Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.121.155.196 (talk) at 17:13, 27 August 2008 (→‎British English). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Recognition

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

It's a fair assumption that they do recognise each other, but it's not a guaranteed certainty. Yes, a reference should be provided for this, and for all other facts on the page.
If the Kosovo situation is anything to go by, this is going to become a contentious article. Best to be above board and declare everything, however seemingly obvious. Bazonka (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone has fixed it. Taamu (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Austria

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

WP:OR

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

Individual reactions

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

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

New title

International recognition to Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence

What's that supposed to mean? --KoberTalk 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it was intended to be a paralel of International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence but there the word is reaction, not recognition. In any case, the title will have to be polished. But for the time being, leave it like that. --Tone 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a really misleading title. Both territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are currently occupied by Russian military forces. That is how they "independent". This should be "International reaction..." or "Russian recognition".Biophys (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts: "International reaction to..." mirrors the Kosovo article, and as such gets my vote. "Russian recognition of..." has too narrow a scope. "International recognition to..." is poor grammar, and so should not be used. "International recognition of..." is OK. Bazonka (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There clearly is no international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence. Quite to the contrary, every nation besides Russia and Belarus has promised to not recognize Abhakazia and South Ossetia independence. Until and unless there is significant recognition, this article should be renamed "International reaction to..." DOSGuy (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh

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

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

Belarus

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

Belarus has non-partisan parliament so yes it can be.--Avala (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "non-partisan parliament"? --KoberTalk 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means that none of the MPs are representing any political party. Most of the elected members in the upper house come from civil society organizations, labour collectives and public associations in their jurisdiction. And in the lower house 98/110 are independent. --Avala (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless how the composition of the Belarussian parliament is determined, the opinions of several MP do not justify putting Belarus into the section "States that have declared intent to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia". Gugganij (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus hasn't declared its position so far. Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refrains from commenting upon this issue despite Russian ambassador's insistent demands. You shouldn't be misled by individual opinions of MPs who have very little influence in Belarus. DannieVG (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the entire section as a couple of MPs does not equal declaration of intent stated clearly by either President or Foreign Affairs of Belarus that indepedence will be recognised. It is quite possible that Belarus could, but until such time as official intent is declared; not the opinion of some MPs, the section should stay removed. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dude no one speaks British English but the British themselves. Kostan1 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Erm, actually Canadians speak Canadian English which is half-way between the two. Bazonka (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Canadians spell recognize and organization with z's. --Tocino 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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

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

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm a Canadian. I went to community college and university in Canada. I am extremely offended by people who say that Canadian English does not exist, when I can tell in one conversation if someone phoning into my call centre (<notice my spelling) job are from Canada or the USA. We have our own spelling and vocabulary. In university I was taught that the proper spelling is -ise, and this is used is some official and some private canadian publications. Saying that Canadians speak American English is not only against the facts presented by Wikipedia itself (this issue was resolved a long time ago), but can only be said by someone in Canada who is either uneducated, or lives in the American embassy.209.121.155.196 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

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

OK I made a nicer more detailed map which should be used for the time being until and if there are more recognitions. Then we should switch to Kosovo or Taiwan like map.--Avala (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the old map better. There is too much grey area in this new map. For example, while most of the countries listed have reacted negatively, not many of them have explicitly said that they will not recognize, yet they are all colored in as red countries that said they won't recognize. Like Serbia for instance. They said nothing about Abkhazia or South Ossetia, just that they don't like unilateral moves, yet they are colored in as red. --Tocino 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If serbia recognizes the break-aways, then they are hypocrites.--Jakezing (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All western countries (USA and its minnows) are therefore hypocrites. 99.234.28.230 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are.70.72.160.143 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

You are totally wrong. Please read the article about De facto. --Tocino 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transnistria is as good as gone for Moldova despite no recognition. It is de facto independent Ijanderson (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the term de facto may be used for Transnistria, it is more honest and more accurate to refer to it as a region striving for more independence. I know Tocino is a pro-Russian POV and won't care about such accuracy, but if Transnistria is to be viewed as a de facto state, should we view Chechnya as the same if separatists there oust Russia in a year or two? A state should have a modicum of international recognition before it is listed as a state. Otherwise, we may as well list Sealand under 'other states.' 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if separatists oust Russia sometime from Chechnya it'll be de facto independent. In fact it was de facto independent in 1996-2000. Please look in the article about Transnistria for the references confirming its de facto independence. Alæxis¿question? 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't my point so much as that it should not be listed as 'other states.' Well that and that Tocino would probably support a double standard. The term 'other state' should be reserved for countries like the Vatican City, which is not in the UN, and a few semi-recognized countries like the Republic of China (Taiwan), Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and Kosovo. It is not reasonable to group these countries with Transnistria, which enjoys absolutely no recognition, save from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transnistria's inclusion (next to Russia) only adds to the confusion and embarrasment of Russia's decision. --Hapsala (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PO Pusher

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

tell me about it Ijanderson (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No it doesn't, 191 sovereign UN nations recognise them as Georgian territories, so does the UN, EU, NATO and all international oraganisations. Showing them as separate is gross violation of NPOV. Also Georgia claims them as part of their territory which is de jure true. Ijanderson (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming 191 states are better than 3 states which is a gross violation of NPOV. --Tocino 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iberieli, personal insults to Tocino are not helpful and are violation of WP rules. And Tocino even the Russian state TV admitted today that there is a long road to full fledged independence which is reached only once these regions get recognized by the UN. It's a simple thing that law is above power which keeps world powers from bullying the whole world (at least legally as they do it anyway).--Avala (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully here. Alæxis¿question? 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iberieli did not personally insult Tocino. Ijanderson (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was Tocino who resorted to personal attacks in a highly inflammatory edit summary.--KoberTalk 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iberieli called me a "POV pusher", while I simply called him a "Georgian". I'll let everyone else decide which is the insult here. --Tocino 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes I agree here. "Georgian" is not an insult of any kind.--Avala (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell is Belarus light blue on the map? The reaction of several members of their parliament doesn't conut as a formal intent. They are not entitled to speak on behalf of Belarus. Colchicum (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue above - to no avail, however. --KoberTalk 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tocino, the sad fact is, you ARE a POV pusher. The Kosovo page alone shows this.--Jakezing (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV pusher is not an insult when it is true in fact, than it's only a factual statement. Hobartimus (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declarations

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

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

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

If that happens we will but at the moment it doesn't seem probable that one will get recognition and the other one will not.--Avala (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I wish we had International recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on Wikipedia :) Colchicum (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to start an article on TRNC but then I realized that the topic is already covered in another article, thus a redirect. Just for consistency. --Tone 14:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I hate the double standarts of the west, what is it "territorial intergity" crap? Every nation has the right to be independent on it's land, unless it doesn't want to. Kostan1 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We call that anarchy son, --Jakezing (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you were consistent and had the same feeling towards Kosovo. Colchicum (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm? Oh, im sorry for having my own veiws, i like kosovo, nice name, but these regions are under a vastly different situation, that and we cant have every "nation" wanting to be independant, that'd be pure anarchy--Jakezing (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was talking to Kostan1. I have reservations concerning S. Ossetia and especially Abkhazia myself because a large percentage of their population were driven away as refugees. However, I disagree about anarchy, independence is not always a cake sweet enough, there wouldn't be too many "nations" willing to chose this way, don't worry. You probably wouldn't like to get visas to visit your friends across the street or the nearest supermarket, right? Well, other people are not different. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every nation living in a certain region can have freedom, that's not anarchy but the right to be free on your land. Kosovo is different, because unlike Ossetia which is the native home of the Ossetians, and Abkhazia who had the Abkhazian kingdom before Georgia was invented, Kosovo HISTORICALY belongs to Serbia, and used to be the heart of the land. The Turks expelled the Serbs from their land Kosovo, I remind you. Kostan1 (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, go read some books. Colchicum (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should remain in one single article since this was a simultaneous act by Russia. If some countries recognize only one, seemingly unlikely, then we can change the structure of the article to account for this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not at all improbable that no other country will recognize either of them, so yes, I agree. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria Reaction

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

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

Kosovo

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

The Kosovo section is terribly written. It definately needs to be rewritten and referenced; if someone wanted to be really bold, they could remove it altogether until it was fixed. M.Nelson (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did so, still keeps coming back . User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, why do some editors consider Kosovo's position "unncessary"? --Hapsala (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only removed it because both of the statements contained the citation needed tags. If you have a source for the Kosovo statement from the Kosovar Government, then it can go back in. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Name of the article

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

To long and ultimatly wont be the focus--Jakezing (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, if another place other than Russia recognizes, we will have to move it back here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well some of the reactions in the Kosovo article are also condemning the recognition by the West. For now we don't know whether Russia will be the only country to recognize. Belarus may recognize, Armenia as well, not to mention Cuba where Raul Castro pretty much outright stated Georgia didn't have a claim to South Ossetia. You have several countries which have vigorously backed Russia's actions up to now and they may continue to do so. For now let's see how things play out.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia will hardly recognize, as Georgia is an important neighbor for Armenia. Cuba, Venezuela -- sure, but who cares. Many of the CIS countries haven't recognized Kosovo not because they are aligned with Russia but for their own reasons. Colchicum (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. The US and their allies screwed Georgia with Kosovo.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can assume what Armenia will or will not do. As far as not caring about Venezuela and Cuba there are several Latin American countries which would care.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--- I haven't done this before, but will give it a try. The name of the article presupposes that they are independent. That is not a given. How about: "International reaction to Abhazia's and South Ossetia's appeals for recognition"? 14:36, 27 August 2008 --User:Hjemmel (User talk:Hjemmel)
I moved the page to "reaction" without being familiar with the history due to problems below. However, in the interest of neutrality, I think we should have similar wording for all non-UN de facto independent states, regardless of who recognizes them: Western Sahara, Taiwan, Kosovo, N Cyprus, Transnistria, etc. As for "appeals for recognition", that's not what all the news coverage is about, at least not in the US. It's about Russia's recognition. kwami (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you feel that "Independence" is loaded and not neutral? "Declaration of independence" or "appeals" are both neutral in my view. Hjemmel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjemmel (talk • contribs) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NATO Flag?

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

It is copyrighted. Colchicum (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a pain. Oh, well. 71.225.97.173 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awful Organization

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

Disagree - How would you differentiate neutral from your other two categories? How are neutral countries different from other non-recognizing states? The page should remain divided between those that recognize (presently just Russia) and those that don't. There is no neutral: you either do or don't. If there should be a third category than it should be for states that have officially declared an intent to recognize but who have not yet done so. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't the reaction of the US (essentially condemning the move) and say Australia (AFAIK not doing anything) different? 5:15 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to recognition, no there is no difference - neither country recognizes. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

moved

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

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

Banners

Can somebody please "nest" the WikiProject banners? It saves space. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 04:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


South Ossetia & Abkhazia = Kosovo???

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Completely OT discussion which has nothing to do with improving the article 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read the above header all of you. This is not a talk page for discussion of the issue. We don't care what you think of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Kosovo, Putin, Russia, Serbia, Vitaly Churkin, NATO, the EU, the US, or whatever else you can think of. If you don't have any proposals as to how we can improve this article, then go somewhere else. If you have specific sources that we can use to improve this article, please link to them and discuss what you want to add from these sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also Kosovo was given the green light to declare independence by 3 Permanent security council members, EU, NATO as well as many other sates, unlike South Ossetia and Abkahzia who declared independence without any support or backing. Kosovo is more similar to Georgia than Serbia is to Georgia. Its Russia who can't bare the loss of Georgia and its Serbia who can't bare the loss of Kosovo. Kosovo and Georgia are very similar. The parallel Kosovo Serb Parliaments are like South Ossetia and Abkazia. The parallel Kosovo Serb Parliaments wish Kosovo was still a part of Serbia. South Ossetia and Abkazia wish Georgia was still apart of Russia. But only the ethnic Russian in Georgia want this and the ethnic Serbs in Kosovo want this. Ijanderson (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think only ethnic Georgians in S.Ossetia want reunification with Georgia.--Dojarca (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are many pro-Georgian Ossetians who are now being persecuted.
"Asked about his own earlier comments warning of a risk of ethnic cleansing by Russian forces in the territories, Kouchner responded: "I hope that didn't happen overnight. But there has already been evidence that the armies are pushing away the Ossetians who favored Georgia, and in a certain way, yes, an ethnic cleansing is taking place." [2]"--KoberTalk 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

merge

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

I merged it. It's just a POV grouping of most of the reactions. Please protect the redirect to stop recreation. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll see if it's a problem before protecting it.
Should we name this reaction rather than recognition, per the Kosovo article? kwami (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been recreated by the same guy. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now this article has been redirected there. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undo your move. The Kosovo article is undergoing a WP:RM to change it to recognition, so assuming that its title is stable is completely off base. And, any change here should likely be put to the community under WP:RM for similar reasons. Anyway, your move has caused a lone dissent on the grounds that you are moving to be like Kosovo and Kosovo is moving to be like you. :/ --Mareklug talk 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, reverted. The editor who was fighting this article was editing in bad faith anyway. kwami (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus

Here's something about the reaction of Cyprus.

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

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

The list of countries in it is definately large enough of warent such a split. And if a country changes it's mind later it can always be moved when it does. Jon (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There are too many details the viewpoints of different countries can differ at so it's better to list them together. Also, the map is very colourful, it would be better not to use it at all since we have 1 country who recognizes and many countries with all varieties of reactions. Check the Kosovo recognition article. --Tone 13:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to split at this moment I think. Plus it would bring up POV as who would determine the exact position. And the map is colorful in order to show more detail not to be an eyecandy. Anyway let's just wait until things settle a bit.--Avala (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

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

That was never intentional. An editwar is currently pending where some editors move the article to new locations at the speed of light. My personal preference is "International reaction to the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", which seems most relevant until the number of recognizing states are 20+ or so... --Hapsala (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected this article to moves for now. If anyone wants another name, discuss it first. --Tone 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"International reaction to the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" was my wording, which I thought was the most neutral. However, it looks like the preference both here and in the Kosovo article is for "recognition", which has the advantage of being more succinct. We can certainly report on all reactions under either title. (After all, the Western reaction is not to independence per se, which they've mostly ignored, but to Russia's recognition of independence.) kwami (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scale of interpretation

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

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

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

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


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

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

Please do not start with original research. If a country hasn't made a statement we are not going to include it regardless of what you might think is their position. And how is China leaning towards recognition if it's orange? Maybe you should read the legend.--Avala (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avala, please dont accuse others of so called "OR". The map is a disaster, and doesn't help this project a bit. --Hapsala (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are free to edit the map BUT not per "most countries have not even considered recognition, but are critical to Russia's unilateral move" because that is OR.--Avala (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why we should use a map which only indicates formal recognition. Or are you saying that óther rules covers this article, but not the Kosovo independence article you've been patrolling since that country declared its independence? After a long debate, this map (pictured) was found the most apropriate to use for the formal recognition of Kosovo. Unlike other maps that were used, this map leaves very little room for personal interpretation of the formal state of play. --Hapsala (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the map again. I agree with Hapsala that only map which have recognized them as independent or plan to do so should be colored. Right now it's just misleading and a POV mess. LokiiT (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either point to the specific issue you have a problem with or don't remove information from this article. Using a broad term "POV mess" for blanking the article can actually be seen as vandalism and POV pushing and unjustified removal of information you dislike.--Avala (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Armenia

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

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

China and Venezuela

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

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

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

Maybe that's because you haven't bothered to add it? You didn't even bother to provide a source showing Venezuela's position Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an AFP editor to add things in news articles, especially the unfounded claims...--Avala (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my assumption is based on the bilateral relationship between these countries. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misread your statement, I thought you were complaing about the lack of discussion in this article Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interesting reference [5]


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

Yes, just as the Sun and the Moon can change their places :) But it is not likely. China has isolationist foreign policy. They will not act on this. They simply don't care. Aside of official statements of course. JosipMac (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russia's support is crucial for China, especially for dealing with sensitive issues like Tibet.
You're wrong. Russian support means absolutely nothing to China. China reigns supreme. There is no power in this world that can challenge China unpunished. No world power, including USA or Russia, would dare to oppose China unless directly threatened. From what I've seen, right now China leads a very smart foreign policy, biding its time regarding some issues, and not wanting to step on anyones toes. And during this time the economy, which is a basis of military power, becomes stronger and stronger. The Olympic games showed how much chinese strive for superiority, and their zeal cannot go unrewarded. JosipMac (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is from 2006 in regards to Venezuela supporting Abkhazia's quest for independence; if that holds true, it is only a matter of time before Venezuela joins Russia in recognising the 2 countries. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is very likely indeed. From what I've seen, Venezuelan el presidente would do anything to spite the USA, and supports everyone who opposes it. If penguins in Antarctica started a diplomatic offensive against USA, Venezuelan el presidente would recognize The Independent Penguin Republic. JosipMac (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stay on topic here. If you have references to add content to the article, please provide them. If not, we don't care about anyone of your speculations about whether or why Venezuela is going to recognise the independence Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English reference for Hamas

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia&oldid=234603269"