Talk:Information war during the Russo-Georgian War/Archive 1

Content

There is absolutely nothing here which could be regarded as an "attack page". The entire content has been simply taken from an existing article 2008 South Ossetia war in order to make it more readable. Please see diacussion at talk page of 2008 South Ossetia war.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The first line, "Russian-Georgian war of 2008 included an extensive propaganda campaign conducted by the Russsian government." indicates that this is an attack page --- To call something a propaganda campaign is to state a POV --- Since the first line indicates the purpose of the article, the article's purpose is to make a POV claim.---Editor437 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? We have a lot of articles about propaganda - please see Category:Propaganda. Could you please use AfD instead if you have any concerns?Biophys (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between an article "about" propaganda and an article claiming some entity's action was propaganda. For example, if I said that the U.S. government engaged in a propaganda campaign to initiate war against Iraq, and based an entire article on that claim, the article would clearly be POV. I'm happy to use AfD---Editor437 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the AfD matter solved? --Tananka (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed AfD --Tananka (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate information as to notices added should be made clearly so as to favour discussion. However, the following shall summarise the review

* Concerning content fork (moving a section of an article to a new article) WP:CFORK Avoiding unnecessary splits

¨Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and to the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article.
Creation of the new article should be agreed to by consensus of editors. A template (splitSection) can be used to direct their attention to the issue. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.¨

* Concerning POV fork WP:POVFORK notice:This section was moved from the main article, and the title changed to "Russia-Georgia" war. It was probably done in good faith, but it has created much confusion. This section relates specifically to one article, and hence should be moved back.

¨A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
Any improvements should be done on the main article page for now.Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨

* Concerning Attack page WP:ATP notice:

¨A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Non-administrative users who find such pages should add the tag to them, and should warn the user who created them by putting the tag on their talk page.
If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place.¨

- This article/section talks about the information war (ie media coverage aspect of an information war), and therefore does not constitute a subject (person or entity) that could be subjected to personal attacks.
--Tananka (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

Kostan1, please do not move this article without discussion and consensus.Biophys (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You use pretty words, but baseless. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war. Without discussion or concensus? Don't coin new words. The name of the war is the 2008 South Ossetian war, because the war wasn't in a simply Georgian place, but in South Ossetia, a de-facto independent place. Kostan1 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving an article during AfD discussion is inappropriate. Note that people suggested at least three different new names for this article during AfD, and you selected something that you like. Biophys (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Biophys, the controversial move of Konstan1 should be reverted ASAP. Hobartimus (talk)

Why did the title not fit the main article title "2008 South Ossetia War"? Surely this is an NPOV breach. Hence the initial move was a POV fork and Kostani was correcting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tananka (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Konstant1 acted against WP procedures, including moves during AfD discussion and WP:Consensus. The renaming should be discussed at the appropriate forum: this page or a "request to move". Two other already suggested titles were Media coverage of the Russian-Georgian war (more neutral) or Russian disinformation during 2008 Ossetian war (more specific). This should be debated and implemented per consensus.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I acted against the concensus? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war. I actualy have done the concensus. And, not that it's important my nickname is Kostan and not Konstant, even though my name is Konstantin, but in the nickname I took the Russian slang for the name, which is Kostan. Hey, many didn't understand that and because of the ending of Kostan I already recived an Email to join WikiProject Armenia, which I would love to do if I would know more about those wonderful people. Kostan1 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

People proposed three different titles, in addition to the existing one. You selected one of them and unilaterally moved this article twice, during a deletion discussion. This is called WP:DE.Biophys (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did what that majority decided. Becides, you can't just change the name of the war because you feel like it. Kostan1 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a forked section refer to the main article title as it stands. If South Ossetia is replaced with Georgian-Russian, surely it should be in the main article first. Otherwise it could lead to confusion, right? Russian disinformation seems a bit POV, IMHO--Tananka (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian disinformation during 2008 Ossetian war (more specific)?? Are you serious? It is clearly evident Biophys that you are intent on an anti-Russian POV in all articles regarding Russia which you edit with that title suggestion? For crying out loud, there is nothing in the article as it stands now that even suggests there was a deliberate and organised disinformation campaign on the part of the Russians, and your complete ignoring and white-washing of Georgian disinformation only shows your anti-Russian bias and intent to push your own POV in such articles. A renaming of the article to Media coverage of the 2008 South Ossetia war, as it not allows you to attempt your own POV in the article, but it also allows those of us (the majority I hope) to pursue a more neutral and all-encompassing angle on the actual media coverage. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was not me who suggested this title. Sure, it is more specific because it focuses only on the Russian side, and specifically on "disinformation" rather than media coverage in general. Those are simply different subjects. Both the "media coverage" and the "russian disinformation" articles can be created and cover different subjects.Biophys (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This article coveres a topic conected to a certain war, this war has a name, don't play with it. Kostan1 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving section back to main article after premature Content Fork

see WP:CFORK --Tananka (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes (in response to removal of speedy note), the only appropriate deletion of this article would be to merge back to the main article in conformance with WP:POV
Therefore either AfD is removed, or POV fork is corrected which implies merging with main article.
Therefore the speedy notice must be restored, and if a different reason (apart from the ineligible attack) exists for AfD it must be stated.

Please, do not edit war, and if you want to place a notice then it must be stated why it was placed in the discussion page --Tananka (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note db:move was added by myself, and then removed by other editors. Since, what seemed a valid section fork to improve readability in the main article was first titled "Russian-Georgian war" instead of " 2008 South Ossetian war" which leads to obvious confusion. Also since a proper summary was then not made in the main article, and the section name was changed to "Media Coverage". Then the section was marked for deletion over attack policy, as if some editors wanted to remove the whole section from wikipedia as if it was irrelevant or some POV attack. Maybe my understanding is incorrect over policy? But this amounts to vandalism. --Tananka (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The title has been corrected to reflect current main article title. While a summary is to be written in the main article. So I am no longer alarmed over possible deletion of a whole noteworthy, to say the least, section. So I simply agree to keep this as a separate section. Since the main article is long, and the section is an extensive subject, so a move back would not be helpful in achieving readability --Tananka (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"August 17 Through September"

Ok I have no clue what this section is talking about. I mean, every sentence seems gramatically correct, but I do not understand what is the story being told and what kind of disinformation is happening. Can someone rewrite all that stuff? Its very confusing imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"August 17 Through September" - Sources

These sources need to be checked out thoroughly. See the history concerning the changes I made. I deleted the first paragraph (see history for reasons) and clarified the source was not a "UN-published transcript" but a "Russian Mission to the UN published transcript". There is a BIG difference. Also reflected this in the footnote as the publisher. Please footnote accurately. I hope this helps the above question. Jason3777 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian allegations of media bias

Yes, the article needs to be rewritten, but this still has been looked into. It's been over a week now. Ottre (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"August 17 Through September" - Paragraph I deleted was restored

The intro paragraph was restored by User:Muromec. In the history I stated that: Deleted 1st paragraph due to WP:POV, WP:OR, unsouced, and summary does not reflect the text that follows. This is an accurate statement. I am going to delete it again; please do not restore it unless legitimate sources besides the interview (which is the only source you documented). I am not going to start an edit war, but you need sources to keep it from being WP:POV, WP:OR, etc. So, I am again deleting it. You have given no additional sources or justification for putting the paragraph back into the article. The intro paragraph I deleted reads as follows: "FOX [it should be Fox] News anchor tried to cut off Ossetinian eye witnesses. Invited to tell about Russian bombings, a 12 year old girl and her aunt say they were saved by Russians from Georgian bombings. When saying this they were cut short by a TV commercial. When they were back to air and started to blame Georgian government they were cut again by the anchor. ". This confuses readers (see above) and, as one can see, it is a commentary: WP:OR. Please do not insert it again without additional, legitimate sources besides the actual interview and your personal opinion of that interview. This is not right. It goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Thank you. Jason3777 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the actual interview is the ultimate legitimate source. I do not think the paragraph expresses a WP:POV, WP:OR. Please clarify which words exactly are WP:POV, WP:OR. Let's try to rephrase it. For now I'm restoring the paragraph. (Muromec (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

First he did not try to cut them off, he did, he had to because of a hard commercial break that would have cut off the interview regardless. That's how things work on US TV. The second time he had to cut them off was because his program WAS OVER. Your personal opinion makes it sound sinister when all that could possibly be done to accommodate them was done. It is your personal opinion of what occurred: WP:POV and WP:OR. But I would not state the above in the article with the interview as my only source because it would be my opinion WP:POV and WP:OR. This is discussed in the following paragraph with SOURCES. My view of the interview are reflected in the The New York Times article, so since they are documented in a valid reference it is WP:NPOV and not WP:OR. You are correct "the actual interview is the ultimate legitimate source." BUT your interpretation of that interview is original research and reflects YOUR PERSONAL point of view. Anyone can watch the interview which is also referenced in the next paragraph and come up with their own POV and OR on the piece. It is not accurate to have this unreferenced POV and OR as the first paragraph of this section. You are interpreting the interview as YOU see it without a legitimate source to back you up. Please remove the paragraph, I don't want to start an editing war, but you have no justification for including this paragraph. So again I ask you to remove this paragraph - you have no source except your interpretation of the interview. Jason3777 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,I think the Fox News video itself it the source. Let's remove words "cut off" and "cut short" with something like "the anchor had to interrupt to go for a commertial break". I think that's what the anchor says himself in the video. So my main point is the video is the source. Source of what? This we can discuss. And I like merging with the NYT paragraph as long as the incident is mentioned first and then we can give NYT interpretation. If you do not agree with the above, please let me know what exact words express POV. I'm just stating the fact and this fact is backed by the video. Let's remove any interpretation of the fact because I do not have the "trustable" sources (I've never read an unbiased article about Russia in NYT). Anyhow, let's cooperate! Best! (Muromec (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

This discussion seems to have moved to our talk pages (me and Muromec). If anyone has a link to the dubbed Russian video referred to in the NYT article, would you please share it? Also, any other Russian sources would be helpful. This section is a mess. Is there anyone who is fluent in both Russian and English that could help get this section pulled together? You are really needed :-). [Yea, I know it's trite.] Jason3777 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone experiencing SEVERE Computer Problems (50% extra CPU usage which slows a fast computer to the speed of a Intel 386?)

My computer has slowed down incredibly today. A 6 minute copy in Windows Explorer now takes 4+ hours. Has anyone editing this subject experienced this? In over 25 years of using a Microsoft OP, this is the first time that such a situation has happened. When I am using a program and I look at the Windows Task Manager it shows a 50% "CPU Usage" (at the bottom) more than what is shown in the aggregate of what is showing in the list above (i.e. 3% CPU usage in the Image Name list shows about 53% usage in the bottom CPU usage percentage, also the CAP lock is totally screwed). Plus other problems I am having with Firefox: the ALT key does not work correctly when navigating a web page - also page down does not work properly, and neither do the arrows keys. It is very hard to navigate. Please let me know if you are experiencing these problems. AND IF YOU KNOW HOW TO FIX THIS PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I have the full McAfee Security package and I also have software and hardware router firewalls. Anybody else having this problem the last few days? Jason3777 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a request to take the above off on my Talk page. I do not believe that a Wikipedia page caused the virus. But I do believe that someone placed it on my system due to my editing of Russian-Georgian War articles. There was no other vector; I am very careful about such things. I have corrected the problem by doing a system restore to a previous date before I begin having this problem. It was a sophisticated attack which got through all my security defenses and it slowed my system down a hell of a lot. This was the first time I have ever experienced such a problem (i.e. a virus) and my professional computer experience goes back 25 years.

As Wiki says, if you show your IP address instead of your User name, it could put you computer security at risk. And I have accidentally forgotten to login before making comments. So I'm not removing the above. It now takes 12 minutes to copy what was taking over 260 minutes before I did a system restore. And the extra 50% extra CPU use at the bottom of the Windows Task Manager is now gone. I'm not certain about the browser problems I experience, because they eventually cleared up after a couple of days. But I experienced a major system slow down until I ran a system restore to a point before the problem started. I do believe someone hacked into my system using my inadvertently exposed IP address and screwed with my system. I guess the lesson to be learned is to make damn sure you're logged in before you edit or comment. It's too late for me now. Jason3777 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The system restore date I used was August 24. Check this article's (and other's) revision history for my editing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason3777 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, the restore point on Aug 26 was okay and Aug 27 was infected. The problems are shown when I booted MS Windows and the blue scrolling bars going across the screen go across over 85 times (instead of about 6 or 7), copying files takes at least 12 times longer, and there is a 50% CPU usage in the bottom of the Windows Task Manager that is not reflected in the above running processes. I believe this is the place to discuss this since it involves consequences of editing this group of articles. If anyone else has had this problem please let me know on my talk page. Sorry I took so much space, but this is important and deals directly with editing these articles. Thanks, that's all I've got to say here on this subject. Jason3777 (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is unacceptable and clearly bias

On August 13, Fox News interviewed[1] and tried to cut off the 12 year old girl Amanda Kokoeva and her aunt, Lora Tedeeva-Korevisky who returned from South Ossetia. Fox began the interview by emphasising the terrors faced by a 12 year old girl

This is a absolute lie, the never cut off the girl- she talked for a full 1:30 and her aunt talked for at least 1 minute. these are normal interview times for Studio B. The article also fails the mention that her grandparents are ethnic North Ossetians and they fled importantly to Russia.

In auditing it raises suspicion as to what they had been told as the aunt cited disproven Russian numbers, has anyone ever been in a hectic and chaotic situation such as combat? You have no idea whats going on i can say with 98% certainty that they had no idea what was happening until they turned on a TV (witch would have been in Russia) or been debriefed by Russian officers enrout to North Ossetia.

I would raise doubts on how reliable this interview is as well- all of our sources has dis-proven that "2,000" civilians where killed, and no independent media confirms this number, and the Human rights watch agrees that Russia grossly inflated the number of deaths caused by the opening hostilities.

Jade Rat (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Your claims are as mendacious as misleading: here is the exact number (1692) of Ossetian victims of the Georgian aggression and here you can read how the International Criminal court established by US war Ministry can judge Karadžić and Šešelj , but turns a blind eye to thousends of Ossetian complaints. I you considere the neutrality of the media dubitable - I also know diverse medias with similar reliability. Bogorm (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, if you had watched the interview, you would have remarked that as soon as the girl commences explaining the misdeeds of the Georgian troops, she is cut off. Bogorm (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The young girl was NEVER, EVER cut off. Her aunt was due to a hard commercial break and the end of the program. In fact the anchor paused to let the young girl add more commments, which she did not. Did you watch the actual interview? Jason3777 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good source

Propaganda 2.0 (German) by Von Matthias Kolb, and this is English translation.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't it surprise me to see you linking to a blog called "larussophobe"..I'm quite amused.LokiiT (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is only a translation. Original source is German newspaper.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Interview - "Invited to tell about Russian bombings"?

What is the source for this. Nowhere in the Fox News interview does anyone say, or even imply, that they were invited to "tell about Russian bombings". They were in South Ossetia; why would anyone think the Russians were bombing South Ossetians? This piece was about a twelve year old SF girl who found herself in the middle of a war. This statement is not true and should be removed. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or just propaganda? I'll give it a couple of days before I remove this false statement, unless someone can give a source for this information. Just watch the video. This is really getting tiring. Also, does anyone have a link to the Russian dubbed version mentioned in the NYT article? I'd really like to see it and it should to be included in this section. Jason3777 (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the response and tone of the Fox News presenter that what the interviewees were saying was "off message" as far as he was concerned, such as his numerous fumbling repetitions of "a 12 year old girl" after she makes her point about who was actually bombing who, as well as his final characterisation of what they were telling as a "grey area". And at the start of the interview, the interviewer said that they were in "the war in Georgia", so the audience could well have assumed that it was Russians bombing Georgians if it were not for the girl stressing that it was not. But they were not cut off, the mother launched into her amateurish diatribe and was able to complete it - she should have kept her mouth shut and left all the talking to her daughter. Meowy 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work on this paragraph in the next few days (maybe weeks or months). As it reads now it is LIBEL, and you and Wikipedia could be sued. I've been watching Shepard Smith for years. He's up front and has integrity. (Disclaimer - the only shows I watch on the Fox News Channel are Studio B and the The Fox Report - both anchored by Shepard Smith). I've watched and respect him. He's a good, honest dude and I hate to see him being presented as America's "Poster Child of US Disinformation". He's not. Have you ever watched Studio B or The Fox Report? I truly trust Shepard Smith. I saw this interview live and I thought he was very respectful. Your statements about his tone are POV. That's always how he does such an interview. He is an honorable man and would never participate in disinformation, And I've been watching him for over at least 8 years. The text as it stands now is LIBEL - I hope you are not in the US. If I were Newscorp I'd get the lawyers involved and go after you for LIBEL. I don't care if you get sued, but I do care about Wikipedia.Jason3777 (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologizes. I didn't read your comment carefully enough. I'm just totally frustrated about this interview, because I watched it live, and I have never seen Shep dish a story and give ANYONE extra time, and it was at the end of his program! He gave the aunt the last bit of his show. He's a good ole Southerner who would not do anything to insult or cut off his guests unless he had to go to a commercial. And you're correct, the aunt should have kept her mouth shut. Her niece would have done much better in the format of the piece. Jason3777 (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The girl's aunt hasn't been to S. Ossetia, only the girl has. Colchicum (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Right after they return from commercial the girl's aunt states: "My house is burned in South Ossetia where I lived". How can you state the above? Have you watched the Fox News interview? If you are going to edit this section on the Fox News interview, I would suggest you watch it first and pay attention to what happens and is said. Jason3777 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was really rude of me. I just get frustrated by this "Invited to tell about Russian bombings" stuff. I can't figure out where that came from. Jason3777 (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

start

Russian intervention "According to delayed reports published by some Russian news media,[22][23]"One link sdoes not work and oone is in russian. What do they say (translation pleae).[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)]]

I use google translate - http://translate.google.com/translate_t#. It seems to work fairly well. I think if the link doesn't work, try to find a new link (this is English Wikipedia so I don't think you'll find a new link because you do not speak Russian, so just remove the link). I have removed [22] - the one that did not work. Try google translate on the other one Jason3777 (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am restoring the Fox News section to what I wrote

I believe I have addressed Colchicum's statement that the aunt was not in South Ossetia above.

Also concerning Russavia's statements that my edit were WP:OR please watch the Fox News video - WHICH IS THE SOURCE FOR THE SECTION - so it is not unsourced. The video (the source) says one thing, but your edits say something else - what is your source. Watch the video. First, the girl was NEVER cut off in the video, so to say she was is libel. And concerning the "had to cut?" objections, the anchor clearly states: "A commercial break will take us there in 4 seconds, whether we like it or not." That is not Original Research. I am just restating what was said in the video. Also when they come back from commercial the anchor states: "This program will end in less than a minute." Again the video is the source and the changes that were made do not reflect what was stated in the video. What is your source?

This little section should reflect what was said in the video, otherwise it is not true. This is why I am changing it back to the edits I made previously. If you change it back, please give your sources. My source is the video that is being discussed. How much more of a source do I need? I have the Fox News video as my source. It is actually the deletion of my edits that are unsourced. Jason3777 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need sources. You are the one who needs sources, that they had to cut to a commercial break? For all we know, some producer was screaming in his earpiece "What the f*** is happening here, cut them off, go to break"....there's no evidence of that, nor is there any evidence that they had to go to a commercial break. I've seen this POS channel, and watch it on a semi-regular basis when I want to see what the nutjobs are thinking, and this was quite out of the ordinary for Faux News. It is not libel to state that they cut her off, because this is what the reliable sources physically state; using the video itself as a source for statements that you are making is not possible, as it requires us to interpret (WP:OR) what did or didn't happen. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am just repeating what is said in the video. That is what is being discussed. The video is the source. I am not interpreting, I am just stating what was said and happened on the video. What is your source? You are the one interpreting. I'm just stating what was said and happened on the video. You are the one implying things without sources. What are your sources? "For all we know, some producer was screaming in his earpiece ..." That is original research. Plus Jessica, the producer, wouldn't do that. She's cool. And that is my original research, I trust the Studio B producer. Jason3777 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Never is it stated anywhere "Invited to tell about Russian bombings." What is the source for this? Check out the Fox News video and it clearly states that the Georgians were doing the bombing." There is even footage of Russian troops on a train. You have no sources. You are just editing to make a short piece seem sinister. And why don't you need sources to make up stuff and I can't repeat what is on the Fox News video. The video is the source. Unless you reflect that video as it is presented, you are doing original research. Your statement "I don't need sources"? completely perplexes me. Jason3777 (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Forwarded discussion about 3O request

The following (about this WP:3O listing) was posted on my user talk page:

You seem very knowledgeable concerning third party opinion request. I was wondering how they work. I have seen no action on the above request. I was wondering what I should do if I get no response to my third party opinion request. Where should I go next? Should I just fix the citation needed sections and possibly get into an editing war, or go somewhere else to help me find a solution to this problem. I feel this section is very biased, and some editors don't think they need sources for what they say. But if I edit the section I'm sure it will be undone (as my edits have been undone many times before). I have stayed off Wiki for a few days (and cooled off) per Wiki suggestion. I am very surprised, actually appalled, by the disinformation in the Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war article. Every time I try to correct the unsourced material it has been reverted. If you could give me any suggestions on where to go from here, please let me know. I can't stand propaganda, especially on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Jason3777 (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As the {{dispute-resolution}} sidebar highlights on the 3O project page, it is only one of several dispute resolution processes. It is an informal small scale project, most suitable for straightforward disagreements which can be resolved fairly easily. Some listings wait longer for a response than others, and sometimes a listed dispute is simply beyond its scope and later removed.

You could try requests for comment (RfC) and, if that was inconclusive or otherwise unsatisfactory, proceed to requests for mediation (RfM). — Athaenara ✉ 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding back. I'm going to stop editing for hopefully a month - can't promise, because the dissemination of accurate information is very important to me, and I like to help. This whole situation has left me very frustrated and with an incredibly foul taste in my mouth. One against a propaganda cartel, I ain't got a chance. I've already been hacked into on my home computer because of what I wrote concerning this subject (neither Windows nor the Internet is secure - my ISP even agreed I needed to switch to Linux! They took me very serious... Homeland Security serious). I just need to take some time to enjoy Wikipedia, like I use to before this whole Russian thing. I promise, I will pick this back up as soon as I logon to my account again (hopefully after a month). I don't let this stuff go! Again, thank you very much for your kind help. Jason3777 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am forwarding it here, after removing it from my talk page (diff), because I am not involved in the dispute which was listed on the Third opinion project page last week. — Athaenara ✉ 08:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

The issue seems fairly straightforward to me. The claim that Fox News cut off the interview because she was off-message, or the implicit claim that Fox News was pushing its own agenda, is not what we should be including in the article. Wikipedia articles contain well-documented facts and opinions from reliable sources. In this case, the only source is Pervy kanal and even our own article indicates that it is less than reliable as a source. My suggestion is that we leave an analysis of the motives of various news participants to media or political scholars, anything else would violate WP:OR. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 16:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this Russian source accurately reflect what is on the Fox News Video

I tried to translate this [1] with Gooogle Translate[2], but when I read the translation, it seemed to not accurately reflect the video. Should the reference even be included? Could someone who speaks Russian check this. It seems to leave a lot of stuff out. For example, the aunt's statements after the commercial break seem to be very abbreviated. Jason3777 (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how reference 12 [3] adds to the article, plus it's in Russian. There is a NYT article following this section that is in English. And reference 13 is the just a redundant link to the Fox News Video which is titled "^ FOX News cut off" (and that was all that was in the reference) in the reference section, so I am deleting it. Jason3777 (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New York Times article on D.D.O.S. against Georgia

I found this NYT article [4] on this page's deletion page. It is very interesting and I think it should be incorporated into this article. It explains how easy and cheap D.D.O.S. attacks are. And the article states there appears to have been practice runs against Georgia before the war even started! It even states that: "Over the weekend a number of American computer security researchers tracking malicious programs known as botnets, which were blasting streams of useless data at Georgian computers, said they saw clear evidence of a shadowy St. Petersburg-based criminal gang known as the Russian Business Network, or R.B.N." Jason3777 (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's not very well researched. The largest botnets in Russia (around 5GB/s) are still too expensive for individuals to run. You have to hire from China or the United States. Ottre 12:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought the article was well researched. First there are a lot Russian who have money, and second there are a lot of Russian in the USA who also have money. The article stated: "Researchers at Shadowserver, a volunteer group that tracks malicious network activity, reported that the Web site of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, had been rendered inoperable for 24 hours by multiple D.D.O.S. attacks. They said the command and control server that directed the attack was based in the United States and had come online several weeks before it began the assault." Note that the article stated "They said the command and control server that directed the attack was based in the United States" As you stated: "You have to hire from China or the United States." Apparently the attack was based in the United States. Check out the article. It's very interesting. And it is from The New York Times, a respectable source. And I believe it should be included in this article. Jason3777 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

August 17 through September - Original Research Tag?

I read the NYT article. I do not see any original research. Could you, 82.131.111.33, please justify this flag. If not, I will remove it. Such a flag needs justification on the talk page. I checked the history and it seems to be a remnant that is no longer in the right section in which you originally marked it up. Thanks you, Jason3777 (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Some missing, potentially useful information

The Australian press, when this conflict began, used South Ossetian claims against Georgian forces as claims by Georgians against Russian forces. When Georgia shelled South Ossetia, the West Australian said Russia had. When South Ossetia claimed 2,000 casualties, the same newspaper & even ninemsn (if I remember correctly) stated that Georgia was claiming 2,000 civilian casualties. This was August 8th, before the Russians had seriously begun their offensive and no statements of the sort had been made.

The Foreign Affairs editor for the West Australian later appeared on Australian TV, on the ABC program QandA and stated categorically that Russia was committing war crimes and was the aggressor. He took an aggressive approach in the discussion, which featured significant Australians such as the prominent feminist Germaine Greer who pointed out that Georgia attacked first and that Russia's statements to that point had been consistent with protecting South Ossetia. His response to this was to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Of course, this does not show clear media bias, as the TV program showed 2 sides to a story, but the man making false claims in a prominent Australian newspaper about the war publicly stated he was backing the Georgian position, while making clear mistakes in his articles.

Also, there is sections in this article and in the discussion here about the attacks on Georgian websites but none of the rather strategically placed ones on Russian websites that were in English. As far as I was aware, every major news site that the Russians hosted that had been translated into English had denial of service attacks against it for the first week of the war, causing them to be shut down completely, effectively stopping much of the Western media's access to Russian sourced information.

On top of that, Georgian government officials, many of whom already have close ties to Western businesses, some being Westerners themselves, spent most of their time during the war ringing people in the US trying to get them to publish stories about the war. This sort of behind the scenes influence greatly influenced early articles ... or at least I assume it would have and I also am pretty sure I saw a source from a newspaper in the US stating that he was originally influenced by these calls before he began his own research.

I find it odd that none of this is in these articles anymore. These facts were all shown in earlier articles and discussed ... and are now completely absent. I suspect someone is removing points like this from the article which would make for a serious case of vandalism.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In case someone was removing content, you can find out in the article's history (and linking to such incidents is a good idea if you make such accusations). Regarding what you said above, you should find some sources for these stories, since we can not include unsourced statements. --Xeeron (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)