Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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. (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. (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? (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. (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 (, 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 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? . 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" 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). (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. - "sooner or later Armenia will recognise the independence of SO and Abkhazia..." leader of party. "Armenia should recognise..." - political expert - 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. --KoberTalk 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? --KoberTalk 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kislorod (talkcontribs) 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. --KoberTalk 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. --KoberTalk 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. --KoberTalk 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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)
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 (talkcontribs)

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)


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 (talkcontribs)
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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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)

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs)
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. (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)

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 (talkcontribs)
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 (talkcontribs)

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. 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)


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)


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 (talkcontribs) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


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.[1][2]

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.[3] These arguments were also used by Russian officials in the UN Security Council.[4]

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.--KoberTalk 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.--KoberTalk 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?--KoberTalk 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.--KoberTalk 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)

"It was Carl Bildt's fault"

Reading Swedish newspapers is a pure enjoyment these days. In the daily Svenska Dagbladet, ex President of Finland Mauno Koivisto writes about the Swedish reaction towards Finland (!) during the Russian submarin-gate in the Swedish archipelago back in the 1980s. Head of the Swedish investigatory commission was Carl Bildt, an unknown 30+ career policitican with enormous specs, who apparently forced the Swedish government to use tough talk against the Russians (and others!) Notably, Koivisto sides by the Russians, claiming that the Swedish accusations were essentially out for lunch. [5]. Hmm... President Mauno Koivisto who goes to history as the President who declined an offer by President Yeltsin to buy back the Carelia for almost nothing... --Hapsala (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And this is relevant to the article how? (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Think for a sec, and it migh be. --Hapsala (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two separate articles

Shouldn't there be separate article's for S Ossetia and Abkhazia. Its not happened yet, but one nation might recognise one, but not the other. So we should create two articles. Agree? Ijanderson (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No because there is not even a slightest hint for a difference between these two in their international status.--Avala (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Until such time as that occurs, there is no need to create two articles. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:08, 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) 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.--KoberTalk 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)

Great, does anyone object to the statement that the second sentence in the quotation is irrelevant to this article and should be removed? If not, can someone remove it, please? JCP 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I object ardently. Since President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías does not habitually compose his speeches in English, I suggest finding out the original Spanish and if there the word is not yankee, to change it accordingly to athe neutral equivalent. Bogorm (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Bogorm, the argument is no longer that it is offensive. The argument is that the second sentence has no relevancy to this article. This article is about international recognition and reactions to Russia's recognition of Abkazia and South Ossestia. It is not about a critique on the power stance of Russia and US in the world. The first sentence in this quote is relevant -- the second is not. JCP 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The second part is exactly WHY Russia recognised the independence. This and Medvedev's recent announcement of future foreign policy as a result of this; i.e. the world will now be multi-polar and issues will be decided by consulting Russia not simply by what the US says goes. Refer to [6]. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Russia's hopes to make a multi-polar world are of no relevance to this article. It is about International Recognition -- not Russia's foreign policy ambitions. The second half of the quote merely stated an opinion by Chavez, which examined the power relations between the US and Russia. It has no relevancy in an article about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. JCP 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I just heard mot à mot on Pervy Kanal that President Medvedev (explaining his position on SO and Abkhazia) is lead by 5 guidelines in his foreign policy amd the 2nd was notably "a multipolar world where the dominance of any single state is unacceptable" - it was for EuroNews, if anyone is interested. That is exactly what Russavia explained and contesting it is insensible, as would be the second sentence which is closely related thereto. Bogorm (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Chavez' words have not relevance for article's topic. He did only repeat his well-known (pre)judices about USA which can be found everywhere. These words have nothing to do with the topic or with Russia ( former SowjetRussia/SU), SO, Abch. or Georgia. Therefore i deleted the lines. Elysander (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense. Why is Russia's foreign policy ambitions in any way related to international reactions towards recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Why is Chavez' views on the dynamics of the international realm in any way directly related to this article? They aren't. Go edit Russia or Foreign relations of Russia. JCP 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the quote by Carl Bildt about Nazis is included, I suggest we add Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega's quote here that NATO "used the government of Georgia in an operation typical of those which were launched by the Nazi army" Kislorod (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I support the proposal, that would induce some balance in the Nazi-accusations of both sides. I read the article and understood the most part because of my knowledge of two other Romance languages, but Spanish is not amogst them. That is why I propose you wrote it, I do not speak Spanish and it would seem suspicious, if I did it. But the quote is verily exigent. Bogorm (talk) 14:52, 4 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)

Nope there is no consensus except for Russian editors pushing for this because they dislike the too much red in the map but the map reflects the reality almost 100% correctly. Either have both maps or only the current one but it would be POV to remove the current one and add the one that only shows recognising countries.--Avala (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I support having one with only recognition. It's hard to properly represent all the positions in such a simplistic manner. Countries that have recognized can be included easily and maybe countries like Belarus which have said they will recognize. It's gonna look small now, but I don't think it will stay that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I too support a only recognition map. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As an article about "international recognition" I think it would be unfair not to include individuals who do not recognize it. I do think having people who "mentioned" support or "will recognize" these two regions isn't something that should be included. It should be as simple as: those who recognize and those who don't and those who have not yet decided. JCP 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. If only those that recognize are colored than obviously those that aren't colored are countries that do not. The map was kept like this because only Russia had officially recognized the two states, now that there is another country that seems to have done so and several more most likely will, the map should be like the Kosovo one.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo map is like that because of the ambiguity of certain states which completely blocked the usage of multi-coloured map, not for any other reason. Not all other states have the same opinion here. Having both Venezuela and France in gray would be silly.--Avala (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that applies here as well. Sure Venezuella and France have views on the opposite sides of the spectrum but what they have in common is lack of recognition for S.O. and Abkhazia. Grey here signifies an absence of color rather than a color defining a particular position.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what Belarus and Venezuela have said in support of Russia so far, the fact is that they have as of yet NOT recognized the republics. For all intents and purposes, their treatment of the the two republics is currently indeed the same as that of France. We should take note of what they say - I absolutely don't think we should delete their reactions, but the fact is that it's only their REACTIONS that are different, their RECOGNITION status is for now same as West's.

Now, with time, they probably will end up recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia. How about we create two articles -

1) Reaction to SO's and Abkhazia's independence (which will include most of what we have here and current map) and

2) International recognition of Abkhazia and SO - this will include same map as Kosovo and dates of recognition, so it will be neater.

Another reason I want to create two articles is because I want to preserve what we have here - it is important that the EU completely refused to recognize immediately, while Venezuela immediately supported it. Even if both entities recognize Abkhazia a year from now, we shouldn't delete their initial reactions, whereas if we keep all this is one article we'll find ourselves constantly updating information and losing important initial reactions.

So, to summarize, I feel that only one of two things make sense here:

1) If this article is to stay 'International recognition of Abkhazia and SO', change the map to reflect the same map as is on Kosovo

2) Rename this article to 'Reaction to SO's and Abkhazia's independence', preserve it as is, and create a new article named 'International recognition of Abkhazia and SO' I feel that these two options are the only ones that preserve NPOV, but I feel #2 preserves more information, so I support 2. Yarilo2 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Rename this article to 'Reaction to SO's and Abkhazia's independence', - Elysander (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree - Rename this article to 'Reaction to SO's and Abkhazia's independence' and create new article 'International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia', (reiterated here so my opinion's visible and not lost in discussion above) - Yarilo2 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So you are suggesting two articles - one for recognition only which would include Russia and Nicaragua and the map with countries that recognize and a 2nd one for the general international reaction which would include these statements that we have atm with the multi-coloured map? OK I agree to that.--Avala (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Any such change should be made in concert with the Kosovo article. I had actually moved this to 'reaction', but reverted because the Kosovo article was close to consensus on moving to 'recognition'. Since that article is more stable than this one, I think we should take our cues from them. kwami (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, they did not reach consensus, and so stayed where they are. Before we move to match, there's one problem: We do not discuss the international reaction to their independence, we discuss Russia's recognition and the international reaction to Russia. Hardly the same thing. There's practically nothing about the international reaction prior to Russia's recognition. Maybe not a fatal flaw, but something I thought we should discuss. kwami (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Avala, that's exactly what I'm saying - rename this and keep as is (and stop updating it pretty much except to add new countries to preserve initial reactions), and create new article with proposed map. Glad you're on board =]

Kwami, you bring up a good point - most countries simply ignored Abkhazia and SO when they declared independance (1991 I think). However, Russia's recognition is the beginning, I would say, of de jure independance (the beginning I say, I admit actual de jure independence might never come about). Hence, the international reaction to Russia's actions, I think could be legitimately called a reaction to the two republics' independance, and we could bypass that concern. That, and if we call the article "International reaction to Russia's recognition" it just begins to sound completely irrelevant or trivial. Also, if nobody opposes my proposition, I'll try to accomplish it tonight Yarilo2 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the wording: "International reaction to the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia"? kwami (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose all attempts to rename or split the article. Just wait for more recognitions and then switch the maps. --Tocino 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I say we keep this title, but change the map to the other one so that it will be symmetrical to the article on Kosovo. There is simply too much nuance to display all the countries on a map. Drawing a strict line at official recognition would solve this problem. TSO1D (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What if there are no more recognitions Tocino? Then we will have a semi-confusing map (when it comes to recognition), and we will be losing valuable information about countries initial reactions - because we will be updating what they say about recognition. I'm going to try and separate the two concepts and let's give it a few days. Then we can vote on changing it back or keeping it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarilo2 (talkcontribs) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there is now a new page: International recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia It is cleaner and neater, and as soon asI ahve time to look up the diplomatic missions from Russia to the two republics (because I'm sure I read about it somewhere), it will have its own information.

I have also moved this article to International Reaction to the Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia along with discussion and everything. Can someone who's an admin do whats necessary with this page? I can't move or redirect it because its semiprotected or something (which I realized too late). Yarilo2 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bildt vs. Olof Palme

Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt has been described as one of the fiercest critics of the current Russian policy as regards to its invasion of Georgia - he compared the new Russian policy with that of the Hitler's in Sudetenland etc, and of course the Russians reacted rather angrily (although they saw absolutely no reasons to harm the good relations it has with Sweden). In Sweden there is a debate [7] where Mr. Bildt is compared with late Prime Minister Olof Palme. We all know (???) that Mr. Palme compared the American bombings of Hanoi with Nazi German death camps. Palme even participated in a FNL demonstration in Stockholm, side by side with the Communist Vietnam ambassador to Stockholm. The American response was a total cut in diplomatic relations for years to come.... The important difference is supposedly that Palme reacted against the U.S. as a nation, whereas Bildt reacts against a specific policy by the Russian administration; notably Bildt didn't support economic sanctions against Russia at the recent EU summit (as economic sanctions would be "contra productive")! After all, Bildt loves Russia and supposedly made some spectacular investments in that country. Another difference is that Bildt is much more a respected politician than Palme was back in the late 1960s. The Swedish Social democrats (in opposition) may not agree, so even though they support Carl Bildt's harshest statements against Russia, they are - officially - strictly concerned about the Mr. Bildt's personal judgments. And this is possibly the legacy of alleged Russian submarines operating in Swedish waters during the 1980s. At that time, a very young Carl Bildt was a member of a commission dealing with Russian submarines, and "thanks" to him, Prime Minister Palme had to make tough statements against the Soviet Union - and these were probably statements much harder than socialist Palme personally wanted to make. And the Social democrats have never forgiven Carl Bildt for that... ;) --Hapsala (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make. What does the comparison between the two have to do with this article, Abkazia and South Ossetia? JCP 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What is this all about? Is it a suggestion for the article? I warned you not to use this page as a forum but you just erased the warning.--Avala (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Avala, a simple editor from Serbia, are you entitled to warn other editors? (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You touch upon something here with Sweden/EU. The reason why the EU didn't impose sanctions is because sanctions wouldn't hurt Russia one bit; it would hurt the EU. Saak was on BBC a week ago and he was asked what he would like to see happen to Russia. Remembering of course that the US is bogged down in two wars, and the EU is all but a force on paper only with no muscle to back themselves up, the only thing he could come up with was freezing Russian bank accounts; of course I laughed coz the only thing that would be freezing if that was done is Europeans as winter is coming. And of course, sanctions would hurt the Europeans only; Russians would simply divert gas/oil eastwards to China where it is more than welcome; and European companies (especially banks who are making a fortune in Russia) would suffer; and no doubt all those Europeans who have investments in Russia (such as Bildt) would suffer. Money talks, bullshit walks; and the Europeans have walked. [8] This type of analysis needs to be brought into the article --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Bildt wouldn't suffer a bit as he was compelled by law to sell off all his Russian assets when he was appointed Swedish foreign secretary in 2006. Fortunately, the sell-off occured when the Russian index was booming... ;D --Hapsala (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And Sweden wouldn't suffer either - it does not rely on Russian oil and gaz. (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Russavia, first, this is not a forum. Second, this type of analysis does not belong in this article. I could write about why Russia's actions weren't warranted and how their hopes to create a "multi-polar" world are simply hollow. But that is my perspective. That is not something for an encyclopedia. Stick to the topic of this article. JCP 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No it's not a forum, hence why the link was provided which says everything that I stated. And it is the underlying reason why Russia recognised the independence; they will no longer allow encroachment into their backyard by NATO and they will protect their interests. This is analysis, and analysis belongs in this article. If you have sources which indicate the opposite, then it can be introduced.--Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sure I heard either a high Russian official or Mikhail Leontiev saying exactly the same thing about Europe "freezing to the bones" in case of sanctions. I shall look it up and add it where necessary. Bogorm (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm missing your NOT FORUM prayer wheel this time ;-). Add it where you like. But such opinions are significant for general Russian illusions - maybe to disorient the masses. Veritas: Both sides are economically interdependent. And there are so many "Putin's Villages". Probably the ruling Russian "Cleptocracy" did open Pandora's Box at beginning August 2008. Elysander (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And I can assure Bogorm I'm not going to freeze my boones in case of sanctions. And Russia is far more dependent of Europe than the opposite. And maybe you also should read this interesting article from a Russian newspaper [9]. Narking (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Title is catching, the article itself is short on substance (what else to expect from MT eh?) in terms of this article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think this article requires an analysis of Russian foreign policy? This is about international recognition' of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Do you think we should list the foreign policy of each and every country that has mentioned something? JCP 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Beacuse, it may also be the international response to the Russian recognition (a titel I'd strongly support). I think Avala missed the point of an ecyclopedia - this is the reality decribed by current ideas. And this talk page is also important when we return to it in, say 50 years. And that's why I personally respect even the most pro-Kremlin editors (please, dont take it as an offense), they are badly needed to get the full picture. --Hapsala (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Because Russian foreign policy is the only reason that this article is even here in the first place. It needs to be summarised, with a link to another article which can explain the foreign policy in further detail. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this is is a Russian foreign policy related topic. But, why, then, don't you support moving the article to International response to the Russian recognition (or something similar)? --Hapsala (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Russian foreign policy? I thought this was here because Abkhazia and South Ossetia were seeking recognition for independence. Why don't we just analyze their foreign policy? This is more than a Russian issue. JCP 20:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, this is a prima facie Russian issue. Are you living on Mars? --Hapsala (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So now we're forbidden by user:Avala to discuss whether this is a Russian topic or something else? --Hapsala (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The rule is very clear - "bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article".--Avala (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto independent areas within Georgia's borders.

The article starts off as:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto independent areas within Georgia's borders.

With a refer to a Georgian source and a UN statement from April 2008. However, since 26 August (Russia) and 2 September (Nicaragua), A and SO is no longer regarded as de facto independent or within Georgia's borders by those 2 countries, and by A and SO themselves. I am disputing the neutrality of that entire opening sentence, and we all need to agree on a NPOV lead before said tag is removed. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the UN Source ! The interpretation as a "UN statement" is characteristic for a classic POV statement ;) . It is a UN Security Council Resolution which was violated now by one of its own members. Elysander (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to check the UN source, because it is from April, and 2 countries have now recognised these two entities as fully independent nations with their own borders outside of Georgia. That point needs to be recognised by all parties before we can get NPOV --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
S Ossetia and Abkhazia are de facto independent. Only two UN nations recognise them. Not even half UN nations are any international organizational recognises either of them. S Ossetia and Abkhazia are not de jure independent. So de facto is the correct terminology. Ijanderson (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ijanderson. De jure is only when a state can be admitted to the UN without troubles, even Russians admit that fact.--Avala (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I had added neutral wording, but of course it was reverted.
It is a fact that they are de facto independent. It is an opinion that they are de jure independent. Therefore only the de facto statement is appropriate. It is an opinion that they lie outside Georgia. It is also an opinion that they lie within Georgia. Therefore neither statement is appropriate. They lie within the borders that Georgia claims for itself, and which NATO and most of the world recognizes. However, they lie outside the borders that Russia and they themselves recognize. How we word this is hopefully something that good-faith editors can work out. Perhaps "within the borders of Soviet Georgia" would be acceptable? kwami (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding international law both regions are inside Georgia's borders. Only the UN Security Council itself can change this affirmation of Georgia's territorial integrity for 15 years . Therefore it is not only one simple "opinion" of a single person or government. Elysander (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in accordance with international law, independence for Abhkazia and South Ossetia should always be preceded by de facto unless the UN affirms their independence. jamescp 05:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

History and Precedent section

This section is POV and patronising to boot, particularly "ignored Russia's warning," as though Russia is omniscient. Change it or delete it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree per Canadian Bobby. Will revert them WP:POV edits. Ijanderson (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot believe we don't have more vocal voices on this. This section and this section are very bias. First, the article is about international recognition and this historical perspective is irrelevant. Section 1.1 should also be worked on. The sourced articles are taken out of context. jamescp 05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The historical perspective is absolutely relevant, as it provides the basis and history for the events leading up to the first recognition of independence. As to "ignored Russia's warning"; it's true they did, however, it needs to be reworded to make it less NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction copy edit

I added the copy edit tag to this section. I will be working on fixing the punctuation mistakes as I find them, but other editors, please help in cleaning up this section for easier readability.

Here's an example:

United States President George W. Bush, in a press briefing, acknowledged the ceasefire accord brokered by the French President and President of the European Council, Nicolas Sarkozy, and signed by Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, on 12 August 2008.[5] President Bush stated that he would be sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tbilisi, to "convey America's unwavering support for Georgia's democratic government." He also called upon Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia.[6] The Russian Government welcomed the response, however, they expressed their regret that the United States government "continues to refuse to recognise the real cause of what happened, consisting in that the regime of Mikheil Saakashvili had, in violation of all its international commitments, unleashed the war against the South Ossetian people."[7] The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, rejected such notions.[8] President Bush called on the Russian authorities to reconsider the decision.[9]

  • It reads as if Sergey Lavrov is rejecting the Russian Governments assertion REWORDED/EXPANDED
  • President Bush called on Russian authorities to reconsider what decision? Signing the ceasefire? REWORDED/EXPANDED

--«JavierMC»|Talk 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

SECOND EDIT Still Needs additional work on copyedit --«JavierMC»|Talk 09:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction

This section at present is showing pro-NATO and pro-US bias. Some information should be added about SCO and other countries in this section to make it clear there are countries which supported Russia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean SCO Summit 2008 in Dushanbe? ;) Even Kommersant spoke from a diplomatic debacle for Medvedev. Elysander (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Could someone who speaks Spanish please check to see if there is any response from Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas on this issue. As the countries in this organisation are expected to recognise the independence, with one already having done so, a statement is likely to have been put out? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 07:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Besides, Bolivia won't recognise because of their own potential separatists. Kislorod (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. With Bolivia, isn't it more a case of one region (the western region??) wanting more autonomy rather than actual independence? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenia elucidates position - no recognition to come

Perhaps not entirely relevant but Armenia has ruled out recognition citing Nagorno-Karabakh and the need for consensus. Kislorod (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, its important, quite important in fact. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mux (talkcontribs)

Kosovo case

Some people here say about that Nicaragua don't recognise new independent(in international law) republics "yet", in this case, i have got one questions - Can it name states, who government(the President, the ministry office) recognise Kosovo and their parlement don't approval Kosovo recognition(there're not voting), as states who don't recognise Kosovo yet?(i ask about some european states, USA, Canada etc)

I think it's double standarts in enhlish politiquepedia, sorry encyclopedia.

I hope that my questions will be answered.Shadow Vogel (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally it is the question of individual state's constitution which state institutions ( alone or together) are responsible for such decisions. Elysander (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, and can you say, who recognise new states according to nicaraguan Constitution?Shadow Vogel (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this "Based on Ortega's decision, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is preparing documentation for the official recognition, which is also expected to be approved by the Parliament" from the article itself ;) . Obviously official recognition is a constitutional process closed by parliamentary approvement. Elysander (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Addition: the article itself seems already on the right path ;) >> Belarus and Nicaragua have declared their intention to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia - Elysander (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Nicaragua isn't intention to recognise, the Nicaragua is recognisind now(there's the decision), The President recognise the Abkhazia and the South Ossetia already. The 2nd september is the date recognition.Shadow Vogel (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you should change the article text. :))) Elysander (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? In table is correct - Date of recognition is 2 September 2008. But for example in first part of article has got this phrase: "Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto independent states within the borders recognized by the UN Security Council for Georgia." But, i don't understand, why in article about Kosovo recognision don't has similar phrase?Shadow Vogel (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now the Abkhazia and the South Ossetia are de iure independent state.Shadow Vogel (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, you find one article and cite it again and again. Why do you not want to read such very reliable resource as Reuters? Why do you think that your article is more reliable than Reuters articles? Look at the Wikipedia article about Nicaragua "presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the President of Nicaragua is both head of state and head of government". In such countries foreign relations is under the sole power of president. Parliament can vote only for political (not legal) support of president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr., you find one article and cite it again and again. Why do you not want to read such very reliable resource as RiaNovosti [but not very reliable - because state-controlled]? Why do you think that your article is more reliable than Reuters agency short cuts?
But Mr., in this section i did only quote sentences which can be found just now in this article about Recognition .. :))) Elysander (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You do not think that RiaNovosti is very reliable, however you prefer to get the information from RiaNovosti instead of Reuters. It is very strange point of view, isn't it? I think it is better to use very reliable resources (Reuters) instead of not very reliable. If very reliable resource said that Nicoragua HAS recognized Abkhazia and S.O., and not very reliable said that Nicoragua only WOULD recognize them, it is better to use the information from very reliable resource, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I know irony or parody is a difficult topic. I will never "test" you again. But is it so difficult to understand or simply to read that i did use neither reuters nor RiaNovosti in this section /* Kosovo case */ but only parts of the existing wikipedia article about "International Recognition of Abkhazia...  ??? :))
Generally said: Anyway state-controlled medias are not very reliable sources - their released news,informations, interpretations etc. must be always counter-checked beyond their natural POV positions but not by other state-controlled medias. ;) Therefore this article needs a complete revision soon. ;) Elysander (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, you have not used Reuters or other sources in this section, but you have used this sources in the section "Nicaragua". And you have used RiaNovosti - the news agency, that you think is not very reliable source. I advice to you: if you think that definite source is not very reliable, do not use it at all! Use only very reliable sources (in your opinion)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(To both) cease questioning the reliability of RIA Novosti - it is the greatest news agency together with ITAR-TASS of the greatest country on Earth and extolling Reuters and uttering scathing criticism towards its concurrents is not the purpose of this discussion page. Bogorm (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but now it is very difficult question. I do not try to "extolling Reuters and uttering scathing criticism towards its concurrents", but believe that all other Russian information agencies reported that Nicoragua HAS recognized Abkhazia and S.O. (not WOULD but HAS). Unfourtunately, they all are in Russian. I think that you do not know Russian, so I do not give definite links to you. I think that RiaNovosti made mistake. And my opponent try to represent this mistake as very serious problem, he tries to say that Nicoragua do not recognize this countries and Russia is in full international isolation with this topic. But not even almost all russian media - even very respectable international source (Reuters), which has no relation to Russia, reported thar Nicoragua HAS recognized Abkhazia and S.O.! So, my opponent is not right.
Even I have to say that it is possible that nicaraguan president will withdraw his decision about recognition of Abkhazia and S.O. (due to pressure of parliament) but now Nicoragua HAS recognized Abkhazia and S.O. because Nicoragua is presidential republic and in such countries foreign relations is formally under the sole power of president. Also the international low says that the position of the head of the state (president) is the official position of the country. So I think that NOW it is right to say that Nicoragua officially recognize Abkhazia and S.O. There is no warranty that this decision will not be abolished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

CSTO backs Russia's actions in S.Ossetia, condemns Georgia

See this source I suggest moving all CSTO members (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) to "States that have declared support for Russia's policy, but have not officially recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia". DannieVG (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"We have come out with support for Russia's active role in contributing to peace and cooperation in the region," Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan said, citing the joint statement.
Sounds more like the diplomatic phrases we know of SCO Summit 2008 - nearly identical. :)) Elysander (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No. 2008 South Ossetia war is about "Russia's actions in S.Ossetia", this article is about Russia's recognition of Ossetia, and they haven't backed it. Bring this to International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. Colchicum (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You're sure to remember this: "President Lukashenko sent a message Thursday to his Russian counterpart saying his country remained a reliable ally of Russia but calling for the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to find a common position on the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia." The absence of statement about recognition at the CSTO meeting means at least that Belarus is not going to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia. DannieVG (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not mean that ! The summit of the organisation is tomorrow in Moscow. Do not make ratiocinations until then. These here are foreign ministers. Bogorm (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Even then, it could be after elections in Belarus at end of September that recognition is forthcoming. Belarus has said they will recognise. Until such time as a reliable source says otherwise, it stays. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, but you meant the parliamentary ones, I had been taken aback by your comment, until I bumped into the article, I nearly thought about the other possibility... And since Belorussia is presidential republic... Bogorm (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You may want to read (in Russian). Note that the English version of the article by RIAN was not changed, but the Russian one was. The Ambassador was apparently talking about the message by Lukashenko that appeared the same day. But I agree that we should wait until tomorrow to see if there will be any clear statement. DannieVG (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Very amusing! I'm just reading following lines in this article: On 28 August, Vasily Dolgolyov, the Belarusian Ambassador to Russia, said that Belarus would in the next day or two recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Perhaps the longest 2 days in history! :)) Elysander (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Off, I underscored at least 10 times that the CSTO summit is on 5 September 2008 in Moscow where from all 7 states is expected benevolent stance so that the two new became the 8th and the 9th, please, patience for one more day, only one, I pray you. Firthermore, WP:NOTFORUM Bogorm (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Who did start again ? Belarussia's longest 2 days in its history ! Elysander (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead II

I think I've altered this in a positive and neutral way. Please discuss rather than revert. jamescp 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a NPOV. Shall we remove the tag for the lead? jamescp 15:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Two objections:
  • the UN source is from 15 April 2008 and we are discussing an article about an event from August 2008 - the date ought to be explicitly mentioned;
  • the recognition by President Medvedev took place on 26, not 28 August
Wait for others' reactions before removing tags

Bogorm (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the lead as I see it:
Georgia's territorial integrity may have been affirmed by the UNSC, but this was in April of this year, that needs to be made very, very clear, because Russia as a member of the UNSC does not recognise that integrity from April. Also of note here, is that it is the opinion of Russia that due to Georgia's actions in South Ossetia, it is their opinion that Georgia has lost all right to those regions.
The UNSC most definitely did NOT condemn anything to do with recognition as Russia has veto which they would have used.
Georgia has now moved back from cutting "all diplomatic relations"; after they truly realised that it would harm them more than it would Russia.
Nicaragua has recognised as per WP:RS, not editors interpretations
The quote from Medvedev is arbitrary; the quote which is from his statement to the Russian people is more appropriate; the quote used is from a statement to media, not as highly regarded as the official statement recognising independence.
There's more to come no doubt. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with your changes. And I agree that an official Russian statement should be used instead. I used "responded," which shows that they had cut off relations. A sentence can be included to say they have restored some relations but it will need a source. jamescp 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Source for Georgia relations --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is unnecessary POV. In the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article we don't have a sentence at the beginning which reads "Kosovo is a de facto independent state within Serbia's internationally recognized borders. Serbia's sovereign territorial integrity had been reaffirmed by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 in June 1999." --Tocino 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should. De facto is the proper term in international law. jamescp 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"they have restored some relations" - that is completely untrue: what I heard on Pervy Kanal was, that Georgia according to some Vienna convention decided on cutting diplomating relations to cut only embassy relations, but to preserve its consulates. And according to this Vienna convention that is theoretically possible, but had never been applied before and in the past closing embassy meant closing of all other services. This time Georgia wanted to let its consulate be acting. The word "retoration" is completely false, rather "closed embassies, but preserved consulates" Bogorm (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what your objection is? Did you want me to be more specific? jamescp 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The text of the reporting is here: I insist on recounting this sentence: "Тбилиси, разорвав дипотношения с Москвой, консульские отношения хотел бы сохранить. Юридически это возможно, но совсем необязательно. Более того, в мировой практике до сих пор, как правило, если отношения и разрывались, то все и сразу." and shows why "restoration" is unacceptable. I am going to writerecapitulate it in the article in English. Bogorm (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the English wikipedia! We cannot accept private-amateurish not confirmed translations of sources. Elysander (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I read the article and I am not certain what point Bogorm is trying to make. Perhaps you could be clearer in what you thing is wrong with saying that Georgia ceased diplomatic relations and then restored some. Did you want to include that Russia did as well or are you saying Georgia never ceased all relations? jamescp 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Georgia did not restore anything - it cut embassy relations (its embassy) and wants to preserve consular ones! (To Elysander) The next Argumentum ad hominem will afflict repercussions where necessary. Wikipedia does not interdict any non-English sources! Bogorm (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am going to write it in the article in English. That seems unacceptable !! Elysander (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Does it seem acceptable now? I have not simply translated it, but recounted! Bogorm (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you possibly explain what it is you are trying to say? You want to make sure people know that Georgia wishes to cut off all diplomatic relations aside from consulates? jamescp 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"Georgia wishes to cut off all diplomatic relations aside from consulates" - Yes, that is what I wanted to elucidate - because there are 1,500 000 Georgians in Moscow and as the new says in the second page:

если разрыв дипотношений приведет к разрыву и консульских отношений, что было бы вполне логично, миллион граждан Грузии просто проклянет Саакашвили, тот день, когда он родился на свет.

If the rupture of diplomatical relations leads to the ruprure of consular relations, 1 000 000 Georgian citizens will simply accurse Saakashvili the day he was borne.

(The peoples in question are the Georgians working in Russia. That should be undoubtedly mentioned in Georgian-Russian relations)

. But you read the article, did not you: "I read the article"(your sentence). So you know that the embassy has been closed, but the consulate is not as of now. 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article. I just do not agree with the english words used to express this. Furthermore, you've just said it by translating to "If the rupture..." This is speculation. It is not required in this article. Nevertheless, the information that Consulates remain open is valid and should be included. jamescp 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Always the same game!  :( Private translations are not acceptable. We need general auditability of all sources which support a certain opinion, theses or general statements for all readers who are not to able to read Russian. Elysander (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I said explicitly: "That should be undoubtedly mentioned in Georgian-Russian relations" - the second quote. The first is due in this article (about the consulate). It elucidates the ramifications of the recognition on the diplomatical ties and is indispensable Bogorm (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, Russian-language sources (and Georgian-language sources, for that matter) are perfectly acceptable in English Wikipedia. They even occur in Featured Articles. The only proviso is that if you include a quote in an article, they should be translated into English, and of course other editors may challenge the reliability of the translation. The only exception I've seen—and this I've seen only once—is that when an editor has been caught maliciously mistranslating from foreign-languages sources, he may be required to stick to English sources. But this is clearly out of the ordinary, like not allowing an editor to write about certain topics. kwami (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)