Jump to content

Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

I’ve got a question to all users who don’t want unhelpful links to clutter up Wikipedia: Do you feel OK with this website, which has not been updated for ages, or with this one, which claims the name of Tbilisi, capital of Georgia, to be a word of Abkhaz origin (I especially like the title of the article Ancient Abkhazianhood of Tbilisi.)? KoberTalk 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to remove the www.abkhazia.org . I've also never understood why it's there.
I've checked http://abkhazia.e-caucasia.com. There's quite a lot of articles there and some of them seem to be informative (those about language, religious situation, famous people). There's also good gallery there (I especially liked the photos of frescoes in Pitsunda cathedral). Imho this link should remain. Alaexis 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
About external links in general, Wikipedia already has well-established guidelines in place. Our own personal opinions must always take a backseat to the rules. Now, the way to deal with nationalistic links (on either side) is to mark their bias. This can be done by "sectioning off" the links within subcategories (for instance, pro-independence / anti-independence) or it be done by marking each individual link (for instance, adding a parenthesis afterwards to alert the readers to the bias of the link). But do not remove wellestablished links which have been part of the stable version of the article for a year, or more. - Mauco 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read my post more carefully. I didn't remove the links just because they are nationalistic, but because of their unreliability. The real issue in the case is not whether they are pro- or anti-independence. One of them (abkhazia.org) belongs to a non-functional political party and has not been updated since 2004. The other contains non-scholar articles and ethnic slurs. They have been part of the stable version of the article for a year because nobody cared to check them. --KoberTalk 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. However, even so, the longevity of their inclusion merits that they are not just removed point blank. Let some of the established editors of this page (you and the others) discuss it first. Don't just jump the gun. - Mauco 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think we need to have any external links at all. I know that might seem a bit radical, but most of those links don't really help the article, plus we already have enough external links in the "References" section. I say we trim all unneeded links, and keep only a small number of them. Khoikhoi 03:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's *too* radical imho. Besides there's a consensus about most of the links - there exists a controversy about only 2 or 3 of them. Alaexis 03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I just think that there are too many external links on this page. To quote from How not to be a spammer:

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)

Khoikhoi 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's look at them in detail:
   * President of the Republic of Abkhazia. Official site

// definitely needed; the site of the Abkhazian Autonomous Republic should also be added if it exists 

   * BBC Regions and territories: Abkhazia

// contains more or less the same information as the article does presented in concise and nonbiased manner. Probably could be removed. 

   * Abkhazia profile page at Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation

// contains an overview of the history of Abkhazia. Could be removed. 

   * Publication of the United States Institute of Peace:
     Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union

// nice balanced paper by G. Starovoitova about post-soviet conflicts. I'd vote for keeping. 

   * The Autonomous Republic of Abkhazeti - from Georgian National Parliamentary Library

// presents Georgian view of the Abkhazia's history; should be kept imho 

   * Former Soviet war zones |The hazards of a long, hard freeze, The Economist, 19 August, 2004

//The Economist is my favourite English-language magazine, but the link is to the paid content so I'll delete it right now 

   * Sun and Surf, but Also Lines in the ‘Russian’ Sand, The New York Times, August 20, 2006

// this link also requires registration, although a free one. Therefore I think this link should be removed. 

   * Site devoted to Abkhazia

// see the arguments in the previous section 

   * (English) Abkhazia.com Official website refugees from Abkhazia

// should be kept imho 

   * (Russian) Abkhazian news

// Abkhazian news from the Georgian perspective - let's keep it 

   * (Russian) State Information Agency of the Abkhaz Republic

// the same from the Abkhazian perspective. Definite keep. 

   * (Russian) www.abkhazeti.ru Official web of IDPs from Abkhazia and IAG Aphkhazeti

// this could not be an OFFICIAL site because there's alredy another official site here. I think it could be removed, otherwise some similar site from the other side (like abkhaziya.org) should be added. 

   * Picture Gallery - Georgian Refugees in Abkhazian War

// could be moved to the article about the war 

   * (Russian) www.apsny.ru

// it's a regularly updated site about Abkhazia. I think it should remain. 

   * Abkhazian language

// nonpartisan site about Abkhaz language. It's already present in the Abkhaz language article so it could be removed 

   * Special Abkhazia on Caucaz.com, Weekly Online about South Caucasus

// there are no articles about Abkhazia newer than 2005. I'd rather remove it. 

   * Abkhazia Provisional Paper Money

// there are two pictures of modified Soviet notes there. i don't have an opinion about this one 

   * Orthodox Churches of Abkhazia

// nonpartisan site devoted to the ancient church-buildings of Abkhazia; while there are no articles about Abkhaz architecture and culture it should remain here 

   * Official site of the Orthodox Eparchy of Abkhazia

// Could be moved to the article about religion in Abkhazia when there'll be one. For now let's keep it here. Alaexis 05:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The BBC link should stay because many people will check Wikipedia’s accuracy in the sources like BBC. Your arguments about http://abkhazia.e-caucasia.com are rather weak. How can you take seriously the source which claims Tbilisi to be "a Georgianized ancient Abkhaz city"? This link should be removed. Other pro-Abkhaz, pro-Georgian, or neutral sources contain enough information about the Abkhaz culture and history. There’s no need to adopt the websites with marginal POVs.
I agree. Alaexis 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The alleged "official website" of the Orthodox Eparchy of Abkhazia is another issue. An eparchy (i.e. diocese) is normally a subdivision of Orthodox Christian Church. The site doesn’t even say to which church the eparchy belongs. This is simply not serious. The Eparchy of Abkhazia (Tskhum-Abkhazeti) is a canonical territory of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the fact was officially and unambiguously recognized by the Russian Holy Synod in 2003. Then what this Eparchy of Abkhazia website means? Which church it is a member of? There are no independent or self-governing eparchies. So better remove this absurdity from the page and don’t load the article with POV links. --KoberTalk 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'lll write my opinion about it after I'll have familiarised myself with this issue. Alaexis 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm removing that link. Reinsert it after you will have familiarized yourself with the issue.--KoberTalk 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How about less than 10 links? Suggestion: 3 from Abkhazia, 3 for the Georgian position, and 3 which are independent/outside/neutral. Just pick the best. Instead of deleting the others, move them to the relevant forks. For instance, a site which only deals with the war doesn't need to be in the main Abkhazia article, but is suited in the separate article dealing specifically with the war of Abkhazia. - Mauco 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

I have just noticed that a reference to an ethnic cleansing of Georgian population has again been removed. Unfortunately, some users who are involved in this article promptly respond to any change deemed to be pro-Georgian, but are surprisingly tolerant to anti-Georgian POV edits and don’t even care to restore a well-sourced and vitally important passage. KoberTalk 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not I did not notice it. Are you sure it was present in the political status section at any time? Btw the ethnic cleansing is mentioned three times later in the article. Alaexis 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it should not be included for reason listed in archives. Plus it dilutes the meaning of the phrase 'ethnic Cleansing' where it really happened and was used in the real sense. Buffadren 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Buffarden here. After all it's called 'ethnic cleansing' by some respectable international organisations. Alaexis 12:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Buffadren, how can you make such a shameless statement? Are you going to claim that there was not a deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign against Georgians? It is simply ridiculous. Over 200,000 Georgians were expelled out of their homes, leaving their family members, neighbours, and friends dead in Abkhazia. Let's don't forget that Abkhasian separatists fought under the command of Shamyl Basayev, Hero of Abkhasia, and the ruthless butcher, who later thanked Russian officers for an excellent series of lessons they had delivered to his detachment during the war in Abkhasia.

I orginally come from a small town that was ethnically cleansed by a foreign army. Every man woman and child were butchered, that's ethnic cleansing. Buffadren 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
no wait, i'm jewish and i think WE were ethnically clensed. the point: your personal definition is really of no consequence, and disruptions of normal life of such proportion based on ethnic lines is hardly identifiable as anything but. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.128.145 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Demographics III

I've removed 1897 census numbers, from the table since none of the references actually support these numbers. In fact, one of the references listed says these numbers are controversial, and it hardly warrants placing these numbers in a table as if they were verified and accepted facts. And, these contradict the numbers for 1886 Family Lists. Samurzaq'anians are ancestors of present day Gali region population, which is 99% Georgian (Megrelian). Counting them as Abkhazians is a blatant lie. I am also removing the blatant POV about Samurzaq'anians being of "mixed Abkhaz-Mingrelian identity". These are just quick changes. This part of the article needs further improvements. (PaC 14:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Nobody argues that Samurzakanians are mostly Mingrelians. They are NOT counted as Abkhaz in the 1897 figures. This reference supports the 1897 census figures. The Abkhaz (by mother tongue) numbered 59469 in Kutais guberniya which included Abkhazia then [1]. In this reference it's written that Abkhaz and Abaza numbered 70,000 by that time. This reference gives the total population of Sukhum district (100,000). The census carried out in Russian Empire is no less reliable than Soviet censuses and there are no reasons it could be biased. Alaexis 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not a proper use of sources. Firstly, 1987 census does not provide any numbers for Abkhazia. They only give them for Kutaisi gubernia. They don't give the numbers for total population in Abkhazia, and there is no way to deduce numbers for Georgians in Abkhazia from that. Secondly, they are not counting by nationalities, just the languages the people speak. These numbers for ethnic composition are your own interpretations, and pretty bold ones at that. I actually suspect that they counted Samurzakanians as Abkhaz speaking. 1886 Family List supports that.
This reference is not a proper source. You take it out of context. If you read the caption to the picture [2], you would see that it states: "These census figures are disputed on a number of grounds including the way in which ethnic groups have been defined." Your other source lists the population of Abkhazia as 100498 in 1897. Yet it is not clear where they get their data, since your first link from 1897 census data does not have this number for Sukhum region. Was there another census in 1897? Moreover, your second source for some reason does not give a separate number for Abkhazians. They only say that Abkhazians and Samurzaqanians together constitute 86%. The number for Abkhazians is, again, just your loose interpretation.
Juggling different sources like that is not a proper way of compiling controversial demographic data especially when they are contradicting each other.
I think listing these numbers in a table as proven facts is misleading, to say the least. I will wait for you to respond before deleting these numbers. You'll have to provide the reliable source that actually contains these numbers for 1897 census, without your funny math. Otherwise it is just your speculation. I actually think we should delete the 1897 line from the table and write it up below the table. (PaC 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
How come this reference is not a proper source? It could be added to the article that these numbers are disputed and that they are based on the mother tongues. You wouldn't claim that some people with Abkhaz native language were in fact Georgians, would you?
Here it's written that "In the 1897 census the Abkhaz population was seen to be 55.3% and the Georgians rose to 24.4%. The population balance continued to change in the following years to the disadvantage of the Abkhaz people.". See also the article "Demographic Manipulation in the Caucasus (with Special Reference to Georgia)" by B. G. HEWITT, Journal of Refugee Studies 1995, Volume 8, #1. Alaexis 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
ps. The 1886 numbers could also be added to the table (see my question in the end of the subsection). Alaexis 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot use anything you find on the net as a reliable source. kafkas.org is not supposed to be a credible and neutral (and academic) reference especially given a pro-separatist tone of the article and, more importantly, the obscurity of its publisher. Hewitt's bias and anti-Georgian sentiments are also well-known and have been criticized by several leading experts on the Caucasus. Just have a brief look at his inflammatory abstract: The gross insensitivity on the part of nationalists in Georgia that led to the bloody wars in South Ossetia and, primarily, Abkhazia are examined and placed in the historical context that has seen mainly North Caucasian minorities subjected to frequent demographic manipulation by two of the region's imperial powers, Russia and Georgia, who have regularly acted in concert over the last 200 years. Parallels between Shevardnadze's war in Abkhazia and Yeltsin's assault on Chechenia are drawn, and the case of such minorities in Georgia as the Mingrelians, the Armenians and the Meskh(et)ians is touched upon. The West's blind adherence to the principle of ‘territorial integrity’ is criticized for abandoning minorities to the whim of the local bully.
This is politically motivated (and not only politically, in the case of Hewitt)demagogy rather than a scholarly approach to the problem. According to Mr. Hewitt the Georgianophobe, Georgia appears to be a regional imperial power (much like Russia, hehe) acting in concert with Moscow to bully local minorities especially North Caucasians (I wonder how Georgia can bully North Caucasus and manipulate their demographic situation). And Mingrelians appear to be an "ethnic minority" subjected to discrimination at the hands of "grossly insensitive Georgian nationalists". (Sickening)--KoberTalk 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't dismiss an article in the peer-reviewed journal just because you consider its author a Georgianophobe. Besides, it's not the only proof, it's one of the multitude that support these numbers. Alaexis 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who considers Hewitt a Georgianophobe (or perhaps I'm one of those "grossly insensitive Georgian nationalists" and "imperialists acting in concert with Russia" who don't want to recognize his genius). The abstract of the article speaks for himself. --KoberTalk 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Alaexis, you still have to produce a primary source that contains these numbers for 1897. BTW, what is Hewett even saying about 1897 census in his article "Demographic Manipulation in the Caucasus ..."? (PaC 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
The numbers of Abkhaz and Georgians in 1897 in Abkhazia are given there. It could be easily checked by any person with access to a good library. Alaexis 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well Hewitt is well known Georgianophobe (thanks to his Abkhaz wife) and he has discredited himself long time ago. Actually he was a very good Kartvelogist until he met his wife. Brainwashing is a powerful tool of manipulation. Anyway, he cant be counted as neutral source, he is overwhelmingly bias. Ldingley 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Calling someone 'well-known Georgianophobe' is not a serious argument. How has he discredited himself? Alaexis 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Alaexis, I gather you do not have any other primary sources about 1897 census besides the link that you provided [3]. In this case we should remove the 1897 line from the table, write up what we actually know about this census, i.e. that according to the census in Kutaisi gubernia there were about 60000 Abkhaz language speakers, and that's it, don't you think? (PaC 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
I agree. Alaexis 07:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. Here’s a quote from Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus by Svante E. Cornell of Uppsala University (Sweden):
It must be noted that even the numbers are the subject of disagreement. In 1886, the Abkhaz constituted 41 per cent of the population of their present-day territory. Hence it must be noted that Abkhazia has always to a great extent been multiethnic; moreover, confusion arises from the fact that one of the largest groups in the census of “Sukhumi region”, today’s Abkhazia, is the “Samurzakanians”, their name deriving from the older name of Gali region, Samurzakano. Most of the Samurzakanians must be thought to have been Mingrelians, and a minority Abkhaz. But the figure for 1926 is 27 per cent, despite the fact that the Abkhaz population doubled from 26,000 to 56,000 in this time. By 1959, however, the Abkhaz share plunged to 15 per cent, in absolute numbers increasing only by 10 per cent in 33 years, whereas the population of the territory doubled from 201,000 to 404,000 in the same time span. Since 1959, the Abkhaz have been somewhat recovered, their population now growing relatively rapidly, but still constituting only 18 per cent of the population of the republic in 1989, 94,000 out of a total 525,000. (Cornell, Svante E. (2001), Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus, p. 156. Routledge (UK), ISBN 0700711627) --KoberTalk 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Another POV is the Abkhaz census figure included in the infobox. Here’s a quote from the International Crisis Group document called ABKHAZIA TODAY Europe Report N°176 – 15 September 2006, page 9:
"Abkhazia’s population is certainly much less than it was. De facto state officials like to quote a total population of 320,000, including 110,000 Abkhaz, but this sounds unrealistically high on both counts. In January 2005 the electoral roll, probably a more reliable guide to the numbers of those at least of voting age, comprised 129,127 individuals, suggesting an overall population between 157,000 and 190,000. In 1998 a UNDP needs assessment mission estimated the population between 180,000 and 220,000. With less than half its pre-war population, vast tracts of Abkhazia, especially south of Sukhumi, feel empty and desolate. North of that city, settlements are much more populated, especially during the summer season".
Britannica estimates Abkhazia’s population at 177,000 as of 2006.[4]. Can anyone explain why the Abkhaz mythological data are given precedence over the reliable international sources?--KoberTalk 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's a rhetorical question as you've already added those numbers. Alaexis 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a minor question: is the family lists data from Mueller's book or from somewhere else? Alaexis 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the book АБХАЗИЯ-1992: ПОСТОКОММУНИСТИЧЕСКАЯ ВАНДЕЯ by Svetlana Chervonnaia recently(it could be found here). It looks like it's the same book that's called "Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Russian Shadow" in English (or maybe it's another book, it doesn't matter).
Here is a quote from the book (from the list of sources)
54. Так, еще в царской России, по данным переписи 1897 года, абхазы в пределах нынешней Абхазской АССР составляли 55% населения (58697 человек), грузины - 24% - 25640 человек (См.: 1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32).
This is the 1897 census data for Abkhazia. Alaexis 09:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Alex its not Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Russian Shadow", she published about 6 books about Abkhazia. Ldingley 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Alaexis, I do not know why you insist on sticking these numbers in the table at any cost. It seems like you are not looking for the truth but just for the excuse to place the numbers you like. The link you provided [5] appears to be some unfinished draft. The numbers just repeat what Hewett was saying, and you still do not have any primary source. I mean, come on! If you so much want to see these numbers there, at least make a decent attempt for a proper research. The other reason why IMHO you can't really place these numbers in the table is that the 1897 census appears to just count the people by their native language which is not the same as saying these people were Abkhaz or Georgians. How do you know some Abkhaz did not name Georgian as their native language, how do you know that some Georgians did not do the opposite? What about bilingual people, how were they counted? I'll return to the previous version. (PaC 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
I can't agree with you. This - 1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32 - is the primary source and you could check it if you want. Alæxis¿question? 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, why don't you produce the quote from this book, since you are claiming it to be a primary source. Have you seen it?(PaC 15:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
No. I do believe Mrs. Chervonnaya in this case though. Do you think Mrs. Chervonnaya's books are not reliable? I'd like to point out that they are cited a lot of times in the articles about Abkhazia and it doesn't make any sense sometimes to believe them and sometimes to ignore them. Alæxis¿question? 15:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
First of, as I said, the link you produced appears to be an unfinished draft. Second, it is not the question of believing. This is a sensitive point (especially when you try to capture it in the form of the table) and the information needs to be checked thoroughly. Also, you know perfectly well that the 1897 census did not really count ethnic composition, but a linguistic one which is not the same, so claiming a specific number of Abkhazians or Georgians is a-priory false. And placing these numbers in the table about ethnic composition is also incorrect.(PaC 15:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
If you think Mrs. Chervonnaya made a mistake you are free to check the primary source.
Now about languages. This is what's written:
Where are the languages mentioned? Alæxis¿question? 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you just proved that she made a mistake. Since this link that you so graciously provided says that the counting was based on languages. (Again quoting from that unfinished draft? Really?)(PaC 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
No, actually. Technically one doesn't contradict the other. Alæxis¿question? 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you can construct a theory that accounts for both, but we are not in a business of building theories here, are we? Surely this discrepancy at least warrants my demand for better checked sources, wouldn't you agree? (PaC 16:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
From the formal point of view (=Wikipedia policies) the ref I've brought justifies inclusion of this information. After all no evidence proving that these numbers are wrong has been presented.
From the common sense approach it's highly unlikely that an ethnic Georgian person would declare Abkhaz his/her mother tongue (if this data was indeed based on native language, that is). Alæxis¿question? 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Alaexis, it is very regrettable that you are not looking for the real facts, but rather trying to push your POV at any cost. Take a look at Russian_Empire_Census. Only mother tongue was considered in 1897. No "nationality" question was asked. That takes care of what you call "formal point of view". As for your "common sense approach", let the readers use it, don't force it on them. As you can see, the numbers you forcibly trying to place in the table are simply not true. Moreover, in the case of Abkhazia this is not a clear cut question. In my understanding, Samurzaqanians were under Abkhaz princes rule for a while and spoke Abkhazian very well. With a low quality census (as all sources point out) they very well could have been counted as Abkhaz speaking. Otherwise how do you explain the discrepancy with 1886 data? And what if they were counted as bilingual? We can't speculate on this. We can only present facts. Especially in a sensitive issue like that. The write-up that we had is more accurate representation of facts then your unsupported table entry. (PaC 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
The same arguments you've given here could be applied to the Soviet censuses when these people had to be counted as either Georgian (or Mingrelian in the 1926 census) or Abkhaz. Btw you've failed to present sources proving your claims (i. e. low quality of 1897 census, proficiency of Samurzakanians in Abkhaz). Alæxis¿question? 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not have to present any sources on that, since I am not placing this in the article. You, on the other hand, place your claims in the article, and therefore have to support it. Which you couldn't. Sorry. (PaC 19:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

you can't put the numbers of language speakers in the table of ethnic composition

It's written below the table that these numbers are based on the mother tongue. It's not the number of language speakers. And why do you keep deleting this - The population of the Sukhumi district (Abkhazia) was about 100,000 at that time. Greeks, Russians and Armenians composed 3.5%, 2% and 1.5% of the district's population.[1]? Alæxis¿question? 05:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#About_sovereignty

By no means I can't accept POV inserted by Alaexis. As per Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#About_sovereignty there can't be a "region" called independent state. Abkhazia it's not listed as an "independent state" in the list, and we can't know how in the future will be, as per WP:CRYSTAL--ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ (πείτε μου) 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To Aristokles

Nope, it's not OR. See "Years of “frozen conflict” leave Abkhazia isolated and poor. The Lancet, Volume 367, Issue 9516, Pages 1043-1045", http://www.c-r.org/resources/occasional-papers/abkhazia-ten-years-on.php, http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JCS/Chechnya.htm . That's just a few examples. Alaexis 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When it's the on UN list I believe you. It's not an UN member. Can you provide me a link that is a member of UN? I need solid sources please.--ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ (πείτε μου) 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats not scholarly source or reference, good luck next time Alex. Ldingley 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Luis, I understand the old intro was a compromise forged quite a long time ago (before I came here,, at least). Do you also want to change it? Alaexis 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Compromise with your WP:OR? and your not reliable sources? Show me your solid sources please, I need UN links.--ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ (πείτε μου) 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Alex to include Abkhazia or SO, TR, etc to the list of sovereign states is not only going out of boundaries of the acceptable accurate encyclopaedic article but present biased information based on false assumptions with no source or reference at all. As for this article, in my opinion the term de facto and de jure are wrong. Only UN resolutions and their position and definitions are correct (which BTW your country also supports in SC). Weather we like it or not Abkhazia is an Autonomous Republic of Georgia. Now its Wikipedia here, not UN SC meeting so I let it go. But thank god there are international organizations with real authority and legality. Cheers. Ldingley 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What does it have to do with this article's intro? Abkhazia's sovereignty is nowhere mentioned there. Alaexis 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
ARISTOKLES, you are not going to get any UN links where there is clear indication that Abkhazia is suvereign state :) see United Nations resolutions on Abkhazia. Ldingley 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographics IV

Alex, stop stubborn reverts. 1)1897 census numbers do not belong to the table! They did not count Abkhaz or Georgians -- they counted the first language of respondents only. There is no such thing as Abkhaz by mother tongue or Georgian by mother tongue. 2)Also you still haven't presented any verifiable primary sources for the numbers language speakers in Sukhum gubernia (e.g. what does "С. 32" mean in 1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32.?)(PaC 06:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

c. 32 means page 32, methinks. Why is it not a reliable source, btw? Again, it's written below the table that these numbers are based on the mother tongue Alæxis¿question? 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The census data was published in 89 volumes. page 32 of which volume do you think it is? (PaC 06:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
Meh... (c). 1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32. So it's in the volume dedicated to Kutais guberniya. Alæxis¿question? 07:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Guessing? (PaC)
No.
It's from here. Alæxis¿question? 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's written below the table that these numbers are based on the mother tongue. It's not the number of language speakers. And why do you keep deleting this - The population of the Sukhumi district (Abkhazia) was about 100,000 at that time. Greeks, Russians and Armenians composed 3.5%, 2% and 1.5% of the district's population.[2]? Alæxis¿question? 05:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it is "not the number of language speakers"? That's what the census counted (PaC 06:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
No, they counted a number of people with certain mother tongue. Alæxis¿question? 06:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is not the same as the number of Abkhaz and Georgians, is it now? (PaC 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
It's written below the table that these numbers are based on the mother tongue. Alæxis¿question? 06:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you understand. By placing these numbers in the table you are saying that there were 59000 Abkhazians in Abkhazia and make a note that it is based on mother tongue. This is incorrect. We only know from the census that 59000 people listed Abkhaz as their first language. Also, find proper sources first, before placing these numbers anywhere (table or not). (PaC 06:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Why is the source that I provided not proper? Alæxis¿question? 07:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Because you've never seen it and haven't provided the reliable secondary sources that quote it either. See also my question about С. 32. (PaC 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
If you have doubts you're free to go and check it. Alæxis¿question? 07:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not how the things work on Wikipedia. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" - a quote right below the edit area. Seen it?
Also "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."(PaC)
Of course. I've provided verifiable source - you could go and verify it if you have doubts. Alæxis¿question? 07:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with this logic (PaC)

What I mean

As some ethnic Georgians have already returned to Abkhazia this sentence should be referenced. Alæxis¿question? 11:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Number

More than 262,000 persons remained internally displaced in Georgia by June 2004. The overwhelming majority (about 249,000) were ethnic Georgians displaced from Abkhazia from 1991 to 1993, of whom about 80,000 originated from the Gali district and about 52,000 from Sukhumi. Since 1998, an estimated 40,000 and 60,000 IDPs have spontaneously returned to Gali, with part of the population migrating seasonally between Georgia proper and Abkhazia. About another 12,400 ethnic Georgian IDPs remained displaced from the South Ossetia region…
About 40 percent of Georgia’s internally displaced population (104,000 persons) live in the Samegrelo region adjacent to Abkhazia. About 92,000 displaced persons, 35 percent of the total, settled in Tbilisi, and 31,000 settled in Imereti. About 48 per cent of the displaced population live in collective centres and the rest - in private homes. UNITED NATIONS

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES Regional Office for the Benelux and the European Institutions Background note on the Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Georgia. (The document has already been cited on this talk page as well as in the article itself)

Enough? --KoberTalk 11:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Restricted

There is no such word in the source you've brought. Again, it could be true but it should also be referenced. Alæxis¿question? 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please stop nitpicking and spare my time and energy. First you put the number of IPDs under question (and I did provide the source), now the word "restricted" appears irritating to you. It is obvious that you want to outrightly eliminate this sentence. Then how would you describe the resistance offered by the separaitists to the IPDs return? --KoberTalk 12:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's your source:
The [Abkhaz] government has issued a statement that it will never again allow a Georgian plurality in Abkhazia… While the Abkhazian government has encouraged Armenians, Russians, Greeks and other minorities to return, Georgians can only do so with special permission after an application process. The Demographic Struggle for Power: The Political Economy of Demographic Engineering by Milica Zarkovic Bookman, p. 131.--KoberTalk 12:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my question probably was a bit confusing - actually I put under question the following statement "250,000 [...] are restricted from entering Abkhazia" as a whole right from the beginning. Alæxis¿question? 13:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

See Nagorny Karabakh article, the official status should go first and than whatever current situation is (it might change at any time favorably or unfavorable for any side). However, official status is more important and actually In all encyclopedia (Britanicca) the official status of Abkhazia comes first. Also the word “regarded” is not same as “recognized” Abkhazia is recognized by all international organizations and countries as part of Georgia, not only it is regarded as such. Ldingley 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with regarded->recognised change.
Eh, why is official status more important than factual situation? I'm not sure this (or the opposite) could be proven. Alæxis¿question? 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
De facto and de jure statuses of the Russian troops in Abkhazia also differ, but we prefer to focus on de jure one for the sake of neutrality, right? --KoberTalk 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Currently the intro reads as follows: Abkhazia ... is officially part of Georgia, however ..., and within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia. It's not logical - it can't be officially part of Georgia without being within its recognised boundaries and vice-versa.
So the negative effect of the change is quite apparent while its positive effect is much more obscure. Alæxis¿question? 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We will fix that, np Alex :) Ldingley 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The word 'currently' could be added to scores of sentences in the article - there's no point in adding in adding it just to one sentence in the intro. Alæxis¿question? 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok Alex. Ldingley 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proper Source

Since Alex thinks he does not have to follow wikipedia rules, can somebody find the proper source for 1897 census? His "1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32" does not really exist. The volumes are numbered, so can somebody find out the volume number for Kutaisi gubernia? And the table number that lists the native language composition? (PaC 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Papa Carlo, i tried to find any sources relating to 1897 census and I could not find anything. You are correct, the "1-я Всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Кутаисская губерния. Спб: 1905. С. 32" is non existent. Ldingley 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If I were you I wouldn't put this under question. If Mrs. Chervonnaya cited nonexistent source it would damage her reputation rather badly. Fortunately for her the source in question of course exists. The 89 volumes corresponding to the guberniyas were published in 1898-1905 and are now in Russian State Historical Archive ([6]). Alæxis¿question? 19:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing can damage her reputation, especially coming from you. Her work is used by many universities in the west, York and Columbia one of them. Anyway, i cant speak Russian (only few things i can understand and read) but it would be very helpful to have them in English. If you are using Russian sources, why not Georgian primary sources? Ldingley 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See my answer at Ardzinba's article talk about this.
Not every bit of information in the world exists in English. Alæxis¿question? 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Alex, you have to start reading carefully. Let me spell it out for you again: The census results are published in a lot of volumes. These volumes are numbered. For your source to be valid, you have to specify the volume number for Kutaisi gubernia. Otherwise what you are doing is equivalent to referencing Tolstoi's "War and Peace" as a "Book about Natasha Rostova and Pierre Bezukhov". It's not really a proper way of referencing your sources. Find out which volume (volume number) contains data for Kutaisi gubernia.(PaC 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Intruduction

Is the spelling for intruduction should be introduction? Or is it because this is an article outside U.S. which makes intruduction acceptable. Thanks. Biztalkguy 01:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you just change it yourself next time? Alæxis¿question? 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive Use of De Facto

This article uses de facto too often. To the reader, it is sufficient to say that the republic is de facto in the beginning. Pocopocopoco

We could remove first and third de facto's in the political status since it's pretty evident in both cases what is it written about. I don't really see it as a problem though... Alæxis¿question? 06:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Technically, after introducing the terms de facto and de jure to differentiate the respective government bodies, they need only be used whenever it needs to be made clear which is being referred to. In a general article like this one, that may be often, but in the articles on the respective governments, that might be infrequent (mostly to identify when the non-subject govt. is being referred to). Askari Mark (Talk) 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification/More Details on Pocopocopocopoco's suggestions

Sorry for getting all of this across in two posts.

From reading this, I think the article represents a somewhat Georgian POV.

1) As mentioned above, there is a repetitive number of "de facto's" when describing the regime in Sukhumi. Look at the article for the TRNC de facto is only mentioned once.

2) It's POV to describe the regime governing "Upper Abkhazia" as the "de jure government of Abkhazia" when they only control 17% of Abkhazia. Only Georgia refers to them as the "de jure government of Abkhazia". Basically they are a government in exile running from a small portion of Georgian controlled Abkhazia. Parallel administration would be a better term. --Pocopocopocopoco 03:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely invalid arguments. Regime in Sukhumi is de facto ad this should be mentioned all the time as it is in many sources. De jure government of Abkhazia is recognized by UN and most of the countries. It is not parallel administration but legitimate authorities of Abkhazia. None of the content on Abkhazia has any Georgian POV, actually its otherwise. Hmmm judging from list of your contributions, I smell a rat (Buffander whats up?) NokhchiBorz 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Not Buffander whoever he is nor am I Buffadren either. Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers , WP:Assume_good_faith . Would you be so kind as to provide a citation of a reliable non-Georgian source that states that the government in "Upper Abkhazia" is de jure and is recognized by the UN. Pocopocopocopoco 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? Pocopocopocopoco 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
LOOL Yeah Ssure hehehe. NokhchiBorz 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, since it appears that there's no evidence that the government running from Upper Abkhazia is De Jure and recognized by the UN, I recommend that the box on the De Jure government be removed and the section that talk about the De Jure government instead be called the Abkhaz Government in Exile. As well as the article about the De Jure government be replaced with Abkhaz Government in Exile. Also, any reference to the Abkhaz De Jure government be replaced with Government in Exile. If you don't like Government in Exile, we could call it the Abkhaz Government in Upper Abkhazia. Note that just because the UN recognizes the teritorial integrity of Georgia, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Government in Upper Abkhazia is De Jure. The UN might consider that government as a Georgian attempt to impose a puppet government on Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have added original research tags and will remove them as soon as someone provides evidence. I have also added them to the underlying article. If there is no evidence, I suggest editing these articles to reflect "Government in Exile" instead of "De Jure Government" Pocopocopocopoco 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have searched materials relating to this and found approx 23 sources supporting the section claims. Will site bibliography soon. De jure government is also included in 34 UN documents and correspondences. "The UN might consider that government as a Georgian attempt to impose a puppet government on Abkhazia." This is completely untrue sentence, its actually otherwise, UN recognized the government by also referring to it as "Legal authorities of Abkhazia." (UN Observers report, dated 1999, Geneva PM RS65, Letter of Piter Boden UU Representative in UNOMIG to Mr Nadareishvili concerning on situation in Abkhazia) Also European organizations such as OSCE and EUP (Budapest Summit and Berlin Summit, correspondence section 8.12 Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict, pp 87-88) refer to it as legitimate government or de jure authority of Abkhazia. Will provide references tomorrow. I will also keep reviewing the sources which were provided to me. The UN catalogue of observers reports, compendia references from years 1991 till 2006 are available in every reference library, year 2007 is not yet published. Taton80 16:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody kindly teach me how to incert citations and references into text? Thanks in advance. Taton80 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Just write <ref>reference text</ref> wherever you want to insert reference. Look at the other references in the text also.
Btw, in case you're going to cite some UN documents it would be very helpful if you also gave links (as most of them are available online). Alæxis¿question? 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I removed the passage about the so-called "Eparchy of Abkhazia" for a couple of reasons:

1. "The republic is administered by the eparchy" does not make any sense: the republic cannot be administered by an eparchy.

Please reformulate it if you don't like it. Alæxis¿question? 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Most importantly, there is not a single reference to this so-called “Eparchy” outside the website of this sect.

Where did you search for it? I've found quite a lot of them (see here). Alæxis¿question? 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Whom are you kidding? Most of your search results refer to Tskhum-Abkhazia eparchy (a de jure subdivision of the Georgian Orthodox Church). Try to obtain more specific info about the status of this sect and its relations with the Russian church.--KoberTalk 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not kidding anybody. Out of the first nine yandex hits (excluding the official site itself) 4 refer to the Abkhazian eparchy - http://georgia.orthodoxy.ru/eparhies1.htm, http://www.euro1news.ru/pravoslavie/news_2007-05-29-21-39-04-809.html, http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/caucas1/msg/2006/08/m61924.htm, http://www.apsny.ru/religion/religion.php?page=content/christ/news_chr.htm, http://www.pravaya.ru/news/12404?print=1 . I'm not saying anything about the neutrality or even reliability of these sources. However claiming that there's not a single ref to it is clearly not true. Alæxis¿question? 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The first of your four links is about the Georgian eparchy (see this list at the very same site). The second links does not work. The thrid one is indeed interesting. It mentions Майкопское Соглашение от 29 мая 2005 года. I don't know what this means, but the link is going to be of some help. It seems that a few remaining Orthodox priests (Abkhaz and Russian, judging from their surnames) organized themselves into this eparchy and cannot even decide to which church they belong.--KoberTalk 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You're a bit mistaken - here's the quote from the first site
Tskhum-Abkhazeti eparchy doesn't conduct service in these churches, doesn't get any revenues from the New Athos monastery. And father Dorofey is Dorofey Dbar. Alæxis¿question? 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The second link works fine for me - try to access the site from the list of yandex search results. What exactly is happening now there is hard to determine due to the lack of sources (especially non-partisan ones) however it's irrelevant. The Abkhazian eparchy exists and it should be mentioned in the article. Alæxis¿question? 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I found this link and reconstructed the passage about the eparchy. KoberTalk 07:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

3. What do "certain relations with the Russian Orthodox Church" mean? First of all, this sort of statement does not meet encyclopedic standards and is misleading and confusing. Churches and their subdivisions (eparchies) in the Orthodox world don’t have "certain relations", but are organized in a strictly defined hierarchical order. Second, this kind of formulation seems to me an attempt to euphemize the fact that the Russian church interferes in Abkhazia, violating the canonical law and agreements with its Georgian counterpart.

Imho certain relations is more NPOV than interference. Besides it's already written in the article about the violation of the canonical law etc. Alæxis¿question? 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not NPOV, but (I have to repeat myself) unencyclopedic, plus vague and confusing to the average reader. Yes, the Russian interference is mentioned and there is no need to repeat it in the text. --KoberTalk 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's list the examples of interaction between Russian Orthodox Church and Abkhazian eparchy there. Alæxis¿question? 06:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Introducing external links in the main text in the way it is done in the section is normally discouraged in Wikipedia and looks like advertising rather serving to improve the content. KoberTalk 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No difference for me. The link could be in the reference. Alæxis¿question? 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The References section is to document information or claim provided in the main text, not to advertize the web links.--KoberTalk 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This is quite a minor issue and I think something could be thought up later. Alæxis¿question? 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Postage stamps

I've got some postage stamps from Abkhazia, issued shortly after the USSR breakup, depicting Groucho Marx and John Lennon, accompanied with symbols of peace. I'm wondering, would a scanned image of such a stamp be appropriate in this article, and would it fall under fair use? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the law of Abkhazia on copyrights state symbols and signs (including flags, seals, insignia, banknotes and other state symbols) are not the objects of copyright. I think that stamps also fall into this category. Upload them to Commons and we'll think where to use them. Alæxis¿question? 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That link doesn't seem to be working. I'm reluctant to scan the stamps (image can be seen here) without being certain that there isn't any copyright problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The whole site seems to be down now. Try to access it later or view the cached version. Alæxis¿question? 08:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Russia completes withdrawal from 1 of 2 remaining bases in Georgia

[7] Russia completed its withdrawal from one of two remaining military bases in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia on Wednesday, a long-promised move that Georgia's president has pressed for years. --Tones benefit 17:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazian WIkipedians

...are there any? --PaxEquilibrium 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody that I know of. Alæxis¿question? 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They might be hanging out on Russian pages.

Negotiations between Abkhazia and Georgia, GEORGIA ACCUSES RUSSIAN PEACEKEEPERS OF VIOLATING THEIR MANDATE

There are secret negotiations between Abkhazia and Georgia. GEORGIA ACCUSES RUSSIAN PEACEKEEPERS OF VIOLATING THEIR MANDATE. Russian peacekeepers today cut off traffic bound for Svaneti [region in northwest Georgia bordering Abkhazia]. Kavkas-Press’ regional correspondent reports that the peacekeepers have reinforced their post No 302 near the village of Khaishi, from which roads lead to Svaneti and upper Abkhazia [Georgian-controlled upper part of the Kodori Gorge] with additional heavy equipment. The Russian peacekeepers are obstructing the movements of trucks loaded with construction materials set to be used for works on the road to upper Abkhazia. The road is to be finished by the beginning of August, after which the Kodori Gorge will be connected with the rest of Georgia. Let us remind you that as yet upper Abkhazia can only be reached by helicopter in winter. The Russian peacekeepers have reinforced the post with grenade launchers and additional heavy equipment and manpower. The Georgian side has accused the Russian peacekeepers of violating their mandate, as they have effectively granted an observation post the authority of a control checkpoint. They are checking all people using the road and inspecting their vehicles. [8] --Ursul pacalit de vulpe 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why not make seperate articles about abkhazia the historic region, abkhazia the de facto independent republic, and abkhazia the autonomous republic of Georgia? Tamokk 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is always easy to have one battleground. More seriously, all three subjects essentially intermingle with each other, and it would be difficult to determine exactly what should be written in each one. The articles about the autonomous republic and what you and pro-separatist editors call "de facto independent republic" without any info on pre-conflict history would leave the reader in confusion. I see no reason to split the article into three potential POV forks.--KoberTalk 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why so pessimistic? Assume faith that NPOV equilibrium can be achieved. Tamokk 05:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. I have got enough experience out here on Wikipedia to be pessimistic about things like this. NPOV equilibrium can never be achieved when there is a single-purpose group of users who wage a permanent agitprop war on the Abkhazia-related pages. I think it would be better to improve this article and the related sub-articles rather than split it. What is supposed to be written in the "de facto republic" article can be moved to the Politics of Abkhazia, Subdivision of Abkhazia, etc. De jure stuff goes to Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, Upper Abkhazia, partly into Subdivision of Abkhazia. --KoberTalk 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As I am relatively new here, can you provide me with the list of the agitprop members? Tamokk 07:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't normally maintain blacklists, but you know them perfectly well. If still in doubt, you can visit talk pages of Abkhazia-related articles. Not surprisingly, you will find some of your old allies there.--KoberTalk 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is something I have favoured and still favour. For the simple reason that the so called Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the so called Republic of Abkhazia are seperate entities, and as such require seperate articles. If we have a page about the world's unrecognised states, then what it should link to is the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, not the general Abkhazia page that also covers the autonomous republic. Likewise, the subdivions of Georgia page should link to the administrative entity that is a subdivision of Georgia, namely the Autonomous Republic of Abkazia.
That this proposal is sensible is also shown by the fact that this is common practice on Wikipedia, Taiwan is divided up in just this way, and so are the Western Sahara, Cyprus, Chechnya and Palestine.
Having seperate articles does not mean giving up NPOV. Each article in itself must still adhere to NPOV. sephia karta 10:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Abkhazia is one, and there are no separate entities of it. You can not divide this article. Based on your contributions and glorifications of separatist regime (which makes you biased), i can only guess why you want to split this article. The Abkhazian "Republic" has no recognition or any validity. However, if you want to be involved in original research, that’s your choice (but you would violate Wiki guidelines). Iberieli 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Rather than engaging in personal attacks I ask of you that you engage my arguments. sephia karta 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but could you outline what exactly would you like to move and where to? We had a similar discussion on Transnistria article and haven't reached any definite conclusion. Until the proposal is clarified I cannot express my attitude to it. I also think that there are other, more needed things to do in Wikipedia about Abkhazia. Alæxis¿question? 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already outlined. I suggest to make three separate articles. What should be written in each of them should be quite obvious. As sephia karta has already noticed this is a common practice in similar situations. Tamokk 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A de facto independent or whatever state, certainly deserves a separate article, but not under the name of Abkhazia. Tamokk 05:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think my idea would be like this: we keep the current article on Abkhazia, but in addition we create articles on the "Republic of Abkhazia" and on the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia". We then remove from the Abkhazia article those sections that specifically deal with these political institutions. sephia karta 11:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea. All the three articles would contain history sections that would double each other to some extent. It's also not clear for me what would go to AAR article (especially considering that we already have Upper Abkhazia, Kodori Valley and Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia articles). Alæxis¿question? 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In my view the article on the ROA and on the AROA would not contain nearly as extensive a history section as the current Abkhazia article, just a short outline, recent history since their establishment and a link to the History of Abkhazia article. It's true that perhaps the AROA article would not be very long, yes. sephia karta 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kober's latest changes have convinced me that this would be a great idea. There are to many de factos and de jures in this article and splitting the different governments off into different articles would make a large number of de facto and de jures unneccessary. Otherwise the number of de factos and de jures is just going to keep increasing, it now seems like de factos and de jures are being used even in discussing religion. Soon, the article will be referring to de facto nuns and de jure priests. ;) Pocopocopocopoco 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

POV sources

Please provide neutral source for its claim before it is removed from the article: According to the Constitution of Abkhazia the adherents of all religions (as well as atheists) have equal rights before the law

I will start removing all POV sources from Abkhazia web sites (which are not neutral and are overwhelmingly biased against the other side). According to your logic on de jure government, Abkhaz sources are not suitable for NPOV article. Iberieli 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When we say something about the constitution of the Republic of Abkhazia the source that is used in the article is absolutely valid. If you see some other sources you consider POV or something please raise issues on the talk first. Thanks. Alæxis¿question? 15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia also contains the similar clause. In fact, any modern Constitution projected to be democratic speak about the religious freedom. So the info is redundant here. Furthermore, Abkhazia's current separatist regime persecutes the Georgian Orthodox Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses are also banned. Recently, my half-Abkhaz-half-Georgian friend (she is an IDP from Sukhumi and lives in Tbilisi) visited Sukhumi where her Abkhaz relatives live. As soon as she entered an Orthodox church with a Georgian grapevine cross, a local Russian priest cursed her and expelled from the church.--KoberTalk 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh, why don't you apply this logic to this article then? If you want you could add the info about AAR's constitution also.
I see no reason to exclude 100%-true piece of info in the article. If you know of independent accounts of the state of the religious freedom in Abkhazia it also should be added. Alæxis¿question? 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not really trivial. I believe there are still quite a few constitutions out there that reserve some special place for some religion, amongst which probably those of the UK and Sweden where resp. the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Chruch are the state church. sephia karta 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

sephia karta I think it makes sense to start those two articles. Also feel free to help on User:Tamokk/Abkhazia. Tamokk 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazian vs Abkhaz

I have never heard of Abkhazian before. But I have only heard of Abkhaz. So I don't know if Abkhaz is the correct one. If Abkhazian is really the one that is correct, then revert. Chris! my talk 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Googling for 'Abkhazian -wikipedia' gives much more results than that for 'Abkhaz -wikipedia'. The word is also present in Webster's dictionary. Alæxis¿question? 19:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine then. Chris! my talk 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, random Google search is not a valid argument. See WP:GHITS. Chris! my talk 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's why I've also checked Webster's )) Besides it's not a deleting discussion. Alæxis¿question? 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Still, it is a bad argument, no question about that. :) Chris! my talk 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question though because both forms are in use and I can not see any semantic difference. With Azerbaijani vs. Azeri, the first is used for things related to the state, the second for things related to the ethnos, but that seems not to be the case here. It might be a good idea to decide on some sort of guideline, for things like categories, to prevent randomness. sephia karta 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence

is a de facto independent republic which is officially part of Georgia. <-- This definition is confusing and maybe does not even make sence at all. On the one hand, Abkhazian republic does not consider itself to be "officially" in Georgia, and on the other hand, if it is officially in Georgia, then its "de facto" independence is abnormal.

It is a de facto independent republic, with no international recognition. It is within the borders of Georgia as recognized internationally. <-- Both statements in here are at least technically correcct, more or less. Tamokk 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and your version isn't bad. The only thing is that the words international recognition/recognized internationally in two consecutive sentences sound not very nice. If you can change the words keeping the point I'll support your version. Alæxis¿question? 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Transnistria model is not bad
Transnistria, also known as Trans-Dniester and Pridnestrovie, is a breakaway territory within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova. Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure a part of Moldova, it is de facto an independent state called the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Tamokk 02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Imho here the same thing is repeated twice - "is a breakaway territory within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova.", "Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure a part of Moldova,". If it's within the internationally recognised borders of country it's obviously de jure part of it (and vice versa). The word 'breakaway' is also not very neutral. If you don't think so try to insert it in the description of any country that had been part of other and watch the reaction. Alæxis¿question? 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Well maybe, Transnistria is not good too. In all this cases one can be partial in tow ways, giving precedence to a region being independent or being part of some other country. Both are POV, but incorporating these in one sentence is a nonsense, my point was. Tamokk 06:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I'm afraid our propaganda warriors will now incite an endless edit-war. The definition "de facto independent republic" is also POV. True, Abkhazia is de facto independent from Georgia, but its completely dependent on Russia. The self-styled foreign minister Sergei Shamba has proudly declared that Abkhazia is de facto under Russian protectorate. One expert in Moscow also said that "Abkhazia is a de facto continuation of the Krasnodar region" of Russia.--KoberTalk 04:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully Wikipedia has means to fight edit wars. "de facto" correctly or incorrectly is widely used in reference to Abkhazia. Details could be included in a footnote. Tamokk 05:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can easily find you an expert (he wouldn't even be anonymous, like yours) who'd say that Georgia is US's protectorate. Since in both cases formal protectorate doesn't exist the word was used figuratively and nobody really knows what it was supposed to mean. Alæxis¿question? 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There was no need of so many refs. Tamokk 06:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the word "protectorate" was used not by an expert found by me, but a "foreign minister" of your beloved regime. --KoberTalk 06:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but in absence of formal protectorate one cannot know what exactly he really meant. Alæxis¿question? 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, everybody (including you and me) knows what he meant and we really know that even without Shamba's statement.--KoberTalk 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolved regarding Autonomous Government?

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia#Dispute_Resolved.3F

And approve the change so that we can put this issue behind us. A change in that article would also mean a change in the summary about the autonomous government on this page. Please see the summary in my sandbox to view what it will be changed to. Pocopocopocopoco 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The sites of Abkhazian president and MFA should stay as they represent the official position of the Republic of Abkhazia. Likewise abkhazia.com, the official site of the Georgian refugees, should also be present in the article.

We also have apsny.ge and apsnypress.info news sites so again balance is kept.

We should either have both sites like apkhazeti.com and abkhaziya.org or not have any of them. I'm ok with both variants.

ps. Morieli's edit was reverted also because the description of the site was definitely not neutral. The external sites needn't represent NPOV but their descriptions should of course be neutral. Alæxis¿question? 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its a huge deal but I'm sort of leaning toward Iberieli's take on this issue. We've got underlying articles for the Abkhaz republic, the Automonous Republic, so the external links for the autonomous government and the independent government would probably be better in those articles only. I question whether abkhazia.com belongs anywhere on wikipedia as it has some very questionable material on that site and it probably fails WP:RS the suitable article for it as an external link is probably Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia and not here. Pocopocopocopoco 00:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I wrote about abkhaziYa.org, not about abkhazia.org. Second, WP:RS is about the sources used for the article's text and not about external links (WP:EL deals with them).
I think that the three 'official' sites should be in the EL section of this article - because most of the readers won't probably get to those articles about governments and thus wouldn't have a chance to see them. After all nothing terrible happens usually if one link appears in two articles at the same time )) Alæxis¿question? 10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And I wrote about abkhazia.com not abkhazia.org and WP:EL also says to avoid "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and it tells us to refer to WP:RS. I find the material there questionable, the photos on that cite are questionable and the word genocide is plastered all over that site. I'm sorry but what happened in Abkhazia was ethnic cleansing but it wasn't genocide. - Pocopocopocopoco 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough. Alæxis¿question? 07:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Serguei Bagapch, self-proclaimed president of Abkhazia?

Who knows what is the English spelling of Serguei Bagapch ? Has he got a Wiki entry? Tazmaniacs 16:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He is Sergei Bagapsh. --KoberTalk 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't want to unilaterally alter anything in the article, but someone should rewrite this idiotic introduction which is currently full of typically Russian de-factomania aimed at illustrating Moscow's puppet regimes as "de facto independent". Shota-G., Oct. 06, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.43.69 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Name for Abkhazia in Megrelian

Is the name for Abkhazia in Megrelian also called Abkhazeti? If not, we should add it to the list of names for Abkhazia and I believe the megrelian should come after Abkhaz but before Georgian. Pocopocopocopoco 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is Abkhazeti. In Svan, it is Abkhaz. But I don't see any need to include all Kartvelian names in the lead. Then, we will have to include also Armenian (As some sources claim, Armenians are the 2nd largest group in today's Abkhazia) and Turkish (Abkhaz have a large diaspora in Turkey) names. This is obviously redundant.--KoberTalk 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. The reason I brought up Megrelian is that it looks like it has some sort of semi-official status in Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Megrelian has a status of regional language in Samurzaqan (Gali district). Proper megrelian name for Abkhazia is " Saapxazo", and not "Apxazeti", the last is a georgianized form.

Does Mingrelian really have a status of regional language in Gali district? I did a quick google/yandex search and couldn't find anything about it. Could you give some reference? Alæxis¿question? 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Abkhazia in the opening paragraph

I support user:El C's version with Republic of Abkhazia in the opening paragraph and I believe it to be NPOV because we already have a section called "utonomous Republic of Abkhazia". To be NPOV and to give the proper weight to the government that is independent from Georgia, it should be in the opening paragraph. Pocopocopocopoco 01:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not NPOV. It's just your POV. Nothing new about that. --KoberTalk 05:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If we ignore the infoboxes, the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is described in the article but not the Republic of Abkhazia. That's what is POV. Pocopocopocopoco 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You must be kidding. Both "Abkhazias" are discussed in each section with the exception of Economy and Politics that focuse solely on de facto "republic". We should move the subsection about the legitimate government to the Politics section to meet NPOV and reduce generally pro-separatist bias of the article. --KoberTalk 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the autonomous republic could be added to the politics section. I can't imagine that Upper Abkhazia has much of an economy considering it is a sparsely populated gorge. Keep in mind also that NPOV doesn't mean equal exposure. Most of the politics is related to the de facto independent Abkhazia and that's what should be reflected in the politics section. Also, I believe the politics section should use official names for the de facto government. So instead of saying "de facto authorities" it should say "Government of the Republic of Abkhazia" or whatever other institution is involved. Pocopocopocopoco 04:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you want to convert the article into an English version of Mr. Bagapsh's website? Most of the politics is related not to the de facto regime, which owns its "independence" to the international terrorists like Shamil Basayev and to the Russian interventionists, but to 250,000 people expelled from the region. I think the IDPs issue should dominate the section, because it is a principal subject of the current negotiation format as well as all UN resolutions. Also, I think the intro should be rewritten and all this de-facto-independence paranoia should be reduced. In any normal encylcopedia such as Britannica, the lead sentence states that Abkhazia is an autonomous republic of Georgia. Info on Abkhazia's de facto status should follow next, and Russian interventionism should be more stressed.--KoberTalk 04:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the article should further be tilted towards Georgian pov. Alæxis¿question? 05:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Did I say "Georgian POV"? I meant NPOV. The article, as it is now, is actually more pro-separatist/pro-Russian than pro-Georgia as a result of its domination by anti-Georgian users and little if any interest on the part of the third party users and neutral admins.--KoberTalk 06:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zshartava1993sukhumi.jpg

Image:Zshartava1993sukhumi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sanctions

Although the CIS economic sanctions imposed on Abkhazia in 1994 are still formally in force and Russia has established a visa regime with Georgia, Russian passport-holders do not require a visa to enter Abkhazia

This makes it look like Russia violates some of its own obligations which is no longer the case. I also don't think that one can say that CIS sanctions are in force since not all CIS members apply them. If you don't want it removed altogether let's rewrite it somehow.

Here’s the text of the 1996 CIS agreement. Russia is the ONLY signatory to the agreement that has unilaterally withdrawn from it. Russia IS NOT the CIS, and the organization has never overturned its decision. All other countries remain adherent, at least officially, to the agreement. Ukraine and Azerbaijan have even condemned Russia’s decision.--KoberTalk 09:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What did they mean by this passage? Alæxis¿question? 08:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You should ask this question to the authors of that nonsense, imo.:)--KoberTalk 09:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you know that it is nonsense, then your reasons for this might be helpful in deciphering that message. :) I recall having read that before, but I don't remember where.sephia karta 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I’m sorry I cannot be of any help here. I take no particular interest in deciphering the pieces of the Kremlin propaganda, especially when even the Abkhazia experts like yourself and Alaexis are apparently baffled by this enigma. --KoberTalk 16:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll write 'Abkhazia expert' in my cv from now on :)
The only thing I could find is this... Alæxis¿question? 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

War in Abkhazia Section needs more cites

It makes alot of unsourced claims such as the rationale behind the Georgian initial troop deployments into Sukhumi as well as the progression of the war. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? "The Georgian government dispatched 3,000 troops to the region, ostensibly to restore order." sounds fine for me. What would you like to change here? Also, please look at War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) article. Some things that are not referenced here are referenced there. Alæxis¿question? 05:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It says "The Georgian government accused Gamsakhurdia's supporters of kidnapping Georgia's interior minister and holding him captive in Abkhazia. The Georgian government dispatched 3,000 troops to the region, ostensibly to restore order." So it's impying that the initial troop deployment to Sukhumi was related to the interior minister being held in Abkhazia by Gamsakhurdia supporters. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The troops were deployed to Gali not Sukhumi. The march on Sukhumi was Kitovani's own initiative and followed an attack by the Abkhaz militia on the border between Gali and Ochamchire districts.--KoberTalk 03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia: Independent or not?

Is Abkhazia independent or not? From my studies, I can conclude nothing. On maps I have looked at, it shows Georgia holding all of Abkhaz territory. From what I have read in this site and others, only few Abkhaz people even exist. I Would say that Abkhazia is partially independent because some sources soy thst Abkhaz has its own millitary and goverment, but some Russians and Georgians are tring to tobble the Abkhaz goverment. But, with a stable army I would say that the goverment is well protected against these so called "Ruffians" of the Abkhaz goverment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.232.209 (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Event?

Would't this be considered a current event article? 99.165.253.250 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

60,000 refuge return claim

This is an odd estimate which is not supported by any source yet. The UN document does not mention any 60,000 IDPs being repatriated back to their homes in Gali district. As i know from some of the sources, not more than 36,000 IDPs were allowed back to their homes and lands but even this figure is questioned by UNOMIG. If we will not be able to find any source supporting the claim that 60,000 IDPs were repatriated, than i will remove the number and will replace it with the number which is currently available in some sources. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the ICG mention 60K returning to Abkhazia. I don't have time to look it up right now. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Iberieli, the numbers are from the UNHCR Background note on the Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Georgia remaining outside Georgia (reference #18). Even if it's currently unavailable in the net it doesn't mean the reference is invalid. You can, for example, check the cached version I've just added to the article. Alæxis¿question? 05:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks a lot, now i see the source although its still questionable how accurate their estimates are, Thanks again. Iberieli (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Map etc

If someone thinks that the proper name for this article is Abkhazeti (or, perhaps, Apkhazeti) for NPOV or other reasons s/he should start the due process as it would be a controversial move. Until the article is renamed the accepted Wikipedia name for this country is Abkhazia (it's the most popular English name also, of course). So the map with this name is th one that should be used here. Alæxis¿question? 15:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The UN map is a NPOV version and Russian edited version (which was done without authors permission) is unacceptable for this article in terms of NPOV. Otherwise, what keeps me from inserting Georgian version of the similar map? There is no such country legally (I can argue similarly that it is a Georgian region and can only be called apkhazeti) and it is highly disputed, therefore, UN version of the map is more suitable for such controversial articles (again no such country exists and to claim so is a pro-separatist POV, legally it is part of Georgia whether you like it or not) . Additionally that altered map (UN map where Georgian territory is highlightened with different color from Abkhazia) should be removed from Wikicommons as per un-rightful alternation of the UN map without permission from the author. Iberieli (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The copyright status of this map is a separate issue (and a completely clear one, as UN allows modification of its maps with certain provisions that aren't broken here).
The map should use the names accepted in Wikipedia (Abkhazia, Sukhumi, not Apkhazeti, Sokhumi or Aqua). Don't you agree with it? Alæxis¿question? 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The map has both Abkhazia and Abkhazeti names and it is produced by the UN. What's really a problem with it?--KoberTalk 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO the question should be why do we need a map that has "Abkhazeti" as the most prominent name on the map when the article says Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
And my question would be why do we need a user-modified UN map that illustrate Abkhazia and Georgia as separate nations when the source of this image and its resolutions, of which your homeland is a co-author and signatory, invariably refers to the region as "Abkhazia, Georgia." --KoberTalk 05:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Caption Abkhazia within Georgia

I agree with the above that the map should match the name of the article. Also, to have a caption that Abkhazia is within Georgia under one of the maps is POV so I have removed it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot titles?

OK, I give, what are bot titles? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant "both titles". It is very nice of you to bring simple typos to the article's discussion page. --KoberTalk 05:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh for peats sake! I thought you wrote bot titles deliberately. A bot is a program in wikipedia that runs and makes repetitive updates.
Wow. Thanks for such an invaluable information. I did not really know what a bot is.--KoberTalk 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
So why should we care if the article has both names? The name of the article is Abkhazia not Abkhazeti. Plus Abkhazeti is far more prominent in the map than Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither map shows Abkhazia and Georgia as two different nations. Compare how the Abkhazian-Russian and Georgian-Russian borders are marked.
Abkhazia is the most popular English name and the article is rightly named so. There are also other names of the country (Abkhazeti, Apsny). Putting just one of them on the map would be NPOV. Alæxis¿question? 05:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Then go ahead and modify the name in the image. But the Russian user-modified version, which you are campaigning for, contradicts the source of this image by illustrating Abkhazia and Georgia as separate countries as they are now colored very contrastingly. I don't quite understand why you are suggesting to compare "the Abkhazian-Russian and Georgian-Russian borders." As far as I can see both of these are the same line. --KoberTalk 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe there is some misunderstanding? I've written about these maps - Image:Abkhazia detail map.png and Image:Abkhazia detail map2.png. Abkhazia and Georgia are of the same colour and Abkhazian-Russian and Georgian-Russian borders are marked differently. Alæxis¿question? 05:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Alex-jan, its UN map, enough said, cant find more NPOV version than that :) Its funny how Proco wakes up every time there is a small debate over Abkhazia article. :) p.s Abkhazia being part of Georgia is not my POV but according to numerous UN, EU, OSCE resolutions and international law. Your separatist glorification can be considered POV which is neither supported by any resolution or law. Iberieli (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant, how is the map POV just because it says Abkhazia on it? The articles name is Abkhazia so the map should either say Abkhazia or Abkhazia should be the most prominent. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The only thing irrelevant is your POV here and that map which was altered without authors permission. UN map is perfect for NPOV compliance, again its UN map. End of discussion. Iberieli (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You haven't answered me as to why it's POV to use the same name in the map that is on the article. Also, Alaexis already showed that it's perfectly OK to translate the name on a UN map into English. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And you will have to prove why the caption "Abkhazia within Georgia" is POV.--KoberTalk 05:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll wait until the Image:Abkhazia detail map2.png is restored. In case it's not suitable for Commons it's certainly suitable for this Wikipedia. Then I'll ask for a RfC about this issue. Alæxis¿question? 05:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

engaged in looting

I am having problem to find this one in the mentioned source. Gülməmməd Talk 05:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because you haven't bothered to read the source. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian travel warnings

Imho information that is in no way supported by other sources (like the 'reported' bases of Al-Qaeda in Abkhazia) shouldn't be included in the article. Other info is also of doubtful importance. Compare it for example with what they write about Georgia:[9]

I'm sure there's certain overstatement in both cases :) Alæxis¿question? 09:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics of Abkhazia

There should be some information about the political structure of the Abkhazia government and how it conducts its elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.216.85 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Abkhazia page should be locked

Given the increasing attention Abkhazia will be receiving due to the war and 4000 Russian troops that just landed, I suggest the Abkhazia page be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.161.174 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

obsolete

Parts of this article need to be updated. Specifically, the sentence in the Demographics section, "About 2,000 people (predominantly Svans, a subethnic group of the Georgian people) live in Georgia-controlled Upper Abkhazia." Khoikhoi 09:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sergei Bagapsh has said that he hopes they would return, so we'll have to see how that works out. sephia karta 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see. BTW, there is another problem in the "Abkhazia within the Russian Empire and Soviet Union" section. It says:

  • "Modern Abkhazian historians maintain that large areas of the region were left uninhabited, and that many Armenians, Georgians and Russians (all Christians) subsequently migrated to Abkhazia, resettling much of the vacated territory."

Then it goes on to say:

  • "This version of events is strongly contested by some Georgian historians[54] who argue that Georgian tribes (Mingrelians and Svans) had populated Abkhazia since the time of the Colchis kingdom. According to these scholars, the Abkhaz are the descendants of North Caucasian tribes (Adygey, Apsua), who migrated to Abkhazia from the north of the Caucasus Mountains and merged there with the existing Georgian population."

This sounds NPOV in my opinion, we list the Abkhaz POV first, then we list the Georgian POV. But then for some reason we have a sentence right after it that sounds contradictory:

  • "This theory has little support though among Georgian academics."

Firstly, we just said that this is the Georgian POV, then we have a sentence that says the opposite. If this isn't the Georgian POV, what is? I don't see where it says that here, and it would be nice if we could get a direct quote from here. Also keep in mind that Ghia Nodia is only one Georgian political analyst. There is a similar paragraph here. Khoikhoi 18:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was the one to add that last sentence there. The idea is that while some Georgian scholars believe this, what Ghia Nodia (on page 27) and the Crisis Group report report (page 4, footnote 29, quoting another source that I don't have access to) say is that it is only the view of a radical minority. Feel free though to rewrite that section to make things clearer.sephia karta 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed "Georgian academics" to "most Georgian academics". However, there's still a problem. The paragraph basically says that the Georgian scholars who say that Georgian tribes had populated Abkhazia since the time of the Colchis kingdom are the same scholars who hold the view that the Abkhaz only came to the region in the 17th and 18th centuries. Neither the Nodia article nor the Crisis Group report mention the former. Khoikhoi 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see whay you mean. You have a point there, I believe there are scholars who reject the theory about Abkhaz being only recent immigrants but who do assert that Mingrelians have lived in Abkhazia alongside the Abkhaz since the Colchis Kingdom. I don't have a source by hand right now but I'll look out for it. This may actually be what Nodia himself thinks, have to read though that article again. sephia karta 09:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll try to do some research myself as well. Khoikhoi 11:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The second problem is that the Nodia article says:
According to this theory, the “real” or historical Abkhaz were a Georgian tribe. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Adygean tribes (self-named the “apsua”) resettled from the North-Caucasus in Abkhazia, assimilated the “real” Abkhaz, and stole their name.
This isn't exactly the same thing as saying that the Abkhaz are the descendants of North Caucasian tribes who migrated to Abkhazia from the north of the Caucasus Mountains and merged there with the existing Georgian population, it's saying that the Abkhaz are actually the descendants of Georgian tribes. Khoikhoi 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the difference here.sephia karta 09:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I must've misread, sorry about that. I see what he was saying now, that this view states that the historical Abkhaz were really Georgians, while the modern Abkhaz were descendants of Adygeans who recently migrated to the region. Khoikhoi 11:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Now it's not clear whether Abkhaz people are from Georgian origin. Most scholars believe that Abkhazians are of Circassian origin. Taamu (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, I was just trying to get an understanding of what this viewpoint is (which was developed by Pavle Ingorokva back in the 1950s, apparently). Khoikhoi 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Since Abkhazia is recognized as being part of Georgia by every country, it is undue weight to merge all the infoboxes together and place the de facto one at the top. The Britannica article for example seems to only recognize it as an autonomous region of Georgia. And even if Chkhalta is no longer the headquarters of the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, it is still de jure recognized as being a part of Georgia. Therefore I think that we should base the infoboxes off the South Ossetia article, and have one for the region in general, and one for the de facto government. Khoikhoi 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, we should probably consider adding an infobox about the in-exile government as well based on new information, since this is the internationally recognized one. Khoikhoi 08:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: It appears that the long-standing intro in this article was to say, "Abkhazia is is a region in Georgia that is a de facto independent republic with no official recognition." But recently the "region in Georgia" bit was removed. We need to have a consensus on an intro that everyone can agree upon, as the current version isn't entirely neutral. I think that for now the original version should be restored. Perhaps we can go with something similar to the Transnistria article. Khoikhoi 09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The 'long-standing intro' was something like this - [10]. Alæxis¿question? 10:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been and still am in favour of splitting the article into one describing Abkhazia as a disputed historical-geographic region, one describing the Republic of Abkhazia as an internationally unrecognised but declared and de facto independent state, and one describing the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia as the territorial subdivision of Georgia. Similar to the following splits:
Nagorno-Karabakh/Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland
Western Sahara/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic/Southern Provinces
Korea/South Korea/North Korea
Taiwan/Republic of China/Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. sephia karta 10:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion on splitting the infobox but I'm still against splitting the article. All of Abkhazia's territory is controlled by its de facto government so splitting the info about modern politics and economy from the history, geography etc seems artificial to me. Alæxis¿question? 10:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You have a point there.sephia karta 13:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, I changed the infobox a few days ago. This article should consistent with other such entities and that means one infobox. No information gets missed with one infobox and it's much neater. Putting the Automonous republic in exile would give it too much WP:WEIGHT as it is in exile and has at most governed a thinly populated gorge for almost two years. The reason South Ossetia has two infoboxes is that I haven't gotten round to cleaning up that article but if you look at other such articles they use one infobox. Even historical defacto republics use one infobox example Republic of Serbian Krajina. I think this is an area where wikipedia has an advantage over britanica as wikipedia is more up to date and less politcally correct. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to add that just because Abkhazia is officially unrecognized by all countries doesn't mean that it's recognized as part of Georgia by all countries so it's not undue weight to have a single infobox. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to get a clear definition for this article. Many other encyclopedias (such as Encarta) seem to regard it as a region of Georgia, and go based on the de jure POV and international recognition. However I still believe that we should mention the de facto status similar to how the current intro reads. But we should also add something as well to balance it out. You have a point about it being in exile, but the fact remains that this the government that seems to be recognized -- and even if it is not recognized by every single country, it has more recognition than the de facto government. Khoikhoi 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's written rather clearly in the intro that:
Maybe we should link Abkhazian Autonomous Republic to something in that passage. Alæxis¿question? 07:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, how the encyclopedia refers to Abkhazia would depend on where the encyclopedia originated. A western based encyclopedia like Encarta or Britannica will refer to it as a region of Georgia but a Russian based encyclopedia would refer to it as independent. We need to get above all of that per WP:CSB. While more countries recognize it as part of Georgia, the fact that Russia borders Abkhazia and Georgia and disputes Georgia's claim on Abkhazia should be given a great deal of weight. This is the reason that we can't say that Abkhazia (and South Ossetia) are internationally recognized as part of Georgia and this is the reason why they differ from Transnistria. In the case of Transnistria, Moldova and Ukraine recognize each others borders and have a bilateral border agreement that enters into the body of international laws. There is no such agreement between Russia and Georgia. In terms of weight given to "de jure" vs "de facto" status this article should be similar to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Table in demographics section list Georgians in the first place and Abkhazians in the second. Since Abkhazians are titular native nation of the area, they should be listed first in this table. 81.18.62.141 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I partly agree with you, but I guess columns should be listed not in terms of titular nation, but in terms of current population . Taamu (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

International law

Also, which source mentions international law? Alæxis¿question? 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This one: "The Russians cannot invoke international law only when they feel like it." [11]. Iberieli (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I have added this reference to the article (even though Civil.ge is not a perfect source, being from one of conflicting sides). Alæxis¿question? 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Civil.ge is a neutral source as it is operated by an European NGO. Try to look through its articles. They are written quite evenhandedly. --KoberTalk 04:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on Wednesday said Russia's decision to recognize South Ossetia and Georgia as independent broke international law." [12]Iberieli (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Some or all

Regarding this edit may I ask you what source says that Russian recognition of Abkhazia was condemned by all UN member states? Unless this is the case it's more appropriate to write that some of them did it. Alæxis¿question? 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

China has not made any statement yet. PrescottRU (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Belarus was actually in support. Zazaban (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Did Belarus actually formally support it? I know some MPs expressed support, but that doesn't constitute official support. 132.170.33.101 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Not only MP. Official representative of Belarus said that Belarus will support recognition [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sukhum, Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia
  2. ^ Sukhum, Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia
  3. ^ http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1228082.html

Split article?

On other breakaway country issues, Wikipedia often divides the article so as to avoid POV. Examples of this include:

It would be editorially prudent for us to apply the same precedent here. By distinguishing between the geographic region of Abkhazia and the proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia, we can avoid any determination one way or another as to whether or not Abkhazia is an independent nation, a rebellious province or whatever else POV warriors may wish to call it. This outcome has worked extremely well in the other instances the community has implemented it. It would be the responsible NPOV choice to make for this article as well. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above and it was decided that it wasn't necessary for this article because all of Abkhazia is controlled by the Republic of Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary indeed. Geographically speaking, the region of Abkhazia and the Republic of Abkhazia are identical. Óðinn (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Besides, you've forgotten about Transnitria, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland. Articles about these unrecognised states aren't split. And Northern Ireland is not an unrecognised state, afaik. Alæxis¿question? 05:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, Abkhazia is not a 'proclaimed' country, it is in legal function. the term 'proclaimed' is reserved for claimant governmentsl.Tommyxx (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Split the infoboxes

I think that in the interest of NPOV, the article should not have a merged infobox. Kosovo article should be used as a reference. Óðinn (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up at #Infoboxes. Khoikhoi 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Funnily, when we discussed infoboxes at Kosovo, Abkhazia (which had two infoboxes at that time) was chosen as the role model... I would profer having two infoboxes as well. Khuft (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then Abkhazia had two infoboxes because 17 % of its territory was controlled by Georgia and administered as Abkhazian Autonomous Republic (similar to Northern Kosovo, I believe). Alæxis¿question? 10:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. Why does Kosovo have to have three info boxes so that everybody and their brother can claim it while Abkhazia gets to be free and clear, even though it's only recognised by 2 countries and is still claimed by Georgia? Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that parts of Kosovo are not controlled by Kosovo authorities. Until recently this was the case for Abkhazia also. However now the government in exile doesn't deserve a special infobox imho. Transnistria, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland have only one infobox as well, btw. Alæxis¿question? 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3rr violated by user: kober brazenly

this "experienced" child keeps reverting my edits although they were done step by step with adequate edit summaries..how come i amadvised to talk here when he is free to revert all my edits en masse without discussing them on the talk page!! is wikipedia racist? or is wikipedia a NATO stooge?Cityvalyu (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

verifiable referenced content deleted to keep wikipedians blind

come on this is not georgia tv or nato propaganda machine..allow neutral views hereCityvalyu (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua decision

Removing Nicaragua as the Parliament of that country has not ratified the decision yet so it is not yet effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.103 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkazia land of Georgia

Ok! Now listen people! My name is George and I'm from Georgia. You all must know, that Abkazia is Georgia, not independent country. Georgia is independet country and Abkazia is Georgian land. There was Russian political games in Abkazia. We was friends, but Russia did all, for war. My father was fighting in Abkazia, not for Russians, not for politacal games...he was fighting for integrity of Georgia. Noone can take, not Abkazia and not Tskinvali. As our ancestors, we will fight for integrity of Georgia. Abkazians are Georgians...I'm from Imereti and I have friend from Racha, Achara, Guria... and we all are Georgians, as people from Abkazia. And you all who wrote this article must know, that Abkazia is not independent country, Abkazia is land of independent Georgia and I'll fight for this.
P.S. Sorry for my English...
"სამშობლოს არვის წავართმევთ
ჩვენც ნურვინ შეგვეცილება
თორემ ისეთ დღეს დავაყრით
მკვდარსაც კი გაეცინება"
Gnome(G) 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? Alaexis 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See up --Gnome(G) 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange comments but suggesting what exactly ? Buffadren 13:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous comment I have ever read on wikipedia. It's a talk of a 6 year old child. This sort of language is abusive. Zone 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. You have reaffirmed my impression that almost every article related to communism and russian policy on wikipedia is skewed by blatant sympathist propaganda. I hope you serious wikipedia editors realize that most intelligent users realize the discussion page is the most fundamental page on any subject of your encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.167.11 (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me George, what is integrity of Georgia? sending troops to university killing students because they are Apsuwa? No you father didnt fight Russians for Georgia's integrity, he fought for enslaving millenia old traditions, language. He fought to kill my cousins with a great joy he did, as your great uncle Stalin did 60 years ago. This is the question, will world clean Stalin's mess and learn from it, or will they bury the evidences and repeat. Russians chose the first, west chose the second. Tbilisi, is still same as Stalin left it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus79 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 BATTLE of KODORI

Abkhaz separatists strike disputed Georgia gorge

Posted 11 hours 29 minutes ago

Abkhazia has said it has launched an operation to drive Georgia out of a disputed gorge, possibly opening a "second front" in Tbilisi's battle to retain fractious breakaway regions.

The separatist foreign minister Sergei Shamba said Abkhazian artillery and warplanes struck Georgian forces in Kodori, a narrow gorge which cuts deep into the Abkhazian territory and is an ideal route for any invasion in the region.

The attack came less than 48 hours after Georgia sent troops to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia, triggering an invasion of Russian forces dispatched to restore the status quo.

"Abkhazian forces, in response to the Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, have started a military operation the Kodori gorge to clear it from illegal Georgian troops," Mr Shamba told Reuters.

Mr Shamba said at midday (local time) Abkhaz warplanes launched airstrikes at the Tbilisi-controlled upper part of the Gorge and artillery was pounding the area.

"Today was only the initial part of the operation by heavy artillery supported by aviation," Mr Shamba said.

Georgians denied an all-out Abkhaz attack and said they were ready to face down any aggression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.40.8 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgians denied and lost, this only shows Tbilisi is a bad liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus79 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Russias role

Does not Russia recognize Abkhasia? --Oddeivind (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Óðinn (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. --Bachforelle (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter? No one else will... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.237.253 (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Soon Turkey will have to recognize, when abhazia send first battleship to Istanbul, Turkey wont have a choise according to montreu treaty of Turkish straits. Also they can fire on Abkhaz ship, due to substantial Abkhaz population in Turkey. And One by one many countries will have to recognize else instead of Abkhazia they have to run diplomacy over Russia. Sea means freedom, I wonder if the west thought this while recognizing Kosovo, ops they have no sea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus79 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It matters because Abkhazia and SO are sovereign independent states from the moment they are recognized by at least one UN member.

Updated info

I have updated details of the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. That section was far too long and I have shortened it as there is already an underlying article that gives more detail. I have removed the infobox for this government as it is defunct and hence should not have an infobox in this article otherwise we are giving a defunct government too much weight. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Defunct?? Just because Georgian government lost control over the Kodori gorge does not necessary mean that the autonomous government of Abkhazia has been dissolved!!! I think it is better to keep the Autonomous Republic's info box under the breakaway state's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.143.50 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? this remids me the Kurdish debate of Pan-Turanists, they were yelling "Kurds are in fact montain Turks" then when this was opposed they came with "Kurds were setteled to Anatolia after Turkish conquests". They tend to forget historical recodrs, as same happens with georgians. Tbilisi in Abkhazian language "means with hot waters", a proof who founded Tbilisi. Also Herodotus informs about Abkhaz people. So take your fascist propaganda to one level down please, this is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus79 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua

According to RIA Novosti, this country is going to recognize, but has not officially completed the necessary procedure:

Nicaraguan Deputy Foreign Minister Manuel Coronel Kautz said on Wednesday: "We have started preparing all the necessary documentation for an official recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia following instructions issued by the president."

The article needs to reflect the present status. --Grandmaster (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that Nicaragua has already recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, see the following references:

Nicaragua recognizes independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia
Nicaragua recognises South Ossetia, Abkhazia
Nicaragua joins Russia in recognizing South Ossetia, Abkhazia
Nicaragua recognizes Georgian regions after Russia

-Raphaelhui (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

recent slant

intro and first two third of article has recent slant although seperatev articles exist for those headersCityvalyu (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please specify how it is biased? This has been the consensus version for the past few months, and while it is always good to be bold, such unilateral changes need to be properly discussed first. Khoikhoi 10:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
obvious omissions are rectified as and when necessary..may i humbly remind you to practise what you preach..you dont have a consensus to remove kosovo precedent...what do you gain by hiding the prime reason for "russia's international recognition"? i hope you are not a believer of nato nations' propaganda...i hope you can tolerate truth better..rectifying the glaring omission as it it is cited ..double standards?? you call your reversion as "consensus"-hypocrisy?? Cityvalyu (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Cityvalyu, if there's a stable (more or less) version then you need a consensus to change it. Alæxis¿question? 11:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there was a ever a clear consensus to add this information. I don't see why it needs to be mentioned in such detail, we already have a main article for that, don't we? The information about international recognition can all be mentioned in more detail on that page, this article should mainly serve as a summary. And I am not a believer in any type of propaganda, we must both respect NPOV and try to come to an agreement before we drastically change the shape of this article. Khoikhoi 11:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
NATO propaganda people dont have a consensus to revert back to an ignorant, naive, biased, unbalanced, (and wp:undue georgia/nato propaganda importance) violating article version too ... if georgian propaganda and nato propaganda and insignificant NATO opinions(is usa a neighbour? or is it god father?!!) can sneak in, then why must balanced, referenced, neutral and important content be left out..?Cityvalyu (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but can you please outline your specific concerns about this article rather than labeling other users "NATO propaganda people"? Khoikhoi 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly right. People are making huge and very questionable changes without discussion and consensus. I reverted this to last stable version.Biophys (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I reject the use of the term "international community" in the article. International Community "is a vague term": "States thus often refer to 'the will of the international community' to strengthen their own point of view, while in reality they are referring to the will of a small group of states or even only themselves." Since the term is meaningless and self-serving, we need to replace it with something more precise. -- NonZionist (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
changed to "nato nations, osce chairman , european council".."many" changed to "some" till 50 nations or more oppose..Cityvalyu (talk)

recognition

It is incorrect to say that ALL countries in the United Nations consider South Ossetia to be in the Territorial Integrity of Georgia. The position of the United Nations is that its members agree to respect the Territorial Integrity of every country. This Territorial Integrity does not hold a higher status than the right to Self Determination of peoples within national territory. Tommyxx (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


About recognition. I think that all information about recognition have to be presented in wikipedia. Belarus plan to recognize this country [1], so it is necessary to add this information in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, but now I do not want to register. There are the hot news [2]. UN member Nicaragua have recognized Abhazia and S.Osetia. So,somebody who is registered user of Wikipedia, please delete this sentence "No other UN member state recognises Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states." and add information about nicaraguan recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1228082.html
  2. ^ http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/229515,nicaragua-joins-russia-in-recognizing-south-ossetia-abkhazia.html
ip address concern rectified..dubious phrase removed ..see edit summary named(nicaragua recognised)Cityvalyu (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:point and wp:undue violations

  1. no mention of kosovo precedent
  2. no mention of stalin's move to forcefully integrate abkhazianSSR to his native geoergia
  3. NO MENTION OF georgia's unilateral act of abolishing autonomy
  4. rights of abkhazian people to determine their future as enshrined in un resolutions consciously omitted Cityvalyu (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. The Rabid nationalism in Georgia at the time that Abkhazia declared independence.
  6. The Georgian government of the time trying to shut down the only university in Abkhazia because "Abkhazian's don't need a University".Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Typical Russian nationalistic agit-prop:
  1. Kosovo should be mentioned#It was Stalin who detached Abkhazia from Georgia after the invasion and partition of the country in 1921. And Stalin's native country was the Russian Empire, FYI.
  2. Georgia has never abolished Abkhaz autonomy. That's ignorance.
  3. The rabid nationalism in Abkhazia when Georgia declared independence.
  4. No. The Georgians wanted to open a separate Georgian university while keeping an Abkhaz one. The Abkhaz nationalists opposed it because "Georgians in Abkhazia don't need a university" and looted the school which was to accommodate a new Georgian university.--KoberTalk 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
KoberStalin's native country was no more the Russian Empire than James Joyce's native country was the British Empire. Native country in English usage never refers to political empires, but denotes a specific geographical area. Stalin was born in the Тифлисская губернiя of the R.Empire, the Tbilisi governerate was a Georgian area. Universally in the biographical literature he is referred to as a 'Georgian' because his father was a Georgian and Georgian was his first language.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In the current version of the article, Kosovo and Stalin are both mentioned: Does this mean that the dispute has been resolved?-- NonZionist (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
stalin's georgian origin and beria's georgian ethnicity weeded out..so not resolvedCityvalyu (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Both the Stalin and Beria articles indicate Georgian ancestry. However, I don't see what context permits mention of that ancestry HERE. Without an RS, it would be OR to state that Stalin's ancestry was his reason for annexing Abkhazia to Georgia, and I don't see what other bearing that ancestry has. -- NonZionist (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
What is meant by the abolition of autonomy? -- the 1992 constitutional change? Please elaborate (here in talk) and provide a source. The role of nationalism, I think, should be addressed or assessed -- nationalism on both sides -- along with the role of economics, if WP:RS sources can be found. Tell me why the information belongs here, instead of in Georgian-Abkhaz conflict.-- NonZionist (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Abkhazia unilaterally proclaimed independence after independent Georgia abolished Abkhaz autonomy reference: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9479/abkhaz.html Cityvalyu (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think this source meets WP:RS. The only possibly RS source Google turns up is this: http://www.springerlink.com/index/kwpn8u41x2577026.pdf
CHAPTER IV: TOLERANCE, NEUTRALITY AND GROUP RIGHTS
Thus, for example, Georgia revoked the autonomy of Abkhasia and Ossetia and Serbia the ... In addition to abolishing the. requirement to translate laws into ...
-- NonZionist (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


It seems like the university conflict is addressed in 1989 Sukhumi riots, the neutrality of which is not questioned (no tags). -- NonZionist (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not 'de facto independent' but 'partially recognized'

A country is not a 'de facto independent' since at least one other state of UN recognizes its sovereignity, but 'de jure' independent state. This is an international Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia were recognized by a UN member Russian Federation. Here is a quote from the 'de facto' article of Wikipedia: '...a nation with de facto independence, like Somaliland, is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory.' We may use the 'partially recognized' characteristic as appropriate both here and in South Ossetia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.148.66 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Soviet constitution

Article says:

Invoking the right of secession under an interpretation of Articles 70 and 72 of the USSR Constitution,[14] in 1992 the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia.

The way this is worded suggests that there was such a right under the USSR constitution, when a reasonable interpretation of the document does not support that view. The quoted articles, 70:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.

and 72:

Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

(Quoted from reference cited in article, namely this.)

Now, article 70 says nothing specifically about secession. At best, one could argue that the principles such as "free self-determination" and "voluntary association" imply a right to secession, but that is very arguable. As to article 72, it explicitly mentions the right of secession, but specifically for Union Republics, not ASSRs such as Abkhazia. So, Abkhazia has no right to succeed under article 72; and article 70 nowhere mentions a right to secession. In fact, one could argue, that insofar as article 70 implies a right to secession, that implied right is expressed by article 72; the fact that a right to secession is mentioned for Union Republics, but not for ASSRs, can be taken to mean that ASSRs had no such right under the Soviet consitution.

-No one denies that abkhazia did not have the right to secede from the USSR under article 72. However, the interpretation is based on the fact that Abkhazia was from 1917 to 1931 a SSR, and did have the right to secede legally from the USSR, up until 1931. Stalin took this right away from the Abkhazian people, without their consultaion. This is more than Kosovo ever had, as far as I know, they never had the right legally for independence. Also, Abkhazia and South Ossetia lived as separate subjects under the russian empire for centuries prior to being incorporated into Georgia in 1931.Guitar3000 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Of course, I am assuming through all of this the English translation referenced above is reasonably accurate, since I don't speak Russian. But, since this translation was published in 1985 by a Soviet publisher, I assume that amounts to official endorsement by the Soviet government.)

So, here we have an article, claiming that the Soviet constitution says things which it doesn't appear to say, and not even referencing who makes these claims. So I think this sentence has to go. --SJK (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also questioned this change, and I agree with you. I've restored the original wording. Khoikhoi 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
since the removed text depicts the position accurately without ambiguity (see:Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.), may i point out to kho khoi that he lacks the consensus to change the long standing "status quo"..i oppose the removal of referenced consensus text UNILATERALLY(vandalism?)..Shall restore status quo till consensus is arrived at talk page..Cityvalyu (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't the status quo, as I've pointed out, it was only changed very recently. "Practice what you preach". ;-) Khoikhoi 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


This is the article from the 1990 USSR law on secession (and my approximate translation of it) and not from the 1977 Constitution. Indeed according to this law a separate referendum had to be held in an autonomous republic if its parent union republic wished to secede from USSR. Alæxis¿question? 07:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The link you give above for the USSR law on secession returns an error on my computer. Could you please check and correct the link to this important document? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Corrected. Here's another link to the external site. Alæxis¿question? 06:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Great. Many thanks. --Zlerman (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia's (latest) declaration of independence upon which Medvedev extended his recognition dates to 1999. I don't think that any of the Soviet legal acts was valid at that time. --KoberTalk 13:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think between 1992-1999, Abkhazia's constitutional status (from its own perspective) was quite confused. I don't know whether it considered itself independent. The UN secretary general reports say that Abkhazia did not consider itself to have any constitutional links to Georgia. We would have to have a look whether its parliament passed any relevant acts during or shortly after the war. sephia karta 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That's why I'm opposed to mentioning all these legalistic claims and counter-claims in the lead section. --KoberTalk 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abkhazia/Archive_3&oldid=1140384548"