Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

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

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)

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 [1]. 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)

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[2]:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.