Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The term: Precedent.

Precedent, or stare decisis in accordance with international law, is not a proper term used here because this is not a legal doctrine. jamescp 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, and I can't stress this enough, we go by what reliable sources report. Doing a search just of Google News there are plenty of sources; some which state there is a precedent, some which state there is no precedent. As mentioned above several times, it is a part of this issue which has been widely reported, hence why precedent is apt. That's my belief, others can weigh in with their opinions also. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, but this result from the search repetes mot à mot Wolfgang Gehrcke's quote (see below). Wolfgang Gehrcke should suit them for plagiarism! This is indignant, exactly the same expression with no mention of the Abgeordneter/député in the Bundestag (its author). And I thought Germans are not capable thereof... Bogorm (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you offer a source for me to look at? I still find the claim of stare decisis dubious. I mean, technically you are saying that the US and EU decision to recognize Kosovo was legal under international law and acts as precedent for future cases. jamescp 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, we can't engage in original research, we can only go by WP:V, which says we report what is verifiable not fact by using reliable sources. The Russians said very clearly that Kosovo was setting a precedent; some say there is a precedent, some say there isn't. If information is inserted into the article describing a precedent, and you have sources that say that there is no precedent, giving equal balance to all points of view, then insert it in the article. But the issue of precedent is one which has been brought up. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide me with an article where the Russians have stated that US and EU action set precedent? I find this very intriguing... this information should be included. jamescp 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you content yourself with a German Abgeordneter/député saying exactly that("recognition of Kosovo - opening of Pandora's box"): Wolfgang Gehrcke here ? Bogorm (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't read German. Second, no. I would require an official statement by a Russia authority declaring Kosovo as precedent. I've kept this, however, since it actually isn't all that bad. I mean, it technically means Russia agreed with Kosovo's independence. jamescp 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was a piece of cake for Google to dicover it: here it is said by then-President Putin, here by the Parliament of Moldavia, and here (breathtaking) - the brother of Slobodan Milosevic, Boris Milosevic (former Serbian ambassador to Russia) in November 2007 (9 months before the recognition and 4 before Kosovo's proclaimed independence ! ) said that in case Kosovo declared independence, Russia should recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia, intriguing, right? Bogorm (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Very much so. Russia does indeed accept the independence of Kosovo. Anyways, I was convinced "precedent" should remain after I moved it to the subsection. Medvedev's quote essentially states that Kosovo is precedent. jamescp 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So does Putin's too: here President Putin's statement in RIA Novosti. You shall be content now. Why did you move it to the subsection?!?! Bogorm (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the subsection because the section's primary concern is "History." Having "History & Precedent" and then "Russia's Recognition & Precedent" is redundant. In the opening, we discuss the history of Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- not Russia's decision to make Kosovo precedent. In the subsection, we discuss Russia's recognition and precedent. jamescp 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Russian warning about recognizing A&SO if NATO recognized Kosovo was in much of the English-language press for months. The Western response was to emphasize how much Kosovo was a "special case" and so did not constitute a precedent for anything else. If I remember Russia's wording correctly, it wasn't that Russia implicitly recognized Kosovo so much as that a Western recognition of Kosovo would justify a parallel Russian recognition of A&SO. Also, if we're going to discuss precedent, we should consider the immediate Chinese criticism of Russia, that recognition of A&SO can be taken a precedent for recognizing Chechnya, Tatarstan—or Tibet, for that matter. That's why I seriously doubt countries like China (Tibet, Xinjiang), India (Kashmir, Assam), or Indonesia (Aceh, West Papua) will recognize A&SO unless most of the rest of the world does so first, and why a lot of the Russian bureaucracy thinks Medvedev shot himself in the foot. kwami (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a few days after recognition, Medvedev must have gotten the point, because he started saying A&SO was a special case that didn't justify the recognition of anyplace else, just like what NATO said about Kosovo. kwami (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do not you understand that it is not only Russia who considers Kosovo precedent, but plenty of other too: Moldavian Parliament, Die Linke, Borislav Milosevic and so forth??? Bogorm (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was only Russia. Clearly NATO saw it as a precedent as well, or they would never have gone to such lengths trying to reassure everyone that it was not a precedent. There was a lot of internal debate in NATO on precisely this point. You'll notice that the NATO nations that do not recognize Kosovo, like Spain, are precisely the ones that have their own secessionist movements to worry about. kwami (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kwami, you make an extremely valid and important point. We should absolutely add those points. Do you mind doing this since it was your point? Good call. jamescp 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer it if someone else did. There's too much hair-pulling and name calling on this article for me to want to get involved. It's like watching Fox News—I don't have the temperament to deal with all the political BS trying to pass itself off as "balanced". kwami (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And check the very different time lines. Russia needed only ca. 3 months to violate its own guarantee via UNSC Resolution 1808. The Kosovo process ( incl. official UN administration) towards "independence" needed 9 years. Elysander (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian Position

Indonesia should be recoloured as Neutral- there has been neither positive nor negative reaction to South Ossettian Independence- in fact further analsyis would suggest slight bias toward Russian position as reaction to US-Kosovo maneuvering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.133.247 (talk • contribs)

They talked about the territorial integrity and need for respect of it. How is that neutral or pro Russia?--Avala (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenia

"President Serzh Sarkisian has made clear that Armenia will not formally recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states any time soon, while reiterating his support for their residents’ right to self-determination." ARMENIA LIBERTY: ARMENIA RULES OUT ABKHAZIA, SOUTH OSSETIA RECOGNITION (4 SEPTEMBER 2008)

Please make appropriate changes in the map. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 18:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian recognition of Kosovo?

Watching Russian news show Vesti, I heard an expert arguing about Russian recognition of Kosovo. This would be done in order to weaken the case against the indedependent breakaway republics of Georgia. The expert said that he believed a Russian recognition would come pretty soon. Any thoughts about that? //192.121.84.241 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, instead of a Russian recognition of Kosovo there will come a Serbian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (Александар Вучић - chairman of the second largest Serbian party). "Expert" sounds suspicious - either a prominent (geo)politician or a prominent analyzer with some article on Wiki. Check the person out Bogorm (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There will be no Serbian recognition. Even that person from the opposition who stated that said that he would do it only to spite Americans. Anyway this is what matters [1] --Avala (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Chechnia and less one-sidedness

Obviously the article in it's current status is heavily prejudiced to the pro-Russian, anti-Georgian point of view. It would not be all that difficult to present the Georgian point of view and counter-points to those made.

Firstly, the most immediate and obvious precedent to whether "de-facto independence" carries any validity within the post-Soviet Union territories would be Chechnia. [2] Abkhazia and South Ossetia and their intentions to declare independence have the same basis, reasoning, and validation. Essentially, a territory or province within the Internationally Recognized borders of the larger nation declare their intention to break away and become a separate nation. The population of that territory overwhelming favors the move for independence.

This is the point of crisis that both "renegade provinces" reached. In both cases, the larger nation sends in military force in, definitively deciding the matter by military force. As everyone is undoubtedly aware, this is where we move into an ideological "grey area." History is filled with both successful and failed Revolutions and Civil Wars. Most generally, the matter is decided one way or the other within the nation itself - Georgia in this case.

When Chechnia made it's own attempt to gain it's independence, Russia invaded. As it stands currently, Chechnia is part of the nation of Russia. The fact that Russia was so determined to claim it's right to put down the Chechnian rebellion by military force, would seem to set a precedent for Russian policy on the matter. They were adamant that any intervention by NATO, the United States or by any other outside nation or nations would be a violation of Russian borders and International Law.

It is very interesting that they were so willing to violate the Internationally recognized borders of Georgia when it suited them. To cite Kosovo, Bosian-Herzegovina or other instances from the Yugoslav war as precedents carries some validity, but doing so is turning a blind eye to all past or future cases where Russia was or will be guilty of the same crime. It also constitutes an unspoken admission by Russia that outside intervention in a Civil War is perfectly acceptable.

The obvious reality is, Russia is not consistent on this matter. If they want to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent nations, then it should logically follow that they must recognize Chechnia as an independent nation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofthunder9010 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Godofthunder9010 (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1999, after gaining de-facto independence from Moscow, Chechnya invaded Dagestan. This is what prompted the current Russian government to restart the war, quite the opposite to this situation where Georgia invaded South Ossetia, prompting Russia to get involved. There's also the numerous terrorist attacks carried out by Chechen militants that killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of people (Moscow theater hostage crisis, Beslan school hostage crisis (hundreds of children killed...), Russian apartment bombings, and numerous more small attacks). In short, I'm glad we have rules like WP:OR to prevent ignorant people from ruining articles with their original analysis. LokiiT (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you really read the complete articles you mentioned above ?? ;) - Chechnya invaded Dagestan - Russian apartment bombings etc.. Nearly every case raises political issues about Russian government /KGB/FSB involvements. I can only warmly recommend these articles. Use the time before they will be attacked. ;) Elysander (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. There are conspiracies of government involvement for every major terrorist attack in history, in case you haven't noticed. LokiiT (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrible things happened on both sides throughout the Russian-Chechen conflicts. Both sides are guilty of doing some awful things. That is immaterial to my point.

Russia is inconsistent on two points: 1.) Respect for internationally recognized borders. Russia has shown itself to believe that international borders should be respected when it suits them. They also see no problem violating international borders when it suits them. 2.) A revolt or move for independence based upon the popular opinion of the population of a geographical area is either valid or it is not. In the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia is saying that popular opinion within a province is a valid. In the case of Chechnia, they deemed the move by Chechnia for independence to be invalid.

My personal opinion on the matter: Neutral. I see both sides. The problem is that the author of the original article is not telling both sides. Godofthunder9010 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1) That can be interpreted in a different way. Russia got fed up by the rest of the world ignoring internationally recognized borders for their own interests. Why should Russia sit back and play by the rules when US/NATO doesn't? 2) It's a matter of dispute whether Chechen drive for independence was ever popular among the majority of the locals. In addition, as mentioned earlier, prior to the Chechen invasion of Dagestan, Russia had practically granted them independence.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Russia got fed up by the rest of the world ignoring internationally recognized borders for their own interests. Why should Russia sit back and play by the rules when US/NATO doesn't?" If the original author is going to preach about the supposed righteousness of the Russian cause, then they are being biased. Ultimately, every world power that has ever existed has violated the borders of others. They have all thrown their weight around. And they have all rewritten history to justify their actions. Russia is no different than anyone else in this regard. The underlying fact is, Russia did what it did with regard to both Chechnia and Georgia because they could and nobody could stop them. Citing Russian sources to prove the validity or justifiable nature of either Chechnia or Georgia is nonsensical. Russian media rewrites the "truth" however it sees fit, wherever it serves their purposes. Truthfully, there are valid points on their side and there are valid counter-points from the Georgian point of view. Telling things from only one point of view is not an Encyclopedia article. It's propaghanda.

"In addition, as mentioned earlier, prior to the Chechen invasion of Dagestan, Russia had practically granted them independence." I would hardly call the entire First Chechen War an act of benevolence by Russia. Russia fought long and hard to prevent Chechen independence, but eventually let them go. The invasion of Dagestan? Some would say that was a convenient excuse for Russia to redeem itself from being militarily embarrassed by a vastly inferior enemy. Nazi Germany perfected the art of modifying things to suit their end-goals. Their news reports related to the invasions of Czechoslavakia, Poland, France and the USSR were all conveniently explained away. Germany was only acting in self defense, according to German media sources. So any impartial observer is going to take Russian media with a very large grain of salt. They have not shown themself to be reliable nor accurate in all cases where Russia stands to gain or lose face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofthunder9010 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotation repetition

This may have been brought up already here (the talk page is a little long...) but President Medvyedev's quotation in the lead section is repeated in the 'History' section, which seems a bit odd/superfluous. Maybe someone has a reason for why it's there twice, otherwise perhaps someone could remove one of them - I would but have seen how arguments about edits can escalate for this page :) Joldy (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This was brought up and I agree. Someone was supposed to replace the lead quotation with Russia's official statement. jamescp 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Map

The map is not being kept up-to-date. We should remove this until stances are solidified as to not represent inaccurate data. Unless, of course, someone wishes to frequently update the map, which as of now is not happening. Of course, we could just list a map of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the state(s) (i.e., Russia) that accept independence. (My understanding is that Nicaragua's decision isn't solid yet). I'd be fore adding those that do not accept independence, but this is more likely to increase than the former and would be more laborious. jamescp 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So then i repeat agan:

SO THEN LISTEN; Make it like this. 4 colonna and 4 colors:

-States that formally have or have clearly state that they will recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent.

-States that have delayed or have expressed neutrality or concern on recognition.

-States that recognize Georgia as having sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

-No reported position at present. .............--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveibo (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sveibo, but someone will have to keep updating those states that have delayed decisions. Someone is going to need to keep up with the map and I don't really see someone doing that. That's my issue, really. jamescp 23:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua

...has not yet recognized Ab/SO. According to RIA Novosti, the country plans to do so.[3]--Kober^Talk 07:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll make the necessary edits. On a sidenote from RIA Novosti, is Saakashvili going hunting soon; talk about taking the piss. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the personal opinion of Andrei Fedyashin ??[4] Elysander (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

According even RiaNovosti : Nicaraguan Deputy Foreign Minister Manuel Coronel Kautz said on Wednesday: "We have started preparing all the necessary documentation for an official recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia following instructions issued by the president." The diplomat said the president's decision would soon be approved by parliament. The formal act of recognition needs obviously parliamentary confirmation, therefore still no official recognition by Nicaragua Elysander (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said on September 3 his country would recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, AFP reported. Nicaragua will be the second state after Russia to recognize these two breakaway regions. Venezuela and Belarus have also welcomed the Russia’s decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but they have not yet formally recognized these two regions."[5]--Kober^Talk 09:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The well-known and respectable news agency Reuters disseminate the following information:

---

http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUKN0330438620080903 Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia, Abkhazia Wed Sep 3, 2008 9:52pm BST

MANAGUA (Reuters) - Nicaragua has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia, backing Russia's stance on the breakaway Georgian regions and siding with other leftist Latin American nations to defy Washington.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla leader who had close ties to Moscow during the Cold War, has criticized Georgia's attempt to regain control of South Ossetia and supported a counterattack by Russia.

Venezuela and Cuba have sided with Russia in the dispute, but Ortega went further in fully recognizing the regions' independence.

"The government of Nicaragua recognizes the independence of the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and we are completely with the Russian government's position," Ortega said in a speech late on Tuesday. ____________________________________________ I think we have to believe Reuters because of its reputation. Nicaragua HAS recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia, so we have to INCLUDE Nicaragua in the list of countries which HAVE recognized S.O. and Abkhazia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

to Elysander, you say that "The formal act of recognition needs obviously parliamentary confirmation, therefore still no official recognition by Nicaragua". Have you got in Uni discipline "international law"? Know you it? In many countries the Head of State recognise new nations(states), in Nicaragua, it's the President. The Parlement in many countries may ONLY counsel. Final decision IS the Head of State decision. The date of recognation is date the Head of State decision. Now Ministry of Foreight Affairs of Republic of Nicaragua is confirmind recognition and he is installind the diplomatic relations between Nicaragua and new independent republics.

For example in case Kosovo, i don't believe that all Parlement of state, who recognise Kosovo voting about it(recognise or non-recognise). And some(many) UN members don't have mutual diplomatiq relations, but they have mutual recognise, know you it?

P.S. Return Nicaragua in states who recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Shadow Vogel (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A note to whoever removed Nicaragua and placed it in another section, would you kindly like to go back and fix the problems you have created, and also reinsert all of the referenced comments that were removed. Being quick to do things without consensus, is not an excuse to simply leave a broken article, and whoever moved it should be going back in and fixing the problem. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oncemore RiaNovosti : Nicaraguan Deputy Foreign Minister Manuel Coronel Kautz said on Wednesday: "We have started preparing all the necessary documentation for an official recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia following instructions issued by the president." The diplomat said the president's decision would soon be approved by parliament.

What can be seen as official that obviously just started? ;) If a parliament must approve a presidential decision the President of Nic. cannot decide alone. Elysander (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We can only report what reliable sources state. Anything else is original research. Without a source that says what you suggest, which is more than likely correct, and with reliable sources saying that Nicaragua recognises the independence, then we here on WP go with what the reliable source says. Check WP:V first and foremost; The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Reuters is very reliable resource. I see no evidence that parliament of Nicaragua MUST approve this decision. "The diplomat said the president's decision would soon be approved by parliament.". It CAN approve, but I do not think that this is neccesary, and there is no evidence that without this approval the recognition is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, someone may want to correct that Nicaragua is not UNSC permanent member and not CIS member and that status of diplomatic relations is not President Daniel Ortega. --Tone 10:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in etalon of democratics as France, USA, UK, Germany, approve the Parlement of this countries recognition Kosovo?Shadow Vogel (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please anyone who uses such resources as Civil.ge - verify your information using more reliable resources as Reuters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RiaNovosti journalist reports more careful than his central which is responsible for article's header:

Nicaragua is taking final steps to officially recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, in line with the president's decision, ... and so on. I cannot read there recognition is done.

A remarkable difference between header and content!! :-)) At this time international medias are releasing news spread by different agencies on their online sites unapproved; remember SCO summit and similar events. It needed days to reveal Medvedev's debacle. ;) Elysander (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Reuters the decision is done. Documents, seals, dimplomatic notes and so on will be soon, but the decision has been already taken. And there is no evidence that without parlaimental approval the decision is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reuters confirms that Nicaragua HAS recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Look at this news dated September 4. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL4142555 Find the following sentence: "To date, only Nicaragua has followed Russia's lead.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua's Recognition needs obviously parliamentary approvement to be officially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Nicaragua Elysander (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not! This state is a Presidential Republic (see map ! , it is not mine) and as already explained, the Parliament's decisions are only a political, not legal support! if he states "the Government of Nicaragua recognises the independence", then the recognition is a fait acompli! Please forbear from further distorting and maiming the article. Bogorm (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't talk with me but with Russian journalists! Sources are now ambiguous. Several articles are only based on the reuters short but not on own journalistic research - they have only one source: reuters. And 2 different other sources don't meet reuters. That's it >> Open question. ;) Elysander (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If Reuters, Pervy Kanal and RIA Novosti have all acknowledged the recognition by Nicaragua, then placing the country in "willing to recognis" is a severe vandalism, reckless distortion of sources, flagrant imposition of own personal opinions and misleading all readers of the article! The NATO propaganda contesting not merely the reliability of RIA Novosti, but of Reuters too becomes exceedingly disquieting, self-conceit and preposterous. Bogorm (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be very careful with calling other's opinions vandalism. Please see what is and is not vandalism at WP:VAND. You can say his edits fail to meet the parameters of a neutral point of view, but as they stand they are not vandalism. Consider trying to get some more opinions onto the topic at hand. —— nixeagle 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact is several sources are ambiguous about a probable constitution conflict in Nic. . Wait til Nic. parliament approves or not. At this moment you can write Ortega announces recognition or declared recognition as president but you cannot write Nicaragua did officially declare recognition ... Elysander (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua 2

Nicaragua is not a member of CIS,CTSO or SCO. Please correct it.

--Siyac

CSTO - Collective Security Treaty Organisation ;) already rectified Bogorm (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and SO are de iure independent respublic

This republics have the Constitutions who ploclaimed this republics as independent democratic states. And this states have "personnalité juridique", because they recognised by UN member states.(Now it's Russian Federation and Nicaragua).

I'm magister international law, and they(Abkhazia and South Ossetia) according to international law are de iure independent states.Shadow Vogel (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion does not seem to be in accordance with the opinion of the rest of the people around here. --Tone 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The UN does not recognize these regions. de iure or de jure is "of law." Their constitutions are not recognized by the governing international body, the United Nations. Having a UN country recognize their independence does not mean the UN recognizes their independence. jamescp 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And I will note that Kosovo is considered de facto as well. jamescp 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From the UN reaction: "UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated that "the question of recognition of states is a matter for sovereign states to decide." Not the UN, as you can see. DannieVG (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's compromise variant. The Constitution of Abkhazia and the Constitution of South Ossetia declared Abkazia's and South Ossetian’s independences as the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia. Its independence is recognised by 2 UN countries and not recognized by others, including Georgia, which continues to claim sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Shadow Vogel (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Your opinion does not seem to be in accordance with the opinion of the rest of the people around here" - you say an absurd, sorry. International law isn't "opinion of the rest of the people around here". USA opened the Pandora's box, it's a result. Shadow Vogel (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If your metapher is anyway near reality, then Russia did now blast away box' cap. But the logic behind is illegitmate. Elysander (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Shadow, you offer no valid proof that these regions are de iure. Please respect the work other contributors have done. Properly discuss this before making edits that have no sources and are your original research. jamescp 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Instead of accusing me of saying absurd things, you may instead provide counter-arguments on what the other editors say against your statements. And check your spelling, a spelling checkers for several web browsers exist. Cheers. --Tone 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

to Tone, 1.I apologize to my english, it's my 3rd foreign language, but in near future i have plan more correct write. 2. International law hasn't codex now. See resolutions and acts.Shadow Vogel (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid further Wikipedia:Edit war's, let's come to a consensus. I vote that they are indeed de facto. The case that takes precedence in this is Kosovo, which is also -- and even written on Wikipedia as --- de facto. (See Kosovo). jamescp 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course i respect work other users, and now i write comromise variant. I don't write about "de facto" and "de iure", i write according with the Constitution of Abkhazia and the Constitution of South Ossetia, and position other states.Shadow Vogel (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovo has got other case. There’s UNSC Resolution 1244. They don’t allow Kosovo as independent state. If UN Security Council signs new declaration, which allow change Kosovo status, in this case, Kosovo will be de iure independent too.Shadow Vogel (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could agree on the same wording as in Kosovo article: "a de facto independent partially recognised country" to underline that it's more than just de facto independent. DannieVG (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote DannieVG who quoted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon: "the question of recognition of states is a matter for sovereign states to decide." As of now, the majority of modern, sovereign states have not recognized that these regions are sovereign and de iure. This article is about international recognition to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If you would like to create another article discussing their constitutions, then by all means, do so. If you can find the proper resolutions and acts that suggest a region within a sovereign state becomes de iure after it is recognized by one sovereign state, please share. jamescp 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say a word about their constitutions (maybe, it was Shadow Vogel). Read more carefully, please. DannieVG (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your quote and addressing Shadow's discussion on their constitution, which is why I originally had indented under his text. jamescp 21:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'partially'? "a de facto independent recognised country", i think it's normal and neutral in that case and in this caseShadow Vogel (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "partially" as it follows the case with Kosovo. If we state "de facto independent recognized country" it makes the assumption that it is international recognized by a majority. jamescp 21:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But 'partially' says about limited recognise... In this case, USA recognise Kosovo "limit" independence. But it's not correct. They recognise 'normal' independence.Shadow Vogel (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Will "de facto independent with limited recognition within Georgia's...." suffice? jamescp 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the POV sentence needs to go unless a similar sentence which reads: "Kosovo is a de facto independent state within Serbia's internationally recognized borders. Serbia's sovereign territorial integrity had been reaffirmed by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 in June 1999," is added to the Internation reaction to Kosovo independence article. --Tocino 22:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when are we competing with Kosovo? Go ahead, add that. I am not even editing Kosovo's article. This article is about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto independent and partially recognised states within Georgia's internationally recognised borders." Is a valid statement backed up by a proper source. jamescp 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is the international community? What about Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Russia, Nicaragua, Belarus, Tajikistan, Venezueala, Syria, and others? Are they not members of the international community? --Tocino 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete Nicaragua, Belarus, Tajikistan, Venezuela, Syria from your list ... No Recognition! No Approvement! No Confirmation! Til Now .. maybe tomorrow or never ;) Elysander (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino, these are two completely different articles. Ijanderson (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points of order:

• declarative theory of statehood - A. and SO. are de jure states under this legal framework (itself based on Montevideo 1933)
• constitutive theory of statehood - A. and SO. are de jure states here too, albeit as "mostly nonrecognized states".
• On 3 September 2008 USA revealed through the comments of US Ambassador to Montenegro that it considers Serbia to have de jure lost Kosovo in 1999: US: Serbia Lost Control of Kosovo in 1999, regardless of the wording of the preamble of UN SC Res. 1244. --Mareklug ^talk 06:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

SO and A are not de jure under the declarative theory of statehood. The constitutive theory of statehood is not widely accepted in international law. See List_of_unrecognized_countries and view sources. jamescp 07:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

SO and Abkhazia ARE de jure under the declarative theory of statehood.Shadow Vogel (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Moving countries to and from and changing all time? Now again Saudi Arabia was moved even it was in the right place.. now I think it soon will be colored red. :P One day ago Cuba and Syria was here. Now they have totally disappeared?? And why is Sudan red? Why is Indonesia red? Compared to what other have said. .

Take at least away this orange color! And use only grey for those who clearly have not stated they will NOT recognize SO and A. It is too much BUG here.. Someone need to take the responsibility and be neutral. Or it is need for a new side.

And Make a colon for those red coutry.. “Countries who have state they will not recognize South Ossetia and Abkhasia.”

And it is also too much discussion here between pro and anti Russia!

I agree the map needs a lot of work. It should merely state: Recognized, Un-recognized (those who have said they will not) and neutral (those who have not recognized nor stated they will not recognized them). There is no need for these "for Russia," "intend to accept" designations. jamescp 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree on that. Either they have recognized or they haven't. Narking (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

SO THEN LISTEN; Make it like this. 4 colonna and 4 colors:

-States that formally have or have clearly state that they will recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent.

-States that have delayed or have expressed neutrality or concern on recognition.

-States that recognize Georgia as having sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

-No reported position at present.

Thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveibo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection: The article concerns a European topic and it should accordingly abstain from any misspelling of the word recogniSe (according to the only official form of English in Eurasia - the British English) (except originating from Septentrional America). Bogorm (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

According to my Oxford English Dictionary (English edition) the word is recognize and recognise is a spelling variation of the same word. You have fallen for the classic english spelling snob trap of assuming all words ending with an -ise sound are spelt one way when they aren't. In this case and quite often otherwise they should be spelt -ize and more often than not both forms are acceptable. Furthermore, spelling/grammar policing is boring an adds nothing to a conversation. Please refrain unless the spelling error introduces ambiguities in the meaning of somebody's statement. Thanks. Sambauers (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

title of article

As a compromise between naming this article "recognition" and "condemnation", I had moved it to a more inclusive "reaction". (After all, we don't just discuss recognition.) However, that prompted complaints from the Kosovo article editors, because they were undergoing a vote on moving Kosovo to "recognition" in order to be in line with us, and as soon as I moved A&SO, the vote started going negative for Kosovo. So I moved us back. However, the result of the Kosovo poll was to keep it where it is (though I just corrected the grammar), and therefor it is appropriate for us to move to their wording. Yes, I understand that there are important differences (such as timing of genocide—excuse me, ethnic cleansing—vis-a-vis recognition by other countries, recognition of minority rights, UN resolutions, whether they were ever part of the host country as an independent state, etc.), but I think the situations are similar enough to maintain parallel wording on the articles. kwami (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got my vote. If it weren't for the link in my user page, I would always type in "international reaction..." It's just more logical. jamescp 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got reverted. There's also the possibility that the Kosovo article will come up for a revote. kwami (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And rightly so. By the way, the Kosovo article has nothing to do with this article. Any consensus for anything on this article has to take place on this article. The reason condemnation is not going to happen is because it is WP:NPOV, and I think it is about time that people realise that; not all countries have condemned the independence of A & SO, some have recognised it, some have been positive. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Other organizations

This section serves no purpose but to give a spotlight to anti-Russian fringe groups. It needs to be deleted since they aren't even unrecognized states or international organizations. --Tocino 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have miss read Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is an unrecognised state just like was Abkhazia or South Ossetia until recently. I think Chechen Republic of Ichkeria could be moved to other entities. 安東尼 TALKies 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes this section is to stupid.. to start to put in what a "youth group" in Belarus mean.. So there ar millions of youthgroups. If this stupid dont stop it is better to make a new page. This need to be taken out very fast!!

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveibo (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria has no soverignty and no control over the real Chechnya. And I agree with Sveibo, have these small youth groups listed makes it seem like young people in Belarus are opposed to Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence, when in reality, I bet if you take a poll 95% of Belarusians support Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --Tocino 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua not a certainty

[6] Abkhaza plans to send a message of thanks to Ortega even though this statements cannot be considered formal recognition. It must be approved by parliament and Ortega's party the Sandinistas does not have an absolute majority in parliament. Kislorod (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I did foresee this constitutional problem >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Nicaragua It's always a risq to insert immediately short cut news of agencies in a wikipedia article. Elysander (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's figure out a way to avoid this because it is an issue. jamescp 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2 Russian sources did already point to the constitutional problem. lenta.ru makes it more visible to us: Obviously the Nicaraguan president cannot act alone on this subject, his decision needs ultimate parliamentary approvement. Therefore Nicaragua should be moved from the pro-recognition-list til parliament approves or not. Elysander (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I did move Nicaragua to the intent-list. Nicaraguan parliament decides ultimately not the President according lenta.ru (source above). Elysander (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean when you speak about Nicoraguan constitutional problem? Do you know Nicoraguan constitution? In lenta.ru (http://lenta.ru/news/2008/09/04/thanx/) there is only wording of Minister of foreign affairs of Abkhazia and lenta.ru's journalists. Only Nicoraguan politics, journalists and lawyers may be competent for commenting the Nicoraguan constitution. You do not use reliable sources. And even do not try to use reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And one more question. Is it right to use Russian language sources in English language wikipedia? Some users will not be able to check this source and to understand that your interpretation of this source is very questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A new much more detailed article in Spanish. Here there is no mention of any parliamentary approval necessary and it treats it as a done deal. Apparently not big news in Nicaragua.Kislorod (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please use only English sources, you are in English wikipedia. I do not understand Spanish, and I cannot read your material. Also your interpretaion of Russian lenta.ru source is very questionable. Unfortunately, Russian journalistics have a propensity for sensational nature without serious verification of all the facts and information used. And their conclusion about necessity of parliamental approval is their own invention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

International Herald Tribune (the very reliable source): Nicaragua HAS recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/04/america/georgia.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In consequence of definitely ambiguous sources i moved Nicaragua to the intent-list and not to only-supportive-list. Elysander (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This unilateral and POV imposition is not to be put up with! There is no ambiguity - see more carefully the map above where the Presidential and Parliamentar Republics are clear-cut and guess where Nicaragua appertains to. Bogorm (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the conclusive text of lenta.ru: Окончательное решение вопроса о признании будет вынесено только после заседания парламента. Сандинисты, лидером которых является президент Никарагуа, не представляют большинства в парламенте страны.

RiaNovosti reports similar >> [[7]]

What still has to be approved cannot be official now!! There is no majority of Sandinistas in Nicaraguan parliament. Elysander (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

YOU DO NOT BELIEVE

1) REUTERS

2) INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

You are very self-confident man. Your sources are not right. Nicoraguan parliament has no right to impede President in his international politics. I believe that you will make sure in this soon. However, now you only misinform readers of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My friend, IHT info is dependent on reuters not vice versa ;) ; 2 Russian (!) sources tell us other things as you and one reuters journalist - therefore the source situation is definitely unclear and ambiguous. That must have consequenses for lists' structure and article's content til situation will be cleared. Elysander (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your sources have no direct relation to Nicoragua. They are about Abkhazian reaction - not about Nicoragua. That is why you have to find clear sources about Nicoragua, which can support your point of view. And only after such finding (not before - only after), you may change the article. As you can see here http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUKN0330438620080903 , Reuters reported the situation DIRECTLY from Nicoragua (not from Abkhazia, but from Nicoraguan capital Managua). Try to find reliable source. Your sources are unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm so friendly to answer you. Read once more. Last time you had little problems too. :))

An entity doesn't declare itself "de-facto independent"

The article needs cleaning up. Somes points:

• An entity does not declare de-facto independence, its declares independence.
• An entity which has its declaration of indepedence recognised by at least one internationally recognised nation can no longer be called "de facto independent" without keeping NPOV. I have changed the lead to read:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognised countries, which Georgia considers as parts of its sovereign territory.

This recognises they are not fully recognised countries, and that their independent status is disputed.

Is this NPOV or not? If not, let's discuss how to word, because to say A & SO are "de facto" independent no longer takes into account the view of Russia and Nicaragua, and the entities themselves. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems quite neutral to me. DannieVG (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. "Partially recognised" seems good. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur therewith. Bogorm (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me but before implementing the change, you may want to post a notice at the Kosovo talkpage. I remember some strong opposition there to the term partially recognized. By the way, is then Czech Republic also partially recognized since it is not recognized by Liechtenstein and vice versa? --Tone 15:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The CSTO's leaders summit

The summit is over with nothing new (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080905/116583797.html). Regarding the Belarusian position see http://www.charter97.org/ru/news/2008/8/29/9588/ (in Russian). The Ambassador was apparently talking about the message by Lukashenko that appeared the same day. Note that the English version of the article by RIANovosti was not changed, but the Russian one was. Belarus won't renounce its Ambassador's statements officially as this could look anti-Russian, but it's going to postpone (or even abandon) the recognition of A&SO againg the background of improving relationships with the USA and the EU (today the USA lifted some of their sanctions against the country, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gH3mW3z7UUR5BrVBWzoICD8Tx5dwD930MNP00). DannieVG (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the closure of the summit and бацька making no significant supporting declarations - here is some info too: [8] Bogorm (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua HAS recognized S.O. and A.

Why is it not shown?!--SergeiXXX (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of swarms of POV pushing users who are reluctant to read President Daniel Ortega's statement and deny it. Bogorm (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Users have brought forth information that, although the President stated he recognized SO and A, no official position can be taken without parliament. Refer to the discussions above. jamescp 05:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What for the parliament is here? It's the President competence. If somebody write similar phrase in kosovo's article about some european states(their parliament don't voting about Kosovo recognation), they will be named incorrect, but in this article is possible?!

You say about Kosovo article, "ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence", but i can't see in this article about international community respect serbian vorder, Kosovo is de facto state within serbian international recognised territory. You think that international community is only USA?

Nicaragua HAS NOT recognize separatist regions, and WILL NOT recognize them, for opposition has majority in the Nicaraguan Parliament and will not support Ortega's proposal on recognition. So, feel free to change your incorrect map, guys ;) Ortega's party has 38 seats in the Parliament, while his main opponents' parties have 25 and 22 seats there. Good luck with Hamas :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.178.49 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your contest not with us - you contest with Reuters. Reuters founded in October 1851, and since that there are almost no case of disseminating incorrect information. You are in wikipedia - in scientific resource, which have to rely on very reliable sources, such as Reuters. I see that you are from Georgia, from Tbilisi. I understand that you have very patriotic feelings about your country, but try to express your feelings in special political forums, in political mass-mitings, but not in Wikipedia. This resourse is created only for reliable information - not for political speculation and propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You use "de facto", Kosovo HAS diplomatic relations with USA, Abkhazia and South Ossetia HAS parliamentary relations with Russia Federation and they are installing diplomatic relations now. They all ARE SUBJECT international law, and you use "de facto", c'est drôle. Somaliland is a de facto state, this term can't use about Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Shadow Vogel (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This section was discussing Nicaragua. However, I will comment to your response. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/08/georgia.russia4 and http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html. Both articles -- and there are plenty more that I've found -- refer to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as de facto. Just because Russia recognizes their independence does not mean they are independent de jure. jamescp 06:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, but Russia isn't single state, who recognise this republics(Abkhazia and South Ossetia), other countries will recognise in future this republics, it's a fact. You should be a realist. Abkhazia and South Ossetia more never will be a part of Georgia, it's the fact. Kosovo more never will be a part of Serbia too. I think that Kosovo recognation is not gut idea, but it a fact. We can ONLY accept it.

Thanx fo links, but i very well ken situation in georgian-abkhazian conflict, two years ago i got through my graduate work about georgian-abkhazian conflict. Abkhazia don't declare his independence, he restore his independence.Shadow Vogel (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua is a presidential republic. President brings decrees, not the parliament.--Avala (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But parliament has to approve ... Elysander (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

to Elysander - Oh mein Gott! If you ken then President Sarkozy recognised Kosovo, he sent a lettre by kosovo government(it's one of form recognation), he don't wait parlement reaction.Shadow Vogel (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument! There are very different presidential systems on the world, and Sarkozy is not Ortega, and France not Nicaragua. Sources told us about necessary approvement by Nic. parliament. Elysander (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

'Sarkozy is not Ortega, and France not Nicaragua' - really?Shadow Vogel (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that was anyway your opinion! And all presidential systems are anyway identical too! :))Elysander (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that people here are forgetting a few things. First off, WP:NOT#FORUM; I could care less about any editors opinion as to whether Nicaragua's parliament needs to approve anything, as much as you all could care less about my opinion on other matters. We on WP follow WP:FIVE; one of those things being verifiability policy; this is policy which means it has to be followed without question. PArt of WP:V states that we report what is verifiable not which is fact, and verifiable means that it is published in reliable sources with a history for fact checking (i.e. news media, journals, books, etc). If a majority of published reliable sources state that Nicaragua has recognised the ind. of A & SO, then we report that. If anyone has a reliable source (not your opinion, or your interpretation of that source) that states otherwise, then bring it here for discussion, but do not move or remove without discussion. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On a sidenote, if anyone provides anything on this issue from here on in, without a source to show what they are saying, it will be removed. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I support you. I use the Reuters and the Nicaraguan Constitution, is this sources verifiable?Shadow Vogel (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian sources did tell us President's anouncement needs parliamentary approvement. Other informations depends on only one source : reuters. Therefore no coherent situation exists regarding sources. Question is still open! No official recgnition by Nic. does exist til now. Elysander (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

REPEAT. Your sources have no direct relation to Nicoragua. They are about Abkhazian reaction - not about Nicoragua. That is why you have to find clear sources about Nicoragua, which can support your point of view. And only after such finding (not before - only after), you may change the article. As you can see here http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUKN0330438620080903 , Reuters reported the situation DIRECTLY from Nicoragua (not from Abkhazia, but from Nicoraguan capital Managua). Try to find reliable source. Your sources are unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"President's anouncement needs parliamentary approvement" A classic and trite distorting and mendacious manipulation of sources - the sources say that it will follow, not that it is needed (here: would soon follow, NOT must soon follow)! Refrain from figments! Bogorm (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More evidence indicating that Reuters have jumped to conclusions Ортега получил письмо с просьбой не признавать Абхазию и Южную Осетию Kislorod (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very ridiculous point of view. Indeed, Nicoraguan president receive a letter from Georgia. But it is obviously that this letter cannot force him to abolish his decision. Please, do not make such ridiculous conclusions about Reuters. And please try to use only English sources, because other readers cannot evaluate the degree of logicality of your conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is based upon "По сообщениям СМИ, президент Никарагуа Ортега распорядился подготовить документы для официального признания независимости Абхазии и Южной Осетии."? We already have a source which states the same thing, and is already included in the article, and its not related to Reuters. But by searching Google News, we already have sources which state that Nicaragua recognises A & SO, with no mention of this. The basis upon which editors have come to the conclusion that Nicaragua does not yet recognise A & SO is (unreferenced) assertions that parliament has to approve the president's decision. Is there any indication of this? Refer to Ukaz for instances (Russian) where Presidential decrees can have immediate effect, but can be overturned by parliament. Sources are needed to indicate the Nicaraguan case in relation to this, before anything can be changed in the article that states that Nicaragua only intends to recognise A & SO, as reliable sources state that it already does. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From what's been said, Ortega's decision still has to be ratified by the parliament. On the Kosovo page, we've had this happen plenty of times. The president can say whatever he wants, but until the parliament/assembly ratifies it, it's not official policy. Had we tried this with Malta, Lithuania or any other country on the Kosovo recognition page, our Pro-Serb friends' heads would've exploded. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Without reliable sources explicitly stating that the decision has to be ratified by parliament, we can't engage in original research. Even as of today all sources I have seen have stated explicitly that Nicaragua has recognised independence of A & SO. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The decree wasn't signed until today, so I think I earned an "I told you so." Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You earn nothing, because there is still nothing in the media that this has even been approved by parliament, but simply that Ortega has announced it is official. We only have reliable sources to work with, so there is no "I told you so"s coming from my direction. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can say you even more: the acting Foreign Minister of Nicaragua said that according to Nicaraguan constitution no parliamental approval is needed, and the published presidential decree is a final official act of recognition of these countries. http://maidan.org.ua/static/news/2007/1220651218.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Because for example 1. Politics of Lithuania takes place in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the Prime Minister of Lithuania is the head of government, and of a multi-party system; 2. The politics of Malta take place in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the President of Malta is the constitutional head of state with executive powers remaining with the Prime Minister of Malta who is the head of government and the cabinet. And in Nicaragua : Politics of Nicaragua takes place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the President of Nicaragua is both head of state and head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the National Assembly. The Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. Sensed you any difference?Shadow Vogel (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

HOT NEWS FROM NICARAGUA. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_re_ca/nicaragua_russia_georgia_2 Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia, Abkhazia By FILADELFO ALEMAN, Associated Press Writer MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Nicaragua on Friday became the first country other than Russia to formally recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, giving Moscow a victory in its battle with Georgia over the two breakaway provinces. ADVERTISEMENT President Daniel Ortega expressed support for Russia's position in a speech Tuesday, but took no formal action until a decree was read at Nicaragua's Foreign Ministry on Friday. "Nicaragua recognizes the sister republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as the newest members of the world's community of independent nations and we welcome them," the decree said.

---

I have to say that after that the discussion about Nicaragua has to be finished. Not only Russia in international community and among UN members has recognized this former autonomous soviet republics (Abkhazia) and former autonomous region (S.Ossetia). Georgia indeed lost this regions not only de facto but also de jure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the discussion is finished, however, it does reinforce the point that has been rammed home, that we go by what reliable sources say, not what our own opinions are, particularly when original research is involved. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chavez quote

I will add the Chavez quote back in the Venezuela section. [9]

“ the United States want to depict Moscow as an aggressor in the Caucasus, though actions of Russia were very legal and Venezuela would have acted the same way under such circumstances. The United States surround Russia, but it has risen and again spoke about itself as a superpower. ”

I will cut the part in which a derogatory word is used "giving a clear notice that hegemony of yankees came to an end", but that does not mean the entire quote should be removed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the obsession with censoring a President of an independent nation, however detestable some of his words may be. Why don't we want to also censor that bigot from Sweden who said the Russians were Nazis? --Tocino 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You will not cut anything as per Wikipedia:CENSORED.--Avala (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favor of cutting Chavez quote, but I will be compelled to do so per Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Blatant_Slander. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

However if no one opposes to the entire quote, I will add the entire quote. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't act based on a forum like discussion on this page instead of a policy. Slander could be done by Chavez in this statement but it's none of our concern, let him worry about it. We don't remove quotes because they don't sound very nice, that would be censorship which is forbidden. --Avala (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur, from what I have gathered from your own editing, you, as I do, strive for NPOV, but as mentioned in that discussion above, we are not WP:CENSORED. Some editors rushed to introduce multiple Nazi references into the article, and I object to using such analogies as disrespectful to Soviet war dead, but we can't make judgement calls on what to or not include based on our own sensitivities. The editor who objected is a new editor, and whilst we welcome new editors by not biting them, they will learn the above in good time and come to accept that this how WP operates. So having said that, the Chavez quote needs to be placed in its entireity as it was written, as we are not WP:CENSORED. If the word "Yankees" (remember to capitalise it) offends said editor, then all we as long-term editors can do is give him fair warning, he is sure to see much worse if he/she sticks around and edits various articles. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The quote is added in the article, so the problem is solved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with this quote, however. It's placed in the subsection of those intending to recognize the two newest nations. BUT the quote doesn't say anything about recognizing them, no reference to it either. Should be moved elsewhere unless there is some mention of an intention to do so. Likewise the Tajikistan and Saudi sections don't have a QUOTE (official words) saying so.

This could be intrepreted anyway. Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this prior. The first part of the quote is relevant to this article as it shows Venezuela's support for Russia's decision. The second half, however, has no relevancy. It merely depicts Chavez' views of the worlds political dynamics. Although I object to the term "Yankee," I understand that Wikipedia does not censor. That is why my rational is purely on the basis of relevancy. The source has been included and if one is compelled can read it to find further context related to Chavez' words. I must stress, though, that this second part has no relevancy to this article. As for those who feel we should not cut down quotes, remember, this was on the television show "Alo Presidente!" We didn't cut down the quote. We merely used a small excerpt, which expressed Chavez' views on Russia's decision to recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia, Abkhazia

Have you any questions now? http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRh2kpzDggldfthpZ6-Xz8CTG4WA http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkkDAW4UlUk6TLyFB0oyZPtGynBgD930NH580 Shadow Vogel (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't say anything about parliament, but as no-one has yet provided any reliable source, then yes, this re-affirms that Nicaragua has recognised A & SO; what we need to do though is to change the source once it becomes available, as the AP.google links disappear after a while, and we need to find a link that will hopefully still be there in years to come. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say you are not able to follow the diplomatic and constitutional process >>

• 1) No Nicaraguan recognition exists before Sept 5 but only a presidential announcement - not more. It is ridiculous to talk about re-affirmation why else the date was changed ;). Therefore it was right the last days to move Nicaragua to the intent list. The opponents did ( knowingly ?) the wrong - just for fun. ;)
• 2) On Sept 5 Ortega did sign a presidential decree. That can be interpreted as a preliminary recognition (presidential prerogative).
• 3) Obviously Ortega is trying to create a fast fait acompli to ignore Nicaraguan parliament . In the meantime 2 Parties ( together majority in parliament) did oppose Ortega's activities. Let's see what happens in Nicaragua. ;)Elysander (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend you use Wikipedia as a political tribune to proclaim only your one opinion. You do not use reliable sources at all - just only your opinion. What is "preliminary recognition"??? ALL world media (including lenta.ru, which you have quoted recently) inform that NICARAGUA HAS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED this countries. Nicaragua is presidential republic, and such action is done solely by president - no parliament decision is needed. Even if parliament would not support his president, even if parliament would condemn its president - this would change nothing. Try to understand that you are in wikipedia, and please express your political point of view somewhere else. You can use, for example, special political forums. And qualified world media (such as Reuters; not the unreliable sources you used) informed that Nicaragua HAS recognized Abkhazia and S.O. just after presidential announcement. Becouse qualified world media realize that Nicaragua is presidential republic, and no parliamental approval is needed for such decision. The unreliable sources you used simply do not understand this things. Russia has no relation to Nicaraguan recognition, and this was great and nice supprise for Russian power and media - so the first comments in Russian media was rather foolish.

Can you remember that reuters did already report about quasi official recognition days ago ?? That says all, only few were more careful. Elysander (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can use this link (as you know Russian) to confirm that no parliamental approval is needed

http://maidan.org.ua/static/news/2007/1220651218.html The acting Foreign Minister of Nicaragua said that this is final official decision of Nicaragua, and according to Nicaraguan constitution no parliamental approval is needed. Декрет, подписанный главой государства, в соответствии с конституцией Никарагуа является окончательным официальным актом признания государственной независимости и не требует дополнительного утверждения в парламенте, отметил на пресс- конференции Каутс. Please, stop this discussion because there is no sence to continue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The official recognition has appeared on the official government website. Discussion over.Kislorod (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

When the official recognition is done? After presidential announcement, or only after signing and publishing the decree (by president)? Elysander sure that only the second variant is right. However, I think that in such countries as Nicaragua the first variant can be considered as be right. Because this decision is depended solely on president (in such countries), and president, if he was not crazy, would obviously sign the decree after such announcement. There are a lot of countries in the list of the "non-recognition" countries, but only few countries like Ukraine released signed (by officials) official notes that they would not recognize this countries. Other countries only represented by announcements of their officials, which were dessiminated by media. So, Elysander, if you think that you were right in our previous discussion, you have to exclude a lot of countries from "non-recognition" list on the basis that there are no official documents - only announcements :-)). However, I think that this is wrong logic. If we have the announcement of the official, which was dessiminated by reliable media (such as Reuters), we have to rely on this announcement even if we do not have the links to the documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk • contribs)

Follow your own rules! ;) It is your personal opinion that a presidential announcement is equal to an official declaration or decree. If you like to be credible in your arguments then change the recognition date of Nic. to the date of this public announcement. :)) Checking reuters it is obvious the report ( and similar AFP) is only displaying the view of presidential & foreign office incl. their interpretations of parliamentary involvement. Elysander (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that "presidential announcement is equal to an official declaration or decree". I just think that if we (users of Wikipedia) do not have an official declaration or decree, we have to use presidential announcement (or announcements of other authorized officials) as the official viewpoint of the definite state. And this is very common practice. About dates - I think that this is not a matter of principle. You can use both of these dates as the dates of recognition. And a lot of people in this discussion page told you that Nicaragua is presidential republic, and Nicaraguan parliament do not have any power in such topics - why you do not want to realize this simple fact? If you disagree with this fact - you have to give the links to RELIABLE SOURCES, which confirms your point of view. However, there are no such sources, because this is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's support

The "Caucasus crisis" means the war itself or the entirety of Russia's actions (recognition)? If it does, the map should be updated. PluniAlmoni (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It says that they only expressed full understanding for Russian actions in South Ossetia. It doesn't say Caucasus crisis. Whoever added this wanted us to believe in something that is simply not there.--Avala (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is part of the current "Caucasus crisis", and since Saudi Arabia didn't specify which part of the "Caucasus crisis" they supported Russia on, we are left to assume that they support Russian military action and Russian recognition. --Tocino 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So now we are basing edits on assumptions? Ijanderson (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Take issue with Saudi Arabia for not using more definitive language. What's clear is that they support Russia. --Tocino 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Fantasy! ! Only typical diplomatic speech to bridgeover differences in opinions. :)) Elysander (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, you have been warned above the wholesale removal of content on this article now for the second time. The edit which you did in removing Saudi Arabia without even thinking of placing it elsewhere, and without even attempting to discuss the issue is disruptive. You are not assuming good faith with your edits. The next time wholesale removal such as your edit with Saudi Arabia occurs, I will be bringing this to the attention of the admin above. WP is a collaborative effort built on WP:CONSENSUS, you need to realise that. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How often we had the pleasure to read so-called reliable sources about full support and full understanding ?? Only to experience after days there was nothing of political substance. Always the same POV game! Prove yourself! ;) Elysander (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, its fine to edit the article and remove content... once. However immediately after you remove the content you need to explain why you did so. Even better if you explain why you think content should go here, then do the removal after some discussion. You saw POV, what did you percive to be POV? Try to be specific. There usually is a valid comprimise.

Generally you guys need to attempt to work togather to come to some managable comprimise. Just removing content without explaining why here on this talk page will not work. Failure to make an attempt to talk over your changes is disruptive to the rest of the editors. I'll refer everyone present to Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Protection_request as far as disruption goes.

Some advice, as I've told others here, doing major changes without talking it over here means those changes are not likely to "stick". If you think it might be contreversial, it probably is. Do yourself and others a favor by trying to follow Bold Revert Discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:1RR, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and other related guidelines/essays. Being bold is fine, but you can't forget the discuss part. Thats probably the most important part. :) —— nixeagle 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Saudi Arabia is going to support Russia, the recently signed a multi billion euro weapons deal with Russia. Ijanderson (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a difference between saying you "understand" somebody's actions as opposed to "support" them? Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that difference is almost absent. Because if you do not support smth, you would think that smth had to be done in other way. And, so, you would not understand the way it was actually done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk • contribs)

Not really. For example, one can understand why terrorists act and their motives, yet at the same time not support them.Kislorod (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Literally yes, but you can see that in diplomatic (and everyday) language, when you "understand" someone isn't the same as "understand his motives". "Understand" is often the same as "accept" or "I would do the same". The main problem in this case is to determine exactly -what- they "understand". PluniAlmoni (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As i told above ... general use of such diplomatic catchwords like "understand(ing)" or "support(ing)" out of a significant context and without naming a certain case etc. is sign of diplomatic politeness - not more. The listings in article are full of such trivial catchwords. ;) Elysander (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No diplomatic politeness can force officials to use such words as "support" or "understand". If the country wants to be neutral - their officials would say that they are concerned about this problem, they want the problem to have peaceful solution and so on. They would not use such wording as "supporting" or "understanding" the one side of the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I even think that we have to change the map including the attitude of Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ingush opposition?

Seriously, why does the Ingush opposition keep popping up? The non-recognised opposition of a small subnational republic inside Russia? If they are included we definitely need to include the Party of the Regions which is legitimate and significant in Ukrainian politics. Kislorod (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As well as the Serb Radical Party's view that Serbia should recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia.[10] Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Already moved to Ingushetia, because it was irrelevant for this article - they neither state that they will recognise the two states nor reject. What should we do with the Chehen terrorists and the Krim Tatars. The first are illegal organisation ruling no single square meter (unlike Transnistra, Taiwan or others), I think they should be removed. Any suggestions? Bogorm (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Russia officially recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; the latter announces it will become part of Russia." American propaganda again? when exactly Russia announced that Abkhazia and South Ossetia will become part of Russian Federation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.170.62 (talk • contribs)

ALBA recognition?

A Russian paper is saying they may be heading to recognition:

The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (Alternativa Bolivariana para las Americas, ALBA), an anti-U.S. international organization uniting Bolivia, Venezuela, Honduras, Cuba, Nicaragua and Dominica and headed by Hugo Chavez, is apparently preparing to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia's independence but needs to act with caution considering China, its biggest economic partner, and Iran, whose role in the region is rapidly growing.

It seems given Nicaragua's actions, Chavez's statements and Castro's statements that this is likely to happen. It would certainly be interesting to see Russia' Latin American allies recognize before their Eurasian allies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Belarus and Venezuela.

We have discussed about Nicaragua, and we had overlooked a misprint.(i think)

1. Belarus - On 28 August, Vasily Dolgolyov, the Belarusian Ambassador to Russia, said that Belarus would in the next day or two recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. President Alexander Lukashenko had also expressed support of Russia, saying "Under the circumstances Russia had no other moral choice but to support appeals of South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples on the recognition of their right for self-determination in line with fundamental international documents." It say belarussian ambassador, not President. President Lukashenko, in lettre, say that he support russian recognation Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He don't say about he intent to recognise this two independent new nations.

2. Venezuela - President Chávez say that Venezuela prepare a document for the recognation this two republics.

I think that Belarus should be moved from the "Expressed intent to recognise independence" into the "Supportive of Russia's recognition" and Venezuela should be moved from the "Supportive of Russia's recognition" into the "Expressed intent to recognise independence".

And many source says that Syria supports Russia in recognation Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and some that Jordan and Iran support Russia too.Shadow Vogel (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to tell them for several days now (about Belarus). Thanks for understanding, Shadow Vogel. DannieVG (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice to all, again, and sorry for sounding like a broken record here, but we can only report what reliable sources report, not what we assume from those sources, and because an event has not yet happened. Refer to the Nicaraguan sections above in which people stated that parliament had to approve the recognition, whilst all the while those reliable sources stated that Nicaragua has recognised, and it wasn't until later that a reliable source stated that parliaments approval was required due to the nature of government in Nicaragua. This is a huge part of verifiability policy. Whilst Belarus has not yet recognised A & SO, a reliable source states that they will recognise; whilst "this weekend" or whatever has passed, perhaps what needs to occur is for the information to be updated. I will go thru my Zotero files (Zotero is a MUST!! if editing on WP by the way, as a suggestion to other editors) and find the ref that stated that it is possible that recognition might not be forthcoming until after the Belarus parliamentary elections towards the end of September, and update with that information. This is how WP works on reliable sources. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Other organisations"

I think that it's fairly obvious that "other organizations" include non-international organizations - also, the organizations listed have some form of relevance (opposing Russia and under Russia's sovereignty). Please provide -good- reasons for deletion.PluniAlmoni (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Certain users added subsections and subsections, changed titles and titles follwing their own POV motives - now they are trying to cut back what they did create themselvesElysander (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC). Ridiculous! :))

No, it is not ridiculous, your double standards! Hamas and Transnistria de facto rule hundreds of square kilometers by their people's will, whereas these marginal despicable terrorists (Chechen and Ingush secessionists) were completely ousted and crashed. And now some adherent of theirs has imposed them in the article, when they do not represent any legal or recognised power - this is not even ridiculous, it is outrageous and ignoble POV. This section is inappropriate, to put it mildly. Bogorm (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At least one can for sure say the section is unbalanced and not neutral.

. It is rely some users own POV. To talk about some “opposition” within a Russian republic just because it is a antirussian view is not serious. And then refuse to talk about.. lets say opposition in Ukraine, or then what about the government in Ingushetia? I wonder if someone know what Al qaida, FARC, PLP, rote arme or other terrorist organisation mean about this. Anyone know? What about Bin Laden? This “other organization” could be very long if we start. This section is not serious and should be deleted. Many have said it but here is some antirussian people who rule. Take this section away!--Sveibo (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What??? PluniAlmoni (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur completely with User:Sveibo - these are unrecognised by noone illegal separatist movements and ought to be removed immediately. The sheer existance of this section is a NATO and anti-Russian propaganda and prejudicial bias. Bogorm (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Invalid quotation.

I have continually said that the second half of Chavez' "quote" was irrelevant to this article. I stand by my statement, which is in the best interest of maintaining relevant and NPOV content. Yet, some have been stubborn about keeping this "quote." As to why, well, it is not my place to speculate.

You'll notice that I have removed the "quote" in its entirety. I have done this for several reasons. First, I strongly believe the second sentence in the quote is irrelevant. Second, after careful examination of the source, I've found that the first half of the "quote" wasn't even Chavez' words! It was the source's analysis of Chavez' beliefs. Because of this, I see no valid objections to removing the quote in its entirty and I see no reason as to why anyone would attempt to include the second sentence of the supposed quote, which were Chavez' actual words. They bare no relevance to this article.

For those who seek out quotes by Chavez in order express like-minded views, please remember the purpose of this article. It is not an article to express Chavez' views of the US. It is not an article to express Chavez' views on the world. It is and article that discusses international reactions to Russia's decision to recognized SO and A. As we already have a quote from Chavez that shows this, I see no further reason to add any more -- especially one that attempts to degrade another state. jamescp 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Then move the quote in the International reaction section as there are Nazi comparison of Russians. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to removal of Nazi comparisons to Russia. I don't feel they add to this article at all; yet, others may feel they do. The reason for their validity are the fact that it is a state reacting to Russia's decision. The comparisons were directly aimed at the reason this article was created. Chavez' quote is aimed at the US and his perceived perspective on the power dynamics of the international realm. It has no relevance to this article. It has no direct relevance to Russia's decision to recognized SO and A. Thus, it has no business in this article. jamescp 00:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Rebublic of Ichkeria

Chechen Rebublic of Ichkeria was abolished by the decision of its president. There are no Chechen Republic of Ichkeria now. We have to delete this organisation - because it does not exist now at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

yest this is very thrue. And whatever the socolled "Rebublic of Ichkeria" is a terrorist organisation.

And now agan the antirussian who rules here also have removed Saudi Arabia. --Sveibo (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Да, к сожалению антирусская позиция здесь представлена ... Удаление Саудовской Аравии сплошной вандализм, так как и ссылки были, а чеченские террористы вообще не должны присутствовать - они ведь и одним квадратным метром не правят. Были и ингуши-сепаратисты, но я переместил их в Ingushetia. Я уже спросил куда деть их - здесь. Я выражу возмущение и по-английски для остальных:

I would like to share unanimously with the two users the indignation arising from the imposition of two terrorist organisations who do not rule over a single square meter, are thence irrelevant and I strongly advise their removal, especially of the Chechen terrorists. I would like to underscore the difference between them and Hamas, because Hamas came into power by elections and they reign over Gaza unlike the Ingush and Chechens. As was already stated by some users when they deleted Yanukovich's statement, non-governmental personalities should not be allowed here and I urge the authors of these positions to move them to Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence, if the personalities are prominent or to forbear from claiming their right to be mentioned (lack of notorioroty). I rebuke too ardently the removal of the supposrt of Saudi Arabia, which is going to be reinstated if it has not already been! Bogorm (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Дорогой Богорм, я, в отличие от Вас, русский, но Саудовская Аравия не заявляла ничего по поводу признания, по ссылке нет даже такого слова, речь шла о "действиях, предпринятых Москвой во время кризиса", и не о поддержке, а о понимании. Now please write in English here. Colchicum (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please use only ENGLISH. You are not right both because you use RUSSIAN instead of ENGLISH. :-))) You do not have to write about "anti-russian attitude", you have to write only about RELIABLE SOURCES, because you are in WIKIPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not Russian, but Bulgarian, a Slavic people, if you are familiar with the notion. Refrain from nationality-based insults. Bogorm (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Дорогой Богорм, я даже в мыслях не имел Вас оскорбить. Просто я считаю, что американцы, которые это читают, тоже должны понимать нашу дискуссию. Поэтому я прошу всех, кто здесь пишет по-русски писать по-английски. И кроме того, не нужно писать ни про пророссийскую, ни про антирусскую позицию. Нужно писать просто про достоверность изложенных фактов. А факты таковы, что ЧРИ не существует даже с точки зрения чеченских сепаратистов. Я очень рад, что ЧРИ из этого списка удалили.

(To the precedent) Да, я удалил ее, потому что вполне согласен с Вас, но прежде всего потому что высказывание террориста не касалось независимости А. и Ю. О., а только Кадырова. Я просто был в сердцах, прочитав "you are not right, because you use RUSSIAN". Я уразумел, что вы не того имели ввиду, что я подумал. Всего хорошего :) Bogorm (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Дорогой Colchicum, если вы убедите меня, что я плохо пишу по-русски и укажете на мои ошибки, я последую Вашему призыву. Между прочим, то, что я не русский не мешает мне возмущаться некими антирусскими правками, ибо я (равно как и Вы) - славянин и если Вам не нравится мое вазмущение упомянутыми правками, читайте выражение "антиславянская позиция здесь ... ". Я озабочен в той же степени, в какой и Sveibo и 91.193.164.28, насчет нейтральности настоящей статьи. А Вы? Bogorm (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo dudes what the hell man, just use English here. You may expect that not everyone speaks your native language if it's not English, since it is the English edition of Wikipedia you are browsing. Spasibk Mallerd (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm, your insulting attitude toward other editors is inappropriate in what is supposed to be a civil forum. No-one insulted you by assuming you're Russian, unless you consider the very concept of being Russian insulting, which is no fault of anyone here. And you don't need to be snide or demeaning to another editor because they don't recognize the difference between Russian and Bulgarian—if they did, they probably wouldn't need you to write in English. kwami (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the terrorist status of Chechnya: many people may say the same about South Ossetia and Abxazia, both of which have committed genocide. What's relevant is the status of the organization, not POV on whether they're legitimate. kwami (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"No-one insulted you by assuming you're Russian" - if you read 91.193.164.28's "You are not right both because you use RUSSIAN instead of ENGLISH.", you would probably retract this assumption of yours. Would you specify how exactly could I have breched the NPA rules? Bogorm (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Богорм, я имел в виду исключительно то, что в английском разделе википедии нужно писать по-английски. Если Вы хотите писать по-русски - идите в русский раздел. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(To 91.193.164.28) Хорошо, тогда я не буду больше считать это обидой. Однако, я воспринял You are not right как "вы не правы", тогда как Вы хотели сказать "Вы не должны писать по-русски", да? Тогда пусть не держим сердца друг на друга.

Well, then I retract mine indignation after 91.193.164.28's explication that he did not mean any connotation based on nationality. I am simply a bit sensitive person ... Bogorm (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is a government in exile which is based in London. Ramzan Kadyrov controls the real Chechnya. The people of Chechnya recently voted with 99% of the votes in favor of the United Russia party. Chechnya is not a terrorist territory. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria are a group of exiled terrorists who mass murder schoolchildren and attack theaters. --Tocino 03:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with you entierly: my objections were against the illegitimate Chechen Republic of Ichkeria's marginal statements - and they are marginal, because they do not control a single square meter in Chechnya and are unrecognised by all UN member states unlike SO and Abkhazian governments. Bogorm (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of my opinion that we should only include the responses of sovereign nations and governmental organizations... As for terrorist groups, well, the US defines Hamas as a terrorist organization and it is on here. Regarding the notion of anti-Russian editors, that is unfounded. I am here to preserve a neutral point of view. I am sure most others here are here for like-minded reasons. But a question can be raised is if you are concerned with anti-Russian additions, are you saying you are adding "pro-Russian" stances? Please keep a NPOV. jamescp 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. We should only include the responses of GOVERNMENTS of sovereign states and governmental organizations, formed by governments of sovereign states. We have to exclude such organizations as CRI (which represents only few Chechenians living in London and have no relation even to Chechen separatists in Chechnya) and Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People. The letter organisation represents the views of the majority (but not all, because there are other organisations of Crimean Tatars in Crimea, which oppose Mejlis) of Tatars, but it have no power and no one have the relations with them as with Tatar representative body. This is typical political party-like organisation, which represents and supports the interests of the ethnic group. No reason to include such party. But I think that it is quite reasonable to also include the responses not only from recognized governments of sovereign states, but also from de facto governments of de facto sovereign state. Gaza de facto became separate state under HAMAS rule. HAMAS is de facto sovereign government of Gaza. So, there is very serious reason to include them. But, certainly, not because of "US defines Hamas as a terrorist organization". If HAMAS will lost its control over Gaza I will be the first who will say that we have to delete HAMAS from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends. First of all, I have to say about the difference between Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (CRI) and HAMAS. HAMAS is democratically elected government of Palestine, which was recognized as the legal goverment by many countries. Nowdays, HAMAS has control only over Gaza. So, HAMAS is governmental organization, despite we cannot identify them as the de jure Palestinian government now. On the other hand, CRI was abolished by CHECHENIAN SEPARATISTS, which proclaim KAVKAZ EMIRATE instead of CRI. Very small (only about five persons) Chechenian group in London condemned this decision and self-proclaimed that they would be the government of CRI instead of Chechenian separatists in Chechnya. This is very ridiculous proclamation. They cannot represent even Chechenian terroristic organization - they cannot represent nobody except of them. This is very funny proclamation, such as proclamation of Pricipality of Sealand or Dominion Melhisedek. I think that Wikipedia has to be serious scientific source. So, we have to mention the position of HAMAS, because of real de facto existance of such government. And we have to exlude from our list such funny groups as CRI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The above explication was sufficiently stringent and incontrovertible and I do not have any objectin. Bogorm (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Check your beloved Kosovo article ;) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Non-states - Elysander (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked it. How could I possibly express myself more clear-cut than thus: Remove any marginal secessionists who do not rule over a single hectare in the territories they claim. In the case of Kosovo, remove West Papua and Kashmir secessionists based in Britain (illegitimate claims) and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (beased there too, illegitimate claims). Keep all other. And Tamil Eelam is undergoing too, because the Sinhales government has been victorious recently. Bogorm (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do it, babe ! ;) But perhaps another user is preferring other interpretations of world reality than you and will resert again there and here. Elysander (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So, you think that we have to include this organisation, even with regard to they are only few people, which do not represent anybody except of them? You have very strange interpretations of world reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Forsooth. Bogorm (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask the users who did insert it here and there (Kosovo) not me! :)) Check history of kosovo article how long these insertings were not disputed. Don't introduce your POV double standards. Elysander (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am at the discussion page about Abkhazia and S.O. I am not at the discussion page about Kosovo. And I think that we have to discuss only the article "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" here. We have to make this article better by a) excluding non-existent organisations, such as CRI b) including all de facto governments such as HAMAS, which is de facto government of Gaza c) excluding all parties such as "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People" because otherwise we have to include all parties in the world in this list to have neutral point of view. My goal is to make THIS article better. And what is your goal?

I don't know if I'm late to this or not, but please be advised that the only language I and most others here are likely to be able to read is English. Please do not count on folks on this talk page to be able to tell the difference between languages or read them. I'd like to ask that we attempt to use English as much as possible, seeing that this is the English encyclopedia ;). —— nixeagle 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence

Who keeps changing the lead to: "The international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is only partially; for example, Georgia considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia as parts of its sovereign territory"?

This literally makes no sense; It should be reverted back to the way it was this morning. jamescp 07:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can have a good chance of figuring that out by using wikiblame. I'll be considering that disruptive if its the same person doing it multiple times without discussing it here. Guys changing things once is fine, but if it gets changed back, please discuss on this talk page. To keep changing back to preferred versions is disruptive. That includes anyone reverting back to "the way it was this morning". In short reverts either way is disruptive. Discuss here, come up with a comprimise version for the lead. Its not going to "stick" otherwise. See #Protection_request for details on disruption. —— nixeagle 14:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, morning is a misleading notion. Your morrow has a good chance to be some Japanese or Nauruan editor's noon or even eve. Bogorm (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah! You do have a point though I'd not sweat it. I just read it as "the way it was before the change", which is what he/she intended to say. —— nixeagle 14:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this warranted such a response. It didn't make any sense in English. And I kept his/her addition for others to decide (which Russavia removed). I do have to say though that I see a lot of blame towards "new" editors; yet, most of the "old" editors are the ones who are not discussing major reverts. Just my 2 cents. jamescp 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, Assume good faith. Looking at structure, it is likely an editor whose first language is not English, and attempted to NPOV the lead somewhat. As to my own revisions, I try to adhere to as much as possible to WP:NPOV and when one is up against hardly active editors who only want to push their own anti-Russian POV, then you can be damned sure that any unreferenced, NPOV material that only pushes their own agenda will be removed without hesitation. I will always provide a reason for any revert or removal of material, and one can be sure it is always based upon policy or consensus. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

The cited Russian source says nothing about recognition, it only mentions Saudi Arabia "understanding the logic of action by the Russian side and actions taken by Moscow during the crisis". They could be referring to the military action. Therefore it is incorrect to place Saudi Arabia in the section International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Supportive_of_Russia.27s_recognition. --Martintg (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. jamescp 05:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - The imagination that Saudi-Arabia would support Russia's recognition policy is a product of a "sick fantasy", as Lavrov would say. ;) Elysander (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"as Lavrov would say" - WP:OR ! Do not put words in Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov's mouth, which he has not uttered! Bogorm (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't take ironical phrases so seriously! :)) Elysander (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - Saudi Arabia fully supports Russia's actions. Fully obviously includes the recognition.91.19.108.233 (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with the proposal and unanimously agree with 91.19.108.233 - the recognition is a kind of action, it is not contemplation! Bogorm (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's hopeless WP:OR.--Kober^Talk 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Marek. Recognition is not mentioned, its referring to the war Ijanderson (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So why did you move it to the "non recognition" section when their statement doesn't say anything one way or another? There's a section specifically for countries that support Russia's actions, and that's where it belongs. LokiiT (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - The wording of FULLY SUPPORT refers to all of Russia's actions. Statement issued after recognition date. Ergo, there is support too for recognition. Jagiellon (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to find a source that explicitly states Saudi Arabia's opinion; otherwise, we'll just removed Saudi Arabia from the article entirely. No need to speculate as to what their position is. In my own opinion, I find it highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia would join in support for Russia. Especially with the governments close ties with some western countries. Please find a proper source or we'll remove it. Preferably an official source within Saudi Arabia. jamescp 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, please. You haven't even been a wikipedia user for a week yet. Please read WP:OWN before you decide which statements of support that "we" will remove, silence or otherwise censor. Jagiellon (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jagiellon, as you can see, I've not yet removed that section as I am waiting for a general consensus. Please don't jump to conclusions. Despite the fact that I am new, I am not new to foreign affairs -- especially the Middle East. I am actively searching for an article discussing Saudi Arabia's views; however, I have not found any conclusive evidence that it supports or rejects Russia's decision. The source currently presented is not explicit enough to assume that Saudi Arabia has supported Russia's decision and misrepresents the country and government. This, in my opinion, is irresponsible. jamescp 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, however keep in mind that our own opinions don't matter whereas the sources do. Right now there is a reliable source which says one thing. Until another more reliable source is found which says the opposite then we can't change the quoted (and sourced) position. It is in no way original research. Jagiellon (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the original research. I agree with Martintg. Moreover, understanding != support. Colchicum (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia has created a section below where we would remove the "support of Russia" column. This would void this problem since there is no official stance on Saudi Arabia's side. jamescp 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This would work best and all positions (from the clearly supportive of Venezuela to the clearly-opposing view of the United States) would fit as long as the heading is then also changed to neutrally say "Other reactions" which is NPOV. Jagiellon (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection request

At this time I do not see enough disruptive editing to warrent protecting the page, or blocking any editors. However some editors are trending the line on what is acceptable and what is not very closely. Edits with misleading edit summaries will be considered disruptive. I've also made a note to another editor about what is and is not vandalism. Finally I've made notes to some of the newer editors about edit summaries and their use.

If this article is to be protected, it will be a full protection as there is little to no anon vandalism. Most changes to the article are disputes over content. However I will warn you all again that I vastly prefer to block disruptive editors rather then protecting a page that is being edited by many people. The block is far more precise (stops the disruption) while permitting everyone else to continue editing the page.

If you disagree with a change, please feel free to revert it one time and try to discuss the change. Folks doing only reverts, or multiple folks doing reverts over one section will be considered disruptive. Remember nothing will "stick" unless there is a rough agreement among editors here on this talk page. Please do not be afraid to point new editors or editors to this section. —— nixeagle 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pulling this out from the archives so that anyone new to the page knows what to expect. —— nixeagle 14:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction

This section is still showing pro-NATO bias due to absence of SCO view. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be fixing this before too long --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Move protection

I have applied a move protection on this article. This does not imply that I support the article where it is, I frankly don't care. If/when there is an agreement to have the article moved, the protection can be lifted. At the moment the move protection will last 1 week. Hopefully by then things will settle down enough, if not we can re-protect it.

I am still reviewing if there is a need to block disruption or protect the page. Any protection I place on the page will be a full protection, as this is more of a content dispute then vandalism. We all know this is a controversial topic, as such my advice to everyone here is to keep calm, and don't revert war. Changes are far more likely to be kept if they are agreed to here on this talk page. I'll be posting back here as I did have a request to place protection on the page, so I will tell you all what I think after I look through the long history ;). —— nixeagle 12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nixeagle, I don't believe there is a need to protect the page, however, I would appreciate it being re-inforced to editors the basics of policy and long accepted guidelines, such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FORUM, WP:CONSENSUS and most importantly WP:NPOV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I appologize for missing your reply and allowing it be archived. As you see I did not protect the page.

• As far as the "content" related policies, I'm leaving some of that to you guys who are actively editing the page. As it is some of these sources being mentioned may or may not meet WP:RS, but it is not up to me to tell you which ones I think do and which ones I think don't. The guideline is important though! Just you guys have to sort out the reliable ones from the not so reliable ones yourselves. I can't do this for you guys. :)
• Some of the topics here are "forum"ish, but touch enough on the topic that its not worth the effort or anger it would invoke by my removal of them. If I see a protracted discussion that does not touch on the article I will make a comment in that section to that effect. To be honest you guys have been doing a fairly decent job figuring out what is what. I'm loose on this one, as long as you guys are talking about potential changes to the article, I'm not going to archive or otherwise stop conversations if they get a bit off track and talk about the event, as long as you guys return to the original subject at hand.
• You will note in the section above I am pushing that you guys agree to changes, see #Protection request.
• Finally WP:NPOV is close to impossible for me to enforce as my view of what is neutral will not match what another person's view of neutral is. (Much of the debate on this page is over this). NPOV is something you guys here are going to have to work togather over the coming weeks as the event evolves to come to a lasting conclusion.

—— nixeagle 14:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Precedent & Russia's Recognition

"In July 2008, in a speech to Russian ambassadors on Russian foreign policy, Medvedev opined that 'for the European Union, Kosovo is almost what Iraq has proved to be for the United States' and that they acted unilaterally in pursuit of their own self-interests and undermined international law in the process.[18]"

This quotation doesn't explain the reason for Russia's precedent. However, the next quote where Medvedev says, "western countries rushed to recognise Kosovo's..." does explain his reasons. The former quote was also said prior to the conflict.

Because Russia's reasoning isn't universal precedent, "Russia'a Recognition" and "Precedent" should be merged to "Russia's Recognition and Precedent." The first quote, comparing the EU's decision to the US decision on Iraq, should be removed as it is (1) not directed towards Russia's recognition of SO and A and (2) doesn't add anything to the article. The quote alone makes no sense without the added POV sentence.

Any objections with reasonable cause? jamescp 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am expanding this section bit by bit (will add more later). The statement belongs because we have below that all of these EU and NATO countries claiming Russia broke international law, yet we as editors provide sides of the story (with references) to allow readers to make up their own minds. Once I have finished something else, I will add in more details. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

International organisation membership

I have removed this column from all tables as I don't believe it provides anything to the article. For example, does the fact Panama was a UNSC member at the time provide any further weight to their comments? Or that Russia is a CIS member state? There is also no rhyme nor reasoning as to what organisations should be liste? Do we list ASEAN? If not, why do we list the EU? (which I noted was already removed). Furthermore, by removing the column entirely it has removed a huge amount of whitespace in the article which wouldn't be used. Everyone ok with this? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree on that. Närking (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Supportive of Russia's recognition" section

The section International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Supportive_of_Russia.27s_recognition needs to be removed and I hope that we can agree that this is required. The main reason that it needs to go is that this article is called International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, not International support of Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia nor International condemnation of Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The entries for Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Venezuela for the time being need to be moved to International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Non-recognition, because like or not, they have not actually recognised A & SO, nor have they declared an express intent to recognise the independence of A & SO. If we can agree on this, then we can move onto the next issue... --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can move they to NON-RECOGNISION, but please create the subsections in "non-recognition" depending in the state's stance. For example a) supportive of Russia's recognition b)neutral postition on recognition c) condemning the Russia's recognition. Or please create the subsections with other titles, but we should separate the state which is clearly announce that they would not ever recognize Abkhazia and SO from the states that actually do not make such announcements and do not exclude their decision about recognition because of supporting the Russia's side in this conflict.

And frienfs, why do I not see the responses to my proposal of deletion the stupid section "Other non-states or organisations"?? Please see abouve the section "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People" and comment my opinion. If we speak about the recognition it is possible to say only about recognition from other de facto or de jure sovereign states and their respective governments (one aspect of recognition is, for example, the validity of documents (even personal documents such as passports) of one state in another state). It is very stupid to add the stance of "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People" which has to relation to being the state, they are only something like political party, to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this. Why do we care who supports Russia's decision? This is about recognition. Having this scheme would be ridiculous. jamescp 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK let's speak not about Russia, but anyway we have to separate the states that clearly announce that they would not ever recognize from the states that did not make such announcements, and their announcements can be interpreted as the possibility to recognize in future. We should find the correct and good wording, but we have to separate this groups of states.

Aren't we doing that? If they stated that they don't recognize SO and A we put them under non-recognition. For instance, nobody knows what Egypt thinks so they aren't on there. This is how it should be... jamescp 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your idea. You think we should completely delete, for example, Venezuela? But Russavia want to move Venezuela to the section "Non-recognition". I think that he may do so, but he have to create the special subsection for such countries. This would be very strange if we would unite the stance of the countries, which, as many think, are very close to recognition with the opposite position in one section without any separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Venezuela doesn't recognize SO and A. The fact that they support Russia is irrelevant. We don't need a subsection for those who support Russia's policies. Why would we? jamescp 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I may agree with completely deletion of Venezuela and other states with no definite position about recognition itself (such as China) from the article, but I disagree with adding Venezuela to the section "Non-recognition" without any subsections. I think that section "Non-recognision" has to include only countries that clearly states that they would not ever recognize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And I think that if we do not want to have the section "Supportive of Russia's recognition", we should create the section "Other states", and add there the stance of, for example, Venezuela, because I think that Chavez quote is relevant to the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked because I absolutely agree with you. Although, I hope this isn't leading to the removal of comments condemning Russia's actions; that wouldn't go well as it is a reaction to Russia's recognition. Anyways, I am for removal of 3.3. jamescp 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree on that too. Either they have recognized them or they haven't. Närking (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Then, you should delete the section "Non-recognition" completely because it is obvious that if the state has not recognized, then it has to be placed in this section. But I think that this is wrong idea. We have to separate the states, which announced they would not ever recognize from the states which clearly give the signal they may recognize in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep per precedent set in Kosovo article with "Imminent reocgnisers" but remove Saudi Arabia entry.--Avala (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovo article can be used as a guide, but it can't be used as a precedent in terms of content of this article, as article content whilst keeping inline with WP:FIVE is ultimately decided by those editors who edit that article. It's my opinion that having this section places too much emphasis on Russia and not enough emphasis on Abkhazia and South Ossetia - the actual article subject. Additionally, as the Saudi Arabia entry shows, what is in the entry is published by a reliable source so qualifies for entry in the article, however is leading to original research and insertion of editors own opinions. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the best choise is to rename this section to the section "Other states". And also add the stance of such countries as China there. The section "non-recognition" has to be used only for the countries which clearly announced they would not recognize now or in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, states that don't yet have a stance do not recognize SO and A. So it isn't much of an issue to just have non-recognition. We have text in each countries box that further explains their position. jamescp 23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly keep - the section is an indispensible part of the article. Bogorm (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account WP:VOTE, can you explain why it is your position that this an indispensible part of the article? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Because in the reciproque Kosovo article there are even more elaborate terms as "Imminent recognisers", as explained by Avala. If one removes them from there, I would immediately agreewith the proposal. Bogorm (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that section in the Kosovo article corresponds to the section in which Belarus is placed in this article; that being countries which have announced intent, and that section is not in question here. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep but remove KSA like Avala said Ijanderson (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Even though i want to keep it, I don't think any decisions should be based on parallels with the Kosovo version of this article. They are completely different articles, situations with different articles editing it ect. So we shouldn't make these two articles "twins" Ijanderson (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Remove, this section is a classic weasel section. The article is about recognition, either a country does or doesn't. These countries may be "supportive" of Russia's recognition, but they have withheld recognition themselves, therefore they should be grouped under the "nonrecognition" section. Martintg (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends. I think that we do not have to look at the Kosovo article. That article is not very good. I think we should

a) Have the section "Recognition" containing the states which have recognized Abkazia and S.O. officially

b) Have the section "Expressed intent to recognise independence" with the respective states

c) Have the section "Non-recognition" containing the states which CLEARLY STATED THEY WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE IN FUTURE

d) Have the section "Other states" with relevant information about recognition for the states which have not taken the final decision.

e) Have the analogous sections for de facto sovereign unrecognized governments.

f) Have the section "International governmental organisations"

g) DELETE THE STUPID SECTION "Other non-states or organisations" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People

Please somebody explain me why the such very ridiculous section as "Other non-states or organisations" is created? OK, you want to create such section, but why do you show only the attitude the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People there? Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People is actually the part of other bigger party - People Union "Our Ukraine" leaded by Ukrainian president Yuschenko (they take part in elections as the part of this Union). OK, if you want to indicate of the attitude of different Ukrainian parties here, why you restricted to only this party? Why you do not indicate the attitude of other Ukrainian parties, such as the attitude of the Party of Regions? Communist Party of Ukraine? The Party of Regions has the largest faction in the Ukrainian parliament, and they condemn the politics of Yuschenko and call the Ukrainian gaovernment to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Why you do not want to include that in this list? You have to delete the section "Other non-states or organisations" at all, or include there the attitudes of other Ukrainian parties, because otherwise there would be no neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People is not a political party but a representative body for the Crimean Tatars, but formally not recognized by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Närking (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - representatives of an ethnic minority which is calling for more autonomy for Crimean natives. Elysander (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not right. Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People is Crimean political organisation of Crimean tatars, but there are also other Crimean Tatar organisations, which are opposing Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People. Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People can only be evaluated as political party. And this political party is de facto a part of People Union "Our Ukraine", because they make contributions to Union's list of candidates during each parliamental election. Nobody recognise Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People as the representative body for the Crimean Tatars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I included Yanukovich's statement here: Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Do you have any sources about Petro Symonenko's position, his party is too in the Rada, it should be undoubtedly reckoned with? Bogorm (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have said it before, and say it agan. This ridiculous section "Other non-states or organisations" should be deleted! At least now the terroristorganisation ar gone, so this "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People" wich is a part of Ukrainian presidents supporter is... i use the word stupid! --Sveibo (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK Let us make a short summary. The title of the article is "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia". What entity CAN recognize new state? Only other sovereign state. Is "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People" a SOVEREIGN STATE? No it is not! Is the section "Other non-states or organisations" has any relation to recognition of the new state? No, it is not! The majority of the users of Wikipedia, which was discussed the question about relevancy of this section to the article come to conclusion that this section has to be deleted. I ask any registered user to delete this stupid section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a discussion here that came to the conclusion to delete the section, please link everyone to it. It most likely was archived. You can go to the top of the page and click the archive links to find the discussion, or you can click the links which I have copied down here for your ease of use :). Archive 1, Archive 2, or Archive 3.

Finally please note that I'm not involved in editing this article beyond watching the article's history and talk page. This edit is merely to help you guys out, as folks may wish to know what discussion occurred with the result you say it had. You guys need to be active in linking to prior conversations, even if they are in the archives. —— nixeagle 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to list (other than mine) the opinions about deletion:

This section is not serious and should be deleted. Sveibo (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur completely with User:Sveibo The sheer existance of this section is a NATO and anti-Russian propaganda. Bogorm (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of my opinion that we should only include the responses of sovereign nations and governmental organizations... jamescp 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The opposite opinion is clearly stated only by Elysander. However it is impossible to change his mind. That is why I think that the majority of users agree with the deletion of this section.

The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People is the representative of the Crimean Tatars in the UNPO[11], an organisation in which Abkhazia is represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Abkhazia[12]. I lean towards inclusion, and perhaps expansion for other UNPO members. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is only about recognition. Mejlis cannot recognize other states because they are neither de facto nor de jure a sovereign state. Only other sovereign state can recognize the definite state. Why we have to include the opinion of Mejlis here? This opinion is not relevant to recognition at all. UNPO is an NGO and the membership in some non-governmental organisation cannot be the basis for inclusion. Abkhazia may have their representatives in any NGO, however this changes nothing, and has no relevancy to recognition. Do you agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I have to note that among other members in this Soros-funding NGO we can find also such groups as, for example "Hungarian minority in Romania", "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" (which is abolished by separatists) and so on. Only Soros actually decide who are the representatives of the definite "nation" (because I think that at least "Hungarian minority in Romania" is not a nation). I do not think it is very serious to mention here the stance of different Soros-selected representatives of the different "nations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - the instigator of the war is Soros and these formations funded by him - I wanted to include the elucidations of the illustrious Swedish writer Jonas De Geer, who concurs too with the Soros hypothesis: here (Georgia on my mind), where he discloses the funding of Saakashvili's orangeinsurrection in 2003 by Soros and Berezovski. Please, include it! Bogorm (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The role of Soros in the world politics is not the topic of this discussion. I think that the first question about UNPO is the following. Who is selected the definite representatives of the definite "nation"? For example, for Chechens we have Udugov and their people (who is proclaimed himself as emir; however before this proclamation all separatists (even living in London) considered Udugov as their leader, because there was continuous succession from elected Chechen President Mashadov to Udugov), also we have Kadyrov, who was elected on Chechen elections, and we have small self-proclaimed group of Chechens in London. In this situation it is obviously that London group has no right to represent Chechen people at all. However, Chechens in this Soros-funding NGO are represented by self-proclaimed small group of people in London. That is why I think that we do not have to take into consideration the opinion of different political organisations just because this organisations or groups are the members of this Soros-funding NGO and Soros selected them to be "representatives" of, for example, Chechens. This is not very serious for wikipedia. We have to mention only the stance of real-existent sovereign governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we have to include entities, recognised by some other official and representative entity and having some dound claim for popular (not Soros) support. Thence I am going to place the consensus-tag to the Mejlis in order to discuss whether it is needed at all, is this ok? Bogorm (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Already proposed below. 10:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)