peace" that is "kept" that way. Peacekeepers don't fight unless they have to defend their own life. -- megA (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are being silly. Russian soldiers are peackeepers because they have a legal mandate to be there. They are in South Ossetia based on the provisions of the treaty that ended the first South Ossetian war and which Georgia signed herself. Not all Russian soldiers in South Ossetia are neccesarily peackeepers, but those that were there already when the conflict flared up are legally peackeepers.
 * If a "peacekeeper" attacks any side without the need to defend his own life, he is not a "peacekeeper" any more. Stop being ignorant, whoever you are. -- megA (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your definition is an invitation for POV. If we start deciding who is really a peackeeper and who is not really a peackeeper we will never reach an agreement on any peackeeping mission, not just this one. If they have a legal mandate they are peacekeepers. They are a part of a legal peackeeping force thus they are peacekeepers. And yours is a false argument anyway. The treaty that put the peacekeepers in place explicitly states they are there to guarantee the status quo and dissuade any side from trying to wrestle control of any territory by force. Thus in repelling the Georgian attack they actually acted as their mission demanded. Stanimir (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add any info you might have that they were not "truly" peacekeepers, but let the reader decide for himself. Do not censor the very word "Russian peacekeeper" as if it were an oxymoron. Stanimir (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are military and they have guns. But they are peacekeepers, and as such are officially recognized by all interested parties - Georgia, South Ossetia, the USA, Russia and the CIS. Is there anything else to discuss about wording?85.202.113.34 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Russia could call these soldiers flower salesmen: it's semantics. The fact is any unwanted incursion on sovereign territory is an invasion. Invading another country because you undermined its authority by giving out phony passports is an act of war. It is semantically correct to call these soldiers "invaders" or "the invasionary forces". It would be preferable to simply refer to them as "the soldiers", "the troops" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true for Russian troops, which were imposed after the conflict began, but this does not apply to the Russian peacekeeping battalion, he had been there under the treaty. --Eraser (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why it's not on frontpage?
--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. Now lets find someone to answer. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is now.--Southeastern Everglades (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More importantly, why is it not getting the coverage it deserves in the media? Answer: Because of the Olympics! Hmmm... what's more important to report on? War breaking out in Europe, or the olympics? Unfortunately, we now know the answer.SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Russian tanks enter South Ossetia" is the main story on BBC News and "Georgia 'under attack' as Russian tanks roll in" on CNN. Well, even Al-Jazeera has "Russian tanks enter South Ossetia". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * News on CNN is terrible, i think. They're obviously not 'neutral'. Just a remark. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This morning (US time) CNN was primarily covering the war as opposed to the olympics. I don't know about the other stations. The few minutes I watched seemed pro Georgian since they were intervewing the Georgian president but I didn't stick around long enough to see if they were planning on interviewing someone from Russia or not. Jon (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the interview was prety "funny". CNN interviewer: "Is your tiny country at war with Russia?" 0:46 What? Georgia isn't tiny. It isn't huge, but it's above the median of the world countries sorted by size. His face after a question like that and his reaction time to such an adjective says it all. Also interesting how the president eludes the interviewer's question about Georgia attacking first 6:13.
 * The media (in the United States)isn't covering this because it isn't juicy enough. Absurd, I know, but Edward's affair appeals much more to the carnal minded attention of the American Public. FYI I'm American so I can say this haha.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.188.11 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I'm American and Edwards has been 3rd fiddle to this conflict and the Olympics. If you were in South Carolina, I could see how things could be different.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NATO Reaction
From NATO's Official Website:

"Statement by the NATO Secretary General on events in South Ossetia

The NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is seriously concerned about the events that are taking place in the Georgian region of South Ossetia and said that the Alliance is closely following the situation. The Secretary General calls on all sides for an immediate end of the armed clashes and direct talks between the parties"

Source: Statement by the NATO Secretary General on events in South Ossetia LCpl (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"voluntary 429th Cossack division"
I wonder what with the other 428 voluntary Cossack divisions.

Is this a comedy relief or something? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mostly not. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 428 divsions are mostly not, or is the comedy mostly not? What is happening with the 146th and the 317th Cossack divisions? Should we really post every clown's statement? (hint-hint) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * These Cossack divisions is unimportant at this moment. They're something like small patriotic groups. Not comedy, but mostly useless in real battle imho. (Not to mention they will get to Georgia in not less than a month) Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't say so. They are constantly trained, they are strong. If they want they will be in Tbilisi in 12 hours, just sent them an invitation. If they'll really like it, they'll take it with them home. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They're training - for a minute - with Shashkas, horses and old rifles. I doubt they can make it to Tbilisi in 12 hours, at least without getting dropped from heavy bomber. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so fast, dude. Plastun Cossacks are known for their training in stealthy assault. They can sneak up on you and get a knife through your heart before you can realize it =^.^= -- Wesha (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In russian wiki, there are Don Cossack voluntary fighters listed as part of the Ossetian side: 23px Донское Войско (добровольцы)90.190.166.173 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed the name to the one quoted in the relevant news article. And the article uses the term "regiment". I do not know how it shall be raised, where, under whose orders, part of what structure. I simply translated the words of the ataman. Hope that helps. Russoswiss (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an English-language article here Esn (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentence about Russian troops in the introduction
Chystal has removed the sentence I added in the introduction about the presence of Russian troops. The explanation doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what the wording should be, but I am sure that the fact that Russian troops are directly involved is a big part of the importance of the subject. Therefore we need a sentence on it in the article lead; what do others think? -- SCZenz (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When they rally do something then we enter it. And the brakeaway, well, just for the record de-facto they are independent and even Georgia calls them Breakaway (they use more words but those are censored). Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument makes no sense. Russian troops have crossed the border and are occupying territory, and it's big international news because of that.  Therefore it ought to be in the article lead.  I'm not tied to the wording, but leaving it out as though it's somehow unimportant hurts the article.  -- SCZenz (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true. Even the frontpage says "Russian troops move across the border as Georgian military forces enter the breakaway republic of South Ossetia." --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it's true I have seen it on the News. What i do think is the Russia have yet done anything to enter the intruduction. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Their tanks are occupying territory that is recognized, by most of the world's countries, as belonging to Georgia. Without taking a point of view on whose territory it is, the magnitude of the conflict is remarkable.  That's why the fact is getting top billing on all news sources, and that makes it notable.  I'll restore at least a brief sentence on the Russian presence unless you can explain your views with something other than "they haven't done anything yet"&mdash;they have done something, they crossed what most countries recognize as a border.  With tanks.  -- SCZenz (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on this. Mentioning presence is ok. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. So, if it was late 1999 and the Georgian Army just crossed the border with Chechnya while talking about defending Chechens from Russia, and the Georgian soldiers are dying from the Russian attacks, and Russia says Georgia is involved in the fighting, what else they would have to do else to get important? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were peace keepers not soldiers, and they were mentioned in the casualeties. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Georgia says it was invaded by armoured columns (and that's what the Russian TV showed, too) and even that Russian waplanes are bombing Georgian territory while "specifically targeting civilian population" in "the worst nightmare one can encounter", nothing about "peacekeeping troops" or what not. Please see what peacekeeping is (as opposed to "peacemaking"). And you didn't really answer my question. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignore this troll, guys, he's User:M.V.E.i.. Blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given this fact, and the folks who agree with me above, I've put the sentence back in. I'm not committed to the wording or sourcing at all, so I'm sure that will be edited, but I do think it's vital to include something about Russia's involvement, as I explained above. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I NPOVed this phrase a little (allegedly to protect Ossetians who hold Russian passports). Main question is about the casus belli for intervention by Russia. Remeber that Hitler justified his occupation of the  Sudetenland by his desire to protect ethnic Germans who formed a majority of the population there. In that case however, these people are not "ethnic Russians", but simply people who hold Russian passports given to them only recently. Older people there also receive official pensions (money) from Russian government.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are any problems with that, please discuss it here instead of continue your reverts.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russian peacekeepers" - do they have a name?
So we can say "[acronym] troops" or whatever.

Also, I'd prefer "Russian troops" (because they are Russian troops and the rest - "peacekeepers" or "occupiers" - is POV). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Peacekeepers" should seriously be replaced by something else. Not only in Georgia, but also in the west they have often expressed their dissatisfaction about russian presence here. A term like that carries a moral judgement and fails wp:npov. - Pieter_v (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now maybe I don't know as much fancy lingo as some people, but what the hell does Russian ex officio troops mean, exactly?SpudHawg948 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The battalion of Russian troops deployed in South Ossetia through peaceful arrangements between the sides to the conflict. Under these treaties, the Russian soldiers performing a peacekeeping mission in the conflict zone. It is therefore reasonable to call them peacekeepers, with Georgian point of view recorded in a footnote.
 * This is correct. There were also Georgian peacekeepers, and one other country. JoshNarins (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise becomes unclear whether the Russian invasion can be a question, because in the article written that the Russian forces already present in South Ossetia before the conflict. --Eraser (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are the Russkies entitled to deploy new "peacekeeping" troops at their own discretion? This is the problem. Colchicum (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

as

Russia obviously considers it their right to invade countries that had once been part of the U.S.S.R. in order to "back up" ethnic Russians. This is the problem. All of the countries that used to be part of the U.S.S.R. are being bullied by this military "Right" of Russia.65.68.1.90 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ossetians are not "ethnic Russians".Biophys (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia has a mandate under OSCE Mission to Ossetia to maintain what is called a "peacekeeping" force there. Here's a reference: http://www.osce.org/georgia/22955.html 97.104.12.80 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "The monitors patrol independently and in co-operation with the tripartite JPKF (comprising one battalion each of Georgian, North Ossetian and Russian peacekeepers, under Russian command and joint supervision by the JCC)." Repeat, one battalion. Colchicum (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the other forces cannot be called peacekeepers. We don't know the strength of Russian troops that moved to SO though. Alæxis¿question? 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But the battalion under the command of Marat Kulakhmetov, is the peacekeeping forces, so the text of the article must be edited. Units of the 58th Army, arrived in South Ossetia, can be called the invasion forces (Georgian POV) or reinforcement for peacekeeping contingent (Russian POV). --Eraser (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace."[1] Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development."

So, are they now "peacekeeping" (UN-definition, not Russia's) or not? If not, they are not "peacekeepers". By this I meant the "peackeeping battalions", because the "reinforcement" are obviosuly not. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Captain Obvious, you are being very repetitive. Do you have an agenda? The Russian troops are peacekeepers, because they have a legal mandate to be there. They are there as provided by the agreement that brought forth the ceasation of hostilities on July 14th, 1992. Just like there were Georgian peacekeepers in South Ossetia as part of the same peacekeeping force and on the basis of the same agreement. Now if you want to argue that the Russian peacekeepers were not really "peacekeeping" you can make your case in the article. What they did and did not do however does not change the fact that they are technically and legally peacekeepers. Stanimir (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeepers? Two regions of Georgia, which just happen to be of differing ethnic backgrounds and allies of Russia try to break away. Both have almost no military at the time...... And now, there are Russian soldiers within Georgia forcing their desires. Both regions have magically gained Tanks, RPG's, and more. And, the Russian "Peacekeepers" are invading Georgia. The term is "occupying army" or "invaders". And, does the word DURESS mean anything to you??.. Look it up. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress] Georgia never "wanted" Russian military within their borders. It was a forced occupation made under duress.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * .65.68.1.90, you are incredibly ignorant. Both the Ossetians and Abhazians are ethnic Russians to you? I will not even address the rest of your ramblings. No use wasting breath on such a simpleton. Stanimir (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So, how did the Russians come up with the IMMEDIATE ability to invade Georgia if all they are is "Peacekeepers"? And, how did a "humanitarian aid" convoy appear within hours after Georgia began to move in? 65.68.1.90 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not an "oversimplification". It is pure and unrestrained idiocy. Ossetians are a seperate ethnicity as are the Abhazians. They are not even related to the Russians. Claiming otherwise reveals you as either a simpleton or someone with an agenda. In either case you are not worth discussing with. Stanimir (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more personal attacks.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Other dispute regarding existing content here
THIS is war room so let's argue here instead of edi-warring over war Okay? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)'''

Map
Just stumbled upon this article looking for more information. Is there an available map like the ones commonly found on Wikipedia? The region in grey and the highlighted version in green, or something like that. Anything better than the black-and-white present one. It's not very informative. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.80.65 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Should be pretty simple for someone wanting to add colors to do so, you might need to be logged in though for posting images. Just avoid color combos known to have color blindness issues as well as color combos that appear to favor one side over the other. Jon (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Times
Since this is an event on earth (as opposed to outer space), local time zones are prefered with UTC in s. So as part of the wikification process to Aug 8th (and also later portions of the previous section), the times should be changed to the local timezone for South Ossetia. (Hopefully the combatants are in agrement on what timezone should apply to South Ossetia.) Jon (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I know. SO uses +3 while Georgia uses +4 :) Alæxis¿question? 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of problems with the underlaying Georgia & South Ossetia articles though is they are stating raw UTCs without offical timezone names and also don't explictly state weather or not they observe daylight savings time. If they observe daylight savings time, and raw UTC is being stated it could just be that the more commonly edited article had the UTC corrected to reflect daylight savings time but the other didn't. Jon (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SO is in the Moscow time zone (and thus dst is observed there). Alæxis¿question? 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SO uses daylight saving, so at now it is UTC+4 there (and UTC+3 in winter, but there is a summer). --Alexander Widefield (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian equipment
I'd really like to add info about the Russian equipment which is in South Ossetia now. According to sources 58th Army and the 4th Air Army are "there." Does this mean they have all the equipment listed in the wikipedia articles of those units with them? Is it safe to add those to the article? Offliner (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the video feeds I definitely identified the following:
 * 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled howitzer
 * 9K37 Buk self propelled SAM system
 * 9K51 Grad MRLS
 * T-72 tanks
 * BMP-1 APC
 * MT-LB multi-purpose APC
 * Sukhoy Su-25 attack aircraft
 * Mi-24 attack helicopter
 * Tu-22 frontline bomber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.38.178 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (more to be added) -- Wesha (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-English sources
Dear wikieditors, please do not remove important information which is sourced by Russian or Georgian-language sources. Biased as they are, they present the most immediate sources of information, being closer to the conflict than Western sources. I really understand that most of you cannot read Russian, but you may use http://translate.google.com to get a good idea of what Russian-language article is saying. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody removed, all sourses, on anybody languale is legal. Канопус Киля (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
Own official, okay? Like what Georgia says about Georgian. AND SOURCED. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Two Russian planes downed, a Su-25 and a Tu-22, confirmed by Russian military. Source. --Illythr (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Official and soursed numbers for South Ossetia are: 1400 civilian casualties during the first day of Georgian offensive after bombardments of Tskhinvali (Kokoity, the president of South Ossetia republic as quoted by (The Independent), (Reuters)). Please include this number in the article, as it now states that Ossetian casualties 'unknown'. Please also consider that these claim of casualties was done BEFORE and one of THE REASONS why Russian army entered the conflict. Please mind that and do not let the article on that matter read as if these casualties were in any part caused by Russian fire.85.202.113.34 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Information sources as references
The article is based mostly on Russian official statements and Russian news services. Therefore the article can not be taken very seriously unless the balance of sources and accuracy is increased significantly. I´m concerned about the neutrality-realistic-informational presentation of this article.Karabinier (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Russian users also far outnumber Georgian users here. A neutrality tag would be fitting at the moment. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of the Georgian POV in the article. Most of the presidents statements are mentioned, and most sources used in this article are Western (BBC, Google, Yahoo, IHT etc..) LokiiT (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyberwar section
Please add something on Russian cyberattacks on Georgian government websites. Minsitry of Foreign Affaris website http://www.mfa.gov.ge/ was first to be attacked. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it atacked if i enter it without problems? Bring a reference and we have a deal. It&#39;s me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.mfa.gov.ge/ is professionally hacked (contains nothing but a collage of the pictures of Saakashvili mixed with the pictures of Hitler). Why are you lieing now, Mr. liar? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now i see it, hhh god they do look alike!!! It&#39;s me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It&#39;s me, i brought the stuff, are you the same person as User:Chrystal Blue Moon?
 * Not that i know so, are you him? It&#39;s me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Russian-speakers can read a very interesting opinion. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone please do something about the troll. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian aircrafts from Armenia
According to several sources two bombs were dropped on Vaziani military base. And they report that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Russian army’s 102nd base in Gumru, Armenia. This fact should be taken into consideration and placed in the article. Baku87 (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another source by topix.com they also state that Russian aircrafts from the military base in Armenia were used in a attack. See [Topix.com] Baku87 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another time/date question
Under "International organizations", it says "European Union - On August 9, Nicolas Sarkozy ... announced" - but the Le Monde article linked to is clearly dated August 8. The first time given there is 19h28 (presumably French time), in which case surely it would be before midnight even in Georgia. Loganberry (Talk) 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page semi-protected if it is on the front page?
Isn't this against standard Wikipedia procedures? I think outside users would have a lot of specific knowledge to add here. Tfine80 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two reasons: mostly because banned user User:M.V.E.i. is running around with sockpuppets: secondly because this is a highly controversial topic and I don't want a flood of anons turning the page into a complete mess of nationalist dogfights. If anons have something constructive to contribute they can do so here on the talk page. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are likely hundreds of anonymous users around the world capable of adding to this critical article. They are very unlikely to use the talk pages. It is important that the article not be blocked simply because of one user. Dealing with nationalism is inevitable on these sorts of pages and it simply needs to be watched closely. Tfine80 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. This is a very similar situation to what we had when Kosovo declared independence. It was agreed at the time to keep the main page locked down and let anons post on the talk. It's not so hard to find. This is an equally contentious topic, possibly more so. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The knee-jerk reaction to block may have occurred with Kosovo, but it is not something that is consistent with long-time Wikipedia traditions. Before this recent practice became common, we were frequently able to manage these sorts of episodes, and the articles benefited enormously because of the outside contributions and error-checking. Many Russians and Caucasus folks may want to contribute to the English Wikipedia for the first time. We should not be so unwelcoming, and not all of them will incorporate biased nationalism. Tfine80 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with whats being said in the above by Tfine80. This censorship is new and not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.17.233 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan's reaction
Azerbaijani governmential officials have repeatedly supported Georgia in this matter, here is a quote by the spokesman for Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry:

Azerbaijan recognizes the territorial integrity of Georgia and the conflict should be settled on the basis of this very principle. He also said that in line with international law Georgia has a right to restore its territorial integrity and the UN charter is a proof of it. Georgia's actions comply with international law.

Thats whats been said from the Azerbaijani side Baku87 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added Azerbaijan's reaction to the list. In the future, feel free to be bold and edit it in yourself. :) Kingnavland (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, I mistakenly thought the article was fully protected, thanks for your aid Baku87 (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of the start of the war
Shouldn't it be the time when massive hostilities started, that is on August 7, the date of "Georgian operation begins"? I can't take "sniper war" seriously - I never heard of such thing, it's "incidents" not "war". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So? August 1 or 7/8? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkish support to Georgian gov't
Turkey has, according to Reuters, agreed to supply electricity over and above the usual Georgian requirements. This is in response to a Georgian request. Worthy of addition to the section on Turkish reaction to the crisis? Source:http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL86733520080808Thuycidides the Younger (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Response
I noticed in the "Reactions" section that we've noted John McCain's response to the events, but not Obama's. We should include either both or neither of them.
 * You are correct, I was just on my way to edit in the Obama statement. Kingnavland (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To reply to myself, I might note that I'm not sure either reaction should be noted, as Obama and McCain do not speak for the American government, and I don't see a reaction from David Cameron in the UK response paragraph. That being said, it's the least of our worries right now. If there's wikipolicy on this, it can be applied later when the article is fully wiki-fied. Kingnavland (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the political motives of Presidential Candidates doesn't necessarily coincide with those of our State Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehaalandtluk (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I removed them but I was reverted with no reason given. Neither of them belong in this article under the section "states" as neither of them speak for the state.  Ostap 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By that metric, Winston Churchill's commentary on German aggression prior to May 10, 1940 would be non-notable. And since when do Senators not speak for the government? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think they speak for their constituents. I think we should stick with foreign ministers, presidents, prime ministers etc.  Why include these two just because they are presumptive nominees?  If we include them, we could include the entire US congress which is not needed. Ostap 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What McCain and Obama think is irrelevant, because they don't speak for anyone but themselves and isn't going to make a lick of difference as to what happens here. As for speaking for their constituents, perhaps we can have the opinion of Paro Dzongkhag included, as they too would be speaking for their constituents, or is it that a nobody in terms of effects in this conflict from the US is more important than anyone else? Sorry, but the opinions of electioneering combatants in the US take a backseat in this conflict; what is more important, even more important than what Bush and Co think, is the opinions of the ex-Soviet states, and perhaps more importance should be placed on their opinions than of some nobody senators with no power to do anything. --Россавиа Диалог 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we agree, but I wouldn't take it that far. Ostap 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent events
Russians are repulsed from Tskhinvali, but they then bombed the Georgian vital port of Poti and the town of Senaki. Please add recent actions by the Russian imperialists to the article. There are several casualties among civilians but thousands are volunteering in the army. Thousands of Georgians are holding a rally at the Russian embassy in Tbilisi. The Russian ambassador is reportedly evacuated because of a fear of public revenge. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * please refrain from POV remarks both here and in the article. As for your information, please give us the sources proving that. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are very welcome to comment on the subject subject of improving this article. Everyone has POV; free discussion is allowed and encouraged. There are no obligation to provide sources at the talk pages, unless one makes uncivil comments or defamatory claims with regard to a living person.Biophys (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, commenting on the subject is explicitly not the purpose of a talk page. The talk page is intended to be dedicated to how best to improve the article.  In fact, a very large banner at the top of this talk page prohibits discussion of the subject of the article (for its own sake).  Christiangoth (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and that is exactly what this user was doing: he commented about improvement of this article. That was also what I mean.Biophys (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the newsgeorgia.ru site, a military base near the Vaziani has been bombed again tonight. Vaziani is the base used as the site of U.S. training operations. News about the base: (it has been bombed again tonight). I can't add this to the page (can't get autoconfirmed status), so please someone do it. Sorhed (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Military Equipment and Statistics.
The table showing military equipment should not be removed. I don't necessarily agree with Georgian and Russian country statistics, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehaalandtluk (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do I report user 'Wingsforsheeba' for repeatedly removing information which may be relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehaalandtluk (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors and please sign your comments using three or four tildes (~) --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why citation marks for "hundreds" and "peacekeepers"
It is what the main Russian English-language propaganda outlet (Russia Today) is saying - unless there are neutral reports of "hundreds" of "volunteers" (and not dozens and not thousands and not two and their dog), for example, we can't present it's as a fact. Same for casualties - it is the Russian command saying the [number] dead/injured are "peacekeepers". It's not facts, it's what the propaganda sources are claiming.

Also maybe it should be "officially" instad of "confirmed". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, how do you tell pro-Russian propaganda from pro-Georgian propaganda? Though it doesn't matter actually — just stick to the sources. Russians call them peacekeepers, which they actually are, because they officialy use uniform, logos etc. of peacekeeping forces — doesn't matter whether they go killing Georgians or playing balalaikas, they are still officially peacekeepers. We should present both points of view (Georgia: occupiers; Russia: peacekeepers) and leave aside these "quotation marks" and revert wars. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see what peacekeeping is. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also also, I'm for changing all "volunteers" in the article except for in quotes/link titles, because it's really unknown who they are besides being irregulars for sure (even if they would be, say, dress-up GRU commandos or mercenaries or whatever, they still would be classiffied just as "irregulars" in this situation, I guess). Except for the stuff like "volunteers joing Russian/Ossetian/Georgian" official forces (in the sense of enlisting and into their own), of course. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody really cares here what you think about volunteers and peacekeepers. If Russian media calls them volunteers and peacekeepers, the article should state that. If Georgian/other sources call them otherwise, the article should state that as well. Anything else is POV and original research. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh, what? This is what I'm saying. Without quotation marks only when confirmed by neutral sources. So, unless it is confirmed by neutral (like UN mission or whatever) sources that all "volunteers" are really volunteers, they're irregulars. And again, please see the official international definition of peacekeeping. And also what is peace enforcement (still, only neutral forces!) and peacemaking (I think even this does not apply, but maybe because this is just badly written). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's a neutral source? Just because you think something is propaganda doesn't make it so. I could call BBC propaganda and put everything they write in "quotes" using the same excuse. LokiiT (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about UN? HRW? OSCE? (BBC being propaganda - UK is not the side of the conflict, so fail. But foreign journalists too should only be "according to".) ---Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Captain is correct. We must avoid pro-Russian propaganda AND pro-Georgian propaganda. We must avoid any propaganda per WP rules. Giving way to all types of propaganda is not method to create neutral articles. BBC is a more neutral source simply because UK is not a side in the conflict. Besides, the independence of media in both Russia and Georgia is questionable Biophys (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * UK/USA being not a part of the conflict means nothing here: Western sources are almost as biased as Russian are. CNN reports for example are strikingly anti-Russian. Remember, we, editors of Wikipedia, must not judge who is right and who is wrong. We should just present ALL the points of view, all claims, all notable opinions — Russian, Georgian, third-party. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we should not present all views. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of garbage. We should only present notable and relevant factual information and scholarly views, as supported by reliable sources. We must select most reliable sources, and the CNN is certainly a more reliable source than "Russia Today".Biophys (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CNN reports I saw were just a biased version of Russian sources. Anyways, doesn't matter already, I'm going to sleep :) Good luck to you at your wikiwars :) --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthony Ivanoff is correct about some things I saw on CNN, they depicted footage of mobile rocket launchers as being Russian, when in fact they were Georgian, as I ascertained from other news sources.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If CNN is unbiased (which it's not in my opinion) it is definetly innacurate in some of its reporting. For instance the video http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2008/08/08/vo.ga.fighting.ap is titled Damage in Georgia. The photage is recognizable from other reports and it is taken from the Ossetian capital.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.248.45.225 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's getting tough here, "the majority (e.g. Biophys) is convinced that information from the main stream media is correct and reliable". Now we know why DEMOCRACY is so effective. Please use internet wisely, whenever you see News about any other nation, it is wise to go and check their own web site (most of the reporters speak and write reports in Enlgish language and have much more knowledge about what is happening in their own countries...Davedawit (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Davedawit thanks for your advice, but these people are trying to improve the article, stick to that vein. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "peacekeepers" and "volunteers" means something different in the sources. It's a citation. For example: According to Mr. Blah there are "hundreds" of "peacekeepers" in the region. Meaning that the Mr. Blah says they are peacekeepers, and he says there are hundreds of them, but the newspaper doesn't neccesarily agree or not-agree with him on the number or the title. It only states that this is what someone said. I think it's good and NPOV practice. Suva Чего? 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because Western countries are not directly involved in the conflict does not mean their media outlets are by definition not biased. Western countries do maintain very close relations with Georgia after all and for example the United States helped in restructuring and training the Georgian army. Nobody would claim a source from Belarus is not suspect of being pro-Russian despite Belarus being neutral in the conflict, but equally so BBC and CNN and similar sources must be suspect of being pro-Georgian. Stanimir (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Report from war field have been affected of what is known as "embedding Journalism", War field reporters (BBC. CNN, FOX,  RU etc.) sign contracts with the military that limited what they are allowed to report (in order to win public opinion). Hence it is appropriate not to use names like BBC or CNN which are pro-Giorgia sharing both political and economic common interest. Instead we must put both parties Georgia and Russia report separately, as this will permit for the reader to decide to come to its own conclusion.Davedawit (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent news
I'm sorry that I cannot provide sources because most of English-language Georgia websites have been cyber-attacked. The Russian air strikes are expected in Georgia's capital Tbilisi. The president's palace, parliament, and ministries are being evacuated. Hospitals are full of wounded and injured. People are adviced to go into the subway. The Russians launched another round of strikes against the Georgian ports. Some reports say they have already opened the second front in Abkhazia. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Front in Abkhasia is obviously a lie Kuroki Kaze (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this 93.177 guy from Caucasus (judging by the IP) is trying to make a panic and become a source of rumours. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen, guy. People are dying under the attacks of your kinsmen on a hourly basis. The tv has just showed the destroyed port of Poti, with several killed and wounded. Have a dignity! Infromation is available only in Georgian. That's why I'm posting the news here in English. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dying people is not an excuse for disinformation. I pretty much doubt, for example, that people could be advised to go to the subway (which is closed now, BTW) instead of shelters. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please follow WP:AGF.Biophys (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but the world mass media spared some correspondents from Beijing to Tbilisi, so it's not like if it's an English-languagen information blockade but we'll wait for what the "official" reports say. I'm not following updating of this article, though. I was concentrating on the infobox - and I still don't think Russia should still retain any kind of "peacekeeping" pretense after becoming a combatant side and apparently even attacking targets outside South Ossetia. (Reports like "Despite denials from Moscow, the Russian air force has been carrying out air raids in South Ossetia and Georgia itself, says the BBC's Richard Galpin, in Gori, eastern Georgia.") --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Weapons
Removed (OR, incomplete/misleading), so here

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that is a "personal opinion" of Russian RIA Novosty journalist Ilya Kramnik. Any better sources?Biophys (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this Table was correctly removed. There is a better source (Russian).Biophys (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What do we do for cited Georgian websites that go down due to the conflict???
Currently citation number 10 in the article links to a Georgian website. This is the website: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18871

The site has gone down. My presumption is that this was a legitimate citation that has gone down due to Russian action, but I don't know. Do we pull the citation or not? If we do, then it seems like the events themselves are dictating their Wikipedia coverage, and there is a risk of this and future conflicts receiving unbalanced coverage favoring the side that is able to maintain its own websites and take down those of its opponent. This would inevitably result in coverage at least a little biased in favor of the strong. However, if we don't take the citation down then we can't be sure that it is legitimate and even if it is we risk creating a precedent for leaving up unverifiable citations which could lead to illegitimate citation in this or future conflicts. I am at a loss as to how best to proceed. Christiangoth (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave it for now and look for an alternative source for this. Also try Google cache is possible. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the Google cache: . I think there's no problem in leaving it up for now. Esn (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to click the 'text version' link on the top left. It loads faster. --Leladax (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily certain this is Russian/South Ossetian cyberwarfare, I think it's just the Georgian servers getting overwhelmed. I was able to access the page without too much delay. Kingnavland (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fighters from Gyumri Air Base (Armenia)
Baku87, we all know that Azerbaijan spreads fairy tales about Armenia, Karabakh's history, and cultural monuments in Nakhichevan, but please let it not spread here. If they did fly from there, and if it indeed was a violation, find a more reliable source than something produced in Azerbaijan (topix.com is not reliable and it looks like they've just cut & pasted from the Azeri website).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * topix.com looks reliable enough to me. If you have concerns, please ask at WP:RS noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly is not. The page clearly displays that the source is an Azeri propaganda site and that topix merely reposted it.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MarshallBagramyan your quick to jump to conclusion about me or Azerbaijan spreading so called fairy tales, you are obviously an Armenian and are thus biased regarding me or Azerbaijan. But anyways Azerbaijani or not that has nothing to do with this issue, please dont turn this into a battlefield based on different unrelated articles. Topix.com is a reliable website and you have no right to remove it Baku87 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to its own entry, topix.com is a news aggregator, that means it collects sources, it doesn't file them. There is no author, no news organization name, and its wording is similar to that of the original Azeri source. An Azeri source counts for nothing on something so controversial, especially on saying that the flights are in violation of a hitherto unknown treaty. Once you find CNN, the BBC, or the Washington Post confirming that planes took off from there, can you then leave that information. Don't let administrators come and tell you all this.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the rules topix.com is enough as a source, your just trying to cover things up and now you have invited several of your countrymen to join you in your cover up. Just look at the source for a sec, its good enough. If you can find a source that denounces this we could use that. I have proven this and if you dont agree you should proof me wrong with another source.Baku87 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have referred the matter to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Kingnavland (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the last time. Topix is not the SOURCE. An Azeri user posted the article from an Azeri source on Topix. End of story.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you dont even want to consider looking into the source, I will post it here for you:

Russian aircraft bombing near Tbilisi took off from Russian base in Armenia ''Georgian new agencies report that Russian military aircrafts bombed Vaziani base near Tbilisi at 15.10 by local time. Two bombs were reportedly dropped on the military base. No casualties are reported in the base. Gruziya Online website reports that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Armenia. The agency mentions that there is an air regiment in Russian army’s 102nd base in Gumru, Armenia. According to the agreement signed between Georgia and Armenia, Armenia can not allow any other state to attack Georgia from its territory. Full Story: www.guardian.co.uk'' This is a reliable source and it seems you are the one who is to prove this did not occur. So please provide me with a source of your own proving this fact wrong. Dont start playing revert games, but rather proof this wrong. Baku87 (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have now violated 3RR. Your source is: is an online azeri publication, hence not reliable.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't took a look at what is being reverted, but that is the website of the Azeri-Press Agency, a news agency, and should be an acceptable source. Nikola (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the source you have given Eupator but it is something different than the one I presented to you. Eupator I showed you the link and the article written in it but you keep on refering to different sources. You keep neglecting my sources and for this you are ion violating of the rules. Once again the source is from topxi.com it is a reliable source and should be mentioned in this article Baku87 (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The source I gave you is reliable for now according to several members. The only opposing members are Eupator and MarshallBagramyan whom both are of Armenian decent so its pretty obvious that their accusations are biased. The fact remains that Russian aircraft from the Russian military base in Armenia was used in the bombing. Baku87 (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course this is the fact. Armenia has very little to say when the Kremlin decides to use its territory for attacks on the neigboring country. Admit it! --93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, once again these are Russian aircrafts (presumable MIG-29 which are multi-fighters for both air and ground attackes) who attacked Georgia, so these are not Armenian aircrafts but they came from the Russian base in Armenia. Also Armenian officials comment on this event denying the accusation, see here. This information is important to note, we need to insert this, perhaps we can also note that Armenia denies this event either way it cannot be completly ignore it. Baku87 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin Says `War Has Started,' Georgia Claims Invasion (Update4)
 Also I read Dutch sources that according to Kacha Lomaia, Mikhail is about to, or already has declared war on Russia. Maybe this article will become the Russian-Georgian War? - Pieter_v (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Premature. I hope not.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Georgia's pro-Western President Mikheil Saakashvili said the two states were at war." - Pieter_v (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This situation exposes several articles that are undeveloped in wikipedia
Russia, Foreign relations of Russia, Territorial disputes of the Russian Federation, absolutely striking how undeveloped they are. --Leladax (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. But anyone who wants to improve article "Russia" runs into serious problems.Biophys (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from even that. Not even subjects that all sides discuss are included. --Leladax (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can help! Plus there's plenty of small countries which have almost no information. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Don Republic article badly needs a good translation of the Russian article. It's not the same as the Don Cossacks, as far as I can make out (see outside reaction section). I myself am very confused about what it is exactly. Esn (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Finnish reaction
Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, also serving as the OSCE chairman-in-office, has been in contact with both Tbilisi and Tskhinvali, urging the parties to stop any military action and to try and restore direct talks instead. He has decided to deploy his Special Envoy immediately to Georgia, and is also himself preparing to travel to the region.

http://www.formin.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=134713&nodeid=15145&culture=en-US

- Mimu Bunnylin 213.159.245.240 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try and add that in. Esn (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly. 213.159.245.240 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All these volunteers.
Who are the Russian volunteers? Average Ivans from Moscow or North Ossetians with Russian citizenships? If not then why aren't North Ossetian volunteers listed?

What about Don Cossack's 450 signed up people from "volunteer 429th independent motor rifle regiment" they will be listed if/when they ever reach Ossetia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.30.253 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that it's more than 450 by now; it was 450 when he announced that he's inviting volunteers. Also, as I said above, the Don Republic article really needs to be translated/worked on. I'm not even sure what it is exactly. There's quite a bit more info in the Russian wiki. Esn (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More about volunteers from The Guardian . Garret Beaumain (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added it in to the "Don Cossacks" response section. Although there are some things in that article that should be added to the main sections. Esn (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some info about Terek Cossack volunteer involvement: Esn (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Military advisers
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358 "Georgian tanks and infantry, aided by Israeli military advisers, captured the capital of breakaway..."

What does that article mean? That Israelis helped plan the attack or what? (1st source I see mentioning Israel)
 * Well, I'm not sure of the reliability... I added it in for now with the disclaimer that Debka.com says so. I also added this, from August 5. Esn (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it was removed because it was "not an Israeli reaction to the war as such". I still think that it is clearly related to the conflict and should be in there somewhere. Esn (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Georgia is claiming that Israel continues to supply them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * hint: when people metnieon "military advisers", they mean this: military advisor -- "Military advisors, or combat advisors, are soldiers sent to foreign nations to aid that nation with its military training, organization, and other various military tasks. These soldiers usually do not actually engage in combat and are often sent to aid a nation without the potential casualties and political ramifications of actually mobilizing military forces to aid a nation" Smith Jones (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It still should be mentioned somewhere. I added the August 5 news back in. Esn (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 127 American military advisers in Georgia, I don't know if it is useful to the article, but here is the source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWTvvsJl_Fw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.150.141 (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What cut their internet connection?
Nothing seems to be working. --Leladax (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This has relevance to a previous talk point that I began earlier in this page on how we are supposed to deal with cited sources going down due to the conflict (either due to cyber-warfare or destruction of necessary hardware. Georgian websites cited in the article were down for a time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiangoth (talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Don Republic"
What's the meaning of this text from the Russian wiki entry for Don Republic?

ВКО объединяет т. н. «реестровых» казаков, то есть состоящих на государственной службе в соответствии с Федеральным законом от 05 декабря 2005 г. N 154-ФЗ «О государственной службе российского казачества», а его Устав утверждён Указом Президента РФ от 17 июня 1997 г. № 612.

There are some links to the relevant government documents. Just what kind of organization is this? The Russian article also says that there are 135,000 members.

Esn (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a Federal Law reglementing the organisation of "cossack societies" within the Russian Federation. Namely it reglements the conclusion of service agreements between such societies and federal, regional and municipal branches of power. I think it also foresees special arrangements for military service, creation of cossack-enrolled regiments with historic names. It also foresees a role for cossack societies in upkeeping public peace by supporting local police forces.


 * This law does not create Cossack regional entities within Russia and it does not give the Cossack hosts (about twenty of them officially registered in Russia, if I remember correctly) any self-rule. The Cossack Host society "Grand Host of the Don" is one of such societies, with 135'000 registered members (reestroviye kazaki - registered cossacks). Russoswiss (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Found Canada's Response
http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&publication_id=386429&Language=E&docnumber=173

I'd add it but I'm not whole good with the reference thing...
 * Thanks. I added it in. Esn (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
Hey, this might be odd, but I think this should be the talk page topic to formally discuss casualties for the entire history of this article. Debate and whatnot regarding them here as well. Anywho: 1- Any word on the exact configuration of the 30 Georgian casualties? Do these include the losses in the recent bombings? 2- What about the forces of South Ossetia and their allies(Non-Russian): ANY word on them? -Shane

israel arms freeze?
Look at these two links:





So, this information has not been proven true and could actually just be a rumor. The article should accommodate this information.

Also, it seems that Israel is selling arms to Georgia because of the fact that Russia is selling advanced military tech to Israel's enemies.



Contralya (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Commanders

 * Vladimir Putin is the Prime Minister of Russia and Dmitry Medvedev is the President of [[Russia. According to Wikipedia, it is the President who is Commander-in-chief and not the Prime Minister.  Therefore from a legal point of view I am not sure how much official influence Putin can have on the war.  NerdyNSK (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with NerdyNSK. The commanders listed should regard those that have legal command of the units on the battlefield in all instances except when it can be adequately demonstrated that forces are taking orders from someone else.  Whether or not Putin has direct or indirect control of Medvedev in any way is inconsequential to the fact that Medvedev is actually the Russian Commander-In-Chief.  Christiangoth (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. I don't think many would argue that Putin is not still the real power within Russia.65.68.1.90 (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have any reference saying that the troops participating in the conflict receive orders from Putin, or at least that Putin tells the President what to say to the tropps, or something like that? Without a reference, this sounds like speculation.  NerdyNSK (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible NPOV issue about the name?
I read on the BBC that Georgia does not accept the name South Ossetia and calls the region by its ancient name or its capital city. If this is true, then we have to think whether our name of the article (2008 South Ossetia War) could be viewed as POV. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... shouldn't that be an issue for the South Ossetia article first and foremost? Esn (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, it would also be an issue for any article containing any name for this region. If what I read on BBC is correct then by using the name "South Ossetia" we make it appear as pro-Russia or pro-Ossetian, and by using the ancient name or the name of the city we make the article appear pro-Georgian.  I am not sure how we could solve this in an NPOV way, but what I say is that we (the editors) must be aware of this name politics.  NerdyNSK (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Georgian ancient names do not take precedence over other language ancient names. Wikipedia uses the names used by the world community, it does not delve into the dictionaries of ancient names to rename articles. Russoswiss (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional information: apparently the name "Samachablo" came to be used under Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first president of the independent Georgia, who was renowned for his staunch nationalism. To the point that even Georgians had enough of him and overthrew him. The name itself apparently refers to lands held by a Georgian noble family in that area. Russoswiss (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Georgia refers to the area as either Samachablo or Tskhinvali Region. However, Ossetians call it South Ossetia, Russia calls it South Ossetia, the UN calls it South Ossetia and pretty much everybody except for Georgia refers to it as South Ossetia. NATO countries use the term "Georgian region of South Ossetia", Russians use the "Republic of South Ossetia". So, it is not a problem of POV. Russoswiss (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information that the UN refers to the region as South Ossetia (I have no time to check it now, but a reference would be great). If this is true, then we can keep naming the region South Ossetia because (in my opinion) the UN is the highest and most neutral authority that can give a region its name, albeit I think we should provide both names somewhere in the main article text (I did) to make sure it doesn't offend Georgian readers. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/sc9418.doc.htm Enjoy! Russoswiss (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE REFERENCES THAT ARE USED ELSEWHERE IN ARTICLE!
Don't do this! It creates broken links and is very annoying to fix! Try not to delete any references before checking if they are used somewhere else first!

Thanks in advance... Esn (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you send him a message? I don't see the need for a capslock title here, (although real men use shift). - Pieter_v (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's any one "him" person. I've just been noticing for quite a while that sections have been removed and references broken. Esn (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian strength
This Russian article says that there are 29,000 troops on the Georgian side. Should it be added to the infobox and table at the bottom, maybe? Esn (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Oxygen (believe) 01:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeeping mandate
I find it very interesting that the involved parties are also present with peacekeeping forces. That has to become confusing to everybody in the end. Why on earth was that solution chosen and not peacekeeping forces from either China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia or any other nation not directly involved in these matters? (is there an Wikipedia article on this?) Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 02:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Georgia has often requested the Russian peacekeeping forces to be replaced by UN peacekeepers, but Russia always refused. Stuff like that, as well the constant requests from the west for Russians to draw back their forces should probably be mentioned in this article. - Pieter_v (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Too simplified. Rejected not Russian, but Ossetians, and they are one of the parties to sign a peace treaty. Please, before blaming Russians, learn more about the matter. --Eraser (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can educate me on this matter. What is the difference between Russians and Ossetians, when the majority of (South)-Ossetians have Russian citizenship and strive for a unification with their (North)-Ossetian brothers, who are a part of the Russian Federation? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 03:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to citizenship and there is such a stuff as a "ethnicity". You may go to South Ossetia and look at the Ossetians to understand that they are not Russian. --Eraser (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, why did the North-Ossetians not decide to join their brothers in the south and become a part of Georgia, if it is just a matter of ethnicity? According to the article on the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, the Ossetians and Georgians were always able to live in peace with each other. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 03:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Historically Ossetians more tend to Russia than to Georgia. For this reason they decided to announce the reunification with North Ossetia, and not vice versa. Blame Russia, that everything is planned so absurd, in the early 90 - ies of the, at a time when these events occur, Russia and its leadership were in full chaos. They had no time to think about the tiny republic. --Eraser (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's far more fun to just randomly blame people. :P Kingnavland (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Found a way to access news from NewsGeorgia via their Russian Site. Maybe it will help the content in the article.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsgeorgia.ru%2F Militaryace (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers
Perhaps we should have some unrevokable facts presented on actual involvement by volunteers in combat before we add them to the article?

It seems silly to include them to the battle scene before they have actually faced it.

Furthermore, are the Russian peacekeepers really going to allow citizens of the Russian Federation to form paramilitary units and engage in combat in a conflict the Russians themselves have to peacekeep?

Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 02:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Don and Terek Cossack volunteers, at least, are already in South Ossetia according to the sources. The Kuban Cossacks only said that they are willing to defend South Ossetia, but that was a while ago; there may already be sources with new info. The Abkhazians, as far as the sources here say, have moved to the edge of their borders but have not actually entered Georgian territory. Esn (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Abkhaz are, indeed, already in Georgian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.154.49 (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)