Talk:Abkhazia conflict

Moral losses?

What's a "moral loss," as referred to in the intro? Was that supposed to say "morale loss," or was some other meaning intended? Just wondering, as it's currently unclear. --Parakkum 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be a literal translation from the Russian "моральный ущерб" which, I believe, means "humiliation". --Bakken Aug. 1, 2006

Ah, thanks. I'm going to try to clarify that as "psychological damage" then. Right now, an English speaker's going to have trouble with it. --Parakkum 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Small Question

I have a small problem with the article. At the end of the second paragraph of the subtitle called 'History of the Conflict', there is a word 'boevysk'. I cannot find any information about this word. I think there can be some transliteration problem while transliterating it from Russian or Georgian or Abkhaz language to Latin alphabet. Also if there is an information about this word in the article, it would be better. If someone helps me, I will be happy. I'm also interesting in Caucasian politics and Georgia specifically. I hope in near future I will make some contributions to the articles related with Georgia. Thanks for those who involved in the creation of this article. [User: anil erdinc] 8 June 2006 11:50 UTC +2

Hi. "boyevik" is a Russian word for "militant" or "fighter" sometimes used in modern English to denote the members of rebel or unlawful military formations. --Kober 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kober [User: anil erdinc] 8 June 2006 22:05 UTC +2

On reworking the article

The article as it now is presents the war and all the major events related in chronological order. However this doesn't promote the understanding of the causes of the conflict and doesn't give any clue for the stance of the parties and the role of foreign mediators. I believe that new sections should be created under the titles "Conflict Mediation", and a short "Profile of the parties" as well as a description of the "Current 2006 situation" regarding the conflict settlement. Donnerstag 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A new section on the Abkhaz side

In order to make it more expanatory, I have tried to summarize ideas expressed from some international scholars here:

The Abkhaz Side For the Abkhaz side collective memories of suppression from Georgian during the Soviet rule, cooperation of Georgian elements with Russian oppressions in 19th century and more importantly the element of fear that has survived after the Stalinist policies of Georgianization justify a tendency for demands of full independence.

The maximal—and the only expressed—claim of the Abkhaz people is secession or full independence. The solution they propose is that of two sovereign states. The status of the relations with Georgia, are not clear in their proposals, but the minimum requirement of any solution is the guarantee of independence (Cornell, 2002). Back in 1991, in one of the last attempts for power sharing before the armed clashes begun, a new electoral law on the allocation of seats in the Abkhaz parliament was accepted by Abkhaz leaders and Gamsakhurdia, but soon failed. The attempt failed then because both sides never abandoned the aspiration of monopoly of control over the territory of Abkhazia. Georgians justified their claims as that of the democratic majority; Abkhazians used the argument of autochthony and the need to correct the historical injustice, to justify their claims. Gamsakhurdia never truly believed in the arrangement but accepted it in order to close an open front and concentrate his efforts on the conflict with South Ossetia. The Abkhaz authorities accepted it is a concession giving further rights to their ethnic group (Coppieters, 2001).

Both Abkhaz government and opposition oppose any reunification with Georgia under any circumstances. To them the only plausible solutions would be either full independence or at other times associate membership of the Russian Federation. Since October 1999 when they declared their independence they haven’t moved from that position. In unofficial discussions reported by Coppieters, Kovziridze and Uwe (2003) Abkhaz leaders expressed their preference for a model of distribution of competences based on the sovereignty of the units, something like the association of the Marshall Islands with the United States, that would provide Abkhazia with full international legal personality and the right to secession. In the discussions, “some Abkhaz expressed the opinion that democratization—not reunification with Georgia—was the first priority for Abkhazia. Such a reunification was viewed as rendering the task of democratization more difficult” (Coppieters, Kovziridze and Uwe, 2003). Some Abkhaz officials supported the idea that declaring independence was the last resort as the Abkhaz proposals before and after the war were met with a counterproductive stance by Georgia.

Footnotes

1. Coppieters, Bruno, Kovziridze Tamara and Leonardy, Uwe. (2003), “Federalization of Foreign Relations: Discussing Alternatives for the Georgian Abkhaz Conflict, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Caspian Studies Program, Working Paper Series, No. 2.
2. Coppieters, Bruno. (2001), “Federalism and Conflict in the Caucasus”, Central Asian and Caucasian Prospects, Royal Institute of International Affairs.
3. Cornell, E. S. (2002), “Autonomy as a source of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Pespective”. World Politics, p. 245-76

Please tell me your suggestions or corrections. Donnerstag 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Abkhaz side juridically justified Abkhaz independance with mainly these two lines of thought:

- Soviet law actually granted entities such as Abhazia souvereignity upon Georgian declaration of independance. When Georgia did so, Abkhazia decided to stay inside the Soviet Union, as a full union republic, and when the SU was disbanded, Abkhazia automatically became independant.

Complete falsehood. I have studied Soviet Constitution during my studies at York. There is no single chapter on self determination by Autonomies (both republic or "oblast"). Only Soviet Socialist Republics had right to hold a referendum and determine the question of sovereignty or independence. Abkhazia has never been a Soviet Socialist Republic. She had no rights based on Soviet constitution to separate from the Soviet Republic of Georgia (CCP Gruzija). Many times Soviet leadership tried to change that article in Soviet constitution in favour of autonomies self determination but they failed to do so due to many factors (both juridical and political). Please don’t mislead the public and maintain NPOV. Noxchi Borz 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

- Georgian parliament declared that all treaties, laws and agreements made during Soviet rule were null and void. Abkhazia however was not subordinated to Georgia until 1931, it had previously been of the same status as Georgia. Thus Georgia's cancelling of all Soviet laws automatically left Abkhazia legally outside Georgia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.157.44.34 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 February 2006.

Very well. We should mention that in the justifications for independence. It sounds pretty accurate. But do you know of any reference on this (online or text, doesn't matter) so that we can give a citation? Donnerstag 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've only got a link to that law, unfortunately not from a neutral site: http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/ussr_law.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.157.44.34 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 February 2006.

It seems accurate. I did a google search, see http://www.c-r.org/accord/nk/accord17/d05.shtml -Donnerstag 12:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

More references for future use

1. BBC News. (2005), “Regions and Territories: Abkhazia”. <www.newsvote.bbc.co.uk>
2. Black, J. L. (2004), “Vladimir Putin and the New World Order: Looking East, Looking West?” Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., Oxford, U.K.
3. Caucaz Europe News, (2005), “Timeline of the Presidential election of Abkhazia in October 2004. <www.caucaz.com>.
4. Chauffour, Célia and Francois Gremy. (2005), “Abkhazia is too frequently regarded as a devoted Russian doll” Caucaz Europe News. <www.caucaz.com>.
5. Chauffour, Célia. (2005), “Abkhazia: Victory of the frontrunner Sergey Bagapsh on the elections held on January 12th, 2005”. Caucaz Europe News. On 13/01/2005 <www.caucaz.com>.
6. Cornell Caspian Consulting. (2002), “The South Caucasus: A Regional Overview and Conflict Assessment, Conflict and Security Assessment”.
7. Evers, Frank. (2003), “Mission Information Package South Caucasus”, Centre for OSCE Research, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg.
8. Goor, Luc, Van de and Martina Huber. (2002), eds, “Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention: Concept and Practise, CPN Yearbook 2000/01, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden.
9. Hewitt, George. “Post-war Developments in the Georgian-Abkhazian Dispute”.
10. International Security Network, (2005), “ISN Security Watch January 2005”.
11. MacFarlane, Neil, S. (1999), “The Southeast European Challenge: Ethnic Conflict and the International Response” / Hans-Georg Ehrhart, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verl. Ges.
12. ---. (2002), “Reassessing Conflicts in the Caucasus Region”. Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention.
13. Mackinlay, John and Cross, Peter. (2003), “Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping, United Nations University Press
14. Sabanadze, Natalie. (2002), “International Involvement in the South Caucasus”, European Centre for Minority Issues, Working Paper # 15.
15. Socor, Vladimir., (2004), “From Geneva to Sochi to Dead End in Abkhazia”, Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 1, Issue 81, September 09, 2004, Jamestown Foundation.
16. Stewart, Susan. (2003), “The role of the United Nations in the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict”, Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention.
17. UNOMIG. (2005), “Statement for the Press High-level meeting of the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General”, Geneva, 7-8 April 2005. <www.unomig.org/press/050408/main.asp
18. ---. (2005), “United Nations Involvement”, Online background note. <www.unomig.org>

Donnerstag 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

not a word about involvement of Basayev?

His article said it was "crucial".

we'll get there. We will slowly add more info on the subject. Thanks for reminding. Please review the article soon. This article missed many crutial parts. Thanks again. Ldingley 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it should be noted somewhere the Georgians were the majority ethnic group in Abkhazia. --HanzoHattori 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is being edited by Donnestag, Kober and me. We will add more info as time will allow. Please do not remove reliable data from the article. If you wish to contradict the claims made in the article, please state your arguments backed up by reliable sources (primary and secondary) or/and applicable documents. Let’s keep this article as NPOV and avoid any POV statements or changes. Thanks in advance Ldingley 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about?

What is "not NPOV"? Wiki-linking words? Or maybe calling a paramilitary fighters by name, instead of "civilians"? (If so, do you mean civilians mentioned later among casaulties all meant a guys with grenades and machine guns?) Please explain. --HanzoHattori 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, a militia would be possibly a better name - with paramilitaries reserved to, well, a paramilitary supporters of Shevardnadze (if that's what you meant, because I honestly have no idea - are you guarding your vision of this article like this from everyone?). --HanzoHattori 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you please review all Wikipedia guidlines, especially NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and POV sections (Personal Point of View) and go by the pillars of Wikipedia. You are stating POV claims (without using any reliable sources). Where are your sources for such claims? Those are your POV opinions, which are not suitable or exactable for any Wikipedia article. Do not change any info based on un-sources, POV, biased claims which contradicts Wikipedia rule on NPOV. Also please review 3RR rule which limits you to only 3 rv a day, otherwise you will be locked out for 24 hours. Ldingley 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. WHAT "POV claims"? That civilian is "any person who is not a combatant"? That's what you mean? That the Georgian civilians in Abkhazia (Abkhaz and the Confederation forces launched a full-scale attack on Sokhumi resulting in large destruction and casualties among the civilians, twice) were in fact armed soldiers? In other words: are you insane? -- HanzoHattori 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd advice you to be more constructive in the discussion and not to attack other users.--Kober 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The distinction of civilians is they are protected in the war because THEY DON'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS. They're not soldiers, paramilitaries, militiants, policemen, armed rebels, terrorists, even armed criminals, nothing, they are CIVILIANS, non-combatants in times of war. Guys in civilian clothes who don't fight. I can't be more clear on this. I don't know, maybe in Georgia "civilian" means something else, like a "light machinegun crew member doubling as a grenadier", but would you just stick to the international meaning? Also, what wrong is in changing "ethnic conflict" to "ethnic conflict" and such, I'd really like to know what's your problem. --HanzoHattori 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't belive that HanzoHattori is informed enough to make changes in this article. Dear friends, rv his changes on this article ASAP. Sosomk 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Dear "friends of Sosomk", the armed people on the photo are not captioned "civilians" anymore! Changes this ASAP! --HanzoHattori 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Profile of the Parties

There must be a short outline of both Abkhaz and Georgian profiles. The previous one was full of POVs. Please make your suggestions before i draft the outline. Thanks Ldingley 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism, POV rv, etc

User:Ghirlandajo Do not vandalize the article due to unfound claims of “nationalist POV.” If you believe so, please use this talk page and present your claims in civilized manner with reliable sources (primary source and secondary source), references, citations or historic documents. Please review the bibliography of the article. Do not use Abkhazia.org as source or any material from the conflicting side. The article is under heavy re-work and most of the materials and info is taken from sources mentioned in Bibliography. The proper citations will be added soon. Do not disturb this process and instead of vandalizing, help out and co-operate. Due to the nature of you being Russian, you have yoru won POV which is unsuitable for Wikipedia NPOV policy. However, it is most important to work and co-operate with any Wiki user and it would be more constructive then vandalistic rv. Start gathering sources and materials and you may change anything you want according to fair NPOV stand. Im looking forward to work with you and co-operate in order to complete this article successfully. Ldingley 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review the Bibliography and sources:

• Chervonnaia, Svetlana Mikhailovna. Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Russian Shadow. Gothic Image Publications, 1994.
• Andersen, Andrew. "Russia Versus Georgia: One Undeclared War in the Caucasus." Published October 2001.
• Lynch, Dov. The Conflict in Abkhazia: Dilemmas in Russian 'Peacekeeping' Policy. Royal Institute of International Affairs, February 1998.
• Marshania L. Tragedy of Abkhazia Moscow, 1996
• White Book of Abkhazia. 1992-1993 Documents, Materials, Evidences. Moscow, 1993.
• Heathe Blair. Ethnic Conflict as a Tool of Outside Influence: An Examination of Abkhazia and Kosovo. Yett Publishing, 2001
• Amy McCallion, Abkhazian Separatism, New York, 1999

Luis, are the numbers of casualties correct? I'm not sure but as far as I remember Georgian government estimates the Abkhaz casulaties at 4,000 and Georgian at 10,000.--Kober 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you see i searched for a long time about the true estimates. 10,000 dead was reported just after September 27, 1993. Until 2006, this conflict took away the lives of 30,000 (including Gali offensive, kidnapping, killings in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, etc). Some sources say, 25,000, some 30,000 and others still use old figures of 10,000. Abkhaz side lost 2,500 as I found in Chervonnaia book. Abkhaz separatist web sites claim ridiculous numbers. However, you might be right on 4,000 casualties. Please change it and I’ll search more. Ldingley 15:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Marshania (BTW an Abkhaz) states: The ethnic-cleansing of Georgians is conducted in the most brutal way. The number of civilian casualties and lost without trace goes over 20,000 to say nothing of those wounded, tortured, raped and robbed. 240,000 had been exiled from their dwellings.

However, the refugee organization IAC Abkhazeti, claims 30,000 www.abkhazeti.ru

What do you think? should be change the number to 10,000 of geo dead(announced by Geo govenrment after fall of Sukhumi) and 4,000 abkhaz dead? Ldingley 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Luis. I might be mistaken. How about to put the figures this way: Geo casualties 10,000-30,000; Abkh 2,500-4,000? Once there was a separate section on the conflict zones on Government of Georgia website, and there is now nothing but an "under construction" note. --Kober 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea Mr Kober :) Thanks, I'll do that. Ldingley 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are rewriting the article, please refrain from using biased language and clean up it whenever possible. Please also refrain from attacking other editors. `'mikka (t) 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr Mikkalai, I’m warning your friend Girla, he made a personal attack against me which was witnessed by other users. I would ask you to also refrain from POV pushing on Georgia related articles (I have noticed you did that before) and respect NPOV pillar. Nobody was attacking editors; Girla made a personal attack and vandalized the article. Please maintain NPOV, and if you want to contest any statement made in the article, first use the talk page with citations and sources. Do not warn people on things which you violate. All the best. Ldingley 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

the fact that someone attacked you does not mean you have rights to atack them back.

As for contesting, colleague, you got it all wrong: it is you who has to prove the correctness of the statements by backing bthem with independent sourses when contested. `'mikka (t) 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend, you never used any sources or have backed up your claims and edits by any reliable reference. I always used reliable sources, and I have never attacked anyone. Please indicate a single sentence were I made a personal attack. Please review the Bibliography and sources which are used by the article. Also, please stop pushing your POVs on many Georgia related articles. Do you have any hidden national agenda on Wikipedia? If not, please let’s maintain NPOV and avoid any conflicts. It’s better to co-operate and work together rather then blaming and attacking senselessly. All the best dear colleagueLdingley

Dear friends, User:Ghirlandajo's attacks are not acceptable. No justification for covering up the reality. Georgians from Abkhazia lost everything morally and physically. Abkhazs and Russians ethnically cleansed not only ethnic Georgians, but all the other etnithities such as Greeks, Jews and etc. This was an act of facism, which has no justification. Those Georgians are considered refugees in their homeland. They lost everything: their homes, reatives, their ancestors graves and erc. User:Ghirlandajo might be very proud of his Cossacks, but this does not justify what they did in Abkhazia. If somebody thinks that the edit is necessary, please discuss it with me, Ldingley and User:Kober. Sosomk 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

soviet government

the claim that soviet government inflamed the conflict is not a piece of trivia. First, it must be more detailed. Second, it must be backed by examples and references. `'mikka (t) 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure Mikhail, I agree with you. But before removing please consult other users. reference on Soviet involvment: Chervonnaia, Svetlana Mikhailovna. Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Russian Shadow. Gothic Image Publications, 1994, pages, 24-7, also p.65, 72

It would be more productive if we worked together and reviewed the sources also together.

p.s I welcome your edits and your help! Ldingley 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not exactly interested in this topic or familiar with it. (In fact, I am not interested in any politics) I am merely pointing you at some glaring problems seen in the article at the very first glance. `'mikka (t) 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail, make changes and fix the glaring problems. You only meke it better. I don't like politics too, but I did lots of research on Post Soviet conflicts. I'll do my best to fix the glaring problems but I can't do it alone. Ldingley 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative facts require reference

All sentences about executions and atrocities must be backed by references. You promised to provide references, I know. Please start from these. `'mikka (t) 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Sir! I'll do as you said. I agree, all talk about executions, atrocities, etc, must have references. That’s why i tagged the article. Ldingley 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley 's citations are amazing! I am just wondering why do we have to cite every single sentence, when the Russian articles tell lies. mikka, I would advise to you that you go ahead and cite the articles about Russia. Sosomk 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Roots of the conflict

The article now occurs biased because it says nothing about real roots of the conflict. I don't know anything, but frankly I don't believe that the main reason was pure separatism and Soviet manipulation. Usually all these stories are rooted in real or perceived discrimination of a minority. The article bypasses this issue completely. I am repeating: "real or perceived". `'mikka (t) 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you find a source about "minority discrimination" in Abkhazia before the war, you are welcome to edit the root cause. From all sources which I have researched, I found: 1. There was no ethnic hatred, bad blood between Georgians-Abkhaz before Soviets established their rule in Georgia. The problem started with the issue of separatism and further escalated into violent separatism. Before you say biased, please tell us how biased it is and what sources say otherwise. Ldingley 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was reluctant to be involved here, but sorry man, you did your homework poorly. There was political discrimination. It looks like you have been reading mostly Russophobic sources, which is probably not your fault. `'mikka (t) 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but you make empty accusations against me. All of my sources are reliable and mainly western. Please refrain from attacking me based on your opposing views on the topic and respect NPOV. Also review sources which are available and based on proper research make additional changes and edits on Abkhazia related articles. I will keep monitoring your changes in order to comply with Wiki rules on NPOV Ldingley 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW i was in Abkhazia prior, during and after the conflict. Please stop making insults and review Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks. Ldingley 21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "it is not your fault". Of course Western sources tend to be russophobic. BTW, judging from your temper, I woud think that you are rather Tengiz than Luis. Chill. `'mikka (t) 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen Mikhail, please refrain from POV statements and violating NPOV. Nobody in Tbilisi was protesting for dissolution of Abkhaz autonomy, also what nationalists? The ones who were massacred by Soviet army on April 9 and most of these massacred were 17 year old woman? This is not a place for Russian propaganda. I want to ask you again to maintain NPOV, research the topic well and present sources to support your claims. So far, you have failed to provide any source, reference and based on your edits its an obvious that you only intend to manipulate data and implement your POVs. Your comments will be rmeoved. Please see the tag aboveLdingley 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail, thats a personal attack: "judging from your temper, I woud think that you are rather Tengiz than Luis" Ldingley 22:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that calling you Tengiz is an insult? `'mikka (t) 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"What nationalists?" Georgian ones, which demanded secession from USSR. Just like Abkhazian ones demandes secession from Gerogia. Now, how about a little NPOV here? `'mikka (t) 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also please stop acting like a cry-baby. I am not sayin anything about your numerous accusations of me pushing Russian POV. How funny to read them after reading some Russian complaining to another: "Why this Mikka is a Russophobe? Is he a Pole or what?" `'mikka (t) 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reworking

Well, I'd ask all users to maintain a sort of status quo here until we find a final way how to develop the article. Let's discuss even a single word before its inclusion in the text. Ldingley has got a plenty of resources and documents related to the conflict and I think he is the best authority here on this particular issue.

I'd like also to remind our Russian colleagues that this is a very sensitive area and it would be really great if they refrain from posting the comments that are offensive to Georgians.--Kober 05:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

very bad

"A Russophobic LDingley aggressively pushes his POV in Georgian-Abkhaz conflict despite myself being exceptionally mild with my changes after ghirla asked me to keep an eye. Judging from his swinging hot temper I start suspecting that he is in fact a sock of a Georgian nationalist, contrary to the photo in his user page."

Very wrong thing to write: "swinging hot temper I start suspecting that he is in fact a sock of a Georgian nationalist " Also "Tengiz rather than Luis." Meaning, all georgians are hot tempered, ill behaved, and therefore damn Gruzin! This is definitely a national insults to Georgian users of Wikipedia. A typical discriminatory remark makes me assume that our common friend Mikahil is not that mild as he perceives. Now how do we at Wikipedia treat national Discrimination, personal attacks (please quote even one sentence where im being Russo phobic), personal insults (I'm turns out to be a Georgian nationalist sock) and violation of NPOV policy? Ldingley 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No I am not mild and I despise personally you regardless your nationality, but nevertheless I did not revert your contributions by a single hit of the button. And yes, your behavior reminds me quite a several exceptionally aggressive Georgians I've seen here. And no I did not suspect that you are a hot-tempered Italian or Lebanese, guess why? And the keyword here is "hot tempered" not "georgian", so your "national discrimination" is a red herring.

And your Russophobia is displayed by stubborn revert war with all edit comments kind of "rv Russian POV", as if Russian POV is something so evil that must be reverted on sight without any discussion of its merits. If it is not Russophobia then I am ballerina assoluta. `'mikka (t) 16:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's take an example, Tbilisi demonstrations. OK. I made an incorrect phrasing saying something to the end that "Georgians protested against Abkhazian autonomy". If you are so a great expert, why didn't you simply correct the phrase saying that "Georgians protested against Likhny Declaration"? But instead you demonsrated an expertise in handling the "revert button" only. `'mikka (t) 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that pointing out to Russian POV makes someone Russophobic. Please don't misuse this word. There're only a few Georgian users on wiki, and I'd like to know where you have met "several exceptionally aggressive Georgians" here. Or is this just you labeling someone who disagrees with you? Also, I'd ask you not to call Georgians who demanded the withdrawal from the USSR nationalists. Kind regards, --Kober 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No of course not, "pointing out" is OK. But reverting several contributions on sight with the sole comment that it is "Russian POV" is surely a demonstartion of anti-Russian sentiment. Also didn't it occurred to you why my edits were not labelled as "Abkhazian POV"? The nearest explanation at hand is that to our colleague self-proclaimed expert the "Abkhazian POV" simply does not exist (at least his "extensive research" did not find any traes of it), so the nearest swear word at hand was "Russian POV". The funniest thing is that my anti-Russian addition (in the ""Current status" section about Russia's violations) was also reverted as "Russian POV". If you see any other explanation other than blindness due to Russophobic/mikkaphobic rage (btw I am not Russian), you are welcome to be a public defender. `'mikka (t) 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Georgians": no problemo, just don't call Abkhazians nationalists as well. Nery nice intepretation of "NPOV" you have here as I see. `'mikka (t) 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you introduced the noble words "Georgian anti-Soviet opposition". Did it ever occur to you that the government of Georgia at these times (1980s) were staunch communists as well? And that "Abkhazian nationalists" were just the same "anti-Communist opposition", opposing to communists on republican level? Also I would suggest someone to count former members of Communist party in governments of all post-Soviet states (with the exception of Baltic States). You will be quite surprized. `'mikka (t) 17:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Most Abkhaz who signed the Lykhny declaration supported the Soviet Union because Georgians opposed it. That's why many Georgians viewed them as the fifth columnists. And I don't appreciate your cynic tone. If you are not able to engage in a normal conversation, I'll have no cease any discussion with you.--Kober 18:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK back to normal. I fail to see anything wrong in Abkhaz declaration within the context of the article. Throughout ages smaller entities sought protection from someone by sideing with some larger bullies. Abkhazians didn't like Georgian government's behavior and acted in their interests as they saw fit. BIG BOLD NOTE I have no idea about the history here. I am pointing out that the article is one big white spot with red blobs of blood. It reads as these bad bad Abkhazians backed by even bigger and badder Russia started massacring Georgians for no reason. I am well aware that Russia has live interests here, especially Georgia courting NATO, just like Russia has vested interests in, say, Transnistria, but again, this topic is not covered either. I am retiring from the aricle now. `'mikka (t) 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Mikka's and Irpen's efforts at bringing this page to normalcy. After a flood of Ldingley's edits, the page was ridiculously one-sided and read like an anti-Abkhazian slur by some very angry Georgian who is unable to change the situation. Such an article should be placed on Mr. Ssaskashvili's government site, but it's out of place in an encyclopaedia that professes to stick to neutrality. Pointing this out doesn't mean that you push "pro-Russian POV" and you should understand this, Kober. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You will hardly find any other article on Saakashvili's gov site except for the peaceful plan offered to Abkhazia and S. Ossetia and a breif description (quite neutral, btw) of these conflicts. I'm not his big fan, but I cannot understand your irrational disgust towards him. Do you really think he is something close to an apocalyptic beast as illustrated by Russian media? I'm ready to cooperate with you all, but I will never agree to omit even a single fact of ethnic cleansing of Georgians and Russian involvement in the conflict if they are properly referenced and written in an academic style. Most references on that are, however, Western, and mikka considers them Russophobic. So I see no way out of this.

I think the involvement of the third party is needed as I would hardly regard Russian users as a disinterested party in this particular issue. --Kober 04:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to absolotely refuse to read what I wrote:

• I did not delete anything what your buddy wrote, but your buddy did it to me quite persistently. The whole fuss was not because I deleted "even a single fact". I did delete a phrase or two (but not a single "fact"). But the article still contains lots of poetry suitable for a newspaper, but not for an encyclopedic article, which wait for proper cleanup.
• I am not a Russian.

"apocalyptic beast as illustrated by Russian media?" I suggest you to re-read his wikipedia article and count how many Russian wikipedians edited it. Russophobes will be surprized. `'mikka (t) 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

`'mikka (t) 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that you deleted something or you were a Rusiian. I just said that you considered Western sources Russophobic.--Kober 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"I despise personally you regardless your nationality" I can say the same, a person who results in personal attacks and insults, can not be serious or deserving respect. You haven't seen Scottish temper. BTW Do i also add Russophobic info on People of Ethiopia? I just created this article, maybe you should also edit it in respects with Soviet glorification? There is no point of me fighting here with you and try to convince you otherwise. The only way out as i see is to allow your edits under heavy monitoring of Kober and Khoikhoi. For every edit, provide source and reference. Things like Georgian nationalists (17 years old girls who were mercilessly slaughtered by soviet army) were protesting in Tbilisi on april 9 is unacceptable. However, I'm not going to be involved in this any more. It seems to me that some Russian users here joined up and disturb the work process on Wiki articles. I back down due to impossibility to hold a civilized conversation with you. You have insulted me and I don't want this to go on. So be fair, edit whatever you want, use sources, references and next time avoid personal attacks and insults Ldingley 19:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice flavor of NPOV we have here. "Georgian nationalists" is not OK but "Abkhazian nationalists" is just great. `'mikka (t) 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

mikka, why don't you stop making derogatory comments on wiki that Georgians are nationalists. Georgia is democratic country. In my opinion it is the most democratic country in the region and it is an example of democracy to whole Europe and Eurasia.

Abkhazs declared independence when there was a chaos in Georgia and basically thugs were controlling the country. The term anti-georgian discrimination is totally off the point. Georgian are not minority, they lived in Abkhazia for 4,000 years. Northern Caucasians are minorities there who somehow (of course with a big support of Russia) kicked out everybody except of Abkhazs and Russians. Thism however is a facism, so Georia is very democratic country where minorities have lots of rights. They also kicked out lots of Greeks and Jews from the region, so can totally call it Anti-Simetic and Anti-Greek facistic act. Another argument would be that if Georgians discriminate Northern Caucasians, why Gamsakhurdia supported Ichkeria? Obviously, it is a matter of politics and political ideology than the etnithity and ethnic ideology. Russian enjoyed watching Terrorists playing Soccer with the heads of dead Georgians. Sosomk 13:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I deny this commitment about dead Geos, we had a chaos in Russia that period - we were caring for noone, insane militarists. Alexandre Koriakine 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

merging anonim version

• defend their city -> defending the city

Defening is just better grammar, their somehow imply that it was not Abkhaz. That is POV

• unrecognized region -> unrecognized state

Abkazia is recognized as a Region it is not recognized as an independent state

• result of the Military conflict was a victory of separatists, recignition could not be obtained via military victory

I have removed the following phrase Russia's aim was to create a conflict moment in order to justify its army in the soviet republic and to keep Georgia away from its Pro-EU and Pro-US political purpose to have closer relations with West not with East (Russia)., since it looks like an ungrammatical POV rant, out of place in the article and having no sense in particular. abakharev 09:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex, you seem to be more netrual than others. How do you define a state? --Georgianis 11:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Gamsakhurdia never recognized Abkhazia's independence. In 1991, he concluded with Ardzinba and Co a power-sharing agreement that granted to ethnic Abkhazs more power in the autonomous structures. This change in the election law did not satisfy either Georgians (who were in majority and thus offended by the agreement) or Abkhaz. --Kober 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

By any means that "political construction" is not a state.--Georgianis 11:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

mistakes

Dear Alex, from where did you get this false information? "Abkhazian separatists supported Zviadists and Zviad Gamsakhurdia at that time recognized independence of Abkhazia " Can you please provide sources and references for such a claim? Also please try to gather all available sources from various documents and when adding something to the article, refer them in the Bibliography or Notes. Please consider to use both primary sources and secondary. I understand that this issue is very sensitive for Russians but trying to implement information which is far from reality is unacceptable for any user. Thanks a lot for your valuable contributions. Ldingley 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to be my mistake indeed. Though if somebody would write the story of the relations between Zviad/Dudaev/Abkhazian separatists it might helpabakharev 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

unrecognized region -> unrecognized state

I propose you the following formulation: "Unrecognized Abkhaz authorities".--Georgianis 07:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Title change: Georgian-Abkhaz conflict --> Russian-Georgian war in Abkhazia რჟხ

It's more WP:NPOV the title like this. Actually it's about the Russian-Georgian war in Abkhazia. In Georgia, Russian support for Abkhazian separatists and its manipulation of rebellious Georgian forces under former leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia brought President Eduard Shevardnadze to his knees and compelled him, in October, to join the CIS and, in early 1994, to sign a friendship treaty with Russia. The next wide-scaled bombings of Sukhumi by Russian military aircraft has happened on February 20-th, 1993. This coincides with the intensification of political fight for power between various parties in Tbilissi. The pretext of bombing was the next provocative cannonade by the forces of junta in direction of the military seismological laboratory of Russian troops in Eshera, near Sukhumi.--Georgianis 07:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"south Ossetia"

First bloody conflict between Georgians and Abkhazians, enflamed by Kremlin agents in soviet period (July 15th, 1989) soon was forgotten by both sides, until the bloody coup d'etat, inspired and organized by Moscow and it's emissary, Eduard Shevardnadze, happened in Georgia. --Georgianis 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazian war was unleashed by Shevardnadze "in coordination with Kremlin", as he stated by national TV in August 1992. The aim of Russia was strengthening it's military control on Black Sea shore, depriving Georgia it's north-western territory, whereas regime of Shevardnadze was striving to establish his totalitarian rule in Abkhazia and punishing it's Georgian population, 90% of which supported President Gamsakhurdia. By that reason Sukhumi was bombed by Shevardnadze's aircraft.--Georgianis 07:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, taking into account increasing imperial tendencies in Russia and interests of well-known destructive forces, trying to increase their influence in the region, situation can be become more and more dangerous and harmful to the western interests also. Similar tendencies in other former Soviet republics (i.e. in Azerbaijan) shows this evidently.--Georgianis 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"The War of Datchas"

The coast between Sochi (today in Russia) and Suchumi, the capital of Abkhasia, is full of sea-side resorts and beautifull long sand-strands - as well as datachas of former Soviet politicians and high military officers. Many of locally based Russian-generals disliked the idea of losing their possessions here, and this appears to have been one of main reasons for their support of Abkhasians in this conflict. This, in turn, is also the reason why the Abkhasian war against Georgia is sometimes called "The War of Datchas".Georgianis 07:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rise of racism and xenophobia

The war and the associated Caucasian terrorism in Russia resulted in growing intolerance and racist violence in Russia, directed in a great part against the people from Caucasus. Even while the Russian authorities are unlikely to label attacks on people with dark skin as racist, preferring calling this "hooliganism", a report in November 2005 found that murders officially classified as racist more than doubled in Russia between 2003 and 2004 from around 20 to at least 45.

A nationwide opinion poll in 2005 found that 61% of respondents approved of the "Russia for Russians" slogan, almost twice the 31% level recorded in 1998. [1] According to the 2006 poll by the Public Opinion Foundation, 12% of Russians see "positive ideas" in fascism; 24% think that people who hold fascist views do not constitute a danger to society. --Georgianis 09:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you mention this here, your xenoPOV. After kicking all russians from Georgia you telling that russians are too xenophobic. Russians are not more or less xenophobic than any other nations. But I expect even less than some nations, because we have more than a 100 nations living with peace in Russia. Alexandre Koriakine 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Blind revert

Alex, please just don't blind revert. Thank you. --Georgianis 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph I proposed you above for discussion.

At the same time, taking into account increasing imperial tendencies in Russia and interests of well-known destructive forces, trying to increase their influence in the region, situation can be become more and more dangerous and harmful to the western interests also. Similar tendencies in other former Soviet republics (i.e. in Azerbaijan) shows this evidently.

Please don't blind revert. --Georgianis 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"War and Secession" book

[moved to a subpage a few megabytes of text, pasted from an outside source] --Irpen 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The above text is from the War and Secession: A Moral Analysis of the Georgian–Abkhaz Conflict Coppieters, Bruno. You can buy online. -- Georgianis | (t) 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the megapaste from above to a subpage at Talk:Georgian-Abkhaz conflict/War and Secession. The reasons are explained at User talk:Georgianis#massive pasting. --Irpen 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You should read it since it's a great material. Of course it's presenting the "Georgian POV" in some view of other colleagues, that's why was moved in another place. It's too much offending for them. -- Georgianis | (t) 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I read it with the great interest and will read it again. However, you should learn to assume good faith. Your accusations of hidden motives over every action undermine your credibility. I explained the reason why this was moved at your talk page in a very detailed way. --Irpen 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

third-party

I totally agree with Kober: "I think the involvement of the third party is needed as I would hardly regard Russian users as a disinterested party in this particular issue." This has gone too far, and all thanks to some users who consider Western sources as Russophobic. I will contact User:Donnerstag, the original author of this article, also User:Khoikhoi and others to help out. Russian involvement seems conflicting due to political reality concerning Abkhazia and Russia. Therefore, this article will always suffer. I will contact other users for help. Thanks Kober. Ldingley 14:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW on September 14 (today) 1992, the war started in Abkhazia. Ldingley 14:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Luis proposed something really good here. However I would like to remind to our russians colleagues that "Georgian POV" is not a valid reason for revert. Thank you. --Georgianis 15:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I will also ask one Abkhaz (Timur Tshizba) I know online to be involved in this too. For adding anything to the article, one must back it up with sources and references. I asked Khoikhoi and Donnerstag for help. Thanks. Ldingley 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Georgianis I have to remove all materials which do not have sources. However, im very grateful for your contributions and hard work. Many thanks to you. Ldingley 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry, Equal treatment for all of us. --Georgianis 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies that I didn't help with the reworking but I have only limited free time now. Besides it took me some hours to understand what’s happening in the article. I think it’s sad that people get disappointed and quit. The main point is to present a well structured, well documented and informative article. We all have to benefit if we refrain from personal attacks. User mikka previously argued that the article is becoming one-sided or anti-Russian and pro-Georgian. Let’s not waste our time and energy in trying to reveal each other’s political affiliations/proclivities and focus on getting things done. A conflict that has claimed thousands of lives and still haunts the lives of people living in the region is too big an issue to be given less and worse coverage than any other topic on WP. Until then only O-Bahn Busway will make it to featured article. I feel I should thank Ldingley for his contributions and particularly for uploading his photos on Wikipedia. Let’s not criticize him before he finishes his work. Generally speaking the article has obviously improved over the last months. A remaining problem is that the discussion looks haphazard and incoherent, perhaps even more than before, possibly because of the many edits, additions and reverts. Of course more cited material is needed so I don’t say we should stop editing. My idea is that a consensually agreed structure and a specific WP: to-do list where everyone can sign up next to what is doing, would help much in avoiding deadlocks and preventing revert wars. In this way everybody who feels strongly about the issue should concentrate his/her efforts on compiling citations and documentation for his point of view. Since there are probably three or more point of views on the issue we will need at least three separate sections.I will now work in the direction of agreeing a structure for the article. Best Regards, Donnerstag 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BRAVO! Finally a truly constructive approach. Dear Donnerstag, remove any material which is un-sources, or poses POV. Im ready and looking forward working with you to improve this article. Many thanks for you aid in the time of need. All the best. Ldingley 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for coming Donnerstag. I proposed above some issues. Maybe you can look at them. Actually I see this more like Russian-Georgian war rather than Abkhaz-Georgian conflict. Why? Because Abkhazians are just 200-250,000 and were largely supported by Russia who was behind this scenario. -- Georgianis | (t) 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the below lines express very much the cruel reality, so it's not about any Georgian-POV here, even if "Georgian POV" is not a valid reason for revert. Thank you.

At the same time, taking into account increasing imperial tendencies in Russia and interests of well-known destructive forces, trying to increase their influence in the region, situation can be become more and more dangerous and harmful to the western interests also. Similar tendencies in other former Soviet republics (i.e. in Azerbaijan) shows this evidently. Georgianis | (t) 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Irpen's blind revert

I don't support such a blind revert. My arguments are:

• we should keep only what is official here, that means a NPOV version: to say that "correcting the misleading caption one more time, it was the city of many ethnicities not just "their" as implied in caption, if rephrased, make sure the meaning is preserved" [2] is very POV. What do you mean? That this city is not part of Georgia or what? It is. So, if it is that means that "Georgian residents of Sukhumi defending the city, 1993" is very correct.

I will support only this formulation: Georgian residents of Sukhumi defending the city, 1993 It's about their country, their city.

• Irpen shows that he's just blind reverting. He came here to be edit-worrior.

Georgianis | (t) 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please remove the whole copy-pasted chunk as I explained to you at your talk. This is extremely disruptive. Provide a link to the source or, if there is none, say so, and we can move it to a sub-page.

Second, avoid inflammatory section headings as well as the edit summaries.

Third, the caption implied that Sukhumi was a Georgian city. In fact, it was a multi-ethnic city and you know that well. I beleive that those residents pictured are from Sukhumi but the city was no more "there" than of the other ethnicities that lived there for a very long time. As such, the caption was misleading and I corrected it. --Irpen 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First, till now, I've seen only your edit summaries that are inflamatory.

Second, you try to imply that Sukhumi is not a Georgian city. Well, in which country is it? Is it in Ukraine? No. It's in Georgia. So, as long it's official in Georgia that means it's a Georgian city and Georgians are defending their city not another city, but their city. As such, your caption was misleading and must be corrected. -- Georgianis | (t) 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Third, don't blind revert and here. I asked nice and I post even here a post which you of course you blind reverted it. It's exactly what you did. No need for NPOV formultions in talk page section headings, it's exactly what you did: blind revert.-- Georgianis | (t) 21:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, don't threaten and don't blind revert. -- Georgianis | (t) 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to imply anything about Sukhumi's being Georgian or not. It was a part of the Georgian republic, that's for sure. At the same time it was populated by many ethnicities and the caption makes a wrong implication. My caption says that these Georgians were indeed the residents of Sukhumi. But it was the city of all its residents, not of Georgians only. That it was a part of Georgia, is a political matter and a separate one.

Finally, I corrected one more time the inflammatory section heading to make the discussion in this page possible. If you revert this again, it will speak only about your desire to discuss the matters (or lack of it). If I find working with you impossible, I will elaborate a detailed objections list at this tag, place a "totallydisputed" tag over the whole article and will let you sort this out. Take care, --Irpen 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You can do what you want, there are some neutral users and mediators will come to handle your POV. -- Georgianis | (t) 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On improving the structure

My impression is that the article talks more about the War, the battles and the hostilities and too little about the profiles of the parties and the attempts for conflict resolution so far. It would possibly help if the subject is dealt with more restriction. Presenting this as an ongoing war (see template: "1992-present") is slightly exaggerating and contradicts with the rest of the article, which argues that apart from a short resumption of hostilities in 1998, there are only sporadic clashes between the parties. So its easier for us, like in most of zhe biblioraphy, to talk about a war in 1992-93 and a protracted conflict with historic causes streching possibly before 1989.

The section on Russia's role during the conflict, I think should be renamed to Russia's role during the war. Again military-peacekeeping intervention and post war conflict mediation should probably be discussed in different sections. All cited views regarding Russia's role are welcome. I put an excerpt from MacFarlanes, unfortunately I don't speak Russian and so far have found little sources on Russian official and academic views on the issue. Ideally we should document the facts of Russian intervention/mediation then offer the official and other views (in favour) of Russia's role and then offer the reader views of other parties and scholars (like MacFarlanes's and other's critique.

The main parties of the conflict Georgia proper and the breakaway de facto Republic should probably be dealt with in a similar way. Own views, views of others inside Georgian/Abkhaz society, critical views from inside and views from abroad.

To sum up I suggest the following plan of sections:

• History including the war and main battles and root causes of the war.
• Summarized Profile of the parties (Abhkaz side, Georgian side)with main arguments for/against secession, views of society, impact of conflict on economies and societies

• Abkhaz profile (claims to independence role in peace processes). Linking and Summarizing relevant things from article Politics of Abkhazia
• Georgian profile (arguments of Georgian gov't, role in peace process)

• Profile of Russian mediation
• Profile of International mediation (UN, Friends of the UNSG)

What do you think? It will take until mid September for me to actually do some of the things I mentioned, with all the citations and the research that is needed, because I will go on holidays and then I am moving to a new job. Thanks, Donnerstag 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Donnerstag, things which you mention also fall under Politics of Abkhazia and we can include party profiles in there. Please also consult the sources which are in Bibliography. Most of those documents and books are in library (any university has them in N America). Ldingley 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Ldingley. I put a link to [Politics of Abkhazia] in the See also section, there wasn't any. Maybe just a summary of the relevant sections of the politics article could do the job of balancing out this article. But it's so badly referenced a source in the first place... In any case my intention is to have an agreed plan of what's going on in the article and who's doing what exactly so that any unproductive differences are sorted out quickly. Donnerstag 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wie gehts Donnerstag? Alles gut? :) So you don't like the way i referenced the sources? Please tell me how can i improve it and what is the proper way of referencing the source? im more familiar with the academic way and not Wiki way, you must forgive that :) All the things which you mentioned belong to Politics of Abkhazia. However, if you want, we can break up this article into two separate articles: "War in Abkhazia" and Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict." Just like Nagorno-Karabakh war. It’s all up to you. :) Chuss. From hot-tempered Scotsman. :) ! Ldingley 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice proposals. I certainly agree with them. I wouldn't mind to have the title changed like or Imperial Russian war against Georgia or Russian war against Georgian people. It's not about Soviet Union any more here. It's about Russia. Even if it's very correct I know it's hard for some users to accept them. Georgianis | (t) 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ach, du hitziger Scotte (hot-tempered Scotsman)! Ich entschuldige mich, my syntax must have been terribly unclear. It's not your edits that are bad it's the articles on Politics of Abkhazia and Politics of Georgia. These are badly referenced in the beginning. Let me make some other things clear:

• it's perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia to use any academic referencing system Wikipedia:Citing sources,
• when I said parties I mean parties of the dispute, in the legal sense of the term, not political parties (NPOV has its drawbacks),
• political parties and other societal groups involved in the conflict should be linked to the argumentation of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict article if it aspires to cover the issue comprehensively,
• as for Georgianis suggestion to change the title to Russian war in Georgia, I find it can be misleading two reasons. First it's the matter of precision of name. Most literature and press defines this as an ethnic conflict not as an imperialistic war of Russia. The convention is to refer to Conflict of Abkhazia and Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). Besides the Russian involvement is adequately covered in the article already. What you could do is to expand the section in Georgia_(country)#Relations_with_Russia or write a new article about it. Donnerstag 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if we could expand this section Georgia_(country)#Relations_with_Russia or write a new article about it, would be very nice. Georgianis | (t) 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some issues concerning section Russian role in the conflict

Dear all, There is a problem with repetition and overlapping.

As per WP:REF#How to ask for citations I have moved an uncited statement here:

"The alleged aim of Russia was strengthening it's military control on Black Sea shore, depriving Georgia it's north-western territory with the help of Moscow supported separatist forces (which were striving not to independence, but to maintaining Russian control on this strategically important region of Georgia)."

On the first clause, the point is made later so no need to be in the text. The clause in parenthesis is in my opinion a bold assumption, and much worse, it's unquoted. If it's an allegation of the Georgian government or somebody else it should be made clear. Donnerstag 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also there is a problem with the following paragraph:

"The Georgians had therefore to conclude that they had effectivelly lost not only the best part of their army during the fighting in 1993, but also control over Abkhazia: while this is not recognized internationally as an independent country, it is meanwhile de-facto established as an independent territory – to a large degree due to deployment of Russian Army “peacekeepers”, who ever since control the administrative border between Georgia and Abkhazia. To make matters worse, in the late 1990s the Russians improved their relations to Abkhazia, and Moscow meanwhile brought several new laws, enabling "other countries" to become members of the Russian Federation. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  This move was obviously undertaken as an offer to Abkhazia, and should was considered as quite sarcastic by many in the West, given that simultaneously the Russians are undertaken whatever they can in order bring down Chechen separatism.

1. It should be put in quotation marks.
2. The words I emphasized have been added. Tom Cooper didn't say that in his text. So it needs to be verified to stay in the article, otherwise quote only what Cooper said.

Donnerstag 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

References

More resources

Here's a view on depelopments prior to the war from the Abkhaz side:

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/6-2002/ac/rgaac/

Sephia karta 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it should be mentioned in the article that Abkhazia was independant (as part of the North Caucasian Confederacy) for a short time after WW1 and that it entered the Soviet Union as a seperate Union Republic, its status was downgraded only in 1931 by Stalin. This shows where Abkhazia was coming from when it wanted to determine its status viz-a-viz Georgia, and shows its decleration of independance to be legally not as unreasonable as your ordinary act of seperatism.

http://www.bhhrg.org/Print.asp?ReportID=225&CountryID=10

http://www.abkhazia-georgia.parliament.ge/History/Abkhaz/lakoba.htm

Sephia karta 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Abkhazia was never independent. Her status of 1920 is disputed and unclear. That time newly formed Georgian republic (DRG) was in chaos and did not control most of its territories. None has ever recognized abkhazia as independent or Abkhazia has never declared itself as independent officially The validity of that constitution which you refer is highly disputed among scholars). Moreover, Abkhaz delegation went to Tbilisi in 1920 to ask the Menshevik government of Zordania to incorporate Abkhazia as an autonomous republic within the DRG. After the occupation of DRG by Bolsheviks, Abkhazia temporary was left uncontrolled by central government in Tbilisi. Those references which you mention are not scholarly and can not be considered as reliable and valid. The first one if an abkhaz POV and presents a very strong pro-separatist and anti-gerogian sentiments. Second one does not site any historic documents or reliable references (the author is Russian and POV is strongly detectedall over the article). Mr Lakoba is not a reliable source due to the fact that he was a well known separatist provocateur for a long time. He did not have any background in History and ethnology.

When you search for sources, please keep this in mind. They have to be at least by a reliable neutral historian/scholar/specialist/linguist/ethnographer (examples of un-neutral historians: Tchirikba, Achba, Hewitte, and some Russian ones). The work or a source if history is concerned should be academic/scientific essay, etc. You should have primary source and secondary sources. Primary sources are historical documents (in archives, agreements, peace treaties, etc). Secondary can be anything from university publishing or scholarly opinion.

Those sources which you offer are not valid or reliable due to the strong bias and POV.

My advice: seek them in reliable materials which are written by well known scholars of that region. It would be safe if they are western (Lang, Allen, McLean, Andersen, Jenkins, Lee, Rosen, Charles Burney, Blair, etc).

p.s Abkhazia case is a perfect example of pure separatism which reaches to the level of armed and aggressive form of separatism. Ldingley 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Some Abkhaz leaders indeed considered joining the North Caucasian Confederation in 1917, but they never succeeded in that due to a civil war. The Abkhaz People's Council signed a treaty of union with Georgia in 1918 and the Abkhaz aoutonomous status was fixed in Abkhazia's 1919 Act of Autonomy and Georgia's 1921 (pre-Soviet) Constitution. These facts are easily verifiable, but modern Abkhaz sources (not all, of course) prefer not to mention them. After the Sovietization, Abkhazia became a "sovereign" Soviet republic, but shortly afterwards signed a "special union treaty" with Georgia. Curiously enough, Abkhazia's status was downgraded not by the "Georgian nationalist" Stalin (as Abkhaz historians put in) in 1931, but by the Soviet Constitution of 1924 (See English translation). Paradoxically, this part of Constitution remained unratified until 1931 when Abkhazia became an ASSR with the Georgian SSR. --Kober 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, one should at least be cautious when using such partisan sources as BHHRG, a highly controversial organization which have illustrated Georgia's Rose Revolution as a violent coup d'etat against the constitutional order. They also write in their accounts of flourishing and democratic Abkhazia and destroyed and impoverished post-Abashidze Adjara. Heh! --Kober 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just, at the same time, be careful about your own biases. From what I can see, all the contributors to this page are fairly strongly pro-Georgian, which poses a risk that the article could become slanted in that direction. Rebecca 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca I would recommend you to cease the accusations and attacks on the editors of this article. I’m not "pro-Georgian" "Russophobic" and "pro-separatist." Before accusing and labelling people as "pro" or "anti" you must present your claims based on actual phrases and sentences where there is a clear indication of "pro" or ‘anti” Georgian/Abkhaz/Russian/Chechen/etc bias. Kober, for example demonstrates a perfect example of non-bias and neutrality. Im very much impressed due to the fact that he is an ethnic Georgian. However, he has demonstrated (and many can vouch on this claim) completely un-bias and neutral approach to the sensitive subjects of his country. Unfortunately i can’t say same about your work. I have been watching closely the edits you have made. I will not make the same mistake as you do by labelling people as bias or pro something. However, please take examples of editors like Kober in terms of NPOV integrity and using fair and reliable sources (not the ones which are quoted above). Also let’s keep the tone civil, slander is not a proper word to describe ones hard work and contribution. The article uses tons of reliable sources, which were very hard to find and research. Best regards, Ldingley 14:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making any allegations. I'm just simply pointing out that since there's a few people who all have roughly the same slant on things, we need to be careful that the perspective of the other side is represented as well. I think impugning my motives is a bit much, considering that I've barely edited on these issues at all. Rebecca 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

people who work hard on this article are dedicated to the NPOV policy and make valuable contributions in order to improve it. Please take time to review the sources/references and upon making any changes present your own reliable sources/references based on reliable data. Also, if you accuse any editors of being "pro" georgian or "anti" georgian, make specific references to any sentence in the article where there is a clear indication of that. Do not accuse the fellow editors of "pro" or "anti" bias which is completely unacceptable for me. Ldingley 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, why did you remove the two passages. The first of them about the 1920s status is a very important one since the problem has been playing a critical role in the war of laws between Georgia and breakaway authorities. The second one is today's reality. This is not a secret for anyone. --Kober 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the first because it was hopelessly weaselly, containing two allegedlys in one fragment of a sentence. I have little doubt that it's an important point to be discussed, but in that form it made no sense - see my comments below. I toned down the second because it was very strongly worded without a very authoritative source to back it up. Rebecca 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My issues with this article

For the most part, I think this article is informative and well-researched. That said, there are some remaining issues which I think need to be dealt with.

Firstly, the coverage of why the conflict started is vague, and seems to be implying some sort of separatist conspiracy. This needs to be balanced and give the perspectives of both sides.

Secondly, it contains very little about the actions of Georgian forces whatsoever - rather, it seems to be an ongoing list of Abkhaz atrocities and little else, some of which is not sourced. Where did the forces clash? Were the Georgians defeated at every juncture?

Thirdly, the chronology is a bit weak. As an outsider, it is hard for me to establish based on the article exactly what happened when. I think it would be an improvement if the sections were re-organised based on stages of the conflict, rather than on individual Abkhaz atrocities.

Fourthly, the allegations of Russian involvement are very poorly sourced - the whole Fall of Gagra section has only one source. This is a controversial topic, and it really does need to be well-sourced if that material is to remain in the article.

Fifthly, there are issues with encyclopedic tone, specifically in the "Fall of Sukhumi" section. The writing is quite emotive in nature, which is unnecessary - the facts speak for themselves, and having a "P.S. THIS WAS BAD" just detracts from the text.

Sixthly, there is very little about the exodus of refugees and its ongoing implications for Georgia.

Finally, the "Russian role in the conflict" section is problematic. The early paragraphs focus only on Georgia's allegations of Russian involvement, and the rest of the section smells of selective quoting, relying only on a couple of sources whose veracity and political leanings are unclear. This section in particular needs to be very well sourced and to draw from a wide range of sources and opinions Rebecca 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree you have some point, but please note that the article is still undergoing a reworking process. I agree with you that we should divide the conflict timeline into at least three phases as most experts do. However, "P.S. THIS WAS BAD" is not just an editor's opinion, but the assessment given by the OSCE to the facts of ethnic cleansing. Ldingley is so far the biggest authority on the issue in spite of some attempts to discredit him. I'm currently working on History of Abkhazia article and we can tramsfer some material here. You're welcome to join us, but I would ask to discuss your changes on talk page. The recent edit wars left the article in a total mess, and it consumed a lot of Ldingley's time and energy to restore the stable version. Thanks, --Kober 03:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to work with the pair of you, and I've no desire to engage in edit wars, but please don't revert me and accuse me of being pro-separatist every time I make a revision, as happened earlier today.

As to the Fall of Sukhumi section - I'm not disputing that the Abkhaz atrocities were bad by any means - it's just a matter of how we describe them. At the moment, that particular section takes a casually-written, emotional tone, when sticking strictly to the facts would be more encyclopedic. The same would go for the Holocaust. Rebecca 08:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, you are correct. This article is not perfect, has many problems and needs re-working, editing and shaping up. Please try to understand that not long ago this article was the battleground between Russian editors and editors who have created it. It’s a very sensitive subject and especially for Russians. That is why I was personally attacked, and accused of being “Russophobic”, “hot tempered Tengiz (which is a disgusting racist and discriminatory remark)” , “Georgian nationalist” sock-something and so on. I invited Donnestag, who is really nice person and cares about NPOV and integrity of the material. He can not work alone on this article. I actually gave up on it long time ago. Most of the materials which is presented in the article are not written from the imagination of someone. All of these data is gathered from various sources. The most sources credible for me are: the Human Rights watch reports, UN observer reports, OSCE protocols and US Human Rights watch protocols. All of them are available in almost all University libraries. Trust me; there are tons of data and with large details of war crimes and conflict situation in Abkhazia. You are correct, it is too emotional. But as you know Human Rights watch tried not to be emotional in case of many world conflicts, however all over their document we can see those “emotional” details in almost every paragraph. You mentioned Holocaust. Do you favour the revisionists of Holocaus or of Armenian genocide? No. Russian editors claim that killing of one baby equals killing of 100. Sure, but than we should mention in Holocaust article that murder of Jews was not the only one atrocity being committed in this process but also murder of German kids during the allied bombing of Dresden, Laipzig, berlin, etc. Definitely, the atrocities were committed on both sides (as in Chechnya, were Russians carried out most destructive and punitive actions against the innocent civilians). But the main intent of the campaign of ethnic cleansing was in driving out the whole ethnic Georgian population from the region by forced expulsion or death. This has been demonstrated in the war and the Abkhaz separatist side has accomplished the task. Germans did that to the Jews of Poland. Some on Wikipedia consider western sources as Russophobic. I can’t really convince them otherwise. Maybe you can achieve the consensus but please remember that atrocities are atrocities, war crimes are war crimes, and separatism is separatism. I can only wish you good luck and many thanks for helping out. Cheers to Australia from Canada. Hot tempered Scotsman. :) Ldingley 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK Zviad Gamsahurdia (georgian president) started the war (with Abkhazians and Osettians) - no info about this mentioned here. Also I point that grace to russian involvment abkhazian troops didn't take Tbilisi (georgian capital). None of these facts are here. Rebecca is right, that the article is unclear. I admit that at the current time article presents mostly georgian POV. Alexandre Koriakine 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems, you do not even know how the separatist took Sukhumi. Georgian army smashed two mass offensives against the city in March and June 1993 and Sukhumi fell only in September 1993 when the Abkhaz-Chechen-Adyghe-Cossack-Russian forces treacherously violated the ceasefire. By that time, all Georgian hardware and heavy weaponry had already been shipped from Abkhazia to the port of Poti. The Abkhaz weapons, on the other hand, were stored near the frontline and were returned to the Abkhaz by Russian "safekeepers" when hostilities restarted. Meanwhile, Russian jets continuously bombed Georgian objects and Russian Defense Minister Grachev – true to his habit – claimed that the Georgians were bombing themselves. There are numerous sources for that, and the UN mission confirmed, back in 1993, that a Su-27 shot down by the Georgians actually belonged to Russia and was piloted by the deceased Major Vazlav A. Shipko of the Russian air force. So I’d suggest getting some more info on the subject before posting your messianic theories here.--Kober 10:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Even here you mention Abkhaz-Chechen-Adyghe-Cossack-Russian against Georgians. Why there are so many nations (except Cossacks, it's not a nation) just wanted to attack innocent Georgians? Is it because that Abkhaz-Chechen-Adyghe-Cossack-Russian are xenophobes against Georgians? I never heared about bombing georgian territory by russian jets, if it was - Saakashvili already could blame us with this. Do you know what is bombing? It is like it was in Grosny or Dresden, the demolitions of everything. I can believe there was a positional bombings (when georgianst were near to have a vicroty, and also when abkhazians were near to have a victory - I mentioned Tbilisi case), also like it was in Transdnest - russian troops defended the loosing part from extermination. In my POV, Georgia was an agresson, and it is now. How could it be: russians are bad, abkhazians are bad, ossetians are bad, agjarians are bad, chechens are bad, transdnestrians are bad and georgians are angels? Maybe they are bad only because they want to stay with Russia (yes, even Chechnya, they never had a referendum for their independence from Russia, contrary they said yes to Russian Federation fer years ago)? USSR was a cutted pie, some people were fighting for their independense, some for USSR. Russian goverment didn't care about Abkhazia nor Osettia, nor Agjaria, they were trying to keep the power in Moscow. You undestimate the chaos that was in 1990-1995 in USSR area. Alexandre Koriakine 12:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, can we be more specific? What do you specificly dislike? Sosomk 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I spelt out eight specific issues above... Rebecca 08:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Sukhumi #1

There is a whole section of the dedicated to the second fall of Sukhumi (when it was taken by Abkhazians) and to the atrocities committed in its course. On the other hand the first fall is described as follows:

On August 14, 1992, Georgian police and National Guards units were dispatched to protect railways and restore an order in Abkhazia. The fights broke out the same day. On August 18, 1992, the separatist government left Sukhumi. Georgian government forces managed to take control of most of Abkhazia.

Meanwhile, that's just two quotes of the HRW's report about it [3], chapter HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN THE FIRST WEEKS OF HOSTILITIES:

Within days after Sukhumi was taken by Georgian National Guard troops, and as additional Georgian forces flowed into the city (including the Mkhedrioni), a pattern of vicious, ethnically based pillage, looting, assault, and murder emerged.62 Although some of the victims in Sukhumi were Georgian, the city's Abkhaz residents were the main victims during this period of the conflict. No one disputes that all sides engaged in high levels of criminality

...

The pattern that emerges from refugee testimony taken by Human Rights Watch is one of gross intimidation by Georgian forces for the purpose of terrorizing, robbing and driving the Abkhaz population out of their homes.

I think that more information should be added about this period of fighting. What about splitting the "History" section to "History" itself and "First two months of the conflict"? Alaexis 15:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's for sure, the Georgian ex-criminal (and soon to be criminals again) paramilitaries were infamous not only in this conflict. Have fun with trying this with the Georgian editors fighting the war still on Wikipedia. Previously, all my edits were reverted (not only correcting "Georgian civilians" into "Georgian militia" and such, but even simple interlinking this article to the other Wiki pages). --HanzoHattori 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do assume the good faith of the other editors.Alaexis 18:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Abkhaz Vladimir Maliuk?

I've finally written what I wanted about the beginning of the conflict, so now there are 2 more small questions. "Maliuk" is Slavic surname, how can he be an Abkhaz? By the way, is this story from "Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict" or from somewhere else?Alaexis 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That what was written in the UN annex. Ldingley 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ceasefire of September 3

Could you provide some information about this cease-fire (preferably in the net)?Alaexis 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reworking the Russian role section

What about adding more information about actual Russian role in the conflict (more facts of Russian army helping the separatists etc) and removing some of the quotes? Currently they occupy about 2/3 of the section. Why is Radzikhovsky chosen among Russian journalists? If there is a view from Georgian side (prof. Gachechiladze) why is the other side's opinion not present?

Besides let's add something like this:

It should also be noted that Russia transferred a significant amount of armour to Georgia according to the previous agreements regarding the break-up of Soviet Union.

Alaexis

Article change

I was bold to change a bit this article. Now we have this article for the overall conflict and War in Abkhazia for the 1992-1993 war. Much like Ethiopian-Somali conflict and Ogaden War. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

also see on War in Abkhazia is stated: "part of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict"--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

explanation

The paragraph in question has nothing to do with the section it was inserted to (Abkhazian War). I also don't think that this info should be here at all as it tells nothing about the Georgian-Abkhazian relations. I'd say it belongs to History of Georgia article. Alæxis_¿question? 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I opened this page for the first time and I just want to say it looks a bit like a mess. The conflcit box seems totally out of place, especially on a lower resolution. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks more or less fine at 1024*768. But the Russo-Georgian relations infobox may be moved down the article probably... Alæxis_¿question? 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision by user:Scandalli7

The revision may have been plagiarism but it was an interesting read nonetheless. It is my belief that the articles related to Georgia's conflict with Abkhazia and South Ossetia are far too tilted towards Georgian POV. I believe we should add sourced information to this and other related articles in wikipedia that also demonstrate the POV in that revision. To remain NPOV we need to provide all POVs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is my belief that the articles related to Russia's conflicts with Georgia over Abkhazia and S. Ossetia are far too tilted towards Russian/separatist POV. I believe the discriminatory policies of current regimes in these regions and Russia's own interests are downplayed in all articles related to these conflicts. To remain NPOV we should discourage POVs (e.g., his descriptions of the Georgian people as "fascists" and "terrorists") provided by trolls like user:Scandalli7 and focuse on reliable published sources rather than referring to "enlightening posts" by other users.--Kober^Talk 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lool... I just looked through Scandalli's article and found it a refined piece of crystal balling and puerile "political analysis". We are suggested that "the process of national (the author meant "ethnic" I guess, K.) consolidation of the Georgian nation is still far from complete" and Georgia faces "Kakhetian demands for autonomy"; "Georgia's control over Javakheti" appears to be only "nominal"; Stalin is reported to have been a "Georgian lobby"; etc. If this article is supposed to be "interesting" enough to be cited in the article, then we will have to find its equivalent pro-Georgian pieces of propaganda.--Kober^Talk 06:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, Scandalli's revision looks like a plagiarism from someplace, I would add that it looks well sourced. It does use Hewitt as one of the sources and I know your opinion on Hewitt however not everyone shares your opinion. What I found most interesting in the article is the assertion that Russia only really started to be pro-Abkhazia during Putin's time. Intellectually this makes sense as we are talking about Yeltsin here. The same Yeltsin who seemed to bend over backwards in order to appease the west and also let Nato bomb the Serbs to kingdom come without really lifting a finger. Sure there may have been arms going into Abkhazia as well as mercenaries from Russia and volunteers from the northern caucasus however that really only shows the general lawlessness in Russia at the time. This is what I find missing in wikipedia articles as wikipedia articles generally describe Russia as being the bad guy from the start and Georgia is the poor victim. Not enough emphasis is given to the neutrality or pro-Georgian behavior of Russia at certain times of the conflict as well as the rabid nationalism in some quarters in Georgia at certain times. For example, weren't the slogans at certain times "Georgia for the Georgians" as well as decribing certain ethnicities in Georgia as "guests" vs others as "hosts"? Just to add as well, I have seen other sources describe Georgia's hold on Javakheti as being partial during certain periods in the 1990's. Note that the people don't need to be in rebellion in order to for the government to have partial hold, it could very well be that perhaps there is frequent protests/rioting, strikes, refusal to pay taxes for example, or perhaps a mafia that in many ways supercedes the government. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny, there were Russian military forces, Russian arms, even Russian airplanes, but somehow you want it to look like Russia was not pro-Abkhaz or anti-Georgian. If that in your mind isn't a "bad guy" then I shudder to think who is.(PaC (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

I simply don't understand what you are trying to prove here Poco. You just dumped out a bucketful of anti-Georgian clichés used in Russian media. Do you think by repeating them often enough they will become less POV?(PaC (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Which Russian media anti-Georgian clichés might those be? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

GA/10708

Does anyone have the full text of the resolution?

Here it's just written that

“ Also by the text, the Assembly emphasized the importance of preserving the property rights of refugees and internally displaced persons, including victims of reported “ethnic cleansing” ”

Imho this is not quite what is claimed in the article. Alæxis_¿question? 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this resolution acknowledges and uses the term "ethnic cleansing" of the OSCE reports for the first time and "the right of all refugees and internally displaced persons and their descendants, regardless of ethnicity" to return to Abkhazia. The resolution expressed deep concern over "the demographic changes resulting from the conflict in Abkhazia" and said that it regretted any attempt "to alter the pre-conflict demographic composition there." The Assembly underlined "the urgent need for the rapid development of a timetable to ensure the prompt voluntary return of all refugees and internally displace persons to their homes." The resolution also emphasized the importance of preserving the property rights of refugees and internally displaced persons, "including victims of reported 'ethnic cleansing', and called upon all Member States to deter persons under their jurisdiction from obtaining property within the territory of Abkhazia, Georgia, in violation of the rights of returnees." The info on ethnic cleansing was also released here: UN General Assembly Recognizes Ethnic Cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia, Calls for Swift Return of IDPs [4]. Just to remind you that UN GA adopted similar resolutions in Bosnia where ethnic cleansing was affirmed. Iberieli (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's repeated many times in this article of yours that UN has recognised ethnic cleansing. However, the only time we see the term here is "including victims of reported “ethnic cleansing”". This doesn't amount to the recognition of ethnic cleansing imho. Even your ambassador to UN has only said that "[this is t]he first one is that the term ethnic cleansing has reappeared again..." [5] I also couldn't find any major English-language media explicitly claiming that UN has recognised this. Alæxis_¿question? 07:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this is only your opinion and nothing more, the fact remains that the UN resolution mentions reported ethnic cleansing which does mean recognition and acknowledgment. Same situation happened with Bosnia, when UN GA used same terms as reported ethnic cleansing of Muslims Bosnians and was used by scholars as the acknowledgment of ethnic cleansing campaign carried out by Bosnian Serbs. UN document is a primary source and no other English language media is needed to support a primary source. However, Kober version better suitable in my opinion: It "regretted" the attempts to alter pre-war demographic composition and "reported ethnic cleansing", and called for the "rapid development of a timetable to ensure the prompt voluntary return of all refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes. Iberieli (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

---

To say that 'ethnic cleansing' is mentioned in UN GA resolution is misleading, imho. It would take too much place in the intro to put this in proper context (like it's done in the article itself). The article isn't big at all so I think that it's enough to say about this resolution once. Alæxis_¿question? 09:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not misleading at all. I know that the resolution caused a negative outcry in the Russian leadership and among its followers, but the fact that the notoriously impotent and reluctunt organization such as the U.N. finally recognized the rights of ethnic cleansing victims is important enought to be mentioned alongside the OSCE resolutions.--Kober^Talk 09:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it recognised their rights. It's nothing new, though; see for example this Security Council resolution.

“ It reiterated as “fundamentally important” the right of return for all the refugees and internally displaced persons to Abkhazia, Georgia, and required that individual property rights had not been affected by the fact that owners had had to flee during the conflict. ”

The 'ethnic cleansing' is mentioned in an indirect way. Imho it's better to write that UN recognises certain rights of the refugees than to say that it mentioned 'ethnic cleansing' (or, maybe 'reported ethnic cleansing'). Alæxis_¿question? 18:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen Alex-jan, lets avoid any personal feelings on any giver matter and consult the facts, this resolution for the first time mentions and acknowledges the finding of OSCE and IMHO or not IMHO, its a fact which needs to be included and mentioned when we talk of ethnic cleansing campaign. You can not disregard this resolution just because its doe snot suit your own POV or your humble opinions. UN does not only recognize certain rights, but FULL rights of IDPs. Dont make misinterpretations the past UN resolutions on Abkhazia. It is proper to say that UN resolution mentions ethnic cleansing. However, IMHO it recognizes it as well. Iberieli (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

I think this needs more historical background. The underlying conflict probably didn't start in 1992. Superm401 - Talk 12:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The current conflict has its roots in the 1917-1921 conflict, and in the Soviet period there have been events (like the 1978 mass protests) that still need articles. For sources, see e.g. Derluguian http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=uciaspubs/research sephia karta 13:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just found this very very useful recourse: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/heiwa/Pub/E21/contents.pdf sephia karta 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro needs reworking

While the text in the intro is sourced and all that, it has a fairly strong anti-Abkhazian bias and I think it needs to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. Thefamouseccles (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian role in the conflict

The infobox links to War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)#Russian role in the conflict, in which the Russian role in the Abkhazia war of 1992–1993 is discussed. But Georgian–Abkhazian conflict covers not only 1992–1993 events, also 2008 South Ossetia war and current events too, that make Russian Involvement in the conflict quiet clear. –BruTe ^Talk 09:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What was the problem with my latest version:

“ Involvement prior to 2008 disputed; discussed in the articles about the conflict, particularly here ”

Before 2008 it was not that simple: such facts as transfer of arms to Georgia prior to the 1992-2993 war, evacuation of civilians from Sukhumy by Black Sea Navy, economic blockade of Abkhazia after the war are well known and referenced in the appropriate articles. Alæxis_¿question? 20:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I reverted the page back to you version, but left the current flag of the RF in the article. I think, now it's ok. –BruTe ^Talk 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Georgian–Abkhaz conflict → Abkhaz–Georgian conflict – This is always done in alphabetical order (Arab–Israeli conflict, Chechen–Russian conflict, Georgian–Ossetian conflict, Iraqi–Kurdish conflict, Israeli–Lebanese conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, ect.). P.S. Abkhazian–Georgian conflict would also work. Charles Essie (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• No need for an RM. I'll do it myself. Your reasoning is sound. RGloucester — ☎ 19:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title

Russo-Georgian War refers to conflict in Abkhazia but it describes conflict between Russia and Georgia. So, there must be dedicated page listing this event. OR you page to which "Russo-Georgian Conflict " redirected must be renamed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZviadPochkhua (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2016 May 31

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abkhaz–Georgian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902055417/http://www.humanite.fr:80/2008-08-28_International_Jacques-Sapir-La-Russie-a-ete-poussee-a-changer-d to http://www.humanite.fr/2008-08-28_International_Jacques-Sapir-La-Russie-a-ete-poussee-a-changer-d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830231326/http://unomig.org:80/data/file/840/RFE_RL_INTERVIEW.pdf to http://unomig.org/data/file/840/RFE_RL_INTERVIEW.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123214158/http://www.interfax.com.ua:80/eng/main/25516 to http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/main/25516/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607163702/http://abkhazeti.ru/pages/main/warabkhazia.html to http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/yett_caucasus/mccallion.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abkhazeti.ru/pages/main/warabkhazia.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abkhaz–Georgian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110215012229/http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/176_abkhazia_today.ashx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/176_abkhazia_today.ashx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917010019/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/ga10708.doc.htm to http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/ga10708.doc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024051558/http://www.abkhazia.com/content/view/172/63/ to http://www.abkhazia.com/content/view/172/63/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?groupId=252038&uuid=9a93a8fa-c31b-f8de-82f4-b0442b45cacb. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Abkhaz–Georgian conflict → Abkhazia conflict – Well, appereantly it is not just Abkhaz-Georgian but Abkhaz-Russian-Georgian conflict since Russia is directly involved as a side and party (at least since 2008, arguably since the beginning of the conflict), not just as a supporter. Appereantly there is not just ethnic conflict but very important political conflict between Russia and Georgia which the article does not pays due attention to. So the Abkhazia conflict name illustrates situation much precisely. Moreover, we already have similar names to similar articles, such as Cyprus problem, where Turkey is involved in a similar way to Russia, and Transnistria conflict where Russia is involved in a similar way (although it is officially involved there less than in Abkhazia conflict). Moreover, there is WP:COMMONNAME rule which orders to use the most common name for Wikipedia articles. Appereantly most common version is Abkhazia conflict, it has most search results (1 300 000 for Abkhazia conflict, 164 000 for Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, 232 000 for Abkhaz-Georgian conflict), in books too (96 500 for Abkhazia conflict and much fewer for others). Additionally, per WP:CONCISE which orders to use most concise names, Abkhazia conflict is much more concise and better. Fodrid (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title fits better. Zip18 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.