Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Venezuela

It says Venezuela has recognized the independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia here:

--SergeiXXX (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am perplexed - the source is Bulgarian, but... Bogorm (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin's Response

How is this even remotely close to resembling precedence? It doesn't say that he is recognizing SO and A because of Kosovo. It merely states that he things that the West's decision to recognize Kosovo would come back to haunt them. Surely you can find a better quote... and one that is more intelligible because that is... well, it sounds idiotic in my opinion. jamescp 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Wait, did you really add that source? First, it is from February. Second, it basically goes against Russia's precedence because Putin himself is calling Kosovo "terrible precedent." Mind boggling. jamescp 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia → International Reaction to the Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia‎ — As discussed in the section above under Change map, it seems to make sense that this article be split into two. 1) An article that deals with the recognition of SO and Abkhazia, as I have made International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and 2)an article that preserves states' initial reactions to the independence of the two republics. That way, we preserve the most information and can make the two articles more organized. The recognition article will look similar in format to Kosovo's removing bias, and we can keep the current map to show approval and disapproval of other states. — Yarilo2 (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

05:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Yarilo2 (talk)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support- For reasons stated all over this talk page.Yarilo2 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Elysander (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support the titles proposed below in the discussion jamescp 05:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia happened in the early 1990s so this is a different situation. Current title is fine. We can change maps once more nations recognize, and more nations will recognize (Belarus, Venezueala, Central Asian nations). --Tocino 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I concur with Russavia and Tocino unanimously - the article is only about the act of recognition - for every knowledgeable person it is a piece of cake to comprehend that the proclamations occurred in the 1990ies and thereby if this were an article about reactions, as it is claimed, it should have reckoned with the reactions from the long haul, which is not the case in this article, as it summarises only the reactions from this year. Bogorm (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Abkhazia and South Ossetia did not declare independence in 2008. It was simply first recognised in 2008. What is being proposed above is a content split which will see two articles with the same information, and this can not happen, as it will only create more trouble than its worth, with it ending up at WP:AFD. If you want an article on the declaration of independence, then one needs to go through the history books and get reactions from the 1990s, and other occasions when they have actually declared independence. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveibo (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed title presupposes independence, which is an extremely controversial matter. Andrewa (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is fine. The article is about recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is about the international recognition of the territories; they've been self-declared as independent for nearly twenty years, so it makes absolutely no sense to treat it as if it was reaction to a one-off event in 2008. Rebecca (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. If will be International recognition then we should rename back. Geagea (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title fits the content. Martintg (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Martintg Ijanderson (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Pretty much everybody supported in the Change map section above, but this seems to be official and necessary.Yarilo2 (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that title facetious? There are only two countries that have supported their independence. I vote no until developments occur in which we can state that they are indeed independent. I believe that means recognition by the United Nations. On that note, I do think there are far too many articles on this subject. They should all be merged into one article. jamescp 05:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the section I referred to, so let me restate my arguments: The current map is not parallel to the one used on the Kosovo page, even though the situations are analogous. 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.

That way, 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.

There is currently only one article on the topic, and if we don't split them, we'll end up deleting important information - various nations' intial reactions if they eventually change their attitudes towards the two republics. Either that, or this article becomes unwieldy. By splitting the articles now, we can separate what is relevant to each issue. For example, many people are arguing if historical precedent should be mentioned on this page. Right now, it just makes the page even longer, but if we split the articles, we can put it into the appropriate one, and the same with the other issues that people are arguing about. There's another article that has opposition parties' reactions to the two republics' independence. Their views are irrelevant in a Recognition article, but could be combined with a Reaction article. Overall this will serve to organize the various issues on this topic better.

Does that make more sense?Yarilo2 (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speculating that in time they will gain independence is, well, speculation. There are several articles (just see the articles "see also" section) about reactions, recognition et cetera. These are all the same. Recognition only comes from a reaction and vis-versa. We need to find a unifying title and proper subsections to syntesis the large amounts of material into a proper document. The neutrality is comprimised, it is extremely unorganized and needs serious revision. Let's work on structure and try to make one article about reaction & recognition. The historical perspective of this can go in the 2008 South Ossetia conflict article or in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. jamescp 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that countries' reactions tend to change over time, whereas recogntion usualy doesn't (the Chinas being the exception that proves the rule there). If we keep one article here, we will have to either delete nations' initial reactions - thereby losing valuable information - or making this article unwieldy with too much information. Splitting it in two gives us a number of benefits - we can incorporate all the smaller articles in the 'see also' section you mentioned without making either large article unwieldy, and we can make this article more similar to Kosovo's which is as I said, an analogous situation. Also, there's no speculation about independence going on. They've had de facto independence since 1991, and they still don't have majority independence de jure. Neither does Kosovo. And both cases have a minority recognition of de jure independence, more than any other de facto states. Hence the reason for treating the two cases similarly.Yarilo2 (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your points. How does Kosovo go about this with their articles? What titles do they use to express similar data? jamescp 06:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the Kosovo article is called International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Unlike this page, it includes a simple map that shows where Kosovo is and who recognized it. Like this page however, it includes a lot of reactions to independence like this page does. However, I feel the proposed way to go about it would be better for the above reasons, thereby keeping all the information we have (including the map, it's useful to show on whose side countries came out, kind of) but making the whole issue clearer. Hopefully that convinces you =] Cheers!Yarilo2 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am leaning towards your proposal now. Do these titles make more sense though?

• International reaction to the 2008 Abkhazia and South Ossetia declaration of independence
• 2008 Abkhazia and South Ossetia declaration of independence

jamescp 06:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"International reaction to the 2008 Abkhazia and South Ossetia declaration of independence" sounds fine to me, but I'm tired so would you mind going through everything and changing it? It's at the top and bottom of the talk pages and in the requested move page. As for the second, I really prefer "Reaction to the ..." because then it's clear what the article is about. More clear anyway, I think.-Yarilo2 (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wish I could. My account is less than 10 days old so I haven't been able to edit this article. I've just been trying to raise points on this talk page. I agree that "Reaction to the 2008 Abkhazia and South Ossetia declaration of independence" is better. jamescp 06:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia did not declare independence in 2008. It was simply first recognised in 2008. What is being proposed above is a content split which will see two articles with the same information, and this can not happen, as it will only create more trouble than its worth, with it ending up at WP:AFD. If you want an article on the declaration of independence, then one needs to go through the history books and get reactions from the 1990s, and other occasions when they have actually declared independence. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Important views missing from the article

There are some important views missing from the article at the present. We have the views of every tin pot^{added in after my sarcasm entry} dictatorship, from Australia to the United States, yet we don't have any views from the subjects of this article...Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There has been plenty published from both of these parties and they need to be included within the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope I misinterpreted you. Did you just call the leaders of Australia and the US dictators? As for the subject of this section, I think this needs to be discussed. We don't have the views of Georgia on here either (well, just a small part with their stance). This article is about "international recognition," which seems to imply those outside of the conflict (i.e., not SO, A and Georgia). But like I said, this needs to be discussed and intentions need to be conveyed before anything is added. jamescp 21:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• "We have the views of every dictatorship, from Australia to the United States" Wow. Ostap 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM peoples. As to this, the views of these sides (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Georgia) should have greater emphasis placed on them than say on views from the EU and US. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That was sarcasm? I wonder why you chose Australia and the US... Anyways, the view of the United States, the EU et cetera are very important and relevant to this article. Perhaps we've put too much emphasis on Russia's views... no one really cares what they think anyways, right? (WP:SARCASM) jamescp 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now, damn me for not showing preview before saving; as to why I chose Australia? Guess. Anyway, we can agree that A & SO views need to be presented? Issues such as undue weight, etc, (if they arise) can be addressed when required. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Because your jealous they have kangaroos? I know I am. Anyways, I still am not sold as to why an article entitled international recognition of A and SO needs to convey the messages of A and SO. Shouldn't that be in another article specifically concerning those regions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a lot of undue weight in the article. The views of Russia, Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have to be given precedence and detail as they are they immediate parties to the issue. Other views, from Venezuela to the United States, are by extension automatically of lesser importance and should therefore be limited to one or two sentences at the most. The same goes for quotes (reference to both NPOV and to the policy that Wikipedia is not a quotefarm.) Jagiellon (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, definitely not. For the last time, this article is entitled International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which means (are you ready for it?) that we discuss the international communities reaction to Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We do not need to have an indepth discussion on Abkhazia's views or South Ossetia's views. I don't know how much clearer I can be with this. If we had an article entitled "Abkhazia and South Ossetia sit in an open circle and discuss their views" then I'd agree with you. jamescp 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is about International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is a good topic and it's quite a good article, and of course the most relevant information to this topic is which countries have recognised these governments, and which haven't. Russia, Australia and the USA are all countries which should be listed. Next most relevant is background information such as why these countries say they have or haven't recognised these governments. So while the views of the governments concerned are relevant certainly, they're peripheral to the topic.

Regrettably, I think we must consider this request in the context of other attempts to suppress information on the topic, and notably the still open move request. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain this last sentence, because it doesn't make sense without providing what context. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The context is the other discussion on this page, and particularly of the move request as stated. It's a controversial issue, and we can unfortunately expect some editors to attempt to use both the article page and this talk page to express or promote their own views on whether these governments should be recognised. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Do we really need two maps? jamescp 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes because they are not the same. We have the Reaction map and Recognition map.--Avala (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. The reaction map is still based on WP:OR, and as such is inaccurate and misleading. It should be removed. LokiiT (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LokiiT here, it is based upon editors own interpretations of statements, and is inherent original research. Whilst a lot of work has gone into the map, unfortunately, it does not belong because the OR is also providing undue weight to the opinions stated, one needs to let the words speak for themselves. Take China for example, they might have expressed concern, but for all we know the Chinese told the Russian, "Good job, but we can't recognise, as much as we want to, because of the effect this will have for Xinjiang, and that other pain in our butt, Tibet". The recognition map is the only one that should be in the article, except with an additional field of those countries who have expressed intent to recognise. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. I think the new map should only show those who have recognized. Intent is not an official position. I can intend to do something but then decide not to. jamescp 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only OR when someone like LokiiT tries to destroy it. Other than that it corresponds to the list in the article, so if the map is OR then the whole article is.--Avala (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that some users are trying to include irrelevant information to the article and simultaneously exclude relevant information from it. I would be rather happy, if I am mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk about the article, not users please. Thanks. —— nixeagle 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

91.193.164.28, would you please sign your edits as per the many messages on your IPs talk page. Also, please consider registering a username and contributing to the article, because as it stands now, I don't see a single mainspace edit from yourself, so it can be questioned whether you are merely trying to control content without actually contributing. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would obviously register if I would edit or make some contributions. Now I only make my suggestions. I do not want to "control" anybody. But I can make my suggestions at the talk page. There is a huge difference between governments which clearly support territorial integrity of Georgia and the governments which clearly supported Russia's action. I think that merging this very different positions in one section "non-recognition" and removal the respective map would not make the article better. This is very relevant information about recognition. At least, if someone are afraid of misinterpreting of different pro-Russian attitude, we can devide all "non-recognition" countries on countries, which clearly supported the territorial integrity of Georgia and other countries which have not made any announcements about supporting the territorial integrity of Georgia or condemning Russia after August 26, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and I'm not saying you are trying to control, but by registering and have a username makes it much easier for the rest of us to see who is making comments. And please sign your posts as described on your IP talk page. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Precedent section

This section is pure POV, and should be removed. Martintg (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I said this a few days ago, they tinkered with it and then pretty much put it back the way it was with a few aesthetic changes. Don't hold your breath. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One can't simply claim POV and slap a template and expect for it to be removed, without explaining first why it is POV, and without attempting to contribute to NPOV'ing. The Kosovo precedent is notable, demonstrated by 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results. The precedent of Kosovo, whether editors like it not, is notable and has a place in this article. Of course, we could remove the section and turn the article in into a quotefarm, but that will only see the article becoming a result of dispute resolution, as I will fight the sections removal at every turn as it is clearly notable. So instead of simply calling POV and stating it should be removed, how about we discuss why it might be perceived as POV and what can be done to rectify it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is POV because the majority of the world does not accept that Kosovo is a "precedent". Even the section title itself is POV, a NPOV section title would be something like Alleged precedent or Claims of precedent. But is shouldn't even be in this topic, as it is a complex subject deserving of its own article, and is largely irrelevant to the topic of international recognition which this article is about. Its inclusion also turns the article into a WP:COATRACK Martintg (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is POV, but it is Medvedev's and the Russian Authority's POV - so it is relevant. However, there shouldn't be too much detail about it here. I suggest putting the rest of the precedent information in Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence Kislorod (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Russia's recognition section already makes mention of the Russian POV of Kosovo as precedent, inclusion of a seperate section called "Precedent" is some Wikipedian's POV. Martintg (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is the POV of 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results. A majority of the world doesn't accept it? Short of outright deletion, has anyone attempted to balance out POV? Or is deletion all that is people's minds? It is absolutely relevant to this article, when you see comments from countries such as the UK, US, EU, etc claiming this and that, when this section can provide background on the precedent (perceived or not), which can then have a Template:see attached to the main article, with that article being what Kislorod. You need to provide background information in context (which it is) and let readers decide. I would also draw people's attention to Khalizad's own statement[1]:

He understood the concern that Kosovo’s independence would set a precedent, but Kosovo was clearly a special case and had been treated as such by the United Nations since 1999, he said. The actions of Slobodan Molosevic had led the international community to act and, by the adoption of resolution 1244 (1999), Serbia had long been prevented from exercising authority in Kosovo, which had been placed under an interim international administration. Those actions were among the factors that made the situation in Kosovo different from other conflicts and situations and one that did not set a precedent for other regions. His country’s recognition of Kosovo was based on the fact that it had not, did not and would not accept Kosovo’s example for any other dispute.

One can't claim there is no precedent when even the US govt recognises it is a precedent. What is boils down to is whether sui generis only applies to Kosovo (US/EU opinion), or whether any region which has been the victim of aggression (i.e. South Ossetia and Abkhazia) are also able to use that precedent (Russian opinion), and of course it also could be used against by other separatist regions, even against Russia (i.e. Chechnya). And this is precisely why I inserted prose way back when that it has provoked calls of hypocrisy and double standards of both sides of the recognition divide, but someone saw fit to delete that. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Google searches of the terms "Kosovo" + "precedent" are meaningless test of POV, because it would pick up the phrase "Kosovo is not a precedent" as well as "Kosovo is a precedent". Your reasoning is contradictory, on one hand you claim the US govt recognises it is a precedent, then say the US opinion is that sui generis only applies to Kosovo, i.e. it is not a precedent. In any case, this section is just WP:SOAPBOXing, with no real relevance to the topic on hand. Martintg (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim that Kosovo is sui generis, nor did I recognise Kosovo is a precedent. The US did. Just goes to show their hypocrisy eh? But don't worry, there's plenty of sources, such as this - quote - In short, Washington and the "EU 3" -- Britain, France and Germany -- have created a multitude of international problems with their policy regarding Kosovo. All three governments claim that the Kosovo situation is unique and sets no precedent, but that is an extraordinarily naive view, and other influential countries clearly do not agree. Or this -- quote -- "More to the point, the Russians let it be clearly known that they would not accept the idea that Kosovo independence was a one-of-a-kind situation and that they would regard it, instead, as a new precedent for all to follow. The problem was not that the Europeans and the Americans didn’t hear the Russians. The problem was that they simply didn’t believe them — they didn’t take the Russians seriously. They had heard the Russians say things for many years. They did not understand three things. First, that the Russians had reached the end of their rope. Second, that Russian military capability was not what it had been in 1999. Third, and most important, NATO, the Americans and the Europeans did not recognize that they were making political decisions that they could not support militarily." I've got heaps more sources. I have yet to come across a source which doesn't state that the recognition of Kosovo created a precedent, and many of the sources I have come across which hasn't stated that the recognition of Kosovo would have to rate as one of the biggest foreign blunders by the US and EU. So perhaps you are able to provide sources which state it isn't precedent?--Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I definitely agree that Kosovo is important in this matter, I think disproportionate emphasis is given to it in this article. This article makes it seem like this was a direct response to Kosovo's independence, when in reality the main reason was the Georgian aggression. The Kosovo argument seems more like their justification for shrugging off the West's condemnation, rather than the reason for the recognition in the first place Kislorod (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, Russia still doesn't recognize independent Kosovo, so it is a bit hypocritical to claim that it is considered precedent "for all to follow". To consider something precedent one should first make sure that it exists, and according to Russia's official viewpoint it doesn't. Either you recognize Kosovo independence or it is not a precedent, that's fairly simple. Colchicum (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and this is why I specifically put into the article a statement along the lines that the recognition of A & SO and comments resulting from that recognition, given the Kosovo precedent, has resulted in claims of double standards and hypocrisy towards both sides in the recognition divide. But that was, of course, removed. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Saakashvili's statement

Saakashvili's statement at International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#Georgia is from 15 August, which is before recognition occurred. This statement needs to be removed and replaced with an appropriate statement from 26 August onwards. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I just added it because the quote that was before was unintelligible. jamescp 11:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was changed already.jamescp 11:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Other non-states or organisations" section

Explication: I propose it for removal, because 91.xx expressed repeated concern about the right of this organisation to be mentioned here, wherewith I concur unanimously, since it is unrecognised by whichsoever state. If preserved, we shall end up quoting Jemaah Islamiyah from the Philippines or the Emperor-in-claim of Korea, which is evidently neither necessary nor conducive to the informativeness of the article. Furthermore, other user explained that this organisation is part of Yushchenko's political entity, and that is enough for merging it with Ukraine-section as an alternative solution.

Remove as per explication. Bogorm (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove, otherwise we need to add similarily relevant entities such as Nashi and HR and BjornSocialist Republic Kislorod (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And the Finnish telecome (see discussion) ;) Bogorm (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Also such users as Sveibo and jamescp have actually already supported the removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes i have.. Remove it ! --Sveibo (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep As explained, the Mejlis is a member of the UNPO, an organisation which Akbhazia is a member of, and which Estonia, Armenia, Georgia, East Timor, Palau used to be members of, and which other notable entities are members of. Each addition needs to be taken on its merits, and could be looked at when the situation arises. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already answered you about UNPO in the section "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People". Estonia, Armenia, Georgia, East Timor, Palau became the independent states not because of their membership in UNPO. Who chooses the definite representatives of the definite "nation" in this organisation? Who determine the list of "nations" to admit this NGO? Can the member of NGO recognize new state because of its membership in NGO? What entity can recognize new state? The title of this article is "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia". I pay your attention to the title. Not "international reaction" - just "international recognition". We should include into this article only relevant information about recognition. We should not include the responses from organisations which cannot recognize new states at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody (not me) move Hamas, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and Northern Cyprus to the section "non-states". Then, I have no choise other then to rename the section to "De facto states or sovereign governments" and to delete Mejlis from it. Also we have the consensus about the existence of the section "Other non-states or organisations" at the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Bad news for the possible adherents of this section: one user recently disclosed the following: However, Finnish mobile phone operator Saunalahti has recognized Abkhazia as an independent state since 2005 , which was removed, because it was inserted in the "Finland section". However, if the current proposal does not reach a consensus, I think that it would perfectly befit it. Therefore consider it voting for both "non-organisations."Bogorm (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This does not belong, because the mobile phone company does not recognise Abkhazia, it's simply because Abkhazians generally could not use Georgian mobile network, and MegaFon supplies the mobile phone network in Abkhazia as per [2]. It has nothing to do with independence or anything like that. Just as in Kosovo, many people have Slovenian or Monacan phone numbers. Or Afghanistan, the satellite network was popular. etc.etc.etc --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, including a mobile phone operator as a valid source of recognition? One second, let me just gather my thoughts... Okay, no. That's ridiculous. jamescp 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just the same. I am sorry, including the political movement, which is actually a part of other political movement (see above); including political parties as a valid source of recognition??? This is rather ridiculous even if this political movement has the membership in Soros-funding NGO :-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for extemporaneous jocose Witze/bon mots. Bogorm (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sarcasm jamescp 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, sarcasm is not helpful, I execrate it. Who on earth wrote that sarcasm may be helpful...?!?! Bogorm (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone on earth wrote it, I would imagine. I rather enjoy sarcasm; nonetheless, Bogorm, please keep to constructive discussions, which are of relevancy to the article at hand. My comment raised my point of view, which was "No." There is no need to comment further. And if you read through the discussion, sarcasm was used by other users in the past. Curious as to why you didn't point that out, if you "execrate" it Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. jamescp 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bjorn Socialist Republic

I can't believe there's actually a dispute about this, but does anyone agree that the Bjorn Socialist Republic's position should be included in the article. This is a 6 m sq barren rock that a Swedish singer has called his republic, and which issues "proclamations." TSO1D (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can. As of now, I am reluctant to concur with you, ar least until I behold Russavia 's explication. It has nonetheless expanded my knowledge, since I had never before heard thereof - that is why I express my gratitude to Russavia Bogorm (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this other entity should be included. It is another entity, which is not recognised as a state, like Transnistria. There is no need to remove it from this article./Danielfärs (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep, because this is an existing entity recognizing the independence./Miller (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep The Swedish user sounds convincing and knowledgeable and I decide to support Bogorm (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a rock!!!! There are no people living there. And how did two users who haven't posted for weeks suddenly found themselves here. TSO1D (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA ! Bogorm (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for an entity which is not notable enough for its own article (refer to its AFD) to be able to plaster its rubbish in an encyclopaedia article. Until such time as a proper news agency picks up the story and does a serious article on its support of indepedence, it should be removed, as the current source is WP:SELFPUB. Another option to give this entity some credence is for it to join the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization which should give it some clout for inclusion in the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hoped all this was a joke, but it seems like at least two users hasn't got it. Of course it has to be deleted if we are going to continue with a serious article here. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a high school joke. Närking (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You have two compatriotes of yours discouraging this kind of purges. Bogorm (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser/sockpuppet report is in order I think for User:Rüssiavia (thanks for the compliment), User:Mannen av börd and User talk:Danielfärs --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, they might be citizens of the Republic, which perchance does not have enough inhabitants to support her here... Hélas... Bogorm (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but if the information does not fit here, we will not add it again. I can assure you all that it is not a joke in any way, and that claims of that kind are personal attacks. Good day to you all./Miller (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

They are absolutely not WP:NPA, except what has been done is a clear WP:COI, and sock-puppeteering is absolutely not acceptable --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove- this sounds like a joke.--Avala (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a joke, but why bother now. It's already removed./Miller (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Ijanderson (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove 141.166.241.22 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are these lines needed?

I am reading through the article and came across these few lines:

"Vitaly Churkin, the Ambassador of Russia to the United Nations, attacked the United States' moral high ground in the United Nations Security Council by recalling the US-led invasion of Iraq, with Churkin asking Alejandro Wolff, "whether he has found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet, or is he still looking for them?"[37][38] Others have noted that the United States' position would be credible if it hadn't supported the violation of the territorial integrity of Russian ally, Serbia, when it recognised the independence of Kosovo in February 2008.[39]"

Can someone tell me why this is needed? Essentially, why, under a section entitled "Russia's Recognition," do we need such a comment? It doesn't add to why they recognized SO and A nor does it refute any comment provided in the text by the United States. It is basically just a few sentences with no real connection to the article. Why do we need to know that Vitaly Churkin attacked the United States' "moral high ground"? jamescp 06:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Has no relevance at all and should be deleted. Martintg (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No relevance? It seems anything Russia says has no relevance or is idiotic. The quote is an example of Russia directly telling the United States that they have no ground to be attacking Russia by claiming that they broke international law and the like, when Russia is of the opinion that the United States is guilty of exactly that, and therefore has no moral high ground from which to lecture them from. If anything, we should be cutting down on the US sections, seeing as they have done nothing but posture and send Cheney to Georgia, and give more credence to EU positions. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe more a question of proportionality ? Til now a Russian response appears in US or European statement (sub)sections ( better than before there were 2-3 responses regarding one statement) but maybe it's time to insert similar "responses" in Russian statement section to make the article more proportional. ;) Elysander (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elysander and Martintg. Please find some way to justify such a response by Russia; otherwise, you are merely taking a shot at the US because of your own POV. I've added US and NATO quotes to this section to justify the remarks that follow. This, of course, is only relevant to this section. Please don't go inserting Russian remarks in other nation's reactions. Since this is under "Russian Recognition" it should only be about Russian recognition -- not cheap shots at the US, which reflect your POV. If you remove the NATO and US quotes, I would expect that the Russian quote in question would also be removed. jamescp 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to justify their response. because I am not the one who took a swipe at the US. It seems that you are removing anything that is critical of the US in this article, and we all know that Russia has been critical of the US. Such as removing the come back to hit them in the face comment.....that is the most powerful statement made by Putin, along with being terrible precedent, and its been removed from the article? Why? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The point of this article is not to take a swipe at the United States. It is to discuss international reactions to the recognition of SO and A; thus, the Russian recognition section should only state that Russia recognized SO and A and give the reason (because of Kosovo). Any other form of response -- especially directed at a specific country -- is irrelevant. With that said, there are lots of irrelevant sections in this article. Under "international reaction" we have UN, US and EU response but these shouldn't be there. They should be assimilated with the table sections under "non-recognition." Furthermore, these table sections should be limited to one or two paragraphs, which give their official stance on whether or not they recognize SO and A (official stances should come from the President or a person of high authority who can officially declare recognition/non-recognition). The reason these irrelevant sections are there is due to the notion that Russia needs to attack the EU and US. They are merely buffers, which offer a psuedo-neutral tone. My issue is that you purposefully include quotes that are irrelevant and directed towards the US. Perhaps looking beyond the Russia/US feud would greatly benefit this article and maintain its relevancy. jamescp 03:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case I think this is the wrong name for the article. What you want seems to be "List of countries which have recognised Abkhazia and South Osetia". That's fine, but this article should stay and become "International reaction..." or be moved to the Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Kislorod (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that is up for Afd at the moment? Better that be developed here for time being and then broken out after the Afd, because it may be decided that it be merged back into this article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Understanding - Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has a "full understanding" of Russia's actions, but this does not necessarily mean Saudi Arabia supports Russia. For example I can understand terrorism and fascism, however i don't support them. Understanding is different to support. So we should move Saudi Arabia to "Non Recognition". Ijanderson (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think almost everyone agrees on this... Saudi Arabia should just be removed in general unless someone can find an official position. jamescp 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the above info on the Saudi position is accurate and verifiable, it should go in somewhere. Andrewa (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-recognition section

We have to devide "non-recognition" position of the governments on two different positions

1) Supporting the territorial integrity of Georgia 2) No announcements about supporting the territorial integrity of Georgia. If we will do so - then it will be no such issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No. We should lump all non-recognising countries together, regardless of whether they've stated they support Georgia or not. Just because a country hasn't explicitly announced that it supports Georgia's integrity, then it may still support it. We should treat non-recognising countries differently only in the unlikely event that they announce that they do not support Georgia's integrity. Bazonka (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka, that's a good point. I think there have been negative connotations associated with "non-recognition" but it simply is that these countries accept or are content with the status quo prior to Russia's recognition. jamescp 13:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to "lump" all non-recognising countries together you have to rename the section "Non-recognition" to the section "Non-recognition YET". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That wont work. May be we should just have R and NR and leave out those who don't share an official opinion yet. jamescp 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've said it before. Either they have recognized them or they haven´t. And it doesn't matter if they have showed support of the Russian decision, they still haven't recognized them yet. And we don't need to update with every possible statement that might sound like they are going towards something. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Närking (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree! It makes only sense to leave only the categories Rec or Nonrec. We don't need to discuss why all these (sub)sections were introduced once upon a time - only to cover up the surprising lack of true support for recognition policy. Elysander (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of making two lists, Recognise and Non-Recognise. This is NPOV and will correspond with the map. Ijanderson (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have a consensus here. So we've agreed that we will make 2 sections: Recognition and Non-Recognition. Will we only include countries that have stated that they do not recognize SO and A or that they want to maintain the status quo and respect Georgia's territorial integrity. That makes more sense. jamescp 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but you forgot to add the one's that were in the support Russia section into the non-recognition section. Kislorod (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought we were going to omit them until they have stated an official position of recognition or non-recognition. I'll put them in the NR section shortly (unless someone wants to do that before I return) jamescp 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly move back Belarus to its own section, as it has officially announced it will recognise the 2 countries. The only section which seems even remote to having consensus is the "Support Russia" section. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I left Belarus in its own section as it intends to recognise, however I merged the "supportive of Russia" in to "non recognition" as agreed Ijanderson (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that move matches general consensus - belarus intending to recognise (and if others to come) are separate from non-recognition. So we have 3 sections in total. And I believe most would be agreeing with that? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know guys, seems to me that Belarus' "intent" to "recognise" is just a stalling strategy, they have already postponed recognition twice, first to the CSTO meeting, then again till after their election. I don't think it is going to happen, and thus Belarus should be placed in the "non-recognition" section. Martintg (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political forum. We do not have to place our own thoughts here. We just have to represent the reality. If after election in Belarus will be no recognition during reasonable period of time - only after that we may delete such section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We have reliable sources which state they will recognise but it will be after the Belarus elections later this month. I've read reports that they have chosen that route in order to lessen criticism which will undoubtedly be levelled at them by the US and EU. If we have sources that state they will recognise it's not up to us as editors to allow our own interpretations to dictate what they will or won't do. That's the job of reliable sources which we reference and base articles upon. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The new insertings or the renewal of old ones don't meet the consensus above to establish only two lists/categories Rec & NonRec. Explain why did you cancel this consensus ?? - Elysander (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus to move Belarus - it has announced intention to recognise A & SO, with Lukashenko even re-affirming their intent. The Kosovo article has "imminent recognisers" or something like that, and that is one part of that article that I agree with. A country which has announced it intent to recognise is different to a country which has said they will not recognise, and needs to be separated so that their intent to recognise is absolutely clear to readers. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic behind your remarks. If a consensus exists regarding 2 lists ( R/NR)then Belarus must be moved to non-recognition. Belarus did obviously and knowingly avoid to make recognition officially to this date (next dubious announced date: after parliamentary elections Sept. 28). If you mean there's no consensus regarding the right place for BR you have cancelled the consensus making only two lists. Elysander (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Belarus should be place in the "non-recognition" section because the fact is that they haven't yet. If they do in the future, then we can simply move them into the "recognition" section. This "Expressed intent to recognise independence" section is nonsense. Martintg (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. There's a similar section in the Kosovo article - the countries on it seem to either stay there for ages, or cause an awful lot of debate as to whether they should be included or not. It's just not worth it.Bazonka (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen! If you will move Belarus to non-recognition section, I will rename non-recogntion section to the section "Other countries". If you think that absenсe of recognition is equal to "non-recognition", then it is no sence to keep such title as "non-recognition.". We can use more neutral words. Because it is obviously that all coutries which have not recognized yet (see the section recognition) just have not recognized yet :-)). But why do you prefer to have such very simple article - why do you not want to create it for such Wikipedia, as special "Simple English" Wikipedia?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to change.

This article is turning into a joke -- no wonder it is up for deletion. I read through it and wonder what it is even about. I can't get past the constant back and forth between Russia, the US and EU. This isn't what the article is about! These quotes are getting out of hand.

I can see no mention of it being up for deletion. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me approach this with a list.

1. Why does history only show SO and A? If I recall, to most of the world, they are still within Georgia's sovereign borders. Shouldn't Georgia's history be included? Mind you, having a history section is pointless. We should just use main article tags at the top and have "Perspectives: Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia."

2. Why is Russia's recognition so long? Do we honestly need everyone's comments? We should just have the official statement of recognition by Medvedev and then Medvedev's quote about Kosovo. Putin's responses attacking the US and EU are not required.

3. Georgia's reaction should be in the "Perspectives" section, which would replace "history."

4. "Kosovo Precedent" should retain the first two paragraphs and then conclude with "however, the setting of precedent was..." Again, we do not need Putin's responses, which merely are there as attacks on the US and EU. Keep it neutral! And having the opinions of think tanks is a joke. C'mon now, should we add all the think tanks opinions?

5. International reaction. We don't need to highlight the thoughts of the United Nations, US and EU. These should be taken out (they were merely placed in because of the onslaught of irrelevant quotes by Russia attacking the US and EU).

6. Reaction to Abkhazia and South Ossetia's independence should list all the countries that have officially stated their position. If they don't recognize SO and A or accept the status quo, they should be put in "Non-recognition." If they accept SO and A independence they should be placed in "Recognition." Let me state this clearly, if they support Russia but haven't made an official statement on whether they recognition SO and A they should not be included. Supporting Russia is not a position in this article. We don't have "Supporting US" or "Supporting Ghana" sections, do we? No, because it is irrelevant. Also, the summaries inside the tables should be 2 paragraphs or less (and yes, that includes the US, EU et cetera). Intent to recognized can stay... I suppose. It is pointless though because intent is speculative.

Lots of work has gone into researching this article. It is a rough draft at best filled with unnecessary quotes that virtually feud with each section. If we break it down and use what we have, we can come out with a decent, neutral article. No attacks on Russia, the EU, US or any other country. Simple, straight-forward facts, which represent the article. jamescp 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

After cancelling yesterday's consensus by russavia & al. this article is again exposed to ridicule - and en:wikipedia too. Elysander (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can you expand? I am not sure what you were getting at. I am trying to get a consensus. The article has been severely compromised by several users who find it better to have a US/Russian feud than an article that actually discusses its topic. Notably, I am referring to Russavia. More than half the sources for this article are in Russian, even more from improper sources and it is littered with irrelevant information. Just today Russavia added the remarks of a Californian Congressmen regarding Russia/US relations in the Kosovo precedent section. He cited an online newspaper, a blog, and a snippet from some governmental transcript feed, which required a log in to read more than 100 words of the article. Despite these improper tactics, the excerpt itself was absolutely irrelevant. This is getting out of hand. jamescp 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I was the one who first added the quote as I believe it to be highly relevant to a section which deals with the subtopic issue of "Kosovo precedent" (as opposed to the overall topic of the article). It is properly sourced from official transcripts, and the additional blog link was only provided because some readers may not possess the login required for the full text. I can add that Reuters and numerous news sources both inside and outside the U.S. have also reported this quote in the past 24 hours, so it is clearly notable. Jagiellon (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't cancel consensus, as I (or anyone else) don't WP:OWN the article, so I am unable to do so. The section started out talking about Saudi Arabia and moving that, and ended up with removing Belarus as well. As a nation which clearly expressed it will recognise A & SO, it can't be lumped into "Non-recognition" as that section should only include states which will not recognise A & SO - and in fact, could even remove Saudi and Venezuela, with rewording Tajikistans as per the most recent comments. That is why I asked for Belarus to be placed back, because consensus on that in particular had not been reached. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is rather simply to understand what happens. We are only watching tactical manoeuvres to bridgeover the time gap regarding recognition ... naturally nearly nothing is seriously meant. The usual techniques are: disregard of consensus, misinterpretations, citations out of context, selecting non-reliable or dubious sources, disruptive changes of structure, "domination" by permanent presence around the clock and so on. I believe it's time for administrative watch to stop this anti-en:wikipedia-burlesque. I am not interested to waste my time for such ridiculousnesses. Elysander (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case, or it may not. But whatever way we see this, all of us are duty bound to first of all WP:AGF assume good faith. Jagiellon (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, if you are going to say that citations are being used out of context, I'd suggest making a new section and pointing out exactly which citations you think are used out of context. Just saying that they are being used this way does not make it so. :) If you see problems, start sections about them. However continuing to accuse editors of things is not productive. —— nixeagle 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have been watching this article for the last 5 days or so. Feel free to find other administrators, but I think I have done a fair job so far. —— nixeagle 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jamescp Ijanderson (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Jamescp too. The article needs to be stripped down to what it really should be about. Närking (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there is a number of you that agree. Let's work on this; Edit away and remember WIKIPEDIA:BOLD. jamescp 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer each question individually.

1. Because no-one has been WP:BOLD enough to update anything as yet. I would do, and will do it if necessary, but as one can see I have been working on other things as well. Georgia's history, if provided, should be in the context of this article topic.
2. Russia's section is so long because it is the main player in this recognition. It has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, but everything to do with notability of the subject
3. Georgia's reaction before the Russian recognition is out of whack timewise, hence why I have moved it below Russia. It seems silly to me to read a section about Georgia's response to the recognition, yet the recognition is not before that.
4. The Kosovo precedent, whether one likes it or not, is notable. A couple of days ago I was directed to prove there is a precedent. That is not my job, we can only include what reliable sources say, and if 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results discuss this precedent, either for or against it, then notability is more than met. Why shouldn't Putin's response be included here? He said it was terrible precedent and would come back to hit the west in the face; in fact, it was one of the most widely reported statements by Putin in regards to Kosovo back in February. Now the majority of this will be continue to be written in Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence (if it survives Afd), however, basic context still needs to be provided in this article, with a brief overview, and then readers go to that article to read more. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline and there is no such thing as a perfect article. This means that whilst material begins to be developed in this article, in future, it can be retuned and refined, with relevant content being placed in other articles. Don't WP:DEMOLISH the article when it is still so new, and still has a long way to go.
5. As mentioned elsewhere, what really got my goat is the prevalence (and absolute insistence) that some editors gave to the Swedish FM's comments which basically called Russians NAZI. I placed the Russian embassy position (diplomatically saying that's not very nice), Putin's Stalin quotes, and then ended with Pravda's Saying to Ossetians and Abkhazes that they must live inside Georgia is paramount to telling Jews to voluntarily present themselves at the gates of a concentration camp in Nazi Europe and smilingly accept the precept that Arbeit macht frei., in order to neutralise and NPOV the possible effects of that. In their own POV, editors took to presenting this as a "condemnation of Russia article", and it is not about that at all. The gung-ho attitude of some earlier editors in their attempts in demonising Russia were the catalyst for that, and looking at many Russian articles, particularly with Georgian related articles, there is a huge NPOV problem, created by lack of Russian POV; and I am here to provide the Russian POV (because very few other people will) and will provide NPOV wherever possible at all times.
6. As far as I can see, and others have mentioned also, WP is not a quotefarm, so yet most quotes should be removed, as they are more suitable to somewhere like Wikiquotes. However, working on an article, doesn't mean wholesale deleting of material (which has happened, just now again which is relevant information), but placing it in the right places to make it flow. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article, which people in future should be able to use to get a handle on the subject (done via prose), not simply be met with a whole lot of irrelevant quotes. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And one last thing I will add, anything which has been against the US position, or which may be seen to put the US in a uneasy light has been removed by James, however, we are not WP:CENSORED, and we are not here to do the work of governments, we are here to build an encyclopaedia not propaganda. Pointing out WP:FIVE to all editors is necessary. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I would also challenge those who have basically accused others of not only taking materials out of context, but also of providing dubious sources and the like. Additionally, a source being in another language other than English is not reason enough for removing information from the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment. If you believe that Carl Bildt said Russians were Nazis you haven't read what he said. Närking (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what i meant above: Bildt did compare one certain historic situation with another. And one certain user concludes: Bildt gives "comments which basically called Russians NAZI." Elysander (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read what he said, and the way that it was interpreted by the Russians is that he was calling the Russians Nazis. For Bildt to claim that Nazi claims on the Sudetenland were unacceptable doesn't hold much water either, when the Brits and French signed off on it, and allowed Germany to annex the territory. So whilst his words (misplaced as they were) may have been meant to send a certain message, the message as it was received in Russia was quite different. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

James has removed a shedload of information from this article, and it is a complete dumbing down of information. There is no consensus, a couple of agrees is not consensus and is not permission to simply go ahead and assume ownership of the article and decide what information goes and what stays. If changes must be made, they will have to be discussed on the talk page first, and WP:CONSENSUS is not simply a collection of votes as to what avenue an article should take, it needs to take into account WP:FIVE. So if there are any major changes to be made they need to be discussed here first, otherwise, it's only going to end up in the article being locked completely, and I don't want that to happen. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Length of the section on Russia

If there's a lot mere relevant material regarding Russia than regarding other countries, why not create a separate article Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and link to this with a {{main}} template? Then the Russian entry here would be a summary only, and of similar length to the other entries.

Just a suggestion, and I think we should aim for a rough consensus here before doing it, otherwise we'll just end up with a (possibly disruptive) WP:AfD nomination (and we may anyway). Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of relevant material relating to the recognition, and material which needs to be added, so that is a possible choice of article. What we as editors need to decide is if, as you mention, would it survive an AfD? It is obviously notable enough for its own article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is notable enough for its own article is not my place to comment on. This article, however, does not require an in depth discussion on Russia's recognition. It merely requires the official statements by Russian President Medvedev and his case for precedence (the Kosovo quote -- not Prime Minister Putin's quote). jamescp 21:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, I am not owning this article. When I add content (and remove content) I discuss it first. You, however, do not discuss what you add and you have consistently ignored the other editors who have also called the material presented in this article as irrelevant. Now, let's not attack users and move on to editing and fixing this article. And remember, it is about international recognition. Not Russia's reasons. Thus, a brief description of Russia's recognition and Kosovo's precedent is all that is required. You can add Russia's opinion in the tables. (I do beleive we need to cut them all down to at most 2 paragraphs). jamescp 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How the Russian/Nicaragua section is set out now is how it should be. Date of recognition, date relations established, and the extent of those relations. And again, moving Georgia above any section to do with recognition is like reading a book starting from halfway thru then going back to the front and then skipping the middle to directly to the back. The ordering does not make sense, and you have failed to discuss these changes beforehand, because it is only going to end up being moved back. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As to myself adding content without discussion first, having been around for a while and being involved in many different articles, I am aware of what articles should and shouldn't contain, and also on formatting. So again, I would ask that you cease deleting content, and making wholesale changes to the article without discussing those changes in detail first, otherwise I will have to ask that the article be locked completely. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, I do ask about these changes if you've read the discussions. Most agree with the changes I've proposed. Your term on Wikipedia is meaningless when I see your additions, which consist of quotes that are irrelevant and clearly represent an agenda. If you do wish for this to be a successful article, perhaps working with us is better than against. We are merely trying to neutralize the article and keep it relevant to the issue at hand. I am editing this now to correspond to the general consensus that was reached in previous discussion. I am not deleting "wholesale" as you have stated. I am paraphrasing long quotes and moving things in a sensible fashion. Now, you've said that you wanted to maintain the way Russia and Venezuela's tables appear. I have removed some paragraphs from previous sections, which I was going to place in those tables (this is to conform with the other tables and views). Do you have any proposals on how to move this data into the tables while maintaining the information you have put in those tables? jamescp 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If neutralisation of the article is your goal in removing Russian comments, then I suggest removing ALL comments from non-recognition because they are aimed squarely at Russia; I don't see a single comment from any other nation in regards to Nicaragua; for they too have recognised A & SO. Are people able to agree to that? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually. I do agree with you on that point. We should simply figure out a way to depict the countries that recognize and do not recognize SO and A (Maybe a table with flags?). As long as we remove quotes of Russia attacking other countries, which are irrelevant to their recognition of SO and A, then we should be fine. We can use citation marks to direct the user to specific articles (one or two at most), which would state their opinion. The article, after all, is "international recognition" -- not "reaction." What do others think? jamescp 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A mild disagree here (in other words, some more convincing is needed that this is a Good Thing). The information which is currently there conveys nuances between non recognizing countries which would be lost if you just use flags, and few users are going to follow 30+ references to dig out the succinct statements. Jagiellon (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal would survive AfD if (and perhaps only if, but I don't even want to test that) we have consensus here that it should survive AfD, in fact I'm doubtful that under those curcumstances anyone would AfD it. And I think that, wading through the stuff above, there's no opposition to a separate article.

So I'm happy to create such an article. At the risk of arguing from silence there's a rough consensus in support of it.

But two points remain:

• Are we agreed that, if a separate article were to be created, that the excess material could go there? I'm talking just about quantity here; The questions of verifiability, relevance etc. then go to the talk page of the article in which the material ends up.

• Are we agreed that, with a suitable link, we could then have a summary only of the Russian material, making that section about the same length as those on other countries?

If we don't agree on those two, then the new article will just duplicate material here, which is of course pointless. Andrewa (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would survive AfD due to WP:CFORK, and the most likely result would be to merge back in here, in which it will simply be deleted, so that we are left with the bare shell of an article as we are now. I have reverted earlier deletions because the article now provides absolutely zero context and information. Information here has to reach critical stage before being broken out, and I don't believe that is yet required. It doesn't mean that I don't believe a stand-alone article is yet possible, but it needs to be demonstrated here first, as it really would risk deletion due to WP:CFORK. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. WP:CFORK reads in part This page in a nutshell: Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

So, in your opinion, this material is only of interest in promoting a POV? Is that what you're saying? If so, it definitely shouldn't go anywhere in Wikipedia. But I don't see anyone suggesting that above. What they're suggesting is that this article needs a balance which is upset by excessive material focussing on one area of a large subject. Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the long term, possibly not. However, in the short term, yes it would be. What we need is enough material not to justify a WP:CFORK, but a WP:SPLIT. The total removal of material (which I have reverted) would not make such an article (as yet) viable. I have plenty of sources available (using Zotero - an absolute must for Wiki) for use on such an article when needed, but what this article needs is not mass deletion of material, but cleanup. This means removing for a start the massive quotefarm and re-writing it is as prose. That is a start; then I think we can discuss a split when needed, but to totally remove all reported information from this article isn't quite acceptable. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Editwarring

There looks like there has been some reverts going on. Please remember that one revert is ok, beyond that you are pushing it. If you have to revert something, explain why you reverted it here and discuss it here. Reverting 2, 3, 4, ..., n times is not helpful. Today I have blocked User:jamescp for disruption, in addition I'd like to make a clear warning to anyone else involved and reading this talk page that excessive reverts are considered disruption. This includes "tag team" reverts. Check the talk page, if the issue is not being discussed in its own section, make a section, as any further reverts (with a short grace period) after that I will be considering disruptive. As you guys already know, I consider excessive disruption a reason to block. —— nixeagle 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to excessive reverting, please note there is now a warning at the top of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia when you go to edit. This is done instead of protecting the page. The warning is to be taken seriously, and will be enforced. —— nixeagle 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dumbing Down the Article

Apparently there are a number of editors who are intent on clearing this article of statements which favor South Ossetian/Abkhazian independence. The new map is inferior to the original, yet there seem to be a number of people watching this article who insist on waging an edit war to keep the original map off of the article, I've got to wonder if they aren't trying to paint the international reaction towards Abkh/SOss independence as one which was overwhelmeingly negative; which is in fact, not the case. Plus, the responses of Belarus, Tajikistan, Venezuela, and Cuba were removed yesterday; they have since been re-added but under the label of countries which don't recognize Abkh/SOss, rather than as countries with intent to recognize or as favorable responses which they had been organized as originally. Dumbing down this article by painting the issue as black and white is misleading, we should be trying to improve the content by making it more detailed, not simplifying it. -- DMPineau (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note about your concern about reverts: any future reverts without discussion to the same version of text (ie reverting to map 1, or map 2 or whatever) will be considered disruptive. It is up to editors to check this page before doing something that may be considered controversial. (any non-vandalism revert can be considered controversial on this page) —— nixeagle 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

1921 Constitution

As per this change [3] the claim that Georgian constitution did not offer Abkhazia a formal status is false. In the book by Russian scholar Svetlana Chervonnaya, Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow, p 143 we find the following: On February 21 1921, The Constitution Assembly of Georgia adopted the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia and ratified the Provision on the recognition of Abkhazia as an autonomous part of Georgia." Iberieli (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Informations from sources which can be seen say that although there are vague clauses, there were never put into practice due to the Red Army invasion of Georgia. As we have sources which we can see, is there any possibility of providing a web source so that we can all see, and also possibly quote verbatim the relevant passages of the book (in Russian I am guessing it is) so that we can all see this. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

your claim are false as your alleged "references." The scholarly book was quoted and you bluntly removed it because it did not suit your bias. This is unacceptable for Wikipedia, i think you forget that this is not ITAR-TASS. Iberieli (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's not Rustavi 2 either. What was asked was for documented evidence, as in a direct quote; I have shown 2 direct sources which state that Abkhazia had no formal status under the 1921 constitution. Another source states: "...and re-instated the Constitution of February 21, 1921, in which Abkhazia is not specifed as a subject of state-legal relations...To overcome the legal vacuum in relations between the two republics, on July 23, 1992, the Supreme Soviet of Abkhazia resolved to re-instate the Constitution of Abkhazia of 1925. Abkhazia at that time was united with Georgia by a ‘special Union treaty’." Another source states: "The Georgian constitution of 1921 includes a vague clause allowing for Abkhaz autonomy but the Bolsheviks overthrow the Mensheviks in Georgia before a precise agreement on relations is reached." and "The Abkhaz Supreme Soviet (in the continuing absence of its Georgian deputies) reinstates the Abkhaz constitution of 1925, arguing that there is no provision for Abkhazia in the Georgian Constitution of 1921." Another source states: "In fact, the key move on the Georgian side was probably the decision in February 1992 to return to Georgia's 1921 constitution, which did not specifically mention Abkhazia at all, and therefore had no provision for Abkhazian autonomy." Another source states: "In February 1992, following the collapse of the USSR, the Provisional Military Council of Georgia which had seized power in a coup d"etat took a decision concerning the adoption of the constitution of the Georgian Democratic Republic of 1921, in which relations with Abkhazia were not defined." Another source states: "But Georgia received its own independence, and when its parliament reinstated the 1921 constitution, with no specific mention of Abkhazia, violent conflict returned." Another source states: "In other words, the nature of the relationship was never specified in the crucial 1921 constitution, and although Abkhazia has been military annexed by General Mazniev (Mazniashvili) on behalf of the Menshevik regime in 1918, its status under international law was indeterminate." Another source states: "Despite the remark about the status of Abkhazia, the February 21, 1921 Constitution did not guarantee Abkhazia's statehood, since Abkhazia had been occupied by Georgian troops at that time. The declaration of the Military Council overlooked the Abkhaz position." Another source states: "reinstated its 1921 Constitution on 21 February 1992. These steps effectively abolished the autonomous status of Abkhazia which it enjoyed within the Soviet Union." Another source states: "New power restored the 1918-1921 constitution under which Abkhazia had no autonomy." Another source states: "eorgia returned to its 1921 constitution, wherein Abkhazia was not mentioned at all. Considering that, Abkhazia offered Georgia to sign an agreement founding a federation." Another source states: "By reverting in 1992 to the Constitution of Abkhazian Republic of 1925, in which relations between Abkhazia and Georgia were based on a special Treaty of Union, Abkhazia was attempting to overcome a constitutional vacuum in its relations with Georgia after the abolition by the Georgian Military Council of all constitutional acts adopted in Georgia during Soviet times, and after its return to the Constitution of the Georgian Democratic Republic of 1921, in which the autonomous status of Abkhazia was not defined." Another source states: "The new State Council, brought under the leadership of Shevardnadze, abolished the 1978 Georgian Constitution and replaced it with the pre-Soviet Constitution of 1921, in which the autonomous status of Abkhazia was mentioned but not legally specified." Another source states: "When Georgia reinstated the Constitution of the 1918-1921 Democratic Republic of Georgia in 1992, it implicitly stripped Abkhazia of its autonomous status (and reminded Abkhazians how they had been invaded and annexed by Georgia during that period)." And there's more. Unless there are multiple sources which state specifically what you have inserted, sources which we can see, I believe I have met WP:BURDEN for including "no formal status" into the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Chapter XI –Autonomous Administration

A r t i c l e 107.

Abkhasie (district of Soukhoum), Georgia Musulmane (district of Batum), and Zakhatala (district of Zakhatala), which are integral parts of the Georgian Republic, enjoy autonomy in the administration of their affairs."

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA (ADOPTED BY THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (February 21, 1921) --Kober^Talk 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please note the archaic spelling of the placenames. This proves that the translation is contemporanous (probably from a French copy of the constitution), dating to February 1921.--Kober^Talk 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, but, as one of the sources I linked above says:

After Gamsakhurdia's flight into exile, the Military Council of Georgia, which had come into power by a military coup, abrogated Georgia's 1978 constitution in February 1992 and reinstated the constitution of 22 February 1921 which had been introduced by the independent Menshevik-led government. Clause 107 of that constitution states that "Abkhasie (district of Soukhoum), Georgia Musulmane (district of Batum), and Zakhathala (district of Zakhatala), which are integral parts of the Georgian Republic, enjoy an autonomy in the administration of their affairs."
Clause 108 states: "The statute concerning the autonomy of the districts mentioned in the previous article will be the object of special legislation." In other words, the nature of the relationship was never specified in the crucial 1921 constitution, and although Abkhazia had been militarily annexed by General Maznie (Mazniashvili) on behalf of the Menshevik regime in 1918, its status under international was indeterminate."

Given this source, and other sources which do not require us to interpret the constitution, the edit that I had made, i.e. Abkhazia had no formal status under the 1921 constitution, is actually quite correct. I would suggest that we rewrite that part to state:

On 21 February 1992, Georgia abolished the Soviet-era constitution and restored the Democratic Republic of Georgia under the 1921 Constitution, in which autonomy of Abkhazia was suggested, but legal status was not formally granted

.

This is not OR on our part, and it provides was reliable sources state. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Abkhazia was granted autonomy two years before the constitution was adopted. See this act adopted by the People's Council of Abkhazia in 1919. The 1921 constituion (adopted four days before Tbilisi fell to the Soviet invasion) promised to determine the final constitutional status of Abkhazia within Georgia.--Kober^Talk 18:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't engage in original research. I am well aware that Tbilisi fell 4 days after the adoption of the constitution, but that fact can't change the fact that autonomy under the 1921 constitution was never formally granted because we have reliable sources which state otherwise. Can you at least agree that we change to the suggestion that I made, or expand on it, to come up with a variation which can be agreed on, for both this article, and the Abkhazia article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no other comment, I've gone ahead and made the changes. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara and Morroco: Intent to recognize

This article http://www.regnum.ru/english/1053372.html says Western Sahara (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, SADR) is going to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia this year. Since there is not currently a section for Intent to Recognize, perhaps the appropriate place to put a mention would be in "Other entities and states > Positive views on recognition". Curiously, the same source also says that Russia expects Morocco to recognize Abkhazia but there is no direct quote from Morocco which could be used for our article. Jagiellon (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it could be added to the article, however, the Morocco position is somewhat more unreliable as I can't find anything on mid.ru relating to Morocco, so perhaps the SADR could be added to the article (in same section as Kosovo). --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Syria

In this diff I have removed Syria, as the comments are in relation to the actual war, not on recognition; evident that the articles are pre-26 August 2008. If the Syrian position has been publicised, then this needs to be done with sources which directly refer to recognition; will they? won't they? This is the information which is directly needed for the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a topic that needs to be discussed seeing as it has caused a great deal of edit warring. Understand that anyone found edit warring over the material will be blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already been discussed previously, and this is International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia which occurred on 26 August, comments from 25 August can't be in relation to this article. A note has been left for the editor advising them as to why I removed it, which I feel is a bit more productive than a simple warning about edit warring. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If it has been discussed previously, please link to where the discussion is in the archives. Saying it has been discussed, without pointing folks to where it has been discussed does not help much. —— nixeagle 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Syria did not recognize yet the secessionists, and I belive it not so importent. So much energy for this article for nothing. It is no encyclopedic and motivate only from politic reason. for example we have no article about International recognition of France International recognition of Syria International recognition of Russia ect. That because thiere is no need. Geagea (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Other Entities?

It seems that there's a discrepancy here; in the International reaction to Kosovo's 2008 independence declaration article we have Abkhazia and South Ossetia (among others) listed as "Non-UN member states." However, on this very article, we have Kosovo, a state with much wider recognition listed as 'Other Entities.' The double standard here is obvious. A state with 2 recognitions is referred to as 'Non-UN member state' in one article (South Ossetia/Abkhazia), while a state with 46 recognitions is listed under 'Other Entities' (Kosovo). I don't think that's an accurate description. --alchaemia (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, read carefully. The title of the section is "Other entities (de facto states or governments)" I see no difference between such title and 'Non-UN member state'. Especially if you appreciate the fact that all UN members are listed above this section in our article. I see no double standards in the title of the section. Please, read the article before commenting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And you should not compare different articles without deep analysis of each of them. Please, appreciate the fact that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are also listed in this very article in the section "Other entities (de facto states or governments)". The international statuses of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo are very similar (i.e. partially recognized states), and it is not directly dependent on the definite number of UN states, that recognise these countries. It is dependend on other facts, such as whether this states have UN admission, or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a clear difference between a 'de facto state' and a 'Non-UN member state.' Switzerland was a Non-UN member state until it became a member of the UN a couple of years ago. Now, if we assume and decide that Non-UN member state is any state, with partial recognition, which is not a member of the UN, then I think Kosovo should be defined as such in this article, exactly as South Ossetia and Abkhazia are defined in the Kosovo article.

1. Change Kosovo (this article) from 'Other Entities' to 'Non-UN member states'

or

2. Change South Ossetia/Abkhazia/etc., (in the Kosovo article) from Non-UN member states to 'Other entities.' --alchaemia (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be CAREFUL! Switzerland became a UN member state not "a couple of years ago", but in 2002, 6 years ago. Nowdays membership in UN is just a synonym of full international recognition! I will never allow to put Kosovo and Abkhazia or S.O. in different sections, because actually the statuses of these states are the similar. We have 192 member states in UN, and all countries without recognition at least a half of them are partially recognized states! This is just a Wikipedia, not a political forum! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk • contribs)

Please understand, it's not your place or anyone else's to never allow anything. None of us own any articles here, or even our own user pages. Rather, they are all community property, and we attempt to decide things by seeking a rough consensus. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The rough consensus of international community (and common sense) is that Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognized states! So, they should be placed in the same section. If someone will place these countries in different sections, it will be definitely a disruption, so I will do everything I can to do not allow such disruption to be made. You can rename the titles of the sections (if you think that this is very necessary to adhere Kosovo article strictly), but you have to preserve the entirety of the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best thing you can do to foster sympathy for your cause here is to abide by Wikipedia's policies, especially if the consensus here goes against you on particular editorial issues. Wikipedia uses the terms consensus and disruption in particular ways that help to define what is acceptable behaviour here. If on the other hand you attempt to enforce unilateral decisions, however meritorious they may be, you risk discrediting your cause, perhaps unfairly. Andrewa (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus here doesn't go against me (I think that the majority of users agrees with me, see, for example User:Tocino, and User:Ijanderson977) so, if somebody will take unilateral decision and disrupt the article - it will be definitely a disruption, and I will revert such changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The two articles don't have to follow each other exactly. They are two different situations. --Tocino 17:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tocino Ijanderson (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you'd say that Tocino, as it was more than likely you (or Avala) who listed Kosovo under 'Other Entities' and SO/Abkhazia under 'Non-UN states' in that Kosovo article. Of course you'd say "they are different situations..." but just for curiosity, would you mind telling us what's so different about these two situations? --alchaemia (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind telling us why you have some pretensions to this very article instead of Kosovo article? If you do not like Kosovo article - you can use the respectible talk page instead of this page. These are different articles in Wikipedia, and I really do not understand why one article has to adhere another strictly. This is the talk page only for article "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", and please do not discuss Kosovo article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the title of the section, so I think that our issue is settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

the war

There seems to be a lot of emphasis given to the 'Kosovo precedent' but there is very little mention of the actual war. No one will deny that the war was much more important in determining events than the recognition of Kosovo, yet this article would have one believe otherwise. Kislorod (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Intent to recognize" section

Shouldn't we have a section for "States that intend to recognise". Belarus is they only country which fits fits this criteria currently, but may not be the only one in the future. I propose we add "States that intend to recognise" to the article. Ijanderson (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. It is the same way it is being done in the Kosovo article. It also makes sense from a practical perspective: As even Nicaragua showed, there is sometimes a period between announcing intent and formalizing recognition. Jagiellon (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It used to be on here. I re-added it but I was reverted by User:Elysander. There is no legit reason not to have the section. --Tocino 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Let us safely add it back as it used to be (and as the somewhat similar Kosovo article has it). The section header could be "Intent to recognize" and inclusion criteria would be express intent to recognize as stated by a President, high government official or diplomat. Mere expressions of support for South Ossetia and for Abkhazia would not suffice. Jagiellon (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object I would like to go ahead and reinstate the "intent to recognize" section. I would also like to restore the opening line to its previous stable version which was developed through general consensus. Jagiellon (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the talkpage! Why should we reinvent a perpetuum mobile again? Belarus wanted to recognize within 2 days end of August, now perhaps recognition will take place anyway after Sept. 28. The only thing which will happen again in this article .. irrelevant discussions about what means really "intent" and how at which time countries should or must express their "intent" anyway. The next step will be reinserting the next dubious subsections as only weeks before. Article is still underaverage without tricky dicky changes too. Elysander (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I deliberately waited five days before re-inserting the earlier section in order to give others a chance to comment. So far, there seems to be consensus and persuasive arguments for having an Intent to Recognize section, just like Kosovo's similar article has it (where some of the intentions date back to July, or even earlier.) That Belarus is taking its time and has stated it will wait until after September 28 does not detract from the statements of intent to recognize which have not been detracted. They therefore still stand and it will be a service to the article if we include them in a section of publicly stated intent. Jagiellon (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Belarus should stay where it is, in "Other reactions by UN states". DannieVG (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for an intent to recognise section in this or the Kosovo article. It just adds confusion. A country that intends to recognise has not recognised and can validly be listed with the countries that will never recognise. An intention section is simply a battleground. Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. DannieVG (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars

So where did the reaction of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars go? 141.166.241.22 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the next section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Krajina

I have removed Serbian Krajina from the list of de facto sovereign states or governments. Serbian Krajina is just a self proclaimed government in exile, in Belgrad. Please, pay attention to the titles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So,were should it be put? CrniBombarder!!! (†) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that such organisations should be put in this very article? There are other articles such as "Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence". We have deleted such section as "Non-states and organisations" from our list because they are definitely not a valid source for recognition. I think that Abkhazia and South Ossetia will not recognize this government of Serbian Krajina in exile, and will not establish diplomatic relations with it. So, this statement of government of Serbian Krajina in exile has no sense in the context of recognition, this is just a political statement of a political organisation, and we do not have to include such statements in this very article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I saw you being for adding the Chechen Government in London in exile to the Kosovo Article. Or was that a unique case? 72.245.82.86 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's disscuss only this article here! I do not think that Kosovo article is the good article. So, I do not think that we have simply to copy Kosovo article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I say include the Chechens in the Kosovo article and this Serbian Krajina group here. My only qualification is that Serbian Krajina should not be listed as a de facto state but just as a movement seeking more autonomy or independence in a new section: the way the Chechen exiles are listed in the Kosovo recognition article. And btw, the article on Kosovo recognition is very well done: much better organized than this article! RIVA02906 (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The title of Kosovo article is "REACTION", the title of this article is "RECOGNITION". These are different articles about different topics. Recognition can be done only by sovereign states - not by movements or political parties. Reaction can be done even by single persons. Please, let's talk only about this article here. Or, you should go to the Kosovo article discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think RSK should be included, albeit indeed under another category. They once were a de facto independent state, and are now seeking more autonomy. Indeed, Abkhazia and S.Ossetia will probably not move to recognize, but they did 'dignify' the letters of recognition with an official response; something which they would not do if you or I sent them a letter saying we recognize them.Bgdboy011 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I will write it again and again :-). The title of THIS article is "RECOGNITION" (legal act by other sovereign state). Not the "REACTION" (which can be done even by a single person). So, we have to write only about official recognitions (non recognitions=recognitions of Georgia's territorial integrity) in this very article. You can create another article, or use the article "Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence", but PLEASE DO NOT DISRUPT THIS ARTICLE.

Alright, if I use your interpretation of the title, I should then go to the article and delete every entry save those for Russia, Nicaragua, and Transnistria! How does this disrupt the article though: how does including relevant data about the reaction of non-state entities disrupt the article? 141.166.230.9 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To be consistent, the guy who posted above (without signing his post), should delete every entry for country's not recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia! 141.166.230.9 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I also notice that, besides the guy who won't sign his posts, there appears to be a consensus for including the reactions of nonstate entities into this article. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend. Your are the newcomer to this article. Please, read the archives of discussion. We, users of wikipedia who wrote this very article, had a consensus about "non-states and organisations" and deleted such stupid section. Because if we create such stupid section, then other would try to include there everything (microstates, political parties, mobile phone operators, single persons, gangs, and so on). All editors had the consensus that we should include only the responses from sovereign independent nations (or governments). From UN nations and from unrecognised or partially recognised (however, de facto sovereign) entities. The responses can be the following 1. Recognition of A&SO. 2. Recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity. 3. Intermediate attitude (for example, intention to recognize A&SO). All of these responses (however, only from sovereign states) are highly relevant to this very article. We even merged the recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity and intermediate attitude to stop debates about some states' elusive stance. Because, intermediate attitude can also be interpreted as recognition of Gergia's territorial integrity (at least, till opposite recognition (i.e. recognition of A&SO) would appear). Also, we created the map only reflecting legal official recognitions of the world's states. We had the consensus about our article, but few days ago here appeared some group of persons which even do not want to read the title of this article! They think that this is Kosovo article! They do not think about section and subsection composition of this article, and make the things, which actually disrupt the consistency of the article.

Venezuela / Cuba

Two new sources within the past 24 hours claim Venezuela recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia (and one included Cuba). But I have been unable to find any official confirmation of this so far, or even a recent quote from a high government official. First, from http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1009/42/371058.htm = "Nicaragua recently joined Chavez and Cuba in recognizing the breakaway Georgian regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia" and second, from http://www.coha.org/2008/09/venezuela%E2%80%99s-military-in-the-hugo-chavez-era/ = "Venezuela has gone to great lengths to establish close ties with the Russian government, not only through military purchases involving billions of dollars, but also with diplomatic initiatives like recognizing the Georgian breakaway enclaves of South Ossetia." True? False? Jagiellon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Moscow times to be a reliable source Ijanderson (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No they have not recognised. Believe me, when and if they do recognise, we will all know about it straight away. It will be very big news in Russia, not just a single erroneous sentence Kislorod (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but now we even have Reuters saying the same. This sentence appears in the latest Reuters report from the United Nations General Assembly: "Venezuela and Nicaragua have even recognized the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, following Russia's lead." Source: [4] - Personally I don't care either way how we include Venezuela or not, but I believe Reuters to be a reliable source. Jagiellon (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If it happens, there will be full articles dedicated to it in the Russian news agencies. Also, official declarations will appear on the websites of their ministry of foreign affairs.Kislorod (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

President Chávez will be visiting Russia this week, so we will likely get a clear statement about whether Venezuela has recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence. --Tocino 23:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's add them, as soon as we get official confirmation government articles! 72.245.82.86 (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

UNSC Resolution 1808

UNSC Resolution 1808 is being given as supportive reference to a statement claiming that 190 countries recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia. However, 1808 was issued months before the conflict and subsequent recognition by Russia, and reflects a snapshot of the situation in April 2008 which is why even Russia supported it. It also urges a non-violent solution to the conflict. The member states which is refers to are the 15 UNSC members. A similar resolution has not been voted on at the UN General Assembly so it would be WP:OR to claim that 190 states are in agreement with the April resolution. We simply don't know so please don't claim this based on an erroneous source which even one of its sponsors has since diverged from. Jagiellon (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User Elysander think that he can change the article without discussion. There are a lot of UN resolutions supporting territorial integrity of Georgia. The last resolution of UN concerning territorial integrity of Georgia was even not the resolution S/RES/1808(2008) of UNSC (dated April 15, 2008), but the resolution of the UN General Assembly A/RES/62/249 (dated May 15, 2008). But even the last UN resolution was BEFORE the Georgia's invasion to S.O. and consequent recognition of Abkhazia and S.O. by Russian Federation and other Nations. So, the information about these resolutions is irrelevant to the article. No UN resolutions, which were adopted before August 2008 is relevant to this article. Because there were a lot of UN resolutions before August 2008 (not only S/RES/1808(2008) and A/RES/62/249 ). All of them supported the territorial integrity of Georgia, and Russian Federation voted in favour of these resolutions. But the main idea of Russian Federation and other states, that after the invasion to S.O. and killing civil people, Georgia has lost the right to rule over these regions because of violation of basic law and morality. So, I think that user Jagiellon has to revert the changes of user Elysander, and all users have to condemn user Elysander for his edition of controversial topics without discussion.

Dear IP ;) Check this diff [5]! I did revert to the Jagiellon version not to mine. Elysander (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You made the following changes: [6]

But you should realize that in April 15, 2008 (date of adoption of this resolution) ALL COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD supported territorial integrity of Georgia. Also, the majority of world nations voted in favour of (or at least abstained) pro-Georgian resolution in May 15, 2008 at UN General Assembly. Why you want to mention only S/RES/1808(2008)?! We also have:

In 2007: S/RES/1752 (2007) and S/RES/1781 (2007)

In 2006: S/RES/1716 (2006), S/RES/1666 (2006), and S/RES/1656 (2006)

In 2005: S/RES/1615 (2005) and S/RES/1582 (2005)

In 2004: Security Council resolution 1554 (2004) and Security Council resolution 1524 (2004)

In 2003: Security Council resolution 1494 (2003) and Security Council resolution 1462 (2003)

In 2002: Security Council resolution 1427 (2002) and Security Council resolution 1393 (2002)

In 2001: Security Council resolution 1364 (2001) and Security Council resolution 1339 (2001)

In 2000: Security Council resolution 1311 (2000) and Security Council resolution 1287 (2000)

In 1999: Security Council resolution 1255 (1999) and Security Council resolution 1225 (1999)

In 1998: Security Council resolution 1187 (1998) and Security Council resolution 1150 (1998)

In 1997: Resolution 1124 (1997) and Resolution 1096 (1997)

In 1996: Resolution 1065 (1996) and Resolution 1036 (1996)

In 1995: Security Council resolution 993 (1995) and Security Council resolution 971 (1995)

In 1994: resolutions 937 (1994), 934 (1994), 906 (1994), 901 (1994), 896 (1994)

In 1993: resolutions 892, 881, 876, 858, 854, 849

All of these UNSC resolutions supported the territorial integrity of Georgia and Russia voted in favour of them. However, they all are irrelevant to this article, because they were adopted before August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it so difficult? I did revert to the Jagiellon version. Why should he revert his own sentence as you adviced him ? ;) R1806 was the last UNSC resolution regarding a mandate for Abkhazia til Nov. 2008 incl. guarantee of Georgia's territorial integrity. If one UNSC member is breaking such a agreement the resolution will be not obsolete or irrelevant. Apropos: But the main idea of Russian Federation and other states, that ... What do you mean with other states ? Elysander (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it so difficult?

1. I made the mistake about Jagiellon. Appologize for it. But now let's speak only about your (or your and Jagiellon's) editions. You included the information that 'UNSC members ... consider (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) as parts of Georgia's sovereign territory'. But this is not true! You may write only 'considered' but do not use the present tense, because Russia is a permanent member of UNSC, and Russia does not consider this now! I shall delete your editions, if you will do not give the explanations! This is the misinforming of readers of wikipedia! 2. About 'other states'. Do you really think that Nicaragua is not a sovereign state - legal member of international community (including UN membership)? Do you think so? Or not? I think that you are not crazy, so I have the right to write 'and other states' meaning Nicaragua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry .. i must have been missed some news the last weeks regarding the " Confederate States of Nicaragua". ;)

UNSC resolutions don't lose automatically their "legal quality" and validity even if a permanent member has changed its mind but cannot enforce an analogous new resolution. Elysander (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, is it so difficult? You wrote not about UNSC, but about UNSC members. Can't you really understand the difference?! This is very simple difference, I think that every person with minimal IQ can realize such difference.

If you would check history you wouldn't need so much time. I went regularly back to compromises not formulated by me!! To get a basis for a further discussion. At my opinion unanimously decided UNSC resolutions don't lose their validity so simply as other users imagine. The first sentence is still not correct. Elysander (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend. Wikipedia is not a forum, or negotiations. Our goal is not to find the compromises, but to find the truth. You do not have to write 'compromises not formulated by you' here, instead you should write only correct and true information. If you realize that the given information is false, you should not back it here, even if this is not formulated by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We all are only on the path towards "truth" .. and you will find dozens of examples for compromises on wikipedia to move editng work a litte bit ahead. And please don't forget one wikipedia principle: we all are anyway POV orientated. Only such users denying this factum are dubious. ;) Elysander (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed 'consider' to 'considered' to prevent misinforming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think now that such edition is even the best one. Because Georgia do not consider this territories as 'as parts of Georgia's sovereign territory', but as 'occupied territories', UNSC members (at least some of them) consider this territories as independent states. So, such edition, in the past tense is the best.

Also I want to have the explanations from from Jewish ancestry's Alaexis, which has reverted my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... explanations from from Jewish ancestry's Alaexis, ... How shall we understand this phrase ??Elysander (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not Alaexis, so you have no need to understand this phrase.

Maybe it's better using the individual pages for private conversations ... to avoid misinterpretations or misunderstandings. Elysander (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will wait for explanations about 24 hours, and then I will revert the stupid changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need this phrase about UNSC members in the first sentence? First, I believe that the statement that "UNSC members consider A&SO as parts of Georgia" is false. As it was already said many times, Russia is a UNSC member and it doesn't consider them that way. UNSC resolutions reflect the opinion of UNSC as a whole, but individual members may change their views with time. Second, if you include a reference to UNSC members in the first sentence, why not specify all the other countries that support Georgia's integrity in the same sentence too. Why place only 15 UNSC members there? I think, we could exclude UNSC members from the first sentence and then add a phrase like "Georgia's territorial integrity was supported by UNSC according to Resolution 1808". DannieVG (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Partially agree ! As i said above a UNSC resolution doesn't lose its validity even if a permanent member changed its view of topic. It's not very probable that in this case Russia can achieve a following UNSC resolution which meets its interpretation as the very honourable IP presented to us. ;-) Elysander (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if you argree that you backed the false information here, you have to correct your edition, and to present your information at least in non-false way. Or you should agree that your information will be deleted as false. This is your task - to present your information in correct way here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, I have found good wording. Please, do not change it for previous false version! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On the long long way to Tipperary! ;) At my opinion UNSC resolutions have more substance than rather tentative UN resolutions, therefore i'm tending to cite the last UNSC resolution. The legal effect of such a UNSC resolution is important not the view of single members. Elysander (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "UNSC resolutions have more substance than rather tentative UN resolutions"? UNSC is a part of UN, as well as UN General Assembly. I tried to be as impartial as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Crimea

Can we include, either in the Ukraine reaction or in the other entities section the following:

The Parliament of Crimea called on Ukraine to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia, saying it backed their right to self-determination and appreciated Russia's actions there.

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this should probably be added within the Ukraine entry rather than under other entities. Jagiellon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Its not the reaction of the Ukrainian government but rather of a body within the Ukraine. It should be listed separately, either with 'other entities' or under a new category. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Crimean constitution (which has the legal status of Ukrainian low), Autonomous Republic of Crimea participate in creation of Ukrainian foreign policy. So, it is neccesary to add this position to "Ukraine" subsection and I have already done it. And please do not create subsections for organisations, other than at least de facto sovereign states (see subection below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything in [7] to support the assertion that Crimea can participate in Ukrainian foreign policy - could you expand please? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to read this one in Ukrane's constitution

Article 135 The Autonomous Republic of Crimea has the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea that is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than one-half of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. and this one

Article 85 The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine comprises: approving by law of the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and amendments thereto.

And then, after it, you have to find the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and read the text of that Constitution. Or you have to simply believe other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.170.99 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but now I cannot find the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in English. I can give to you the link only to the Russian text of this constitution. http://www.rada.crimea.ua/constitution/soder_constit.html

Article 18 (in Russian) http://www.rada.crimea.ua/constitution/glava05.html#_18 Статья 18. Полномочия Автономной Республики Крым

    1. Ведению Автономной Республики Крым подлежит:
 3) участие в формировании и осуществлении основных принципов внутриполитической, внешнеэкономической и внешнеполитической деятельности Украины по вопросам, касающимся Автономной Республики Крым;

This is very clear assertion that Crimea participate in Ukrainian foreign policy. And remember that the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has the legal status of Ukrainian low. The Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is the Ukrainian low N 350-XIV, approved by the Ukrainian parliament and signed by the Ukrainian president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.170.99 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Crimean Parliament is a separate entity from Ukraine's parliament - include its response under a new section for subnational entities. RIVA02906 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Crimean Parliament is a separate entity from Ukraine's parliament but it is not a separate entity from Ukraine!!! Can't you understand such simple things? This is one of the Ukrainian governmental bodies, which has the right to participate in Ukraine's foreign policy. Understand? We should not include such sections as "Ukrainian parliament", "Ukrainian president" or "Ukrainian government" or "Crimean parliament" here, we should only include the section "Ukraine"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you wish to exclude the reaction on non-state entities like Crimea? You certainly seem to get emotional about it! Who cares if its part of the Ukraine, it has a reaction of its own. And its reaction is quite relevant - so why exclude it? I don't really think its inclusion threatens the territorial integrity of the the Ukraine:-)141.166.230.9 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are totally wrong. I have included the reaction of Crimea in the article (this is my edition). And please read my response in the Serbian Krajna subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To anyone who tries to include autonomous regions (such as Gagauzia or Crimea) here

The entity which can recognize new state is only a sovereign government (at least, de facto). Please do not include other entities in the list (such as autonomous regions of Ukraine, Moldova or Russia). They cannot recognize new state at all! They can only call central government of the respective state for such recognition! We may mention their attitude in the text, but please do not include them in the list of sovereign governments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They can't? Well, Gaugazia, rather obviously, did. This will probably create quite an issue in Moldova, but that's another story... Óðinn (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, according to the special legal status of Gaugazia, this region has the right to participate in creation an execution of Moldlova's foreign policy when Gagauzia's interests are concerned. Whether this resolution was illegal or not is for Moldova's constitutional court to decide. Óðinn (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, give me the reference to the ORIGINAL text of resolution of Gagauzian parliament. I think that we can find here just calling for recognition, not the recognition in itself. Gagauzia is not a sovereign state, it is just a part of Moldova, and only government of Moldova can recognize new states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try (and look at my comment above) Óðinn (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, fing the reference, or I will delete Gagauzia again! I cannot believe that the part of Moldova state has the right to recognize new states separately from Moldova! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're partly right. Here is the full text (in Russian). It is quite ambiguously worded. Basically, it reaffirms South Ossetia recognition which Gagauzia granted in the early 90s when it was de-facto independent. And it also calls on Moldova's parliament and president to do the same. I'll move Gagauzia to another section. Óðinn (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, read your text CAREFULLY. De jure it is just a CALL to president and government of Moldova to recognize new states. You have to move this CALL to MOLDOVA subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If this continue we will soon get back BjornSocialist Republic also. Närking (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved to positive views on recognition. And it actually says "Recognizing the continuity of goals of the Gaugauz Republic, which signed friendship and cooperation agreements with the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and officially recognized these entities..." Óðinn (talk)

But there is no Gaugauz Republic now! Read your text again. This is just the appeal to the central Moldovan government! And also this resolution has the statement that Gagauzia is a constituent part of Republic of Moldova. According to international low, the constituent parts of republics (or other states, such as kingdoms, principalities, sultanates, duchies, emirates, jamahiriyas, federations, federal republics etc.) have NO RIGHTS to recognize new states. It can be done only by the central governments. So, you have to move your very valuable information to "Moldova" subsection. We have to create the separate subsections only for de facto sovereign states or governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, similar to Gagauzia, I'm sure that the stance of Crimean parliament has to be added to the "Ukraine" subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hamas isn't a sovereign state either, is it?... Óðinn (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hamas rules de facto over the Gaza strip. Gagauzia does rule over their territory to an wide extent, however they are still beneath the central government.Kislorod (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the Gaza strip secede from the Palestinian National Authority?.. Óðinn (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will explain why we included Hamas here. Consider China and Taiwan. They have separate independent from each other governments. But the governments of China and Taiwan claim the whole territory of China both. That is why the general rule is to consider China and Taiwan not as the one state, but as de facto two independent states. The similar situation we have in Palestine now. There are two independent governments of Palestine, which claim the territory of whole Palestine both. But West Bank and Gaza Strip are de facto independent states ruled by the separate governments now. That is why we included Hamas (government of Gaza Strip) in our list. The same logic as with China and Taiwan. And there are no similarities with the autonomous regions - constituent parts of other states.

Alright, you convinced me. Óðinn (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We should add the similar information to "Ukraine" subsection about the resolution of Crimean parliament. Can you help us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about it. Good find. Óðinn (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for including Hamas in this article is irrelevant to Gaugazia and the Crimean Mejlis. These organizations represent sub-national groups in the former Soviet Union that might in future seek greater autonomy or independence. This makes their reaction very relevant to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I strongly support the inclusion of Gaugazia's reaction and reaction of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars under a new heading for non-state and subnational entities. 141.166.229.164 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that they "might in future seek greater autonomy or independence" is just your invention. Gagauzia clearly stated (even in resolution which is supported the independence of Abkhazia and S.O.) that Gagauzia is a part of Republic of Moldova. Obviously, the part of Republic of Moldova cannot recognize new states separately from Republic of Moldova. They can make suggestions to the central Moldova's government, and according to Moldova's law central government has to take into account their suggestions because Gagausia has the legal right to participate in Moldova's foreign policy. Mejlis has no legal status at all. It is just the one of the Crimean Tatar political organisations. Crimean Tatars is ethnic minority in Crimea. How can you imagine the seeking for autonomy or independence in this case? It is impossible at all. This would be something like seeking for independence by the black minority in the USA from USA. I strongly object to creation of such stupid separate sections! This would be something like creation of the separate sections for micronations, mobile phone operators, political parties and so on. This is very stupid and would disrupt the article.

I have added RSK before I saw this, and I don't see the point. Why would subnational entities not be included when they are included in International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo? This is an article about international reaction, not about reaction by countries. Nikola (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not read even the title of THIS article! This article is about RECOGNITION, not about REACTION! It has NO RELATION to Kosovo article! According to international law, only the sovereign states CAN recognize new states! I have deleted your edition! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"The assertion that they "might in future seek greater autonomy or independence" is just your invention" is stated in the unsigned post two up. He then proceeds to note the Gaugazia reaffirms its membership in Moldova. Apparently, the author of this comment is unfamiliar with the term 'autonomy!' For your assistance, here is the wiki article for it autonomy. Note, btw, that an organization seeking autonomy or independence might be a political organization as well. But anyway, apparently including Gaugazia and the Crimean Mejlis would "disrupt" the article. How I don't know: perhaps the author objects to the fact that both expressed misgivings about Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are totally wrong. Fist of all, Gagauzia expessed support of Russian recognition, Mejlis condemned that. Secondly, there is a great mistake in autonomy article. Not all autonomies are seeking to be separate states! There are a lot of autonomic republics in Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and only few of them ever seeked the independence from Soviet Union or Russia.

I agree with Nikola: include Gagazia, the Crimean Mejlis, and all other subnational identities and prominent organizations claiming to represent them. This is about international reactions, not just which countries recognized and which didn't. I also agree that the Kosovo international reaction article is a good model for this one. RIVA02906 (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, read at least the title of THIS article. You have not read even the title, and think that you may make editions. This article is about RECOGNITION (legal act), not about REACTION. There is a difference between this words. Do you understand me? Autonomies cannot RECOGNIZE new states separately from the central governments! They can make only suggestions to the central governments! Please, do not edit without understanding of this simple things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if I use your interpretation of the title, I should then go to the article and delete every entry save those for Russia, Nicaragua, and Transnistria! 141.166.230.9 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, read my response in Serbian Krajna subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)