Talk:Timeline of the Russo-Georgian War

Untitled
er.. am shifting as promised when i created a new article from this page so thats my argument for using 'hang on' to annul the hasty delete signCityvalyu (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Broken references
When Cityvalyu created this article (or rather moved it from 2008 Indian Floods), he left multiple broken references which still need to be fixed. Superm401 - Talk 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a moderate correction, he moved the article from 2008 South Ossetia war. Christiangoth (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing movements
The BBC news channel is reporting on the Russian armoured convoy that left Gori along the highway in the direction of Tblisi. It pulled off the highway and the BBC is showing pictures of it deploying around a ethnic South Ossetian village in Georgian territory between Gori and Tblisi. A small Georgian detachment was seen leaving Tblisi in the direction of the village.

Russian troops have returned to Poti and are reportedly sinking Georgian ships moored in the harbour. 86.143.189.22 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is getting harder and harder for Russia to justify its actions as "protecting its citizens" or "protecting innocents in the conflict zone" Georgia's ships can pose little threat to the conflict areas or Russia's Black Sea Fleet.  A few days ago, Russia was quick to give justifictation to individual operations, but I'm not seeing that anymore.  --Josephdurnal (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum, but a talk page dedicated to disseminating verifiable news, discussing the nature of sources, and discussing how best to compose the article. Josephdurnal's comments are inappropriate, but I leave them here near the top of the talk page as an opportunity to make this point.  Future posts that discuss the events themselves instead of how best to improve the article should be deleted.  To the anonymous user who started this section, do you have citations to go with your claims?  Christiangoth (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how else to address the lack of Russian official statemts regarding their action when there were so many before. --Josephdurnal (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There was one - stating that few vehicles moved out from Gori by the road to Tbilisi. They turned to South Ossetia territory later. Also they're saying that they shot down two recon drones over SO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.128.239 (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When to internally link
As I understand Wiki policy, the first reference to a Wiki linkable subject should be the only one linked in the article. But there are multiple CNN links on this page under different dates (one of them I linked). I also noticed names were multiply internally linked. Should we do additional links for each date, or just one per article. It is a long article.... Jason3777 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say one/article despite the length of the article. This is a good question though, and worthy of discussion.  Christiangoth (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the link. Something obscure like a C-17 should maybe be linked more than once if the last occurance was in a separate section, but everyone interested in what CNN is shouldn't need a link as often.Bdell555 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I read current Wiki Style last night and your response conforms with what it states. Too many links do make reading the article hard. Thanks Bdell555. Jason3777 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

August 14
I've added an entry for August 14 with a link to some info of a reporter in the Area.

I'll translate what the article says about Russian tanks/cars in Gori. http://deredactie.be/cm/de.redactie/buitenland/080814_havens_Georgie "Pal op de invalsweg naar Gori staan drie Russische pantserwagens", meldt Blommaert. "Daarnaast in het struikgewas zijn er nog enkele tanks gestationeerd en verderop liggen er hier en daar sluipschutters."

"Directly on the/a (major) road to Gori are 3 Russian Armored cars", Blommaert says. "Closeby in the bushes are some tanks positioned and a bit further away there are snipers here and there."

It's a crude but accurate translation.

BTW, I'm a noob at Wikipedia so excuse my mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.0.8 (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't use quotations from this because the translation is your original research, but we can use ideas from this. For example, we could not say that "Blommaert said 'closeby in the bushes are some tanks positioned...'" but we could say "Blommaert indicated that there were tanks located in the bushes..."  Not that this is the wording we'd choose or anything, it's just an example of what would and would not be permissible.  Thanks for your help!  A lot of English-speaking posters that can's speak Russian won't use a source they can't verify for themself, though, and that's reasonable.  Christiangoth (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If Christiangoth's statewent was true than pretty much all of the Russian sources cited on the 2008 South Ossetia war would have to be removed. You can translate yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.34 (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not quite the Wikipedia policy. See WP:NONENG. Your own translation is OK if you include the text in its original language in a footnote.  But published translations are preferred. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Christiangoth (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Aug 10 United Nation meeting
I fixed the page numbers (one of them was wrong). I was told I needed a media source to show the parts of the transcript I referenced were relevant, so I did the UN ref first, followed by the media relevancy justification. The CNN refs were removed. Please read the speakers intros for the rebukes. I have a 102 F fever today so I can't restore them today. The reference is correct, please post any problems you have concering the page numbers below. It is a valid ref. Also could someone remove the red invalid citation. The text is there. And the CNN (or various other news organization) need to be re-added. I can't do it today because I feel like hell. If anyone could with this today, I would really appreciate it, because I am in no condition today to restore the CNN citations. It is a valid cite. Thanks Jason3777 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The CNN ref is: Jason3777 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The CNN reference is still in the text after "We do not use such expressions." - second ref. I don't understand why the BIG RED Invalid cite is there because it works after "We do not use such expressions." I gotta rest.... Thanks Jason3777 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing, I put the CNN ref first on this sentence because they used the term "rebuked" and then the UN transcripts afterward to show where the Russian Ambassador was rebuked as opposed to the order of the other references mentioned. Jason3777 (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not at my best yesterday, the big red citation freaked me out because I knew I was in no condition to fix it. Thank you, DuncanHill, for fixing that so quickly, I do appreciate it. And whoever reorganized the section by putting it in chronological order, added appropriate links and wrote the opening paragraph did a great job. Wikipedia is pretty awesome. I apologize for going off yesterday. Thank y'all, Jason3777 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

August 13th Title
I feel that if the title says "Ceasefire Violated", there should at least be some mention of how the ceasefire was violated and explain it. How is someone supposed to know how it was violated if it doesn't even say. 24.46.123.59 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's my impression that the description of Russian forces moving toward and into Gori stands as an obvious violation of the ceasefire, which required both sides to return to their August 6th lines, as I recall. Christiangoth (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "ceasefire" was used once in the section and only during a quote. It should say somewhere in the section that the ceasefire was violated and explain in those words, not just making a statement and hoping all its readers have enough common sense to realize why it was violated. Besides, much of that is still speculation as we do not truly know. It could always be propaganda by Georgia (even though US intelligence said Russia was still there). 24.46.123.59 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I heard a brief admission that Russia was still there on RT I think late Wednesday, but have no source. I think that since the ceasefire is described in the main article, we could just link the word ceasefire to the part of the main article with the description of the French-brokered six point plan.  Lemme know what you guys think.  Christiangoth (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian threat to Poland
I've cut the following as non reavlent to a timeline article about the current war and pasted it here so it could be easier moved to a more approative article (Russian-Polish relations?) "Russian General Anatoly Nogovitsyn was quoted by the Interfax News Agency as saying that by accepting a US missile battery Poland "is exposing itself to a strike". " Jon (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. Also, wherever that quote is included it might stand a broader context.  That one sentence is in all the news sites, but the preceding sentences aren't.  For all I know, General Nogovitsyn was saying that Poland is exposing itself to a strike in the event of a war between the US and Russia.  If such were the case, the quote in context would be substantially different from the quote out of context.  Christiangoth (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then provide the context, don't just support its deletion for that reason alone.Bdell555 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An escalation of European tensions has been noted across a variety of sources (example ), and the remarks concerning Poland are being discussed by those sources as part of the "Georgia crisis". The timeline has already noted developments in Ukrainian / Russian relations, for example.Bdell555 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar
"All previous talks about damaged town and marauding is not correspond to reality"

Shouldn't it be corresponding?--GoldenMew (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. It was probably translated by a person the first language of whom was Russian.  That person did well by getting us this far but obviously (s)he did not do perfectly.  Christiangoth (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather awkward regardless, but "All previous talk about a damaged town and marauding does not correspond to reality" is correct. Plural of collective noun -- talk, to be replacing to do verb, missing artcle ("a"). Yes, a translation by a non-native speaker.

Tabluar form
Is it worth creating a table which summarizes events. In have started the one below, but clearly it needs much more work. Greenshed (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a creative idea, although I think the internal text ought to be small text Bdell555 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job, somebody
I just noticed that we have external links to other timelines. I don't know how long we've had them, but regardless I just wanted to say good job to whomever it was that added them.

On another note, some hours ago I added the business about 13 Georgian cities around Abkhazia being taken but forgot to mention it here, so I am now. Christiangoth (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Main article timeline changes
Hi,

I just proposed large changes to the 2008 South Ossetia War main article timeline on the discussion page. Some of you may be interested.

Adjpro (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up! Christiangoth (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian police car bombed on 31th July (Novaya Gazeta)
I quote: Эта война назревала давно, но формальным предлогом послужил подрыв 31 июля на самодельной радиоуправляемой мине машины грузинской полиции на объездной дороге у села Эредви к востоку от Цхинвали. Российские миротворцы успели провести расследование и установить, что были использованы два 122-мм гаубичных снаряда российского образца.

Полицейская «Тойота» была разбита в хлам, пять грузин ранены. Буквально на том же месте 4 июля на подобной же мине была подорвана машина, в которой ехал глава временной прогрузинской администрации Южной Осетии Дмитрий Санакоев. После подрыва машину еще обстреляли, но Санакоев не пострадал, хотя его охранники были ранены. Санакоев был министром обороны в сепаратистском правительстве Южной Осетии, но потом разошелся с Кокойты и перешел на грузинскую сторону с группой преданных ему осетинских боевиков. Кокойты и его сторонники считают Санакоева предателем.

1 августа грузины нанесли ответный удар по осетинским позициям, впервые применив дальнобойные крупнокалиберные винтовки. Не ожидавшие такого сепаратисты понесли заметные потери и в свою очередь ответили минометным обстрелом грузинских сел, что было зафиксировано российскими миротворцами. В последующие дни осетины начали активно провоцировать полномасштабный конфликт, очевидно пытаясь втянуть в него Россию, что им в конце концов вполне удалось. In English: ..This war was brewing up for a long time, but one incident served as a formal pretext. On the 31th of July, a Georgian police car was blasted using a self-made remotely controlled device on a detour road near the Eredvi village to the east of Tskhinvali. Russian peacekeepers had time to carry out an investigation and found that two 122 mm Russian-type howitzer shells were used.

The policemen's Toyota was totally wrecked, and five Geogrians were injured. Just at the same spot, but on the 4th of July that year, similar explosive was used to destroy a car that carried the head of the provisional pro-Georgian administration of South Ossetia Dmitry Sanakoyev. After the blast the car was fired upon, but Sanakoyev came out unscathed though his bodyguards were wounded. Sanakoyev had been a minister of defence in the separatist government of South Ossetia, but later broke up from Kokoyti and passed to the Georgian side with a group of his Ossetian militant followers. Kokoyti and his supporters consider Sanakoev a traitor.

On the 1st of August the Georgians struck back and fired at Ossetian positions, for the first time using long-range big-caliber rifles. The separatists didn't expect such an attack and suffered noticeable losses, replying with a mortar fire directed at Georgian villages, and this fact was noted by the Russian peacekeepers. In the following days the Ossetians started an active provocation campaign, apparently aiming to bring on the full-blown conflict and draw in the Russians, and in this they funally succeded. ..

These details could be combined with the details from an article kindly pointed out at the Ossetia war talk page: The new cold war hots up \ Times Online. I quote:


 * "The US State Department’s internal timeline of the crisis pinpoints the explosion on August 1 of two roadside bombs, believed to have been planted by South Ossetian separatists sympathetic to Russia, as a decisive moment. Five Georgian policemen were injured, one severely. That night Georgian forces struck back. There was a furious firefight that left six South Ossetian rebels dead."

The two articles disagree a little on dating: 31st against the 1st and two bombs against one made of two shells; the second article tells additionally that six Ossetians were killed. --CopperKettle (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The dating discrepancy might be due to differences in the timezone used for dating the event. Christiangoth (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Added the following: "The tensions have been escalating throuth the year of 2008, but the countdown to the open hostilites starts with a bombing of a Georgian police car near the Eredvi village east of Tskhinvali, with five policemen wounded by the blast. According to one source, the bombing happened on the 31nd of July,[1] another names the date of August the 1st.[2] A chain of reactions and counter-reactions followed."
 * Forgot to add the important fact that the six killed on the 1st of Aug were Ossetians, taken down by an unexpected heavy sniper equipment use from the Georgian side. Here the diff. The information is based upon the combined Novaya Gazeta and Times articles, more refs could be found if needed. --CopperKettle (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Buildup 1.aug - 8.aug
There should be more links to www.civil.ge to balance other media articles. There are many news items there covering the whole conflict and suprisingly including statements from both side. Currently, most of the links here are to Russian media and their position has been always denying their role or only acusing Georgian side. In my view this page is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.223.136 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect map
This map:



Shows that the Russians bombed the BTC pipeline but there is no solid evidence of this. Were it true we would be hearing it much more in the news. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

August 18 problems
There are a couple of citations necessary and missing for August 18. I don't know where the information being stated in the article can be found. Also, one sentence stating that "the situation was the same in Western Georgia" is inappropriately vague and should be expanded upon substantially. Christiangoth (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis of August 19 NATO meeting from NATO
Here’s a synopsis of the NATO meeting I found on the NATO site: http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2008/08-august/e0819a.html. I thought y’all might be interested in what NATO was releasing about this event. It contains official quotes and statements that could be used in the August 19 section Jason3777 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks! Christiangoth (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, just make sure if it is used to expand the quoted phrases in a news article both the ref to the article and the synopsis must be included (see the UN section of Aug 10), otherwise it would be considered WP:OR. Jason3777 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

August 21 status of Poti
The only item currently listed for today is that Russia has left Poti. The cited article only states that an official from the port of Poti stated that Russian forces have left. This is an important distinction, especially because other articles state that Russian forces are still in Poti, and are digging in: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GEORGIA_RUSSIA?SITE=TXDAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia. I am adjusting the entry for August 21 accordingly. Christiangoth (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Russian forces must have come back, as I understand they are still in Poti as of 2 Sept 2008. In fact, the US cannot land humaritarian aid (via ship) in Poti since they wish to avoid been seen as provoking the Russians. 202.21.136.199 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did we delete "S.O. denied attacking the villages."?
Hi, I'm still wondering whether this change by Revad1 was a good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=232995543 It deleted the sentence "However, South Ossetia denied attacking the villages." There was no reference to this statement. So maybe it's not true that S.O. denied. And maybe it's not important and could be deleted because of that. Maybe it's likely that the attacks happen. But if the Kokoity denied those attacks I think for me, I'd like the statement of S.O. denying the attack in this paragraph (provided there is a reference for that).

I've asked User_talk:Revad1 4 days ago why he made the change, but he hasn't answered yet.

-- JanCK (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OSCE
European observers are saying that Georgia made elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia --Rjecina (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this a surprise? At the time South Ossetia was an internationally recognised (incidentally, this includes Russia) part of Georgia, so while this planning may be disagreable (for humanitarian reasons) it is certainly not outside international law for a country to plan to end an armed resistance on its own territory (irrespective of what you think of their status after the Russian invasion of Georgia). The Russian plan to invade Georgian territory is understandable (from the Russian point of view) but the invasion of the sovereign state of Georgian was outside international law (which is why Europe has a problem with it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.21.136.199 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

August 7
Not only Georgian sources claim that parts of 58th Army moved to the Georgian territory first on August 6-7. Some Russian sources claim exactly the same:
 * 1) A Russian soldier calls home an tells: "Listen, we are there [in South Ossetia] from August 7. All our 57th army. (Слушай: мы там с 7 августа. Ну, вся наша 58-я армия.)Soldiers from Perm are in the epicenter of war, News of Perm, 08.08.2008;(this is a provincial but well known newspaper)
 * 2) Life continues, Red Star, September 3, 2008 (this is official newspaper of Russian Ministry of Defense): A Russian soldier in a hospital tells: "We received an emergency order to urgently move to Tskinvali on August 7. We came there, set up everything, and very soon,  on August 8, this all started..." (Нижний Зарамах - природный заповедник Северной Осетии. Вот там после плановых учений и стояли лагерем, но 7 августа пришла команда на выдвижение к Цхинвалу. Подняли нас по тревоге - и на марш. Прибыли, разместились, а уже 8 августа там полыхнуло с такой силой, что многие даже растерялись.)
 * 3) Yulia Latynina in Differences in opinion between Mr. Bastrykin and the Prosecutor office of South Ossetia, "Journal Daily", September 11, 2008, "Before the war, on August 6, journalists sent in advance to cover the war... reported that they have seen 58th Army on the other [Georgian] side of the Roky tunnel" (Еще накануне войны, 6 августа, журналисты, посланные освещать борьбу героического осетинского народа против подлых грузинских захватчиков, простодушно сообщали, что видели «58-ю армию в полной боевой готовности по ту сторону Рокского тоннеля».).

So, it was Russian regular army that crossed Georgian border first, and Georgian forces actually counter-attacked. Latynina then discussed if this counterattack was justified from a military perspective, but this part is more an opinion piece.Biophys (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Attention: Red Star has removed the article from its website, but Google still has it cashed, can someone back it up for the future reference, because I don't know how to do it, and what is wikipedia's official policy on it. In case you don't find it, I still have pdf of the screen shot.WH Coordinator (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the mentioned sources contains clear info about time and date of entering Roky tunnel by Russian troops. Some translations, like "we are there [in South Ossetia]" and "on the other [Georgian] side" are pure speculations.Finalyzer (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * see my response in the bottom of the section.


 * Right, we need an additional secondary source about this. Here it is: Matter of timing (Russian) by Ilya Milshtein:

Однако вовсе не этот случай обессмертил имя Сидристого. А всего лишь полторы строчки из его монолога: "7 августа пришла команда на выдвижение к Цхинвалу. Подняли нас по тревоге – и на марш". То есть 7 августа, примерно в те часы, когда президент Саакашвили вероломно объявлял о прекращении перестрелок, 135-й мотострелковый полк российской 58-й армии Северо-Кавказского военного округа входил в Южную Осетию. А в ночь с 7 на 8 августа, как всем известно, грузинский президент начал операцию "Геноцид".

В Кремле и в Генштабе ВС РФ точно знали сроки начала военной операции в Южной Осетии. Из своих эксклюзивных источников, которые прошляпила грузинская контрразведка. Ждали войны как манны небесной. Быть может, по каким-то своим каналам запустили дезу грузинскому руководству: у него развязаны руки, российская армия к отражению удара не готова. Военные самолеты, как в июле, "дабы охладить горячие головы", над Цхинвали тоже никто не запускал. Головы нужны были горячими. Более того: своих солдат ни о чем не предупредили, чтобы не произошло утечки. "Прибыли, разместились, – свидетельствует капитан Сидристый, – а уже 8 августа там полыхнуло с такой силой, что многие даже растерялись".

С блеском осуществленный план заключался в том, чтобы дать возможность Саакашвили совершить любые военные преступления, какие он только успеет совершить за сутки. Позволить ему обстрелять из "Града" спящий город. Заманить его танки в Цхинвали. И лишь потом выбить их оттуда, демонстрируя миру фашизм в тигровой шкуре, в его современном грузинском обличье. (Вообще получилось как с тобой тигрицей: ее выпустили побегать на воле, а в кустах сидел Путин с ружьем...) И, погнав армию Саакашвили до Гори и Тбилиси, с чувством глубочайшей внутренней правоты признать независимость Южной Осетии и Абхазии.

And so on. Biophys (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had the Pages 1, 2,3,4,5,6 & 7 of "Life Goes On" article in the "Red Star" archived. I also replaced a reference to this article with the reference to the Google cache, but eventually this one will also have to go, depending on how long Google keeps it on file.WH Coordinator (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Finalyzer, I disagree with you. Denis Sidiristy states that they were woken up on 7th, sent to Tkshinvaly, arrived [there] and stationed [there]. Then he says "а уже 8 августа там полыхнуло...", which translates "and then on August 8th it lit up...", which is a clear indication that prior to that he was talking about whatever happened on a day before August 8. Also, according to NewsRu the Roky tunnel is only a few kilometers away from the northern portal, which means that it couldn't take them more then a few hours to get to the tunnel, and if they started out early on 7th, as Denis Sidiristy states, then they have entered the tunnel on 7th.WH Coordinator (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree only that the article can be translated differently, like they haven't been literally "woken up" or sent to Tkshinvaly, or translation of "then on August 8th" part (somebody suggested "soon" instead of "then" e.g.) They have been ordered to go on the way to Tkshinvaly (as opposite to "at Tkshinvaly") and it doesn't say where they were actually sent. But I can compromise with your translation. My main point is the article doesn't tell when they started to move from the camp. And at 10am they are still "on the way to Tkshinvaly". His claims that Russian tanks already "went into city" suggest that he is already talking about August 9, since there aren't any reports about Russian tanks at Tkshinvaly on August 8 morning.Finalyzer (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Finalyzer, he doesn't talk about Russian tanks going into the city at the time, he just says that next day, August 8, it "fired up" (or "lit up") there (in the city). I also don't see the issue of different translation. The russian term "а уже" implies that prior to it in the sentence he is talking about the events (arrival to the destination and stationing) preceding those described after it, which is identified as August 8. Destination was also identified as Tshinvaly in the previous sentence. Moreover, if your reading was just as possible, the article would have no news value, and wouldn't be picked up by all the bloggers, and have no need to be taken down, as it was by done Red Star editors. WH Coordinator (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not going to argue with translations. Regardless how you translate it, it doesn't provide time or date when the company passed Roki tunnel. And I'm not going to speculate why it has been taken down. Finalyzer (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to polit.ru they did: "Солдаты говорят, что прибыли в Южную Осетию еще 7 августа" - "Soldiers say that they arrived to South Osetia on August 7th". WH Coordinator (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This info is based on other source, telephone call from soldier to his mother. Why "Red Star" article (and some other articles which simply discuss it) mentioned as a source of date when some Russian troops passed Roki tunnel? Regarding the other article. According to the mother, the soldier said "We are there since August 7, all of our 58th army. You probably see on TV what is happening there. Today (August 10) we broke out of Tskhinvali to Vladikavkaz for arming. We are going back right now". First of all it isn't a witness account. Than there are doubts what's "there" means. We know for sure that "all of 58th army" wasn't at Tskhinvali on August 7 and that's what mother's words tell us. Also, I'm not sure how practical are movements from combat zone to Vladikavkaz(?) for arming. I wouldn't consider this source as reliable one.Finalyzer (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your WP:OR. The WP:SECONDARY states that "Soldiers say that they arrived to South Osetia on August 7th". If you disagree, find WP:SECONDARY that supports your WP:POV and add it to the article. WH Coordinator (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to argue with WP:SECONDARY that make mistakes at representing information right from the beginning, since "Soldiers say" isn't what reported at another WP:SECONDARY. It should be at least "soldier says" or rather "mother said". Again, we are dealing with unreliable WP:SECONDARY. Finalyzer (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY can analyze other WP:SECONDARY as well as WP:PRIMARY. The statement of soldiedrs being in South Ossetia in their article, is the result of their analysis of other WP:SECONDARYs. (You could also argue that by removing the article from their site Red Star turned itself into a primary source). If, in you WP:POV they are making a mistake, find a reference and add it. Also, about reliability of Polit.ru. According to their site, they are in business for 10 years. You can also find their mention 8 years ago, which is pretty good as far as Russian media goes. Again, if in your WP:POV they are not reliable, go ahead and get your references, and add them to the article.WH Coordinator (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have posted the article as a separate entry for the future reference.WH Coordinator (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But polit.ru article doesn't make any statements about "soldiers being in South Ossetia". What kind of source you are asking? That polit.ru maid mistake by staying that "soldiers say"? It's obvious for anybody who knows Russian. Finalyzer (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear you re: being vs saying, so see my compromise belowWH Coordinator (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only they passed through the tunnel, but they could see Tskinvali:

Analysis

1.The regiment, which is permanently posted in the township of Prokhladny, close to Nalchik, [Kabardino-Balkar Republic], after finishing its exercises (August 2nd), was stationed to Nizhny Zaramag.

2.Nizhny Zaramag is located several kilometers from the northern entrance of the Roki tunnel, and a border station and customs office is located in this town.

3.On August 7th, the regiment received the order to move out toward Tskhinvali, was raised to a state of alarm, and before the end of the day, managed to arrive to its objective destination.

4.After midnight, the lights of the bombardment of Tskhinvali could be seen from the regiment’s position.

5.The site of the regiment’s position is not specified, but it is evident that the regiment passed through the Roki tunnel. Since:


 * There would be no point in raising the regiment to a state of alarm to advance it two kilometers to the entrance of the Roki tunnel. With such a formation, the tail end of the column would still be in Nizhny Zaramag.


 * Being located to the north of the Greater Caucasus Mountain Range [which the tunnel crosses], it would impossible to observe the lights of an artillery attack of Tskhinvali.

6.Going on the basis of the words, “we arrived, settled in,” one can draw the conclusion that the column did not as yet spend the night by the side of the road, but unloaded in a place where it was possible to provide the military personnel with food and a night’s rest.

7.Between the Roki tunnel and Tskhinvali, there is only one such place: Java.

Conclusion: the 135th motorized rifle regiment entered the territory of South Ossetia before the start of Georgia’s attack on Tskhinvali.Biophys (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's suppose that Russian army crossed the Caucasus range on 7 August. Why do you conclude that this happened before  the shelling of Tskhinvali began? In fact exactly the opposite is written here. Alæxis¿question? 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Выводы участника Biophys, как минимум, весьма поспешны; я бы сказал, что попросту неверны. На основании двух подозрительных заметок нельзя делать такие сильные выводы. Утверждение на сайте permnews.ru выглядит сомнительно: "У меня очень мало времени, – продолжал мальчишка. – Слушай: мы там с 7 августа. Ну, вся наша 58-я армия. Ты же, наверное, смотришь по телику, что там происходит? Сегодня мы пробились из Цхинвала во Владикавказ за вооружением. Сейчас будем обратно пробиваться. Всё, зовут. Передавай всем привет. Целую… (http://www.permnews.ru/story.asp?kt=2912&n=453)" Вся 58-я армия?! 70 тыс. человек и 600 танков были уже 7 августа в Цхинвале? :) Это смешно. Что за странная фраза "мы пробились из Цхинвала во Владикавказ за вооружением"? Это еще смешнее. Они прибыли в Цхинвал без вооружения, а потом вспомнили, что забыли, и вернулись за ним? :) -- Esp rus2 (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Утверждение из удалённой статьи в redstar.ru противоречит другим материалам того же сайта. Речь идёт о 135-мотострелковом полке (по словам Сидристого). Читаем в других статьях: "Для младшего сержанта Андрея Савельева и рядовых Евгения Букалерова и Ростислава Барыбина - нынешних кавалеров знака отличия - Георгиевского креста IV степени - отсчет тревожным суткам начался 8 августа. Тогда их роту связи 135-го мотострелкового полка вместе с другими подразделениями подняли ночью по тревоге и выдвинули в Цхинвал на помощь нашим миротворцам, зажатым под ураганным огнем грузинских агрессоров. (http://www.redstar.ru/2008/09/03_09/2_02.html)""Лейтенанта Михаила Мельничука, несмотря на его молодость и пока еще невысокое офицерское звание, язык не повернется сегодня назвать необстрелянным командиром. Того, что пережили он и его сослуживцы по 135-му мотострелковому полку 58-й армии в эти августовские дни, хватит, пожалуй, на десяток офицеров, не нюхавших пороха. <...> Минометный обстрел колонны их мотострелкового батальона первыми накрыл следовавшие в голове группы машины 3-й роты. Батальон как раз втягивался на окраины Цхинвала, когда грузинские мины поразили головные БМП и следовавший в них личный состав. Появились первые убитые, раненые. <...> Задачу - дойти до городка миротворцев и разблокировать наши подразделения, зажатые под огнем грузинских формирований, - необходимо было выполнить. До расположения миротворческого подразделения оставалось каких-то пару кварталов, когда на одном из перекрестков колонну мотострелков грузины встретили массированным огнем из стрелкового оружия и гранатометов. Стрельба велась из окон домов, из различных приспособленных укрытий, из-за разрушенных стен. Было принято решение спешиться и атаковать противника, продвигаясь к городку миротворцев. (http://www.redstar.ru/2008/09/09_09/2_01.html)" Следует принять во внимание эти публикации. -- Esp rus2 (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Other sources:
Soon after, Ingush, Chechen, Cossack and Ossetian irregulars are believed to have arrived in South Ossetia from Russia.. "Michael Totten interview with Patrick Worms." August 26 2008

Тем временем (night from August 6th to 7th) в Южную Осетию уже прибыли около 300 добровольцев из Северной Осетии. Biophys (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * August 6 - According to the eyewitness evidence of Nezavisimaya gazeta correspondent, August 6, Russia troops and armoured vehicles were already en route to Tskhinvali, moving along the road between the town of Alagir and the border post of Nizhny Zaramag.Это не конфликт, это — война Независимая газета 8 августа 2008 г.
 * I don't think anyone disputes this. Skirmishes began on 1 August so naturally civilians were being evacuated from and volunteers kept coming to South Ossetia. Alæxis¿question? 18:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromise on Roki Tunnel Entrance and arrival to South Ossetia
I propose the following wording for the disputed sentence

other then Finalyzer's WP:POV on polit.ru making a mistake this should be ok.WH Coordinator (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you forgotten to add "on 7 August"? Alæxis¿question? 05:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, here. Anyone else? (feel free to edit, this is a draft version) WH Coordinator (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DATE the correct form is "on August 7" :)
 * I agree with your version however there's another issue here. Where is this passage going to be placed? I'd put it before the words "At 23:30 on August 7, according..." Alæxis¿question? 06:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is just to replace the first two sentences of the August 7 section. WH Coordinator (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with "soldiers claiming", should be "mother claimed". I disagree that Red Star article provided as a source that some troops passed the Roki Tunnel on August 7. Only one source (The New Yourk Times) reports about passing the Roki Tunnel. Daily Journal source actually claims that journalists saw troops on North Ossetian side. Finalyzer (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with "Soldiers say that they arrived in South Ossetia on August 7" translation? WH Coordinator (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Translation is correct. But article itself doesn't provide information that would allowed to make such statement. And it doesn't report that soldiers were in South Ossetia or arrived there or passed the tunnel on August 7.Finalyzer (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, if in your WP:POV it doesn't provide information that would allow to make such statement, then you can find WP:SOURCE to confirm that and add it to the article. I am not doing any WP:OR on whether there is enough information or not, I simply cite from WP:SOURCE.As for report that soldiers were vs claimed to be in South Ossetia, I had addressed it in the proposed compromise by "claiming to have arrived". WH Coordinator (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly you are asking we to find a source that says that the article at polit.ru makes a false statement, right? Well, it's obvious for anybody who knows Russian. What kind of source should it be? I'm wondering if somebody puts some source at e.g. G.Bush wikipage that says that Bush is a martian, and this statement will be based on the color of his eyes. What kind of source will be required to contradict it? White House statement? Finalyzer (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In theory yes, but in reality, if you are comparing likelihood of G.W.Bush being a martian, to Russian military being in South Ossetia on August 7, you are kind of reaching.WH Coordinator (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not comparing likelihood of the events, I'm wondering how big and "trustful" Wikipedia will become if false statements have a way to be here and require some reliable sources to contradict them. Finalyzer (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bummer. Now let's get back to the wording of the sentence. Does this look ok, or can we change it somehow to accommodate you? WH Coordinator (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We should be more accurate in using the message from News of Perm:

-- Esp rus2 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this:"Russian media reported soldiers of the 58th Army claiming to have arrived in South Ossetia on August 7 (although it is possible to interpret the report in a way that it lacks evidence for such conclusion). Other reports in Russian Media were consistent with parts of 58th Russian Army having passed the Roki Tunnel, and having arrived to South Ossetia on August 7." WH Coordinator (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (report doesn't contain any evidences for such conclusion). Please, read my complains regarding statement about passing the Roki Tunnel. Only single report (The New York Times) qualifies as source for it. Finalyzer (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why I'm putting it right there in the article, in the parenthesizes, what else do you want? WH Coordinator (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You put different words. Finalyzer (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be really accurate about the primary sources first...

Finalyzer (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And let's just hope that the soldier will not be court-martialled for the phone call that reveals army plans and disposition... Finalyzer (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

how about this:

WH Coordinator (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about requirements of "it was picked up by the numerous blogs, as it seemed to have implied..." and "which was interpreted..." parts. How many different interpretations are we going to add? Is it a place for speculations or for facts? If you are really want to leave them, I will add sources which imply different point of views on the articles. I don't know for sure yet, how many sources and how many points of view we are going to have here. Another thing, Krasnaya Zvezda vs Red Star. We need to pick one of the names to eliminate confusions. Finalyzer(talk) 02:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So, as a compromise I would leave two more or less solid sources that provide point of views on the articles, as I've suggested before.

But Remembering the heroes is irrelevant to what happened to what happened on August 7, why do you want it in? WH Coordinator (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It adds details to the story at Life Goes On article and mentioned at The New York Times investigation.Finalyzer (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It does add details, but it is irrelevant to what happened on August 7. WH Coordinator (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then statements about the article at The New York Times are irrelevant as well. Finalyzer (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, then let's go to the original draft, and forget the York Times.

WH Coordinator (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's forget about The New York Times since it's secondary source but I'd like to leave everything regarding primary ones, i.e. News of Perm and Life Goes On. Finalyzer (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * News of Perm doesn't contain any data on 58th army in South Ossetia, and therefore also irrelevant.WH Coordinator (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It contains data that 58th army moved to Tskhinvali on August 7. Do you think the soldier meant some other city at some other region? Finalyzer (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NoWH Coordinator (talk)
 * Could you clarify the "No" statement please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finalyzer (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that soldier meant some other city at some other region so I don't think he meant some other city at some other region.WH Coordinator (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "let's forget about The New York Times since it's secondary source". No, sceondary sources are actually better and must be prefered per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * sounds good, what do you think we should put in?WH Coordinator (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Biophys, you are right, I think Finalyzer is using trying to promote his WP:POV here. I tried to reach compromise, but Finalyzer is us using my effort to crowd an article with a bunch of irrelevant facts.WH Coordinator (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've waited for Biophys proposal. I've stated my POV from the beginning: all mentioned Russian sources aren't reliable or credible or relevant. They shouldn't be mentioned at all. The New York Times is the only source I'd use. BTW, you said that you want to remove reference to News of Perm article as irrelevant and it's still there. Finalyzer (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I am fundamentalist (in my thinking), but what about Georgian claim before UN that Russia forces has entered Georgia on 08.08 ? In my thinking this statement must be in that part of article !--Rjecina (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I propose:

And if somebody wants to promote Russian media rumors, we can create separate wiki page and put link to it. Finalyzer (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be playing favoritism for rumors on American Media vs. Russian media. The news of Russian soldiers in South Ossetia was reported without reference to it being a rumor, so we should leave it as such.WH Coordinator (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't "American Media vs. Russian media", it's reliable source with credible info vs unreliable sources with rumors. What reference do you want to add? Finalyzer (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Polit.ru has been reporting for at least 10 years. Why do you think they are unreliable? WH Coordinator (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true" WP:BLP Finalyzer (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think this source (or material) is not reliable, likewise one can say any other source quoted is not reliable.WH Coordinator (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's simple, as I quoted before, "Ask yourself ... whether the material is being presented as true". Polit.ru used gossip about "whole Russian army at Tshinvali" to create another gossip about "soldiers said". Do you believe that whole Russian army was at Tshinvali on August 7? What soldiers said that they arrived at Tshinvali ? Finalyzer (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know this is what Polit.ru used to make a final judgment? WH Coordinator (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think they forgot to tell us or hide some important information? They simply use WP:Weasel_word. In any case, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" - WP:Verifiability. Finalyzer (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't. They didn't use WP:Weasel_word, in any case the term pertains to the wikipedia editors and not the sources. Also there is no reason to consider the information presented misleading, unless you would like them to lead you to any specific WP:POV. WH Coordinator (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did, 'soldiers' is a weasel word. It's almost an equivalent to 'somebody'. And the presented information is misleading because nowhere at the article they say which 'soldiers' and when said that. Article which use complete nonsence (the whole army at Tskhinvali) as a source for own statements cannot be considered as reliable source. About usage of weasel words... passing them from source to wikipage is exactly what you are not supposed to do. "When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" WP:BLP Do you think they forgot to tell us or hide some important information? What reliable source will do such thing? Finalyzer (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there is more "weasel" about "almost an equivalent" then "soldier". They did present soldiers in the article, you just don't like their conclusion. I also don't see any anonymous sources cited in their article. Whether they used perm.ru as the only source or one of the source, is, or whether they used it at all to reach their conclusion, is the result of your speculation. Also since they have been in publishing business for 10 years, and there is no other publication suggesting them being unreliable, I don't see how you can call them such. WH Coordinator (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, soldiers is a weasel word, not soldier. Their conclusion is result of speculations, not mine. And source reliability isn't just about publisher reliability. "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability" WP:Verifiability. You continue to ignore my questions. Do you think they forgot to tell us or hide some important information? What reliable source will do such thing? Finalyzer (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for typo. What I meant to say, is that soldiers is not a weasel word. Your conclusion (that their analysis is speculation) is a result of your speculation, not theirs. You continuously unable to identify sources for your claim that polit.ru or any of it's sources are unreliable. I'm sorry, that in the process of the discussion I may have missed your question, but I didn't see anything missing in the article. They cited both perm.ru and Krasnaya Zvezda, and information from those publications supported the conclusion that they made. I'm not sure what is it that you are missing there...WH Coordinator (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And your conclusion that I'm speculating is result of your speculation, So, what? You continuously ignore my questions... :-( Information from those publications don't support the conclusion that they made. If it does, please site exactly which text support it. Finalyzer (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but as little as you may think of polit.ru, their WP:RS is at least a tier above yours. It's one thing for an editor to speculate about another editor, and another for an editor to speculate about the source. As for the text that support their conclusion (again sorry for not giving this question as much weight as you wanted me to) here it is: "We received an emergency order to urgently move to Tskinvali on August 7. We came there, set up everything, and very soon, on August 8, this all started...", and the entire second paragraph of the article in particular "Слушай: мы там с 7 августа." "Listen we are there since 7 August." WH Coordinator (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably should repeat for you WP guidelines for source reliability: "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability"WP:Verifiability. And I don't question polit.ru reliability as a publisher. I do question reliability of "the piece of work" though. "We received an emergency order to urgently move to Tskinvali on August 7. We came there, set up everything, and very soon, on August 8, this all started..." - I don't see how it tell us that "soldiers were at South Ossetia on August 8" or even "soldier was at South Ossetia on August 8". The text allow to conclude that they got orders to move on the way to Tshinvali on August 7. It doesn't say when they started to move or when they arrived at South Ossetia. And the citing from the second paragraph: "Слушай: мы там с 7 августа. Ну, вся наша 58-я армия", "Listen we are there since 7 August. All our 58th army", about words of single soldier as his mother told. Source that cites nonsense about whole army at Tskinvali becomes unreliable nonsense. Anyhow, I have to repeat again, which soldiers said that they were at South Ossetia? The texts you have cited don't allow to come to such conclusion. The source that report false statements becomes unreliable according to WP guidelines. WP:BLP Finalyzer (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Krasnaya Zvezda identifies one soldier - Denis Sidristy, Perm.ru makes reference to representatives of council of parents of servicemen Prikamiya Aleksandra Vrakina, and parental committee - "special reserve" Sergei Tarantin. I understand that you are unable to process analyze properly what they are saying, as this is a raw data, that is why we refer to specialists from polit.ru for their analysis. and if in your WP:POV they are wrong oh well... (will be back on Wednesday 10PM PST to continue this exciting discussion). WH Coordinator (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Denis Sidristy at Krasnaya Zvezda article didn't make any statements about being at South Ossetia on August 7. I don't know how are references to Prikamiya Aleksandra Vrakina or Sergei Tarantin relevant to claims that "soldiers said they were at South Ossetia". If you think that claim that "whole 58th was at Tskninvali on August 7" can be a part of reliable source then it's ... well just your WP:POV. Wikipedia isn't a place for rumors. And I'm not going to discuss it with you anymore due WP:PA. Finalyzer (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Finalyzer, I'm sorry if you took any of my comments personally, I didn't mean to offend you in any way. They point that I was trying to make is really the same. You are unable to validate the analysis by polit.ru, that is not a reason to deny it as a valid reference. That's really the idea of WP:OR. The fact that you think that their references are irrelevant to their conclusion, or unreliable doesn't make them invalid references, unless you can find a source to validate your judgement. WH Coordinator (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Polit.ru is known for its yellow journalism. I could find a lot of misinformation on their site, and I bet you could too. They are secondary source anyway, can you find the primary source of that information? Also if you could find a reliable source, you should get exact timing of when actually Russian troops entered the South Ossetia, when Georgian intelligence found out about that and when the decision about Georgian attack was made. The fact that Georgia attacked at 10:30pm on Aug 7 was never disputed. What is the exact time when Russia attacked Georgia? As of now, the "exact" time as reported by different sources varies from early morning of Aug 7 to early morning of Aug 8. I think the best Wikipedia could do is to list all such reports from both sides, even if contradictory to each other. (Igny (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Actually WP:SECONDARY sources is exactly what we are supposed to cite in wikipedia.WH Coordinator (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

UN
Can somebody please explain if Russian soldiers have entered South Ossetia before 8 August why in UN on 8 August in 16:15 Georgia is claiming that Russian soldiers have entered South Ossetia on 8 August in 05:30. Now is possible to "find" many "sources" which are saying different but nobody can delete this Georgian official statement before UN. --Rjecina (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this seems to contraduct information placed at the official Georgian website later. There are many possible explanations of that. For example, Mr. Alasania, who speaks ar 4 pm in US on August 8, does not have yet all the required information. But we are not making any WP:OR here. We simply place information from sourcesBiophys (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Socor's article
This article, written on August 8 by Vladimir Socor is used 4 times as a source here. In one case it seems to contradict more authoritative sources that were published later when more information become available:

Following Saakashvili’s address, according to Jamestown Foundation report [14][verification needed], attacks on Georgian villages intensified. The village of Avnevi was almost completely destroyed, Tamarasheni and Prisi shelled, and the police station in Kurta, seat of the Sanakoyev administration, smashed by artillery fire.

On the other hand:

An OSCE monitoring group in Tskhinvali did not record outgoing artillery fire from the South Ossetian side in the hours before the start of Georgian bombardment, and NATO officials attest to minor skirmishes but nothing that amounted to a provocation, according to Der Spiegel.

Therefore I think that an additional source should be found to confirm that a) attacks by S Ossetians intensified after Saakashvili's address and b) that "the village of Avnevi was almost completely destroyed, Tamarasheni and Prisi shelled, and the police station in Kurta, seat of the Sanakoyev administration, smashed by artillery fire." Alæxis¿question? 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The August 8 article was written very early. Thus, it is less reliable than sources which were published later. If it contradicts more authoritative sources, it should be removed. It's a bit ridiculous to use such early sources when later ones are available. It's as we would use analysis of the Second World War published on September 2, 1939, a day after the war started, as a source in the Second World War article. Offliner (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Source
This source, http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.php?asset_id=5524, has compiled a very detailed timeline which could be useful here. --Xeeron (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Lech Kaczynski's mission
Why any infos about the mission of Lech Kaczynski and leaders of Central Europe has been deleted? As wikilkeaks satates this mission was on of the crucial reasons for saving Tbilisi from Russian tanks.95.83.249.165 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Timeline of the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080817150558/http://www.itar-tass.com:80/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12949584&PageNum=0 to http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12949584&PageNum=0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080817150606/http://www.itar-tass.com:80/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12950528&PageNum=0 to http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12950528&PageNum=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Timeline of the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.undemocracy.com/S-PV-5952/page_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Timeline of the Russo-Georgian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1089120
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124202010/http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=a8277279-9a18-4612-987f-443280dc5a52 to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=a8277279-9a18-4612-987f-443280dc5a52
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12933348&PageNum=0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/nastory.asp?file=%2F2008%2F8%2F10%2Fworldupdates%2F2008-08-09T222611Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-349150-3&sec=Worldupdates
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117095942/http://www.rosbalt.ru/2008/08/11/512573.html to http://www.rosbalt.ru/2008/08/11/512573.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080809120214/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPLDNxutvt7M

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)