Talk:Controversy over Abkhaz and South Ossetian independence

A comment
This article should explain first what the controversy is about. For example, Russia did not recognize independence of Chechnya but recognized Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Or, for example, Russian military forces occupied these territories and then declared them independent, even though they are currently occupied.

This article should also explain why other countries did not recognize their independence, even those countries that recognized independence of Kosovo. One of the answers: that was a purely unilateral occupation by a single country (Russia), unlike operations by NATO in Kosovo (an operation by all NATO countries), invasion of Iraq (a "coalition of willing"), and the Hitler's occupation of Chechozlovakia (Munich agreement). Hence the "recognition" also remains ''unilateral.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM and WP:BOLD, and knowing history, WP:NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This information is to be found in the lead of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - I suggest to move it from there hither in order to prevent accusations of unbalanced preamble there. The reason is that "controversy" should mean: "diverse viewpoints and their justifications" and that is what some editors find unacceptable in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (see the talk page) Bogorm (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

plan to add balanced views soon
Please do not delete, I will be adding more information soon supporting opposite viewpoints.Kislorod (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but why does this article even exist? Ostap 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. But a similar article exists for Kosovo. I think it would be good if people added information about the legality of the recognition, and not just waffle about opinions.Kislorod (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we add every single "prominent" economist and politician's view on this or just those that fits certain editors POVs? Narking (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * actually this ought to be deleted, there's no point in its existence Kislorod (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The reactions among non-Governmental parliamentary politics and prominent geopoliticians is extremely exigent. (To Narking) If you have other favourite prominent personalities, add their (sourced ! ) stances too, noone is going to impede you, provided the sources are reliable. Bogorm (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there surely is no point with this article. It's just one editor's POV. Narking (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah, this needs to be deleted. Ostap 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you see, the sections of the article have augmented and its worth is no more debatable (thanks to User:Kislorod). Further minatory remarks and propositions are to be discouraged. Bogorm (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Opinions section is extremely unbalanced and do we really need everybody's opinion about Abkhazian and South Ossetian on Wikipedia? How about Jean-Marie Pfaff's opinion? This article needs to be deleted, alll mentionable opinions are already in the right articles. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion
I am contesting speedy deletion, with due respect to User:Mariah-Yulia, the topic is notable, in the sense that the hypocrisy and double standards of both sides of the recognition divide has been widely reported in the media and by political analysts. There are several avenues the article can take including: International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is already quite long due to the long list in that article, but somewhere is going to be needed to place scholarly analysis. I do join with most others in the sense of being unbalanced, but I can give you examples of many articles on WP which have an extremely anti-Russian (some bordering on outright hatred) flavour to them, but the solution to this is to provide balance. And yes the embedded lists do need to go and to be standardised as per WP standards, but all it needs is for editors to be WP:BOLD and make the changes, and remember that no-one owns articles on WP, so it will not be hard to balance the views out and build an encyclopaedic article, because this is one topic which will be debated for many years to come, and it needs a presence on WP. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The obvious comparison of A & SO to Kosovo
 * 2) The legality of A & SO declaration of independence in the 1990s
 * 3) The legality of recognition under international law.
 * What is the scope of the article? Viktor Fyodorovich's opinion is already in the International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war article (along with other opinions by politicans). I don't see the point in having opinion constantly repeated... Is the scope of this article "opinions by non-politicians"? "Opinions by politicians" (in my view) belong in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This article should include not all kind of opinions about the war, but only these explicitly concerning the independence - otherwise I would have added a long, long time ago Vojtěch Filip's statement (here). Bogorm (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You people don't give a f*** about balancing do you! You just want to make it look like everybody suports Russia in this article! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vraiment?! Have you made yourself familiar with the Ingush and American opinions? Would you elucidate in which sentence you do discern Obama, McCain or Ingush secessionists support for Russia. Bogorm (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Contesting speedy deletion. Тhe number of opinions against Russia are growing, as you can see I have recently added Ingushetians and American presidential candidates who are strongly opposed to Russia's actions. Hopefully I will add European opinions soon. On the other hand, I think this article does need to be cleaned up. Only legitimate political positions should be mentioned and not mere 'political analysts'. Who constitutes a political analyst and why are their opinions more important than mine? Kislorod (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But Jacques Sapir teaches in one of the most prestigious French Universsities and is expert in Russia - read about his father Michel Sapir (interesing): Michel Sapir est né à Moscou le 8 mai 1915 dans une famille de la grande bourgeoisie juive russe Bogorm (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is the criterion to be considered worthy of mention? To have written a book or just to be some newspaper columnist?Kislorod (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion section
I have removed the entire opinion section from the article, and have placed it at User:Russavia/Opinion. The reason I have done this is that the section was merely a collection of quotes (WP is not a quotefarm) and despite objections from others, no-one has attempted to fix the situation by providing balancing views. Anyone is free to take the info from my user sub page and transfer to their own and work on it in their userspace, but putting it back into this article as is, is not acceptable as it is that section alone which is going to cause this article to be deleted, and we all know that there is plenty of material to produce an encyclopaedic article, but a farm of quotes is not the way to go about it. By all means, place material into the article, expand the article to cover other issues (I am working on Kosovo precedent at the moment) but don't simply dump a heap of quotes in without wikifying and providing context on which readers can use to make up their own minds on the issue. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, also thanks for making it an interesting article! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, it seems the original author has been blocked for a while. Of course, if they come back they have to realise that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information and work towards providing content on the controversy - there is controversy there. Another aspect which needs to be explained in the article is the re-assertion of Russia and its power on the international stage (a multi-polar world, etc). But of course, just have to see how the AfD goes first. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm probably shouting into the void here, considering no one else has edited this article in five months and there has been little to no activity on this Talk page since 2008, but unless anyone objects, my plan is to start moving over any content here that isn't duplicated on either Political status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to those articles, as appropriate, and then redirect this page to the former. Any thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm here! Sounds like a good idea to me.  TDL (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)