Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Archive 5

About user's TSO1D edition
User TSO1D have deleted very important information concerning Moldova without any discussion. Other users state that "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." Óðinn (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC) So, Gagauzia position is very important concerning Moldova's position. So, user's TSO1D edition is some kind of disruption. I propose user Óðinn to renew the information under "Moldova" sebsection, and all users to condemn the action of user TSO1D.
 * Poor Gagauzia is kicked around like a football... :) Anyway, I don't know about condemning anyone, but TSO1D should probably read the preceding discussion. Óðinn (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Under every country's heading, the official position of the country should be presented. In the case of Moldova, that position has been made explicit by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Gagauzia's position should be presented in another section, specific to it, or not at all since after all the region does not have the power to conduct foreign policy. TSO1D (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * According to user Óðinn this region has the special legal status and the right to participate in creation an execution of Moldlova's foreign policy. So, this information is very relevant to Moldova subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Constitution stipulates that Gagauzia can decide its future in case the status of Moldova changes (meaning if it unites with Romania). But when it comes to ordinary questions of foreign policy, Gagauzia can only participate through official channels, i.e. through its representatives in the central government. But in any case, since the section is labeled Moldova, it is highly disingenuous to also include the opinion of a small region of the country, as though that had some official status. TSO1D (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think, you should discuss this with User:Óðinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.222.133 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Article 12 of the Law on the Special Legal Status of Gagauzia clearly states that the Gagauz parliament has the authority to participate in execution of Moldova's foreign policy when Gagauzia's interests are concerned. Óðinn (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you have to revert the changes of user TSO1D again :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.222.133 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a bit and see if any counterargument will be forthcoming. Óðinn (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is possible that other users of this wikipedia do not know Russian, I CONFIRM, that Gagauz parliament has the authority to participate in Moldova's foreign policy, and this law was adopted by MOLDOVA'S parliament, and signed by the chairman of MOLDOVA'S parliament. So, I think that we have to include Gagauzia in "Moldova" subsection according to Moldova's legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.222.133 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * <===========deindent
 * I found the English version of the above and will restore the passage.Óðinn (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't really agree with the interpretation of that particular law as set out here, but going too much into that would be OR anyway. I agree that it's probably best to mention Gagauzia response here (since the same is done for Crimea, and a few other similar cases). I just abbreviated the part, to what it was originally (i.e. mentioning that Gagauzia supported the independence of S.O. and Abkhazia). TSO1D (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Belarus
There is the sentence saying: "However Lukashenko later reaffirmed Belarus' intentions to recognise the breakaway republics stating that the issue would instead be addressed after the upcoming parliamentary elections due to take place on 28 September 2008."

It sounds like Belarusian parliamentary election, 2008 has not occured yet, while it is actually over with known outcome, so somebody should fix that. --78.0.231.101 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What?! Why do we have to fix that?! New Belarus parliament even has not assembled yet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They were upcoming when he said that, I see no need to change it. Nikola (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Somalia
Why was Somalia taken off the list of states recognizing the two countries? Dutch NRC newspapers (a ref. was given) reported the Somalian ambassador to Moscow stated the government of Somalia recognizes the two states and wants to establish dipl. relations a.s.a.p. Bgdboy011 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * it hasn't done it yet. "Somalia will recognise the sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the neart future.". -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, I just saw the new ref. The dutch newspapers said it already did recognize. Bgdboy011 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Which Somalia? Former British Somalia, Puntland, Ethiopian based Greater Mogadishu or the Sharia Boys ?? ;) Elysander (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

to Elysander. Somalia is the member of the UN as Germany or Afghanistan etc. I don't parrot, but i indignant at your position. Quesrion in your logic : Welche part (american base) of Poland, UK, and others american satellite recognised Kosovo? Shadow Vogel (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * en:wikipedia >> The Somali state currently exists largely in a de jure capacity; Somalia has a weak but largely recognised central government authority, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), but this is only the latest in a string of ineffectual, externally-recognized governing authorities. Some think these "paper-states" have, in the past, been created for the sole purpose of capturing foreign funds. Elysander (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Elysander, not the "Former British Somalia, Puntland, Ethiopian based Greater Mogadishu or the Sharia Boys" but (according to English WIKIPEDIA) the internationally recognized Transitional Federal Government (which is recognized by UN and all the states in the world as the sole legitimate govenrment of Somalia). This governement has the control over (according to English wikipedia) on parts of Southern Somalia, Somalia's capital Mogadisho, Puntland (which supports the Transitional Federal Government, and considers itself a part of the Somali Republic). So, we have the UN recognized government of Somalia, which has control over the main part of Somalia's territory. So, we have to include this government in our list. Otherwise, we have to exclude Georgia's government from our list because of it does not exercise control over the whole Georgia.
 * Otherwise, we have to exclude Georgia's government from our list because of it does not exercise control over the whole Georgia. Did i write that ??? :)) I did only ask ironically which Somalia is meant regarding the existing "diplomatic relationships" between other paper states or similar entities. Elysander (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Somalia is meant as the internationally recognized Somalia's government (Transitional Federal Government), which has the control over the main part of Somalia's territory. Do you agree that we have to include the recognition of this government to our list "Recognitions by UN states"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturally! If announcement becomes reality! TFG is the only by international community respected government of Somalia whether it is controlling the main part of S. or not. ;) Elysander (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that TFG indeed is controlling the main part of Somalia, because it is controlling the Somalia's capital :-)). In such strange strange states we have to prefer, first of all, the capital-controlling government :-). And the international community recognized government. TFG meet all of these criteria :-).

I just heard a programme on BBC Radio 4 ("FileOn4: What really happened in South Ossetia") where they said that S.Ossetia had been recognised only by Russia, Nicaragua and Somalia. I don't know how correct this is though. Podcast is here:[] (probably only available for one week). Somalia quote about 3½ minutes in. Interesting listening. Bazonka (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not use such sources! We have to receive the definite news that Somalia's government has adopted the official decision about recognition. Remember, that recognition is the legal act of the respective government. We have such legal acts from Russia and Nicaragua. But we do not have such legal act from Somalia. Also, please read the article (Somalia subsection) --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm down Yuriy! I wasn't suggesting that we use this radio programme as a source for the article - but it's an indication that perhaps something has happened that we don't know about.  Or maybe they're wrong.  If this is true, of course we need a better source. Bazonka (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Bazonka. I'm sorry to inform you that there are a lot of journalists which cannot distinguish between reaction and recognition. If Somalia will truly recognise A&SO we will have a special statement from Foreign Ministry of Russia (as after Nicaragua's recognition) supporting such decision. But now we have only the statement from Foreign Ministry of Georgia that they recieved a letter from Somalia stating that Somalia recognises Georgia's territorial integrity.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I will welcome every your comment, Bazonka, because you are very clever person, and make a great contribution to Wikipedia. But I think that BBC program "What really happened in South Ossetia?" has to be used rather in the article about South Ossetia war than in this very article. I can provide another link to this program . This article has to be based on legal documents about recognition. Only the states which have released such documents can be considered as the states which have recognised A&SO.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Expressed intent to recognise independence
Why it was deleted? There's a simiral table in Kosovo article.Shadow Vogel (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to have this article the same as Kosovo article? Kosovo article is about REACTION, our article is about RECOGNITION. Do you understand the defference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you bring that back, it would be useful to split "Other reactions by UN states" into "positive/negative/neutral". --Xeeron (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that we have no need to bring it back and to adhere the Kosovo article (which is indeed about other topic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to introduce a 3rd category/list in the UN-States-section [] and earlier ... therefore the new "supportive" section is already against this consensus. Generally said (and especially relevant for this article) such elusive categories lead only to useless battles over weeks about nullities as happened before and til now happens in the ridiculous nonstates-proforma-defacto-entities-sections. All users who prefer splittings in more and more subsections at Un states should read article's history. Elysander (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Elysander! Congratulations! Now, I fully concur with you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, see "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence". This article has got "Imminent recognisers"-list. Why in that page is possible, and in this it's not possible? I think that you don't neutral. Shadow Vogel (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply, because you are not CAREFUL. Kosovo article is about REACTION (TITLE!), this article is about RECOGNITION(TITLE!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hic Rhodus, hic salta! All what i can watch: different articles with different titles. The difference is remarkable: "International reaction" can include all possible reactions from UN states over (non)defacto-(non)dejure-(un)independent entities to not defined organisations; "International recognition" can seriously only illustrate the behaviour of UN states. Elysander (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum, IMHO. Shadow Vogel (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The removal of "imminent recognisers" list in the Kosovo article is currently under discussion because of the continuos battle between editors over the meaning and reliability of sources. Reopening this paragraph will not help NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.36.92 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's now been deleted from the Kosovo article. Bazonka (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So, I will merge the subsections now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well perhaps then the title of this article should be changed. Why should we limit the article only to recognition, and only by countries? Nikola (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you want to use other articles, such as "Controversy over A&SO independence". You can use that article for everything you want, and present every statement of every person there. This article is specially designed only for recognition.


 * Also, I have to note that changing the article's title would led to complete changing the article. Because, A&SO declared the independece not in 2008, but in 1992 (Kosovo declared the independence in 2008). So, if we would change the title, we would need to put the special emphasis on the period 1992-2008, and completely change the article (including changing the map and so on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish to espond to this comment from unsigned user: "Why do you want to have this article the same as Kosovo article? Kosovo article is about REACTION, our article is about RECOGNITION." This argument is, to be blunt, lame. The Kosovo article is about both reaction and recognition; so too is this article. Both articles lists recognizing countries; both articles list the reactions on non-recognizing countries. Both articles lists the reactions of intergovernmental organizations. The only difference, not relevant to this topic headline but to the one below, is that the Kosovo article also lists the reactions of non-state entities and NGOs. In that respect, it is superior to this article. But the two still concern the same thing. They only differ in one regard: one concerns Kosovo and one, this one, regards South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They are otherwise analogous. 141.166.227.172 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference between article about "reaction" and "recognition" is that "reaction" can be displayed even by the single persons, but "recognition" is a legal process, legal act. And we cannot include non-states, NGOs and other such organisations in the article about recognition. Because such organisations cannot recognise at all. We can include them only if we will rename the article to "reaction". But the overwhelming majority of the editors have the lasting consensus about the title of this very article. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh 'republic'

 * I would call Chechnya a Republic, because it is actually a Republic of the Russian Federation, and it's official name is the Chechen Republic. Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, it is in the section of unrecognised (other) states, and it is not recognised by Armenia either. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 09:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Belarus, Venezuela, and others
Anyone know why it's taking these countries so long to recognize? Is Lukashenko so angry with Russia that he now will not support Abkhazia and SO even though he said he would? Is Chavez waiting for the Russian fleet to arrive before he announces recogition? What's the story? --Tocino 18:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM and they are probably not going to recognise because they know Abkhazia and S Ossetia are autonomous regions of Georgia which have been de facto annexed by Russia, therefore making them not countries. Ijanderson (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Only South Ossetia wants to join Russia and that is understandable since the rest of Ossetia is in Russia and you can't really be a successful nation with just 90,000 people. Abkhazia, meanwhile, has been an independent nation before and after the Soviet Union. I suspect that once Georgia gets a reasonable government then they will recognize that they have no right to these regions and they will let them go once and for all. --Tocino 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply to understand ... Lukashenko, his familiy and "friends" can visit again London, Paris, Madrid, Roma, Zuerich etc. and perhaps some "accounts". Why recognizing puppet states as 3rd when you can get such incentives?? ;)  Elysander (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, read the article. Lukashenko stated about neccesity of parliamental decision about the topic. I think that Belarus parliament has not assembled yet. About Chavez - he did not stated that Venezuela would recognise these countries. He just expressed political support to Russia.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To show real support then you need to recognize their independence. --Tocino 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this talk page is not a good place to discuss such issues.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm they have still not recognised? Well, we will update the article when it happens, I mean if it happens Ijanderson (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is too early to speak about the Belarusan parliament decision about the topic, because Belarusan parliament only has just elected the chairman. We have to wait for about a month (or even a couple of months) to talk about the real things (not about our speculations).--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's be consistent - include the reactions of non-state entites (e.g. Gaugazia) or delete entires for non-recognzing countries
I have heard it said that the reactions of non-state entities like Gaugazia cannot be included in this article because this article is about 'recognition' only; not reactions. Yet the largest heading in the article is titled: "Other reactions by UN states." This is inconsistent. This article should either include a section(s) for reaction of non-state and/or sub-national entities or else delete "Other reactions by UN states." 141.166.154.47 (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We have already included the Gagauzia's reaction to the article (see Moldova subsection).--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also I have to note the following:

a) We should include the responses of all sovereign nations (states) about the topic (because each sovereign state CAN recognise A&SO in future).

b) Any subnational entities should be included as a part of respective nation's reaction (because of the fact that they cannot recognise A&SO even in future, however, they can force the central government of the respective state to recognise A&SO. So, the reactions of subnational entities is relevant to the article about recognition; however they should be placed in the subsections of the respective states).--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds very reasonable. sephia karta  12:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also support. The principle should be as follows: every state that makes an official pronouncement regarding the status of A&SO should be entitled to an entry and a set number of lines of detail, quotes etc. from that pronouncement, in the main article. Legislation, presidential decrees etc. should take precedence over statements by government sources. A statement by a more senior legislator or official should take priority over that of a more junior. Orthorhombic (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds very unreasonable since it buries their reactions under other headings. Thus, Gaugazia's reaction is buried, so is Ukraine's. Besides sub-national entities have their own governments, the reaction of the Gaugazian or Crimean government is not per se the same as the Moldovan or Ukrainian government just because they are sub-national. Indeed, the interests of sub-national governments and national governments can differ quite considerable. Yet this article would list them together! And btw, sub-national entities can issue legislative resolutions supporting country's recognition, an act that can be very similar to official recognition unto itself. Sun-national entities deserve their own category - its a pity this article seeks to bury their reactions away: it certainly makes this wiki-article less useful to anyone checking on South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's international status. 141.166.227.172 (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus I support the proposal to create a new section for sub-national and/or non-state entities, to include, among others things entries for the reactions of the Gagauzian and Crimean governments. 141.166.227.172 (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the newcomer to this article. Please read the previous discussions about the issue. We have discussed this topics plenty of times, and current subsection composition is the best one, which is developed during long debates and coming to consensus. For example, you can read the subsection "About user's TSO1D edition" at this talk page, then you can go to the archives and read all related discussions. There is no sense to begin this discussions again. We have the lasting consensus about the topic of the overwhelming majority of the editors. Please realize that this article is about legal process (recognition). The main topic of this article is not about political reaction (and Kosovo's article cannot be the standard for this article). This article is about legal process. And according to Gagauzia's and Moldova's legislation, we have to include the Gagauzia's reaction as a part of Moldova's reactions.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamas recognition
According to this, the Hamas government in Gaza has recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If this is true, then it ought to be moved up into a category below the UN-member states that recognize (Russia and Nicaragua). 141.166.227.172 (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think that this is mistake of the journalist. We have no legal act of recognition from Hamas government so far. We have legal acts of recognition only from Russia, Nicaragua and Transnistria.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Abkhaz SSR
I'm astonished how assertive some users are despite their lack of knowledge of the history of Georgia's conflicts. I don't know who advanced an ignorant claim with regard of Abkhaz SSR being part of Russia, but here are a few sources from all Georgian, Abkhaz and third parties proving that Abkhaz SSR was a "treaty republic" subordinated to Georgian SSR:

1. "The Abkhaz SSR, united on the basis of Union Treaty with the Georgian SSR, enters Trans-Caucasus Soviet Socialist Federative Republic through the Georgian SSR and as a member of latter, the USSR." Constitution of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia of 1 April 1925 from an Abkhaz web-site

2. "ССР Абхазия, объединившись на основе особого союзного договора с ССР Грузией, через нее входит в Закавказскую Социалистическую Федеративную Советскую Республику и в составе последней - в Союз Советских Социалистических Республик." ИЗ КОНСТИТУЦИИ СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКОЙ СОВЕТСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ АБХАЗИИ from an Abkhaz source

3. "The Abkhaz SSR, united on the basis of Union Treaty with the Georgian SSR, enters Trans-Caucasus Soviet Socialist Federative Republic through the Georgian SSR and as a member of latter, the USSR." CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ABKHAZIA OF 1 APRIL 1925 from a Georgian NGO website

4. "Separate Soviet Socialist Republics of Georgia and Abkhazia with equal status are created. A treaty of alliance is signed between the two, though the division of responsibilities is not made clear. In 1922 they enter the Transcaucasian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic. In 1925 Abkhazia promulgates a constitution sanctioning its status as a union republic with treaty ties to Georgia. An earlier reference to Abkhazia as an autonomous republic in the 1924 USSR Constitution remains unratified until 1931 when Abkhazia’s status is reduced to an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the Georgian SSR." International NGO project involving Abkhaz and Georgian contributors.

More sources can be provided if requested. --KoberTalk 09:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't need any more sources. The revision was done by myself, in error, due to myself being responsible for introducing the bulk of those sections into the article, and I checked and rechecked sources at the time of their introduction, so that they were in fact accurate. However, I mistakingly believed that I also introduced those assertions into the article, and upon checking I did not introduce them; the cited sources didn't look familiar to me upon second look. Having an IP editor simply coming in and using "what a nonsense" as an edit summary can make one jump the gun somewhat, and this is what I did on this occasion. I have removed the cited reference, and will leave it for an appropriate source to be added. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 09:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC says Somalia has recognised South Ossetia
It says "a miniscule country of 50,000 people, recognised only by Russia, Nicaragua and Somalia." Its about 2 thirds down under the title "Understanding our ancestry" BBC source Ijanderson (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, contribute to the respective subsection at the talk page instead of creating new subsections.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No I won't. I'm using the talk page for its intended purpose which is to help improve the article. What you have just done could be classed as disruptive editing. Ijanderson (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Brrr. Where is my disruptive editing? We have the special section about Somalia at the talk page, but it was archived by bot, because you preferred to create the new subsection instead of using the old one.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously a personal opinion of a single journalist in an article about Ossetian culture. According the last agency news (?) Somalian sources report about conflicts between Somalian foreign office and Somalian ambassador in Moscow. Elysander (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, after reading your link, I think that it is better to delete Somalia from the article at all. I will do it now.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * and because it has been achieved i had to start a new thread when new info comes around. Your making things rather difficult Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't delete everything about Somalia because there are conflicting messages - that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Those differeces should be highlighted, so the readers can see the complications in the Somali situation.  Just because something is confusing or inexplicable, it doesn't mean that we should remove everything.  I'm going to reinstate the Somalia section.  It probably needs some work though - a job for tomorrow. Bazonka (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why tomorrow? Officials of Foreign Ministry in Somalia (Mogadishu) rejected clearly ambassador's ( "phony" !) remarks as assumption. Elysander (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I said tomorrow because I was just about to go to bed :) Bazonka (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Elysander's version only because my version says exactly the same thing, but also has redlinks for downline article development. As I am involved in articles relating to foreign relations of Russia, such redlinks are highly important to editors such as myself. Additionally, mareeg.com, is this a reliable source of information? It appears to be a personal website of someone in the US (as per all the vote for Obama graphics scattered around it), so it could very well be that this source is not a reliable source for information; I am not saying that the information contained in it is not correct, however, a more reliable source for information is required for an encyclopaedia. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 09:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should Russian state media own more reliabilty seeking desperately for recognition supporters for months ;) ? One simple source multiplicated in variations via several state media to cover it's only one source. In question of recognition government's statement should come first .. and not an obviously not authorized ambassador who  expressed his personal view. Elysander (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Mareeg.com provides World news and information, In particular somalia and African current events  posting articles daily both in  English and Somali and offering reliable and  diversity of multi-lingual streaming programming as well as more articles in our searchable archive (which includes the archive of Somali old News  and more). Educational, cultural and environmental issues are the most important to us. The Mareeg.com family includes all Somali Regional correspondents in and out of Somalia. Our main goal is to connect the Somali society to the global society. Mareeg news web site is gladly accepts any contribution of News articles  and Information about Somalia and the  world   in general". I think it is impossible to find more reliable source about Somalia. Remember that Somalia is under the state of civil war, so we cannot find many news agencies there.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, we know Russavia's rhetorical questions and manoeuvres .. but i'm always assuming good faith. :) Regarding his personal record I'm sure russavia did already check that information is true. :))  - Elysander (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At the outset, I'm not going to get into ridiculous repartee about reliability of Russian media. This is Wikipedia where we are bound by WP:FIVE, with one of those policies being WP:V. One of the guidelines we also use is WP:RS. The information which was reported by Russian news services about Handule's comments was widely carried by other news services such as the BBC, AP, AFP, etc, etc. This means that for our purposes, we do not discount such information (unless one only wants their own biases and POV to shine through, and frankly I've had a gutful of that on other articles, and this article should be no different). The information from mareeg.com, hell, it may be true, but is mareeg.com a reliable source? The information was only found by way of a google search; it's appearance in google news is not an indicator to their reliability as anyone can add their website feed to google news and have it appearing there. If mareeg.com is a reliable source, then this information should be carried by mainstream news services also, and as yet it is not, hence I have marked it accordingly; it needs to be demonstrated by editors inserting information that it is a reliable source above and beyond simply finding a link on google. It is original research on your part to insinuate that Handule is not authorised to speak on the behalf of the Somali government; many ambassadors are authorised to speak for their governments, many are not. That insinuation also needs to be referenced to a WP:RS. The statement, how it is ordered is absolutely irrelevant; go ahead and refactor if you wish in a coherent way, but ensure that redlinks are provided how I have done so, because as I have mentioned such things are important for editors who are editing in particular areas for downline article development. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also I can provide this link . The same news, but with the date 5 October 2008, so we can use this date in the article. Also, we can use this link . That is why a number of Somali news sites reported the same information. Also, I have to underline that Mareeg is the media, which has included in Google news service . So, we have to treat it as reliable source.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. apanews.net is a reliable source, so I trust that it will be used as a reference rather than mareeg.com, which does not appear to have a track record of reliability as far as I can ascertain. I will search for other sources in other languages so that we may have a permalink as well. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not before instead of bringing up rhetorical questions? Your manoeuvres confirm only existing "prejudgements". ;) Elysander (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe that to be the case, then you didn't WP:AGF at the outset. I had already searched in Russian and found nothing. I will keep digging there and see if something else can be found. But it appears that apanews.net is the ultimate source of this information. To Yuriy Kolodin above, the existence of a source in Google News does not confer notability or reliability upon that source, due to the nature of the google news service; its machine automated, which any webmaster can add their website to; you can also find forums in GN, and these definitely are not WP:RS. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of your remarks are hard to believe. If you are only typing some key words in different google searches you find enough agency news with this information within seconds; obviously their journalists were attending the press conference on 5 Oct. If I really understand you did already know that this Somalia passage was before pure bias? It's soon time to check all article's lines ( text & sources). Elysander (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Russavia, your assertion about mareeg.com is not very sound. For example, there are other articles in Wikipedia which use mareeg.com as the source. . That is why I think that this source is reliable source. It is very strange for me why Russian media didn't disseminate such important information at all. But, probably it is because of absense of Russian journalists in Somalia - the country which is under the state of civil war. Also I see no strangeness that Somali news agency supports Obama --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Elysander. I think that recognition by Somalia is not important for Russia at all. The probable recognition by Belarus is important. The existant recognition by Nicaragua is important (because Nicaragua is a)democratic b)real c)Central American state). But recognition by paper states such Somalia is not important. I see no malicious intent in the fact that Russian media did not explore futher the position of Transitional Federal Government of Somalia - and there were no news about press-conference in Mogadisho in Russian media at all.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazian declaration of independence
The article currently states that "Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia in 1992, when it invoked the right of secession under an interpretation of Articles 70 and 72 of the USSR Constitution." This is however not supported by any citations, and I question whether it is true in this literal sense. In 1992, a version of the 1925 constitution was adopted, but In Abkhazia, the end of the war (either September 30th or October 1st 1993, I don't remember) is celebrated as the starting day of independence, and Russia's recognition is based on the adoption in 1999 of the new constitution which (re)affirmed Abkhazia's independence. I don't know whether at any point before, Abkhazia issued an official declaration of independence, but whatever turns out to be the case, sources are needed. sephia karta 18:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The declaration of sovereignity was adopted 25 August 1990 . 23 July 1992 the Constitution was officially changed and the name of the state became "Republic of Abkhazia". This day can be considered as the day of proclaiming the independence. The new Constitution was adopted 26 November 1994  with amendments adopted 3 October 1999. The official Act of Indepdence was adopted only 12 October 1999, however this act rather reiterates that Abkhazia became the independent state in 1992 because of severing the state-legal ties between Abkhazia and Georgia --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources. But so it is as I thought, Abkhazia never explicitly declared independence at the time, and according to the 1999 act on state independence, Abkhazia became de jure independent with the 1992-1993 war, and this was legally confirmed with the 1994 constitution, but again, independence is not explicitly mentioned therein. So in any case, the way it is currently written in the article needs to be changed. sephia karta  01:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. The constitution of 1992 (1925) declares Abkhazia as the special part of Georgia. So, Abkhazia declares its independence after the war with Georgia (not before- it is quite suprisingly for me). So, we have to say that Abkhazia declares its independence only on 26 November 1994 when the Constitution of sovereign and independent Abkhazian state was adopted . I will try to rewrite the article now. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 1808
I propose removing the paragraph on UNSC resolution 1808 (the one which starts with "In April 2008, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1808 (2008)"), either from the lead intro section or preferably from the article altogether. Alternatively, I propose slimming it down to a single sentence to demote its prominence.

It is both confusing and irrelevant to include the position a United Nations organ in any article about recognition, especially since the statement was made prior to the initiation of the conflict which led directly to recognition. Especially since the United Nations did not (and does not) have any direct leading role in the settlement of the conflict, unlike in Kosovo where the position of the UN has been relevant due to its intimate involvement.

The United Nations has, ever since it was founded, stressed over and over again that it has no power to recognize or not recognize any state. Any statements coming from the UN has to keep this in mind. So it is nonsense to give prominence to select sentences from UNSC 1808 in this article, which is an article about recognition.

To make this clear, I quote directly from MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT IN MARCH 1950 ON THE REPRESENTATION OF COMMUNIST CHINA IN THE UNITED NATIONS, as quoted by Quincy Wright, "Some Thoughts About Recognition", 44 The American Journal of International Law (1950) p.548, where the United Nations Secretariat itself reiterates:


 * "the United Nations does not possess any authority to recognize either a new state or a new Government of an existing state. To establish the rule of collective recognition would require either an amendment of the Charter or a treaty to which all Members would adhere."

It can not be clearer than this. The UN itself has said over and over again that it has no recognition powers, therefore any statements by a UN organ have even less legal force than statements by such entities Hamas or Gagauzia.

There is no relevance for this inclusion in an article about recognition. However, it would (marginally) be relevant in an article about Georgian territorial integrity. But this is not what this particular article is about, as per its title. Jagiellon (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can rewrite this paragraph to underline that this resolution was adopted before the conflict, and Russia voted in favour of it. However, please do not remove this paragraph from the article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

International (un)recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (npov opinion)
The title implies Abkhazia and South Ossetia are internationally recognized countries but the wiki seems to list just as many countries not recognizing them. I think the both wordings are too biased. Do Abkhazia or South Ossetia hold UN seats? 161.185.151.218 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (edit: fixed spelling)


 * I think that title does not imply anything. This article is about international recognition of A&SO. The reader can realize the degree of this recognition simply by reading the article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From this news article we can see, that there should be decision of the parliament.
 * Nicaragua only declared it's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. At least this decision wheren't ratified by the parliament of Nicaragua. Please correct me, if I am wrong at this statement.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080904/116538071.html zebra24 (just not logged in) 134.134.136.3 (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Zebra24, we have already discussed this issue plenty of times. Nicaragua HAS recognized A&SO. We have the links in the article to the respective decrees of Nicaraguan president. According to the Constitution of Nicaragua there is no need for approvement of these decrees in the Nicaraguan parliament (we have the link for this statement of acting Foreign minister of Nicaragua in the article also). Also you can see that the date of your news in your link is 04/09/2008, but the decrees was signed 05/09/2008, that is why your news is obsolete and is not applicable to the article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In international law, recognition is usually not something that depends on legislative resolution in the way domestic laws or treaties do. Sometimes, a legislature may perform recognition via an Act, yes, but usually, recognition or nonrecognition is done via the diplomatic channels -- such as by a statement of the Foreign Minister or the Head of State.  Of course, both of those would consult with other branches of the government in any democratic country. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Belarus
http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2008/12/22/13373/ Max Mux (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of Facts
The title : International Rrecognition... is misinterpretation of facts, the republic is recognized only by Russia (who is considered as an occupant) and Nicaragua. The article violates not only suverenity and teritorial integrity of Georgia recognized by UN and all the other international organizations, but also modern international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.68.18 (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, the territories have been internationally recognised by two countries - the title is clearly appropriate for these. And the positions of other countries are outlined in the article - details of any opposing positions are also relevant to the subject matter.  Whether you personally agree or disagree with the recognitions/non-recognitions is irrelevant - what matters is the response of the international community, whether that be for or against. Bazonka (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Russavia's issues
Martintg is POV-pushing in this article. Firstly, he unilaterally moves the article to a title to match his POV. Go and move International recognition of Kosovo to International non-recognition of Kosovo, after all a vast majority of countries do not recognise Kosovo as independent.

He has then changed the lead from:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognised countries, which Georgia considers as parts of Georgia's sovereign territory.[1]

to:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are only recognised by Russia and Nicaragua, which Georgia considers as parts of Georgia's sovereign territory.[1]

I have reverted this change, only to have the edit undone by User:Kober (no surprise there). In my edit summary, I mentioned that this information is already covered in the lead....

The European Union,[9] NATO,[10] OSCE,[11] the United States[12] and many countries have voiced displeasure with Russia's decision and have reaffirmed their recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity.[13] Georgia responded to Russia by declaring Abkhazia and South Ossetia occupied territories and downgraded its diplomatic mission to Russia to consulate level.[14][15][16] Nicaragua was and still is the only country to join Russia in recognising the independence of the two breakaway regions.

So, what, in the Constitution section, do we state that only Russia and Nicaragua recognise their constitution? And again in the UN resolution section? And in the following section? Hell, we could include this fact after every sentence. Let's really ram home the POV-pushing. --Russavia Dialogue 19:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ?? The lead should reflect and summarise the body of the article, per WP:LEAD, which is Abkhazia and South Ossetia are only recognised by Russia and Nicaragua. Is this not factually correct? Martintg (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You say you are Australian Martintg, so your grasp of English should be quite high. Just what part of:

The European Union,[9] NATO,[10] OSCE,[11] the United States[12] and many countries have voiced displeasure with Russia's decision and have reaffirmed their recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity.[13] Georgia responded to Russia by declaring Abkhazia and South Ossetia occupied territories and downgraded its diplomatic mission to Russia to consulate level.[14][15][16] Nicaragua was and still is the only country to join Russia in recognising the independence of the two breakaway regions.

already being in the lead, do you not understand? Do we need it written twice in the lead? Don't feign ignorance, please. --Russavia Dialogue 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks will get you nowhere. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no personal attack, it is calling into question the POV-pushing edit which is already present in the lead, and it's a question that will be answered, or I will revert it myself. --Russavia Dialogue 21:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare ever remove anything like this again Digwuren. I am calling to task Martintg's POV-pushing with the edit which has now re-inserted essentially the same statement into the lead, so that it is present twice. The edit summary was also ignored by Martintg. Absolute lack of good faith on your parts, and WP:TALK and WP:TEDIOUS violation. --Russavia Dialogue 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and restrain your personal attacks. Martintg (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. Please answer the question that has been asked of you twice. And will ask it now for the third time. Why have you replaced:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognised countries, which Georgia considers as parts of Georgia's sovereign territory.[1]

with:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are only recognised by Russia and Nicaragua, which Georgia considers as parts of Georgia's sovereign territory.[1]

when this is already stated in the lead with:

The European Union,[9] NATO,[10] OSCE,[11] the United States[12] and many countries have voiced displeasure with Russia's decision and have reaffirmed their recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity.[13] Georgia responded to Russia by declaring Abkhazia and South Ossetia occupied territories and downgraded its diplomatic mission to Russia to consulate level.[14][15][16] Nicaragua was and still is the only country to join Russia in recognising the independence of the two breakaway regions.

And this was noted as such in the edit summary. --Russavia Dialogue 23:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll answer you a second time: The lead should reflect and summarise the body of the article, per WP:LEAD, which is Abkhazia and South Ossetia are only recognised by Russia and Nicaragua. Is this not factually correct? Piping a link from "partially recognised" to "List of unrecognised countries" as you have done violates the WP:EGG guide. Martintg (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But Russavia has a point: it is already in the lead, so no, you did not in fact answer his question. And how does that link violate WP:EGG? Explain yourself. You will notice btw that the article that link leads to is actually named List of unrecognised countries List of states with limited recognition. sephia karta |  di mi  02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the intro needs to be a short declarative sentence, answering "What is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable"?, per Lead_section. The subject is the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and this is notable because Russia and Nicaragua are the only countries providing this recognition. Naturally more detail is given later in the lead. Piping "partially recognised" to "unrecognised" is counter intuitive, hence it is an easter egg link, Therefore WP:EGG. Martintg (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you totally misunderstand WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarise the article. i.e, it gives a brief overview of what the article is about, and describes what is in the rest of the article. The lead has never, nor will it ever, summarise parts which are then expanded on within the lead. That's just not how WP works; nor does any book or scholarly journal. I'm surprised you are misunderstanding exactly what WP:LEAD is supposed to entail. I would suggest that you revert yourself. --Russavia Dialogue 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I suggest you read Lead_section, particularly the subsection First sentence. BTW, User:sephia_karta has just done an excellent job updating the first sentence. Martintg (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Martin. The lead of this article as it stood before you and Biophys came along and moved the article and changed the lead, was the result of consensus on this very talk page. The addition of "de facto" and "de jure" was problematic, and is problematic, because a state can not recognise the "de facto" and "de jure" independence. Russia and Nicaragua have recognised their complete independence. Hence why, the article stated that they are "partially recognised states" which Georgia regards as it's sovereign territory. NPOV has now been destroyed, which of course was your intent, and it now makes absolutely zero sense. --Russavia Dialogue 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you mean that? Because my impression has always been that de facto independence/sovereignty is, well, a factual matter. Whether a state is de facto independent is an empirical question, one that has nothing to do with legality or illegality. And hence, there is nothing to 'recognise' here. On the other hand, de jure independence/sovereignty is a legal matter, and this is were recognition plays its role. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Russia, Nicaragua and Transnistria consider Abkhazia and South Ossetia legally independent, the world's other states consider them legally part of Georgia.
 * So I don't see how what I wrote conflicts with your proposal, it just elaborates the situation. sephia karta  |  di mi  14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)]
 * Sephia_karta, first don't think I was having a go at you in what I wrote above, because I was not. That A & SO were de facto independent is disputed by Georgia, who don't regard them as such, but rather more as renegade provinces, and Georgia (and others) would also argue that the de jure independence is non-existent, regardless of whether recognised or not. By stating "Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognised states, which are internationally considered as part of Georgia's sovereign territory.", this covers the fact that they are in fact "partially recognised" (that can't be disputed), and it also covers the fact that they are considered "internationally" as part of Georgia. Having said, the entire lead needs to be rewritten coherently and totally NPOV, rather than simply changing things based upon hit-and-run pov-pushers. I will work with you on that, if you wish? --Russavia Dialogue 06:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking you were having a go at me, but you seemed unhappy about how I had rewritten the first paragraph, and I was trying to find out why. I agree that "Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognised states, which are internationally considered as part of Georgia's sovereign territory." is also a good summary of the situation, but I felt that what I wrote added more detail, which I thought might allay other editors' concerns. I would like to work on building a NPOV lead, but I won't be here next week and until then I'm quite busy. sephia karta  |  di mi  11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) This is all fine, but Transnistria and South Ossetia in particular have been the targets of Russian machinations for years. Incestuous Russian sponsored separatism is not the type of indepenence movement people wish to portray it as, nor is such mainly incestuous recognition any implication of legitimacy of the regimes exercising de facto control. South Ossetia is legally part of Georgia until that changes by treaty with Georgia, Transnistria is legally part of Moldova until that changes by treaty with Moldova, etc., etc., etc. PetersV     TALK 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cut down on the rethoric, it doesn't make your argument clearer. And this talk page is not the place to vent your opinion about Russia. Re: "nor is such mainly incestuous recognition any implication of legitimacy of the regimes exercising de facto control." This is nonsense. For Russia, recognition means exactly legitimation of the de facto situation. sephia karta  |  di mi  01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be other editors who are "venting" here. Russia is the prime architect of the "de facto" situation it now seeks to legitimize--which it had threatened to do for some time in retaliation for Kosovo. This is not my opinion, these are the facts and interpretations thereof by expert observers. PetersV     TALK 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But how is that relevant to the present article? sephia karta  |  di mi  01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is mainly about who among these parties--Russia and the frozen zone conflict regimes it has largely created and supports--is recognizing whom, plain and simple, Nicaragua being the wild card (which decision is that of a single person). PetersV     TALK 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't get how this adds anything new. It is written in the lead that Russia and Nicaragua recognise these states, and the rest of the world not. Anything beyond that is political commentary, and we don't need that here. sephia karta |  di mi  11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your deletion of any mention of the "frozen conflict" zone or Russia's role as apparently irrelevant is over the top POV attempting to legitimize the "recognition" which is being discussed in the article. PetersV     TALK 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's scapegoating, read what I wrote in the edit summary: the article doesn't mention such a thing as "the frozen conflict zone", and Russia's support is already mentioned in the lead. Those are the reasons why I reverted your addition. Plus that the source you gave is an opinion piece (whether by a reliable researcher or not). sephia karta  |  di mi  11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) And, BTW, Martintg isn't the one "POV-pushing." Come now, an article which talks about recognition and mentions nothing of the frozen conflict zone, editors contending Russia's prior relationships in establishing these "states" is irrelevant, etc. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 06:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the fact that this is one of the frozen conflict zones is very important for the reader to understand its situation. It must definitely be mentioned in the lead. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Gamsakhurdia's Georgia for Georgians ethno-nationalist doctrine, in which he called Ossetians trash who must be swept back thru the tunnel, and whom cancelled their autonomous status because they dared to stay part of the USSR and the resultant ethnic cleansing of Ossetians and other undesirables in Georgia, as more reason for the creation of the situation, rather than big, bad, ugly Russia that you want to push. In fact, even what I have said is simplifying it, for this dispute goes back over decades/hundreds of years, and you are simply making it look like it is a creation and/or fault of Russia. Uh-uh. This is not the place for advocacy. --Russavia Dialogue 06:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, for the causes of the conflicts the readers are referred to the relevant articles, Russia's involvement is well documented there, along with the many other factors involved, some of which mentioned by Russavia. We should not repeat all that here. sephia karta  |  di mi  11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to argue for such an interpretation. Unlike many people, you live in a free country.  But Wikipedia is not the place to push novel theories on who is the best scapegoat today.  There are other venues for the blame game. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to digress a moment, Russia has been accusing the Baltics for years of smuggling arms to South Ossetia (read that as Russia has been arming South Ossetia to the teeth). Transnistria's Minister of Security is still a murderous Russian-installed OMON Black Beret thug (this is talk, so no BLP issues here) whose boys shot up a Transnistrian ambulance killing people and blamed it on the Moldovans, etc. (and that's according to the Russians).
 * To Russavia: Hand wringing histrionics over accusations of "big, bad, ugly" Russia? You so do not want to go there. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we do go there Vecrumba. From "your camp" it will include all types of horrors of Russian misdeeds, and may even possibly go into how hard done by Latvia and Estonia were, and how it sucks that no-one knows of the Mayor of Riga, but it will totally ignore that Gamsakhurdia had said and did many things to make the minorities in Georgia very worried for their own life. Things such as:

In terms of modern history, Gamsakhurdia and his racist policies are more to blame, than the Russia you are trying to portray. Thankfully, scholars aren't as ignorant to this fact as what you seem to be. --Russavia Dialogue 16:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm quite aware of the strife between the Abkhazians and Georgians, who declared what before the USSR even fell apart, et al. Whatever wrongs the Georgians committed does not translate to two wrongs, that is Russia's conduct now, making a "right." I regret you now have put me in some "camp" which you insist is ignorant of facts. Don't presume to tell me what historical facts I'm aware of. Your invective and derisiveness doesn't do anything to advance the conversation. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Frozen conflict
Should Nagorno-Karabakh be mentioned in the list of "frozen conflicts"? AFAIU, it's usually classified as such, but its problems appear to be considerably different from those in Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhasia. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way is that relevant to this article? Bazonka (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Digwuren is correct with regard to "frozen conflict" inclusion, however, it's not the same situation with regard to Russian machinations as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Nor have there been the tit-for-tat rumblings over official recognition as with Russian retaliation over Kosovo, which is the case with the article here. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The frozen conflicts have been the primary force shaping the history of Transnistria, Abkhasia, and South Ossetia. If not for conflict-freezing, both the current politics and the current military tactics would have been significantly different.  Therefore, in order to understand the present politics and the present military tactics, the reader must be able to read about the frozen conflicts. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess Peters is saying that Nagorno-Karabakh shouldn't be listed in this article's lead. I'm inclined to agree -- the differences *are* considerable. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, yes, sorry, Nagorno-Karabakh does not apply, not enough coffee yet in my time zone! PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Partially recognised" is misleading
Partial recognition implies there are a significant bunch of countries who have recognised, and another significant bunch of countries who haven't. A good example is Kosovo, which is recognised by more than four dozen of states in Europe, Asia, and Americas -- and also unrecognised by many dozens of states on those continents. It stands to reason that the reader would expect, when reading about a partially recognised state, something like this -- especially considering the reader is likely to have heard of Kosovo.

However, in some cases, countries have been playing diplomatic games with the recognition procedure -- games that nobody took seriously. For example, once upon time, Turkey has "recognised" Northern Cyprus. Nobody else does. Similarly, Georgia, which has quite a bone to pick with Russia, has formally "recognised" the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. These make-believe recognitions do not make a country "partially recognised"; they may be an interesting bit of trivia, perhaps an asterisk in the history of diplomacy -- the "war by other means" --, but these shouldn't be listed as "partially recognised". Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is not a partially recognised country; it's a people who attempted to become independent but failed, and are currently governed by Russia.

Just like Georgia's lonely recognition of Ichkeria doesn't make it a partially recognised country, Russia's lonely recognition of Abkhasia doesn't make it a partially recognised country. Claiming that Abkhasia is "partially recognised" or that South Ossetia is "partially recognised" would suggest to the reader that there are dozens of countries that recognise it, and others who, for some reason, do not. Even if Nicaragua is counted in, such a suggestion would be quite misleading. It's understandable that some people (and some politicians) happen to like this particular POV, but it is not neutral, and Wikipedians must strive to refrain from such misleading suggestions. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Georgia does not recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Where did you get that idea? — Emil J. 16:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Gamsakhurdia, the racist/xenophobic first president of Georgia recognised the terrorist state in the early 90s, and allowed them to operate from Georgian soil. Their recognition didn't last for long. Digwuren is simply clutching at straws, and is attempting to push upon WP his nobody definition of what a "partially recognised" country is. --Russavia Dialogue 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, a couple of tidbits, the "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" joined the UNPO, that is, the "Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization" in 1991 as the legitimate government of the Chechen people. By their account, they were independent prior to the dissolution of the USSR ane were subsequently and arbitrarily included by (can't say big bad ugly) Russia as part of the Federation. The (can't say big bad ugly) Russians killed their democratically elected president, Aslan Maskhadov, in a Russian special forces raid.
 * To the specific question, Georgia recognized Ichkeria under Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who signed a "Decree on the Recognition of the Independence of the Republic of Chechnya" on March 13, 1992. I don't believe that recognition is currently in force.PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While Russavia is trying to derail the discussion by bringing out the "terrorist state" oxymoron, let me point out that this argument is also valid for the past. It would be misleading to argue that Ichkeria *was* a partially recognised country in the 1990s -- just as it is misleading to argue that Abkhasia or South Ossetia are partially recognised now.
 * Also, I have nothing against the Chechen people, or their attempts to be independent. However unfortunate, it's a fact that they aren't, and Wikipedia's mission is about facts, not wishful thinking. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are Abkhasia and South Ossetia members of UNPO? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) Back to the main point, I agree that Abkhazia and South Ossetia cannot be portrayed as "partically recognized" states. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "partially" - in part; in some degree; not wholly. How does stating "partially recognised" lead one to think anything but it is "partially recognised"? I'm sure however, that many Georgians would take issue, funnily enough, that A & SO are de facto independent. --Russavia Dialogue 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Common sense tells a reader that if a glass is "partially full", it has more than two drops of water in it. Because, after all, if it had just those two drops, then the writer would say it, wouldn't he? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I could settle on 'minimally recognised' as the summary for this sort of status. It would work for both Ichkeria, Abkhasia and North Cyprus, but not Taiwan whose recognition issues are more complicated. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that you decide this, that partially recognised is misleading here and does not apply for these cases, but it does apply for Taiwan, because there "recognition issues are more complicated"? This is OR, and thus irrelevant to the article. Russavia gave you the dictionary definition of partially, if you want to argue it means something else come with sources. sephia karta  |  di mi  13:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Russavia was deciding the flags of Abkhazia and South Ossetia were flags of "sovereign" states as soon as Russia made its announcement, so let's stay away from accusing editors of deciding sovereignty, there's enough tar and feather for everyone.
 * There is only one issue, and that is to construct a fair representation of the situation. "minimally < partially < mostly/predominantly/largely". Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has been given by a very small minority of states in total, recognized and unrecognized, and should be described as acurately as we can, no more no less. If 0% = none and 100% = all, then we need a better gradation for 1% to 99 than "partially" covers the entire spectrum. It does, technically, but not in good encyclopedic narrative. Read the dictionary? Absolutely, so let's pick a more representative and descriptive word. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 02:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, I agree that if there is a word more precise than partially we can use that. But which word? "Minimally recognised" sounds as bad as "Maximally recognised". sephia karta  |  di mi  02:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Minimally recognised" is bad English. It should be either recognized, non-recognized or partially recognized. It really doesn't have to be more accurate as that: the article clearly says which countries recognize them and which do not. It seems like some people are desperately trying to create new terms that are not in general use to suit their POV. Offliner (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Where I come from, mostly unrecognized and partially recognized are generally taken to mean two different things. Perhaps it's "partially" which suits desperate POVs. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 03:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What shall we call this?
Somebody recommended "minimally recognised". I find it reasonably accurate but User:Offliner claims it's bad English. While I don't agree, what alternatives should be considered? I can offer only one: "little-recognised". Anybody else? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article does not need to have the same formulation as the Kosovo article, it could instead of saying "minimally" or "partially" go directly to state that is recognised by only two UN member states, Russia and Nicaragua. Dentren |  Ta lk  12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with directly to state that is recognised by [only] two UN member states, Russia and Nicaragua. Neither "partially" nor "minimally" fits status or style. - Elysander (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"The frozen confict zone"
I reverted the most recent addition of the bit about Abkhazia and South Ossetia forming part of the Russia-supported frozen conflict zone, for the following reasons.


 * First problem: what the hell is "the frozen conflict zone"? I keep asking this, but it keeps getting readded without source for that concept. It doesn't make sense, these states don't border each other and Transnistria isn't even in the Caucasus.
 * Second problem: like I said before OPEDs are no good to support such controversial statements, so the first and the third sources are useless. It's not the quantity that counts, but the quality.
 * The second source, Lynch, is a proper source, but I wonder whether you actually read it before adding it. The term 'frozen conflict' is mentioned twice, on pages 7 and 42, and actually Lynch explicitly denies that these are frozen conflicts:

"'These conflicts are often called 'frozen,' as little progress has occurred toward their resolution. Yet, while the cease-fire lines have not changed and remain frozen, in most other ways the word 'frozen' is misleading.'"

"'The second piece of conventional wisdom concerns the oft- repeated view that these are 'frozen conflicts.' They may appear frozen, in that little progress has been acieved in negotiations and the conflicts remain fixed on cease-fire lines established in the first half of the 1990s. In reality, however, the metaphor is misleading - these conflicts are not frozen. On the contrary, events have developped dynamically, and the situation on the ground today is very different from the context that gave rise to these conflicts in the late 1980s.'"

That said, I agree with you that these are often called frozen conflicts, in the sense that the conflicts are not resolved but most of the time there is no war. I tried to rewrite the sentence, but I didn't manage to. The reason is that I don't know what you are trying to say here. The fact that these are frozen conflicts alone doesn't seem very useful information here. I'm guessing you want to say something along the line that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Russian protectorates, but I doubt that there is broad agreement on that, and I don't even know what I should think of when I read protectorate. sephia karta |  di mi  02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look Vecrumba, I raised three problems here with that sentence, and you ignore all three of them. You added a whole lot of extra sources, but what exactly are you trying to prove?
 * None of them mentions "the frozen conflicts zone", that expression makes no sense and it has to go.
 * Lynch says literally "these conflicts are not frozen". What part of that do you not understand? You cannot use him here, and you don't need to. You added 10 sources, you don't need 10 sources. If 3 of your sources are invalid, then why do you keep re-adding them, if you have 7 others? Like I said, quality over quantity.
 * Something called "Time to challenge Russia" is not a neutral analysis, it is an opinion piece. Something called "The EU should re-engage with Moldova's 'frozen conflict'" is not a neutral analysis, it is an opinion piece. You don't need these, so why do you keep putting them back in? sephia karta  |  di mi  00:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The frozen conflicts zone" indeed does not make much sense sense. How is the conflict in SO or A "frozen?" I agree that unless the concerns listed by User:Sephia karta are addressed, the offending statement should not be reinserted to the article. Offliner (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I am not saying that it doesn't make sense to say that these conflicts are frozen, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to say that together they form one "frozen conflict zone". But even the fact that they are frozen is not accepted by everyone, see Lynch. sephia karta |  di mi  01:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest then:
 * Together with Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are included among the "frozen conflict" separatist states supported politically, economically and militarily by Russia.
 * Lynch confirms the term and its use. His analysis (as of 2004) is that there is more flexibility than the term implies. It would be interesting to see what his position is now. There are numerous references which use the term "frozen conflict", with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria being the big three. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any post-war sources saying that the conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are still "frozen," or even that they are still "conflicts?" Offliner (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) From the EU policy centre site, http://www.epc.eu/en/er.asp?TYP=ER&LV=293&see=y&t=2&PG=ER/EN/detail&l=&AI=688, 2009 report: Dov Lynch, Senior Adviser, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), speaking in a personal capacity, talked about the EU’s interest in the Southern Caucasus. He believed that before 2004, the EU had used its enlargement policy as a “surrogate foreign policy”. Could be ENP be an extension of this?

If so, then the EU approach has to change - it can no longer take the role of the senior partner as it did with the accession countries, but must accept that genuine foreign policy operates in a world of constraints, where it cannot control its interlocutor.

Mr Lynch wondered whether this “foreign policy” in the Southern Caucasus could help to  resolve some of the region’s ‘frozen conflicts’  by altering the context in which they were spawned and pressing ahead with the region’s economic development. The present “no war, no peace” situation was unsustainable, he said.

The region was “blighted” with a “criss-cross logic” of blockages, with some states functioning as “orchid economies”; i.e. beautiful but without any solid basis.

He was concerned about increasing militarisation of the region, with armies facing each other across conflict lines, and the growing power of separatist leaders. Unfortunately, it appeared that the events in Kosovo had influenced the region’s conflicts, by persuading separatist movements to think about “status” and the possibility of independence.

Turning to the question of altering the “status quo” in the region, Mr Lynch said the EU’s role was to open up conflict zones and get them involved in wider regional development. The OSCE’s economic rehabilitation programme for the area brought in new actors and mechanisms to work towards conflict settlement. So Lynch himself uses the term, still in 2009 in 2007, three years after publishing the book. I hope this settles the "Lynch" issue. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To Offliner, most sources I have read since the war describe the situation as worse off than before. Let's try to stay away from contentions "the situation has 'changed', 'nothing from before' applies". Since the Lynch quote is from this year, yes, still applies. (Had an edit conflict on the above edit.) PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The report you cited is from 2007, not 2009: (Bringing peace and stability to the South Caucasus: the role of the EU  (07-03-2007)) Offliner (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad, had to work with a cached copy earlier. Prior comments updated. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 02:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To worse off than before, here's something about the frozen conflicts becoming red hot, here. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 02:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, calling them "frozen conflicts" after the war took place makes no sense at all. First, after the expulsion of Georgians, destruction of the Georgian military capability and the partial recognition of the regions' independence - are they still "conflicts" in any way? (Although there have still been incidents after the war and the situation remains tense.) Second, in which way are the supposed conflicts "frozen?" In any case, it is clear that the war "unfroze" the conflicts. (According to S.Markedonov, Georgia began the "unfreezing" policy already in early 2008: . So if the war unfroze the conflicts, how did they, during these 7 months after the war, become "frozen" again? Unless there is a post-war source which directly claims that SO and A are still frozen conflicts, I really don't think we should call them "frozen." I do acknowledge that SO, A and Transnitria have been linked in many sources, and this link is probably the main thing that you are trying to demonstrate in the article, and not the frozen/unfrozen issue? Offliner (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Our mission is not to make personal "sense" if "frozen conflict" should still be used to identify the conflict(s) and parties. I'm not trying to "demonstrate" anything, I am merely inserting that Russia has a history of supporting the regimes in question far beyond just "recognizing" them, and referring to the conflict by a term widely used regarding the regimes in question. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 03:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to call them "frozen conflicts," you will have to provide references which have been published after the war and which still directly call them frozen. Sources from before the war are not enough, and this is what I have been argumenting above. We are not here to make personal sense over if the term still applies. But you simply cannot call the post-war situation "frozen conflict" without providing a post-war source making that claim, as the war has obviously changed the situation. As for Russia's long-time support for SO, A and T, I'm not sure what it has to do with the subject of this article (recognition,) but you could try inserting it into the article in some other form (other than the "frozen conflict zone" statement) and see if it works. Offliner (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And exactly how has the post-war situation been "unfrozen?"--that is your POV contention. That there has been armed conflict has only polarized sides further. Please provide post-war references that specifically state the frozen conflicts are over. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 05:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The burden is on you, not me: you are the one who is trying to insert the claim "they are frozen conflicts" to the article. I am not trying to insert anything. What I have done is remove your claim, which is not supported by recent sources. If it's indeed a widespread view, that the current situation is a frozen conflict, then it should be easy to come up with reliable sources confirming that. And this is what I'm asking you to do, if you want to reinsert your claim. Offliner (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Offliner, to prove something no longer exists, one must provide a source that indicates that something does not exist. By your standard, if a well-known celebrity is not mentioned in a paper for some period of time, then that celebrity must be dead because surely someone would have written about them were they still alive. The burden is yours regarding your contention that "frozen conflict" no longer applies. Don't use your personal opinion that things have changed to delete well sourced material. If the frozen conflicts are dead, then the burden is yours to produce the obituaries. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 06:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Vecrumba, to prove that something still exists, one must provide a source that states it still exists, particularly when you are using an article from 2007 to describe the status quo in 2009, which of course totally disregards a MAJOR event in 2008, due it not even being written then. Also, linking Transnistria to this article is purely WP:SYN on your part; it has nothing to do with Transnistria. The so-called "frozen conflict" turned into all-out-war the instant that Georgia played real-life war games in downtown Tskhinval, and Russia responded. That is no longer a frozen conflict, that is called a war zone. --Russavia Dialogue 06:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) You have not presented a single post-war source claiming that the conflict is still "frozen,"


 * 2) common sense applies: a conflict where there is a full-scale war can in no way be "frozen." Check your own link for example (I can give you more if you want): "A frozen conflict turns red hot in Georgia." Unless you're claiming that during the war it was "a red hot frozen conflict," it is clear that the conflict lost its "frozen" status when war broke out,


 * 3) you have not provided a single post-war source which claims, that the conflict has again been "frozen." Thus, there is no reliable source claiming, that the conflict is currently a frozen conflict. Offliner (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, Offliner! I have heard "the situation has changed, XYZ no longer applies" from so many paid POV pushers on WP that I'm tired of that WP:OR contention (NOT saying you are a paid POV pusher). It's quite simple, PROVE it's changed. As for my contentions, all you have to do is check the news to see "frozen conflict" is still alive and well. And don't misinterpret imagery (frozen conflict "red hot") as meaning it's all thawed and better now, I frankly can't even believe you would stoop to such a syllogistic argument. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>    </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How the frozen conflict turned into a flash fire: "The dispute between Georgia and the two regions was called "the frozen conflict" because the issues remain unresolved, but there was no fighting."


 * Georgia makes a power play — and a big gamble: "'Frozen conflict' no longer"


 * When Frozen Conflicts Melt Down: "The label "frozen conflict" as applied to the wars that accompanied the breakup of the Soviet Union implies that, some day, they may well "unfreeze." This is what happened in Georgia." Offliner (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'll be glad to find other references which still say "frozen conflict", but based on these, I'd be glad to craft a sentence stating the "frozen conflict" stalemate in Abkhazia and South Ossetia has degenerated into crisis. That would be what your sources are contending. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 00:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be glad to find other references which still say "frozen conflict" - if you want to insert the statement saying that they are still frozen conflicts, this is exactly what you must do. What I would be willing to accept now is "according to X, the conflicts in SO and A were called 'frozen conflicts' before the war." Offliner (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but Russia had clearly signaled that if Kosovo happened, it was going to retaliate regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia--Georgia being a bigger thorn and Russia being far more invested, issuing 150,000 Russian passports and all, than Transnistria or elsewhere. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't off-topic, it's fundamental to the whole process. We should consider changing the lead to read "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a process initiated by Russian Federation in concert with the Russian invasion of Georgia (2008) in retaliation of the international recognition of Kosovo." ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not independence
What's recognised is not independence, it's sovereignty. There are a lot of countries that are not exactly independent but are still considered recognisable. Consider Finland, for an example. It was subject of a decades-long process that, for some reason, is named Finlandisation; it was not independent on many foreign policy issues -- and yet it was considered as a sovereign country among other sovereign countries. 82.131.26.141 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's Rutland?
Who is Peter Rutland and why is he notable? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter Rutland is a professor of government at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. Offliner (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another link Digwuren may like to hold onto for future reference. It's really a great link for questions such as his. www.lmgtfy.com (no spaces) --Russavia Dialogue 11:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela
This BBC webpage indicates that Venezuela has recognised S.Ossetia. Could it be true? Bazonka (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that in the same paragraph it also says South Ossetia declared independence only now after the war, which is बकवास, I think the person who wrote this is not familiar with the conflict. If and when Venezuela recognises South Ossetia expect sources like Civil Georgia to report about it. sephia karta  |  di mi  20:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Abkhazia has a permanent mission in Venezuela, but it isn't yet recognised http://www.abjasia.org.ve --Russavia Dialogue 02:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, thanks, I didn't know that! sephia karta  |  di mi  15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The site of the permanent mission does refer to Abkhazia as an independent republic. Bgdboy011 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's clearly de facto independent. Nobody disputes that.  The question is, does Venezuela consider it to be de jure independent?  I suspect not, otherwise they wouldn't have a mission, they'd have an embassy. Bazonka (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Update?
There's an awful lot of referances to "by the end of 2008", which passed a while ago now. Much of the page thus seems slightly out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.198.34 (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True. But SO is also out of the news, so it is hard to get new info. --Xeeron (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Belarus
hey, did anything actually come of Belarus debating recognition in April?Thomas Hall (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No... they are under pressure from the EU not to recognize the republics.


 * ''The presidents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have requested that the Belarusian parliament recognize their independence, as Russia and Nicaragua have done. However, the issue has not been included in the agenda for the parliament's spring session, which began on March 2.


 * The parliament speaker said the question is currently being discussed by the relevant committee. Offliner (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Belarus leaders and their families prefer to travel to Riviera, Costa Blanca etc. and to do their "business" without the restrictions before 2008. ;)- Elysander (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Belarus was about to, but then EU threatened economic sanctions. Strangely enough when Russia was about to, EU stated that it won't affect economic relations. I guess having oil helps. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it important to let the reader know that Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia won the war....
Rather than just stating they fought the war? You win the war, you get independence, like the US did in 1783? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Prior to the 20th century, war (legally) settled everything. Not that simple in the 20th and 21st century—where war does not settle anything. Even with war being legal in the 19th century, you will note that in 1783 there was a  recognition by treaty 
 * of the sovereignty of the United States
 * by the then sovereign power, Great Britain.
 * Until Georgia recognizes South Ossetia and/or Abkhazia as sovereign, by treaty, it's just their word along with Russia's that they are independent. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So in the 20th century WWII didn't settle Cold War era borders? Or the Crimean War legally settled everything? Solid arguments, too bad there's this little thing called history. War is legal today. US legally invaded Afghanistan, no one is debating that. Maybe you would like to? Saying they won the war is important, facts need to be mentioned. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But AB&SO have been de facto independent since 1991, this war just resulted in Russia recognising them as countries. This war didn't grant AB&SO independence. Saying that is POV and it will also mislead the reader. IJA (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abkhazia and South Ossetia, won the war. Ten days later, they were recognized as independent countries. If you fail to see the connection, that doesn't mean that most readers will. Also, while I agree that Russia's recognition is a just result, merely saying something in neutral terms, isn't POV. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Cold War many boarders were not recognised. IJA (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Boy
Russia is not a generally recognized country, it is a fully recognized member of the UN Security Council. Also, maybe you can show me UN members that don't recognize Nicaragua? Please follow your sources. If a source says that "Bush condemns Russia's actions" don't take your creative license and state that the rest of the World condems Russia as well. Or that the rest of the World thinks they're "De Jure" part of Georgia, just because they haven't said anything. Most countries just don't care. If you have sources use them, but don't turn this into Russia vs. World crap. I doubt too many Middle Eastern countries, or China even commented on it. The Shanghai Organization said something like "no recognition at this time". Sometimes countries like to be on the sidelines, as Russia being on the sidelines in the current Micheletti scandal. And you shouldn't be taking creative license, and using silence as condemnation. Are you seriously trying to argue that North Korea cares about Georgia's territorial integrity? Or does "rest of the World" just fit your propaganda needs? And don't try to tell the reader the same thing multiple times. Saying "2 UN members recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia" is enough, you don't need to go beyond that, because if two recognize, that means the rest do not. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Any Word on Milliband-Bildt Coalition?
Seems like the duo are saying something about a coalition, but it seems to have not existed. Are they just spewing steam, or is there something in the works? I'm just curious. Also, why is Bildt mentioned multiple times in the article? Is Bildt the gatekeeper of the Caucasian region who decides who lives or dies? I'm just curious. Just seems like, well I will let Jon Stewart sum up a similar scenario: "the coalition of the willing, or as the rest of the World calls them, Britan and America..." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Carl Bildt: "Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt condemned Russia's recognition, saying that "the Russian government leadership now has chosen this route means they have chosen a policy of confrontation, not only with the rest of Europe, but also with the international community in general".[155][156] Carl Bildt predicted that the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is likely to be followed by only a "miserable" lot of other countries, such as Belarus, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela." So, Belarus is part of the miserable lot, but then Mr. Bildt flip-flops, and defends the his very own bribing of Belarus: "According to Peter Rutland, the EU has rewarded the Belarusian President Lukashenko for not recognising the republics by suspending the travel ban for top Belarusian officials that had been imposed in 2004.[88] Karel Schwarzenberg has stated publicly, that if Belarus recognises Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it can forget about the Eastern Partnership. "If they would recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia it would create a very, very difficult situation for Belarus," Schwarzenberg has said.[89] This led Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, to accuse the EU of blackmailing Belarus by linking recognition of the two republics to membership in the Eastern Partnership program, in relation to Schwarzenberg's statement stating "What was that: blackmail or European Democracy in action?"[90] Sweden, co-author of the Eastern Partnership program, rejected Lavrov's position as "completely unacceptable". The EU's position on Georgia is not 'blackmail' but "is about upholding the principles of the EU and international law, which Russia should also be respecting", stated Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt".

So let me get this straight: Belarus is part of a "miserable lot", therefore one should bribe Belarus to not recognize South Ossetia, because Belarus' voice, as a "miserable lot" doesn't matter. I'm just glad I'm not a Swedish taxpayer. Oh yeah, how's the Coalition of the Willing part 2 going? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry how does this relate to improvement of the article? You do realise that Wikipedia is not a forum. Keep your personal political opinions to yourself please. IJA (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicaragua clarification needed?
This article from The Guardian (UK) states that Nicaragua's parliament did not approve the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Specifically, "Nicaragua has in theory recognised both mini-republics but has not ratified this in parliament."

Does anybody have any further information on this? Perhaps a clarification should be sought? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that this is some kind of information warfare. According to acting Foreign minister of Nicaragua, there is no need for parliamental approval of presidential decrees; these are final legal acts of recognition adopted according to Nicaraguan Constitution . Sorry, but this source is in Russian. But I can assure you that in Presidential republics (and Nicaragua is a Presidential republic) such issues are exclusively in the competence of President. Please, see also the archives of this talk page. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mini-republics? So does that make Nauru, Tuvalu, Palau, Tonga, etc, mini-countries? There is no such thing as a mini-Republic, or a mini-Country, unless it's Sealand, or another country whose capital is sitting on an oil rig. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @HistoricWarrior007 WP:NOTAFORUM IJA (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia has officially asked for Ecuador to recognise it
Abkhazia requests Ecuador to recognise its independence ITAR TASS 03-12-09 IJA (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nauru
There is an error in the table. Nauru recognized only Abkhazia, not South Ossetia. --maxval (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully someone will have the good grace to mention that Nauru got $50 million for recognising. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It already says that. I suspect that they have recognised S.Ossetia as well, but I can't find any reference definitely confirming that. Bazonka (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles I've seen say "both," so I am presuming they recognised both. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * -- this says it recognises both - Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This Russian source is about South Ossetia recognition, it was happened today, while Abkhazia recognition was happened yesterday. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

$50000000
I think that there is no need for this information in the "Nauru" section. It is better to use other place in the article to mention that Russia boosts the recognition of A&SO by means of economical and financial aid to recognising states, by strengthening the relations with them and so on. Obviously, Russia supports the countries with pro-Russian foreign policy, and all the countries which recognise the independence of A&SO have such policy. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a source stating that Russia offered money to other states as well, we can make a separate section about this activity. But as long as there is only a source for the single case of Nauru, it should stay there and we should not generalise. --Xeeron (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See, for example . "The news provoked waves of mirth from Russian commentators, some of whom broke down the per-capita cost of lobbying various nations to recognize the enclaves: roughly $3,500 a head for every resident of Nauru, $100 per Venezuelan, $200 per Belarussian, etc." Or this one "Kremlin rewarded Venezuela and Nicaragua with lucrative arms and energy deals". If you want to mention how Russia supports its allies it is better to use separate place in the article, not Nauru section.  --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not opposed to creating a separate section here with that information. However, the info on Venezuela and Belarussia is not very strong (NYT only reports on Russian commentators saying so). I think a separate section would warrant more sources for these countries. --Xeeron (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Info on Nauru is not very strong also. No official confirmation even with this financial aid. And I'm sure that even if we have such confirmation, we will never read the official statement that Russia pays money to Nauru for recognizing. No, we will read that Russia only helps poor Nauruan people. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If our sources consider it important, it should be there. Colchicum (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources consider it important, but we create the encyclopedia, so we have to structure the material. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be mentioned. Nauru are diplomatic prostitutes. Bazonka (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to mention this fact in International recognition of Kosovo article. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By definition, prostitutes are paid. We have no information of Nauru receiving money for recognising Kosovo.  In this particular case, we do. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have such information. Nauru received financial aid from European Union for recognising Kosovo  . --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This fact belongs in the Nauru–Russia relations article, where it is already mentioned. The table is about bilateral relations of Abkhazia and SO; info on the third party has no relevance there. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but saying that Russia paying money to Nauru for recognizing SO/Abk has no influence on the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is absurd. When 4 countries recognize and out of these 3 were paid by the 4th, it is a sign that the international recognition is extremely limited. There is a big difference between recognizing a country because you think it deserves recognition or recognizing it because you need the money. --Xeeron (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

These are only allegations (and in the same source you can find Taiwan and Kosovo being mentioned), once we have the official statement by Kremlin on money given to Nauru it can be added to this article and until then it belongs to articles like Nauru, Foreign relations of Nauru, Abkhazia-Nauru diplomatic relations etc. Why? Well read what it says in the table column - Bilateral relations status. How is this information regarding the status of bilateral relations? The status relates to the embassies and if you ask me, the statements by Hugo Chavez need to be removed as well as they are also not portraying the bilateral relations status and belong to other articles. See the International recognition of Kosovo article to find out what this table column is supposed to contain.--Avala (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all policy--Many baks (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a section on this article regarding Russia financially rewarding countries for recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It would enrich the article with encyclopaedic information. IJA (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bazonka (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Using the Kosovo page as a template
Using the Kosovo page as a template has some problems (and I feel they exist on the Kosovo page as well). The current setup lists statements (e.g., for Canada, Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Emerson, issued the statement on the situation in Georgia saying that "Canada is gravely concerned about Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This recognition violates Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and is contrary to UN Security Council resolutions supported by Russia, as well as to the six-point peace plan brokered by President Nicolas Sarkozy on behalf of the EU") for all those states not recognizing/opposing recognition, but no statements for those states not recognizing. With all statements from recognizing states cut out this worries me as from a POV unbalanced. Not really sure whether we should re-add the statements for recognizing countries, or delete all statements. --Xeeron (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually we have nearly identical attitude among recognising states. But among not recognising, please compare Canada with Belarus. I think that it is clear, that we have huge difference between different non-recognising states. So, we need this statements for clarification.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yuriy, we need to show that non recognising states have different positions and have different reasons as to why they won't (currently) recognise. IJA (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that information for non-recognisers is necessary. But I think it's also useful to give information for the recognisers, where it's notable (i.e. not just the "we support recognition" stance). For example, are these countries considering de-recognition, or are there unusual circumstances leading to a recognition such as a payment/bribe? This obviously affects the Kosovo article too, and it would be nice if these articles were the same, but there's no strong reason why this must be so, particularly as this one is significantly shorter. Perhaps the Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations column in the recognisers table should be renamed to Notes - this would give more scope for including extra information. Bazonka (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If anybody's interested, the US State Department spokesman did comment on Nauru's recognitions on Wednesday, Dec. 16 - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)