| Revision as of 05:20, 3 August 2007 editThe Cosmonaut (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,776 editsm →Georgian Ambassador's letter← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:30, 12 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,387,146 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject Abkhazia}}, {{WikiProject Caucasia}}. |
| (175 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
== Adjectival form of ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Abkhazia|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Caucasia|importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 28 July 2023 == |
|
These do not take internal hyphens when used as adjectives. They are "foreign loan words" (i.e., Latin), so they are always written ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' (and never ''de-jure'' or ''de-facto''). Accordingly, theis article should be renamed to ]. ] | ] 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
== Calling the Government of Abkhazia De Jure is an Unverified POV claim == |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''No consensus'''. After a much extended discussion, there is no consensus here.{{RMpmc}} ] (]) ] 21:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
I have added the tag to this article because it adds no evidence that this government is De Jure and recognized in the UN. Please see the talk page on Abkhazia as well ]. As mentioned it is not enough to claim that the UN supports the teritorial integrity of Georgia, therefore this government is the de jure government of Abkhazia. This could be looked upon by the international community as imposing a puppet government. ] 02:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
::Regarding the references inserted by Kober. The first one is clearly a bogus. The book is available online . Page 59 only contains the following "Part 2 European Experience". Regarding the second one, it is clearly nothing, but a collection of the UN Security Council resolutions. They are all available online all the way back from 1946. So, can we just have the resolution number, allegedly recognizing the legitimacy of this entity? ] 04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia}} – Like ] and ] and ], and ] and ]. The we need article about geographic area. ] (]) 10:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] (]) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] <small>]/]</small> 20:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)</small><small>— '''''Relisting.''''' —usernamekiran ] 22:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
:::I inserted the references provided by ] in the main Abkhazia article. --]<sup>]</sup> 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Oppose'''. There is no geographic area, this body is located in Tbilisi. We already have an article for the previous geographic area at ]. ] (]) 10:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::Yes, and I'm questioning their legitimacy. Why don't you actually have a look at the first one? ] 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:{{ping|Chipmunkdavis}} nope, the geographic area is ]. And there are no reason to name the article Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and not Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. ] (]) 10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::The reason is that it's an article about the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. ] (]) 10:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::{{ping|Chipmunkdavis}} in ], the administrative division called Abkhazia refers to the article called Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia should be named Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and cover government and parliament in-exile and the administrative division. ] (]) 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::That template refers to the article on the Government because there is no actual administrative division. The government, including the Abkhazia’s Supreme Council, serves constituents . You are right that the article should cover the legislative branch, as well as what the government does; it's a very underdeveloped article. ] (]) 10:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::] is not called Government of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China despite that the administrative division does not exist. So, the article should also cover the claimed Georgian province. ] (]) 10:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::As far as I'm aware, there is no Government of Taiwan Province, just a handful of legislators. On the other hand, this article covers an actual body that exists. Your proposal is to remove this simple and accessible clarity from readers, supposedly due to the need for an article which already exists. ] (]) 11:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::It is necessary to have an article for the autonomous republic. And I don't see any objective reason to do differently from what we did for all the other separatists of the former USSR. ] (]) 11:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::::If you think there could be an article on the nominal administrative structure supported by sources that doesn't duplicate what is and what could simply be in ], then that's something you should find sources for to demonstrate. It is however not what you have proposed, which is to move ''this article'', which is about a specific government body, and is in complete alignment with many other articles on separatists of the former USSR <small>(],],],].],etc.)</small>. ] (]) 11:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::::Estonia, Belarus and Georgia are not separatists. And South Ossetia is not a recognized province within Georgia. Again, we have sources for Taiwan province because it is nominally province of Taiwan. Same for ARA. ] (]) 11:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::{{tpq|As far as I'm aware, there is no Government of Taiwan Province, just a handful of legislators.}} You might be surprised to learn that the "Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" is precisely this: a handful of officials with nice-sounding titles who otherwise focus on unrelated work (please click through the name list in the article). The whole "Government" is closely linked to, and not notable independently from, the legal construct called "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia", which thus happens to be the primary topic. — ] ] 15:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::::So surprised I provided a link to a recent article on the matter just earlier in this discussion! ] (]) 15:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support'''. The Taiwan comparison is rather apt here. The whole "Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" consists of a handful of Tbilisi-based officials tasked with representing externally the territory that Georgia now calls ''Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia''. The group does not exist separately from that legal construct (ARA), and ARA is the primary topic for the content of this article. — ] ] 15:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:It seems ] redirects to ], though (also full-protected). The Abkhazia article also covers Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (see politics section). ] (]) 12:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' per practice we take for Crimea. This is also done for Transnistria, see ]. ] (]) 11:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* <s>'''Support''', per nominator. --] (]) 22:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)</s> <small>Glocked as a LTA. ] <small>]/]</small> 19:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' per above. This article is the equivalent to ]. ] (]) 16:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. ] <small>]/]</small> 20:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:Note that currently both ] and ] redirect to the article about the separatist state, which is definitely should be fixed by someone (in the case of the former, with sysop rights). ] 00:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran ] 22:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
:::::: There are enough sources which support the information in the article and the recognition of this government has been given long ago (as per references). Otherwise, please present at least two unbiased references which can question the reference claims which i attached to the article. Thanks. ] 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
::::::: I have reinserted the possible OR tag and inserted a tag that the sources have not been verified. The first source ] already discredit. The second source I haven't looked at. The third source doesn't lay any legitimacy to this government, it just goes into a brief 2 page history of Abkhazia. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sources are Georgian. ] 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: I removed the OR tag as a manifestation of bad faith. You cannot call OR something that doesn't meet your political POV and wikiagenda. However, I'm leaving the other tag for the time being until the dispute is settled.--]<sup>]</sup> 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Facts are facts and you can not manipulate them due to your own bias or POV. In this case, Georgia has full legal and jurisdiction rights to Abkhazia which is recognized by all UN resolutions, SC declarations, EU, OSCE, etc. Therefore, the government of Abkhazian Autonomous Republic which is the legal authority of this territory represents the official status. Even Russia recognized Georgian territorial integrity. Therefore, you don’t have any grounds (besides your own convictions and political agenda on Misplaced Pages, honestly I don’t believe you are NPOV judging from your contributions) to discredit the factual reality of the status of Abkhazia and its government. Also you cant disregard Georgian sources. If so, I will remove all references and its passages from Abkhazia article which was taken from so called Bagapsh web site and inserted by some Russian user. Also I will discredit any Russian source (which is overwhelmingly biased). Please present any reference or source which will indicate that this government is not legal or was not recognized by international organizations as such. Also present sources where international organizations do not recognize Abkhazia as part of Georgia. Only than, you will have credible claims. ] 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's not a POV claim at all, but a textbook legal definition used to differentiate between disputing claimants to being the sole legitimate and authoritative goverment; the terms are assigned according to order of precedence, not upon which controls the greater percentage of territory. If the ''de facto'' government were to become generally recognized internationally or the ''de jure'' government were to be able to substantively assume control, the "victor" would then become both the ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' government – in other words, a normal government. ] <small>]</small> 17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Exactly correct. You have analyzed the basic concept of it and hinted the right spots. And this is NPOV analysis. When UN, OSCE, EU and Russia recognize Georgian territorial integrity and Abkhazia status within Georgia, it includes Abkhazian de jure government which existed before the war, jurisdiction (the legal authority over the territory of Abkhazia), and constitutional rights. Otherwise, according to the logic above mentioned, the so called Kadirov government is Chechnya is not legal in terms of reality (majority of people in Chechnya elected Maskhadov as the president before the war started). But Russia has the jurisdiction over the territory and the legal authority. Therefore, whatever government it appoints, it automatically becomes legal (i may not like it, but that’s the way it is). Thanks. ] 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I understand that the UN and all the worlds states consider this government to be the de jure government, but that doesn't change the fact that that is still (only) a (juridical) opinion, not a fact. So while 'de jure' is widely used, it's not NPOV, especially not because the self-declared Republic of Abkhazia contests that this is the de jure government, it of course sees itself to be that. It's rather like calling torture inhumane. It is the official opinion of the overwhelming majority of the world's institutions, but we still can't call it that here, because the description is not factual. All we can do is write that the general opinion is so and so. ] 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is all rhetoric. So far, not a single valid argument has been provided proving the non-NPOVness of applying the term "de jure" to what is ] recognized by the whole world.--]<sup>]</sup> 18:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: It doesn't necessarily follow that the autonomous Abkhaz government is internationally recognized as de jure just because other countries and the UN support Georgia's territorial integrity. We see with ] that the EU doesn't recognize Sanakoyev's government as legitimate <ref>http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=14488</ref>. Why would this government get any different treatment. Also, to use a what if analogy, let's say the Iraqi government rigged the elections in Iraqi Kurdistan to put in people loyal to them, the international community wouldn't recognize the Iraqi Kurdistan government as legitimate eventhough they would still support Iraq's territorial integrity. I'm not suggesting that Georgia did that, but only that support for territorial integrity doesn't necessarily lead to support for the automonous government. As for the tags, nobody seemed to have a problem with the tags the first time I put them in a month ago, once ] cited some references, I assumed good faith and thought this issue was closed. Now, legitimate questions have been raised regarding these references so the tags must be put back. Stop assuming bad faith with the tags, they are just tags intended to improve the article. ] 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The EU doesn't recognize Sanakoyev's government as legitimate because S. Ossetia as an entity does not have any legal or de jure status within Georgia. On the other hand, Abkhazia is a first-level national subdivision which enjoys de jure autonomy and shares sovereignty with the central government of Georgia. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You're evading the issue. Rather than setting it aside as mere rethoric, please to be engaging my arguments. ] 10:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is apparent to me that several editors here are confusing “''de jure''” with “''legitimate''”. They are '''not''' synonyms. In fact, the terms ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' are diplomatic terms created so that disputant governments claiming sole legitimacy could be talked about and distinguished between without having to call one “legitimate” and the other “illegitimate”. It rather undermines conducting diplomatic negotiations when you use those terms, given the inherent bias in calling one “illegitimate”. No government calls itself ''de jure'' or ''de facto'' since that would be acknowledging that they lack part of what they claim to be – and what they really want to be – the undisputed sole legitimate government. Ironically, it’s ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' that are inherently NPOV. ] <small>]</small> 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The article says "The De jure Government of Abkhazia is the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia". That sounds like the article is making a claim as to the legitimacy of this Government. ] 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The sentence "The De jure Government of Abkhazia is the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia" is simply saying that the international community uniformly recognizes the ''de jure'' govt. as the sole ''legitimate'' govt. of Abkhazia. If Russia were to ] the ''de facto'' govt., then the sentence might read, “Only Russia recognizes the ''de facto'' government as the legitimate governing body; the rest of the international community recognizes only the ''de jure'' government as legitimate.” Note how ''de facto'' and ''de jure'' clarify which govt. is being referred to, while legitimacy is applied independently. ] <small>]</small> 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::But we need to prove via citations that the international community recognizes this entity as the legitimate government. I already provided an example where the international community doesn't recognize a sub-entity while still recognizing the territorial integrity of the parent entity and I also provided a what-if example that further illustrates my point. ] did offer an explanation as to why Sanakoev's government isn't recognized however I believe it still illustrates my point. ] 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You are right that is exactly what I take de jure to mean, 'legitimate', as in 'de jure', ''from the law''. If according to you this is not what it means, please give an alternative definition, but note that at least the Misplaced Pages article ] seems to support the de jure = legitimate interpretation. ] 10:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The Misplaced Pages article on '']'' is only a Latin legal phrases stub. In international law, it takes on further meaning as a technical term – and, unfortunately, Misplaced Pages’s entries on international law and diplomacy are pretty weak. A more familiar example might be the word “myth”. In general use it means a fictional story; however, as a ''technical term'' among theologians and other religious scholars, it signifies a thematic story (like a “creation myth”) and is a neutral, rather than disparaging term. A ''de jure'' government is the one with the eldest recognized claim to legitimacy; the ''de facto'' government is the more recent governing entity whose claim to legitimacy is newer and maintained because it physically controls the majority or all of the territory. Foreign governments can choose which they prefer to ''diplomatically recognize'' as legitimate. If the preponderance of nations (or of only those which matter) choose to ''recognize'' the ''de facto'' government, it can effectively become the ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' government – on other words, the sole legitimate government. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Now, if the editors here develop a consensus that they do not wish to use these terms, then they can be changed. This will mean returning to the old edit wars over what to call each government (throughout all related and affected articles), which typically were to call one legitimate and the other separatist, or the one a puppet and the other legitimate – and so far all other such options have been found to be unavoidably POV. ] <small>]</small> 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If indeed de jure has a technical meaning which does not imply greater legitimacy, then I'm happy to use it, and we should edit the de jure article to clarify the matter. I'm not yet totally convinced though, because you seem to contradict yourself. You say that de jure does not mean legitimate, but you do take it to mean "with the oldest recognised claim to legitimacy". That description suits the Georgian side just fine, but the Abkhaz consider themself to be the continuation of the Soviet Abkhaz ASSR and the current government in exile to be a mere "counter government".] 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Citations are clearly needed to show that this entity is legitimate or internationally recognized or dejure === |
|
|
|
|
|
It is obvious that we need citations and I'm not the only person that feels this way. Five out of the six citations have been discredited for this article. Why don't we just verify the one that hasn't been discredited so far. "Resolutions and statements of the United Nations Security Council (1946-2000): a thematic guide Wellens, Karel. p 289". Obviously this document is citing UN resolutions, so why doesn't someone post the UN resolutions that are getting cited and we may be able to verify it more easily as most UN resolutions are posted online. Until this citation is verified, the tags stay. In the current state of the article, it's not POV and it's not bad faith to have the tags. ] 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Gentlemen, please there is no need of polemics and heated debates. There are plenty primary sources which are most suitable as reliable sources regarding this question. Here are the following extracts from the documents: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"''...Participation in the settlement of the conflict shall be defined by five subjects: the legitimate authority of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian separatist group, as participants of the conflict; Georgia, on whose territory the conflict is taking place; Russia, as an interested side; and the UN.''" |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. United Nations. Piter Boden, 3 May 1994. |
|
|
|
|
|
"''The Abkhazian Supreme Council and Cabinet of Ministers located in Tbilisi represent the legitimate governmental authority of Abkhazia.''" |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Memorandum by the Heads of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Maintaining the Peace and Stability in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 10 February 1995. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also in: Annex to the Decision taken by the Council of the Heads of States of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Approval of the Regulations of the Collective Peacekeeping Force in the Commonwealth of Independent States of 19 January 1996. |
|
|
|
|
|
"''..The legitimate authorities of Abkhazia (the former Council of Ministers of the autonomous republic) changed its location several times between 1994 and 1998''." |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Annex to the UNMIG Protocol # 17, Briefing of the United Nations Mission in Georgia (UNMIG) for the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict settlement to the European Commission (EC) and United Nations Security Counsel. 12 July 1999. |
|
|
|
|
|
I will try to find more. There are very interesting collection of documents by OSCE aand EU Commission on Abkhazia. Sorry for my english. Thanks. ] 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: You seem to have access to a lot of material. Would you be kind as to expedite my request above and list the UN resolutions from that particular citation I listed? ] 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Stop diverting the discussion. This passages are great and they are derived from UN documents. You further push your own bias and POV on this subject which only indicates your true intentions. ] 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Cease with your personal attacks and accusations of POV pushing. I have every right to be suspicious of the citations presented in the article as 5 out of 6 didn't pan out. I tried compromising by leaving only the second tag on the article but you don't even want to do that. Perhaps then I should put both tags back on the article? Again, in the interest of compromise, I will leave only one of the tags back on the article, I recommend that you don't remove it. As to ]'s passages, I was only able to verify one of them: |
|
|
|
|
|
"''...Participation in the settlement of the conflict shall be defined by five subjects: the legitimate authority of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian separatist group, as participants of the conflict; Georgia, on whose territory the conflict is taking place; Russia, as an interested side; and the UN.''" |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Was a speech by the Georgian speaker to the UN, so it doesn't prove anything other than Georgia considers this government legit. and not necessarily the rest of the world. The other two are not online so I haven't verified them. Out of nine citations that have been provided, that make 7 that are inappropriate and 2 that are unverified. ] 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'm afraid you won't satisfied be even if we provide thousands of sources. You're quite ready to denounce everything that doesn't suit you POV as "unverifiable" or "Georgian". --]<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Note to our Georgian friends here - it will behoove you to stop your incivility. While it is sadly a common practice for certain users to be so offended by the fact that there are those who happen to disagree with them that they find it totally irresistible to start throwing accusations of bios and POV pushing a lot, it doesn't make it acceptable. A valid concern has been expressed. There hasn't been a single primary source produced to verify the claims of the Georgians. The latest sources produced by MIGAbkhazeti look dubious. The fact that they may appear in the official UN documents does not automatically imply that this is the position of the UN. Very much like , which is for some weird reason is used as a reference. Despite appearing on the UNOMIG website, it is clearly stated to have come from the Georgian media and as such is hardly impartial or relevant, for that matter. Which is exactly why there is that disclaimer at the bottom "THESE NEWS ITEMS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OR POSITION OF THE UN". My point being: bring in the official resolutions. Not just a quote from the annex. The whole thing. ] 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: your vandalizing of the article is due to your anti-Georgian bias and intent. This will not be tolerated. Enough sources were provided. Enough. ] 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Er, no. And here is my proof that the claim that this government is universally recognized as legitimate is not quite the case. This is from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Мы не раз говорили о том, что ставка Тбилиси на марионеточные органы власти в Абхазии и Южной Осетии несовместима с провозглашенной грузинской стороной линией на выстраивание прямого диалога с Сухуми и Цхинвали." - "We've stated many times that Tbilisi's support of the puppet governments in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is inconsistent with the Georgian side's stated goal of building a direct dialogue with Sukhumi and Tskhinvali". http://www.ln.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps/1D097FD880B5ADDCC32572C70050FC5C] 04:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Georgian Ambassador's letter== |
|
|
Yeah, one. Since there is a tendency here to divert attention from exposing the dubious references to the hidden agendas of those who dare to question them, we'll just have to discuss them one by one. Now, will someone please explain to me, how the letter in question is the proof of the legitimacy of this government? Because the Georgian ambassador said so? ] 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So, it appears what Putin's yes-men say can be cited as a valid source and everything deemed to be "(pro)-Georgian" can be unapologetically ignored? Can this also be explained by (©], 2006) or have you found any other reason for that?--]<sup>]</sup> 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::See, you're doing it again. Must be Luis's influence. How very unfortunate he's not around. Back to my question, though. Have you ever seen me using some statements of Russian officials as a proof of international recognition? No? Of course not. That would be asinine. So, again, what makes you think that whatever the Georgian ambassador has to say is automatically approved by the UN? ] 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Luis's influence? I hope this is not a personal attack. I cited what you said as a proof of your prejudice towards Georgia. The Georgian ambassador is not the only source for what has long been written in the article.--]<sup>]</sup> 04:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We are discussing the letter in question. Not my sentiments about your country. They are very far from how you see them, but frankly, I don't really care to convince you otherwise. Is it entirely too difficult for you to stay on topic? So, do I understand correctly that you have nothing to say that would justify using '''this particular letter''' as a reference? ] 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I have already said that the Georgian ambassador is not the only source. Could you provide even a single statements by the UN refusing to accepts the legitimacy of the de jure government? On the other hand, they do denounce the "elections" in the breakaway territories as illegal. --]<sup>]</sup> 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Oh, don't worry, I'll get to the other sources as well. As for your question, no, I can't. And it is exactly because of that you don't see me trying to insert statements I cannot prove. As far as we know, UN doesn't formally recognize this government nor does it find it illegitimate. Oh, and I will go ahead and remove the letter from the list of references, since there were no reasons expressed to keep it there. ] 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
