Jump to content

Talk:Kodori Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russian accusations

[edit]

Shouldn't something be mentioned about Russian accusations that Georgia is harboring or not stopping Chechen terrorists in this region?--Eupator 18:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably confusing it with the Pankisi gorge. An alleged 2001 Chechen presence in the Kodori valley is discussed in the article on Georgian-Abkhaz conflict.--Kober 18:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're right.--Eupator 19:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia Peaceful?

[edit]

I disagree with the definition of Kodori and Gali being two “troublespots” while the rest of Abkhazia is “peaceful.” This is nothing but Abkhzaian POW. First, these two regions are the only two region of Abkhazia that are relatively safe for ethnic Georgians, while the rest of Abkhazia is a real “troublespot” for any Georgian national (Georgians simply get killed if they go outside Gali or Kodori). Second, the rest of Abkhazia is by no means peaceful. People (mostly tourists) get kidnapped there for ransomed all the time. There is virtually no rule of law (quite often the kidnappers have everything worked out with the police), and human slavery is being practiced (mostly on citrus plantations). Thus, while Gali and Kodori are trouble spots for Abkhazians (and possibly Russians), the rest of Abkhazia is a trouble spot for Georgians (as well as other non-Abkhazian nationals). Irakliy81 15:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamarjoba, Irakliy. Completely agree with you. I justed wanted to restore the context of the passage removed by Rebecca. I think the current version is quite neutral and objective.--Kober 15:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gamarjoba Kober, I’m glad that the current version has persisted. Thank you very much for maintaining this article. Irakliy81 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kober is the man! Sosomk 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move

[edit]

Dear Petri Krohn, your recent moves created a mess as the article's title was not in accordance with the text. Upper Abkhazia is a recently created administrative entity, while the Kodori Valley is a purely geographic term without any officially defined administrative boundaries. So I see no POV here. If you wish to have a separate article on the Valley as a geographic area, you are welcome to create it. Thanks, --Kober 04:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your copy paste move. If you want to rename the article, you should follow the appropriate procedure, and seek a consensus on the talk pages. Doing a copy-paste move destroys the articles edit history, and can be seen as a form of vandalism.
The "renaming" of Kodori Valley to "Upper Abkhazia" by the so-called de-jure Government of Abkhazia is a political move intended to undermine the legitimity of the "rebel" govenment of Abkhazia. Wikipedia should be very critical of such militant POV-pushing. -- Petri Krohn 22:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have also redirected Upper Abkhazia to de-jure Government of Abkhazia. So far the name is nothing more than a new name the "de-jure" governments uses to refer to itself. If I start hearing the BBC using it, I might reconsider my possition.
P.P.S. If you want to expand Wkipedia content, you might write an article on Upper Abkhazia, the political entity, not the geographic valley. I doubt hovewer whether it would survive a without being merged to de-jure Government of Abkhazia. -- Petri Krohn 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This action by User:Petri Krohn is unacceptable for NPOV compliance. First of all, this region has been officially called Upper Abkhazia as per recognition of Georgian government. This is a separate region of Abkhazia and has nothing to do with de jure government. This was a simple vandalism, which is definitely un-productive and harmful. Do not merge this region into any political entity. And refrain from POV statements and vandalizing the content of this article. Provide sources and references for your claims. Also please review Wikipedia policy on NPOV. Thanks for your contributions. Ldingley 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before accusing me of "militant POV-pushing", please be careful about your own bias. Undermine the "legitimity" of the Abkhaz separatists? Huh! Is this statement not POV? Kodori and other parts of Upper Abkhazia are de jure and de facto parts of Georgia, and what you call "the so-called de jure government" is the only internationally recognized authority on Abkhazia's territory. What you are trying here is just an attempt to destroy the content you disagree with. --Kober 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For the sake of a compromise, I'll proceed and create a seprate article on Upper Abkhazia. It is survivable and expandable and please don't destroy it. --Kober 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.S. Btw, Googling already gives 947 hits for "Upper Abkhazia" -wikipedia.--Kober 06:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Petri, refrain from Personal attacks. I will report to the administrator if you don't ceace to make attacks on other users and stop implementing your POVs on this article. Please review Wikipedia:Words to avoid, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:What is a troll. Ldingley 16:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spare people the threats, Ldingley. You were both out of line; Kober has since come up with a suitable compromise. Rebecca 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not threatening anyone. Please do not make false accusations. Im reminding Wikipedia policies, which you might be interested to. Ldingley 15:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the appropriate policies. I'm just asking you to take heed of them too, and stop threatening action against other users when you've both been violating the same policies. Rebecca 02:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Please what threatening are you guys talking about? Can we define the threatening first? Ms. Rebecca, if you are that experienced and sophisticated user you should be able to tell the difference between the outstanding scholars like LDingley and Vandals, who are just full of crap. In addition, WTF? is not a language that you should be using in an academical discussion. [[1]] Sosomk 02:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Georgian friends, please don't try to wikilawyer an arbitrator emeritus. Rebecca's efforts at normalizing this discussion are enormously appreciated. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down guys! The problem has already been resolved and there's no need for arbitration. Since the start of the recent political crisis, many Georgia-related articles have come under repeated POV attacks and I understand the emotions of Luis and Soso. The content of the article as it is now is quite neutral. As for Petri's strange redirects, one should make a distinction among a government (de-jure Government of Abkhazia), a geographic area (Kodori Valley) and an administrative entity (Upper Abkhazia). So all the three articles are needed and potentially expandable. --Kober 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help me

[edit]

Hi I try to translate Kodori Valley into Korean. I should consider it natural to make appropriate title. But are there anyone who can tell me what is the correct pronouciation of Kodori? I mean, the initiative letter, K is [k] sound or [g] sound? Pju0353 (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's [k] sound. Alæxis¿question? 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kodori Valley. 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:

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) 09:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kodori Valley. 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:

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) 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhaz separatist propaganda in the article infobox

[edit]

Some users try to push Russo-Abkhaz separatist propaganda here, depicting one of the Russian occupied regions of Georgia as equal to UN member country. This is clear violation of NPOV, and I would suggest to them to stop such disruptive editing!--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "depicting them as equal" - it lists the Abkhaz government second with a note. Deleting the partially-recognised government that actually controls the area cannot possibly be a NPOV edit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is "depicting them as equal" because You (before Alexis) put it along of Georgia, an UN member country. But anyway, with "note" or not it is wrong and is not NPOV to put the occupied region as a country.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 14:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we have a note that explains the status of Abkhazia. It's the current version that is not NPOV as it presents Abkhazia as part of Georgia without any comments. Alaexis¿question? 20:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While you put that Russian-occupied region along with UN member countries, you can't speak about "neutrality". We aren't removing "note" that provides all other information.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t just exclude all other viewpoints. Outback the koala (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Outback the koala, you are already prominent for your pro Russian-backed separatist edits. Don't make this article another battleground for your POV. Again, flags are unnecessary per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, you ignore this and pov-push. Secondly, Abkhazia is not an equal "country" to any UN member (Occupied territories of Georgia), you ignore this. Your actions speak themselves. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current population

[edit]

Amigao I invested some time in trying to find alternative sources for this information and did not find it neither in local nor in international media as it's quite an obscure topic. As you surely know deprecation does not equal to blanket ban. In this case I believe we can use this article as the information is really basic and hardly complimentary for Abkhazia (only 1 in 16 inhabitants returned after the 2008 conflict, they still don't have passports).

To make it clear, I would be very happy to replace it with a better source and would support removing it if there were a shred of evidence that these facts are not accurate. Alaexis¿question? 13:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A fully deprecated source like Sputnik (RSP entry) can certainly be used for WP:ABOUTSELF but this is not that kind of usage. - Amigao (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEPS (which is an information page and not a policy, btw) says that "editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other." This is precisely what I'm doing and so far I haven't heard any argument against making an exception for this article. Alaexis¿question? 14:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is WP:RS, which has a good section on deprecated sources and speaks to their [non]-usage for factual claims. - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There you will also find the caveat "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." As one can easily see in this case this is not a fringe view and there are no UNDUE concerns which is why an exception is warranted. Alaexis¿question? 16:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that Sputnik (RSP entry) should not be deprecated, feel free to open an RfC at WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said this! It's not a good source and I used it as an exception. Alaexis¿question? 06:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:BURDEN is relevant here. This information is not contradicted by other sources and, if anything, portray Abkhazia and by extension Russia in a negative light. Are there specific reasons to doubt this information? If yes I have no problems with removing it. To remind, per WP:DEPRECATED "[c]itations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." Evidently it hasn't been done here. Alaexis¿question? 19:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Alaexis¿question? 19:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't an RS, and there is only a source that is literally deprecated, then it fails the challenge of WP:BURDEN. The specific applicable wording is: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If you want it in, it's up to you (the editor who is adding or restoring material) to supply a reliable source (not a deprecated one). This is hard Wikipedia policy, and it looks pretty clear and comprehensible - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be how WP:DEPRECATED is written, as that would result in indiscriminate removal. The process provides provision for specific case by case exceptions, which Alaexis has argued for here. CMD (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this source is reliable for this statement, in spite of its general unreliability and propaganda it publishes. As you know the reliability should assessed for each statement. I would be really happy to use a different source (as I have done here), however I haven't found one. Alaexis¿question? 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are literally no other sources for this claim than a deprecated source ... then on what basis do you believe the deprecated source is reliable? So far your only argument has been "I like it".
Also, there are multiple editors disputing the use of the deprecated source. As such WP:BURDEN applies, and the burden to find a reliable source here is 100% on you - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no one disputing this specific fact. I think that it's reliable because it gives a number similar to the 2011 Abkhazian census, and because Sputnik is known for pushing propaganda and conspiracy theories but not for getting simple facts wrong as you'll see if you go over the examples.
Do you have arguments why an exception cannot be made with regards to this specific claim? Alaexis¿question? 20:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, because it's a claim from a deprecated source, and you admit you have no other source for it. And firstly, WP:BURDEN says the burden of proof is on you to show that your claim is sourced to a reliable source - not on any other editor to tell you why you can't use a deprecated source, i.e., a source that requires remarkable reasons to be used in Wikipedia at all - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, David Gerard I have requested community input here. Alaexis¿question? 09:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no official Georgian gov or municipal stats that could be used? —PaleoNeonate – 03:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful Georgia has had any access since 2008. CMD (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoNeonate, we already use Abkhazian census data for the 2011 population. What the Sputnik article adds is the current (2019) population, what these people do and the fact that they don't have Abkhazian passports. Alaexis¿question? 16:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask Alaexis (talk · contribs) to wait for clear and unambiguous consensus to include the deprecated source before edit-warring it back into the article yet again - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I explained my reasoning for making an exception above. You haven't provided any evidence why this information is incorrect. Alaexis¿question?

I agree with Alaexis. Deprecated sources first came about in the Daily Mail RfCs, and subsequent RfCs refer to the meaning of deprecation as defined in the Daily Mail RfCs. That definition means that the source is generally unreliable, however the close explicitly says: Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case. (quote from WP:DAILYMAIL2). This fits squarely within. Consensus does not support an absolute, indiscriminate search-and-destroy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kodori_Valley&oldid=1195154537"