Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The Solomon Islands recognizes Abkhazia and South Ossetia? A strange forum source is found (May not be real)

I was reasearching the recogntion of these two territories, and I found this strange source on a forum. It seems that the Russia has reported that the Solomon Islands have recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, however, I cannot find any source that they actually did do that. I looked everywhere, so I can not take this as an actual source. If anybody can, please find source on the decision of the Solomon Islands, if there is no source found, then the forum "idea" may be fake. I suggest that users take some time look at the link I have highlighted. The link is in Russian, so for those people who can not speak Russian, please be free to use the translator I found for you. Thank you for your time. Oxana879 (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the posts on the forum seem to be quoting BBC Russian as a source for the news, but I can't find anything of relevance there. Let's keep watching. Bazonka (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything, and I'm absolutely sure that if this were for real, we would hear more of it, and certainly from the Abkhazian sources (President's website, Abkhazian press agency).sephia karta | di mi 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That is just a silly blog and some fool probably got their geography mixed up and confused Nauru with the Solomon Islands. IJA (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(To IJA), Actually, they did not mess anything up. If you read closely, they said that the Solomon Islands were the fifth nation to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I do not know WHERE they got this kind of source, because I can not find it anyway. I still however reccomend people to continue to finding source. Neverless I doubt that this is true. Oxana879 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabak and Abkazia

Has Nagorno-Karabakh officially recognized Abkhazia? It's on a few news reports, but it is unconfirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.241.60 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Abkhazia–Venezuela relations

I think this is a good idea. Abkhazia–Venezuela relations offers nothing new beyond what this article offers.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article "Abkhazia–Venezuela relations" adds nothing new or notable to what is already in "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia". Also Abkhazia's and Venezuela's relations don't go any further than recognition, therefore it is suitable to merge it into this article IJA (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose As per the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abkhazia–Venezuela relations - there is plenty of information which can be added to the article which isn't suited to this article on general international recognition, but is rather suited to one which discusses bilateral relations between the two countries. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is plenty of information which can be added then add it, until then there is nothing notable on the article except recognition. IJA (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as Abkhazia has very states with which it has diplomatic relations and this page is already very lengthy. It's notable and informative separately, therefore it should remain as is. Outback the koala (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Many countries have diplomatic relations, however this doesn't mean they have notable relations. But one thing we do know is that Abkhazia and Venezuela have NOT established diplomatic relations and thus there is nothing notable between the two expect for recognition. IJA (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that only 4 states recognise Abkhazia as a country, I would disagree, as it is whole notable and worthy of a separate page. And again I still think this page is too lengthy, if there is any duplication here, then we should eliminate it and direct the reader to the separate page. Outback the koala (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You say it is "too lengthy", what new "notable" information is added on the article "Abkhazia–Venezuela relations", which doesn't go any further than what already featured on "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia"? If you can tell me what diffident notable information is on the foreign relations article that isn't on the international recognition article, I promise to remove me agree comment. IJA (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me be more clear - they duplicate, so this page should direct to the Abkhazia–Venezuela relations page so as to try and get a handle on the length of this page. Comprende? The info is notable either way you slice it- but it's better for us to avoid lengthy pages and lists. Outback the koala (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

NO! Not at all, "Abkhazia-Venezuela relations" should redirect to "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" as all the notable information is already in "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia". Also please don't go off topic. Also you haven't stated why "Abkhazia-Venezuela relations" are notable? Well they can't be notable considering they don't have any relations. IJA (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably this topic can continue at the WikiProject for IR (there is a precedence (in fact a debate) that could support both sides)

Anyhoo, my initial reaction was to merge the two, but as Russavia says a poor article is not grounds for deletion, one can tag it and improve. So i'm neutral(Lihaas (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, if Russavia is to argue this then I challenge him to update and edit the article until it meets notability lines. I now challenge you to do the same. Until then I must reject your comment as null and void per WP:AFD. There is no point leaving the article be, it must meet notability lines otherwise it shall be merged. IJA (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. As Abkhazia is only recognised by a handful of states, information about the relations it has with these select few is definitely notable. Not to mention, the topic has received substantial media coverage. Also, if it's going to be merged into anywhere, it should be at Foreign relations of Abkhazia, not here. Night w (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Outback the koala (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

POV

The very first sentence makes an assertion of "de fact" indepence by citing a GEORGIAN source? That is flagrant POV. It is recognized by UN member states (if not others) as independence, it has declared independance, the writ of the Georgian state doesn't extend to these 2 that by definition of de jure "means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact"." Unless there is some new definition what else claims otherwise? The fact over its disputed status is listed in the article AND the lead.

(also the POV tag has to stay until this discussion is through, not point edit warring)(Lihaas (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Flagrant" carries the connotation that somehow using a Georgian source was some deliberate, diabolical act. This article's been in existence for almost two years and you're the first person that I am aware of to contest the wording or source. You badly mangled your own POV edits with bad spelling and grammar and now the article's introduction is terrible. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, although I've left the POV tag pending the outcome of this discussion. (Lihaas' edit was unbelievably badly written, and had to change.) I cannot see any justification for the claim of POV. Lihaas, could you please explain exactly what is wrong? Bazonka (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe s/he's contesting the fact that a Georgian news agency, Civil Georgia, has been cited in the introduction—which is fair enough. I've changed the source, but the wording in my opinion is completely objective. Night w (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

In the list of states which currently do not recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the text of cuba says: "President Raul Castro released the following statement on 10 August 2008: "When the USSR disintegrated, South Ossetia, annexed by force by Georgia, with which it shared neither nationality nor culture, retained its status as an autonomous republic with its local authorities and its capital, Tskhinvali. ... It is a false claim that Georgia is defending its national sovereignty.""

In the way I interpret it, this is more support for the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia than against it. Or at least the position is neutral.

Also the position of Switzerland states that it currently hasn't taken any position on whether to recognise the independence or not.

Maybe there should be another list. With states where the decision is currently pending review...

--helohe (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations with Venezuela

The Abkhaz ambassador to Venezuela presented a copy of his credentials to the Foreign Minister today. I presume this marks the official initiation of diplomatic relations. [1] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I just found an article saying that the Venezuelan ambassador to Russia presented his credentials in South Ossetia on 9 July, which would mark the beginning of diplomatic relations. I'll go ahead and add it to the article. If anybody finds anything with earlier dates, please change what I've put up.[2] (PDF) - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

use of "states" in the intro

The article has for about two years used the uncontroversial and neutral "regions" to refer to the two entities. I don't understand why some editors are trying to change that into "states" now. Since the very statehood is disputed, using states unexplained is obviously POV. In fact, the very first sentence says so itself "disputed status over whether they are a part of Georgia or sovereign states". Writing "are states" is just as wrong as writing "are parts of Georgia" would be. --Xeeron (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Bazonka (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. They are known to be states; de facto states. Recognition and their status as de jure or 'legal' state is what is disputed. See the List of Sovereign States and the List of states with limited recognition, where both states appear. Outback the koala (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And de facto can be roughly translated as "are like states, but are not named states". And naming them states is exactly what you want to do. Neither have you given any reason why the previously used and neutral "regions" is worse. --Xeeron (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the term "region" is neutral is certainly questionable, but on a different aspect, it's actually inappropriate in this context. This article is about the recognition of the states currently established in the regions, not the regions themselves. The lead statement, "The Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia are two regions...", is obviously incorrect. The region of Abkhazia is certainly a region, but the Republic is a state, by definition—whether recognised or not, that's the classification from an objective perspective. The legality of the establishment of the state is what is disputed; one cannot dispute that a state has been established. So the term "state" is, by far, the most appropriate, and it is neutral. Nightw 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Objectively, we should refer to them as states, albeit disputed states with limited recognition. And personally, when I think of the 'region', all I think of is the Caucasus. Either way we should strive for accuracy. Outback the koala (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I had missed that someone recently changed the previous, and more useful, wording with Abkhazia and South Ossetia (check the article title!) to republics. Switched back to the old wording, were regions makes perfect sense. --Xeeron (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We still refer to them as regions instead of states. I think the distinction between sovereign state is clear, so the change is only one of cosmetics, not one of consequence. This changes nothing in our discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, "regions" does not make sense, as once again, this article is about political recognition of the states, not regions. It does not make sense in this context. Nightw 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself, but the fact whether they are states is exactly the issue that is contended. So with your statement, you are already taking one side. Something the article should not do. --Xeeron (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what the article is about: the recognition of the states. What else is a government recognising or not recognising? The lead sentence should adequately summarise the subject of the article; in this case, that is the international recognition of two political states. You can't recognise or not recognise a "region". This is about politics. It's why, in similar cases, we separate the state from its geography. Whether a foreign government chooses to recognise them or not, that is what they are from an objective perspective—by definition. Nightw 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the title. It says "Abkhazia and South Ossetia" (nothing about state there). And read the first sentence. It says "Abkhazia and South Ossetia are". Abkhazia and South Ossetia being the common name used to point out these two spots on the map. But I do see your point that distinguishing the two is worthwhile. --Xeeron (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If not state, it should be "disputed territories", "breakaway republics", or something similar. To make a distinction that this is about the political situation, not the geography. Nightw 09:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Both is fine with me. We should just avoid the biased "state" (and obviously the similarly biased "part of Georgia") in describing them. --Xeeron (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What if when we used the word 'state' in relation to the two countries we specifically refer to them as de facto states- Linking to the page, so readers can go understand the meaning better if they so choose. Also 'breakaway republics' works for me, but we really shouldn't pussyfoot around the correct terminology here; afterall this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Outback the koala (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The words "de facto state" should definitely feature somewhere in the intro. But still, I think the best solution, as pointed out above by Night w, is to separate references to the geographic entity (e.g. region) from the political entity (e.g. de facto state/Republic of A.). In so far, the title of the article is unfortunate, since it mixes the two. --Xeeron (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK well, what if we say something like, "Both are generally regarded as de facto states, however, there is on going dispute over whether they are de jure state..." and then refer to them after that as breakaway republics and states when it makes sense more. And as far the title goes maybe a change is in order? Outback the koala (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Western Sahara recognises South Ossetia?

This article claims the SADR has recognised SO "de facto" and will soon do so de jure [3] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The section 'UN non-member states' is about a list of countries which formally recognise Abkhazia or South Ossetia as an independent state. SADR hasn't recognised yet. So I suggest to remove a country from the list untill it recognise them de jure. –BruTe ^Talk 20:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no "de facto" recognition. It is, by definition, de jure. --Xeeron (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I propose that both Sahrawi and Nagorno-Karabakh are moved to the section of Kosovo/TRNC - with the same notes as currently (even such as "this ammounts to de facto recognition") - and to stay there until there is de jure recognition. It is meaningless to have these "de facto" dates - that are just dates of some interviews where representatives of SADR/NKR have explained their position of support, etc. - but, eventually when de jure recognition happens, these dates will be removed anyway. Alinor (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Looks like this has already taken place. Good! Outback the koala (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This source speculates that San Marino may recognise A & SO, which is probably wishful thinking, but it is good to keep an eye on it. More importantly though, it claims that the Sahrawi Republic indeed recognises A & SO, so we should investigate whether that is jumping the gun or whether the news has stayed very quiet.sephia karta | dimmi 19:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Denial by Foreign Minister Gvinjia that Abkhazia is currently expecting recognition from San Marino, Claim by President Bagapsh that Abkhazia will in the near future be recognised by one other country, Attributed statement by Bagapsh that Dominican Republic may recognise Abkhazia. sephia karta | dimmi 15:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Vanuatu recognizes

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/world/europe/01briefs-Abkhazia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.103.5 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That's already in the article, though not in the lede or map. If they don't also recognise South Ossetia soon, then I suggest splitting this article into two. Bazonka (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But has Vanuatu actually recognised Abkhazia? This article has a quote from a Vanuatuan politician saying that "there was no declaration of Abkhazia's independence from Vanuatu". Whereas this Abkhazian MFA article states that Vanuatu has established diplomatic relations. Recognition and having diplomatic relations are not the same thing, but it seems strange for Vanuatu to have official relations with an unrecognised country. (Although having said that, many countries have "relations" with Taiwan without recognising it.) I really don't know what's going on, but without an official Abkhazian or Vanuatuan source explicitly mentioning recognition, then I think it is unwise to state in this article that the recognition has definately taken place. Bazonka (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We already have official Abkhazian sources, which explicitly state that documents were signed and that this occurred on 23 May 2011. Other official information also states that with the signing of diplomatic relations between the two countries there is also a visa-free regime in place for citizens of both countries. One can not establish diplomatic relations with a state which they do not recognise. Russia has also all but confirmed that Abkhazia has won recognition from Vanuatu. It does appear, at the same time, that all of the denials are coming by way of Georgian sources...it appears the Vanuatuan denial is being relayed by way of Georgian UN employees. Also, question to the editor concerned, why is any mention of Vanuatu being removed wholesale from the article, in a way that one could say is quite disruptive. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we have a Russian news site, and two official Abkhazian sources that refer to diplomatic relations, but not recognition. Nothing absolutely concrete. Bazonka (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is Radio Fiji too which added more details also on the 3rd. But I agree that much is still unclear. sephia karta | dimmi 00:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What information do you need? These are already clear - diplomatic relations are established only between states. The establishment of such relations is identical with the recognition of independence. This clearly confirms the text: "The Governments of the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of Vanuatu being guided by the norms of the International Law and Rights of the Nations for Self-Determination as well as to the Principles of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 on" Rights and Duties of the States "have a Decision Taken to Establish Diplomatic Relations."Aotearoa (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's some heavy doubts about whether Vanuatu recognized: http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=61004 —Nightstallion 10:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than this article saying yes they have or no thay haven't, it should give a balanced view stating that there are conflicting reports. Bazonka (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Vanuatu Recognizes Abkhazia. Or Maybe Not." --illythr (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In all likelihood, Vanuatu has actually recognised. It has been reported that Shamba travelled to Port Vila to do the signing of documents, however, it appears that all documents were sent by way of air express. Two things to note. 1) Vanuatu is a diplomatic harlot. One need only look at its history of recognition in relation to the PRC and ROC. Which brings in 2) Vanuatu politics is pretty unstable at the moment. The current PM has only recently been reinstated after legal challenges and no confidence motions. The PM has the legal authority, according to media, to sign such diplomatic notes. And the Abkhazians are saying that they have copies of the documents -- that is pretty obvious, for one wouldn't initiate press of being recognised in the way that Abkhazia has, without being in possession of some sort of evidence. According to other media reports, Vanuatu will be announcing their recognition on Monday. Additionally, on abkhazworld.com there is a letter of condolence from the Vanuatu PM over Sergey Bagapsh's death. The only thing that appears to be happening here is that internal Vanuatu politics are again hitting headlines over their foreign policy. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We can only speculate what's going on. Perhaps the US bribe turned out to be bigger. Perhaps the Russian one was bigger, but the US threatened to stop buying their pigeon crap, so they're backtracking on the deal. Right now, we have the Abkhasians stating they got recognition and the Vanuatians saying they didn't grant any. The best way to deal with it is to wait until the dust settles (until Monday or so) before adding Vanuatu, I think. --illythr (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Shure, we have to wait. --OBrigada (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Vanuatu should probably also delete from the list International recognition of Kosovo – no official Vanuatuan sources about recognition of Kosovo! Aotearoa (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

* Recognition text of Kosovo--OBrigada (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please tell me, why does the article not use this source [4]?! Fiji is located in Melanesia, Vanuatu is the closest neighbour of Fiji. This source is Radio Fiji, so this is probably the most relevant source to the case! Please, add this source to the article. I have already added it, but user Kober has reverted my edits. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Please wait, Radio Fiji still isn't a Radio Vanuato.--OBrigada (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Good article about the issue [5] --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Let's wait for Monday [6], [7]. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Please, add Vanuatu to recognising states. See this document [8], article in Kommersant [9]. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Split into two articles/ One article is too big at 138 KB

I propose we split this article into two articles "International recognition of Abkhazia" and International recognition of South Ossetia". They are both different partially recognised de facto independent countries. They have different dates for receiving recognition and Vanuatu recognised Abkhazia but not South Ossetia. Some statements made about recognition have been directed at only one of the two and not the other. For these reasons I propose splitting the article into two articles. IJA (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially now that the countries that recognise them are no longer the same. Bazonka (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not think that it is good idea and is necessary now. The difference is too small for the splitting. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a reason as such for them to be together in the first place. They're both different entities/ countries. Also not to mention this article is far too long per WP:SIZERULE. The maximum justifiable size for an article is 100 KB and this article is 138 KB. That is 38 KB too big. If we were to split the article into two articles this would reduce the size of the article. For this reason I am going to add a "Very Long" tag to the article. IJA (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This article could easily be cut by half or more, the sizerule is seldom invoked anymore, so please just cut the trivia out of the article if you think it is too long. Smallbones (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that two countries will have two articles. There are more and more differences. One articles was good in 2008, now is better two articles. Jan CZ (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Map

Please can somebody update the map of recognisers in this article - it needs to show Vanuatu. I presume a new colour will need to be used as they only recognise Abkhazia. Of course, the sensible option would be to split this article into two, where different maps could be used. Bazonka (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Vanuatu again

Stopped recognizing under the new government, see [10]. —Nightstallion 11:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• State recognition cannot be withdrawn. Only government recognition can be withdrawn. --maxval (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"State recognition cannot be withdrawn"? Where did you come up with this? In any case, the source - which looks reliable - disagrees with you. Smallbones (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot give you any source now, I remember this from my international law studies. But in reality this is irrevelant: the fact is that Vanuatu has withdraw recognition in spite of the unlawfulness of his decision. --maxval (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Iran used to recognise Israel. Pakistan used to recognise Armenia. 23 countries have cancelled/ withdrawn recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Yes states can withdraw recognition. Period. Also WP:NOTAFORUM. IJA (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Georgians sources informed about withdrawn, but according to [11] new Vanuatuan government confirmed recognition. So, we have press information against press information – till official new statsment of government of Vanuatu we have current offical document about recognition: [12]. Aotearoa (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Map

Please can somebody update the map of recognisers in this article - it needs to show Tuvalu. Jan CZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan CZ (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - You might also want to add some detail in the "notes" section of the table for Tuvalu. Zangar (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Georgia severed ties with Tuvalu

[13] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

San Marino

San Marino is "planning to establish political, cultural and scientific contacts with Abkhazia" [14]. Does this constitute a formal recognition of independence, or is it more like the unofficial relations that many countries maintain with Taiwan - de facto but not de jure recognition? I think that this needs to be mentioned in the article, but not necessarily in the recognisers section. Bazonka (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Bazonka The State Secretary of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino with a statement: In reference to the recent positions taken by the United Left, favorable to the recognition of the self-proclaimed "Republic of Abkhazia," the Secretary of State for Foreign and Political Affairs, Antonella Mularoni, wishes to state the official position of the Government. The San Marino government does not recognize Abkhazia as an independent state and maintains a position of absolute respect for the territorial integrity of Georgia. Like most of the countries and international organizations, San Marino has no intention to make such recognition. This position is continually expressed in international fora and whenever it shows the need or opportunity. http://www.esteri.sm/on-line/Home/News/articolo1003075.html Irvi Hyka (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kiribati

There seems to be some confusion right now among foreign policy experts to whether Kiribati has recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Should it be noted that recognition is unclear in this circumstance? --Kuzwa (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates of Abkhazia/South Ossetia/Transnistria mutual recognitions?

Currently, the article says that Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria recognised each other on 6 November 2006. However, I find this doubtful, for the following reasons:

• It seems clear that they treated each other as independent states before this date.
• The article links to this news story, but I think it merely says that they recognise each other, not that they recognise each other as of this date.
• Other sites like http://www.kavkaz-uzel.ru cover the meeting but don't mention any declaration of recognitions.
• The three have signed treaties and entered into agreements before this date. The way I understand international law (which could of course be mistaken) is that, without explicit proviso to the contrary, if two states sign an agreement, that constitutes diplomatic relations (and thus also recognition). Notably, Abkhazia and Transnistria signed a Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation as early as 22 January 1993, South Ossetia and Transnistria a Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation on 12 October 1994 and Abkhazia and South Ossetia a Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation on 19 September 2005. Note also that by 6 November 2006, the three had already together founded the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations.

This wouldn't give us any other concrete dates for recognition/diplomatic relations between Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, as there may have been earlier agreements and statements (especially in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). It just means the current date is misleading/wrong, so we should come up with something else. (Perhaps we can assume these three recognised each other right from the start, since recognition of the others was never contested?) sephia karta | dimmi 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the current date is wrong. Joint statements like this, made on June 14 2006, where they describe themselves as "sovereign Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia" seems pretty unambiguous to me. I'd say we should leave the date blank until we find a source. TDL (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the date. I think we should also remove the date for the start of diplomatic relations between Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It has a source ([15]), but I think it confuses exchange of embassies with diplomatic relations, which as far as I know are already established when to countries sign a treaty.sephia karta | dimmi 21:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Current dates of recognitions between Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria are correct. These recognitions are mutual and here is relevant source with exact dates [16]. Also date of establishment of diplomatic relations between Abkhazia and South Ossetia is true. Agreements of A+SO+T signed before 17.11.2006 not constitutes any diplomatic relations or recognitions. Jan CZ (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain that? Why do previous agreements not constitute recognition/diplomatic relations? I am quite suspicious of that page, it seems to be the only one of its kind and I think it quite likely that it actually copied the dates off Wikipedia.sephia karta | dimmi 22:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion of contracts in itself does not mean the recognition of independence or establishing of diplomatic relations. For example, agreements conclude often the autonomous bodies or entities of the Federations, such as Crimea, Tatarstan or Quebec. Concluding contract between, for example, France and Quebec or the Czech Republic and Tatarstan, Crimea and Bashkortostan do not even recognition as a sovereign State and establish diplomatic relations. Transnistria has far as I know, for example contract on the mutual recognition of certain documents with Moldova. Transnistria of course is not recognized by Moldova. The questioning of sources, I think it is quite inappropriate. It's page of Abkhaz Embassy, which draws from internal sources, not from Wikipedia. It gives official information. This source had this data already before I subsequently used it on Wikipedia for the date of recognition of NK. So here was the first source, then its use on Wikipedia. Jan CZ (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes but signing an agreement with a subnational entity is unproblematic, since that entity does not claim independence. Also, if you look at previous agreements, they mention sovereigny and statehood explicitly. Compare the Transnistria/Abkhazia friendship agreement [17] with other agreements Transnistria signed with Russian and Ukrainian regions [18][19][20][21]. Or consider the statement TDL linked to. Or consider the fact that they founded the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations. The embassy is the embassy to Venezuela, and there are no such dates on the website of the Foreign Ministry.sephia karta | dimmi 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, as much as I agree with sephia karta that this looks like a classic case of citogenesis, JanCZ does make a good point. Jan added the N-K recognition date to the article citing the embassy's site. If they were just copying from this article they wouldn't have had the N-K recognition date yet. You'd like to think that the official site of an embassy wouldn't stoop to that level. TDL (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They might have simply copied the same date. We originally referenced the NK recognition with this quote. What is especially puzzling about the supposed date for NK's recognition is that there is no mention of them in any of the news stories at the time.[22][23][24].

As for the supposed mutual A/SO/T recognition on 17 November 2006, one indication that the embassy website might indeed have copied the date from Wikipedia is the fact that the meeting actually took place on the 16th. This is reflected in the news stories, we simply miscited them. And even if they indeed recognised each other on that date, that could still only be a re-affirmation, given the proof we have that they already recognised each other and had diplomatic relations before.sephia karta | dimmi 16:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Serbia will recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia

The new President of Serbia Mr. Tomislav Nikolić visits Russia. The Serbian parliament looks set to consider formal recognition of the newly-independent republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In an interview with the Voice of Russia the country’s President-elect Tomislav Nikolic dismissed any comparison between the sovereign status of these two South Caucasus republics and that of Kosovo. During a meeting with Russian Presidnet Vladimir Putin, Nikolic reiterated Serbia's uncompromising stance on Kosovo even if it hampered its bid to join the EU.Voice of Russia

Georgia's reaction Georgia aims to avoid Serbian recognition of breakaway republics.[25] Irvi Hyka (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting! Unusual for a country with its own breakaways to recognize someone else's. Let's wait and see what happens, and add it to the list if and when recognition is established. Evzob (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Evzob - wait until something actually happens. Not sure that VoR is a reliable source on this. There's so much "Is expected to happen" in this article - but nothing has actually happened. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is the crystal balling? We are not stating that "this will happen"; we are just reporting what has been said. Whether the recognition actually happens or not is yet to be seen, and we cannot comment on this. By reporting what has been said, we are showing which way different countries are leaning, and how their opinions change over time. If we can't do this, then we would need to remove the entire "States which do not recognise" section, and that would be a disgrace. Bazonka (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding Serbia to the list of "states recognizing" would be a crystal ball problem. IMHO mentioning it in the "do not recognize" list is probably not. Reliability of the source is of course a separate issue, and I don't have enough knowledge in this case to make a judgment on that. Evzob (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"partially recognised"

I think we have to get rid of this nonsense phrase in the lede. It is just never used (except on Wikipedia!) in the area of international affairs. It can be used in taxes, machine facial recognition, etc. but I doubt it has ever been used in international affairs (in English). Furthermore, we should use something like "official recognition" for Georgia's claims, reflecting its recognition by the UN and in multiple international treaties. Anything else just looks like fantasy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Never? How about: "upgrading the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from “unrecognized” to “partially recognized” states"? "Now the two autonomous republics of Georgia have joined the group of partially recognized states, such as Taiwan, Kosovo and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus."? "The recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has marked the emergence of “partially recognized states” in former Soviet territory (similar to the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, or Taiwan)."? There are plenty of others...

"Officially" is a WP:WEASEL word and should not be used. Russia's recognition is just as "official" as Georgia's non-recognition. Categorizing one position as "official" and the rest as "unofficial" is not a WP:NPOV way of describing the situation. TDL (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dan. Jan CZ (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

1st sources uses it in quotes, 2nd source is clearly not a native speaker, 3rd source is behind a paywall. Let's see what else you've got. "Official" in this context should clearly be the UN position. Russia and Georgia are the opposing parties, why should we put the Russian view foremost? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So your argument is that anyone with an un-American sounding name isn't reliable? I'm not sure that even deserves a response. Also, please read WP:PAYWALL and make a visit to your local library if you don't trust my quoting abilities. TDL (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Officially" is clearly a weasel word in this kind of context, whereas "partially recognized" is a descriptive term which is both accurate and concise. Is there any rule that says Wikipedia's terminology needs to mirror terminology used by other sources? GeoEvan (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Vanuatu

The article claims that Vanuatu recognized Abkhazia de jure, however according to sources the island withdrew its recognition of Abkhazia. The claim that Vanuatu reinstated the recognition is not supported by any reliable news source or reference. Those references which were provided prior to support these claims were removed because none of them worked (mostly broken links or pages did not exist). We need a reference for the claim that Vanuatu recognized Abkhazia de jure and that the recognition was later reinstated after it was withdrawn by the Prime Minister of Vanuatu Edward Natapei Iberieli (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 12:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

p.s Moreover, we need to verify this claim because the link which was provided did not exist: "Aligning itself with Russia, South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak signed a joint declaration with Russia which stated that the two countries shared "a common assessment of Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia." South Korea also coincided with Russia in expressing "concern over the recent situation in Georgia" and support for "using peaceful means and dialogue to settle the problem." If there is no reference to support this claim about South Korea possition, it will be removed. Iberieli (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How is this as a source for Vanuatu? CMD (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed all the links. In the future, please don't delete dead links, as per WP:LINKROT. Working links aren't required for WP:V. Adding {{dead}} to dead links is the proper way to deal with them.

@CMD, that looks like a useful link to add to the article to clarify the Vanuatu situation. TDL (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for verifying this claim, although Vanuatus recognition remains dubious. Can you also provide reference for South Korea claim since the link did not exist and there is no way to verify this claim otherwise. I can also make up some dead links and attempt to use them as references in order to verify some claims which would better suit my views. Iberieli (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Iberieli, don't be silly. A link that was working when it was added could (and probably would) have been checked at the time. If it subsequently dies, then that does not change the fact that it was once verifiable. But you cannot add a dead link to verify your claims because there is no way it could ever have been validated. You really should read WP:LINKROT. Bazonka (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would advise to you remain civil and avoid personal attacks. I am well aware about WP:LINKROT, however, the link which was provided for South Korea claim did not exist at any given time, hence the reference is a forgery. Also, you really should read WP:Civility. Best. Iberieli (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your request that Bazonka avoid personal attacks for calling you "silly" rings hollow, given that you're accusing Jagiellon of "forgery" without any evidence to back it up. If you'd like to be treated with civility, perhaps you should show the same respect to others. In fact, your claim that "the link which was provided for South Korea claim did not exist at any given time" is quite obviously false. If you had of looked at my edit from yesterday you would have noticed that I added a link to an archived version from January 2009 of the website supporting the South Korea claim, proving that the link did exist on this date and supportes the claims. Instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that because a link is dead now that it "did not exist at any given time" and hence is a "forgery", it would be far more helpful if you WP:AGF of others. TDL (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Radio New Zealand International is carrying a story, dated 18 March 2013, stating that Vanuatu denies having set up diplomatic relations with Abkhazia [26]. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. Relations however are not recognition. I wouldn't be surprised at another turnaround on recognition, but this source doesn't provide it. Oddly enough, it does contradict our other information about a Vanuatuan ambassador. CMD (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems Vanuatu will soon establish diplomatic relations with Georgia [27]. It says also "we have no diplomatic relations with Abkhazia". Another source [28] shows Goiset is no more ambassador of Vanuatu. And another source [29] shows some strange for a diplomacy dealings between Goiset, Russia, Vanuatu. Of course all of this happens after a government change - so it may reverse again in the future. Hopefully when the official statement of Georgia-Vanuatu relations is issued it will contain unambiguous clarification of Vanuatu position regarding Abkhazia - for diplomatic recognition, diplomatic relations, ambassadors. Japinderum (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanuatu withdrawn

In regards to this revert, the withdrawal has been confirmed by Moana Carcasses Kalosil according to Agence France-Presse [30] so I think we do need to indicate this in the table somehow. A separate "withrawn recognition" section is probably the best approach, though I'm open to other ideas. TDL (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Vanuatu’s PM tells of strong opposition to Abkhazian ties.--Kober^Talk 02:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an original footage showing the meeting between the President of Georgia and PM of Vanuatu, during which the reversal of recognition was discussed.--Kober^Talk 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My objection was to the awful sourcing. If we have good sources, then I agree a "Recognition withdrawn" section would be useful. A source noting the Vanuatun Prime Minister's statement would be preferable than one discussing Saakashveli however, although including both to create a chronology would be better. CMD (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a model for these cases in the article Int.recogn.of SADR, we should apply them in other articles (Int.recog. of Abkhazia and SO, of Kosovo, etc., where there are). This is a stable version to view these cases (of states that have "withdrawn" or "frozen" recognition). Jan CZ (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the classification of Vanuatu among those countries that have withdrawn recognition is premature. We have only the Georgian President's assertion, made only on Facebook (WP: BLOG). All journalistic comment are based on this his blog speech. Vanuatu this information so far no comment. Abkhazia claims today saying that it is only a Saakashvili imagination [31]. I think we should wait for the official expression of Vanuatu. Jan CZ (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well there was a public press conference (some of which you can watch here) where Kalosil (PM of Vanuatu) discussed the issue. Agence France-Presse described the PM's statements at this conference as: "Vanuatu's premier Moana Carcasses Kalosil later confirmed the move in a joint video statement with Saakashvili from the sidelines of a conference in Thailand." Also, the President of Georgia has also published the comments on the official presidential website. Yes, we don't have a direct quote from confirming the move from Vanuatu, but I think that's pretty convincing sourcing. The argument of Abkhazian officials seems to be that this was his personal POV, and not an official act of government. Just because Abkhazia has denied it, I'm not sure that's reason to refrain from making the change. TDL (talk)

Agree. However, hopefully soon to be official confirmation. Jan CZ (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that would certainly help add some clarity to the situation, but if this whole disaster has taught me anything about politics in Vanuatu it's that they'd just change their mind the next day anyways. I suppose 8 changes of PM over a span of 3.5 years tends to have that effect. TDL (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as we state the source of the information, when it comes from a primary statement such as the Georgian, Abkhazian, and Vanuatuan governments, it should be fine. CMD (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Vanuatuan governments statements on its own foreign policy is a reliable source, it would be ludicrous to consider it not a reliable one.XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Vanuatu is that different representatives of the government have given contradictory statements in the past. They probably have to be identified to even smaller detail. CMD (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Abkhazian press release on Vanuatu

I'm starting a new topic on this specifically, so that it doesn't get lost in the above discussion from May. Namely, I'm concerned about the weight that we're giving (both here and on Abkhazia–Vanuatu relations) to statements released in Russian by the deputy foreign minister of the Republic of Abkhazia, contradicting claims that Vanuatu has withdrawn its recognition.

The problems with this statement are that in both linked sources 1. it's in Russian, 2. when I use Google Translate on those articles, they seem to confirm that Vanuatu-Abkhazian relations have been cut off, and 3. though I may be missing something with Google Translate (see point 1), both of the linked articles seem to suggest that the Abkhaz official is condemning international pressure on Vanuatu and condemning Georgia's propaganda efforts, rather than denying that Vanuatu has withdrawn recognition. It's possible that in a better translation he may in fact suggest that the Prime Minister of Vanuatu has no authority to withdraw recognition, or something to that effect; but even if he were claiming that, I strongly doubt that an obscure Abkhaz official is reliable source for Ni-Vanuatu constitutional law.

In short, we seem to be giving undue weight to what seems to be a hissy-fit by a minor Abkhaz official over the (possibly temporary) severing of relations with and recognition by Vanuatu, in which he may or may not have claimed that the Prime Minister of Vanuatu does not have the authority to withdraw recognition.

It seems that Vanuatu has indeed withdrawn recognition, and though I suspect it will be restored in the next change of government (consider the mercurial diplomatic tendencies of the Pacific Island states in general and Vanuatu in particular), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and for now the position of Vanuatu seems to be that it no longer recognizes Abkhazia, full stop. —Quintucket (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The price of recognition

It would be interesting to see information on prices paid to Vanuatu and a few other countries for their recognition of small new (created or restored) countries. WP currently says nothing about why a new country should be recognized by a specific few existing countries; is there a reliable source stating that such recognizing countries require substantial payments for their service? It is pretty clear that payments are the only reasonable motivation. (Reference: The Rachel Maddow Show, March 10, 2014, MSNBC television) David Spector (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sixth "recogniser" of Abkhazia?

I don't get it. What is the sixth country which recognizes Abkhasia? I only see Nauru, Nicaragua, Russia, Venezuela and Tuvalu, but what is the sixth?! Vanuatu has withdrawn its recognition.--31.17.153.69 (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But they were (past tense) recognized by Vanuatu after the war. Assuming you are asking about the second sentence, the rest of the sentence explains that this was withdrawn. TDL (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't allow countries who previously recognised them under the sub-title "States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent" because that implies that they still do recognise them and that is misleading the reader/ audience. IJA (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• States which have recognized Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent (The following lists all the states that have ever recognised Abkhazia or South Ossetia).
  • States that currently recognise.
  • States that have withdrawn or frozen recognition.

I think that view is now quite clear. Jan CZ (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with IJA, clearly states that have withdrawn recognition cannot continue to be listed under "States formally recognising", it is contradictory and misleading. This is more logical:

• States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent
  • States that have never recognised
  • States that initially recognised but subsequently withdrawn

The article needs to reflect the present situation. --Nug (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanuatu and Tuvalu must be under the title "States that do not recognise Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent" because these two countries do NOT recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent. Period! IJA (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

IJA: no one has ever suggested that they currently do recognize either. In the latest revision Vanuatu and Tuvalu are listed under the heading "States which have recognized" which is perfectly correct because of course they did recognize.

The question is do we divide the states by their current position or by whether they have ever recognized at some point. The former is discouraged by WP:PRECISELANG, since it is only true at one point in time and quickly becomes out of date. (Vanuatu alone has changed their mind at least 6 times now by my count.) So the statement "Vanuatu currently does not recognize" is somewhat meaningless without a timestamp. However, the statement "Vanuatu has formally recognized" is true and remains true for ever. For this reason I think Jan's latest revision with retitled sections is the best option. Another advantage of this layout is that it allows us to properly present the chronology of recognitions. TDL (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article always divided states by their current position, the section title is Positions taken by states and the map caption states "A world map, showing the status of international recognition". Vanuatu may have flip flopped in the past, but they signed an agreement on establishing diplomatic and consular relations with Georgia, formalising their non-recognition of the break-away regions. We always list states by their latest position, for example in the case of the Baltic states, Australia briefly gave de jure recognition of Soviet annexation for 18 months but reversed their position, so we do not list them in the section "3. De jure recognition" but in section "2. De jure non-recognition" with appropriate annotation in the article State_continuity_of_the_Baltic_states#List_of_recognition_and_non-recognition_of_annexation. The same approach is take here. --Nug (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the article has always divided the states by whether they have recognized at some point in time or not, until you changed it just yesterday. That's why we are having this discussion. It's a bit disingenuous to change the article and then argue it should remain changed because you have already changed it. That "Vanuatu has formally recognized and then withdrawn recognition" is an entirely legitimate "positions taken by state".

Vanuatu signed an agreement recognizing Abkhazia and establishing diplomatic relations with them in 2011, and then changed their mind three weeks later. So them signing an agreement is hardly conclusive. Andyourn example from 40 years ago entirely misses the point of WP:PRECISELANG. Besides, that WP:OSE isn't a legitimate rationale to do things here. TDL (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That is demonstrably untrue. The version before my change, here, has these subsection titles:

4 Positions taken by states

4.1 States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent

4.2 States that do not recognise Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent

Clearly the article has always represented the present tense, this past tense wording is something new that you and Jan have introduced in order to preserve Vanuatu and Tuvalu in the recognition section. As IJA pointed out, that is just plain misleading. Vanuatu and Tuvalu, having withdrawn their recognition, are correctly moved to the section States that do not recognise Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent while their past recognition is duly noted. Vanuatu may have flip flopped initially, however recognition of states isn't something that changes often and Vanuatu has settled down to its final position, thus WP:PRECISELANG does not apply. --Nug (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No, now you're diverting from the issue at hand by trying to change the subject. We were discussing how the states were divided on the list, not what the section titles were. What you said: "this article always divided states by their current position". Meanwhile, if one actually looks at the article ([32]) one can clearly see that the states are divided into two groups: those that have recognized at some point (6) and those that have never recognized (the rest). You can confirm this by checking to see that Vanuatu and Tuvalu are grouped with all the other states which have recognized at some point, and have been so for months now following their withdrawal of recognition. Unless you are trying to suggest that Vanuatu and Tuvalu are grouped with the states that have never recognized in that revision, then the diff demonstrates precisely the opposite of what you claim. Dividing states by the current status is something new that you and IJA have just come up with in an attempt to justify moving Vanuatu and Tuvalu to the section of states which have never recognized. If you'd like to WP:BOLDly propose such a change to this long-standing division then fine, but to suggest that the states have always been divided in the manner in which you propose is simply false, as demonstrated by your own link, no matter how much you try to rewrite history to fit your story.

By my count there have been at least 7 flipflops by the two states combined in the last 3 years, most recently 3 months ago. That's hardly "isn't something that changes often", "settled" or "final". TDL (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Now your argument is somewhat disingenuous. The section titles concretely demonstrate the intent of the groupings is to differentiate on the basis of a country's current position, which is confirmed by the supporting map showing only Nauru, Nicaragua, Russia and Venezuela. Jan CZ attempted to sneak in new section titles[33], changing the long standing "formally recognising" to a new "which have recognised", with a misleading edit comment "Return to the standard view". Vanuatu and Tuvalu where simply in the wrong section given their withdrawal of recognition and that has now been corrected. If you want to change these long standing section titles then seek consensus first. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To claim that "Jan CZ attempted to sneak in new section titles" is really quite silly. In the very diff you link to Jan clearly stated that they had "edit the titles". That's certainly not "sneaky". What do you expect, a personal notification on your talk page documenting any changes to the encyclopedia? Rather than cherry picking quotes to try to discredit others, please WP:AGF, actually read what has been written and attempt to refute the points that have been made rather than resorting to personalizing your beef with others.

The suggestion that "the section titles concretely demonstrate the intent of the groupings is to differentiate on the basis of a country's current position" neglects the proper usage of the English language. Neither "Positions taken by states" nor "States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent" imply the present tense. In fact, "taken" can exclusively be used for the past tense. For example, "Vantuatu has taken the position of formally recognizing Abkhazia as independent then subsequently withdrawing their recognition" is neither wrong nor needs to be "corrected". That is the point of the section title. A title written in the past tense doesn't "demonstrate the intent of the groupings is to differentiate on the basis of a country's current position", but rather quite the opposite.

You are welcome to propose a reinterpretation or rewording of the title, but any changes to the long-term sectioning, which has been in place for over a year, needs consensus, not edit warring to force through. At your suggestion I will restore the long-term sectioning and titles per WP:BRD, pending the establishment of a a consensus for any such changes on the talk page. TDL (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

To me there should be two lists, one list for countries which currently recognise and one list for countries which currently don't recognise. This will provide the reader/ audience with the latest up to date information. I suppose I'm open to the idea pf a third list 'Countries which used to recognise A & SO". IJA (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanuatu was almost a year, after the withdrawal of recognition, still in the first paragraph. Of course, my editing was Return to the standard view. View current and "former" recognizers in one section is a logical and meaningful as well as for other reasons than told by Dan. In particular, international recognition is something vastly different from the diplomatic relations. While relations may be at any time canceled by States legally, international recognition is, according to international law, final and irrevocable. In some cases, States have issued formal withdrawal of this acts, but it does not mean that such acts of withdrawing have legal force under international law. Indeed, MFA of Abkhazia still lists the full number of recognitions (6). In articles about foreign relations, Yes, let placed in a one paragraph existing relationships, in the second former relationships. But "former recognitions"? As regards the recognition is final and irrevocable, the recognitions should be all together in united paragraph. Along with a note about the legal and practical aspects of a possible "withdrawal" of recognition. Color resolution well shows to readers the current real political positions of all recognizers.

The legality of "withdrawing" of recognition is at least questionable, Nug disposal of "former" recognitions is a major change, and Nug should look for consensus for this change before edits. Jan CZ (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Vanuatu's recognition was never legal to begin with. According to this interview with Vanuatu's foreign minister Edward Natapei, Vanuatu never signed and formalised the relationship documents with Abkhazia and South Ossettia[34]:

"COUTTS: And so did you say, did I hear you correctly, that that relationship with Abkhazia and South Ossettia was never signed with Vanuatu?"

"NATAPEI; No, it was never signed. The former minister of foreign affairs actually announced it, but they never did formalise it, so when I came in as Minister of Foreign Affairs, we checked it up and we realised that there hadn't been any formalisation of that decision, so we it was a simple issue of deciding to establish diplomatic relations with Georgia and that's what we did."

So Vanuatu was never even a "former" recogniser, they never actually established relations with Abkhazia or South Ossettia, so please stop pushing this nonsense --Nug (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No that is not true at all. You have been confused by all the flip flops and don't understand the difference between diplomatic relations and recognition. The original recognition was most certainly legal. You can see a copy of the document, complete with signature by the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, for yourself at [35] dated May 2011. Natapei was speaking of the reestablishment of diplomatic relations. And besides, as Jan tried to explain to you, diplomatic relations and recognition are completely different things. Even if they had never established diplomatic relations, that has no bearing on whether they recognized.

@IJA: A 3 section layout seems like a reasonable compromise to me. TDL (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanuatu issue

As we can read from this source — "В 2011 году мы написали признание Абхазии и запрос дипломатических отношений. Ничего не изменилось, за исключением того, что мы не установили дипломатические отношения с Абхазией, но установили с Грузией." Vanuatu has official diplomatic relations with Georgia, that means Vanuatu recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Id est if Vanuatu has official relations with Georgia it provides respect of Georgian territory including Abkhazia and informal unofficial "relations" with Abkhazia of one man from Vanuatu can't be more weighty than official agreements between these two countries (Georgia and Vanuatu). --g. balaxaZe★ 08:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• He says that not only established diplomatic relations, speech derecognition not going--Murza-Zade (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Such contradictions caused by the ambiguity of these statements about what exactly they recognized the territorial integrity with Abkhazia or without--Murza-Zade (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanuatu withdrew recognition, this is very common knowledge on this article's subject. IJA (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

“the Republic of Vanuatu recognizes territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders, including its regions - the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia,” [36] [37] [38] [39] IJA (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"COUTTS: And so did you say, did I hear you correctly, that that relationship with Abkhazia and South Ossettia was never signed with Vanuatu? NATAPEI; No, it was never signed. The former minister of foreign affairs actually announced it, but they never did formalise it, so when I came in as Minister of Foreign Affairs, we checked it up and we realised that there hadn't been any formalisation of that decision, so we it was a simple issue of deciding to establish diplomatic relations with Georgia and that's what we did." IJA (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No one has claimed that they didn't withdraw recognition in 2013. But Vanuatu has had 6 different PMs since originally recognizing in May 2011, and each takes a different position on the matter. The sources you link to are out of date as they quote people from a government that is no longer in power. The new sources suggest that Vanuatu's new government, which was in charge when Vanuatu previously recognized Abkhazia, has reiterated their original position: "In 2011, we wrote the recognition of Abkhazia and request diplomatic relations. Nothing has changed, except that we have not established diplomatic relations with Abkhazia, but established with Georgia." TDL (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

But establishing diplomatic relations with Georgia automatically means that they respect and recognize territorial integrity of Georgia, and let say until they won't establish such relations with Abkhazia withdraw is in power. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The Foreign Minister of Vanuatu explicitly says that he doesn't consider diplomatic relations with Georgia and Abkhazia to be incompatible. And he explicitly states that Vanuatu still recognises Abkhazia.sephia karta | dimmi 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. The United States maintains diplomatic relations with Serbia while also recognizing Kosovo. Diplomatic relations and respect for territorial integrity are separate issues.[40][41][42] TDL (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

TDL as it written and sourced in the article "On 12 July 2013 Georgia and Vanuatu signed an agreement on establishing diplomatic and consular relations, which stated that "the Republic of Vanuatu recognises territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders, including its regions - the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia." so what are you trying to prove I don't understand. --g. balaxaZe★ 18:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that was 2013. This is 2015. There is a new government of Vanuatu, and they have reversed their position again. Vanuatu has the sovereign right to change their position at any point they choose. Citing Vanuatu's position in 2013 does not refute newer sources showing that they have changed their position. TDL (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

From 2013 I am citing Vanuatu's official position (signed agreement), but from 2015 you are citing just one man's position, his words has no power until they are not written in official documents and shown as Vanuatu's position. --g. balaxaZe★ 19:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And maybe Vanuatu government during meetings with Abkhazian officials says one, and with Georgian officials says something different – for every one Vanuatu has what they want to hear… Aotearoa (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the words of this "one man" do have power, as he controls Vanuatu's foreign policy. Unless you can provide a more recent statement from either himself or Vanuatu's Prime Minister that directly contradicts this, it would be OR not to accept his words as Vanuatu's official position. sephia karta | dimmi 09:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Shame on all of you, who tries to promote their "independence". If Putin say Alaska is Russia's territory just because he is a president of RF doesn't mean that "his statement" is official, has power and Alaska is really part of Russia. So as you can understand from my example just because that man "controls Vanuatu's foreign policy" doesn't mean that his words are as powerful as signed agreements and documents between two countries (Georgia and Vanuatu). Unless you won't provide official statement from the official website of the Government of Vanuatu your try is groundless, and just representation of your personal attitude about "independence" of Abkhazia--g. balaxaZe★ 15:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop resorting to ad hominem, and address the issues being raised. I understand that this is a sensitive issue for Georgians, but just because editors want to accurately represent up to date facts does not mean they are trying to promote Abkhazia's independence.

The FM is the authority on the matter. He sets policy. He explained the position of the government on the matter. There is absolutely no need for a treaty or official document to formalize his statements. If the FM of Nauru announced tomorrow that it no longer recognized Abkhazia, it would be removed from the list, whether or not there was an official document. TDL (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what about Kosovo or Serbia but in Georgian law it is impossible to have relations with country that do not recognize your full sovereignty. If Vanuatu has relations with Georgia it means that they recognize Georgia from Psou to Alazani and from Sarpi to Roki. As you can check with all 4 countries which recognized conflict regions Georgia has no relations IT IS JUST IMPOSSIBLE. And when Vanuatu signed agreement, that proved officially with document — they respect Georgia's territorial integrity and recognize Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region as Georgia's part. I insist if Vanuatu recognize Abkhazia then first what they have to do is to break relations with Georgia and revoke signed agreement with Georgia. They didn't do that so officially Vanuatu recognize Georgia's territorial integrity as it was before that man's interview with RIA Novosti.

P.S. policy sets Government, FM is just head of one branch, FM deals with Government.--g. balaxaZe★ 07:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, Vanuatu does not need to break relations with Georgia first, they can do whatever they please. They do not need to follow Georgia's laws since Georgian law does not apply to Vanuatu. Of course, Georgia is free to break relations with Vanuatu if they so please, but that is an entirely separate issue.

I suggest you look at the other four cases in the past, as they don't support your theory. For example, Nicaragua recognized Abkhazia in September 2008.[43] However, they did not sever relations with Georgia first. In fact, it was not until November 2008 that Georgia decided to retaliate by severing relations with Nicaragua.[44] So the entire premise of your argument is flawed.

And I have no idea what you mean by "policy sets Government". Nor "FM deals with Government". The FM IS government, so it can't deal with government. The FM is responsible for foreign affairs and sets policy. They don't meed to ask the Health Minister, or Energy Minister for permission. TDL (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanuatu has not made a clear-cut statement on recognition. I would not call that minister's vague statement, clearly aimed at pleasing the Russian ears, a confirmation of recognition. Interestingly, only a couple of Russian-language news websites cite this statement, while the rest of international media have not reported it at all. This is in contrast to Vanuatu's earlier diplomatic antics—its recognition and subsequent withdrawal thereof—which were extensively reported by various media outlets. --Kober^Talk 20:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing vague about that statement, and it is cited literally. What is more, I don't think we actually have any direct statements by ni-Vanuatu sources stating that Vanuatu (under Carcasses) stopped recognising Abkhazia's independence. All we have is citations of Georgian officials. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) sephia karta | dimmi 13:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. Here is the source which has nothing to do with the Georgian officials. On the other hand, the Vanuatu officials have a long history of making false or contradictory statements on this issue. Here is one illustrative example; back in 2011, the Russian news outlet Kommersant published a copy of the joint statement of Vanuatu and Abkhaz MFAs on establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations at ambassadorial levels. However, all available evidence, including from the top current and former Vanuatu officials indicate that the diplomatic relations between the two entities have never been established and the things did not go farther than a verbal statement of intention by the Vanuatu foreign minister. On the other hand, we have credible third-party sources that Georgia and Vanuatu have enjoyed diplomatic relations since 12 March 2013. And this could hardly be possible without mutual declaration of respect of each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity.--Kober^Talk 14:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Ria Novosti is Russian state-operated domestic Russian-language news agency and as Russian state likes to use media for its propaganda goals and per Kober's comment above, I think the best is to wait if any reliable third source (nor russian or abkhazian) write about that. Or we won't have video version of that man's statement and after that make some changes. So, I am reverting the last ones.--g. balaxaZe★ 22:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the alleged statement at least worth mentioning in the notes about Vanuatu? GeoEvan (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You are accusing Ria Novosti of falsely attributing words to a foreign government dignitary without a shred of evidence. I am reverting your deletion (which also removed other material). sephia karta | dimmi 13:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well no. Natapei only states that his government decided not to go through with establishing diplomatic relations with Abkhazia. This is completely in line with what Kilman stated in his recent interview. I repeat: we have no statement by a ni-Vanuatu official that Vanuatu withdrew recognition, but we do have a recent statement that recognition is still in place.

As for your second assertion, Vanuatu's Foreign Minister at the time confirmed (on Vanuatu's government website) that Vanuatu and Abkhazia did indeed sign a document on establishing diplomatic relations. Vanuatu's position since then has been that it never finalised the procedure, which is fine, but it does not affect recognition. sephia karta | dimmi 13:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, agreed; there was recognition by Vanuatu, but there are no diplomatic relations (see below), so the article needs fixing. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vanuatu, on March 2015, in http://ria.ru/interview/20150331/1055729593.html#ixzz3bMAeN23h :

"Interviewer: That means that now Vanuatu does not recognize Abkhazia as an independent state?

Foreign Minister of Vanuatu: In 2011, [when the party that is now the opposition was in office in Vanuatu], we wrote a request for the recognition of Abkhazia and [the establishment of] diplomatic relations. Nothing has changed, except that we have not established diplomatic relations with Abkhazia, but have rather established diplomatic relations with Georgia. Interviewer: And now you want to establish diplomatic relations with Abkhazia?

Foreign Minister of Vanuatu: Yes, we [the Foreign Ministry of Vanuatu] is in fact waiting for a decision to be made by the Vanuatuan government and orientation on the issue be given to us on the issue. In Vanuatu, there are different viewpoints, different political parties. When the political ambiance in Vanuatu reaches a decision on what the country's position on this issue should be, the Foreign Ministry will be given all the information.

Interviewer: But you, do you hope that diplomatic relations between Abkhazia and Vanuatu will be established any time soon?

Foreign Minister of Vanuatu: Yes, I hope so." MissionFix (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanuatu's Government officially issued a statement saying that the recognition of March 2011 had been cancelled and withdrawn by Vanuatu: http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/suresnois/17886242/58974/58974_original.jpg MissionFix (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and a couple weeks later they issued another that withdrew that withdrawal.[45] We aren't discussing the status in 2011, we are discussing the status in 2015. TDL (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What a fool things are you doing here? This Wikipedia and not your own blog! That minister's hopes (Foreign Minister of Vanuatu: Yes, I hope so.") doesn't mean anything. I. E. Vanuatu Does Not Recognize Abkhazia !--g. balaxaZe★ 07:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As it was said above firstly provide any third reliable source about that new recognition and then make changes. Stop your politically motivated editing without any reliable source! Sephia I am not accusing РИА Новости, I am just stating facts and in this controversial case third sources needed!--g. balaxaZe★ 08:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here it is ! Official Press Release of the Government of Vanuatu about its withdrawal of recognition of Abkhazia. This is not claim and so on, but officially signed document about canceled recognition. Therefore unless you won't provide such kind of source any change about that issue is willful and baseless.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Giorgi, please stop and read the sources listed above again as you have not understood them. The Minister's "hope" is to establish diplomatic relations with Abkhazia. However, the Minister very clearly says that "nothing has changed" with regards to the recognition of 2011. This discussion is about recognition and not diplomatic relations.

"unless you won't provide such kind of source" - I have, it's listed directly above your post. See: [46]. It's an official document signed by the MFA which postdates the statement you've linked to, and makes it very clear that the June withdrawal you cite was itself withdrawn.

Finally, please stop making bad faith accusations. Given that you have infoboxes promoting your political ideology on the subject and have been indefinite blocked for disruptive editing on the issue on commons, you really aren't in a position to accuse others of "politically motivated editing". I understand that this is a sensitive issue for Georgians such as yourself, but just because people disagree with you does not make them "politically motivated". TDL (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Other new post-Soviet states

If there is this article comprising 2 mostly unrecognized states, then I think it would make more sense either if each state had its own corresponding article or if all states would have the same article (so far, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Transnistria and, more disputedly, Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic). This is not a political statement, it's just a question. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11972248
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917175352/http://news.trendaz.com:80/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1290200&lang=EN to http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1290200&lang=EN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907214441/http://news.trendaz.com:80/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1281532&lang=EN to http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1281532&lang=EN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922025407/http://www.russiatoday.com:80/guests/detail/1597 to http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/detail/1597

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080902235114/http://ukpress.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5ih_PGPv_BI23W9E-2oFtO1iEbIaQ to http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ih_PGPv_BI23W9E-2oFtO1iEbIaQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922025407/http://www.russiatoday.com:80/guests/detail/1597 to http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/detail/1597
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206125720/http://www.dnxpert.com:80/2008/09/24/kosovo-transnistria-abhkazia-top-level-domains/ to http://www.dnxpert.com/2008/09/24/kosovo-transnistria-abhkazia-top-level-domains/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722133648/http://rt.tv/Politics/2009-09-03/russia-georgia-abkhazia-ships.html to http://rt.tv/Politics/2009-09-03/russia-georgia-abkhazia-ships.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080922025407/http://www.russiatoday.com:80/guests/detail/1597 to http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/detail/1597

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080922025407/http://www.russiatoday.com:80/guests/detail/1597 to http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/detail/1597

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dates of Abkhazia (A), South Ossetia (SO), Transnistria (PMR) and NKR mutual recognitions

I am continuing the discussion from Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Archive 6#Dates of Abkhazia/South Ossetia/Transnistria mutual recognitions?. I was opposed the views of Sephia karta at discussion.

The signing of the international (interstate) treaty by entities that are considered itself as independent States (and which signed this treaty as independent States) - it is proof of recognition. I read the full text of the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation between the PMR and SO now. Really, SO+PMR have signed the Treaty as sovereign States. In the text they explicitly writes "..based on common goals and objectives to strengthen its statehood, ... guided by the desire of their peoples to self-determination, independence and sovereignty..". This is the typical agreenment conceived as sovereign states treaty. Since this is their first interstate agreement, date of signature is the date of their mutual recognition. A+SO, A+PMR is similar to SO+PMR (A+PMR signed a Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation on 22 January 1993, PMR+SO on 12 October 1994 and A+SO on 19 September 2005). Sephia karta was right. The data should be added here and elsewhere.

As regards the Nagorno-Karabakh, I think, that the date of though has a source, but I also agree, that the accuracy of this data is not certain. It would be good to find other and better sources. Jan CZ (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations between Abkhazia (A), South Ossetia (SO), Transnistria (PMR) and NKR

Because state recognition and diplomatic relations are two different matters, restoring the discussion on diplomatic relations I start here.

Diplomatic relations between A+SO were actually established 26.9.2007. Diplomatic relations can be established by signing the Joint Communique on establishment of diplomatic relations, but also by present the credentials of the Ambassador. Abkhaz president described this presenting the credentials (26.9.2007) as act of establishment of diplomatic relations between A+SO. The previous agreement (Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation) between A+SO means recognition, but not the formal establishment of diplomatic relations. A+SO have embassies each other in capitals.

NKR but also PMR not established diplomatic relations with any countries. No any act of establishment of diplomatic relations. Because that, PMR has in A+SO only a representative office, both countries have representative offices in the PMR. Information about SO Consulate in PMR and PMR constructed Embassy in SO are obsolete (Representative office of SO in PMR and Representative office of PMR in SO). Information about the existence of diplomatic relations of PMR should be deleted from articles. Jan CZ (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Must be directed to article - Abkhazia

This should be part of article - Abkhazia. No need for separating it from main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.169.46.141 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 53 external links on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006191232/http://mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=59&info_id=17401 to http://mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=59&info_id=17401
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915084537/http://cominf.org/2004/10/15/konstituciya_respubliki_yuzhnaya_osetiya.html to http://cominf.org/2004/10/15/konstituciya_respubliki_yuzhnaya_osetiya.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901184259/http://ruvek.ru/russia-politics-independence.html to http://www.ruvek.ru/russia-politics-independence.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208205347/http://www.community-dpr.org/about_country/abhazia.php to http://community-dpr.org/about_country/abhazia.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902001442/http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/1543_type82912_205752.shtml to http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/1543_type82912_205752.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828230344/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=67757&sectionid=351020602 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=67757&sectionid=351020602
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912212352/http://www.newsgeorgia.ru/geo1/20080826/42318993.html to http://www.newsgeorgia.ru/geo1/20080826/42318993.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711091156/http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16661&Itemid=65 to http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16661&Itemid=65
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905234828/http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-georgia/index.html to http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-georgia/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915040702/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=02&dd=29&nav_id=48079 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=02&dd=29&nav_id=48079
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0%2C23739%2C23263323-954%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630014134/http://www.abkhaziagov.org/en/news/detail.php?ID=32028 to http://www.abkhaziagov.org/en/news/detail.php?ID=32028
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kremlin.ru/text/docs/2008/08/205758.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kremlin.ru/text/docs/2008/08/205759.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025195146/http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/32378 to http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/32378
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220032041/http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13387827&PageNum=0 to http://itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13387827&PageNum=0
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abkhaziagov.org/en/news/detail.php?ID=31225
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914081424/http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14319871&PageNum=0 to http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14319871&PageNum=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121140537/http://pik.tv/en/news/story/17726-south-ossetia-opens-a-home-office-embassy to http://pik.tv/en/news/story/17726-south-ossetia-opens-a-home-office-embassy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211210735/http://www.abkhaziagov.org/en/news/detail.php?ID=32473 to http://www.abkhaziagov.org/en/news/detail.php?ID=32473
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111113856/http://www.mfaabkhazia.net/en/node/1082 to http://www.mfaabkhazia.net/en/node/1082
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416224743/http://www.mfaabkhazia.net/en/pacific to http://www.mfaabkhazia.net/en/pacific
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608150154/http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1655437 to http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1655437
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514191055/http://www.mfaabkhazia.net/en/pacific to http://www.mfaabkhazia.net/en/pacific
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916005131/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C24250202-29277%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C24250202-29277%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827220114/http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6735&Itemid=65 to http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6735&Itemid=65
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016122147/http://president.gov.by/en/press62635.html to http://president.gov.by/en/press62635.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122091224/http://www.regnum.ru/news/fd-abroad/1226793.html to http://www.regnum.ru/news/fd-abroad/1226793.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901171704/http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&publication_id=386468&language=E&docnumber=184 to http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&publication_id=386468&language=E&docnumber=184
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830191935/http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6929&Itemid=65 to http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6929&Itemid=65
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903122056/http://www.vm.ee/?q=en%2Fnode%2F790 to http://www.vm.ee/?q=en%2Fnode%2F790
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901204233/http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/27082008_SB1201.htm to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/27082008_SB1201.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830100350/http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kum/en/bal/actualities/spokesman_statements/Duma_reaction_eng_080826.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kum/en/bal/actualities/spokesman_statements/Duma_reaction_eng_080826.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830095702/http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=72518 to http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=72518
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828013747/http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6675&Itemid=65 to http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6675&Itemid=65
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828014715/http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6676&Itemid=65 to http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6676&Itemid=65
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831143447/http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/NewsBelForInt/AED0FB8D9CCC9780C22574B200478C56?OpenDocument to http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/NewsBelForInt/AED0FB8D9CCC9780C22574B200478C56?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830002807/http://www.am.gov.lv/en/news/press-releases/2008/Ausust/26-4/ to http://www.am.gov.lv/en/news/press-releases/2008/Ausust/26-4/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews%20articleid_2781445.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901163210/http://www.gouvernement.lu/salle_presse/communiques/2008/08-aout/26-asselborn-pm-communique/index.html to http://www.gouvernement.lu/salle_presse/communiques/2008/08-aout/26-asselborn-pm-communique/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901155858/http://senderodelpeje.com/sdp/contenido/2008/08/27/27663 to http://senderodelpeje.com/sdp/contenido/2008/08/27/27663
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831115834/http://www.nisnews.nl/public/280808_3.htm to http://www.nisnews.nl/public/280808_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831195714/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1427082.php/Poland_supports_Georgia_over_Russian_recognition_crisis to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1427082.php/Poland_supports_Georgia_over_Russian_recognition_crisis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901194611/http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1340610 to http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1340610
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830055603/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=08&dd=26&nav_id=52997 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=08&dd=26&nav_id=52997
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915042103/http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/12837/ to http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/12837/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080826005847/http://www.foreign.gov.sk/App/WCM/main.nsf?Open to http://www.foreign.gov.sk/App/WCM/main.nsf?Open
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.apanews.net/apa.php?page=show_article_eng&id_article=76953
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831191104/http://www.wbj.pl/article-42326-moscow-recognizes-georgian-rebel-regions.html?typ=wbj to http://www.wbj.pl/article-42326-moscow-recognizes-georgian-rebel-regions.html?typ=wbj
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827064719/http://www.thelocal.se/13948/20080826/ to http://www.thelocal.se/13948/20080826/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929181244/http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=67216&sectionid=351020206 to http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=67216&sectionid=351020206
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124082613/http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=87528 to http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=87528
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126123704/http://news.km.ru/gossekretar_ssha_klinton_otkazal to http://news.km.ru/gossekretar_ssha_klinton_otkazal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509023853/http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=286219 to http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=286219
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/detail/1597
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823202937/http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=821223 to http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=821223
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831110250/http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/August/20080827152352xjsnommis0.9067346.html to http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/August/20080827152352xjsnommis0.9067346.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902001442/http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/1543_type82912_205752.shtml to http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/1543_type82912_205752.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)