Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

"Bolshevik-led" Ossetians

(regarding this edit)

I don't understand why should "Bolshevik-led" be inserted here. It suggests that Bolsheviks inspired Ossetians' revolts of 1918-1920. This may be partially true but certainly Georgia's agrarian policies also played its part, to put it mildly. See this article for details. Anyway this article is not a place to determine which factor was more important so it would be more appropriate to just state that some hostilities happened without applying misleading descriptions. Alæxis_¿question? 15:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's placed there by certain editors in order for a particular POV to come thru, so that the emphasis isn't being put on Ossetians, but rather on Bolsheviks. It's the same thing editors have done over on Georgia for Georgians. Do we say the Georgians led by the Nationalist Saakashvili? or any other thinks like this? I'd remove the Bolshevik-led for NPOV purposes. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Bolshevik-led" should be removed. It was not ideological but ethnic. We don't say "Capitalist-led" Afgan resistance against the Soviet Union. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What a nonsense! Do you have any source proving that the conflict was primarily ethnic? Guys, can I ask to avoid posing experts in something you have only remote knowledge of? Then how can you explain the fact that, at one point, the Georgian government forces against the Bolshevik Ossetian insurgents were led by the ethnic Ossetian colonel (later mj gen) Koniev? It is crucial to mention that the Ossetian rebels were supported by the Bolsheviks because this was a major reason of allienation between the two historically friendly communities.--Kober^Talk 06:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as it is important to point out that Gamsakhurdia was an ethno-nationalist, and those changes have also been made to the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I oppose both additions. Gamsakhurdia's policies are already described so there's no need for further calling names.

Here's what Svante Cornell wrote about the Ossetian uprisings:[1], p. 141

“

During its brief tenure, the Menshevik government came across significant problems with ethnic minorities. There were difficulties with regard to the Abkhaz, Ossetian, and Ajarian minorities, and a major conflict with Armenia over Armenian-inhabited territories within Georgian territory.25 Already in the Winter of 1918, an uprising took place in today’s South Ossetia. This uprising was crushed by the Menshevik government’s People’s Guard, generating resentment among Ossetians against the Tiflis government; by the same token, this also open the way for Bolshevik inroads into the Ossetian areas.

”

He did not deem it necessary to mention Bolsheviks when writing about 1918 uprising. Furthermore, he writes that handling of the uprising by Georgia 'open[ed] the way for Bolshevik inroads'. So, this issue is complex enough and describing Ossetians as 'Bolshevik-led' is a misleading simplification. Alæxis_¿question? 07:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Secondary Source (ff.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Great_secondary_source

Illarionov's speech delivered to the Cato Institute in Ukraine on September 4 - an English summary by Paul Goble [2] Elysander (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Economist: Summary of War - Mid of October >> [3] Elysander (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, only had umm a couple inaccuracies - the first one is that in this "great" secondary source Illarionov repeteadly says that he has incomplete data. Placing a source with incomplete data into a controversial article isn't going to be productive. Also, the guy doesn't even answer the question "How come you knew of Russian movenments while the American Satellites didn't" - he initially tries to dodge it, and then mumbles some b/s about how the war was covered in Russian Mass Information Sources, while failing to provide more then one article of proof, and that article was refuted here already. Notice how in that particlular part, that wasn't post here, even the hosts politely make fun of him. How one can view this source as "great" is beyond me.

"С.БУНТМАН: Я бы хотел ответить человеку, который подписался как «главный редактор осетинского радио», на которое ссылается Илларионов. Он просит позвонить. Я бы попросил сейчас главного редактора осетинского радио прислать нам еще одну смску предметную – что главное, что не так, по вашему мнению, говорит Андрей Илларионов. Дальше. «Спросите у Илларионова, почему американские космические службы слежения не видели перемещения войск через Рокский тоннель 9 августа, а он знает?»

А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Я не знаю, почему кто-то сделал предположение, что я знаю, как действуют американские спутники и что они видят, чего не видят.

С.БУНТМАН: Нет, вы знали, что перемещались войска, а американцы не знали.

А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Дело в том, что для того, чтобы знать про перемещения войска, большей проблемы не представляет, потому что об этом сообщали российские СМИ, информационные агентства, и даже российское Министерство обороны регулярно публиковало сводки о прохождении маневров «Кавказ-2008» с середины июля до 2 августа, когда около 10 тысяч солдат и офицеров при поддержке как минимум 700 единиц бронетехники проводили маневры на Северном Кавказе. Правда, после завершения маневров 2 августа войска никуда не ушли, а остались на своих местах. Сообщения же офицеров и солдат, участвующих в этих маневрах, говорят о том, что часть участников маневров не только участвовали в маневрах на территории Северного Кавказа, не только вышли на перевалы, и довольно много об этом было публикаций и на сайте Минобороны, и в газете «Красная Звезда», но и перешли эти перевалы. И некоторые из них довольно подробно рассказывают о том, что «у нас были маневры на территории Южной Осетии». Некоторые рассказывают о том, что «мы в течение недели находимся на холмах, окружающих Цхинвали, и видим, как там происходят в течение недели обстрелы». То есть это все происходило до 7 августа.

М.ГАЙДАР: Американские спутники просто не читали СМИ.

А.ИЛЛАРИОНОВ: Я не знаю, чем занимались американские спутники. Это все можно найти в российских газетах. Там достаточно подробно рассказывается о том, что и кто и как делал. И будничное повествование многих российских солдат и офицеров говорит о том, что по крайней мере для них в этом не было ничего удивительного, ничего ненормального. Они выполняли тот приказ, который они получили. И судя по тому, кто об этом говорит и рассказывает, как минимум четыре подразделения российской армии находились на территории Южной Осетии еще до 7 августа, включая 135-й мотострелковый полк и 22-ю бригаду спецназа. Кроме того, там же находились и некоторые танковые подразделения регулярных российских войск, которые участвовали поначалу в маневрах «Кавказ-2008», а потом оказались на территории Южной Осетии."

"Ask Illarionov how he knew about the Russian troop movenemnt, while the US Satellites didn't know?" Illarionov: "I don't know how American Satellites work" (failed dodge) "No you knew how the Russian troops moved, American satellites didn't, how'd you know?" Illarionov: "In order to know about Russian troop movenments you had to read Russian sources of mass information such as teh one about Operation Kavkaz-2008 that occurred from mid-July till the 2nd of August, when around 10,000 troops manuevered in the North Caucasian Region...as was reported in Russian Newspapers" "American Satellites just didn't read the Russian Newspapers!" I mean come on! He gets the info from the Defense Ministry and the newspaper Red Star - and we know these are always honest and reliable, right? B/S is never published in newspapers to sell them, right Mr. Hearst? 67.101.104.59 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive POV edits

Keverich, please discuss your edits here before making them to the article. It is not acceptable that a 3 month collaboration on NPOV wording of the lead is destroyed by a newcomer. If you insist on your POV, please discuss, it is quite possible to come to an agreement.

This is not an endorsement of the current lead, there are still improvements to be made. However, clearly you are taking it in the wrong direction. (Igny (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Regarding your latest edit, if crimes committed by Russian forces are to be mentioned in the intro (they're already described in the main text) then those done by Georgians need to be mentioned there also (see this bbc article for example). Alæxis_¿question? 11:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-russian edits again

Once again the article invaded by anti-russian editor who wants to turn article around into "russian barbarian agression against poor democratic Georgia". Keverich1, please, consider the WP:NPOV rule.Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What's it with you guys and "anti-russian"? If you don't support Putin you're anti-russian? We're dealing with politics here, no need to invoke nationalistic feelings. Grey Fox (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A silver lining on Russian horizon ;) : Vladimir Solovyev in Kommersant [4]

It seems that the tiny but noisy war in the Caucasus had only winner and no losers. But every victory has its price.Russia plans to locate military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and take control of the borders of the unrecognized republics. In exchange, Moscow will make their support a separate entry in the federal budget. The Ministry of Regional development has already calculated that about 35 billion rubles will have to go to restore South Ossetia. Georgia will reap the fruits of its “victory” beginning next month, when the billions of dollars of Western aid begin rolling in. But the question is whether it was worth $4.5 billion to lose a third of its territory. Abkhazia and South Ossetia also have something to think about. For example, was it worth it to fight so long for independence from one country to wind up in such complete dependence on another. Elysander (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I once read a similar rant on whether it is worth to fight for independence from Russia to wind up in such complete dependence on EU/NATO with reference to the Baltic countries. The author argued small countries can not ever get full independence from their bigger neighbors, they can only move from one sphere of influence to another. On the other hand, Ukraine has a chance to gain genuine independence and write/dictate its own policy, rather than join NATO/EU like some others. In my opinion, this rant is also related to Georgia as well.

With regard to the moneys, I was always sure that one of Kremlin's hidden agenda is construct new ways to launder more and more money. If someone thinks that Ossetian stock herders or Georgian wine makers get anything from the respective windfall, they are mistaken and naive. (Igny (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

There still is a vauge anti-russian bias to parts of the article. But since that is mostly the result of the extremely onesided media reporting, its difficult to retain a sourcebased article and still have an unbiased article. One thing that may deserve inclusion for the sake of balancing it out a bit could be the insane statements and claims by Saakhasjvili during the conflict. For example his statement about how all now remaining people in Tshkinvali by default were rebels and justified targets(that quote has been translated twice so its certainly not accurate word for word), or how during his press conference with Rice he claimed Russia used WMDs on Georgia making even Rice cringe visibly.

Or perhaps mention or link to the wiki page on him concerning critique in conjunction with GW Bushs talk about "democratic outpost" or whatever he said, and the Democracy barometer which 2007 ranked Georgia below Russia in level of democracy. Its relevant information about the politicking around the conflict but not so sure about if its good to include here... DW75 (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Russian edits can only be expected when a state behaves so brazenly. 76.237.239.102 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think Keverich1's raid was anti-Russian, then you must be a fan of Fox News! Or CNN! "Fox News always gives two sides of the story, the President's Side and the Vice President's Side" - Steven Colbert. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Autonomy proposals

It is strange (if not an outright POV) that the article deals with Georgia's increased military expenditures, but says nothing about a series of proposals of autonomy for Abkhazia and S. Ossetia in the recent years. Not a single word is said about the ethnic Ossetian political groups supporting reunification with Georgia and Georgia's attempt to have them involved in the Russian-"mediated" negotiations. Also, for many years the Georgian and US governments have been urging Russia to allow an international monitoring of the Roki Tunnel through which the region has been flooded with weapons and mercenaries, but Russians persistently rejected all their requests. These are very important details which should certainly be mentioned in the Background section. --Kober^Talk 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The autonomy proposals should be mentioned, I agree. Iirc 'international monitoring' of Roki tunnel meant putting Georgian customs officers there (and near Psou as well). Alæxis_¿question? 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, add. This article is monitored by so many people that anything new added will be quadruple checked. The History does not, however, alert you of important facts missing. --Xeeron (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just make sure to mention that these "ethnic Ossetian" promises didn't come from the legitimately elected government in the Capital, but from a collateral pro-Georgian government. As for the Roki Tunnel, it should also be mentioned that part of the Roki Tunnel is on Russian Territorry, and that the Roki Tunnel being "monitored" on Russian Territorry, or leading upto Russian territorry is legitimately viewed by Russia as a threat. I.e. actually give the Russian reason or rejections, don't just say "Russians rejected". And it's not very strange that in a military-related article, military budgets are mentioned. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Set on fire and sunk" or scuttled

Which term better describes what happened to the Georgian ships at Poti? I say they were scuttled because that's the accurate term and we have an article for it in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the same thing. Like "blown up" and demolished. --Illythr (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So we agree? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why using an ambiguous naval terminus technicus instead of simple English words to report what happened in Poti: set on fire and sunk by .. The overwhelming majority of examples in scuttled Article describe cases of self-destruction. We should avoid misunderstandings. ;) Elysander (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Scuttling is the term used to denote the destruction of ships out of battle. Since that "by Russian forces" part is not going anywhere, there's no ambiguity as to what happened. --Illythr (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want simple english, go to the simple english wikipedia. I'm changing it back to scuttled because "the words are beyond my vocabulary" isn't a good enough reason to revert. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Setting on fire" and "allowing water to flow into the hull" (quoted from scuttling) are technically quite different, so why don't you both bring a source to prove your point? Either the source says they were set on fire or it says scuttled and we use that term. --Xeeron (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the goal was to sink them, so that the Georgian Navy won't be able to use them again. Since this was not done in combat, scuttling is the term for this. The Al-jazeera source actually says "destroyed," but without the context it's unclear, whether it was done in battle or not. Anyhow, here's a source that uses the word. [5] Still, demanding a source for a minor NPOV word change is a bit harsh, don't you think? --Illythr (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think bringing a source is preferable to starting the next edit war (and that is already underway). --Xeeron (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What a clumsy Russian bear :) scuttling instead of giving them to the Abkhazians... sorry for soapboxing --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey they kept the Jeeps, to them it's all about quality construction. :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Naval Activities in Article ( Leader & Time Line )

My plan was to insert a conspectus of war's naval activities as summary in 2-3 sentences. I did check again several sources (conflict parties, third parties etc.) and must confess except blockading of Georgian coast by Russian navy nearly nothing is undisputed. Article's time line seems inaccurate or incomplete regarding naval activities. 1) Whether a skirmish on Black Sea has taken place or not is not clear. Only one fact seems sure one Georgian missile boat was hit. But whether it was sunk or could return to Poti habour - sources disagree. 2) Poti harbour ( military and civil part) was attacked two times by Russian airfore. It seems not clear whether and - if yes how many - non military ships, units of Georgian naval forces or coast guard were hit or blown up. 3) Poti harbour was raided and looted by Russian ground forces several times after Medvedev's official order to halt. The circumstances how Georgian ships were sunk during the raids differ from source to source. Therefore we should use rather "neutral" wording" 4) Could a part of the tiny Georgian fleet flee to Batumi? Or were observers unable to distinguish between Georgian Navy (regular forces) and Coast Guard? Elysander (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Addition: I'm missing too Black Sea Fleet's landing operations on Georgian coast (some 1000s Russian ground forces and paratroopers) in time line. Elysander (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the Georgian boat was sunk. Considering the Russians played video footage on their TV channels. And what observers are you talking about? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Only one example! Globalsecurity [6] - not so unreliable or so naturally POV orientated as others ;) >> On 09 August 2008 missile boat Tbilisi (206MP Vikhr, given by Ukraine in June 1999), was reported to have been hit by gunfire and sunk by units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet off the Abkhazian coast when allegedly entered a Russia imposed 'security zone' along with four other vessels. It was discovered on fire in the Georgian port of Poti on August 13, 2008. If this info is correct how can a sunk ship return to its harbour? All lines of this article must be checked after still existing tendency to edit warring expires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysander (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Do they have a primary source for this? Do you have a primary source? A sunk ship cannot return to its harbor, but someone could have mistaken a similar looking ship for it. I mean there was combat, with the Georgian ship sunk and the Russian ship damaged according to Ukranian sources !!! and there was no immediate response. Why report it several months after the war? Did they "lose" the boat reports just like they "lost" the tapes? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong questions as often! This episode is only one example for article's corrupt status. It was asserted that a combat or skirmish has taken place on black sea. But different opinions and sources exist - about a skirmish between G and R, a simple shot on a Georgian unit (because allegedly entering Russian fleet's security zone), a Georgian gossip of a self-murderous attack on Russian navy too - and so on. Elysander (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to post a primary source. You gave your opinion instead. If you keep on opining and failing to post primary sources in your arguments, I will simply ignore you and make the edits. This is Wikipedia, and no one is interested in your opinions that aren't backed up by factual evidence. The source you cited is a secondary source by all definitions. According to Wikipedia rules, primary sources (the ones that say the Georgian ship was sunk) beat secondary sources (the ones that say Georgia's ship was in harbor). Unless you can post a primary source, I will undo your edits via wikipedia guidelines. 67.101.104.59 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Check WP:SECONDARY. --Xeeron (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK and? "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims." In other words, you cannot just post secondary sources that don't analyze primary sources. The intention was that you post quality secondary source that provide a useful explanation of the primary source, and thus cite to the primary source. Again Xeeron - you excel at missing the intent, but successfully nitpick! Good job! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! A conflict party's information is always a primary source but if not confirmed by other conflict parties or a 3rd party always a claim not a fact. Elysander (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Compare the policy "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." to the sentence above "According to Wikipedia rules, primary sources (the ones that say the Georgian ship was sunk) beat secondary sources". 67.101.104.59 was just plain wrong in his interpretation of the policy, nothing ambiguous about that. --Xeeron (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly a "reliable" secondary source, and a secondary source that fails to qoute the primary source, or fails to qoute where the info. was gotten from, fails as a source. Otherwise why not go all the way back to "Pravda" I mean everything printed there was the "truth", right Xeeron? The request to show more sources, on a controversial matter was not at all unreasonable. I love it how instead of providing sources to prove your points, both of you, are here arguing with me. I am just asking for more sources, when you guys asked me for more sources, I provided them. The fact that you don't have more sources to provide, shows the fallacy of your argument. Let's recall CNN's claim that Russia started this war, or like I said, go back to "Pravda". 67 may have been wrong at policy interpretation, but his request to show more sources, rather then ambigous data, was not unreasonable. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

|Battle_off_the_coast_of_Abkhazia Maybe one of the most ridiculous article I must read the last days - except the leader ;) - about a "battle" which very probably never had taken place! Only sources presented by one conflict party - nothing substantial was confirmed by a 2nd or 3rd party in a reliable way. More ridiculously: some hints towards truth in a blog [7]. Elysander (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahahah Grey Fox (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LOLZ: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA560705.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/11/2330528.htm http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2373492,00.html http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=170964 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104258690&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In short quite a few sources stated that the Georgian Boat was sunk. For several months, there were no answers from Georgia. 2 months later, in come people like Grey Fox and Elyslander and tell us that the battle never took place. Where were you guys on August 11th? August 31st? Just like the Georgian tapes. I mean seriously, in two years are you guys planning to claim that the war never took place? Or that Russia was beaten off by the mighty Georgian Army? This is pure revisionism, covered in b/s propaganda. Two months later they "find out" that the boat was not sunk. Puh Lease! Now you'll claim that it never occurred, because the Russians didn't want to give out their naval position. People like you have already changed the Battles of Poti and Gori into the Massacres of Poti and Gori. Those who engage in Revisionist history are doomed to get screwed over militarily, and the greatest irony here, is that we have two revisionists, writing in the very war that proved historical revisionism to be b/s. Ain't irony great?

On a serious note, either the Georgian Navy confronted the Russian Navy (total Russian victory) or the Russian Navy and Air Force sunk the Georgian Navy without a fight (total Russian Victory). And your point in revising this, is? Either the Georgian Army ran away and proved poor training, or they got their asses kicked on the battlefield and proved poor training. I am just amazed at how desperate the pro-Georgian editors are at nitpicking to find those non-existant victories. "But they didn't sink the boat in combat, they sank it in the harbor - those Russians, clearly defeated!" Hahaha, cute. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As you already proved on several occasions your "sense" for sources is strictly underdeveloped. Are you really not able to understand that your 5 "sources" or 100 of such copied agency news are based only on one primary source ( defense ministry in Moscow) which was spread via Russian agencies - and then by international like AP or reuters?? And as always you are reading in my lines only things you want to read but often don't exist. I don't know what happened on Black Sea ( but probably you were on board of a Russian vessel as you were already eye witness on Southern side of the Roki tunnel ;) ) but according to defense ministry in Moscow itself a battle had very probably never taken place .. maybe a skirmish ... maybe an action or incident or similar verbal nonsense. Wikipedia shouldn't be the place where such governmental claims or assertions can go through as facts as happened in this article's time line - or turning into a burlesque as in Battle_off_the_coast_of_Abkhazia. Elysander (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elyslander, please try to understand: my secondary sources quote a legitimate primary source and there are many of them. Your secondary sources fail to qoute any primary sources. Interesting how you 'forgot' to mention this difference. One is bigger then zero Elyslander, it's basic math really. Also, you completely failed to counter-argue my point about Georgia, or even pro-Georgian editors such as yourself, (I'm neutral here - when Russia used cluster bombs, I was one of the first to point that out,) none of you mentioned the Georgian boat not being sunk, until several months later, and then citing to secondary sources that fail to qoute primary sources. It's called Revisionism, and is frowned upon in any scholarly circles. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to an encyclopedia? Doesn't that make it scholarly? Doesn't that make you revisionists? If the incident never took place, it would have been repudiated almost immediately, not two months after the fact. Where was this repudiation on August 11th? August 31st? It's not cool to just wait a few months and then say "no battle!" Also, according to your interpretation, it does make Georgia look quite pathetic, not even trying to fight back or engage Russia, after they fired on the Russians. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather wrong ... but some good jokes inside! :)) Why cannot you understand that the relevant question is not primary, secondary or tertiary source but whether a primary source includes a fact or a claim, assertion or something else? In this case Russian defense ministry CLAIMS that "something" happened on Black Sea and a Georgian ship was sunk. Til now nothing was confirmed. If 1.000 newspapers are copying and spreading the content of one primary source they are mirroring this content (perhaps adding comments, allusions etc.) but they don't confirm. You seem to confuse not only quality and quantity measures. ;) This article is still a battleground. And there are so many missing points, errors, POV parts, strange compromises after edit wars etc. in nearly all sections. All claims, figures, numbers, time lines etc. must be permanently in check room whether they were inserted in August 2008 or December 2008. If I follow your personal views about revisionism, Georgian fighting spirit or realism I would leave indeed any encyclopedic approach behind me. ;) Elysander (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Elysander - if "something" happens on the Black Sea, and that "something" is recorded as history, and not objected to within a reasonable amount of time, it becomes history. This article is and will be a battleground, until the tag is removed, and I'm glad that we can agree on that. I'm fighting for the neutral side here, remember how I've said that both sides used Cluster Bombs - and was one of the first editors here to say it. In addition, you cannot revise an August battle report in December, unless you provide quality sources for your revision, and a secondary source that makes a claim, but doesn't cite to a primary source, not explain the reason for its claim, aside from "Joe the Plumber said so" is not a quality source. "It was seen in the harbor" - seen by who? When? How did they get that info? I'm not saying that there's a rock-solid case for the boat being sunk, but we know that: A. the Russians had the capability to sink that ship; B. the Ukrainians claimed that the Russian cruiser was damaged in the a battle; C. When Russians are fired upon they tend to shoot back; D. if the Russians shoot back, they most likely sank that boat. Add it all up - and you get a mini-naval engagements, with a cruiser damaged and a boat sunk. And your source is not strong enough to repudiate the Russian claim, ergo the claim stays, until you can provide a stronger source. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ergo the claim stays ... but don't forget before it was a fact in time line. ;) That sounds better than ever before!! Real progress visible on your side. I made some little changes to make clear who is/was claiming what. Elysander (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you can either say that NBC news said that Russians claimed they sunk a Georgian boat, or say that Russians said that they sunk a Georgian boat. What you cannot do, and it's what Grey Fox tries to do repeatedly against all common sense, is to say that the Russians claimed they sunk... The Russians didn't claim, they said the ship was sunk, so if you are going to reference that as a claim, use a non-Russian source and qoute verbatum, can you handle that Elyslander? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ... but you are playing with the rest of your discussion credibility ;) - cannot you remember your own words: Add it all up - and you get a mini-naval engagements, with a cruiser damaged and a boat sunk. And your source is not strong enough to repudiate the Russian claim, ergo the claim stays, until you can provide a stronger source." Claim!! I did only express my doubts about descriptions of an "event" and its circumstances which were inserted in article's time line (and in a "Battle" article) as undisputed or confirmed facts. Elysander (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Memorial? - HRW Claims ?

Apart from the fact that the number cited for memorial was wrong all along, the source is pretty weak. Is there any newer/more complete source about Memorials estimate? --Xeeron (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since 89.216.236.45 didn't like it as well, Memorial is out of the article for now. --Xeeron (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has been messing with the infobox, my original version didn't cite Memorial as mentioning a figure, just as disputing Russia's figure. According to them it's unusual that the amount of dead are higher then the amount of wounded, citing the figure of 273 as officially registered as wounded.[8] Grey Fox (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Ahem_-_in_the_Russian_casualty_Box. - Just now i have only a German source for Memorial statement [9] but maybe the last Memorial recherche based statement ( Sept/Oct 2008) - Svetlana Gannushkina:

...die Situation Zchinwali, der Hauptstadt Südossetiens, sei sehr bedrückend, so Gannuschkina. Circa 30 Prozent aller Häuser seien zerstört. .... Die immer wieder genannte Zahl von 2000 Getöteten im Krieg zwischen Georgien und Süd-Ossetien hält Gannuschkina für unrealistisch. Bei ihren Besuchen in Konfliktgebieten in der ehemaligen Sowjetunion habe sie immer wieder festgestellt, dass häufig stark erhöhte Opferzahlen genannt würden. Ein hoher Beamter der südossetischen Regierung habe ihr von 1600 Toten und 86 schwer Verletzten berichtet. Es sei nicht logisch, dass die Zahl der Verletzten um ein Mehrfaches unter der Zahl der Toten liege, so Gannuschkina. Es sei derzeit nicht möglich, die Zahl der Toten zu nennen. Die russische Staatsanwaltschaft habe am 5. September von 134 toten Zivilisten gesprochen, die ihr namentlich bekannt seien. Die Staatsanwaltschaft von Südossetien hatte erklärt, dass 276 Tote exhumiert und identifiziert worden seien.

Memorial: 30 % of buildings in Ts. destroyed - Memorial: claim of 2000 dead people not realistic - characteristic for conflicts in former SU that casualties are exaggerated - South Ossetian claim: 1600 dead people + 86 heavily wounded - Memorial: the rate betw. deads and wounded are not logic - Russian prosecutors ( Sept. 5): known dead 134 civilians - South Ossetian prosecutors: 276 dead identified - Memorial says: it is not possible to tell exact numbers !! Elysander (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Still Inaccurate: South Ossetia: Russia and South Ossetian officials claim 1,492 South Ossetian civilians killed/missing (365 confirmed by September 25);[23][24][25] HRW claims 300-400 civilians killed[26] - HRW doesn't claim 300 - 400 dead civilians. BBC source tells that: The Russian prosecutor's office is investigating more than 300 possible cases of civilians killed by the Georgian military. Some of those may be Ossetian paramilitaries, but Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point". In my opinion HRW says Russian figure comes near reality. HRW as Memorial never did report exact numbers; they did always say original claims ( genocide, over 2000, 1500, 1600) were exaggerated or not appropriate to their own limited samples or the total numbers of wounded people etc.. Elysander (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't imply at all that HRW's figure is 300-400. It's in reply to the number put forward by Russia's prosecutor's office investegating possible deaths, meaning that HRW simply applauds an investigation into possible deaths. I also can't find any report of HRW that confirms such figures, neither on their site or news articles. In contrary, they often speak of "dozens" killed, figures always lower than a hundred. According to Tatyana Lokshina, deputy director, the amount of deaths in South Ossetia are below a hundred[10][11] and since she represents hrw this can stay as their current figure. Grey Fox (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The current HRW statement is misleading. The references (one is dated as early as 13 of Aug, and the other, dated in Sept, is based on Lokshina's earlier statements) said that HRW disputed the early reports on 1500+ casualties. The current statement implies that HRW also disputes the newer figure of 300-400 civilian casualties, which is wrong, the references did not say that, they are dated too early to dispute the newer information. Besides, the reference which you deleted did say that HRW Ok'd 300-400 as a good starting point. Your interpretation of the meaning of the statement is simply your POV, it is not up to you to interpret what the source said and somehow invalidate the sourced info along the way. And it is not our problem to find the primary source (HRW press release or a post or something), a reliable secondary source is more than ok. Unless there are objections, I will fix this later. (Igny (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

As for HRW quoting Russian/Ossetian official figures, this is what they had to say in a letter to Sakaashvili: "We also reference the figures arrived at by Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor General’s office, which says it has documented 154 civilian deaths (its first published figure was 133). We have also noted that it is unclear whether the Prosecutor General’s investigation is distinguishing between civilians and volunteer militias, and if so, how. The many men in South Ossetia who took up arms to defend their homes are not military, but they are regarded as combatants under international humanitarian law and as such should not be counted among civilian casualties. The same issues are relevant to the list of more than 300 deaths compiled in South Ossetia by a commission of Russian and Ossetian public figures.

Human Rights Watch refers to these figures, but we do not cite any of them as a definitive number of civilian casualties. Likewise, we refer to casualty figures stated by the Georgian authorities of Georgian civilians with similar caveats. " Grey Fox (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: That is a nice touch. So if I decide to use my rifle to defend my house from thugs, I would be considered a combatant under the international law. And if the thugs kidnap me for ransom, I become a POW? And if I retaliate by bombing a military installation, I am a terrorist, right? It is surreal to see how wars justify murders and other crimes. (Igny (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Can we clear how many civilians were in Tskh. and surroundings on 7/8 August? We know that SO - especially Tskh. - was systematically evacuated by Kokoity regime with beginning August. The majority of claimed, estimated or identified dead civilian on SO side belong very probably to Kokoity's "South Ossetian Forces". Elysander (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we some kind of experts with access to the primary information? No we can not clear anything at this point, we can not establish anything with any decent degree of certainty. All we can do is to wait until the dust settles and wait for reliable reports and hope our trust in the sources is not misplaced. At this current state, the article is just a collection of contradicting each other statements, references open to multiple interpretations, some OR and a lot of POV pushing. No wonder edit wars are not abating. (Igny (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Wait a second. Even if we can not be certain about this, we can still use common sense. Your claim is RIDICULOUS and simply false. If you look at the list of the 360+ confirmed and identified victims at [12], you will see that a significant portion of the list was women, also a lot of people 50 years or older, quite a few under 20 and one girl 3 years old. If you judge by the last names, you will see lot of people who were members of the same family. Are you still claiming that majority of the identified victims were "South Ossetia forces"?? May be some kind of a special force, right. And your logic is flawed too. New Orleans was also "evacuated" before Hurricane Katrina, yet somehow 1800+ people died there. So next time just use common sense, do not make funny/false claims, and stop doing OR. (Igny (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

My claim is not ridiculous your claim it is ... and again and again you are preferring citations out of context as usual. The problems of counting SO dead civilians were and are are always on Russian and Kokoity's side for more than two months now. No third party has ever confirmed the early estimations and the last released numbers. Informations, figures, numbers etc. released by a conflict partner are only claims til a 3rd party confirms.

What's with Putin's demasking accusation of "Genocide" on 2nd/3rd day of war ?? Obviously only made to justify military activities in Georgia. What's with Kokoity's et al. assertions about 2000 and more civilian deads or about Tskh. as " Kaukasus' Stalingrad". Where is the evidence for these accusuations and assertions which are only products of an oiled propaganda machinery? Now R&SO officials try to come down from propaganda high peaks into the valley of reality .. and HRW simply said they had just started with this approach to reality. Obviously HRW still affirms combatants are not completely excluded from prosecutors' last numbers. Elysander (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Those deaths aren't independently confirmed Igny. Apart from possible inclusion of males that might have been combatants, the other persons might not even exist at all. Also the areas damaged by hurricane katrina are inhabited by millions, not 70,000. Grey Fox (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was that if you are not conducting a 100% forced evacuation, there will be always people who will stay to "weather the storm", people who are just too poor or who have little to lose or just nowhere to go. I am not saying thousands were killed, but an estimate of a few hundred of civilian deaths sounds reasonable to me. As to the independent verification we would have to wait years for that, and at this moment no one can make hasty claims about evacuations or combatants versus civilians without conducting OR. Even years after the event there will always be history revisionists, holocaust deniers, conspiracy cranks etc, so WP will never be 100% certain about these events even if they just happened on our watch. (Igny (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Listen up Grey Fox, first of HRW doesn't dispute anymore the numbers given by the Russians, furthermore they said that the Russian 300-400 number is a good starting point to determine the real number of killed, that 300-400 number is within the parameters of the 365 confirmed by the Russians. Also your reference says 273 wounded and 44 dead not 273 killed. Plus, I have not seen Memorial mentioned anywhere. Just give up already, HRW has withdrawn it's previous statements of less than 100 dead when they concured with the BBC's independent investigation. There you wanted a non-Russian investigation to be conducted, BBC did it, are you telling me that they are pro-Russian now also? The 1,200+ number may or may not be exagarated, I don't realy know, but the 365 number is certainly true based on the investigation by the Russian prosecution ministry, the BBC team and HRW's assesment. There, three separate opinions.89.216.236.45 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're taking things largely out of context. "A good starting point" means something completely different than "we believe the Russian numbers". A good starting point means that they think Russia's investigation into the killings is a good starting point, or that the number closes nearer to reality than the "1,500 killed". I've already shown you several sources of hrw officials stating that they don't believe such a number to be genuine. Here's another[13]. If theyre truly suddenly revised their number to "300/400" it will get posted on their website or repeated by officials, but until then their "good starting point" comment is not enough to dismiss all their previous statements Also the BBC is a good source, but not perfect (per wikipedia policies). The official website of human rights watch however is an exceptionally good source.

As for the memorial quote, Alexander Cherkasov of Russia's leading rights group, Memorial, who also visited the region, said the number of dead civilians is usually not higher than the number of wounded. He said 273 civilians were officially registered as wounded in the main hospital in South Ossetia. here they say its unusual for the amount of killed to be even higher than 273, which is a dispute because all ossetian / russian figures are higher than that, and as such, memorial also disputes Russia's number. Grey Fox (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

@ 89.216.236.45 - Would you be so kind to tell me where i can find BBC's independent investigation in numbers or figures? Elysander (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just another source about the HRW and 300-400 estimate. And another by Guardian. What else do we need , here are 3 independent reliable secondary sources. Again taken out of context?(Igny (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Uhm, they're quoting the BBC article, so that doesn't change a thing. What we need to know is where, when and how HRW would have said such a thing, because it directly contradicts their website and press reports. Grey Fox (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And another source and another. The HRW never denied these reports, never rejected these claims. HRW never said BBC lied in their article. These figures do contradict their early reports, but they are outdated. Like I said, it is not our job to find the primary source of information, secondary sources are more than enough. I will re-add this sourced information a bit later, and please do not remove it just because they contradict your point of view. (Igny (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

A verbatim quote from [14]

Russia claims Georgian forces killed some 2,000 South Ossetian civilians during the conflict; Human Rights Watch believes between 300 and 400 is a more realistic estimate.

It is not out of context, it is a reliable secondary source, what else do you want from me, look for HRW representative and ask him whether this is true? (Igny (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Igny you can show a hundred more source that quote the BBC, but that doesn't change the fact that they're simply quoting the BBC so it doesn't change a thing (also that guardian article is an editorial). You said hrw's report is outdated. No it's not, their last reports also dispute these figures. The BBC article doesn't say that hrw revised their figure. No, it simply claimed hrw called a figure "a good starting point" which can be interpretated in several ways, but in your way directly contradicts what hrw actually says on their website. If hrw truly revised their figure, they would post it on their website and/or give a press announcement would they not? And a primary source is better than a secondory one when it comes to their own statements. "There are less than 100 killed civillians" sounds a lot stronger than "300 is a good starting point", and it comes from a primary source instead of a secondory. And again, "a starting point" means that it simply refers to Russia's ongoing investigation, and as such hrw has simply called Russia's investigation a good starting point, which is something completely different than revising their figure. Grey Fox (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ALL I want is to quote BBC here, why can't I? Is it some kind of proRussian nationalist website or something? The last time I checked WP can quote BBC. (Igny (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

That's not all you want to do, you also want to remove the estimations from human rights watch. But maybe we can come up with a compromise. How about These numbers are disputed by HRW and Memorial, but HRW recently called Russia's investigation into 300/400 deaths a useful starting point, but maybe that's just too long for the infobox. Grey Fox (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Igny and also I said it before the 100 number you are putting is OUT OFF DATE, how plainly can I say it more. OUT OFF DATE, OUT OFF DATE. HRW earlier said the number 100 yes, but now they are thinking that the 300-400 number may be right. For God's sake what do you want, do you want the president of HRW to come to your door and say it to you out loud. How I hate arguing with editors that are focused only on one source and not on the other ten. Listen, the Russians say 300-400. The BBC article, which you constantly remove which is not NPOV of you, says that genocide was conducted and they concure with the Russians, and finally HRW concurs with the 300-400. There three sources. THREE. 100 is no longer the starting point for them. Give it up already Gre Fox.89.216.236.45 (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, nowhere does it say their figure is "out of date", that's just what you make of it, just as how you make up how the bbc calls georgia's attack "genocide". And they didn't say "we are thinking that the 300-400 number maybe right" either. They said Russia's investigation into it was a "useful starting point", which means something completely different, understand? Grey Fox (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So a compromise

Early estimates are 2000 by Ossetia (ref), 1400 by Russia (ref). These early estimates are disputed by HRW and Memorial who initially estimated under 100 dead (ref). Later Russians claimed 365 civilian deaths are under investigation (ref), HRW said 300-400 civilian casualties is a good starting point (ref).

Or some variant thereof. Will it work? (Igny (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

It's a lot better. Just not the order in which, and also memorial didn't say "under 100 dead", that was just hrw. Grey Fox (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

God you are thickheaded. I don't accept the 100 number. The 100 number was given in the days just after the end of the war. While HRW didn't have any teams on the ground yet and the 100 estimate they gave was based on calls to hospitals in the war zone, and as it has been confirmed most off the dead were buired where they fell so they wer not transported to the hospitals. Also, you obviously don't understand the meaning of out off date. Your reference, like I said, came just a few days after the war ended this one comes two and a half months later. That is what out off date means. The situation has calmed down now, then it was still frantic. So now the situations is thus that the real scope of the devastation can be seen. It's just like when a terrorist bombing happens and initialy they say there have been 30 casualties but five days later when the situation is more clear they say 50 people have been killed and 100 wounded. There, for example. Now are you going to put the initial numbe rof 30 casualties or the real up to date number of 50 dead. Which is it?89.216.236.45 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please watch personal attacks. The number 100 isn't from the days after the war, it's from more than a month after the war. And the letter to sakaashvili above that I talked about is from 2 months after the war. Grey Fox (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok I tried to make a compromise version that's in good chronologic order. Grey Fox (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not perfect, but it is ok by me. Minor improvements could be made, but I will let others check grammar, improve wording etc. 2 points: 100 was early estimate which hasn't been updated in a while, 2. You noticed you didn't quote HRW directly but rather cited the IHT. I was arguing that BBC can be quoted as well. Now can everyone let it go? (Igny (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Yes, future publications will probably clear things up. We'll just have to wait and see. And sorry for being so persistent, but I learned that, especially when it comes to Russia and numbers, you have to check a fact before it becomes a fact. Grey Fox (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, who here fails at reading comprehension? The Russian source clearly said that the Russians are investigating, not "claiming to investigate" but are investigating the deaths. You don't get to make up your own original interpretation. If you hit someone over the head with a baseball bat, you aren't claiming to hit someone over the head with a baseball bat. You actually do it. I've made the edit, please comprehend what you read next time. I mean this is like Reading 101. If the article says 'did' you don't "interpret" that as 'claimed to do'. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Historicwarrior, when they say they are "investigating 365 deaths" those deaths might just not exist at all. Russian figures are claims, just like Georgian figures. Considering they have a history of faking numbers that's reasonable. Grey Fox (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox, I am sorry, but last time I checked Wikipedia did not say that mind-readers are allowed to post their translations of what they thought. You report the news as it occurs. If the Russians said investigating, it means investigating, it doesn't mean that you, Grey Fox, get to engage in original research. Russia didn't "lower the toll" they said "investigating". If you are unable to quote verbatum, don't edit Wikipedia, no one here cares about mind-reading skills. If they say they are investigating then that's what you report. I can easily point out that the ratio of dead Georgians to wounded Georgians in the military contrasts sharply with any sensible ratio, and that probably more Georgian militarymen were killed, but you don't see me doing that, do you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please not again. BTW, "revised the toll lower" was my idea, not Grey Fox's.(Igny (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

It needs to be mentioned that different Russian Agencies made different claims: i.e. the initial claim was made by one agency, the 365 deaths claim was made by another agency, simply saying "The Russians" imho is not enough. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it historicwarrior007, if they say they are investigating 10,000 deaths, they imply these 10,000 deaths exist. Therefore such statements should be described as claims because they come from a primary source involved with the conflict. It's a neutrality issue to not present either Georgian or Russian figures as facts. No need to edit war over that. Grey Fox (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that you are going to kill someone is not the same as killing someone, nor does it carry the same penatly. Learn the basic defintions before posting. Russians claim 1492 deaths and are investigating 365 deaths, a much smaller proportion. Shish, how hard can this be? Claim means could be dead, could be missing, investigating means confirmed dead. Huge difference, now stop making up facts and trying to present my challenges to your factual makeups as edit warring. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The deaths haven't been confirmed by third parties and are disputed by Georgia, stop trying to present Russian figures as fact. Grey Fox (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am citing to Russian sources, that are presenting Russian figures as fact. I am saying that the RUSSIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, not the UN, not the American, not the Georgian, not the third party, but the RUSSIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL is investigating - it's called quoting verbatum. If you fail at reading comprehension, you shouldn't be here Grey Fox. You give the Russian side of the story on Wikipedia, not Grey Fox's interpretation of the Russian side of the story. Do you really want me to start a dispute resolution on this? Don't you think qouting verbatum trumps Grey Fox's original research? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Is investigating" implies that those 365 deaths actually exists, that's why it should not be presented as fact, because the number of 365 deaths is disputed. They are possibly not investigating 365 deaths at all, but just saying they are, because it implies that 365 people died in Tskhinvali. That's why it sould simply say "The attorney general says". Also, as I've said many times before, you're rather uncivil. Grey Fox (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(re-indented) 365 civilian deaths, they are disputed by whom? By you? The HRW approved the estimate, BBC reported, Milliband did not say anything against. Georgia is not in a position to argue as they do not have access to the scene, any their estimates can only be speculations and can not have any ground. So who disputes this estimate? (Igny (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

HRW did not approve, in fact they said the deathtoll is lower than a hundred. They only called it a useful starting point which is something else. The number is also disputed by memorial who said it was unusual for the number to be higher than 273, which is the case with 365. Georgia disputed the number too, and their word is as good as Russia's. Furthermore the number doesn't even have to be disputed (though it is), because for it to be presented as fact it should be independently varified, which it isn't yet. So before that happens, we wait and present things neutrally. Grey Fox (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why any of you make such a big deal out of a neutral approach. There's nothing wrong with "The Russian Procurator's office says it's currently investigating 365 deaths". Grey Fox (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not making a big deal out of this. I am willing to wait until everyone agrees that 100, 300 or 2000 civilians were killed, it should not take long. I am just arguing that you are wrong in saying that HRW disputes this. Why do you keep argiuing with a direct verbatim quote is beyond me. And all Georgia can say that Russia is lying, no surprise there. The difference is that Russia can prove their estimate (eventually), and Georgia will always dispute that (without much proof). Are we going to keep "Russia claims that" after almost everyone agrees with their estimate? (Igny (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Are we going to keep "Russia claims that" after almost everyone agrees with their estimate? Sorry .. your interpretation is a bad joke. As I said already above HRW says welcome to a more realistic approach in contrary to genocidal accusations and earlier estimations - not more. And according to BBC source HRW says some combatants are still included in Russian numbers. It is sure an objective problem on Russian side to come down from these genocidal accusations and high estimations which were justifying the war in Putin's early remarks. Therefore it "needs" so much time ( more than 2 months) to count civilian deads on few square kilometres ... and it's realistic to assume that this sad story will never end with an acceptable result in public view (= proved by independent investigations). Elysander (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

...not more. That is your POV to interpret the quote this way. I can not understand what is it so hard to comprehend in the phrase

Some of those may be Ossetian paramilitaries, but Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point".

Reasonable people interpret it the only possible right way, for example, I repeat a verbatim quote from [15]

Russia claims Georgian forces killed some 2,000 South Ossetian civilians during the conflict; Human Rights Watch believes between 300 and 400 is a more realistic estimate.

So let's assume that your interpretation of the phrase is correct, then why do you keep removing the figure of 300-400 civilians from the quote? Are you afraid that most of the people read it not the same way you do? Why can't you let the readers decide for themselves what this phrase means without your censorship?(Igny (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, do you really know what you are writing? I didn't touch this part of the info box the last days because it's only a battlefield - now with a strange mixture of misinformations (incomplete history of claims) and avoidable misinterpretations. It doesn't make sense to intervene now. 09:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC) - split by Igny - Elysander (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I see that you can not read nor comprehend even simple English. "You" is a plural pronoun. By "you" I mean thee, Elysander, and Grey Fox and other pro-Georgian editors. (Igny (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Very funny! But then you need glasses not missing some necessary points :)) Elysander (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not "pro-Georgian ", second of all, you're quoting someone else. The above message wasn't signed by me. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that I am replying to Elysander. (Igny (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Source manipulation! How can you believe your fluffy interpretation .."Russia claims that" after almost everyone agrees with their estimate?" is anyway backed by the BBC source. Your selected source is dependent from the BBC source [16] and didn't quote correctly. In this BBC online article HRW didn't give a comment to earlier Russian claims of 2000 (as your source falsely asserted) but to actual Russian figures, estimations, investigations or what ever (300-400) - these numbers are indeed more realistic than "Genocide", 2000 and more - and a good starting point towards truth. Don't confuse a HRW comment with a definite HRW estimation!! Elysander (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Now another lesson in English. A translataion of my fluffy interpretation into Russian is "Вы собираетесь оставитъ "Россия утверждает" после того как все согласятся с её оценкой?" If I wanted to say "все согласились" I would say "after everyone agreed".(Igny (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

More funnier than above !! You will be my next English teacher in my next life! :)) Elysander (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I already changed it from "claims that" to "says that" which sounds friendlier. This is also how HRW formulates it[17]. I don't see at all how "everyone agrees with their estimate", and I doubt Russia is ever going to show proof of their "genocide". Georgia and Russia dispute each other constantly. Russia also disputes evidence provided by independent investigations, such as how the russian army bombed gori's central square, also without any proof. Grey Fox (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) Elysander and others. I have been claiming that it is you who are manipulating the source by removing a crucial part from it. Without this part, the quote does sound ambiguous, do they approve the estimate or do they approve the investigation or do they say "keep lowering the estimate, you are on the right track"? The word "it" is often ambiguous in this sense, and even in Russian the teachers ask you to rephrase the sentence to avoid such ambiguity. The original quote does not sound ambiguous, and I have numerous references which agree with me. How do you even dare to claim that other respectable sources can not quote such a simple sentence correctly, while at the same time you keep misquoting it? (Igny (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

@ Igny - Sorry .. but you are acting more and more in a very strange way. Once more you did address my person but I'm not involved in editing this part of the info box. My opinion about this part you can find above: It is simply not correct and can be misinterpreted. But didn't you agree with this last version? In my eyes a typical bad compromise to avoid further edit wars. Only an exact quoting of the BBC article - not segments as proposed by Igny - can avoid such knowingly misinterpretations as in [18] brought by Igny: The Russian prosecutor's office is investigating more than 300 possible cases of civilians killed by the Georgian military. Some of those may be Ossetian paramilitaries, but Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point". (BBC)Elysander (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I will keep addressing both of you because one of you is making the actual edits in the infobox, and the other is defending this wrong position of yours. You keep saying "misinterpretations". Are you saying that everyone misinterprets the quote, and you are the only two who got it right? Could you find any other reference which interprets the BBS claim the same way you do? I am willing to shut up if you do find a confirmation of your POV. I will accept anything, "HRW denied the BBC claim", or "HRW insists that no more than 100 are killed despite what BBC claims", or just "HRW welcomes the investigation of 300 deaths but insists the estimate is sill lower". Just Saakashvili's denial won't work. You see it is very hard to defend your position when you are alone. (Igny (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Do you really read my lines? Or do you read only what you want to read. You are asserting: "The BBC report (saying that HRW approves the extimate of 300-400 civilians killed) dates October 28." What a great translation effort to translate from English into English. BBC says ... Human Rights Watch believes ... - your translation of believe is .. HRW approves ... ROFL - Elysander (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we just stick with the original quote, especially because if interpretated otherwise it directly contradicts hrw reports from the same month. There's no need to start involving other websites that quote the bbc differently when we have the original quote. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The BBC report (saying that HRW approves the extimate of 300-400 civilians killed) dates October 28. What report are you talking about, when was it issued, can you provide a link? (Igny (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

The BBC report (which says something completely different) of October 28 contradicts the hrw report/letter to sakaashvili from October 10[19] only Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, the Russian Procurator's Office is investigating the deaths, i.e. they found the dead bodies and are investigating what caused the deaths. They're not talking, or saying, they're working. Shish. Why's that so damn complicated! Gah! Grey Fox - if the Marines are saying they're removing the mines - you probably don't want to go to that area. If the Marines are removing the mines and confirming it, you do want to go to that area. When in doubt - qoute it out - qoute verbatum. Shish - making a big deal out of 1+1=2, trying say say that's it's really 2.1 sorry, still was 2 the last time I checked. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"they found the dead bodies" How do you know if this is true 007? Because the corrupt procurator's office says so? Stop presenting Russian figures as fact.Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather silly discussion. At this time only exact quoting of the relevant original source is needed. Tomorrow it can be already replaced by a new information. Who is against exactly quoting the phrase of the BBC original source (as one user obviously is) is suspicious to be only interested in pushing his own POV interpretation of the BBC source.

The Russian prosecutor's office is investigating more than 300 possible cases of civilians killed by the Georgian military. Some of those may be Ossetian paramilitaries, but Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point". (BBC)

Elysander (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article that's fine, but it's too big for the infobox. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you saying that is my own POV? All I am trying to do is to quote BBC here without your censorship. Your variant is fine by me, as it states the same POV of mine, it is just too long for the infobox, but for the sake of avoiding your censorship I am ok if it is quoted completely there. I can provide several respectable references who interpreted this same quote exactly as I did. It looks like that Saakashvili himself interpreted the BBC report as I did when he issued his angry denial. So it is not my POV anymore this is a well referenced and sourced statement. It may or may not be true, but it is fine by the WP standards. You, on the other hand, still fail to prove your POV through references. The fact that Lokshina/HRW said in August that probably <100 civilians killed does not contradict BBC. The fact that HRW did not have its own estimate on October 10th does not contradict the BBC report. HRW also issued a report saying Georgians used indiscriminate force, shelled urban areas, the war had a devastating toll on the civilian population. The report did not provide the concrete numbers, but it does not contradict the BBC report. (Igny (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

"Some of those may be Ossetian paramilitaries, but Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point"". Notice the use of the word "the", and not "a", which quite clearly shows that HRW's replies to Russia's number, and that it's not their own estimation. And again, a useful starting point is something completely different than embracing those figures. The HRW reports don't contradict the BBC report, but they do dispute Russia's casualty figures, which is important. And no I oppose a giant quote in the infobox, the way it is now is fine, you seem to agree on that too I think. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So if we add the quote verbatim which will also include the article "the" will it be ok? A possible wording may be

The Russian prosecutor's office is investigating more than 300 possible cases of civilians killed by the Georgian military (365, according to ref). Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point". (BBC ref)

I understand that HRW does not have its own estimate as it is still under research. However it is important in my opinion that HRW does not dispute this estimate.(Igny (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Well they said the casualties were below a hundred, and later about Russian figures: "Human Rights Watch refers to these figures, but we do not cite any of them as a definitive number of civilian casualties." And then there's memorial who said that it was "unusual" for the amount of killed to be higher than the amount of wounded (usually that's a 1/3 difference), and they cited the amount of wounded at 273. Maybe dispute is the wrong word, but they certainly look at the figures sceptically, especially after the Russian propaganda machine of 1500/2000 deaths was already succesfully enciting ethnic hatred. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2000 number included missing too. I think we can safely say that it's no longer the number. As for dead vs. wounded, if there's an attack on a civillian city using grads and an infantry assault, a lot of wounded are finished off by the attacking army. The 1/3 ratio figure is during a standard raid, not when the enemy occupied half the city (or a fourth of the city) and proceeded to kill off the wounded. There was a video on CNN (later removed - surprised?) of a Georgian machine gunner shooting an unarmed civillian that was trying to run away. With those tactics, there will be more dead then wounded. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of cluster munitions

Human rights watch has later admitted that the picture evidence they have does NOT show Russian made cluster bombs but rather Israeli-made M-85s of the same type Israel used against Lebanon. Georgia has purchased such cluster munitions from Israel, Russia produces their own cluster munitions and has not(to anyones knowledge at least) purchased any such from Israel. Georgia has also later on admitted to their use, while Russia has stated that they have not used such during the conflict.

http://www.pr-inside.com/group-georgia-acknowledges-dropping-cluster-r782239.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/01/georgia.russia

This makes the claim about Russian use and reference 123 extremely biased and should be removed.

DW75 81.224.32.80 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Human rights watch has later admitted that the picture evidence they have does NOT show Russian made cluster bombs but rather Israeli-made M-85s" source? Grey Fox (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Have to dig deep on the HRW site to find the source, and they have moved it at least once already so the link i had is now invalid. Ok found another page at HRW that is at least relevant: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/02/georgi19737.htm Also this one touches the matter slightly: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/01/georgi19722.htm

It is somewhat problematic however that HRW maintains that a find that its previous identification was wrong in two cases, does not change their stance in the other cases despite having been proven wrong about it twice... Add to that that the HRW went to the media massively about the initial claim, but just about buried the contradicting evidence(although the above clarification page is at least an improvement). Because of that im far more inclined to believe what "Norwegian Defense Research Establishment" says than HRW, as they have shown themself to be possibly biased.

While trying to find this, i found this site: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/09/hrw-continues-f.html its level of bias is up for question but the pictures shown are fairly good and relevant and as far as i can tell the statements are at least not incorrect(ie the HRW claims that Russia used RBK-250s are simply wrong according to the pictures, regardless anything else) although i havent had time to go through it all yet.

And perhaps adding this information to the text would be better than removing it. As it would show further how onesidedly this conflict has been handled overall in the media. DW75 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hrw links, I'll check them out later. As for that moonofalabama page, those people certainly aren't experts and even cite blogs, so I don't think we can use that site. Findings of a recent dutch government investigation, in which were included military experts, found that the cluster bombs in question were also Russian. This is about the specific attack on Gori (which killed 4/5 civillians) Grey Fox (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a site about the dutch investigation? So damn hard to find relevant AND unbiased reports(especially since most media seems to have gone totally back to cold war attitudes for the duration).

No, that site can probably not be used as a source. Still their argumentation and pictures, at least regarding that the pictures clearly does not show airdropped munitions, well there should be someone who went through it more seriously? DW75 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here [20], you can find more by simply googling the mans name. And yes I hope many researches will follow. Grey Fox (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and after additional checking, the wikipage for the man among other things, that really is a dreadfully weak story(or rather the interpretation and the accusations based on it is).

The initial Reuters analysis of the footage says it likely was a mortar round, his death is supposed to have happened during a bombing attack and yet he is supposed to have been killed by a cluster munition from an artillery rocket? They have tv-footage but cant even decide on airdropped or not? Only thing supporting the possible use of cluster munitions seems to be that so many in the group was injured, but that by itself is nothing since a bad luck hit of the supposed mortar round could easily have equal effect. And of course "propelled by a type of rocket that is only found in Russia's military arsenal", despite the fact that im yet to see even a single picture of Russian-made cluster munitions, as every single picture sofar clearly shows the type of munitions and submunitions both that Georgia used, and only theirs. Also, even now, there still havent been even the slightest hint from Russian troops leaving the area that Russia used cluster munitions and while lies or halftruths isnt a new thing, its still flat out denied at all levels without a hint of doubt.

DW75 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch's summary on 10 October 2008 - not in September [21]:

Findings

1. Apparent indiscriminate use of force by Georgian forces during the assault on South Ossetia the night of August 7-8; for example use of Grad rockets in civilian areas. We documented several attacks as well which involved tank fire on civilian apartment blocks, in which civilians were taking shelter. Human Rights Watch does not have the capacity or expertise to establish the precise time when Russian forces entered South Ossetia and began to engage Georgian forces, although it appears to have been at some point after noon on August 8. Beyond this point, further research is necessary to determine which side was responsible for particular violations in the context of military hostilities.
2. Russian forces used indiscriminate weapons, particularly Grad and Uragan rockets in civilian areas, during the counter-offensive
3. Ossetian volunteer militias systematically torched and looted ethnic Georgian enclave villages (i.e., those that were under Tbilisi’s administration). Villagers had largely fled before the assault. - Several South Ossetian militia members told HRW this was being done so the Georgians would never come back. - High-level South Ossetian authorities have said publicly that they would not allow residents of these villages to return.
4. Both sides used cluster munitions. Georgia acknowledged using them against Russian forces near the Roki Tunnel. Human Rights Watch documented Russian use in Ruisi and two locations in Gori district. Demining organizations documented Russian use in several additional locations. We have documented civilian deaths as a result of the Russian use of cluster munitions.
5. Russia’s failure to ensure security for civilians where its forces had effective control, particularly in Gori district, created a security vacuum in which Ossetian militias and criminal elements had free reign to attack residents. We documented numerous acts of looting, house burnings, and beatings. We also documented two acts of rape and several killings.
6. Ossetian forces unlawfully detained and ill-treated civilians. At least 160 civilians were held in appalling conditions in the Tshkinvali police detention center, most of them elderly people including elderly women. Most were from the enclave villages, some were rounded up in Gori district. Some of the men were beaten on the way to the detention facility. Many men were forced to work, e.g. to gather decaying corpses from the streets and bury them. They received no compensation for their work which constitutes forced labor, a violation of international humanitarian law. All of the detainees were released/exchanged for Ossetian detainees.
7. Ossetian forces tortured several Georgian soldiers and executed at least one soldier in their detention. We documented four cases of torture of Georgian soldiers held by Ossetian forces. We documented the extrajudicial execution of a Georgian soldier. In a second case, Georgian soldiers also stated that another Georgian military serviceman detained among them, who was an ethnic Ossetian, was taken away during their detention. They never saw this soldier again. One Georgian soldier reported that he had been told the man was killed “as a traitor.” Russia should have, but failed, to ensure that the Georgian soldiers held in South Ossetia had POW status and privileges. In yet another case, a South Ossetian counterintelligence officer told Human Rights Watch that his forces had executed an armed Georgian man whom they had captured and disarmed. - We documented the ill-treatment of two Ossetians detained by the Georgian military while en route to Tbilisi detention facilities.

Additional Conclusions

1. Civilians especially in Gori district are in desperate need of protection. The humanitarian crisis is being driven by the security vacuum in the buffer zone; thousands of IDPs will return if and when they will feel it is safe to do so.

2. More documentation is needed, e.g. on such issues as how ethnic Georgians remaining in South Ossetia are currently faring; what is the situation with possible new alleged hostages on the both sides; what kinds of international humanitarian law violations took place in South Ossetia once Georgian and Russian forces engaged each other August 8 and after.

3. Areas contaminated by unexploded cluster submunitions and other explosive remnants of war need to be cleaned up.

Elysander (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Intriguing: "*2. Russian forces used indiscriminate weapons, particularly Grad and Uragan rockets in civilian areas, during the counter-offensive" Except when I clicked on the link to the claim (HRW does source it's claims) I found this:

"Meanwhile, Russian television on August 12 aired video images of Grad and Uragan rockets being fired into the Kodori Gorge, an area of Abkhazia that had been under Georgian control." - oi, Russians are firing at civvies, run for yer lives, but then I kept reading and found this: "Human Rights Watch learned that about 1,500 people, almost all of the population of the Kodori Gorge, had been evacuated before the shelling started." Whoopsie, so the area isn't actually populated by civillians. Hmm, intriguing, and as I kept on reading, I found no evidence of the Russians actually firing the missiles into these areas. Like HRW person said: "“These are all indiscriminate weapons when used in populated areas, as they cannot be targeted against only military targets and therefore risk causing unnecessary harm to civilians,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “They simply shouldn’t be used in areas where there are civilians.”" - and they weren't. Looks like HRW primary sources contradict HRW secondary sources. "http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/12/georgi19594.htm" Whoopsie.

Also, in comparison to what the Goergians did, i.e. shot into apartment buildings, the looting was of a lesser degree of crimes. This happens in warfare. In the Kosovo crisis, NATO could not prevent the refugee crisis of 200,000 Serbians fleeing, even though the Serbs did not use Grads against Albanians. Nor could they prevent Church burning. Here the Russians did a decent job, in comparison to what NATO did in the Kosovo crisis. Also, in reference to #5, HRW will call anything that's not upto their standards a failure, and thus over 90% of the areas that HRW monitors are failures, according to the HRW, because they know that failure gets the press. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if Georgia commited atrocities, that's no excuse for Russia to commit atrocities. Two wrongs don't make a right. The human rights situation in Russia's Caucasus is still one big drama so it doesn't change much. Anyway we shouldn't use wikipedia as a forum. Grey Fox (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps some clarification is needed. Are we saying that the article should say that both Russia and Georgia have been critised over human rights issues (something like 'During the conflict both sides appear (accordiing to HRW) to have shelled civilain areas')?[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)]]

"To be sure, there was indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force on both sides of the conflict," Anna Neistat of Human Rights Watch told a briefing earlier this week in Washington.

"However, the bulk of the looting and burning of property and attacks on civilians was conducted by South Ossetian militias and ordinary criminals who were allowed to operate in the areas controlled by Russian forces." [22] Grey Fox (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

HRW released a new report on the use of cluster munition from both sides: [23] Grey Fox (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Really? Really, really? You mean my Russian POV that both sides using cluster bombs actually wasn't POV? Who knew. (Sorry about the necessary satire). It was kinda obvious both sides used cluster bombs. The difference was that Russians used them against the Georgian military and Georgians used them against both, the Russian military and Ossetian civillians. But yeah - both sides used them, been saying that for a while now. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think that 1) I didn't believe Georgia used cluster munition and 2) Russia didn't kill civilians with cluster munition you should probably wake up from fantasy world. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof of Russia using cluster munitions on civillians? Because HRW doesn't. Can you inform us, Grey Fox, where Russia used cluster bombs on civillians? HRW said that Russians used cluster bombs to fire at Kodori Valley, AFTER the civillians have been evacuated. Georgia used cluster bombs against the Roki Tunnel, WHILE civillians were being evacuated. See the difference? And I didn't say anything about you in the previous quote - reading comprehension is your best friends sometimes, you should try it once in a while. Where did I say anything about you not believing that Georgians used clusted bombs? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already proven that Russia used cluster bombs on Gori's main square, killing 5 civillians, even though enemies were nowhere to be seen. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New article in NY Times

here. Go ahead and discuss. (Igny (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

My, my, my the NY Times AND OSCE going for Russia or neutral on this one? Damn, how bad did Georgia mess up? "Neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary, as Mr. Saakashvili insists."

BTW, anyone still want to argue about those tapes: "Georgia has released telephone intercepts indicating that a Russian armored column apparently entered the enclave from Russia early on the Aug. 7, which would be a violation of the peacekeeping rules. Georgia said the column marked the beginning of an invasion. But the intercepts did not show the column’s size, composition or mission, and there has not been evidence that it was engaged with Georgian forces until many hours after the Georgian bombardment; Russia insists it was simply a routine logistics train or troop rotation."

Hey, hey, hey - let the fun begin: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/europe/06cluster.html?ref=europe

Oh and I just loved this: "Georgian military forces fired more cluster munitions during their war with Russia in August than originally thought, and some of the weapons may have malfunctioned, causing civilian casualties when they fell short of military targets and hit Georgian villages, according to new research by Human Rights Watch" Told Ya! Boo Yah! So much goodness.

"Beyond that, two people have been reported killed and three wounded by Georgian duds since the war, Human Rights Watch said. " - Strange no civvie deaths attributed to Russian duds.

Also, Georgian Leadership - not very intelligent: “We have found dozens and dozens of duds, and none of them had a self-destruct mechanism,” Mr. Gogia said. ROFL. Umm, first off, the "self-destruct" mechanism activates when a person nears a dud in an inappropriate manner. Either the Mr. Gogia isn't talking about cluster bombs, or he's not intelligent. When you step on a cluster dud, innappropriately - it goes BOOM. "Unexploded bomblets scattered over broad areas can kill and maim people for years." In other words BOOM. "De our Georgian duds are special - dey don't explode, unless dey recieve a phone satellite order from Mr. Saakashvili."

And going back to the first article, there's this: “The Georgians have been quite clear that they were shelling targets — the mayor’s office, police headquarters — that had been used for military purposes,” said Matthew J. Bryza, a deputy assistant secretary of state and one of Mr. Saakashvili’s vocal supporters in Washington.

Bryza - deputy assisant secretary of state being pro-Georgian. Now where were those editors claiming the US was impartial on this war?

Finally, I cannot wait to hear from the pro-Georgia editors on this one. (Also note that when the NY Times cited a pro-Russia claim based on "a confidential source" - I didn't use it either.) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That piece of soapboxing above shows everything that is wrong with this talk page. Useful articles though. --Xeeron (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree !! But the general informations about single reports of monitoring groups are known since end of August! And some of these informations are already inserted in article at different places (time line /responsibility .. ). What's new? In contrary to earlier articles/sources this NYT article is now dropping names ( before anonymous ) and releasing a kind of protocol of this certain monitoring group. But it is no official OSCE document. What did say OSCE in the same NYT article: “We are confident that all O.S.C.E. observations are expert, accurate and unbiased,” ... However, monitoring activities in certain areas at certain times cannot be taken in isolation to provide a comprehensive account.” Elysander (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The article gives a good timeline that is probably a more accurate account than what's currently in this article.

One of the most important parts in my opinion, that needs to be highlighted and made clear in this article: "During a news broadcast that began at 11 p.m., Georgia announced that Georgian villages were being shelled, and declared an operation “to restore constitutional order” in South Ossetia. The bombardment of Tskhinvali started soon after the broadcast. According to the monitors, however, no shelling of Georgian villages could be heard in the hours before the Georgian bombardment. At least two of the four villages that Georgia has since said were under fire were near the observers’ office in Tskhinvali, and the monitors there likely would have heard artillery fire nearby."

Not only were they not acting defensively, but their claim that they were merely responding to South Ossetian shellings, something I've heard so many pro-Georgians argue over and over again, has been put to rest as well. They did in fact declare a cease fire, then bombard the city in a sneak attack, during the night, as a purely aggressive attack. Is that sadistic or what...History will not judge the Georgian leadership lightly for this. LokiiT (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Very strange! One of the most important parts in my opinion, that needs to be highlighted and made clear in this article you can already find in article's time line on 7 August: According to Georgian military, despite the declared ceasefire, fighting intensified.[98][99]South Ossetia denies any such late-night bombardment. OSCE monitors in Tskhinvali also did not record any outgoing heavy artillery fire from the South Ossetian side at that time, according to a Western diplomat with access to the organization's on-the-ground reporting.[100] This certain time line is interesting but a time line of a single monitoring group not an official of OSCE - already released informations are inserted in article for many weeks. Why not simply reading the article before "chatterboxing" on talkpage? ;) Elysander (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I've taken a long break from wiki and obviously the article has changed a lot since the last time I read through it. I didn't expect a brand new article to be incorporated so quickly, thanks for pointing that out. LokiiT (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a brand new article ... but some informations inside are known for months and incorporated in article for many weeks. I had a similar incident with igny not long ago ;). Users, why don't you read the article ?? :)) Elysander (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's not any different from Russia's '99 bombing of Grozny, and doesn't change the fact that Russia is still embracing a leader who ethnic cleansed thousands of georgians away. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only is that comparison inaccurate and ignorant, but what happened in Grozny doesn't change or justify what Georgia did in any way, shape or form, and that's completely off topic. LokiiT (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No the comparison is accurate, it was also made by the helsinki human rights group. It shows that Russia does not care at all about people's right to self-determination. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again you're completely off topic. And I don't care if some human rights group made the comparison. They're uninformed if that's the case. People in Grozny were given warning to leave well before the bombing campaign. They weren't randomly and suddenly attacked in the middle of the night during a cease fire. And Russia really was provoked into that war, with the invasion of Dagestan and various terrorist attacks. But again, this is off topic and I'm not going to continue this argument here. We shouldn't be using this is a chat room or message board. LokiiT (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually they weren't given a warning, and a save corridor which was set up was bombed killing hundreds. And Dagestan had nothing to do with the chechen government. But you're right, this is the wrong page for that. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dagestan had as much to do with the Chechen Government as the Vietcong with Cambodia. Saying otherwise is simply ignorant, and if you want to take it to PMs Grey Fox, I can explain the difference to you. Also you are under a different username, what happened? Multilple wiki accounts? As for people's right to self-determination - the Chechens didn't support the right of determination of the People of Dagestan, and a war erupted. Interesting Grey Fox, how you "unbiasedly" ignore what the Chechens did to Dagestan and tried to do to North Ossetia, but whine about Russians winning the Second Chechen War. Also, Grey Fox, Ethnic Clensing is when country X attacks civillians leaving in region Y, and these civillians flee as a result. Ethnic Clensing is not forbidding civillians to return to their homes. Stop flaming. Elyslander, such critique of OSCE, from whence it cometh? You never objected to them before they said that, which is obvious to anyone with an open mind, mainly that Russia/South Ossetia did not start this war. As for chatterboxing, I've selected quotes from the article and commented on them. You were welcome to agree and/or diagree. Instead you chose to critique me, which shows that you don't disagree with the qoutes, and that they should be placed into the article right way. Editors, let's start placing these wonderful quotes that actually cite primary sources into the artcile! 72.245.3.109 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are you then? What you're doing is generalising. The acts of a number of Chechens in Dagestan were opposed by the Chechen government and its people, which offered Russia to fight such gangs together. If someone blames something like that on all Chechens that's just blatant racism. I don't "whine" about Russians winning any Chechen war, because that's a war they haven't been able to win for 3 centuries now, and never will (as they will never forgive Russians). It seems you don't understand the meaning of ethnic cleansing. This happens when a government is trying to cleanse ethnic minorities and keep them from resettling, as to create an ethnic homogenous community, which is exactly what Ossetians are fond of, also during the Ossetian-Ingush conflict during which 600 civilians were killed. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ossetian artillery fire resumed"

On 7th August the article says (quoting the Washington Post source directly): "Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze."

I guess the first two sentences could be interpreted in three ways: 1) the W.Post reports the first two sentences as facts, 2) the first two sentences are opinions of the W.Post editor, 3) the first two sentences were said by Gurgenidze (as was the third one.)

My personal interpretation is number 3. What do you think? After the OSCE report (which said no artillery fire came from the Ossetian side in the hours before the start of Gergian bombardment), one could strongly suspect that "Ossetian artillery fire resumed around 2 pm" is not a fact (although the Georgian assaut began at 10 pm, so I don't know if 2 pm lies inside "hours before the Georgian attack."

Right know the reader of our article probably doesn't know which of the 3 interpretations is the right one (or does he?) Therefore I think we should clarify that passage somehow. Offliner (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is possible to avoid your pre-announced Original Research and own speculations (guessing, personal interpretation, suspect, etc.) check all possible sources, come back and present a undisputed version to us. ;) Elysander (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried my best and now I'm asking others to help. The problem with the present version is that, although it quotes W.Post directly, this is not made apparent. The reader of our article might think that the 2 sentences are facts (if he doesn't have time to read the source), whereas the reader of the original W.Post article will probably come up with one of the 3 interpretations I mentioned, or just shrug and say "W.Post is using unclear language." Offliner (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the passage to "The Washington Post writes, that around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze." This eliminates the problem I mentioned above. But the reader of our article still doesn't know if it's W.Post's opinion that Ossetian artillery fire resumed, or if W.Post is just saying that Gurgenidze said so. Offliner (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Right now there are some editors here who push for their interpretations of the sources. I think that if we change these statements to

According to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, Ossetian artillery fire resumed around 2 p.m. that day, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s

there will be an outcry from that group that we manipulated the source. It is ok however if this group manipulates the sources to further their POV (see section on the HRW claims above). That could be easily resolved if we had another reference which clarifies the WP statement. On the other hand additional references did not convince the mentioned group to admit they were wrong. (Igny (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

The accounts by the OSCE monitors are one such clarifying source. They are saying that there was no shelling from the Ossetian side in the hours before the Georgian attack. I'm pretty sure that these "hours before..." extend back to 2 p.m, otherwise the OSCE accounts wouldn't make much sense. This is why I think "Ossetian shelling resumed" is not an assertion by Washington Post (if it were, the respected paper would have clearly made a mistake) - i think they are just just quoting Gurgenidze who said so. Offliner (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your speculations are very amusing. ;) There are different journalistic reports about this single ground-report on the market and you are selecting the one which supports anyway or perhaps your personal view. :)) The ground-report is generally known for nearly 3 months - and its essence is embedded in article for xx weeks. The difference between Georgian time line and monitoring group's exists there, where Georgian side asserts Ossetian attacks on Georgian villages in SO in the evening hours of 7 August and monitoring group cannot confirm these attacks. ;) Elysander (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What "different journalistic reports about this single ground-report" are you referring to? Offliner (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rhetorical question ;) You are alredy using three by inserting quotes from those along your personal view :)) . And other users are forced to quote "neglected" parts of the same articles to stabilize your pre-selections :))- Elysander (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome to add anything that has been "neglegted" to the article. The sentence you added about the OSCE reports not being a "comprehensive account" was a good addition I think. (Although I suspect there will never be a "comprehensive account" anyway :) Offliner (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it possible for one user who has obviously analyzed certain articles to insert articles' information without pre-selecting, misquoting or out-of-context quoting? Why must i waste my time to balance your preselections. ;) Elysander (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

h2 or h3

It is not a big difference, but I like h2 better. Main reason being that it gets rid of the the ugly "timeline" header (the whole article should be about the war, so having a timeline about the war seems redundant and odd).

In any case, introducing the sub-headers was a great idea, it is a good step forward and should make the conversion from bullet point style to full text style easier. --Xeeron (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Converting the timeline to normal prose? / Article's Time Line Structure

Some paragraphs in the timeline (7th and 8th August) are getting very long. But as long as we use the bulleted timeline format, there is no way to break up those into multiple paragraphs, or at least I don't know how to do that. I suggest we get rid of the timeline format and convert in to normal prose. Are there any objections for doing that? Offliner (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the bullet timeline format. But there is still lots to be done. Especially the subchapter titles I used are not neutral enough, but I couldn't come up with anything better yet. Offliner (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So, I made some bold edits to get rid of the timeline format and to expand the description of actual warfare (which probably should be the main focus of this article.) This solution is probably far from perfect (expecially the subchapter titles aren't that good), but I hope that people who do not agree with it would make specific improvements instead of reverting everything I've done. Offliner (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree! IMO change of time line structure comes too early. We have still problems to "save" a compromise version of article's leader. The time line bears much more controversial stuff than the leader; it is - as I already said - full of errors, bad compromises, POV parts of both sides, unsourced or incorrectly sourced informations etc.pp. And it doesn't make sense to change time line structure before a corrected and rather undisputed time line at all exists. Alone choosing subsection's titles can lead to permanent conflicts. Offliner has already selected titles which meet primarly his personal or one conflict party's view. Elysander (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That part will never be uncontroversial, so waiting for an uncontroversial timeline means waiting forever. Stuff that is controversial when presented in bullet point form is also controversial in prose form (and the other way round). If the subtitles are bad, we can change them. --Xeeron (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Only one example ... the division between a subsection Battle ... and a subsection Abkh. Front totally neglects the overlapping chronology of both fronts. The Russian landing manoeuvres in the West ( inserted by me in leader / but still not in time line !!) and the establishing of a 2nd front was the central motif for Georgian leadership to give up so early. IMO still such things as basic structure changes are too early regarding the incomplete and inaccurate status of time line - and will only provoke additional conflicts. Elysander (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem you mentioned is true, but I don't think the reader will have too much problems in combining information from two different subchapters. The first item in the Abkhazian part is timed 9 August, and the Ossetian chapter has just 3 paragraphs after that day. That the opening of the Abkhazian front was a major reason why Georgia decided to pull out of S.Ossetia is a very interesting point. Do you have any sources which support that view? It could be interesting to add that in the article. Offliner (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the reader who just wants to glance through the article would find the timeline really helpful. 72.245.3.109 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For readers who just want a timeline, we have Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. --Xeeron (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No consensus!! If certain users are not interested at a time line in THIS article they should say it clear and not try to delete the T L indirectly. When parallel events cannot be more recognized as parallel - that's the sense of a time line! - it is not more a time line. ;) Elysander (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? I have always clearly stated that in my opinion bullet points are bad style and the timeline should be reworked into prose. Nothing indirect about that. --Xeeron (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a general reply. Maybe the structure change is a formal progress ( from bullet points to prose) but it seems to me more a tool to rewrite the article with a certain touch. ;) But i'm not interested to waste my time on such things. Elysander (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, do you really want us to start arguing our heads off? As i can see, everybody quickly jumped into action and relevant and useful info gets removed right now, not without NPOV suffering. Really nauseating thing to look at. I can't understand, why all of you, article-shortening apologists, won't give it a rest already? Isn't it obvious, that best thing you can do for the sake of NPOV, is to just state all claims and counter-claims in the article - a content, which is kept better in timeline format? Not to convert it to "prose" - a style, which usually cannot hold more than seemingly one-and-only true-and-factual description of events. Now, which one will that be? Seriously, that won't lead us to any good, so i urge all editors, especially those, who are now deleting material under the pretence of "converting to prose", to cease their activities and revise/discuss all the changes made. Bold editing of result of 4-months-worth of efforts in NPOV wording isn't actually a very good idea. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Who has been removing content? At least not me; I've been adding new material while keeping the old material there (only making corrections if something was wrong, as with the timing of the Georgian attack, (10:30 -> 11:30.) As for converting from timeline to prose, the changes have been, I think, pretty minor. Instead of bullet-date-stuff we now have on August 8, ..., and so on. The only things which are no longer in chronological order, as before, are, I think, 2-3 paragraphs concerning the Abkhazian front. I don't understand your concerns, could you be more specific and clearly point out the changes you do not like? Offliner (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

After you said that you hasn't been removing content, i've instantly found this edit of yours. I don't know whether you reinserted that info later, and frankly, i don't see it as relevant one, but still it's a removal, isn't it?

In "Humanitarian Impact-Georgians" section, information about cluster bomb usage was not only extended with HRW's backtracking of some of its claims about russians, or with new HRW report about georgians using malfunctioned cluster bombs, or any other info, which was already discussed here (twice), but also "... HRW will continue to investigate..." sentence was removed. Now the paragraph ends with "HRW reported that civilians continued to be killed and injured later due to contact with unexploded cluster munitions in Gori and at other locations." in a manner, which leaves reader in no doubt, that it's all Russia's responsibility.

In "Humanitarian Impact-South Ossetians" section, the exact quoting of words of European Members of Parliament visiting Tskhinvali was replaced with a three dry short sentences. A change which clearly has nothing to do with Timeline->Prose transformation. What's the justification for it? I don't see anti-Russian quotes, for example, Dale Herspring's words about "Russia's war dress rehearsal" replaced in a similar manner. (Btw his claim has nothing to do with "Occupation of Poti" section, in which it currently resides, what the hell it is doing there?)

That's only what i have spotted at a short glance right now. Unfortunately, I don't have time to search through edits and find out who did these changes. I don't even have time to further recite here all of places in the article, which i don't like. All I have, is a bad general impression about everything happened in article since this "style conversion", and Elysander's description of it as of"a tool to rewrite the article with a certain touch" looks pretty accurate to me. Alas, right now i can't do anything about it. Guess i have to spare my efforts for when that editing fever ends. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you assert the article is being rewritten with a pro-georgian bias, while Elysander most likely thinks it is a pro-russian one, tells me that it can't be all bad. Btw, the edit you linked above is not a removal, simply a move. --Xeeron (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't forget the changes made in the days after my comment above. ;) Offliner's changes (with his "certain touch") did only provoke the insertions of new subsections about Gori and Poti. That happens when a third step was made before two before were finished. A parallel time line view doesn't exist anymore. Elysander (talk) 10:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard though it may be to believe, Xeeron, but i'm against any kind of bias in this article, be it pro-russian or pro-georgian. The fact about two-way-directed nature of article's rewriting really tells nothing good. It tells that article moves from "russians bombed gori; georgians bombed Tskhinvali" to something like "Horrible russian hordes incinerated Gori and looted and raped poor georgians left and right; bastard georgian fascists groznifyed Tskhinvali and proceeded to killing helpless Ossetian civilians including pregnant women, eldery and children". What's not "all bad" in it? I still insist, that we shouldn't have touched the article at all. It was very good back then, and "parallel time line view" was really one of its merits. But i guess it's too late for conversion to be stopped, so this discussion became pointless. Again, my only personal conclusion is that i can do nothing but wait for editing intensity to lower, and, then, rewrite everything i don't like. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you use these polemic quotes. They are definitely not in the article. Also, 99% of the recent changes to the article were either moving sentences around, or importing stuff from other wikipedia articles. Almost no new content at all was added. If you prefer a parallel timeline view, I advise you to edit Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war instead, which is doing exactly that. --Xeeron (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"I don't know why you use these polemic quotes." Dunno... maybe because i want to make a point? Maybe these exact quotes are not in the article, but i think they're serve as a clear, if exaggerated, example of what i think can happen to our article, if things continue to go the way they do now. And i think i've explained quite clearly what exactly i don't like in the conduct: during just two days of it, edits were made, which are completely unrelated to "style conversion". Rather to POV-pushing. I saw and presented what i consider to be pro-georgian POV-pushing. You allege there's pro-russian POV pushing. The thing is: all kinds of pushing can easily co-exist inside the very same article, but it won't make the article good, can you, please, understand that?

"Almost no new content at all was added." But some old, relevant, and required-for-NPOV content was removed for no apparent noble reason, it's not what i call progress, do you? And as i've said before, i like parallel timeline view not just for its "parallelism", but for its ability to keep all relevant claims, concerning some event, localized in one place, which is good for NPOV. I don't think that NPOV should be limited to Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war only, are you? But as far as i can see, for now, this brand-new "prose" style amounts to nothing more than a timeline, splitted in sections by theme. It's prone to some kind of POV-forks too, but as long as it won't move from there to an actual "prose", i'm perfectly ok with it.

Ok, my rhetorical questions notwithstanding, but POVed rewritings (at least, the ones i've mentioned in my 12 Nov post) are still of concern to me. I will certainly address it in some unspecified future time, unless some really professional editor, like you, Xeeron, will take care of them right now. May i ask you to do it? 212.192.164.14 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To address your concern above, I had already moved stuff out of the "occupation of poti" section. All other points of your nov 12th post have, as you mention yourself, "nothing to do with Timeline->Prose transformation". Since it began existing, this article has seen thousands of POV related edits and it is likely that there will still be many of those in the future, but it is unfair to blame those edits on changing the format. --Xeeron (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"To address your concern above, I had already moved stuff out of the "occupation of poti" section." Yeah, i've taken time and checked who did it as i was writing my previous post. Should have given you credit for it. Strange, though, that you do not seek to undo other edits mentioned in my nov 12th post. Do you, by any chance, agree with them? But that's not the point. I don't "blame those edits on changing the format". Yes, they has "nothing to do with Timeline->Prose transformation" meaning there's no justification for them - they don't belong to transformation-related necessities. But it's clear that format change had contributed to their appearance due to ensuing edit storm. And as i've tried to explain, splitted-in-sections style is prone to POV-forks, meaning, we might get "horrible russians" in one section, and "bastard georgians" in other one. It will be hard to keep sections in NPOV-ed sync, after facts got separated. And rephrasing during "conversion to prose" might lead to NPOV complaints. The fact, that, as for now, nobody is screaming, and that i'm not up to a long discussion right now, doesn't mean, that everything with the article is ok. It means, there's a lack of editors' attention. One of these days you might get it, and an argument over the whole content of article simultaneously. I just wanted to warn about it, that's all. 212.192.164.14 (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Time Zones

Are we sure that at all places of this article a consistent system is used? Elysander (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No. But at least it seems to me that most of our sources are using UTC. But everything should still definitely be double-checked and I hope people will keep an eye out for this. Offliner (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At least the timeline at the end of this article [24] should be correct, as the paper's home country uses UTC. Offliner (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, British Summer Time was in effect during the time of the war [25] Nil Einne (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Washington Post August 17 Article & Afternoon of August 7

I think it's reasonably clear from the context that the bold-highlighted below is a reference to a version of events offered by Georgian officials:

On the morning of Aug. 7, after a night of Ossetian artillery fire, Yakobashvili said, he traveled to Tskhinvali for a meeting with the separatists that the Russians had convened at a Russian peacekeeping base. "Nobody was in the streets -- no cars, no people," he said in a conference call with reporters Aug. 14. "We met the general of the Russian peacekeepers, and he said that the separatists were not answering the phone." Yakobashvili left.

Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. The barrage continued for several hours. Two Georgian peacekeepers were killed, the first deaths among Georgians in South Ossetia since the 1990s, according to Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, who spoke in a telephone briefing Aug. 14.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600502_pf.html

If one wants to contend that this is the 'truth' as observed by Peter Finn of the Washington Post, who was very likely not on the scene, then I think you are being unreasonable. For one, this version of events, as truth and not contention, doesn't square with the observations of other sources on August 7, particularly OSCE sources. In any case, this entry is provided to explain my corrections of November 10.Haberstr (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Search a 2nd source and come back! But don't try to change this source along your personal view! It is not " the truth" but a time line compelled by Peter Finn already mid of August (!). At the same day ( 7 August) few hours later the same time line is used as source for OSCE monitoring group's denial of Ossetian shellings in the evening and night hours of 7 August.Elysander (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not "a time line by Peter Finn" either. It is a collection of statements made by Peter Finn's sources. To say "according to Washingon Post's time line Ossetian artillery fire resumed" is wrong. It is not "according to washingon post's timeline", but "according to some source quoted by Peter Finn." Offliner (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds rather ridiculously! If you want to be credible then you should replace at all places in SOWar article (where newspapers are quoted or mentioned) the news paper's name by the individual journalist's name who wrote for the certain news paper or by the agency name if only agency news were quoted in news papers. Have a good time! ;) Elysander (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You got it all wrong. If the BBC publishes an interview with Mr. X, who says that "Y is true", then we do not write: "according to BBC's article Y true." We write "according Mr. X, Y is true" or "in an interview with the BBC, Mr.X said that Y is true." It is not "Washington Post's timeline" which says 'Ossetian fire resumed', but the sources interviewed in the Washington Post article. Offliner (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Much Ado nothing! Try to stop your own speculation, guessing, suspecting etc.pp. Come back with a source which supports your view that all sentences of this passage are based on one interview. (IMO it sounds generally more like a public press conference - but that's my personal view which I'm not forcing into article in contrary to Offliner). The used source is a time line of war compiled by a WP journalist for Washington Post based on several informations in mid of August 2008: Interviews with Georgian leaders, Russian officials, Western diplomats and Bush administration officials, together with briefings by the Russian military in Moscow, show that a series of escalating military moves by each side convinced the other that war was imminent. Its reliability has been proved by releasing informations about single monitoring group observations already at this time. This time line is not only an interview or result of several interviews but of different informations incl. not only interviews ;) - and it's not an "ordinary" article. Take it what it is: a time line of a certain paper. ;)Elysander (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Barrier troops operated under Mikheil Saakashvili command

http://www.regnum.ru/news/1066443.html --93.80.81.109 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty International Faults All Parties in War in Georgia

NYT - Report Faults All Parties in War in Georgia - Nov 18 2008 - [26] Elysander (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Russian infantry treated civilians in a disciplined fashion, but the Russians allowed South Ossetian forces to loot and set fires in the ethnic Georgian villages north of the separatist capital, the report determined. Amnesty International’s researchers “documented unlawful killings, beatings, threats, arson and looting” by armed South Ossetian groups, the report said."

Wait a sec, so Georgia attacks a Russian Base and civillian targets in Ossetia, and Russia is supposed to stop Ossetians from reprisals, while focusing their assault on Georgia? What planet are the HRW people from? Also I've yet to see documented killings. I mean there were threats, arson and looting, I won't dispute that, and beatings also existed - if you define a beating as physical contact, irregardless of whether it causes harm or not, then yes, but killings?

Also - haven't I always been saying this line: "Russian infantry treated civilians in a disciplined fashion" - I await your apologies for dubbing me pro-Russian. 68.165.238.34 (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

:)) Top message of the day! Amnesty International is identical with HRW. A classic example of biased interpretation & reading a text. Elysander (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the original statement on AI site, then compare with the NYT 'analysis' article. In the original document, there are four main points Amnesty makes:

War was started by Georgia with shelling Tskhinvali, during which fire was aimed at both civilian and military objects (including Russian peacekeepers' barracks),
Both sides are responsible for ill-treatment of civilians (many examples, try to compare ones against G. and R., and make your own opinion),
Main accusation against Georgia is that it killed 'scores' of SO civilians (however, AI does not state, deliberately or not),
Main accusation against Russia is that it 'failed to protect' civilians from paramilitary attacks.

Does that differ from what the NYT says? To me, it definitely does. FeelSunny (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, it definitely does. Not surprisingly ;) . It is only your personal report summary. The four main points Amnesty makes are your points. In contrary to your personal view AI has carefully & explicitly avoided to comment or to investigate the controversy of 7 August ( Who? Where? At which time ? etc.). Elysander (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, we both understand that the NYT article is meddling with the facts. AI gives quite unequivocal answers to what they saw on all 'whens' and 'whos'. FeelSunny (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come one ... :)). First came the NYT article (and others) about a 70-pages-report; then the AI report itself could be read. AI is blaming both sides; but your summary is a caricature of report's content: a very personal view like your comrade's view above. ;) Elysander (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it just does not make any sense to argue with a person who does not have any arguments. Your last message did not have any point but 'it's your personal view and my POV is you're wrong'. See it as you like it. I gave you the source. I read it before I posted it here. AI really blames both sides, but I wrote what does it blame each side for. You did not, I presume, read the report itself if you think the NYT article is adequate. You did not read AI report also if you do not have any real arguments but to say all are wrong but you. 70-pages is not too long, and one should be keen at reading too to be a good NYT journalist. FeelSunny (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should I waste my time on your prejudgments? ;) I'm talking about the AI report and now you are preferring to talk about a NYT article. Your aim is obviously only to provoke another user to set his prejudgements against yours. After checking your contributions it is clear why! :)) But you need another player in this "dirty little game" than me. ;) Elysander (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To start with, you haven't even read the report you're "talking about". Ok, you really do not sound like a man (woman?) one can discuss anything with. So - keep on being trollish, if you feel like it. FeelSunny (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

unrecognised

Ok, before the next person comes along and reverts that part, please first scroll down the article and read this sentence in 2008_South_Ossetia_war#Recognition_of_breakaway_regions: "On 26 August 2008, Medvedev agreed, signing a decree officially recognising the two entities".

After 26 August 2008: Recognised (by Russia & later Nicaragua). Before 26 August 2008: Unrecognised. It is really that simple. --Xeeron (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This wording is misleading as it gives an undue weight to the South Ossetia's lack of recognition before August 2008. While it is true that it was not recognized before August 2008, the statement, as it reads now, implies that it is unrecognized, period. The very fact that the current lead contains nothing on recognition of SO in or after August 2008 makes this statement hugely unbalanced. One can argue that the recent recognition of SO is of vastly more importance than the lack of recognition before August, yet it is not even mentioned in the lead. I will keep reverting unless you rephrase this info into something more balanced. (Igny (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

Don't agree with Igny. The certain sentence describes definitely the status before war 2008. Therefore no consensus! Igny is provoking once again an unnecessary edit war. Because we have found no consensus your reverting actions can be called "vandalism". Elysander (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So be it. I added recognition to the lead for balance. (Igny (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

Warnings all round

This article has too much reverting and too little talking William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"August X" or "X August"?

We probably should use a consistent format throughout the article. Which one would be preferred? I'd say "X August." Offliner (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also we should be consistent about what timezone is used in reporting times. Are all times local by default? (Igny (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

No no, we try to use UTC/GMT always. (At least I do.) The most critical parts (7 August, etc.) I have double-checked, and they are consistently in UTC, and most of the other parts are too as far as I know. Offliner (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I laughed hard when I noticed that on top of all the usual edit warring, there is a slow moving edit war between proponents off "X August" vs proponents of "August X" going on. It started a few weeks ago and they must be at least in the 5th round by now. Myself, I am totally indifferent. --Xeeron (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why reinventing a special wheel for this article? How is this format question handled in similar en:wikipedia articles? Elysander (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the use of "X August" and GTM/UTC. Ijanderson (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both seem to be allowed (however not both in the same article), much like british/american spelling. --Xeeron (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR says to stick with whichever version of English was first established in an article, unless the subject has a strong tie to the UK or the US . The article history shows "8 August" as the initial usage established on August 7, so this date format and UK spelling and grammar seem to be the ones to be used exclusively in the article.(edited to say UK) Edison (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm and here you had me scratching my head while remembering this small conversation. Your edit cleared that up. --Xeeron (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Either version is fine, but an article should not flip the spelling convention back and forth. Cut and paste does not work on this computer the way it does on my usual one, and it was hard to look back through old versions, so I had trouble getting the edit right. In this article, it was also hard to decide what was a spelling choice and what was a typo in the early edits (recognised/recognized). Edison (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an American (Berkeley educated) Journalist's interview about the South Ossetia War.

http://exiledonline.com/ames-antiwarcom-interview-on-the-bullshit-war-in-georgia/

His newspaper called the war play by play, actually visited the place, pissed off Putin enough to get kicked out of Russia, are recognized by the Progressive Media as Gonzoistically Honest (that's a good thing) and they're generally credible when it comes to Russia, at least none of their articles have been refuted as easily as say the NY Times tape "article", which got pwned by Der Spiegal, that came out the same day. Interesting interview, incorporate what you can in the paper. The Interview nicely sums up how Lefties view the South Ossetia War in the US.

Also, Putin's and Saakashvili's interviews should be incorporated, in Putin's case the full version, not the CNN version.

Putin's Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwC5q-zMQnw&feature=related (if anyone could find the full English Translation, go for it! I'm sure that someone could find Saakashvili's interview without the tie-chewing as well. 67.101.54.25 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, going to http://exiledonline.com/ today showed me these 3 top stories linked in the top right hand corner:

The Daily Inquisition Shemale porn is for men who are afraid of coming out of the closet.
The War Nerd Mumbai: Exporting Pakistan's Resources
Fatwah Film Review: Twilight and the Attack of the Vegetarian

I don't think I need to add anything regarding the status of that page. --Xeeron (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Background" and "prelude"

What do you think should be the goal of those two sections? I'd suggest the following:

Background: historical, demographical, geographical, economical and political background, much like the current version. I'd still like to add more material on the US-Georgian alliance (how does the US support Georgia and why?)
Prelude to war: I'd suggest that the goal of this chapter is to expand the sentence "Hostilities escalated during June and July 2008" from the lead. I'd take about 50% of the August sniper fire incidents away, as I don't think they are that essential to the outbreak of the war. Unless the deaths/injuries of those few people somehow essentially influenced the Georgian/Russian decision to start the war, I think we are giving too much space for them. Hundreds of soldiers died later in the war and their deaths receive much less space than those in "prelude."

Any thoughts? Offliner (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

article split

Time for another split somewhere I think? The article is 160k, moving out about 50k should be good enough. It would take forever to load on slower connections.

Background has its own spin off, so the part on this page can certainly be cut further. Maybe somehow the humanitarian part, the reactions and/or the combatants can be spun off too. This relatively minor was really seems to be a victim of both Wikipedia's recentism, and the sudden popularity of the wikipedia project. (the first non battlefield skirmish of a war since Wikipedia's global presence I'd imagine) Lihaas (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The goal of having a smaller article is the right one, but getting there is not totally easy. In terms of shortening content, my personal opinion is that:

The start of the article from the intro until and including the section on the peace plan is more or less ok. There is always small stuff that can be bettered, but this is really the meat of the article and we should not cut to much here.
"post conflict incidents" should eventually be completely removed and replaced by a single sentence along the lines of "the region is still not fully peaceful" + a link to georgian-south ossetian/abkhazian crisis.

Implemented. --Xeeron (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"infra structure damage" should sooner or later be completely merged into the part on the actual war further up.
humanitarian impact" could do with some shortening too, but this is a POV minefield, so it might be difficult to do so.
Reactions to the conflict" has the most obvious parts to cut:
- recognition can be merged into international reactions and shortened.
- discussion about responsibility is getting far to long and should eventually be shortened.

Which part of this do you think is too long? I think the purpose of that chapter is that we can move much of the detailed "blame game" stuff in there so that the actual description of the war can be kept focused and not too bloated.Offliner (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

- Judicial reaction I would completely remove (till something substancial happens at the courts).
- Financial markets should be removed and the background part about georgia's oil pipelines moved to the background part where it belongs.

I just implemented this suggestion. Let's see if I get reverted. Offliner (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

- Reconstruction can be trimmed somewhat as well.
"Combatants" I would not shorten, since, again, this is more directly related to the than the sections above.

One other thing that can (and should) be done eventually is a big source clean up. Having lots of sources is good, but there are broken ones, there are several good sources for statements that could do with one or two, there are sources that might not live up to the wiki demands for sources and there are also several sources which are introduces many times (and should be merged via the "ref name=" tag). --Xeeron (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, just removing the numerous "According to such and such" or "such and such claims" with regard to many widely accepted facts will reduce the article by 5%. Also where is the line between paraphrasing and OR? In many cases the wording may be shortened significantly by paraphrasing and consolidating rather than copying verbatim different quotes from the references. (Igny (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Sometimes you are answering your own questions! ;) Classic example why we must use direct quotes >> [27] - Elysander (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pot-a-to versus pot-ah-to. (Igny (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

Now wait a minute. Hardly, but I can understand if some section like "International reaction" gets shortening. With a lot of trying I can even accept that quotes like "i do not fathom military purpose of this action, this is a crime against humanity" get replaced with indirect speech. But removing "according to" clarifications for widely-accepted-among-your-friends facts, for sake of what? 5 percent reduction? Am i the only one, who thinks this is unjustified? 212.192.164.14 (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said already basic changes came too early for me. Except the leader (which should be kept stable) nearly all subsections are under average. Regarding the missing points, uncertain and ambiguous formulations, still existing misinterpretations and out-of-context cited sources etc. the article is still in statu nascendi. It seems this article will be much longer than some users expect today ;) . The use of "according", "claim" and often direct quoting is consequence of controversial debates ( misinterpretation by paraphrasing )or missing confirmation by a third side. Too many questions are not still "answered" by both sides. And the time of in-depth analyses has not even begun. IMO the above expressed opinions are signs of miscalculation regarding article's quality and quantity. Elysander (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you think is wrong in the chapters up to "seven point peace plan"? Offliner (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the length of "humanitarian impact", etc. wouldn't it be a good idea to remove some of the "blame game" done by the combatants themselves ("russia/georgia claims/says/accuses ...") leaving only claims by third parties, such as HRW, etc. It is clear that claims by russia/georgia are almost always biased, and we do have lots of "neutral" third-party sources now, so why use only those instead? Offliner (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Concentrating on third party sources makes a lot of sense here. --Xeeron (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)