Talk:Abkhazia–South Ossetia relations

POV

Both regions are still considered internationally parts of the Republic of Georgia, and Gerogia considers the regions under the Russian occupation. the article completely bypasses such facts. This needs to be fixed.--Termer (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because Georgia considers these two nations to be part of their territory doesn't mean Abkhazia and South Ossetia can't have diplomatic relations with each other, which is the point of this article. --Tocino 21:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's well known fact that "these two nations" have been only recognized by Russia and Nicaragua. therefore the two provinces of an internationally recognized sovereign country like Georgia may have an article about their "diplomatic relations with each other" on Wikipedia as long as ...see ma previous post.--Termer (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

They are recognized by Russia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (and, soon, Ecuador); as well, Turkey and Lebanon have some political relations with them by way of exchanging delegations, things like that. They are completely independent of Georgia, i.e. their governments are in full control of the territories they claim, while Georgians cannot even enter either of the two Republics. And you want me to consider them a part of Georgia? When their border with Georgia are closed? You, my friend, are delusional, and in denial. And the article is very nice exactly as it is.--SergeiXXX (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What, you deny that that they have diplomatic relations? That they set up embassies, that their diplomats talk to each other? sephia karta | di mi 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Where did I deny that? Or are you replying to Termer?--SergeiXXX (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to Termer. Otherwise I would have indented further.sephia karta | di mi 20:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with me or my suggested "delusions". And please avoid commenting on contributors in the future. Now to the subject, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not regognized internationally as independent countries and wikipeida articles need to be written basd on secondary published sources, for example see BBC: South Ossetia, which is in Georgia, is separated from North Ossetia, which is in Russia, by the border between the two countries running high in the Caucasus etc. Current article however is only based on 2 Russian sources RIA Novosti and Russia today. This needs to be fixed and all relevant viewpoints need to be present in the article in order to comply with wikipedia NPOV policy. Thanks for understanding!--Termer (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but they are recognized 'internationally'. UN members Russia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, as well as the Gaza Strip Hamas governmet all recognize them as independent of Georgia. And Turkey and Lebanon pursue business relations with them. Abkhazia is now a member of the International Chamber of Commerce --SergeiXXX (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But what is your point? Yes, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not recognised by the majority of the world's states, but what does this have to do with their diplomatic relations? sephia karta | di mi 13:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to be written according to secondary reliable sources not only according to the Russian news agency. Which doesn't mean that RIA Novosti shouldn't be used, etc., that's fine as long as all other major alternative viwepoints are present in the article that are currently missing. Including the fact that 2 major world powers, the USA and EU still consider those regions as 2 provices of Georgia etc. Listing all relevant viewpoints in the article, that's what WP:NPOV is all about.--Termer (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

References

File:Sergei Bagapsh and Eduard Kokoity (2006)-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sergei Bagapsh and Eduard Kokoity (2006)-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abkhazia–South Ossetia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327142027/http://www.abkhaziagov.org/en/news/detail.php?ID=35402 to http://www.abkhaziagov.org/en/news/detail.php?ID=35402
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222011940/http://abkhaziagov.org/president/work/decrees/2014-01-27-074500-08 to http://abkhaziagov.org/president/work/decrees/2014-01-27-074500-08
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222011927/http://abkhaziagov.org/president/work/decrees/2014-01-27-074500-09 to http://abkhaziagov.org/president/work/decrees/2014-01-27-074500-09

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)