Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

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)

Recognising Kosovo

has been added to the list in an extra column. I don't see what this has to do with this article. I believe it should be removed. The article is called "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" not "of Kosovo". So i believe it should be removed. If we are to keep this information, we might as well add nations which recognise TRNC, Taiwan, Western Shara and Palatine too. Ijanderson (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a column for every UN non-recognized self-proclaimed entity that gets partial recognition by someone. Kosovo's relevance is due to Russia bringing it up as a precedent. This can be mentioned in the article, but using it as a litmus test places undue weight on the Russian position that Kosovo is relevant. This article is already linked to the Kosovo recognition article. I'm removed the column. Kelvinc (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be pushing for re-insertion of this column, to balance the NPOV expressed in this article; perhaps not on the part of editors but on the part of those expressing statements, particularly those who lamblast Russia for violating the territory integrity of Georgia, when many of those lamblasting loudest were directly involved in the violation of the territorial integrity of Serbia with the recognition of Kosovo. When the US/NATO/EU nations recognised Kosovo, Putin, who was then President of Russia warned that this would have consequences; surprise, this is the consequence. We can't very well express the views of say the United States that Russia is in the wrong and has violated territorial integrity, when they themselves were the instigator of this some months ago. It is best to present this information, and let readers make up their own minds if the comments coming out of the various capitals are right/wrong/whatever. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kosovo's recognition has been referred to by Russian authorities including the President on several occasions in relation to the recognition of Abkahzia and S. Ossetia. There is a direct link. In addition it's very interesting, not to mention important to see the differing positions of nations to similar (in laymans terms) events within a very short timespan.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. And by the way I don't agree with you.84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Medvedev has now said that Kosovo is a special case, so lets remove the column as it is irrelavant and there is already a separate article which informs people which countries recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Medvedev or Lavrov or Rogozin or Putin says; parallels have been drawn between the two events, and has been widely reported in the world media as such and it could be included. For example, we have the Swedish foreign minister calling the Russians Nazis -- a very loaded word, especially when aimed towards a Russian audience given their history -- if one throws enough mud, sooner or later it sticks -- however, this is neutralised when it is presented on the same page that the same person throwing that mud is a representative of a country who could have those same tags applied to them due to their recognition of Kosovo, and also due to that individual's own involvement in the Kosovo processes. Call it my POV if you will, but it is verifiable, and is done in the name of WP:NPOV --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you just said "It doesn't matter what Medvedev or Lavrov or Rogozin or Putin says; parallels have been drawn between the two events". They are the main people who have drawn parallels between the two events. So if "It doesn't matter what Medvedev or Lavrov or Rogozin or Putin says" we should remove the Kosovo thing, since they brought it up in the first place. Also please explain how adding Kosovo recognition is WP:NPOV. Ijanderson (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this should stay because Medvedev mentioned Kosovo in his recognition speech and it's been widely connected by other countries too.--Avala (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The column should be removed as irrelevant and POV. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And why is it irrelevant? We have the Swedish FM throwing around Nazi slurs, based on the pretext that Russia has violated territorial integrity of Georgia, when Sweden have recognised Kosovo, violating territorial integrity of Serbia in the process. As there are literally thousands of verifiable sources noting the hypocrisy and double standards of NATO/EU in this matter, such information clearly belongs in the interests of balancing out POV. I see that someone else has already removed the column, but judging by comments in this section, there is no consensus for removal or for keeping, so I will revert to re-include it, and if consensus dictates not to include this column, we can abide by that. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the column should stay. I would even suggest to place country's statements on Kosovo and Osetia next to each other for easy comparison.--Dojarca (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

RIVA02906, please do not make blind reverts and discuss your changes beforehand.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So because Sweden referred to the Russians as "Nazis" we have to included which countries recognised Kosovo? I fail to see little sense in your logic. And what about hypocrisy and double standards from Russia? Ijanderson (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We should have an article called Violations of Helsinki Accords and surrounding hypocrisy. --Avala (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What Sweden thinks of Russians is irrelevant, well at least now seeing as those who oppose independence are now akin to Stalinists ;) Let's use Britain as an example. It was Britain who participated in bombing the living shit out of Serbia (a Russian ally) in 1999 (whilst disregarding Russia's opposition), it was Britain who ignored the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia by being one of the first to recognise Kosovo, and it is now Britain who accuses Russia of being the aggressor (even though Georgia started the conflict, and that point is widely recognised) and accuses Russia of violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia; even though as has been clearly pointed out by Russian sources, that Serbia has negotiated since 1999, Georgia chose war; there's only one word for it - H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y and all sides of the story should be presented, and what better way to show this by detailing those members who recognised Kosovo right alongside their own reasons for lamblasting Russia? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Plus so many statements included Kosovo, ranging from those who support Kosovo like Albania to those don't like Slovakia and most importantly Medvedev in his recognition speech.--Avala (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish to thank all the people arguing for including this column for their candor. From what I'm reading above, its fairly obvious that this column's overt intent is to promote a pro-Russian POV. This article is about the recognition and nonrecognition of South Ossetia and Abkazia; the apparent purpose of trying to include Kosovo recognition info is to make arguments about alleged hypocrisy by countries recognizing Kosovo. This is not the purpose of the article: its purpose is to report who recognizes and who doesn't. For that objective, information about who recognizes Kosovo is irrelevant. I strongly oppose its inclusion. RIVA02906 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am giving any credence to your opinion on why I believe it should be added, because you are far off the mark, but a question needs to be asked. When Belarus makes their announcement official, are we then going to see opinions from each country on Belarus' recognition? What about Venezuela? Or is the anti-Russian rhetoric from each respondent country going to be the only comments to remain? I am more than happy to counter that POV with counter-claims where necessary and warranted for each respondent country if needed, and will keep it all NPOV, but given that the world media at large has recognised the double standards of certain countries in dealing with this issue, the comparison is not only valid, but it is notable. Or does the creation of Claims of hypocrisy in recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have potential for creation? If Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war is able to be presented as anti-Russian propaganda (surprise, surprise), then why not that subject? Of course it would be better to include such information in this article, as it makes for better reading, but as it's directly related to this article and provides perspective to relations between Russia and the 'west', it's best placed here instead of opening up another front in the war. If that's the way that editors believe it should go, then that's cool, I'll get to work on it, and of course, I will make it completely NPOV, and better sourced than the disinformation campaign article --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

@Russavia: It was Russia who invaded Georgia, it was Russia who ignored the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia by installing, supporting and recognising puppet/ satellite states with in Georgia's internationally recognised sovereignty and territory. It is now Russia who accuses Georgia of being the aggressor (even though Russia started the conflict because they shot down several Georgian Spy planes, which were operating within Georgia, months before the invasion began) and accuses EU/ US of violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia; even though Kosovo had been a UN territory 9 years before and had suffered genocide and declared independence peacefully with support from 3UNSC, NATO, EU, US and many more. Unlike S Ossetia and Abkhazia, who declared independence violently without support just because they dislike Georgians and are ethnic Russians who miss the "good old days", no real grounds there for independence. Georgia chose the term "war" because they were viscously attacked by a well pre-planned mass scale invasion b y the Russian military (which Russia calls "Peace keepers" lol). "Its not ok for the west to recognise Kosovo because that violates international law, however its ok to invade a soverign nation and kill its citizens and to recognise two puppet states as that is not in violation of international law obviously" there's only one word for it "Hypocrisy". I tell you whats funny, watching Russia Today. It says "nothing has happened to the town of "Gori, look here are some images taken today of the town, you can see it is not damaged at all", however you switch over to Al Jazera, Euronews, France 24, BBC ect and it shows images of Gori in ruins. Ive lost a lot o respect for Russia Today over its coverage of this whole event, it made me realise how biased it actually is and yes i know western media is also biased (sympathising for Georgia). But when you put all the pieces together you can tell that something isn't right over Russia Todays coverage of the event. I let you work that out ;) Ijanderson (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also if we were to include Kosovo recognition, this would make the article WP:POV, becuase theres basically only Russia who makes a connection between Kosovo and S Oesstia and Abkhazia, so by including Kosovo recognition would make the article Pro-Russia, therefore in violation of WP:NPOV Ijanderson (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo did not declare independence peacefully. It was cut of Serbia by NATO force. The invasion was of much greather scale than that in Georgia, with bombings of Belgrade, civilian objects etc.--Dojarca (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also you're wrong abot that only Russia draws parallels. For example, Greek foreign minister said that they will not recognize neither Kosovo, nor Ossetia and Abkhazia because they respect territorial integrity.--Dojarca (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say so? I checked the Greek Ministry's site and couldn't find anything about Kosovo in that context. Please provide a source. PluniAlmoni (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have one from the Greek MFA [1] - "there is the basic principle of respect for the territorial integrity and independence of states. Based on this principle – which is of long-standing importance to, and is a fundamental constant of, the Greek foreign policy of all Greek governments – Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."--Avala (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should add to the light-blue shade countries that expressed positive views on recognition (new category), like Venezuela? PluniAlmoni (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good idea. I just added that.--Avala (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

@Ijanderson...Abkhazians and Ossetians are ethnic-Russians? Hmmm, guess I missed the memo on that one, because they are NOT ethnic-Russians in the slightest. You also miss out the entire history of this region - Georgia has been independent over the last century for how many years, and how many wars has it started in these regions? Also note that Zviad Gamsakhurdia, an idol of Saakashvili (another being Stalin), pursued a "Georgia for Georgians" policy, which is basically the same type of policy that others accused Serbia of with Kosovo; so nice to see that many here are against Serbian ethnic cleansing, but for Georgian ethnic cleansing; Saakashvili is continuing with these policies, except this time his masters in Washington are legitimising it. As to who started the conflict, there's always this:

In a report to be published in its Monday edition, OSCE military observers in the Caucasus described detailed planning by Georgia to move into South Ossetia which contributed to the crisis, the German magazine said.

The report also backed up Russian claims that the Georgian offensive was already in full swing by the time Russian troops and armored vehicles entered the Roksky Tunnel, on the border with Russia and South Ossetia, to protect its peacekeepers and the civilian population.

The OSCE report also contains suspected war crimes committed by Georgians, who ordered attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians.

Funnily enough, the 'western' media generally isn't reporting this yet. Why's that you think?

Russia had been pushing Georgia to the negotiating table for 17 years, and Georgia responded time after time with conflict, and who can forget Georgia's tacit support for Chechen nationalistic terrorism; and time after time the EU/US/NATO disregarded anything Russia had to say (refer to the Stratfor report for that). Serbia on the other hand had been at the negotiating table for 7 years, and Serbia get's punished. Like Russian officials have said, this is Georgia's punishment. And it is not only Russia who uses the Kosovo parallels, even though Russia has said that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have more right to independence to Kosovo; many countries have used the parallel, and also so has much of the international media. Comparisons with Kosovo are valid, and if not here, will be presented. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The reactions on the comparison of Kosovo to Abkhazia and S. Ossetia are extremely comedic (namely those of Albania and allies of). Perhaps we should add a section on intellectual criticisms of said reactions. Since they are quite prominent online. Anyone oppose or approve?70.171.46.92 (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And in that 17 years Russia supported and funded them both, then it claims that it claims to have been at "negotiating table for 17 years" so it can make out that Russia is in the "good". Russia has said that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have more right to independence to Kosovo, but they don't say what these rights are. Name international media that says this which isn't from Russia? Also this is Georgia's Punishment for the Rose Revolution basically. Ijanderson (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also UN Ban Ki-Moon said you can't compare Kosovo and the Russian Separatists [2] Ijanderson (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The key phrase in my suggestion is "intellectual criticisms of said reactions" with the key word being "intellectual". A media organization does not qualify as intellectual regardless of its national origins. Actually, I may have mis-phrased myself. A less ambiguous term would be "scholarly" - i.e. analysis from doctors. I would not consider the UN Sec. General as fitting the category of "scholars" due to his natural involvement in political/diplomatic affairs that make him a particularly biased source. That is my opinion and I see many opportunities where you could argue points of it. I just wanted to say that there is much talk about political/diplomatic figures making statements but not nearly enough talk about reactions from the scholarly world which are available online. As all of you know, the motivations of politicians/diplomats do skew their credibility in matters of determining what is just, democratic, etc... Now, I think you will understand what I am suggesting concerning the section addition for scholarly analysis. Peace. 70.171.46.92 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to International non-recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Need to change the article title, since clearly the majority do not recognise Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Martintg (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether anyone recognises or not the topic is still the "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia".Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing a similar move for the Kosovo article also, since clearly the majority do not recognise Kosovo? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support a change of "recognition of" to "reaction to the independence of". But let's see what's decided at the Kosovo article and follow their lead. kwami (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Any move to change this article has to have discussion take place on this article talk page so that it can take into account the views of editors of this article. Whilst changes to the Kosovo article can be used as an example of what could take place, any changes to the Kosovo article can not, and should not, be used as the only way of determining what could or should occur on this article. That is the entire point behind WP:CONSENSUS. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's never too late or early to state a meritorious opinion, and mine is that all recognition articles should cogently and simply identify themselves in their titles, always using the simplest commonest name used for the territory in question, and all using the same syntax, making it easier on the reader, who may well seek to read about another case, having read up on the one in his browser. It also makes it unproblematic creating new articles as the need arises.

It would be splitting hairs, how much support one declaration of independence got, over another, and what the vagaries of a given timeline are, and to contemplate the relative accrued reception by the international community at such and such point in time.

In the end, it is all about recognition, in the diplomatic sense, as that confers political privileges and allows citizens to travel unencumbered on the domestically-issued passports. So, I suggest, let's take a global look from a bit of distance, and keep all these articles in the following form: "International recognition of Kosovo|Northern Cyprus|Abkhasia and South Osetia|Somaliland|...". It's insane to let partisan editors rule the roost. --Mareklug ^talk 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Current title is clearly misleading. This should be "International reaction..." or "Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia".Biophys (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're expecting way too much of the title. It's only a statement of topic. Noncommitally. An article titled so could well be documenting the fact of no recognition having taken place, as would be now in the case of Somaliland. :) Titles have a permanent function other than what you seem to be ascribing to them: they identify the issue and set the scope, not evalueate it and give you the conclusion. :) --Mareklug ^talk 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Venezuela ... and Belarus?

The ref (currently #28) that states Venezuela has recognized Abxazia & S.Os. says that Belarus did as well. We either need both in the recognition table with Russia, or both in the declared support table, but the ref cannot be simultaneously right and wrong and still be accepted as reliable. kwami (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither country has officially recognised. Belarus certainly has not. There would definitely be a declaration on the official government website if such were the case. The source is not reliable. The article should be edited at once and Venezuela must be removed from the section of officially recognising states.Kislorod (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Here's how I read the ref:

[Chavez] officially declared Saturday his country's support of Russia ...

[With this,] Venezuela became the second country to officially recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Note: "support" is not recognition.

Belarus is the other one - they declared earlier their support of the decision of the Russian government.

Note: Again, support is not recognition. "Belarus is the other one" means that Belarus was the first country to recognize them, and Venezuela was the second. I can only understand this as meaning that Venezuela was the second country to declare support of Russia, which is what the lede says.

"We support Russia. Russia has all the right to defend their own interest," Chavez said ...'

Note: This quote is the only evidence, and once again we are not dealing with official recognition, but with a statement of support for Russia.

Given that the source is so internally inconsistent, I think we need to consider it unreliable. Much better to get a statement from the govt. of Venezuela. kwami (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't recognize countries as sovereigns with these kind of vague statements. Ergo, this is not the official declaration of independence. As has been said before, "officially declared Saturday his country's support" means he declared that he supports Russia in this matter, which is nothing surprising. Also: "their decision to recognize" is exactly that - a declaration of intention. It is not a recognition itself, and if it is, another source is needed to confirm it. JosipMac (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with this article, and didn't notice this was already discussed above, though no-one removed the statement. Well, it's gone now. kwami (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See this source (http://www.charter97.org/ru/news/2008/8/28/9578/, in Russian) regarding what the Belarusian ambassador said on Thursday. It seems likely that he was actually talking about the message from President Lukashenko that appeared shortly after. And since there has been no statement of recongition yet I suggest moving Belarus to the same group as Venezuela and Tajikistan. DannieVG (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia's influences in recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia

The following sentence should be removed:

The US and European drive to make Kosovo independent from Serbia despite having approved UN resolution 1244 calling for preservation of Serbia’s “territorial integrity” deeply influenced Russian decision to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia

It projects a bias point of view, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the article cited lacks proper sources. This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogout&returnto=Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetiais mere speculation. You cannot say that Russia's decision was influenced by the US and EU unless stated by a Russian official with the authority and authorization to do so. JCP 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian officials have on numerous occasions made references to Kosovo to justify their decision, although whether it "deeply influenced" their decision could be speculation. Kislorod (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed until proper citations are used to confirm authorized Russian officials have expressed this POV. JCP 23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this guy high enough up to count? http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/27/rogozin/index.htm . Dmitri Rogozin, representative of Russia at NATO, "in reply to the calls of NATO Rogozin asked the North Atlantic Alliance to recall and reassess its decision to recognise the independence of Kosovo. Kislorod (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the article offers speculative evidence. It does not explicitly state that the reason for recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia was due to the US and EU recognition of Kosovo. Rather, he simply asks the council to "recall" and "reassess" their decision. JCP 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Оk, I agree that should be removed from the opening section. It seems Kosovo has only been used as a tool for argument and justification of their actions, there is no direct evidence it "deeply influenced" their decision, although I doubt they would have done it if Kosovo hadn't happened. Medvedev - "Every case of recognition is unique. The situation in Kosovo was unique, the situation in South Osetia and Abkhazia is unique" http://unian.net/rus/news/news-269240.html. Kislorod (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind making the edit? My account is less than 10 days old so I can't make changes to protected articles. JCP 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't edit either as I only joined yesterday. Kislorod (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good if someone could fix that, as it, and "a small number of countries have expressed support for the Russian declaration", when max. 2 countries have done so (neither Belarus nor Venezuela has not done so through any legislative act, only by words from the president) convey a false impression support for an essentially unilateral decision. Unlike Kosovo, with much preparation, wide support, Security Council debate, etc., these splinters (and same for Transdnister, etc., or for N Cyprus) were promoted by one nation only, with the issuing of passports to the citizens of another country a clear pretext only (equiv. to China issuing passports to all of Taiwan). 83.250.105.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits to this paragraph still do not reflect a NPOV. They are also copied directly from the article and taken out of context. The article offers no direct link between the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with "Kremlin policy." Furthermore, what analysts? How did those analysts source their findings? If you find an article with an authorized Russian official saying that the EU and US recognition of Kosovo directly influenced the Russian decision to recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia than we can considered adding some text. Could someone please remove these lines? The paragraph should begin with: "On 26 August..." JCP 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that we work on WP:V from reliable sources. If reliable sources state it is such, we can't engage in original research ourselves. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we use reliable sources. Speculation and manipulation of an author's words is not considered verifiable, reliable or neutral. This connection is bias and unsupported. It should be removed as it has no place in an encyclopedia. JCP 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Prominent personalities

I'm not sure I agree with this section, it seems pointless. There is too much speculation. Does 'prominent personalities' include politicians? In that case we should add Viktor Yanukovich, leader of the Ukranian Party of the Regions who supports the independence. Also, there is large support for the recognition in Armenia.

http://www.newsarmenia.ru/arm1/20080829/41937455.html - "sooner or later Armenia will recognise the independence of SO and Abkhazia..." leader of party. http://www.newsarmenia.ru/arm1/20080827/41936232.html "Armenia should recognise..." - political expert

http://www.newsarmenia.ru/arm1/20080829/41937699.html - 5 Аrmenian parties welcome independence... Kislorod (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should. I had already added Yanukovich in the "Ukraine" section, but User:Elysander deleted it thrice with the allegation that he were no government official and without deigning to engage in discussion. Thence I created this section - for non-goevernemntal and represented in the parliament poloticians and for prominent personalities such as Jacques Sapir. Bogorm (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is POV and pointless. Individual reactions by (allegedly) prominent personalities have nothing to do with the concept of diplomatic recognition. I'm removing the section. --Kober^Talk 06:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal is disruptive and is no option. I am awaiting proposals where exactly to pose the reactions? Bogorm (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Section in separate article

Since no response followed by User:Kober, I created a separate article (Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence) where to elucidate the issue and the legitimity from a scientifical view and from the viewpoint of prominent politicians whose parties are represented in parliament, but who are currently not participating in the government. Bogorm (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You might be surprised, but I've also got a real life. So, I cannot always respond to you within minutes. Well, creating a new article might be one solution, but it is currently as much POV as the removed section. Where are opinions expressed by prominent personalities who are unequivocally opposed to Russia's actions in Georgia? --Kober^Talk 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Old web wisdom! "Don't feed a txxxx" ! His existence based on reactions :)) Elysander (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They are waiting for you ;) . Besides, if there is a Controversy over Kosovo article, so will be one for SO too. Would it be appropriate to split the section in three: "pro", "contra", "neutral" (after providing some of the last two types)? I suggest moving to the appropriate talk. Bogorm (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

States that have not recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia

The description of the United States does not reflect a NPOV. The first paragraph is fact; however, the last sentence is far too vague. It should read, "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in reference to Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, said the decision was "regrettable".[63]

The second paragraph also violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The article's use of "moral high ground" is the opinion of the author and not a Russian official. It should be removed and reworded to reflect the NPOV policy.

Finally, the last sentence should be removed. It projects the biased opinion of the author and has no substantive purpose for being in an encyclopedia article. JCP 23:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely - I'm going to strike everything that isn't a direct reaction from the US gov't. Kingnavland (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do it! The article is infiltrated with POV/OR by the "usual suspects". :)) Elysander (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone read WP:NPOV. And the term "moral high ground" is taken directly from the source. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I suggest that we also look at WP:V. We add to articles what reliable sources say. If the source says it attacks the "moral high ground", we add it, because it is verifiable from a reliable source. I don't know where anyone gets the notion that we only add official statements to articles, because that is in itself against the very principles of WP:FIVE. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, the sentences in question have taken the article out of context or have not expressed a NPOV, see WP:NOTOPINION. I also feel that Condoleezza Rice's quotation must be edited. See my recommendation above. The current phrasing offers one to speculate that she believed the US decision was "regrettable." This should be made clear that she was referring to Russia's decision. Lastly, I agree that the neutrality of this article is severely compromised. JCP 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

attention - Sudan fallacy

Sudan's statement about waiting for more developments with respect to Kosovo does not constitute them being explicitly opposed. Their official position is contingent on events which have not yet occurred. Besides, there is no way to know which way they will decide afterwards, after all, Russia is also opposed to Kosovo's independence but in favour of OS and ABK. They could make a U-turn also pending the decision of the ICJ... Unless directly stated, being against Kosovo cannot be interpreted as being against South Osetia and Abkhazia.

By the way, what exactly is happening at the IJC with regards to Kosovo? Kislorod (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it has to be approved by the UN GA and then the ICJ will decide in between few months to few years. And you are wrong about Sudan because they didn't say "We are waiting for ICJ decision" but "The Sudanese diplomat also suggested that his government remains opposed to the independence of Kosovo ... Abdel-Mahmood further said that Sudan’s recognition of the Georgian rebel regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is contingent upon developments on the issue of Kosovo." so if it is tied to Kosovo issue, then they remain opposed to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well.--Avala (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CSTO (ОДКБ) has reacted

Reactions from the General Secretary of the CSTO regarding developments

http://www.newsarmenia.ru/sng1/20080902/41939021.html http://www.newsarmenia.ru/sng1/20080902/41939008.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kislorod (talk • contribs) 09:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Former autonomous areas...

I’m questioning the neutrality of this statement. Abkhazia is de jure an autonomous republic within Georgia. South Ossetia’s autonomy was revoked in 1990 but it is currently considered as being "in negotiation" under the supervision of a special State Commission. --Kober^Talk 09:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your unsourced questioning has lead to a NPOV-marking. As far as I know Georgia has abolished the authonomy of the republics and that means that acocrding to Georgia they are a non-autonomous part of its territory and according to the Russian Federation independent countries - in both cases contesting "former" sounds insensible. Bogorm (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

unsourced questioning sounds great! And the rest of your post shows how far your knowledge really goes. Abkhazia is an autonomous republic per the Constitution of Georgia, and the SO autonomous status is being developed by a special state commission. I'd humbly suggest consulting some sources before delivering lectures on the history and politics of my country. --Kober^Talk 10:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not giving lectures to nobody unlike you. And moreover, I am sure that Vladislav Ardzinba is more knowledgeable in the matter about his former citizens' status than you, so I quote him: "Грузия вернулась к своей Конституции 1921 года, в которой нет автономной Абхазии. Это Конституция унитарного государства" [3]. It would be verily recommendable to include this crucial and intriguing elucidation somewhere in the section about the foreground... Bogorm (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We can avoid the whole issue. Whether they are or were autonomous areas, or whether the recognition of independence was after the invasion by Russia, the shelling by Georgia, or the invention of the sandwich are not relevant for the lede. kwami (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perchance, but I cannot settle for indecent accusations of my knowlege of the history of Eurasia ans especially when they contradict what President Ardzinba has explained. Bogorm (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is high time one ceased to confuse the readers concealing that it was Georgia itself who abolished the authonomy and not just Kokoity or Ardzinba and claiming authonomy is inane. Bogorm (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(To Kober) there is no use in quoting texts in Georgian, since a few users are able to comprehend them. (To all other users) Ardzinba's words are:

"Georgia returned to its constitution of 1921, where there is no place for autonomous Abkhazia".

Ardzinba retired in 2005, so the change should have occurred more than 3 years ago.

(To Kober) your questioning remains unsourced unlike mine explanation and I await some source in Ge, Fr,Ru, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, En, Chinese or Japanese or if in other language - some translation in one of these. Bogorm (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The links I provided are in English. And Ardzinba's interpretation of Georgia's constituion is irrelevant. Go and read the relevant clauses in the constituion. --Kober^Talk 11:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I need some clarification. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto independent areas within Georgia. Is that valid? JCP 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

contesting "several"

According to Wiktionary several means "more than two" (German: einige, French quelques), and to my Penguin dictionary too. If someone is incapable of counting to two, that can turn out to be a big problem. "a few" is a blatant POV, since it suggests that the countries are not enough - "wenige" in German, French peu and is therefore inacceptable. Bogorm (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, "a few" does not mean "few". ("Quite a few", for example, means "many".) It is exactly right for this situation. A dictionary isn't going to help you much with the connotations of a word. It's also context dependent, depending on what one might expect in a situation. "Several drinks" might mean three, but "several mosquito bites" would probably be more. In the case of countries expressing support in international relations, "several" suggests a larger number than three. kwami (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Only a few" would be POV but not few or a few. And "support" in this case means often only rhetoric support. But one user likes fully employed before his pc. :)) Elysander (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The OED has: "As a vague numeral: Of an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three; more than two or three but not very many." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs)

I have reworded the sentence "but other countries have expressed neutral views and a few of them supported the Russian declaration". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This does not help - while there is the POV expression a few (please do not swerve in explaining what quite a few is, if someone writes it, I would settle for it), the NPOV tag is bound to persist. Bogorm (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How about mentioning the countries in the sentence which supported Russia? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is no option - the number is not constant, especially since there is being held a summit of CSTO on 5 Sep, where several others are expected to follow. Wherefore are so many persons timid and tentative about this word several - it cannot be considered neither insulting nor favouring...! Bogorm (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Once we have several countries supporting Russia, then of course we should change the wording. But meanwhile only a few do so, despite the fact that Russia has called on other countries to recognize, and our wording needs to reflect present reality, not something which may or may not happen in the future. Russia at least is clearly disappointed that more countries haven't signed up, so why should we try to whitewash it? kwami (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

if you want >3, here they are: Belorussia, Iran, Venezuela and Tajikistan (and Cuba, but someone deleted it because its statement was from 10 Aug - anyway their support is incontestable). Bogorm (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

other entities

What happened to the sections about 'other entities'? It is important and should not be removed, considering many of these other entities are in the same boat and their fates are contingent on this... Kislorod (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

not really.--Jakezing (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The author of the disruptive and impertinent edit is this one and on his talk page he has multiple warnings against harassment of users. I restored the section and now he gets one more warning against vandalism. Bogorm (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really important. It is not an encyclopedia's place to speculate the fate of "similar" countries. JCP 14:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

Update: Chavez called Russia a strategic ally

Chavez called Russia a strategic ally and threatened to expel the US ambassador. According to him, the United States want to depict Moscow as an aggressor in the Caucasus, though actions of Russia were very legal and Venezuela would have acted the same way under such circumstances. The United States «surround Russia, but it has risen and again spoke about itself as a superpower, giving a clear notice that hegemony of yankees came to an end! Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the source for the information? If provided, they should be included, but in my opinion in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. Bogorm (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the comment by Hugo Chavez has relevance in the Venezuela section in this article. The information regarding US ambassador is irrelevant though. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be forsooth undeniably appertaining to this article, provided that the "actions ... very legal" concern the recognition of the independence (it is recommendable to mention the source as well). Bogorm (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New name of the article

As pro-Kremlin editors have now included a subsection called "States that have declared support for Russia", the name of the article should be changed to "International reaction to Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", or the subsection in question has to go. I'd sugest that the name of the article be changed as most countries which are against Russia's decision have never considered recognition anyway. -Hapsala (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with "States that have declared support for Russia". The section is relevant and appropriate. Also if you label someone as "pro-Kremlin editor", this accusation can also be directed towards you - "anti-Kremlin editor". Accusations and counter-accusations are not helpful, stick to the topic rather than making comment on editors. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And your finger-waggering is not very helpful either... First, the editors in question lable themselves as Pro-Russia, Pro-Putin etc (I don't lable myself paricularly "Anti-Kremlin") Second, if you have "no problem" with this subsection, you may also know why Belarus and Tadjikistan were removed from the section called "States that have not recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia" when the new section was created? --Hapsala (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The title reflects a somewhat NPOV. I do believe that "of" should be changed to "for." There is no question that the neutrality of this article is compromised. I will be making comments to the sections below. JCP 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the only sensible retort to this provocative proposition is an indomitable rebuff for a straightforward and simple reason - ОДКБ organisation is holding a summit on 5 Sep where it is expected to accept the two countries, that means that all its members (6 beside the Russian Federation) would be bound to recognise them. Therefore the proposition is unacceptable. A justified castigation of derogatory comments towards editors as committed by Hapsala is to be found here (and pondered about a bit) - "pro-Kremlin editors". Bogorm (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The "justified castigation" towards me is almost word-by-word identical with that of Otolemur crassicaudatus above... :D --Hapsala (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The new subsection is classic Original Research. This section introduced by certain users ( as similar constructed sections before) is the consequence that til this date only Russia did recognise SO & Ab. (Now we have to wait til a CSTO summit :)) ). Therefore this subsection should be deleted because OR. The title is only a bad joke ! Elysander (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just comment here rather than making a section. I agree. International reaction should not reflect a bias and thus should not separate reaction to the events. There should be no subsections, it should just list all countries in the table. "Other entities" should be removed. Having the opinions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is not an "international reaction." JCP 15:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

I am abstaining from commenting on the subsection, but moving the article is inadmissible, it behoves all circumspect and prudent editors to respect the summit of the ОДКБ and thereafter to cogitate, reason and muse upon this matter. Bogorm (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Russians are starving for "respect", but I agree with Carl Bildt who said you only deserve respect based on your credentials, and the Russians are clearly walking downhill with its current leadership. 213.50.111.114 (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain what you meant by this statement. It is not our position to show subjective feelings towards an entity or organization. We are here to write objective facts. That said, claiming that sovereign countries will do X, Y and Z on a specific date is speculative at best. Until it is possible to actually cite each countries recognition, it should not be included as it is facetious. JCP 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

While I would not deny that these cases draw many parallels to the case of the independence of Kosovo, and can be sourced as such, I do not think it is necessary to place such a large emphasis on it on the WP:LEAD. Having such information in a prominent position in the article runs the risk of violating WP:UNDUE and also WP:NPOV. (I know that if I said whose POV I thought was being pushed I would trigger another shitstorm, so I'll avoid that) I believe that most or all of the paragraph in the lead about Kosovo be either moved to a separate section or deleted. Random89 16:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? On the contrary, I think its relevance is not stressed enough in the article as a whole.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel it should be stressed more? This article is about international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. What it is not, is an article discussing the speculative links between Kosovo's independence and Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Nor is it an article that should speculate such a link (i.e., that Russian foreign policy is shaped by the US and EU in regards to this issue). JCP 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

I am going to have to agree with the last statement it seems as a link between to two events is

trying to be established. Regardless if there is or is not shouldn't be in deliberation, Kosovo situations has little to do with Abkazia and SO. -XChile- —Preceding unsigned comment added by XChile (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if sources establishing the link were presented? It wouldn't be that hard for me to find at least a hundred from a very simply google news search. Remember, we don't go by what editors think, but what reliable sources say. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Eupator because by juxtaposing the two events a great deal of striking smilarities becomes evident for the impartial person. Bogorm (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we try to maintain a NPOV. We don't fabricate links between two unrelated issues. Remember, this article is about international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- not similarities with Kosovo. JCP 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources report a link between the two, which they have, then it is able to be used on this article. When much of the world press and most analysts have commented on the link, then to argue against inclusion of said link in prose in this article is to obfuscate what the general feeling is in regards to reliable sources, and hence POV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Is this necessary anymore? JCP 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether your intention for neutralising the article is an euphemism for imposing some bias. There is nothing to neutralise, since the article is predominantly based on sheer source recounting Bogorm (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made my case in this article. My intentions are merely to include an objective voice whilst maintaining the structural integrity of the contributing authors. Having this article protected, which doesn't meet the requirements for semi-protection, merely hinders the collaborative atmosphere. I mean, look at the history, there are about 5 people who regularly talk about this article and make changes. JCP 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How long does it take to be eligible to edit a semi-protected article. I have lots of information which I would like to contribute...Kislorod (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See, Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users JCP 22:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the wording in the introduction (pro-Russian)

I believe that the current introductory paragraph to the article is strongly biased toward appraising Moscow's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "provoked an outcry in the West ...but other countries have expressed neutral views" - citation needed, at least. This is an overstatement. "Despite having approved United Nations resolution 1244 calling for preservation of Serbia’s "territorial integrity", the United States of America and most of the European Union nations ignored the resolution as well as Russia's warnings[2] in their drive to make Kosovo independent from Serbia. " - this is a statement that is evaluating the decisions made by USA and EU, not just providing information. Mentioning "Russia's warnings" discloses a presupposition that USA and EU made a mistake by recognizing Kosovo. Also, "in their drive to make Kosovo..." - 'in their drive' is not neutral language. "This deeply influenced Russian decision to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia" - 'deeply influenced' looks like an excuse for Russia's actions. Of course, the recognition of Kosovo influenced Russia decision to recognize A. and S.O. - "influenced" in the sense of providing a favorable situation to act, not necessarily a moral justification, as it seems to be assumed in the current wording. Also, the introductory paragraph mentions specifically the support of Belarus, Venezuela and Iran, but it does not list any single country that objected to the decision made in Moscow. Just list USA, UK, France and Germany in the introduction - it would already make a difference. Commentor (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot tell anything about the later sentences, but regarding the sentence "provoked an outcry in the West ...but other countries have expressed neutral views", it is an elementary fact that many nations expressed neutral view. You do not need a reference for the statement water is colorless. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then this statement is not informative (that many nations expressed neutral views), unless extended by something like "including such-and-such important and influential countries". Alternatively, "...but many nations in Asia (South America, Africa, whatever - insert what's correct and contrasts with "the West") have expressed neutral views. The sole fact that there are many nations with neutral views on this subject is indeed clear by default. Commentor (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

to ameliorate the issue of stating "west" blindly, it is apt to replace the word with "many NATO nations"..that will leave that sentence balanced and with representation of nato nations in lead brsides removing ambiguity since cuba and venezuela are also in the west..Cityvalyu (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Water is an observable fact. Anyways, the article is very far from being neutral. Why is this semi-protected? It shouldn't be. JCP 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

The article is naturally strongly biased towards a certain side. You only need to check article's history and to ask who did insert certain parts. You will always find the same "authors". Be cool! Some articles lose their POV content sooner or later.  :))Elysander (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I still have 8 days until I can begin neutralizing this article... Unless it is unprotected. JCP 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(To Elysander) Especially after you deleted thrice Viktor Yanukovich's inconvenient for some POV-imposing users statements and regularly prefer to erase other editors's sourced contributions to participating in discussions. Bogorm (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You should sleep a little bit. :)) Check history! As usual desinformation! I did delete your ridiculous inserting of Ukrainian oppostion leader in the state list. I'm not interested at radicals of the left or right (Gysi or Le Pen). You are trolling again. Elysander (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad luck for you [[4]] :)) Elysander (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ceased determining whether the insertion of the opinion of the leader of the greatest party in Verkhovna Rada is ridiculous or not, otherwise you would very soon indulge in Argumenta ad homina and I shall feel obliged to use this template for disruptive expressions! And refrain from intrusively proclaiming your own personal opinions about who is "radical" and who not - I do not comment whom I consider liberast and whom not and neither am I going to, since Wikipedia is not a forum, struggle to comprehend that finally!Bogorm (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your considering further pugnaciously and reticently imposing of disruptive deletions of sourced information without deigning to partake in discussions "bad luck" for its author is exceedingly deplorable, perilous and disquieting. Bogorm (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Sleep well! EOD  ;) Elysander (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Despite having approved United Nations resolution 1244 calling for preservation of Serbia’s "territorial integrity", the United States of America and most of the European Union nations ignored the resolution as well as Russia's warnings"

Why is this mentioned in the opening paragraph, this is really pro Russian ant anti western. It should be removed. Ijanderson (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make this point (see above sections) but no one is listening. I agree, this article -- being an article about international recognition -- does not require an analysis of Russia's viewpoint in the lead. However, I don't object to putting something similar to this under Russia's section in "International Response." I would point out though that the author who inserted that literally copied the source article. It should be reworded and neutralized. JCP 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you tried, but after User:Russavia expounded that the sentences were in concordance with the sources and ergo (my ratiocination) did not invent nothing new, simply deleting it would be unacceptable. Bogorm (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to? JCP 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

Section titles.

Let's step back for a bit and put on our thinking caps. The subheading titles within this article are horrendous. There must be a more eloquent way in which we can express the international views of each respective country. I move that we have the following: Lead, History (although, this section is significantly lacking in content and citations), International Responses, References, See Also. Under "International Response" we can list each country that has expressed a particular view. We could do that in a table or use bullets. Thoughts? JCP 20:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What about leaders of Parliamentary but non-governmental parties? I aspire after returning Yanukovich'a, Gregor Gysi's and Jean Marie Le Pen's stances here (they are currently here), but this user hampered it once Bogorm (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you. The main tenant of my argument on this article is that it is about "International Recognition." To that end, governments and non-governmental organizations are applicable, as are major international figures. In regards to parliamentary leaders of non-governmental parties, that should be as follows: International Reaction --> Country --> Snippet. If we drill down the article as such, it will make much more sense. As for "entities" (as portrayed in this article), that is a unique issue and should be separate from "International Reaction," I think. JCP 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We can also have a section called "controversy" and put that in the subheadings. We can abbreviate it into a few short paragraphs and then include the article cited by Bogorm as the main source. JCP 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the separate section for Belarus? The the declaration of recognition promised "within a day or two" didn't materialize. Also, we have no such statement from Minsk itself. Since ambassadors frequently say things their governments never follow up on, I personally think we should stick with official government statements. ("Belarus declared" isn't the same thing as "The Belorussian ambassador declared".) And anyway, the ambassador's statements are clear support for the Russian decision, so they are appropriate for that category as well. kwami (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kwami, are you able to edit the page? I believe that the following is a proper way to structure the article: User:Jamescp/structure. JCP 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Belarus ambassador has stated on the record that Belarus will recognise the independence. We can not engage in original research and say that because the recognition has not yet occurred that it's not coming. Ambassadors are either able to speak on behalf of their government (as Rogozin has for Russia), or are instructed by their home ministry/government what they can or can't say. Since the ambassador is the representative of Lukashenko to Medvedev, and as nothing has come out denying any such reports, then we can't engage in WP:OR and have to leave it as an on the record stance that Belarus will recognise. The declaration that they will recognise the independence of A and SO is a step above merely declaring support for Russia's stance, hence why they need to be separated, as they are two different concepts. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not against leaving that in there. I am trying to figure out a new structure because the current one doesn't work. That's what this section was for. If you go to my user page, located here: User:Jamescp/structure, you can see what I am proposing. Do you have any opinions on tweaking that? JCP 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to article

Ok, so, we're ready to unprotect the page if and only if everybody understands the one ground rule; get consensus before you make any disputed statements. If somebody changes your edit, discuss it with them; do not edit war. Please follow this guideline so that we can get some productive editing done. If people start warring over the page again, you'll be blocked and the page protected again. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, please unprotect. Or just add the comments by CSTO secretary to the international organisations section. See talk section above. Kislorod (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the link and add appropriate material. If anything in particular you wanted added, add it below. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are relevant comments regarding the recognition from Secretary General of the CSTO. http://www.newsarmenia.ru/sng1/20080902/41939021.html http://www.newsarmenia.ru/sng1/20080902/41939008.html Kislorod (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, added here. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I'll be watching this article as well. If we start having problems with disruption/edit wars, I will be blocking those that are warring for 24 hours as a cool off period. Edit warring is a form of disruption and is not acceptable. Please remember WP:3RR is an upper limit, not a right and I'm quite willing to block if I see a protracted series of reverts. I tend to lean to blocking those that cause the disruption (edit warring) rather then protecting the article, as its disruptive to prevent everyone else from being able to improve the page. Please limit yourselves to WP:1RR if possible, anything over that may be viewed as disruption. —— nixeagle 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia hopes for 10-11 countries recognition

This RIA Novosti article mentions:

Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh told journalists Tuesday that he hoped the republic would be recognized by another 10-11 states.

It would appear that he is counting on recognition by Belarus, Venezuela, Iran, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Kakakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and perhaps North Korea? Anyone got anything else on this? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Syria and Cuba also could recognise. I wonder if any other Sth American countries would be candidates. Perhaps Ecuador or Nicaragua? I saw some information here , Putin's reaction to the non-recognition by other states Kislorod (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Abhkazian people live in Turkey(almost %75 off all) what about Turkish governments? Donating Georgia with missiles chemical weapons and even 2 battleships. No Turkey cant recognize unless its masters in the west lets so. Hope russia will stop gas and oil flow to Turkey.quirinus

Neutralization

This article is becoming increasingly more bias. Let me remind you, this is an article whose sole purpose is to express the viewpoint of various countries on the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. What it is not is an article expressing a single predominant viewpoint or motive for recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

As such, we must examine the content throughout the article. Many sentences or quotes are redundant or placed in irrelevant and irresponsible locations. For instance, the lead should only contain the following: (1) a brief description of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (2) a brief description on Russia's recognition towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia (as it is the reason that prompted international response). It does not require a description of the war or the reasons Russia recognized them. You should point to the 2008 South Ossetia War to offer readers more material on this matter. Furthermore, it does not require a tally of the countries that do and do not recognized them. (At least, not in the lead).

With that said, some may object and I understand. Russia's reason for recognizing these two regions independence is important. Yet, it is not something that belongs in the lead. It belongs in the "International response" section under Russian perspectives. Let's put personal bias aside and try to make this a decent, neutral article. JCP 03:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well considering that Russia is the only state to have recognized the two states so far (and considering that this very article was in large part caused by their recognition), it probably makes sense to include the Russian reasons (or justification) for recognizing the two territories in the introduction. However, I agree that in its current form the lead is not acceptable. More than half of the entire introduction discusses the case of Kosovo and how that influenced Russia. TSO1D (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair. I am unable to edit because my account is less than 10 days old but I have written a lead in my sandbox. If you find no objections and feel it better suits the purpose of this article, please add it. I have respected the flow and integrity of sources offered by contributing authors. I did remove irrelevant linkages and discussion over Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. You may also note that I have offered links, which can be said to support all opinions in an effort to provide neutral material to all readers. The article can be found here: User:Jamescp/sandbox JCP 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I've created a map that shows only the countries that recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia (in the same vein as the Kosovo map. In making the map I've assumed that other countries will recognize both areas. The map is here. Hope this helps moves things along. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Iran

If Iran supports Russia, as we say in the lede, why doesn't it appear in the list of countries that support Russia, and as azure on the map? kwami (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"all countries from outside the region not to interfere and countries in the region to resolve these issues" - doesn't sound very supportive. It's neutral and is therefore coloured as it is.--Avala (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

get rid of grey or orange?

I think we ought to get rid of one of either the grey or orange colour on the map, as they're the same. There is absolutely no difference between states that "have delayed or have expressed neutrality on recognition" and one which "have expressed concern оr wish for further negotiations". I mean the only difference is the 'concerned' bit, but no country on earth is going to publicly say it is not concerned about the situation. Kislorod (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

i totaly agrea. To find the diference berween thos two colors is not possible in all statment. Also this side will be more neutral if fewer color. Take away th ORANGE! The grey is here the right neutral color for countries who have made statment but not cleare positiv or negativ to recognisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveibo (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

legality

I translated the following section from Spanish Wikipedia. I did it rapidly so you might want to check the translation and veracity. It would be interesting if someone added the opposite side of the legal argument also.

Russia argued that its decision to recognise Abkhazia and South Osetia is based on the regulations of the United Nations Charter, the 1970 declaration on the principles of international rights relating to friendly relations between states, the Helsinki Accords and other international documents.

Some experts have taken into consideration the history of the dissolution of the Soviet Union which has led them to the conclusion that the independence of Abkhazia and South Osetia is entirely correct from a legal point of view. As a legal base they cite the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Both Abkhazia and South Osetia were autonomous inside of the Georgian SSR and had no right to declare their own independence from Georgia unless Georgia itself decided to abandon the Soviet Union. In that case the autonomous regions would have the right to decide their own statuses. When Georgia declared independence both regions decided to remain in the Soviet Union and therefore remained under Soviet jurisdiction. These arguments were also used by Russian officials in the UN Security Council.

Kislorod (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

POV problems in the lead

With User:Cityvalyu's vigorous attempts at owning the article, the introduction has again become patently POV. Almost the entire section is now occupied by Medvedev's quote and the discussion of an alleged "Kosovo precedent." Cityvalyu has eliminated the passage on the West's reaction and removed a NPOV tag.--Kober^Talk 12:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggrst - to erase all sourced statements by President Medvedev as this user did so that people could read only about Saakashvili? Deletion of reliable sources is impertinent, impudent, insupportable, perilous, distorting and POV vandalism Bogorm (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly how would NATO-adherents react, if someone commences a purge of all Bush or Blair statements as has this inhabitant of Albion launched his assault on President Medvedev (I promise thereby that that shall not be me, since I do not conceive my activity here as a means to impose one-sided views and to disrupt and dishonour other editor's efforts in discovering and recapitulating reliable sources!) ? Bogorm (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an impression that you don't quite understand what you are talking about. Please don't put words into my mouth and adopt more civil tone. And I've not deleted anything, btw. I'm protesting Cityvalyu's deletion of reliable sources as an act of impertinent, impudent, insupportable, perilous, distorting and POV vandalism.--Kober^Talk 13:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not put abything - this symbol: "?" means question, no assertion. No, I shall not agree with you regarding Cityvalyu's justified edits, because using UN declarations with no clear approbation for the Georgian claims is ineffably perfidious. In case that the author elucidates where in the document there are claims of the regions appertaining to this country, I would of course retract my fervent indignation. Bogorm (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you also agree with Cityvalyu's removal of sourced information regarding the West's criticism of Medvedev's move?--Kober^Talk 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Which edit do you mean? Bogorm (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kober, what is going on? Why are you reverting the direct connection between SO/Abkhazia and Kosovo. It's not a POV. It's the position of Russia. If you consider it as POV, then we should delete all the content. Taamu (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the statement to the section "Russia" with an additional column, although I firmly believe that it appertains to the introduction. Are there any (founded / valable(fr, I had previously written valuable, I hoped the English meaning is the same, but helas)) objections? Bogorm (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that these data should be in the intro. Taamu (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Taamu, the notion of NPOV implies that all sides should be equally represented. If you insist on keeping Russia’s position on the so-called Kosove precedent then you (and your allies) should also allow the opposing POV – which rejects any parallels between the Ab/SO and Kos cases – to be present. If you read my previous post you would have noticed that Cityvalyu eliminated the entire passage dealing with the Western disapproval of Russia’s move. The lead, as it is now, shows only a Russian position and its alleged legal basis. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what the current version aims at.--Kober^Talk 14:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kober, you are talking as if I'm a Russian official. First of all we have to provide consistent information concerning the issue. But if you remove it the info will be fragmentary. Is it right? No. You are always welcome to add the position of Georgia. That's exactly what you do. Do I mind? No. Taamu (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming unprotection

I just want to let everyone know that the semi-protection on this article will be expiring in approx 22 hours after this post. Please refer yourselves to what I have said in Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Changes_to_article. Thank you. —— nixeagle 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Slander

Adding that quote by Hugo Chávez is slander. His racists remarks have no validity in a encyclopedia article. Certainly you can find a quote where Hugo Chávez isn't making racist and unfounded remarks against US in expressing its support for Russia's decision. This should be removed immediately. JCP 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I also added the quote by French President Nicolas Sarkozy where he described Russia's action as "disproportionate". If Chávez quote is slander, then Sarkozy's quote is also slander. Lets keep "slander" from both sides. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Or let's just not include slander? The difference between Sarkozy's quote and Hugo Chávez's quote is that 90% of Chávez's quote is directed at the United States. If you can find a remark by Chávez where he only speaks about Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia than that is fine; however, the current quote is derogatory and I find it extremely offensive. JCP 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The main criticism of Russia comes from the US and the US is the primary player in the opposite side. Chávez's comment is on Russia's action while he is also responding to the criticism of Russia by the US. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Otolemur crassicaudatus. Please refrain from defamations of President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. This talk page's destination is not utterung own opinions on Presidents' statements, and the article's is to recapitulate them based on sourced material! Bogorm (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced accusations of derogations are defamations themselves. Cease cogitating and musing about Chávez' statement, let's just mention it! Bogorm (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Main criticism is coming from the international realm -- not just the US. It is from many of the members of NATO. This is besides the point. The comments made by Chávez are racist and demeaning. They should be removed on this basis alone. You don't see other quotes up there using derogatory terminology directed at countries, do you? And how is this unsourced? He makes derogatory remarkes in that quote. Period. I will report this if it is not removed. JCP 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How his comment is "racist"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee#In_other_English-speaking_countries. Remove it immediately. JCP 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are saying derogatory terminology. Carl Bildt's comparison of Russians with Nazis is not slander? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't distort these two. He made a comparison (however unfounded) whereas Chavez uses derogatory words. I would not object to the following quote, however: "The United States want to depict Moscow as an aggressor in the Caucasus, though actions of Russia were very legal and Venezuela would have acted the same way under such circumstances." JCP 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jamescp. Bildt made a comparison between the two imperial powers while Chavez, pursuant to his tradition, resorted to ethnic slurs.--Kober^Talk 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he just elucidates the third imperial power. There is no need of extolling it and misrepresenting the article in favour of its administration by erasing every inconvenient comment by any however prominent personality which reprehends it. Bogorm (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So it's OK for Swedes to call Russians Nazis, but its not ok for Venezuelans to call Americans Yankees? There's them old double standards again. Anyway, all quotes as they are in that section (Sarkozy, Putin, Chavez) should go, they are already present elsewhere. How about this quote....

A decision needs to be taken based on the situation on the ground. Considering the freely expressed will of the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples and being guided by the provisions of the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration on the Principles of International Law Governing Friendly Relations Between States, the CSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other fundamental international instruments, I signed Decrees on the recognition by the Russian Federation of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence.

Russia calls on other states to follow its example. This is not an easy choice to make, but it represents the only possibility to save human lives.

Much more appropriate given it is Medvedev's (he is the President after all) statement on why independence was recognised. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please follow indentations. The quote regarding Nazi Germany and Russia is a comparison -- not a derogatory remark. I don't object to its removal but others may be vocal on that point. The quote by Chavez, however, is not a comparison. It uses derogatory phrases against the United States. It should be removed or shorted as I have shown above. Please respect this, there is no way to refute this claim. "Yankee," as used here, is derogatory. JCP 18:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Russians to Nazis is very offensive if one knows anything about history. Over 20 million Soviet people died fighting against Nazism. Meanwhile the Swedes were cowardly appeasers. The King of Sweden was even a personal friend of Hitler. Carl Bildt should be ashamed of making such a ridiculous and offensive statement. --Tocino 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Under Stalin died more inhabitants of SU. Shall we compare Putin and Stalin, Hitler and Stalin, Putin and Stalin or ....? ;) . Did Sweden sign a treaty with NS-Germany to divide Eastern Middle Europe & Eastern Europe? Elysander (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that comparing Nazi Germany to modern-day Russia was an improper comment. If you wish to refute this and have it removed, I suggest starting a new section. The point of this section is that Chavez's comments are derogatory and do not belong in an encyclopedia article. I do not have the ability to edit this article yet so can someone please remove it? JCP 18:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, WP is not WP:CENSORED, and if reliable sources report it, then it is valid for inclusion based upon WP:CONSENSUS. The rest, as per Tocino. But anyway, all quotes are removed, so it's all moot. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You cannot claim WP:CONSENSUS because a consensus was not reached. You've merely moved the quote into Venezuela's section. I am contesting the sentence that includes a derogatory word used against citizens of the United States of America. That sentence has no relevancy in this article. The sentence before it, however, expresses his reasons for backing Russia. The other does not. If you remove that sentence, it will maintain its integrity and value but will not include the derogatory terminology. JCP 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't moved anything --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not propose censorship here. Chavez said what he said, his words are recorded and quoted here for everyone to read and judge.--Avala (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia just throw in random and irrelevant quotations? The first half of his quote is direct at the issue. The second half is directed at Chavez's notion that Russia is rising and the United States is falling. This is not something relevant to this article and, as I have stated, it uses derogatory terminology. If you remove the second half, the integrity of the quote is still valid. JCP 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with this article, if one is into scholarly analysis, and various outlets are not dumb to this fact. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me start over. Here is the quote: "the United States want to depict Moscow as an aggressor in the Caucasus, though actions of Russia were very legal and Venezuela would have acted the same way under such circumstances. The United States surround Russia, but it has risen and again spoke about itself as a superpower, giving a clear notice that hegemony of yankees came to an end!" The first half of this quote depicts Chavez's views towards Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The second half, however, has no relevancy to this article (this article is about international reactions towards Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Chavez's words merely are discussing his views of the power relations between the US and Russia, which, as I've said, does not relate to this article in any way. JCP 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

El Loco stays El Loco. Only one little link in a long chain of more riduculous than serious remarks. Chavez' activities are discrediting not only himself but always the side he likes to support. But i'm doubting the relevance in an article about Recognition ... . Bildt points to the country who did recognise and compared one certain historic situation with another. Chavez' words belong to an article " Crazy & Funny Remarks of Hugo Chavez called El Loco ".  :)) Elysander (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Change map

Now that more than one country has recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I think it makes sense to change the map. Currently the map is a great source for initial reactions to their declarations of independence, but it's a little biased for countries that are on the fence (like Sudan) but are painted red. Also, many countries might possibly shift their views with time and recoloring every time this happens would be a waste of time, especially since we have five colors we're using.

Instead, I suggest we follow the way of recognition of Kosovo - it's a completely analogous situation and we should have a map like that wiki site does - coloring in only those states that recognize the new country, though we should still list initial reactions to the news from other states. We can even organize those reactions into the current categories because the INITIAL reactions will never change, though recognition might.

If there are no objections, I'll do this in the near future.Yarilo2 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)