Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Archive 1

Recognition

Do I need to provide a reference for the fact that SO and Abkhazia recognise one another if it's clear that they do. Taamu (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair assumption that they do recognise each other, but it's not a guaranteed certainty. Yes, a reference should be provided for this, and for all other facts on the page.

If the Kosovo situation is anything to go by, this is going to become a contentious article. Best to be above board and declare everything, however seemingly obvious. Bazonka (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone has fixed it. Taamu (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Role of Austria

Austrias statement yesterday was that it does not accept Abchasia and S. Ossetia as independent states. So Austria is not shown as a "red state" in the picture. Furthermore this is brisant, because Austria was one of the first states which said that the Cosovo should be independent of Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.128.9 (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR

Someone keeps adding Nagorno-Karabakh to the unrecognized entities which recognize the "independence" of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. However, the cited source does not support this claim.--Kober^Talk 14:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Individual reactions

Would not be it reasonable to add individual reactions of prominent politicians or other celebrities to the event? For example, the popular Russian politician and the State Duma Vice-Speaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky contemplates "how these republics should be used" by Russia, while Chechen human rights activists consider Medvedev's move a step forward to the independence of Chechnya.[1] --Kober^Talk 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Mr.Zhirinovsky has an influence to the foreign affairs of Russia. For example, he often says that Northern Kazakhstan should be the Russian territory, but nevertheless, Russia never claimed this territory.Nilenbert (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

New title

International recognition to Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence

What's that supposed to mean? --Kober^Talk 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably it was intended to be a paralel of International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence but there the word is reaction, not recognition. In any case, the title will have to be polished. But for the time being, leave it like that. --Tone 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a really misleading title. Both territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are currently occupied by Russian military forces. That is how they "independent". This should be "International reaction..." or "Russian recognition".Biophys (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts: "International reaction to..." mirrors the Kosovo article, and as such gets my vote. "Russian recognition of..." has too narrow a scope. "International recognition to..." is poor grammar, and so should not be used. "International recognition of..." is OK. Bazonka (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There clearly is no international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence. Quite to the contrary, every nation besides Russia and Belarus has promised to not recognize Abhakazia and South Ossetia independence. Until and unless there is significant recognition, this article should be renamed "International reaction to..." DOSGuy (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Belarus is no longer listed in the "plans to recognize" category. That means that Russia is the only country in the world that recognizes Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence. The word "international", by definition, requires more than one nation. Since there is no international recognition, I once again propose that the title be changed to "International reaction..." DOSGuy (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Does not Nagorno-Karabakh also recognise Abkhazia/South Ossetia as independant, according to the List of unrecognized countries article? Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Hall (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The specific reference in that article does not say so. Find a better reference... --Tone 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus

The Belarusian officials have not yet made any official statement. The oponion of individual members of parliament cannot be classified under States that have declared intent to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--Kober^Talk 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus has non-partisan parliament so yes it can be.--Avala (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "non-partisan parliament"? --Kober^Talk 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It means that none of the MPs are representing any political party. Most of the elected members in the upper house come from civil society organizations, labour collectives and public associations in their jurisdiction. And in the lower house 98/110 are independent. --Avala (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless how the composition of the Belarussian parliament is determined, the opinions of several MP do not justify putting Belarus into the section "States that have declared intent to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia". Gugganij (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus hasn't declared its position so far. Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refrains from commenting upon this issue despite Russian ambassador's insistent demands. You shouldn't be misled by individual opinions of MPs who have very little influence in Belarus. DannieVG (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section as a couple of MPs does not equal declaration of intent stated clearly by either President or Foreign Affairs of Belarus that indepedence will be recognised. It is quite possible that Belarus could, but until such time as official intent is declared; not the opinion of some MPs, the section should stay removed. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked both the websites of the Belarusian President and MFA, no statement yet from either. While not part of this topic, Japan hasn't explicitly said no about recognition, but they support the territorial boundaries of Georgia before the conflict began. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Check this: http://www.president.gov.by/en/press61238.html#doc. Does it mean intend to recognise? Yucc (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus doesn't intent to recognize A and SO. It just propose to bring this issue for consideration to the Collective Security Board of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, as it stated at the above link. So the map should be amended accordingly, IMHO.Govage (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

Fact error about the map: some Wikipedians should notice that the map of China(red) is not accurate. There is a missing of coloring red to the Chinese island Hainan, which is a part of China with no doubt, though the island of Taiwan is under dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.119.139.221 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to show a map of all the countries that recognise. Perhaps when there's more than one it'll be more appropriate. Besides which, Kaliningrad needs to be coloured in. Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I made a nicer more detailed map which should be used for the time being until and if there are more recognitions. Then we should switch to Kosovo or Taiwan like map.--Avala (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the old map better. There is too much grey area in this new map. For example, while most of the countries listed have reacted negatively, not many of them have explicitly said that they will not recognize, yet they are all colored in as red countries that said they won't recognize. Like Serbia for instance. They said nothing about Abkhazia or South Ossetia, just that they don't like unilateral moves, yet they are colored in as red. --Tocino 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If serbia recognizes the break-aways, then they are hypocrites.--Jakezing (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All western countries (USA and its minnows) are therefore hypocrites. 99.234.28.230 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are.70.72.160.143 (talk)

let's consider some differences between the continents of north america, south america, and austrailia and places like Abkhazia and South Ossetia first of all, the continents are thousands of times the size of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, second of all, they are quite remote from the countries who used to claim ownership of them, and third, they were treated as colonies at best at the time. also, international law at the time did not prevent their actions. 06:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the map was deleted? Govage (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria is not a de facto state - please stop listing it as such

A state, in the de facto sense of that term, has borders, control over its territory, and some recognition. Transnistria has no recognition internally, save from Abkhazia and South Ossetia , who because of their own disputed status, ought not count until/unless they achieve greater recognition. Transnistira should be listed as a separatist movement or as a region striving for more autonomy/independence - not as 'other state.' 141.166.241.22 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are totally wrong. Please read the article about De facto. --Tocino 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria is as good as gone for Moldova despite no recognition. It is de facto independent Ijanderson (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

While the term de facto may be used for Transnistria, it is more honest and more accurate to refer to it as a region striving for more independence. I know Tocino is a pro-Russian POV and won't care about such accuracy, but if Transnistria is to be viewed as a de facto state, should we view Chechnya as the same if separatists there oust Russia in a year or two? A state should have a modicum of international recognition before it is listed as a state. Otherwise, we may as well list Sealand under 'other states.' 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if separatists oust Russia sometime from Chechnya it'll be de facto independent. In fact it was de facto independent in 1996-2000. Please look in the article about Transnistria for the references confirming its de facto independence. Alæxis_¿question? 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't my point so much as that it should not be listed as 'other states.' Well that and that Tocino would probably support a double standard. The term 'other state' should be reserved for countries like the Vatican City, which is not in the UN, and a few semi-recognized countries like the Republic of China (Taiwan), Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and Kosovo. It is not reasonable to group these countries with Transnistria, which enjoys absolutely no recognition, save from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria's inclusion (next to Russia) only adds to the confusion and embarrasment of Russia's decision. --Hapsala (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PO Pusher

This user:Tocino is a blunt POV pusher, who keep deleting the map which doe snot suit his bias and POV. I ask other users to rv his POV deletions because I can no longer do so due to 3RR rule. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

tell me about it Ijanderson (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The map shows Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Georgian territories which is a violation of NPOV. --Tocino 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, 191 sovereign UN nations recognise them as Georgian territories, so does the UN, EU, NATO and all international oraganisations. Showing them as separate is gross violation of NPOV. Also Georgia claims them as part of their territory which is de jure true. Ijanderson (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming 191 states are better than 3 states which is a gross violation of NPOV. --Tocino 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli, personal insults to Tocino are not helpful and are violation of WP rules. And Tocino even the Russian state TV admitted today that there is a long road to full fledged independence which is reached only once these regions get recognized by the UN. It's a simple thing that law is above power which keeps world powers from bullying the whole world (at least legally as they do it anyway).--Avala (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully here. Alæxis_¿question? 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli did not personally insult Tocino. Ijanderson (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was Tocino who resorted to personal attacks in a highly inflammatory edit summary.--Kober^Talk 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli called me a "POV pusher", while I simply called him a "Georgian". I'll let everyone else decide which is the insult here. --Tocino 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yes I agree here. "Georgian" is not an insult of any kind.--Avala (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is Belarus light blue on the map? The reaction of several members of their parliament doesn't conut as a formal intent. They are not entitled to speak on behalf of Belarus. Colchicum (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I raised the issue above - to no avail, however. --Kober^Talk 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, the sad fact is, you ARE a POV pusher. The Kosovo page alone shows this.--Jakezing (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

POV pusher is not an insult when it is true in fact, than it's only a factual statement. Hobartimus (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Declarations

Please clarify in the introduction when Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared independence (like it is done at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence). Some uninformed readers may get the wrong impression that they have done that very recently, and this is not the case AFAIK. Colchicum (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Now is it a good idea to put recognition of Abkhazia and recognition of S. Ossetia toghether in one article? They are independent of each other after all, and it is in principle possible that some states will recognize only one of them. Maybe we should make separate setions for now. Colchicum (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If that happens we will but at the moment it doesn't seem probable that one will get recognition and the other one will not.--Avala (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I wish we had International recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on Wikipedia :) Colchicum (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was intending to start an article on TRNC but then I realized that the topic is already covered in another article, thus a redirect. Just for consistency. --Tone 14:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I hate the double standarts of the west, what is it "territorial intergity" crap? Every nation has the right to be independent on it's land, unless it doesn't want to. Kostan1 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We call that anarchy son, --Jakezing (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you were consistent and had the same feeling towards Kosovo. Colchicum (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Oh, im sorry for having my own veiws, i like kosovo, nice name, but these regions are under a vastly different situation, that and we cant have every "nation" wanting to be independant, that'd be pure anarchy--Jakezing (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking to Kostan1. I have reservations concerning S. Ossetia and especially Abkhazia myself because a large percentage of their population were driven away as refugees. However, I disagree about anarchy, independence is not always a cake sweet enough, there wouldn't be too many "nations" willing to chose this way, don't worry. You probably wouldn't like to get visas to visit your friends across the street or the nearest supermarket, right? Well, other people are not different. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Every nation living in a certain region can have freedom, that's not anarchy but the right to be free on your land. Kosovo is different, because unlike Ossetia which is the native home of the Ossetians, and Abkhazia who had the Abkhazian kingdom before Georgia was invented, Kosovo HISTORICALY belongs to Serbia, and used to be the heart of the land. The Turks expelled the Serbs from their land Kosovo, I remind you. Kostan1 (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, go read some books. Colchicum (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should remain in one single article since this was a simultaneous act by Russia. If some countries recognize only one, seemingly unlikely, then we can change the structure of the article to account for this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not at all improbable that no other country will recognize either of them, so yes, I agree. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria Reaction

"Bulgaria once again re-iterates its unconditional support for the independence, sovereignty and internationally recognised borders."

This does not seem to be a complete sentence. I'm not really sure what is trying to be said here. Should the "the" be deleted? Should "of Georgia" be added at the end? 71.225.97.173 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Added [of Georgia] to the end, since it's not in the original quote. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 08:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

The fact that Kosovo is on this list doesn't bother me, but if all statements from Kosovo are denoted with (citation needed) tags, then they must be removed until a source is found for both statements. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovo section is terribly written. It definately needs to be rewritten and referenced; if someone wanted to be really bold, they could remove it altogether until it was fixed. M.Nelson (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Did so, still keeps coming back . User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But, why do some editors consider Kosovo's position "unncessary"? --Hapsala (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I only removed it because both of the statements contained the citation needed tags. If you have a source for the Kosovo statement from the Kosovar Government, then it can go back in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of the article

Current title is "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence", but practically all comments are about Russia's unilateral decision of recognition, so how about: "International respons to Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence"? --Hapsala (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To long and ultimatly wont be the focus--Jakezing (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, if another place other than Russia recognizes, we will have to move it back here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well some of the reactions in the Kosovo article are also condemning the recognition by the West. For now we don't know whether Russia will be the only country to recognize. Belarus may recognize, Armenia as well, not to mention Cuba where Raul Castro pretty much outright stated Georgia didn't have a claim to South Ossetia. You have several countries which have vigorously backed Russia's actions up to now and they may continue to do so. For now let's see how things play out.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenia will hardly recognize, as Georgia is an important neighbor for Armenia. Cuba, Venezuela -- sure, but who cares. Many of the CIS countries haven't recognized Kosovo not because they are aligned with Russia but for their own reasons. Colchicum (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The US and their allies screwed Georgia with Kosovo.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume what Armenia will or will not do. As far as not caring about Venezuela and Cuba there are several Latin American countries which would care.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

--- I haven't done this before, but will give it a try. The name of the article presupposes that they are independent. That is not a given. How about: "International reaction to Abhazia's and South Ossetia's appeals for recognition"? 14:36, 27 August 2008 --User:Hjemmel (User talk:Hjemmel)

I moved the page to "reaction" without being familiar with the history due to problems below. However, in the interest of neutrality, I think we should have similar wording for all non-UN de facto independent states, regardless of who recognizes them: Western Sahara, Taiwan, Kosovo, N Cyprus, Transnistria, etc. As for "appeals for recognition", that's not what all the news coverage is about, at least not in the US. It's about Russia's recognition. kwami (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you feel that "Independence" is loaded and not neutral? "Declaration of independence" or "appeals" are both neutral in my view. Hjemmel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjemmel (talk • contribs) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NATO Flag?

Isn't there a tiny NATO flag graphic that can be used where applicable for the "International organisations membership" column? 71.225.97.173 (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is copyrighted. Colchicum (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What a pain. Oh, well. 71.225.97.173 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Awful Organization

Why are countries that do not recognize the two regions as independent grouped with those who haven't made a decision? Whoever came up with this idea is an idiot. The page should be divided into recognizes independence, doesn't, and nuetral. Duh. 5:15 00:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - How would you differentiate neutral from your other two categories? How are neutral countries different from other non-recognizing states? The page should remain divided between those that recognize (presently just Russia) and those that don't. There is no neutral: you either do or don't. If there should be a third category than it should be for states that have officially declared an intent to recognize but who have not yet done so. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well isn't the reaction of the US (essentially condemning the move) and say Australia (AFAIK not doing anything) different? 5:15 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to recognition, no there is no difference - neither country recognizes. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please maintain a civil tone, Five Fifteen. 71.225.97.173 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

moved

I moved the article to what worked out for Kosovo for the sake of consistency. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It was moved back, because the declaration happened years ago, but the recognition only just happened a day or two ago. Plus, there is a discussion about the moving of the article a few topics above. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Banners

Can somebody please "nest" the WikiProject banners? It saves space. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 04:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Geologik (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia & Abkhazia = Kosovo???

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Completely OT discussion which has nothing to do with improving the article Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The strange thing about all that stuff is that speaking in strict terms, Kosovo and South Ossetia/Abkhazia cannot be put exactly on the same plate.

First of all, the frozen conflicts of both Georgian SSR regions began almost one decade before the Kosovo War. Second, the mode of military intervention was different -- the case of South Ossetia/Abkhazia being maily backed by Russia during all these years, and teh Kosovo case being first backed by the Kosovo Liberation Army, then NATO, then UN, then the EU.

Third, in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, most of the population that stayed in these places after 1994 received Russian propiskas. In Kosovo, most residents never received Albanian citizenship -- first they were Yugoslavs, then received UNMIK-transitory documnets, and now the Kosovar passports.

And fourth, at least clearly in the case of South Ossetia, there is no true drive for independence as a fully-fledged nation-state, but the transfer from one nation to other -- from being part of Georgia to being part of Russia. And the case of Abkhazia is pretty unclear -- there will be an Abkhazian army, navy, air force, foreign affairs, threasury, popular-elected parliament, president, premier, constitution, civil law, monetary system, customs separated from the Russian Federation? Well, it seems very unlikely, by now. Kosovo, at least since the establishment of UNMIK, officially never wanted to join Albania, and Albania never wanted to annex Kosovo or take care of Kosovar affairs. The goal of Kosovo authorities is to establish an independent nation-state with its own police, defense and foreign affairs.

So, it seems like the separatist Caucasian territories are in fact different in geopolitical terms from Kosovo. But this article seems by now an exact carbon-copy of the Kosovo independence one.--BalkanWalker (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Vitaly Churkin does not share those sentiments, even going so far as stating that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have a stronger basis for international recognition than Kosovo; and drew parallels betweeen the two; Serbia after 1999 was not hostile towards Kosovo and had a seat at the negotiating table; Georgia (the Serbia in this case) chose not to negotiate but started a conflict, and as Putin stated back in February, the recognition of Kosovo by certain countries was setting a dangerous precedent, and mentioned Abkhazia and South Ossetia specifically. If anything, this entire ordeal has shown:

1) Russia is now its own nation again and can set its own policy without regard for outside interests, and can play the same game as others - the global balance of power has clearly shifted 2) Double-standards exist with the US and EU (and Russia) - freedom for one, but not for others 3) NATO expansion eastward is all but dead in the water 4) NATO is unable to act in conflicts in Russia's backyard - it is now all but an alliance on paper only Stratfor, RIA and others have in-depth analysis on these very issues - a must read for this article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the above header all of you. This is not a talk page for discussion of the issue. We don't care what you think of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Kosovo, Putin, Russia, Serbia, Vitaly Churkin, NATO, the EU, the US, or whatever else you can think of. If you don't have any proposals as to how we can improve this article, then go somewhere else. If you have specific sources that we can use to improve this article, please link to them and discuss what you want to add from these sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Kosovo was given the green light to declare independence by 3 Permanent security council members, EU, NATO as well as many other sates, unlike South Ossetia and Abkahzia who declared independence without any support or backing. Kosovo is more similar to Georgia than Serbia is to Georgia. Its Russia who can't bare the loss of Georgia and its Serbia who can't bare the loss of Kosovo. Kosovo and Georgia are very similar. The parallel Kosovo Serb Parliaments are like South Ossetia and Abkazia. The parallel Kosovo Serb Parliaments wish Kosovo was still a part of Serbia. South Ossetia and Abkazia wish Georgia was still apart of Russia. But only the ethnic Russian in Georgia want this and the ethnic Serbs in Kosovo want this. Ijanderson (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think only ethnic Georgians in S.Ossetia want reunification with Georgia.--Dojarca (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there are many pro-Georgian Ossetians who are now being persecuted.

"Asked about his own earlier comments warning of a risk of ethnic cleansing by Russian forces in the territories, Kouchner responded: "I hope that didn't happen overnight. But there has already been evidence that the armies are pushing away the Ossetians who favored Georgia, and in a certain way, yes, an ethnic cleansing is taking place." [2]"--Kober^Talk 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

merge

We have two articles here, recognition and condemnation. They really should be merged, per the Kosovo article. kwami (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I merged it. It's just a POV grouping of most of the reactions. Please protect the redirect to stop recreation. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll see if it's a problem before protecting it.

Should we name this reaction rather than recognition, per the Kosovo article? kwami (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been recreated by the same guy. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And now this article has been redirected there. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I redirected both to wording closer to that of the Kosovo article—since I assume that's been debated to death,—and protected both redirects. I'm open to suggestions for other wording, but for now I just wanted to nip this in the bud. I'll be signing off soon, so if there are further problems, you may need to contact another admin. kwami (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please undo your move. The Kosovo article is undergoing a WP:RM to change it to recognition, so assuming that its title is stable is completely off base. And, any change here should likely be put to the community under WP:RM for similar reasons. Anyway, your move has caused a lone dissent on the grounds that you are moving to be like Kosovo and Kosovo is moving to be like you. :/ --Mareklug ^talk 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, reverted. The editor who was fighting this article was editing in bad faith anyway. kwami (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus

Here's something about the reaction of Cyprus.

• [3]84.134.122.185 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I added "Cyprus" to the article. Thank you for the reference. Taamu (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Yet to Decide & Oppose section needs split instead of being mixed in with each other

The list of countries in it is definately large enough of warent such a split. And if a country changes it's mind later it can always be moved when it does. Jon (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There are too many details the viewpoints of different countries can differ at so it's better to list them together. Also, the map is very colourful, it would be better not to use it at all since we have 1 country who recognizes and many countries with all varieties of reactions. Check the Kosovo recognition article. --Tone 13:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to split at this moment I think. Plus it would bring up POV as who would determine the exact position. And the map is colorful in order to show more detail not to be an eyecandy. Anyway let's just wait until things settle a bit.--Avala (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Hapsala, why did you move "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" to "International reaction of Abkhazia and South Ossetia"??? Taamu (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That was never intentional. An editwar is currently pending where some editors move the article to new locations at the speed of light. My personal preference is "International reaction to the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", which seems most relevant until the number of recognizing states are 20+ or so... --Hapsala (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have protected this article to moves for now. If anyone wants another name, discuss it first. --Tone 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"International reaction to the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" was my wording, which I thought was the most neutral. However, it looks like the preference both here and in the Kosovo article is for "recognition", which has the advantage of being more succinct. We can certainly report on all reactions under either title. (After all, the Western reaction is not to independence per se, which they've mostly ignored, but to Russia's recognition of independence.) kwami (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The scale of interpretation

I can't understand the creteria of statments' assesment.

The map says one thing, but when i read the Table i see another. For exemple China and Japan were classified into the group "States which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves". But they didn't express any disagreement !!!

• Japan "Our country is gravely concerned about the move," Tanizaki told Galuzin, according to the statement. "Our country hopes that Russia ... will take responsible actions for the region's stability." http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6676&Itemid=65 The statment was made BEFORE Medvedev's decrees!!!
• China "China is "concerned of the latest development in South Ossetia and Abkhazia," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said on Wednesday". http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/27/content_9723473.htm

"To concern of" it doesn't mean "to desagree with"!!! IMHO legenda of the Map demands on huge editing. And we could fulfill the Map later. Now it's incorrect. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove the map and keep all the countries that say no/no way/no idea/we shall see... in one table to prevent confusion and unjust splitting. --Tone 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to remove. States which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations. covers both Japan and China which have called for negotiated solution. Plus if you think that something should be changed do it, it's Wikipedia you are welcome to do it but you are not welcome to slice the article because you can't think of a better way to express your view.--Avala (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The map is currently quite misleading. At this time, most countries have not even considered recognition, but are critical to Russia's unilateral move, and according to the map, China is almost leaning towards recognition! The map shoud therefore only include countries which have formally recognized the tow breakaway republics. --Hapsala (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not start with original research. If a country hasn't made a statement we are not going to include it regardless of what you might think is their position. And how is China leaning towards recognition if it's orange? Maybe you should read the legend.--Avala (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Avala, please dont accuse others of so called "OR". The map is a disaster, and doesn't help this project a bit. --Hapsala (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And you are free to edit the map BUT not per "most countries have not even considered recognition, but are critical to Russia's unilateral move" because that is OR.--Avala (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And that's why we should use a map which only indicates formal recognition. Or are you saying that óther rules covers this article, but not the Kosovo independence article you've been patrolling since that country declared its independence? After a long debate, this map (pictured) was found the most apropriate to use for the formal recognition of Kosovo. Unlike other maps that were used, this map leaves very little room for personal interpretation of the formal state of play. --Hapsala (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the map again. I agree with Hapsala that only map which have recognized them as independent or plan to do so should be colored. Right now it's just misleading and a POV mess. LokiiT (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Either point to the specific issue you have a problem with or don't remove information from this article. Using a broad term "POV mess" for blanking the article can actually be seen as vandalism and POV pushing and unjustified removal of information you dislike.--Avala (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To blank the article or portion of it you need to provide an exact reason. Otherwise it is seen as vandalism and other users have the right to revert your edits until you provide a detailed explanation.--Avala (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia western-oriented POV strikes again." is NOT a valid reason to blank this article.--Avala (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hapsala has a valid point. If Russia is not colored red on the Kosovo map for adamantly opposing Kosovar independence, why should the US be colored red on this map? The Kosovo article did have a map like this, showing both support and opposition. I think it would be informative to go over the reasons they eventually decided against it. kwami (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenia

There is the official statement of Armenia: http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/pr_08/080827_balayan.html

I hope it may help to expand this article. Thanks.
Sarkoulik (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

China and Venezuela

Fact error about the map: some Wikipedians should notice that the map of China(red) is not accurate. There is a missing of coloring red to the Chinese island Hainan, which is a part of China with no doubt, though the island of Taiwan is under dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.119.139.221 (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Both China and Venezuela are likely to recognize the independence. However China still delaying the matter [4]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsence. You are watching to much Vesti (pro Kremlin news network) propaganda. Nothing in that news source indicate that China is "likely" to recognize either breakaway republic. --Hapsala (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or there is nothing on Venezuela in that article?--Avala (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's because you haven't bothered to add it? You didn't even bother to provide a source showing Venezuela's position Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an AFP editor to add things in news articles, especially the unfounded claims...--Avala (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually my assumption is based on the bilateral relationship between these countries. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread your statement, I thought you were complaing about the lack of discussion in this article Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting reference [5]

“ If Putin hoped Beijing would support Russia's actions in Georgia with the same enthusiasm that Moscow endorsed China's putting down of restive minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang in recent months, he was disappointed.

Beijing's official mouthpieces began by attempting to be scrupulously even-handed in their reaction to Russia's Georgian escapade and the resulting sharp chill in relations with Washington and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

”

However this position may be changed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just as the Sun and the Moon can change their places :) But it is not likely. China has isolationist foreign policy. They will not act on this. They simply don't care. Aside of official statements of course. JosipMac (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia's support is crucial for China, especially for dealing with sensitive issues like Tibet.

You're wrong. Russian support means absolutely nothing to China. China reigns supreme. There is no power in this world that can challenge China unpunished. No world power, including USA or Russia, would dare to oppose China unless directly threatened. From what I've seen, right now China leads a very smart foreign policy, biding its time regarding some issues, and not wanting to step on anyones toes. And during this time the economy, which is a basis of military power, becomes stronger and stronger. The Olympic games showed how much chinese strive for superiority, and their zeal cannot go unrewarded. JosipMac (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is from 2006 in regards to Venezuela supporting Abkhazia's quest for independence; if that holds true, it is only a matter of time before Venezuela joins Russia in recognising the 2 countries. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That is very likely indeed. From what I've seen, Venezuelan el presidente would do anything to spite the USA, and supports everyone who opposes it. If penguins in Antarctica started a diplomatic offensive against USA, Venezuelan el presidente would recognize The Independent Penguin Republic. JosipMac (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic here. If you have references to add content to the article, please provide them. If not, we don't care about anyone of your speculations about whether or why Venezuela is going to recognise the independence Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP is not moderated and no-one is a moderator, yourself included. We are clearly on topic here, and here's a link for people to use - using that link, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela are expected to extend recognition, with perhaps Belarus, North Korea, Kazakhstan and Iran to follow; China is going to take some time to firmly decide one way or the other. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculation on whether and why China and Venezuela are going to recognise Kosovo is NOT on topic. If you don't understand this, please read up on the talk page policy. And editors are perfectly entitled to remove off topic discussion (the header itself says so) although I'm personally not going to do so Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

English reference for Hamas

Here is an English language reference for Hamas. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is not the recognised state and not "partially recognised state"

But somebody transfered it in row of such states. It is incorrect and POV.

It doesn't mean how many countries did any sentence or connect to: Turkish Cyprus, Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transistria etc. - all of them are the Unrecognised Bodies (because they will never be UN members). --195.98.173.10 (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Kosovo is clearly not a UN member state, I've moved it to the other section Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

195.98.173.10 you forgot Taiwan. Menrunningpast (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was inside of organisations. I moved it into other entities list.--Avala (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my opinion, "partially recognized state" it is like "partially pregnant woman": oxymoron. If country is UN member - it's state. If not - it's unrecognized country. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my opinion, that analogy is dumb. Kosovo is recognized by 46 internationally recognized countries and by the ROC (Taiwan). That is about 1/4 of the UN. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1 (Russia) is less than 46 but it is also the PART of UN. In such order of thinking - South Ossetia and Abkhazia are both "partially recognized states". My congratulations. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why we shouldn't just do this like International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and put Kosovo under other states (note that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are other states there) Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do that as a compromise. I am not willing, though, to list Kosovo and the TRNC as 'entities' - that term is needlessly ambiguous. 141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Though that would create an issue re Trannistria, since that is not listed as an 'other state' in the Kosovo recognition article. 141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland has only become UN member state in 2002, so before that time it was an unrecognized state? I dont see how you apply this logic to this Swiss case!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.143.50 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the UN was only formed in 1945. I think a better standard for a generaly recognized state is one that all major powers of the day recognize. (In the present day some of the major powers would be US, Russia, China, Japan, UK, and Germany.) Jon (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

The display of the Ukraine comment is coming up screwy on my end. The CIS icon is being pushed into the second column. Can anyone fix that? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever did that, thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

States that have not recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia

If I understand this right, Russia is the only sovereign state to have recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So the list of states that have not done so would include every other sovereign state in the world. Why, then, does the list only seem to include the "Western World"? Many countries from Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East are left out. JIP | Talk 17:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Many countries have not issued a statement yet, probably because they consider it a power play between Russia and the US/EU they don't want to get involved in. We can't decide what other countries are going to do for them so until and unless there is a statement, then we can't give their official position. Also contributors largely come from the Western world and the country a contributor is most likely to add is their country Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. JIP | Talk 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if the country didn't make a statement it means it is maintaining the previous position of not recognizing. Some states that have active diplomacies have commented that they will not recognize but many will not make a statement at all.--Avala (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

However without a statement, we shouldn't add the countries, similar to with International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus we must make the map with "only green" (similar to with International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence) and only with countries, wich recognized them. Or we must change the Map in Kosovo case (and sign all the countries wich didn't make sentence "for" in "red").--195.98.173.10 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't rearrange posts in a way which makes them confusing. As it stands both maps seem similar so I'm not sure what the issue your complaining about is. The only thing we need to do is do decide on wording and rename the descriptions as appropriate. But this discussion wasn't about the map until you brought it up though, we are discussing the countries in the list Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lock the article

You guys should lock the article. I just came in and saw some bogus about WW3. -- Efra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efra (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In such a case, you can just go ahead and edit the article to delete such bogus yourself. Administrator involvement is only needed if such vandalism persists for a long time. JIP | Talk 19:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus said that they supported Russia in her decission of recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so why Belarus appears in the article to be against the Russian recognision?

Because some editors refuse to admit the position of Belarus. Belarus is now under the "or that have yet to decide".--Avala (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus hasn't stated an official position for or against. They probably will recognize along with Armenia and some other former Soviet States, but for now they haven't and none have come out and said they intend to recognize.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So now that it's locked how do we contribute? Anyway I just found this link about the position of Mexico, in case somebody can be bothered to add it (or I can offer a translation when access is restored): http://www.sre.gob.mx/csocial/contenido/comunicados/2008/aug/cp_238.html Resparza (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Hamas has not recognized Abhkazia and South Ossetia

The statement states approval of Russia's recognition: Hamas does not claim to have recognized them themselves. Hence, they should not be listed along with Transnistria. 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence, Hamas does not officially recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor, btw, is it clear that Hamas made this statement under the guise of the PA government. Unless Hamas made the statement as an official statement from the PA then there statement should be listed as a statement from 'Hamas' and not the 'Hamas PA.' 141.166.241.22 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamas is an unrecognised government in its own right, it is no longer part of the PA. There was a big war about it last year if you remember. --90.240.93.226 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from the Telegraph: "So far, only the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, has followed Russia and recognised the independence of the two regions." [6] --90.240.93.226 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Hamas-Fatah War in Gaza wasn't that big. But this is besides the point - Hamas does not recognize South Ossetia or Abkhazia! Hence, you should not list it with Transnistria! Also, listing Hamas Gaza as a de facto state is going to be controversial - it should not be done unless there is a discussion on it and then a consensus to do it. 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.152.145 (talk)

The references contradict your claims, please stop vandalising the article. --90.240.93.226 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The references clearly support my claim. Your claim is baseless. Stop edit warring. 141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it, please read the Telegraph quote above. --90.240.93.226 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph quote says the group recognized not the groups recognized in their capacity as head of the PA. By your logic, if the Republican party recognized South Ossetia than the US does! Wait for a formal announcement - say something from an Arab or Israeli news source, before proceeding. 141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And no, before anybody jumps me on this, no, I am not saying the GOP is equivalent to Hamas. They are very different groups. However, the same principle applies - a factions recognition does not equal a states recognition141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the article says Hamas, an organization, recognized, not that the Hamas PA government of Gaza did. I want more info on this alleged recognition before it is listed in the article with Transnistria. 141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, on another point, I find the lack of Arab or Israeli sources for this supposed recognition suspicious. The only source is one line from a British newspaper that is discussing another issue about the crisis. 141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should do a little research before posting here because you are making yourself look a little stupid. Hamas does not lead the PA, it is a breakaway government in its own right. --90.240.93.226 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should try learning to read - I said the Hamas PA- that is the government in Gaza that claims to be the legit PA government but isn't recognized. Anyway, since you didn't respond to my earlier postings, I'm gonna revert without further discussion. 141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the situation in Gaza. The Hamas movement itself is the government there. You continue to ignore the fact that I am citing reliable sources. --84.70.201.57 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand that if they are serious about recognizing,they will recognize as a government, not a group. For example, Belarus has been very pro-Russia in its statements but it has not formally recognized. Until Hamas, in the guise of a government, formally recognizes, it ought not be listed with Transnistria and Russia. RIVA02906 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamas can't exactly recognize as they don't have the international subjectivity.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well basically my point is this - Hamas claims to be the legit government of the PA. This is not widely recognized but that is not the point. If, in the guise of being the PA government, Hamas recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia, then I think they should be included alongside Transnistria. If they make any other statement, in this guise, they should be included alongside Kosovo and the TRNC. If, however, they made this statement not in this guise but just as an organization, then they should be listed in a miscellaneous category. In any event, I am not satisfied that they have recognized in either guise. RIVA02906 (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Crimea

What happened to the entry from the Crimean Tatar group? 141.166.241.22 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tatar group don't support the recognition, so the Russians probably had that aspect deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.50.111.114 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the entry for the Crimean Tartar organization? Why was it removed and why has it not been restored? 141.166.241.22 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambigious statement

As WP is meant to make things understandable, what exactly does the Russian ambassador to NATO mean by saying: "Russia's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is irreversible"..."NATO countries (should) to withdraw and review their decision concerning Kosovo's independence" and NATO "should act on the premise that this is the new political reality." Does that mean that NATO should back off Kosovo, but live with a new political reality, meaning that since they violated international law first, they must accept what the Russians are doing now, which is justified by NATO's violating international law in the first place????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.50.111.114 (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ka-ching. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am in the process of introducing into the article neutralising effects of the condemnation, most importantly the direct reference to the six-point plan which many countries state Russia agreed to; at no stage did Russia agree to maintain the integrity of Georgian territory, and this is one point which many countries are using; it's simply not true. As to a source for this, here's a Kiwi source for starters. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional info for the article, particularly analysis as to why Russia is not going to bow to US/NATO demands can be found at Stratfor (if the link leads to a registration page, email me and I will forward the article to you --- I received as part of being on their mailing list). --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest removing map

I don't think that you can take every countries official statement and lump it into 6 buckets. For example the Japanese statement "Yasuaki Tanizaki, director general of the Japanese foreign ministry's European bureau, said "Our country is gravely concerned about the move. Our country hopes that Russia ... will take responsible actions for the region's stability" doesn't mean that Japan doesn't intend to recognize Abkhazia and S.O. however Japan shows up as orange. That is what politicians do, they make ambiguous statement that can be interpretted either way in order to offend the least amount of people. In wikipedia we shouldn't make maps that interprete these statements, we should let the reader decide. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why the Kosovo map only marks the states that have officially recognized Kosovo. kwami (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the map should be removed. With only one country recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia its kinda superfluous. Would we create a similar map for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? 141.166.152.145 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Except Russia actually has clout, they might be able to get several countries on board with them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

i thought Belarus was interested in recognizing the two regions. anyway, i think it's better to show just what country/countries has/have recognized them at the present moment on the map rather than trying to make the map all colorful and confusing. --K kc chan (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I request immediate removal of orange coloration of Croatia on the map. It should be in red. Political answers such as "wish for further negotiation" in no way mean "we might recognize these countries in a year". It's the standard political answer you get here. Is Wikipedia a tabloid or it strives to provide the most accurate information? Coming from Croatia I can tell you our foreign policy on these 2 countries will be as "red" as it can be. More red than some red countries ;) We have no sympathy for the barbarian foreign policies of Russia, which stood against us in recent history and before (although, personally, I'm not pro or cons the independence of these two areas, and consider it to be a complicated issue). Putting Croatia in orange signals to average uninformed viewers that our country has 'nicer' stance towards recognition but it does not. It follows EU and NATO foreign policy to such an extent that I could easily say Croatia has no foreign policy of its own - others run it for us. There were same problems with Kosovo map in the past, let's learn from that experience. JosipMac (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that Croatia is in the "red" camp, but you have to provide a reference to move your country from the "orange" one. P.S. next time please avoid such a "big words" as "barbarian foreign policies..." Taamu (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A what? Do I need a reference that the Sun shines? Croatia signed a treaty this year with NATO (accession protocol) and will be a NATO member next year. There are no shades of gray here, Croatia is red. JosipMac (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why a similar map was removed from the Kosovo recognition page. The no's and the maybe's and the maybe nots are just too subjective. Better to display only the countries that have recognised - and in this case, since it's only Russia, that seems a bit over the top. I think it's best to remove the map altogether until other countries have recognised. Bazonka (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

if somebody is our ally we recognize them (without law), if not - we don't recognize them (and wil remember about law). I respect strong position of Spain - they didn't recognize Kosovo and didn't recognize SO + Abkh. Because they all (K+SO+A) are not within international law. I don't respect my country (i'm russian), and i don't respect all "the reds" who few months ago is "the green". Map show us "flex position" of each country. I disagree - please don't remove it: so easy to compare "the reds" and "the greens". --195.98.173.10 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus i suggest to add this Map and the Map from the Kosovo recognition page in the special article. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove As this case has more in common with Northern Cyprus, and a similar map there would be out of question. --Hapsala (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - most arguments here state that Russia is the only state to recognize but first of Belarus has just announced it will recognize by weekend and second of all it's even a reason more to see positions of other countries.--Avala (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When Belarus recognizes then I think it will be reasonable to have the map. Also, though, I believe the map should be simplified, on the model of the map found in the article for the international reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. On that map, only Kosovo and the states recognizing it are highlighted. This avoids debate about whether a particular country's reaction was neutral or a bit pro-Russia or a bit pro-Georgia. Also, it makes the map appear less cluttered. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be tomorrow apparently. And it's not cluttered, it's detailed.--Avala (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is more than one country recognizing, I support inclusion of the map. But only the countries that recognize should be coloured. As pointed above several times, putting the other countries that have said whatever in some groups is too subjective and too delicate to be left to WP users. Well, if we get a reliable source to group the countries, I am willing to change my mind about this but until then, I oppose inclusion of the map. Avala, I still didn't get a raction to my opinion, I'd be glad to have some feedback. --Tone 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really not that subjective. Countries that recognize/respect the territorial integrity of Georgia are easily recognizable. Uhm, they typically use the phrase "territorial integrity" in the statements. Search for that, and you'll find most of the states that are opposing the independence. Vesal (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's not that subjective, why was there a heated debate what colour should Croatia be? There was some uncertainty about Brazil as well. --Tone 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

line 1 changed

I rephrased line 1, which formerly said, "International recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia began on August 26, 2008..." This is crystal-ball and POV, in my view. There is currently no international recognition; Russia is the only sovereign state that recognizes them. I rephrased to the neutral "The status of international recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia changed on August 26, 2008..." Clunkier but avoids the more serious problems I cited above. Tempshill (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Community of Democratic Choice

What do you think if I add Community of Democratic Choice member states to the list of countries. Ukraine - CIS member-state and Community of Democratic Choice member-state. Taamu (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Legality of the Recognition

It has been stated on many news broadcasts (by the US, NATO, the EU and the UN Secertary General) that the Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independant nation states is illegal and contravines international laws which Russia has signed and ratified, has anyone got any knowledge of which laws have been broken? Could someone with more knowledge add a legality section to the main article, detailing which international laws and statutes have been broken by Russias actions (and the actions of any nation subsequently doing the same)? MattUK (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No laws have been broken because there is no such thing as international law. And if there is such a thing, then I expect that whoever made a breach of the law will be prosecuted and punished. Now, if you see Russia punished for this, then I apologize because this was an international law. If Russia doesn't get punished then we can speak of no law, just someones fantasies. JosipMac (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well in Kosovo the international law has been broken by America,and noone objected,and the countries from western europe recognised Kosovo as independent.Russia is not the only country that broken the international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is very complex:Georgia entered to the South Osettia and killed its people,so Russia as a peacekeeper reacted.But South Osettia and Georgia had aa piece agreement:Why dont we say that Georgia broke that piece agreement instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamas in the wrong group?

Hamas seems positive to recognition, but did it actually formally recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia? --Hapsala (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it should not be listed until/uless more evidence comes that they did recognize and that they recognized in the guise of the Gazan-PA government. RIVA02906 (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

The SCO is apparently trying to get a draft statement in order, praising Russia's efforts in regards to their handling of the Georgia-Ossetia issue. [7] Should this statement be included in the International Organisations section? CeeWhy2 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The statement does not even hint that any of these countries (save Russia, of course) is going to recognize the "independence" of Abkhazia and SO.--Kober^Talk 11:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not irrelevant, and it should be included in the same way that EU, CIS, OPEC etc would if they made a statement supporting or denouncing the recognition. Bazonka (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement might be relevant to the 2008 South Ossetia war as it deals with Russia's actions in the conflict zones. It does not even mention the issue of recognition.--Kober^Talk 11:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point - I've read the article again and you're right. It does seem a bit skewed - it mentions the West's reaction to the recognition, and the East's reaction to the military action. Bazonka (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I've overlooked that part.--Kober^Talk 12:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the map, showing China as the wrong color (among other countries). LokiiT (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how is "China is concerned of the latest development in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In accordance with China's consistent and principled stance on issues of this kind, we hope the relevant parties can resolve the issue through dialogue and consultation." different from "Expressed concern about the situation or expressed wish for further negotiations."?!--Avala (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the official statement after SCO summit und you will easily find that Medvedev had surprisingly not got the support he had expected. The key word is terrtorial integrity[[8]]

Russia failed to get the robust support it was seeking from its allies on the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a security group that includes China and that Russia help set up. After a meeting in Dushanbe, attended by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, the group condemned the use of force and called for respect for every country's territorial integrity. "The SCO states express grave concern in connection with the recent tensions around the South Ossetian issue and urge the sides to solve existing problems peacefully, through dialogue, and to make efforts facilitating reconciliation and talks," the final declaration said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysander (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't read newspapers: the link to SCO page http://www.sectsco.org/home.asp?LanguageID=2 Let's wait on few days. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't manipulate Official documents/sources as the SCO final declaration as happened in this article! I added the certain line Elysander (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"The SCO leaders welcomed the six-point proposal on solving the conflict which was reached in Moscow on Aug. 12, expressing their support for Russia's positive role in promoting peace and cooperation in the region." http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/28/content_9730813.htm It's only the report of media. Let's wait on original text of joint declaration. --Niggle (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus

See statement: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19327 they are waiting for a Collective Security Treaty Organization session but praising. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong source ;) http://www.president.gov.by/en/press61238.html#doc. Yucc (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

put Belarus light blue http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LS690859.htm --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To many Nashi-kids around?

Carl Bildt "doesn't represent Sweden" says one pro-Kremlin editor and deletes Mr. Bildt's rather unpresedented quote.[9] --Hapsala (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

as for you, you should refrain from making personal attacks.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hapsala, it's a wrong article. You have provided TOO much info about Carl Bildt (I don't even know him). Taamu (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A strong argument against your quality as editor! :))Elysander (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a forum, Sandy. Taamu (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

en.wikipedia is not the place for source manipulations and inserting opinions of a conflict partner Elysander (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hapsala, though. First, there is a problem with non-neutral editors who are trying to take control of this article. Editors who lable themself as "Pro-Russia", "Pro-Putin", "Pro-Independent South Ossetia" on their personal userpages should not be surprized of being called "Nashi-kids" (rather proud), still I wonder if their contribution really improves Wikipedia when they enter this project full with biased minds. Second, Carl Bildt is not just another politician (even if some editors dont know him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.50.111.114 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus says to recognize Abkhazia, S. Ossetia by weekend

Here is this news [10]. I have added it to the list of countries that have expressed with to recognize like in the Kosovo article and added the light blue shade.--Avala (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

China said it understands reasons for Russia's recognition

"China has declared that it understands the political and legal reasons for Russia's recognition of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia". [11] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK..and that is relevant for what? I, too, understand political and legal reasons, just as, I believe, every competent politician out there. It is no indication of support though. JosipMac (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an update in China's position as they previously expressed "concern" over the situation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

...Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Borodavkin said following today's meeting with China's ambassador to Russia Liu Guchang." That is not exactly direct.--Avala (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

or if it is exactly direct ... a diplomatic phrase: Understand is not identical with support. Elysander (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

China has refused to support Russia

[12], [13], [14] Someone should update the map. "A statement issued by four former Soviet republics in central Asia, plus China, insisted on the need to preserve "the unity of a state and its territorial integrity. "Ostap 21:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Really interesting. Western world saying China not backing Russia while Russians say they got the support of China.

What, never heard of Potemkin village? :) JosipMac (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious why China won't support Russia, ever heard of Tibet? Mactruth (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia has to be in "red"

I've said it before but no one listens. Croatia cannot be orange on the map. You put Croatia orange because of a typical political statement of our president. I explained why Croatia should be red, but my argument wasn't taken into account. So I searched for official statement of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I managed to find: http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2008/08-august/e0819a.html <= this is english article which mentions "support for Georgia’s territorial integrity", which is a key word I believe that someone asked of me to put Croatia in red. Croatia participated in that meeting. This is the link in Croatian: http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/hrvatska-s-nato-om-pruzila-potporu-gruziji.html I will translate some parts. Our minister of foreign affairs, Jandrokovic, said this: "This was the first meeting of NATO Council in which a croatian minister of foreign affairs participated, and this important news confirms that Croatia is integrating faster and to a greater extent into NATO." "A joint statement was issued, and Croatia supports it. In that statement is emphasized that NATO is concerned with the development of events in Georgia, and that NATO respects territorial integrity, sovereignity and independence of Georgia." I hope this is enough to put Croatia in red now. Thanks for wasting some of my time but I hope it was worth it ;) JosipMac (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Italy

Yeah, Sicily and Sardinia are red and the rest of Italy is orange. Which is it? ;) --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wishful thinking by LokiiT on commons. And Sweden is orange on the map. WTF? Remember Carl Bildt? Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted that vandalism by LokiiT where he painted Italy in various colors and made Sweden look only concerned regardless of Carl Bildt statements. He is only trying to destroy the map so that it would be removed but his edits were reverted and the image is back now.--Avala (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Map + Hyprosity

The map should be the same as the one used for Kosovo. Show the nations in blue that recognize, green = SO/Abkhazia, and grey is everyone else.

The West is being really hypocritical, they argue the world must respect the territorial integrity of Georgia, but ignore there argument for Serbia. What is the difference btw Georgia and Serbia. Georgia removed autonomy and went into South Ossetia, a people who already self-determinate as wanting to be independent, and starting killing the separatist and civilians. Russia stepped in and bombed Georgia for days, then recognized the separatist independence.

Kosovo started by having their autonomy removed, then Serbs came into Kosovo and also started killing civilians and separatist. NATO came and bombed Serbia for WEEKS, not days like Russia. They also recognized Kosovo as independent after some time. I do not see a difference here, all I see is a difference in agenda between West vs Russian-friendship with Serbia and Russia vs West-friendship with Georgia. Also, lets ignore that South Ossetia has been fighting for freedom for over 15 years. Mactruth (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I perceive several differences between the two situations but this is not the point - this is not a discussion forum on Kosovo, South Ossetia, or Abkhazia. Rather, it is a discussion forum on how to improve the article's factual accuracy. RIVA02906 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Has Nagorno-Karabakh actually recognized?

Their statement is: "The Nagorno Karabakh Republic welcomes the fact of recognizing the state independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia." It doesn't say that they recognize only that they approve of recognition, presumably, Russia's recognition. While N-K is obviously pro-recognition, this doesn't mean they actually recognize. The N-K stance on South Ossetia and Abkhazia may be like the TRNC's stance on Kosovo: they issued a statement supporting Kosovo's declaration of independence yet did not formally recognize. Until it is clear N-K has formally recognized, I believe their entry should be moved down and placed with those of Kosovo, the TRNC, and Hamas. RIVA02906 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Support and recognition are not one and the same.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is why we need to totally remove any of our own interpretations of Government reactions and let the reader decide. This also means removing the map or making the map consist only of countries that have extended formal recognition. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wwell I agree about the map but that issue is for another discussion heading. In the meantime, I've moved Nagorno-Karabakh down to the same spot as Hamas, Kosovo, TRNC. RIVA02906 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sudan

Someting about Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

• [15]

84.134.87.92 (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bildt

Carl Bildt is an interesting case. Apart from being one of the most prominent foreign secretaries in Europe today, with a personal network like few others, he has choosen possibly the toughest line against Russia. And that in a country that ususally tip-toes around diplomatic formualtions about the necessity of involving the UN, getting consensus etc. When Bildt became foreign secreatry a couple of years ago, there were general fears in his country that he would be too pro-Russia as he had been involved in various advisory boards in corporations making business in Russia. Some political analysts believe that Bildts rethoric come as a direct respons to Russian hard line rethoric illustrated by some of Russia's most prominent diplomatic figures, such as Dmitry Rogozin. Bildt know perfectly well how comparisons between contemporary Russia and Nazi Germany are received in Russia, but the question is: How strategic are such statements in long term. Time will tell. --Hapsala (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, winter is coming, and it gets pretty cold in Sweden and Europe, no? Except certain parts of the anatomy to pucker up when the reality comes home. By the way, the information above is being introduced as part of article inclusion I am working on. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be the final end of Druzhba as we know it... ;D However, I understand that Sweden doesn't rely on Russian oil and natural gas, legacy from the cold war and alleged submarins crusing the inner coastline of Sweden... --Hapsala (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia - a smugglers' paradise financed by the Russian security service?

According to Carl Bildt "South Ossetian independence is a joke. We are talking about a smugglers’ paradise of 60,000 people financed by the Russian security services. No one can seriously consider that as an independent state".[16] --Hapsala (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has already been established that this Carl Bildt fellow is a Russophobic demagogue. --Tocino 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Ijanderson (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He is nothing like that, he is a good man.84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's how Slovakian Deputy PM described Kosovo. Just without the fantasy about security services.--Avala (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Aserbaidschan

• [17]

84.134.63.65 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Multi-coloured map

A quick review of this talk page has revealed that the following users want the multi-coloured map to be removed, and replaced either with a map that shows only states that have recognised, or with nothing: Bazonka, Tocino, Tone, Hapsala, LokiiT, 195.98.173.10, Pocopocopocopoco, 141.166.152.145, K kc chan, Riva02906 and Mactruth. And the following users want the map to stay as it is: Avala and 195.98.173.10. Therefore, by the powers of democracy, the map must go. Sorry Avala. Bazonka (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy, rather it builds on consensus. Anyway, if/when more countries recognize, I support a map of the same style that we have in Kosovo article. --Tone 12:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it's rather difficult to find a compromise on a yes/no issue, and as many people disagree with the map on grounds of POV it seems silly to remain with the minority. (And on your second point - if/when more countries recognise I agree we should include a simple map. I have never said otherwise.) Bazonka (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Tone RIVA02906 (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - map was vandalized by LokiiT who for an example painted Italy in several colours only to gain this effect - image getting removed. But now that the map image is fixed and that no one has any specific issues with it anymore I don't see the reason for it to be removed. Map should be returned because this smells like "I don't like it" and as Tone said WP is not a democracy. You either address the issues you have with the map, and I mean exact issues or you can't oppose it as opposing just for the sake of it doesn't really work here. And having a map showing only Russia recognizing is stupid as such information is obvious. But the rest of it is not, for the rest you have to read the article all the way through...or take a quick look at the multi-coloured map. And just a small example of how credible were some of the complaints - LokiiT wrote: "Not to mention the map, showing China as the wrong color" but please explain how is "China is concerned of the latest development in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In accordance with China's consistent and principled stance on issues of this kind, we hope the relevant parties can resolve the issue through dialogue and consultation." different from "Expressed concern about the situation or expressed wish for further negotiations."?! Also not to mention that several of the users you mentioned as supportive to removal of the map are in favor of that action because they believe Wikipedia to be some kind of western propaganda machine (read their comments).--Avala (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Until a country other than Russia recognizes Abkhazia and South Ossetia there is no reason for a map. Northern Cyprus doesn't have its own map. Menrunningpast (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Avala's model for the map will lead to endless debate on how to interpret different countries reactions - just like it did with the Kosovo map before 9it was changed to show only the countries that formally recognized. We should learn from this example and simply change the map to highlight only the countries that formally recognize(and maybe those that officially intend to recognize). In the meantime, wait until more countries recognize before restoring any map. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

With impending recognitions coming from Belarus, Venezueala and others, I believe we should use this map [Image:CountriesRecognizingAbkhazia&SouthOssetia.png] for this article. --Tocino 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"map was vandalized by LokiiT" - I've already warned you against accusing people of vandalizing things just because you disagree with their changes. This is uncivil behavior and not helpful to anyone. The changes I made were completely legit, but you getting angry at someone disagreeing with your POV proves our point that the way its modeled will lead to endless debates on what country should be what color. There is clear consensus that the map should be removed or changed drastically. No one wants the map to stay but you. I realize you must have worked hard on the map and don't want your work to go to waste, but it's just too misleading and complicated. LokiiT (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually when you painted Italy in various colours it was vandalism. When you removed map because China is supposedly in wrong colour (without saying which one it should be nor paying attention to what I wrote about their statement being very similar to our legend explanation of orange) it was also vandalism. None of this was done in good faith because you never wanted to reply here and address specific issues here but you claimed how you explained it all on the talk page of the map. There you talked about western POV etc. and admins disagreed with that.--Avala (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So no one can address the issues I brought up? For an example invalid claims on China or the lack of any specific issues or the fact that the user vandalizing the map is the one who supports it's removal here all because of his pov that it is a western-pov of Wikipedia etc. --Avala (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to change it to your suggestion last night instead of removing it, and what do you do? You repeatedly accuse me of vandalizing it. Well guess what, I'm done trying to cooperate with you, you no longer have my sympathy. LokiiT (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When you painted Italy in two colours or Sweden in yellow (Bildt: "Ossetia is smugglers’ paradise of 60,000 people financed by the Russian security services") was that cooperation or vandalism? Be honest. You never but I mean never addressed why is China wrong colour because you can't. You didn't explain why you painted Italy in two colours. You didn't explain why you painted Sweden in yellow instead of red.--Avala (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't paint Italy two colors, I changed it to Yellow to match its statement, and simply didn't re-colour the islands because I overlooked it. And the Sweden response doesn't say anything about respecting the territorial integrity of Georgia, it's just filled with childish attacks. But none of that matters because the map is gone. LokiiT (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK if you manage to address these issues I will believe you.

• You said China shouldn't be orange ("Not to mention the map, showing China as the wrong color"). What colour should it be?
  • Statement of China :"China is concerned of the latest development in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In accordance with China's consistent and principled stance on issues of this kind, we hope the relevant parties can resolve the issue through dialogue and consultation."
  • Legend for orange: "Expressed concern about the situation or expressed wish for further negotiations."

• You painted Italy in two colours. Why?
• You painted Italy in orange despite the fact that Italy issued a joint statement with other G7 nations, saying that Moscow's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia violated Georgia's integrity and sovereignty. Why?

• You painted Sweden in orange instead of red. Why? Swedeish Foreign Minister said that Ossetia is "smugglers’ paradise of 60,000 people financed by the Russian security services".

• You painted Hungary orange instead of red. Why?
  • Hungarian statement said: "The Republic of Hungary, as a member of the European Union and NATO, firmly stands by the position that this conflict can and must be solved through dialogue and by peaceful means, respecting the territorial integrity of Georgia and its internationally recognised borders."
  • Map legend for red: Stated they will not recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent or that they respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia.

Please explain your edits and comment if they are related to your opinion from the talk page on the map image that "Wikipedia western-oriented POV strikes again.". Thank you.--Avala (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Move your eyes an inch above and read my last response. I don't really care if you "believe" me. And regarding Hungary, look at the version from yesterday. Someone changed their response since I edited the map.LokiiT (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I can see myself asking the same question five times about China and other issues but no answer.--Avala (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support replacing the map with this version, but LokiiT's actions in frequently removing the map are not appropriate. It is likely we will have Belarus and Venezuela at least recognizing soon so it won't be a Northern Cyprus situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We could even have both. I like the map with more detail because no one has to read through the whole article, one glance is enough and then if the reader is interested he can scroll to a country of interest. But for the time being map of countries that recognize is not worthy, it is only one country that recognizes. --Avala (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Some sort of map both Avala's map and the map linked above (this version) is acceptable. The 'no map' situation would be the worst. Also the map should be at the top of the page right below the lead. Hobartimus (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order

On the Kosovo reaction page, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the TRNC, Palestine, etc. are referred to as "Other states." On this page, Kosovo is lumped in as an "Other entity." This is an inconsistency that degrades Kosovo while promoting Abkhazia and South Ossetia and would apear on the face of it to be POV. I would propose that this be rectified to establish a consistent approach. Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK it's consistent now.--Avala (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should change the inconsistencies on the Kosovo reaction page or vice versa ;-) Elysander (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Venezuela

Venezuela should not be moved to the section about countries that intend to recognize the two republics. Chavez never made a statement that his government decided to recognize them. All mainstream newssites emphasized this fact. For some reason Lenta PMR (a rather crappy website from Transnistria!) reported the opposite citing Reuters, but subsequently Lenta PMR took that article down and Reuters explicitly denies that version. So unless there appears a credible source supporting the viewpoint that Venezuela intends to recognize the two republics, the country should stay in the undecided column. TSO1D (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. In light of this, I've altered the mention of Venezuela in the article's introductory paragraph. It's probably clunky in wording and biased in one way or another, so feel free to fix it up.CeeWhy2 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Be polite; write diplomatically. --Nik We (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"S, Ossetia will be absorbed into Russia"

"TSKHINVALI, Georgia, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- South Ossetia says it will become part of Russia and host Russian military bases under a new agreement. ..." [18]- Does it need to be included into the article? PluniAlmoni (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but only as an unrecognized (by most of the world community) part of Russia. The Russians have indicated that this is what is going to happen, yet a "Cyprus scenario" would possibly benefit Russia more than "absorbation". --Hapsala (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of the article

As the focus of the article has increasingly moved towards the international reaction to the Russian recognition (and recently also to the Russian respons to the international reaction) of the two breakaway republics, the current name of the article is rather confusing. --Hapsala (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'd suggest moving the article to Russian recognition.... --Kober^Talk 18:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree Russian recognition... sounds correct. Geagea (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AgreedSwedish pirate (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it sounds fatuous and inane! If you have made the effort to read the article, then you should have been apprised of the intentions of Belarus and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to recognise the country. Moreover, on 5th Sep there is going to be held a summit of the ОДКБ, where much more states are going to join Russia. Therefore, with no stringent argument for the renaming, I strongly oppose such pernicious and perillous misdeed. Bogorm (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone down a bit, please, and consult WP:CIVIL.--Kober^Talk 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not oppose the move, as long as it's moved back once another UN state recognises the republics. But: Isn't Belarus going to recognize them? Perhaps Venezuela? So it's perhaps better to wait another week or so. Sijo Ripa (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would be prudent and circumspect. I do not propose to annul the discussion, but embrace your proposal to freeze it for several weeks. Bogorm (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The title Recognition of SO's & A's Independence is the correct title if only russia and later some "persuaded" satellites would recognize SO and A. Elysander (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The noton "satellites" is impertinent and convenient only for some forum. Bogorm (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Syria in the list. As I see it very importent the position of Syria... I am only joke. thiere is no inerest in this article. I believe that this article should delete. Thiere is no interest what Syria said about the declaration. It is importent to notice in a paragraph in the articles of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and also the article about the Invasion of Russia to Georgia that the secessionists declared independence and only Russia recognize them and most of the other countries condemn Russia for doing so.

what was realy happand is that Russia told the secessionists that if you ask for recognition of independence we will agree so they do it and Russia recognize them. Geagea (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No focus

I think that the article doesn't have the right focus. Currently, it's mostly a list of country statements opposing the Russian recognition. Can't we just summarize them to: "The following countries strongly oppose the recognition by Russia: A (ref), B (ref), C (ref), ... I don't see the need to have a quote from a politician directly in the article per country. The article should focus on the context/history of the break-away republics, the reasons/motives of recognizers and non-recognizers, the consequences in the short and (later) long run, the international law situation (as well as non-recognition)...Sijo Ripa (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You should read the WP:NOTPAPER and [19]. There is no need to slice the article because it looks to be too much information to you.--Avala (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Avala, it's not about the size, it's about the focus, which is an entirely different thing. The article should be focused on other things than summing up all reactions to the Russian recognition. Sijo Ripa (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well are you suggesting we should ignore the way countries react? They reacted to Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence by saying that recognizing them is the violation of the international law, in this case by Russia. Simple as that.--Avala (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I do not mean "remove", but "summarize". Most countries have similar reactions for similar reasons, so why can't we just say it like that: "all the following countries (A, B, C, ... , Z) oppose the recognition because (...)"? Besides, that's not really the point. The point is mostly that other parts should be made and that these should take in a central place. Sijo Ripa (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing is very bad and that led to article on Kosovo getting locked because it's against the no original research policy. Readers can decide by themselves on positions of various countries, they don't need it chewed as a summary.--Avala (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing is bad? Why? An encyclopedic article is always a summary... More specifically, a summary that focuses on the key points of a topic. Btw: there are plenty of news articles grouping countries into one position against the recognition. So it wouldn't be OR. But again, this is not really the point. The point is "focus" - The article name (international recognition) is not reflected in the article's content (for the largest part a list of country statements opposing the recognition by Russia). We should put the focus on the context, the international law situation, the consequences (eg. increase of tensions between the "West" and Russia), ... What's the problem with that? Sijo Ripa (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are missing the point that this article is about the general recognition of these regions and reaction to Abkhazia and Ossetia independence which includes nonrecognition and negative reaction as well.--Avala (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be missing that point, only and only, when I would be suggesting to remove the non-recognition and the negative reactions, which I clearly don't. I have pleaded in favour of the inclusion of these reactions several times as can be seen in my above remarks (and have added one reaction as well in the past: the Belgian one). BUT: My point still stands that the article lacks focus. Perhaps it's best to include other editors in this discussion, as we can repeat the same position until hell freezes over. Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing is bad since this borders OR. Sometimes the statements are different in very delicate details and therefore we can't just categorically put them in the same basket (well, they are grouped in the tables but details are there. Also, a ref for each one.) --Tone 21:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

States that expressed disagreement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence or that have yet to decide

States that expressed disagreement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence or that have yet to decide is actually included two kind of States(Disagreement and not decided yet) and why we put it together? It looks like the whole list is against the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Why don't we just split it into two Subject States that expressed disagreement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence and States that yet to decided their position with Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence? 218.161.38.149 (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukaz: can someone with edit privileges link this?

"Presidential decree" should link to Ukaz, that being what "Указ" says at the top of the documents. 118.90.89.88 (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, its done, you may want to get an account so that you can make such edits yourself in future. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuba

Cuba is included in the first group, but did it formally recognize South Ossetia just because President Castro now suggests that it actually did so almost 17 years ago? --Hapsala (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Orthorhombic interprets the government of Cuba's (Fidel Castro, according to him) August 10, 2008 statement as the recognition of SO's independence. Most ridiculously, he puts the date of the dissolution of the Soviet Union (December 25, 1991) as the date of SO's recognition by Cuba. I've tried to explain to Orthorhombic that this amounts to WP:OR, but his position remains intractable.--Kober^Talk 11:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Cuba is obviously in the same group as Venezuela or Belarus, it has not yet recognized officially, but it is sympathetic towards the republics. Colchicum (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, On August 28, 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 -- It is August 31 now. The bat'ka has let them down. Colchicum (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Бацька has not let them down! There will be a CSTO summit on 5 Sep, when he may have wished to be supported by other CSTO members. Please, do not indulge in derogatory comments on бацька. Bogorm (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

At the request of Kober I am transfering the whole of our discussion on Cuba's position on the recognition of A/SO to the talk pages for community moderation. Please cf. the history page of this article for our respective versions.

Here is our discussion of the matter so far:

[edit] Thank you Thanks for the correction on the Venezuelan position: my mistake sorry. As far as Cuba's position is concerned, I have found a better source for the official document and have updated it accordingly. Orthorhombic (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. But Castro's statement says Cuba recognizes "the legitimacy of South Ossetian autonomy". This is not the same as the recognition of independence.--KoberTalk 11:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your polite response. Here is a fuller excerpt from Castro's statement: "When the USSR disintegrated, South Ossetia, annexed by force by Georgia, with which it shared neither nationality nor culture, retained its status as an autonomous republic with its local authorities and its capital, Tskhinvali. At dawn on August 8, Georgia, in complicity with the U.S. government, launched its forces on South Ossetia in an attempt to occupy the capital, which it publicly announced on the same day that the Olympic Games were inaugurated in Beijing.

It is a false claim that Georgia is defending its national sovereignty.

The Russian troops were in South Ossetia legally, as a force for guaranteeing the peace, as is known by the international community; they have not committed any illegality.

The request for the invaders to withdraw is just, and our government supports it."

I agree with you entirely about the term "autonomy". There are many autonomous subjects of the Russian Federation that are not independent states. The use of the word "invaders" is perhaps the critical term here. You cannot invade your own territory. Castro clearly views SO as independent therefore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthorhombic (talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. My point is that we cannot interpret Castro's statement this way. That would be WP:OR. It is not always easy to trace consistency in the state's policy and its statements. For example, Russia had hitherto regarded South Ossetia as part of Georgia; yet it accused Georgia of being "an aggressor" (against its own territory). If there's an official statement or a direct indication that Cuba recognizes South Ossetia as an independent state, it will immediately find its place in the article. Best wishes, --KoberTalk 11:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that they are claiming not to have made any change in their position. Orthorhombic (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

One more point as well, you claim that this is Original Research, but my having retrieved a statement from the President of Cuba is no different from any other user having retrieved a statement from any other official government website. Is that original research? Perhaps the whole article should be deleted! Orthorhombic (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you don't want to listen, methinks. Please discuss your changes on Talk:nternational recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia so as other editors can also participate in the disucssion.--KoberTalk 11:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I do want to listen and would be grateful for the viewpoints of the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Orthorhombic (talk • contribs)

Venezuela Recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia Independence

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=96574 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.24.115 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone moves Venezuela in States moving towards the recognition of Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence, can the text say acually something about recognizing, not However he did not state categorically that Venezuela intended to recognise the two regions. This is silly. Update the text if you have a source or don't move it. --Tone 13:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Here'a a no-brainer: When countries recognize each other, there is not much doubt about it. Venezuela does not as of now recognize these two regions as independent nations. To "interpret" something else, is wishful and POV.

Carl Bildt was right again

If Syria joins group 2 "States moving towards the recognition of Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence", it should be renamed "The miseralbe lot of other countries" [20] ;D --Hapsala (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a helpful, neutral contribution. :) Orthorhombic (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Convenient for some forum in style and not for an encyclopedia. (WP:NOTFORUM) Bogorm (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetian statement

I moved the following from the Russian box

On August 30, 2008, Eduard Kokoity, South Ossetia's leader, said during talks with the Russian President that it would become part of Russia within "several years".

Clearly, this does not belong in that section, and looking at it, I don't think it belongs in this particular article. Comments --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly not inferring the still not ubiquitous recognition of the independence, but an imaginary decision in the distant future whether to stay independent or join Russia. It does not belong thereto. Bogorm (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"States moving towards the recognition of Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence"

This category of states is OR and POV and should be removed. Either they officially recognize the independence, or they do not. Inventing non-existing things like "States moving towards the recognition of Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence" is OR.Biophys (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. If you like, rename it as "states, which are benevolent to the independence", but the section is not to be abolished! By the way, recogniSe. Bogorm (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The category uses references which state intentions, Cuba perhaps should not be there, but it is NOT OR. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I did remove this grotesque category circumscribing non-existing things. POV & OR are obviously. By the way, recognize and recognise )) Elysander (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not! This is highly reprehensible from your side! Bogorm (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask another editor to revert Elysander's removal of content, he has had a warning placed on talk page, and I don't want to breach WP:3RR --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(To Elysander) As you can perceive, User:Russavia has already renamed the title in a non-controversial form. Thus, the section is bound to persist. (To Russavia) на радостях отзовусь Bogorm (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(To Russavia) А если он упорствует в стирании текста с ссылками, где нужно доложить о вандализме и нарушении правил о трех возвратах? Bogorm (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I. Technically, I have already breached WP:3RR, and undid my revision upon noticing that this was the case; of course, if anyone wants to take that to WP:AN/I also, I'm fine with it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remarked it. One user contests place for the Cuban position since he is incapable of discerning any willingness for recognition and I yielded, so that it was returned to the hesitating states. Is it appropriate, how do you think? Bogorm (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Cuba should not belong in this article as yet, not until there is an official statement post 26 August from Cuban officials on the independence issue. What was in the section from Cuba belongs more in the international response of the war section, not in this article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the foremost Russian philosopher and geopolitician Alexander Dugin in one month Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus and Tajikistan will have recognised the new countries and one should convince People's Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Iran (here). I am going to insert it in the article in "Russia" section. Bogorm (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't place it under Russia, but rather in this section International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#International_reaction. The various country sections should only have comments from country and government officials. I am awarer of Dugin, but do you have a more mainstream source for the information, as given the personality being discussed, and the source, there will be some who will attempt to remove it from the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this source more appropriate? Bogorm (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I would support the inclusion, as the person who it is attributable to is notable, and is published by a reliable source. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Or have been positive ...

Currently, this section includes Venezuela, which has strongly defended Russia for standing up against the evil western bullies, but it hasn't recognized independence itself. Kind of like China? The point is, doesn't that make this section very subjective? I haven't followed the map discussion, but I felt the consensus was that judging these things are too subjective... Vesal (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

SUDAN

You should change the color on Sudan. they dont say yes, they dont say no.. so this red color i think then is wrong.!

Sverre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.175.223 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image update

I updated the image to reflect the current version of the text (in regards to Venezuela and Moldova), but my account on Commons is too new, and I'm too much of a noob there to know what to do anyway. I uploaded the file to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia_relations2.png, and I would appreciate it if someone could substitute this version for the old one. Thanks, 20:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Map legend has been updated to include positive response in light blue as well. And don't worry, Moldova will be in the map soon.--Avala (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Need update concerning Tajikistan.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Sudan (negative) and Armenia (neutral? - not definitive in any case). PluniAlmoni (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenia is already coloured. Sudan added right now.--Avala (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should Sudan be negative. They said their recognition would be contingent on developments over Kosovo. That suggests to me they'll wait to see what the ICJ says and if they say something which basically legitimizes the situation in Kosovo they may recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well and if it's against they won't recognize any of them. I believe this statement is best seen as being neutral.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right... I'll edit the Sudanese entry in the article to reflect that. PluniAlmoni (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well they said apart from ICJ that they don't recognize Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sudan's position seemed more like a wait-and-see approach, which I would consider to be neutral.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds like a "no recognition until further notice" - they wait for the matter with Kosovo to unfold in the ICJ, but remain (until such move to independence by Kosovo is declared leagal) opposed to Kosovo's independence. So, if (and when) Kosovo's independence is declared legal, Sudan's position may change. For now, they remain opposed to such declarations of independence. I'll revise the entry in the article to clarify it. PluniAlmoni (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please colour French Guiana please? As it is "an integral part of France" (WP). Sorry, I'm new to editing and don't want to go fiddling around too much. Zangar (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. kwami (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

why is Sudan red?

<<<On August 28 Sudan's envoy to the UN, Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Mahmood, stated that Sudan's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is contingent upon developments on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence in the International Court of Justice.[85]>>>

That sounds 'undecided' to me. Shouldn't it be grey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kislorod (talk • contribs) 23:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This article did say that Sudan was opposed to Kosovo's independence, which indicates that they're leaning towards red in the case of A&SO. For some reason that information was deleted from the article. Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Тhat does not constitute them being opposed. Their official position is contingent on events which have not yet occurred. Thus, they cannot logically be opposed to it. Besides, there is no way to know which way they will decide afterwards, after all, Russia was also opposed to Kosovo's independence. They could make a U-turn also pending the decision of the ICJ... By the way, what exactly is happening at the IJC with regards to Kosovo? Kislorod (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits moving Venezuela and removing map and changing heading

I've moved Venezuela into the states that recognize SO and Abkhazia as per the source I provided. I have also removed the map and changed one of the sub-headings in order to remove OR as per the discussion above. We should not try to interpret official reactions as being positive negative or neutral, politicians will deliberately make vague statements that can be interpreted either way. Just because an official reaction might be in support of Georgia's territorial integrity it doesn't mean that they oppose the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Venezuela has not officially recognised. He expressed support on his television program where he says all kinds of things, but I have seen no official declarations at all.Kislorod (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Sofia News Agency is a reliable source see here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Тhe map should be returned but only with the countries which recognise them having any colours. If it is true that Venezuela has recognised then it's no longer just Russia so there is justification for a map. I suspect more countries will recognise after the ОДКБ summit in Yerevan on the 3rd of September.Kislorod (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kisloro. Although I'd like to see some confirmation of Venezuela's recognition from a Venezualan, Russian or Georgian source, rather than one from an uninvolved country. Bazonka (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirming Venezuela's recognition

[21] [[User:Expatkiwi|Expatkiwi 19:20, 31 August 2008 (PDT)

The headline is misleading. The body of the article makes clear that Chavez was positive about Russia's actions but did not indicate that his country intended to recognize Abkh and S.O. There is nothing new, this is the same story from three days ago. TSO1D (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The body of the article says (I bolded the important part):

“ The President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, officially declared Saturday his country's support of Russia and of their decision to recognize South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence ”

This is obviously something new. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Officially declared support is not official recognition. The important part is With their President's declaration Venezuela became the second country to officially recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, yes, though possibly the journalists have misunderstood something. Anyway, we will see. No reason to hurry. Probably the situation looks hopeless for some people if they need to promote the two partially recognized republics to the top row, but the content of the Wikipedia article cannot change anything. Even Belarus looks reluctant to do anything. Colchicum (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it also depends on how you read the their. The way I read "official declared Saturday his country's support of Russia and of their decision to recognize" means that Chavez declared his country's support of Russia and he declared his decision to recognize SO and Abkhazia. I accept that it could be interpreted another way. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that article is confusing. But other news sites have reported this development and where much more clear. For instance look at the Reuters story: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2945876620080829. There the authors emphasize that "He stopped short of saying Venezuela recognized the regions." This was what the earlier version of the article had been based on, and I think that version should be restored. The version that is up now is based on the ambiguity of the Sofia article and is not entirely accurate. TSO1D (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that the reuters article is about a speech that Chavez said on Friday and Sofia News is about a speech that Chavez made on Saturday. So Sofia News is more up to date. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's only Friday (Aug 29) speech posted at the official website of the Venezuela government.--Kober^Talk 04:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an obvious misinterpretation on the part of novinite.com. So far it is the only source which claim that Chavez has already officially recognized Georgia's regions. All other media outlets speak of his support to Russia's move or an intention to recognize Ab and SO.--Kober^Talk 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We should find out soon enough if the other media outlets discuss Chavez's Saturday speech. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The only media source which said he officially recognised that I have seen is that one you proffered. Most have underlined the fact that he didn't mention whether he was prepared himself to recognise. I think it's clear enough that he hasn't officially recognised from the Saturday speech, no more information can be gleaned from that appearance. We'll have to await further developments. Kislorod (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Noticias Venezuela gives no information regarding Chávez's recognition. In all sources, he is quoted to have reiterated his support to Russia.--Kober^Talk 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the Sofia news article states that Belarus has recognized the territory. On the Belarusian Government website, no such news was announced, so I suggest removing Venezuela from that category until something more firm comes out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Even Russian sources tell: "Chavez did not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Biophys (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

South Osetia and Abkhazia must be classified as 'other entities'

South Osetia and Abkhazia must be classed as 'other entities' in the same section as Kosovo and Norther Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kislorod (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the recognition of each other? Is that even considered "international reaction" and not "locl reaction"? PluniAlmoni (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which part?

The paragraph reads; President Bush called on the Russian authorities to reconsider the decision.[14] French and UK foreign ministers have voiced fears that Russia may be planning scenarios similar to those that occurred in Georgia in EU neighbours Ukraine and Moldova, amid rising tension between Ukraine and Russia and fresh calls for independence by Moldovan rebels in the breakaway territory of Transnistria.[15] Sergei Lavrov called such statements "diseased imagination".[16]

Is the "fresh calls for independence by Moldovan rebels in the breakaway territory of Transnistria." "Diseased Imagination"

OR is

"President Bush called on the Russian authorities to reconsider the decision.[14] French and UK foreign ministers have voiced fears that Russia may be planning scenarios similar to those that occurred in Georgia in EU neighbours Ukraine and Moldova" Deseased imagination?

Confused as to which one is Deseased Imagination Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the section to make it clear what is a sick fantasy. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh has not officially recognised

Nagorno-Karabakh has only 'welcomed' the Russian recognition of SO and Abkhazia but has not itself officially recognised them.

Here is confirmation: http://www.newsarmenia.ru/arm1/20080901/41938390.html

Kislorod (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Iceland`

Iceland jointly condemned Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with the other Nordic and Baltic States. It is still shown as grey on this map.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/28/europe/EU-Nordics-Baltics-Russia.php

Thanks for the information. It will be added and the map will be updated.--Avala (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

reference bug

While referencing Gregor Gysi's stance there emerged the problem, that the symbol "[" was treated like commencement of another references, but it should be part of the URL. Thus the correct URL is "http://www.die-linke.de/index.php?id=452&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2479&tx_ttnews[backPid]=8&no_cache=1", but when I provide it with [] : [http://www.die-linke.de/index.php?id=452&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2479&tx_ttnews[backPid]=8&no_cache=1] , it is messed up([tt_news=2479&tx_ttnews[backPid]=8&no_cache=1]). I appeal for assistance. Bogorm (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

British English

I suggest that we use British English in this article because Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Russia (the main parties involved) are all European, and British English is the English used in Europe, therefore makes sense to use British English. Agree? Ijanderson (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, they're sort of European, sort of Asian. But anyway, I agree that British English is most appropriate - it's certainly more of a European than American situation. Bazonka (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. More people speak American English. More WP users come from North America. Also the USA government has played a bigger role in supporting the Georgian government than anyone else. Also this notion that British English = European English is WP:OR. There is no evidence to suggest that non-British Europeans prefer British Enlgish to American English. Saakashvili speaks great American English after all. --Tocino 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"more people speak AE" contra most part of the English-language culture (poets, composers ...) originates in Britain; "More WP users come from North America" - in comparison with Britain that might be true, but in comparison with the EU it is irrefutably not. "Also the USA government has played a bigger role ..." - false! The British foreign minister (or whatever his official title is) accused Russia of aggression and as far as I know the USA have not indulged in so impertinent and pro-Georgian allegations. "There is no evidence to suggest that non-British Europeans prefer British Enlgish" - on the contrary: (from the site of the European commision here) "to control o r g a n i S e d crime". The British English is the English of the whole Continent of Europe! "Saakashvili speaks..." - well, but Mengistu too has studied in USA and must speak the same form. Bogorm (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious why the official EU institutions would use British English since the UK is a member state, but you have still provided no evidence that non-British Europeans prefer British English to American English. --Tocino 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree [ed] Regardless of the number of people who speak either dialect, I think people who will find interest in this article are more likely to come from outside the US, so under the "democratic" argument of number of users, this article should be in British English. My apologies to the Americans who do take interest in world history and politics. Resparza (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So because more wiki users speak American English all articles have to be in American English. Thats racist. Ijanderson (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude no one speaks British English but the British themselves. Kostan1 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway this is a European thing and the majority of European wikipedians speak British English, not American English. Also to Kostan1, the entire British Commonwealth speaks British English as well as Ireland and Malta. This is way over 25% of English speakers. Ijanderson (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you know majority of European Wikipedians speak British and not American English? Was there a poll that I missed? I speak American English, althought I don't mind British English. Language influence comes more from TV, Internet, and books, which means American English. I don't know anyone in my country who uses British accent when speaking english, and I think they use "honor" and "color" instead of "honour" and "colour", but correct me if I'm wrong. You can use whatever language you want in Wikipedia as long as I can read it, but I don't like the fact that I'm a statistical representation of British english just because I live in Europe. JosipMac (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Was there a poll I missed where they asked whether I see more American programmes than British ones or not? I know that in the Netherlands, this is almost the same. Films are moslty produced in the US, but thank god actors from all over the world are starring in them. Besides, when you speak a foreign language, your native language decides how you pronounce certain words, even after extensive training the accent is noticed. Ask Stephen Brown, he told me that his Italian still sounds somewhat Spanish. Mallerd (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really worth arguing about. (Ijanderson - I think you'll find the Irish speak Irish English - similar to British English but not the same.) The -ize suffix (i.e. recognize) is perfectly acceptable in Britain, although most Britons prefer -ise. It's unlikely this article will refer to "colo(u)r" or "valo(u)r" etc. As an Englishman I would obviously prefer British English - but in short, I don't really care. In an article like this it's not that important. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree [ed] You are wrong on multiple fronts, Ij. Canada, which is a member of the archaic British Commonwealth organization, speaks American English. Also there is no evidence to suggest that non-British Europeans prefer British English over American English. In fact, I would wager that Eastern Europeans overwhemingly prefer American English to British English. --Tocino 18:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, actually Canadians speak Canadian English which is half-way between the two. Bazonka (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets compromise then, lets use Canadian English in this article which is half way between British and American related articles ? Ijanderson (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadians spell recognize and organization with z's. --Tocino 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Russian, from Russia, and I can ashure you, British English is a language of aliens. We don't understand it, it's just weird. Europeans speak American English. Kostan1 (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Then how come Russia today, France 24, euronews, Al Jazera all use British English on their English versions of the news programs not American English. Turn on Russia Today English now and you will see that they spell Recognise with an S not a Z making it British not American English. Ijanderson (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's a poll I'm for British English :) Alæxis_¿question? 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll use British English when I can, but if I screw up, people can correct it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard wikipedia i'v seen is to use british english. Saying british english is "lesser" is ethnocentric,. and just racist, so is saying nobody speaks it.--Jakezing (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kostan just cracked me up with his joke...everybody speaks American English? Whatever bud!

Norum (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we just use Standard English? Just a thought... MethMan47 (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:MOS#National_varieties_of_English

By my reading none of the special cases apply, so we are left with "Which one was used first." "Recognize" has been used from the first editor, and is in use now - let's stick with American English. Smallbones (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Recognize" is not an Americanism; it is the recommended spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary on etymological grounds. -- Evertype·✆ 07:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So based on people's comments above, it looks like the sensible compromise is to use British English, with the -ize variant, which is acceptable but less popular in the UK. Bazonka (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen this debate. America uses American English, Britain uses British English, the rest of the world uses English influenced by their dialects and traditions. There are only tiny differences between the languages and little that would cause confusion in an article like this. Settle on one or other but don't justify it was being more international or less international. The English of Second Language Speakers is used slightly differently to both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.33 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to improve this project, instead of wasting so much time and energy on arguments whether specific articles should be written in business English or Queen's English.... --Hapsala (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This comment concerns all previous ones. "I suggest that we use British English in this article because Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Russia (the main parties involved) are all European, and British English is the English used in Europe..." No, it is not. I am from Europe and no one, apart from people from England, speak British English. Everyone else, first of all, would not read Wikipedia in English, because they have their own Wikipedia, and second of all, if they read it in English it would be easier for them to understand it if it was in "American English" Now, your argument is that since the conflict is there, then we should write the article as if they only speak British English, which they do not. But what about Russian. Why don't we write this article in Russian, since it is the language that they speak. Because there is a Russian portal here, where everything is in Russian, meaning that they have a place to read about their conflicts, and so do the Germans, French, Ukraine, Romanians, etc. "You are wrong on multiple fronts, Ij. Canada, which is a member of the archaic British Commonwealth organization, speaks American English. Also there is no evidence to suggest that non-British Europeans prefer British English over American English. In fact, I would wager that Eastern Europeans overwhemingly prefer American English to British English." True, we do. Also, as I live in Canada now, I would greatly prefer this in American English than British English. In fact, I wager more than 400 million people would prefer this in American English compared to less than 60 million (the Irish) who would like to read in British English. When considering this article, you have to think about its intended audience, which is everyone, but America is the main audience of this article and therefore this should remain in American English. 99.244.167.18 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

British English or American English makes very little difference to non-English Speakers most of those who read English to a sufficient degree to know the tiny differences between the variety obviously have no trouble understanding either. Toss a coin over it, makes more sense than the paragraphs of writing here, the rest of the article remains a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.33 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. I believe it is WP:SOAP Salvadoradi (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a personal discussion. If you want to whine to other people that you are offended, this is not the place to do it. So please remove the previous comment since it does not relate to the main debate, unless you can add something new, there is not need for it. Thank you. Salvadoradi (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You all are ridiculous and up your own rear ends. People spell things the way they want to. Why not look at the place of origin of the original author and use his or her language of choice from here on out if you can't come to a decision. People like yourselves are why conflicts like this exist in the first place. also I'd like to point out that comments concerning generalizations about people from one country or another are all prejudice/racist regardless of their positive, negative, or neutral intent. Saying something like all Europeans prefer British English or Americans don't care about world affairs or Canadians don't have their own form of English generally shows a fairly poor level of respect for people of those regions of the world. using the term "American" incorporates 2 continents worth of people. since I live in the south-eastern United States, I think you all should use my regional dialect because I like it better than all the rest. That sounds like I'm pretty conceited doesn't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.63 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

seriously, who gives a damn, Oxford spelling is commonly recognised and used in the United Kingdom, and that uses -ize anyway. please children, just end this now...--UltraMagnus (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There are so many American military consultants and agents in Georgia, the article should be AE. --Bachforelle (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. BE is the version used in Europe, which all parties involved are from. Also it was the President of the EU who achieved the seize fire. BE makes the most sense. Ijanderson (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If the venerable native-speakers of English would appreciate the concern of a foreigner (furthermore of Slavic origin) - for me and hopefully for most people studying English, the only official form and foremost Kulturträger of this language is the British English. Moreover, the argument of the region lying in Eurasia (not just Europe, the argument applies for the whole of Eurasia, since all Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan are using it) is incontestable and stringent and therefore the only admissible appearance of the artcle is in British English and is as indispensable as exigent. Bogorm (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support British English. The fact there is American influence in Georgia has no bearing on the language format for the article - as has been noted the European Union and NATO has been active too. I should remind American wikipedians that it's subjective as to whether "more" English-speakers come from North America than other regions that might use different spellings, and there is no presumption that American English can override anything else on the project. John Smith's (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral The differences are slight and do not impair mutual comprehensibility. It is in the nature of Wikipedia that we will have variant spellings of recognise / recognize in the one article. Perhaps Wikipedia should champion this non-uniformity!!! Certainly, if someone makes an edit that contains an Anglicism or Americanism, then let it stand... But, if someone maliciously 'corrects' a variant spelling, then it should probably be corrected. Uniformity is not a worthy ideal. I like the Middle Ages when everyone spelt words exactly as they deemed appropriate. Orthorhombic (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - British English is the only official and admissible form of the English language ubique. Bogorm (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support- australian english is closer to british english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree- I can't believe this discussion is even happening. It's so absurd a thing to argue over that it makes me want to dig my head into the ground like an ostrich. What does where it's happening in the world have to do with the way the article should be written? Why does it matter if people want to read the article with a certain set of tiny nuances to it's spelling? They can figure out what it's about well enough.-ABigBlackMan (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style

• This is entirely a Manual of Style issue, which provides clear guidance at WP:ENGVAR for situations like this.
• This article has no "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" (English is not an official language in either country) so the "Retaining the existing variety" section is what applies. This section says: "In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used"
• This is the initial edit (and is by a major contributor), which uses "recognized", hence setting the spelling for this article.

It's as clear-cut as that, I'm afraid. (and has to be, in order to avoid lengthy/subjective arguments like the above.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, British English was originally chosen. As an American myself, I could care less which format it is in. In any case, this article is a mix. It follows British spelling but has some American English grammatical structuring, which counters British English. Let's just work on the neutrality and relevance of information, those are the issues within this article that need the most attention. JCP 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)