Talk:Russian-occupied territories in Georgia

Rename and refocus of article

My reaction upon seeing this article can be summed up in a few simple words. It is extremely POV to have an article under this title that is framed in this manner. Most sources I find using the term "occupied territories" are government statements or partisan foundations and those media sources cited in this article are nearly all being misrepresented or they are opinion pieces. Plenty of Western sources put the phrase "occupied territories" in quotes to denote what most objective observers see as a questionable and inflammatory characterization of the situation. There are NPOV options for an article similar to this that would be better, but require significant re-focusing. One suggestion I would have is "political status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", which would probably have to touch on the disputed recognition of their independence as well, with another being an article on the Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia, which would probably have to remove any material not directly concerning the law. Either of those are good options, but the current focus of the article and its seeming endorsement of a very contentious label is extremely POV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the points made above. --72.230.133.8 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, the article explains one of the terms that do exist. It is not inflammatory for a reasoned person. The Russian Federation did not withdraw their troops from the territories and it is a fact. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Aleksandr--g. balaxaZe✰ 15:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with original poster, the way this article is written implicitly suggests that Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not exist as de-facto independent states, and is strictly POV from the Geprgian position. Not a single mention of neither states' political positions, even though the territories that are the subject of this page are under their control. Either this page decides to rename itself as "Georgian Law on the Occupied Territories", or it must include the other side's position. The way this article is written makes it sound like Russia just invaded Georgia out of the blue. 71.88.99.117 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia invaded in Georgia like several months ago in Ukraine and this called as a hybrid war. --g. balaxaZe★ 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is garbage, pure propaganda and extreme POV. These kind of articles makes wikipedia useless Wims (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, as most of the territories were not under Tbilisi administration control since the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (see South Ossetia and Abkhazia). The Russo-Georgian war of 2008 was a response to the fact of Tbilisi wanting to forcibly take control over the rebel republics, see the most neutral Tagliavini report on the topic as a reliable and official (for EU) source. So Georgia herself broke the fragile peace agreement and changed things in the region. The article at least merits a mark about its non-neutrality at its very beginning. Amikeco (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no Invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Russia supported the Separation of Crimea from Ukraine and the Eastern Ukrainian Resistance against the Offensive of the Ukrainian Military in 2014 that was commanded by a Coup government. The so-called Revolution was actually a coup.--88.66.146.194 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There is zero mention of neither the Abkhaz nor the Ossete responses

I don't see how an article about Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's status could not have absolutely any reference to the official positions of their de-facto governments. It also seems strange that the history begins with the 2008 war, and not with the history of ethnic tensions that have existed between the Abkhaz and Ossete people on one side, and Georgians on the other. The "See Also" Section is heavily biased towards Georgians, with no link to neither the history of the conflicts, nor the region. The way this article is written suggests that Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not even figure in this conflict, as there is not a single mention of anyone from the regions.

The article also exhibits heavy bias in favor of the United National Movement party in particular, and only mentions its guilt in the war once.

I also find it strange that the Russian version of this page concerns the specific Georgian law concerning the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it would make more sense if this article's focus would move towards the same idea 72.230.133.8 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article's intention not to reflect ethnic studies in the region, but rather to explain the political situation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert

I don't agree with merging the two articles. There was no consensus or majority vote for this action. The previous article was about Russian military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and international position about this. Now the article is a mess. I am for splitting the article into two parts where one article should cover Russian military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and legal assessment, and another one about international recognition of independence of those territories. --UA Victory (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was trying to do (there is an International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia page already, to which this article was largely redundant before my edits). But this article also needs to cover the political developments, with Russia effectively subsuming the Abkhaz and South Ossetian militaries and economies. And even though my position is personally sympathetic to Georgia in this particular dispute, and I'm certainly no fan of Putin -- this article title is pretty blatantly POV, and there seemed to be a consensus above that it should be changed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus that the article name needed to be changed. Some users proposed and some were opposed. How is the article name POV, if many international actors use this designation as a common name for both Abkhazia and South Ossetia and there is Russian military presence there that was not sanctioned by Georgia's government? --UA Victory (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it endorses the view that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are part of Georgia. Simple. It's typical Kremlinese "the sky is green" nonsense for them to claim, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that their troops are not occupying the territories, and I have no issue with that part of the title -- but Abkhazia and South Ossetia consider themselves independent countries, and they have not been under de facto Georgian control for years. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of world countries view them as part of Georgia so Wikipedia should reflect the world view. The article already mentions that the territories consider themselves to be independent states so I don't see any problem in the name. Although Georgia does not control the territories, this does not yet mean that they don't belong to Georgia. Israel also views the West Bank and Jerusalem as part of Israel and does not consider them occupied. Regardless, no one is disputing the neutrality of the article name of Israeli-occupied territories since Israeli-inhabitants of the territories agree with Israeli military presence. --UA Victory (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not really what Wikipedia does. Might I suggest a compromise? Moving the page to Russian military occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Retains the "occupation" language while remaining neutral as to whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia are states or Georgian territories, in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

When the Russian troops first arrived in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the first half of August 2008, even the Russian government then officially recognised them as the Georgian territories. Their independence was recognised during the presence of the Russian troops there.

Even there can be some issues with that proposed name. The proposed name does imply that Russian troops only control Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russian troops also occupy the adjacent areas near South Ossetia as a result of the recent unilateral border shifts. Then the name should be Russian military occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the adjacent areas near South Ossetia, which would be too long and impractical.

If your proposed name becomes the article name, then someone will come along and will say that the term "occupation" is POV too. They will argue if the territories are not part of Georgia and Russia has recognised the territories as independent states, then the states themselves had requested the Russian troops and there is no occupation. However this argument is flawed since before the arrival of Russian troops the separatists did not control all of the territories of Abkhazia and the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast and gained control of the entire territories with the help of the Russian troops.

I have found a similar historical precedent. Second Sino-Japanese War describes the Japanese occupation of Chinese territories and also includes Manchuria, despite the fact that Manchuria was recognised as a sovereign state of Manchukuo and it was the will of the local government to allow the presence of the Japanese forces. I don't think it's POV to describe Manchuria as Japanese-occupied Chinese territory, it's historic evaluation of the situation on the ground.

Even the EU, who negotiated ceasefire agreement between Georgia and Russia, has used the terms similar to "Occupied territories of Georgia" to refer to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. See those examples here: "to occupy the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/ South Ossetia", "recognise Georgia's regions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/ South Ossetia as occupied territories", "the occupied territories of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/ South Ossetia" and "to end the occupation of those Georgian territories".

As I have said, vast majority of the UN member states (189 out of 193) view the territories as Georgian. So I think it's best we should stick to the worldwide POV, not WP:FRINGE. --UA Victory (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the United Nations, and it is not WP:FRINGE to maintain WP:NPOV as to whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia are territories of Georgia. They have functioned as de facto states for years now. If Wikipedia can take an NPOV approach to, say, Somaliland -- which has zero international recognition -- it should do the same with other non-UN member states. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an authority over what breakaway territory should be recognised as independent state. Mostly it's the UN that has such authority. Therefore we should refer to the position of the UN and I can't deny the fact that according to the UN, these territories legally belong to Georgia. Wikipedia can also describe the situation on the ground and already does so. If Ethiopian troops gain control of Somaliland and then Puntland without the consent of the Somali federal government, I will support the creation of the article Occupied territories of Somalia, since it would be a good idea to create the article describing the military situation and the international position. Russia has already annexed the Crimean peninsula and Crimea is de facto part of Russia; however the majority of the world leaders, media and scholars describe it as the occupied Ukrainian territory.

As I have explained, the occupation took place during the time when Russia recognised them as the Georgian territories. The recognition of the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia happened after the occupation. The Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia as de facto independent states exist in the first place because Russia aided the rebels and currently the Russian troops and financial aid guarantee their existence and control of the territories, similar to Japanese troops ensuring the independence of Manchukuo and preventing China from regaining control. So their independence can be considered as dubious.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia already have their own articles where it's explained that they operate as de facto independent states (with the help from Russia). There is an article about their recognition which also discusses whether they should be recognised or not.--UA Victory (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is that this entire issue can be totally avoided with a move to Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, an NPOV title for an article about the Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (and not, as the current title suggests, the territories being occupied themselves; this is not a geography article). -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The article does not say that the territories are occupying themselves. You are mixing the territory with de facto states that currently control them. The territories are Abkhazia and the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast, that de jure belong to Georgia. However de facto states (the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia) currently control the territories together with the Russian troops, while before August 2008 they controlled only parts of those territories. In fact, it is argued that Russia is a sole and absolute ruler of the territories through its military occupation and the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia are the puppet governments of Russia. Those de facto states already have their own pages where their recognition is also discussed. I've already explained various reasons why I see nothing wrong in the current name and also Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has issues, such as omitting the fact that the Russian forces have seized the adjacent areas and villages near South Ossetia and their presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a security concern for Georgia.--UA Victory (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I typed: the article is not about the territories, it is about the occupation. As for the issue about the "adjacent areas", the WP:KISS principle applies; your "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the aforementioned territories are occupied. The current name is the shortest possible one to describe the situation in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the villages that border South Ossetia. The current name highlights that the occupation is primarily directed against Georgia. Your proposal could be WP:UNDUE since it would give undue weight to the Russian position that the territories don't belong to Georgia, exactly what the ultimate goal of the Russian occupation is--UA Victory (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The ultimate goal of the Russian occupation is to deny Georgia's claim to these territories.--UA Victory (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Who did delete all those resolution and statements from international position? It was very useful reference point for political studies or for anyone researching about Russian military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It was not a duplication of International Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. International recognition of Abkhazia and south Ossetia only covers those positions who recognises the territorial integrity of Georgia or independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, not who condemned Russian military presence. --UA Victory (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who removes an entire section on international position about Russian military presence, is against Wikipedia policy that information should be free. I myself needed those references for my work and found after very hard research and then added here for everybody else who would be interested. There is an entire section in another article for detailed statements about diplomatic recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in another article, however nobody removes them. --UA Victory (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly -- they're on another page, which is why I deleted them. This entire subject area is a morass of redundancy and haphazard updates that aren't independently notable, like the Georgian vice-speaker making a statement in Lithuania two or three years ago -- WP:NOTNEWS if I've ever seen it. And whoever condemned the Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia certainly didn't recognize them as sovereign states, considering only four UN members recognize them and one of them is the occupying power (Russia). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the statements you deleted were not in another article. Can you give an example which one was duplicated? --UA Victory (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Redundant" isn't exactly "duplicated". It doesn't matter which statement from which official we use; the governments of the United States, Germany, Ukraine, Estonia, etc., have made it very, very clear that they don't recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia and deplore Russia's actions. Wikipedia isn't a coatrack for an exhaustive list of times those governments have reiterated that position. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is similar article List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine that has exhaustive list of when did the United Nations reiterate its position regarding Israeli military presence in Palestine and the return of Palestinian refugees. You have replaced an entire referenced section with a single sentence: "The European Union, NATO, Council of Europe, and several other intergovernmental organisations have also condemned what they view as the Russian occupation of Georgian territory." If someone comes here to find specific references, they will be frustrated. Your insistence to remove this section can be regarded as WP:CENS. --UA Victory (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Be cautious about assuming bad faith. There is a separate article for international recognition, and I don't think that information needs to be spread across two pages. If you feel it is important to retain all of these statements I consider redundant, I suggest merging them to the international page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the statements on the other page are initial reactions to Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The statements here mostly refer to Russia's continued violation of 2008 cease-fire agreement and recent actions such as deployment of the ballistic missiles, refusal to allow the return of the refugees or the "borderization". There is a difference between two articles. If these will be merged into another article, it will become a mess and harder to find relevant information. If the section becomes too large in the future, then it should be split into a separate article. --UA Victory (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The section is already too large, and the page is already a mess, which is why I tried to fix some of the problems with it. But evidently you are not interested in improving the content, only keeping it the way it is now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting an entire section does not mean improvement. My personal view is that Wikipedia can be improved by adding more content, not deleting it. I have already stated that I have found the section to be both interesting and useful. --UA Victory (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The article about controversy about recognition should be merged into International recognition. --UA Victory (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem redirecting it to that page, either. But the controversy page was 1) almost completely redundant, 2) a WP:COATRACK, and 3) dead, with no Talk page activity in years and no edits to the article in months. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your position in the conflict, the term occupation here is propaganda. It is simply in no way a neutral description of the political situation. The term implies that a) the Russian military commands the civil administration of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and that b) from the Russian perspective, this is a temporary arrangement until a final agreement with Georgian is reached. I don't think anyone would argue that either is the case. A neutral article should discuss the political situation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from all sides and also be called thus. sephia karta | dimmi 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sephia karta the term military occupation is used by several International Organisations and Countries so it is quite correct and has nothing with propaganda. --g. balaxaZe★ 08:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic

This article looks like a fork considering that its subject is Abkhazia and South Ossetia (in both articles Georgia's position is described in detail) and we also have International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, not to mention Foreign relations of Abkhazia and Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia which deal with the foreign relations of Abkhazia and the Georgian-recognised administration respectively. I believe that a single article on the status of these territories, from both perspectives, would serve the reader better and suggest to combine them by putting the information from this article into the other ones. Alæxis_¿question? 19:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not a fork. The Russian occupation of significant portions of the neighbouring country is notable and deserves a separate article. The articles of Abkhazia and South Ossetia focus on history, geography and politics of the partially recognised states. Most English-language sources describe the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian-occupied Georgian territories. Therefore Russian assertions of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is not so important here. Likewise, it can be claimed that there is no need for the article on the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, because the articles on the Republic of Crimea and the Political status of Crimea already exist. The American military occupation of Iraq is notable and has its own article on Wikipedia. Indonesian occupation of East Timor is notable and has its own article. And the list can go on and on.178.51.78.245 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea was an act leading to the current situation (whatever you call it) so it makes sense to have an article about it. Likewise, the wars of 1992-1993 and 2008 led to the current situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and there are articles on them obviously. The occupation of Iraq is irrelevant here as nobody disputes the fact of the occupation while here it's highly controversial for the reasons I mentioned above. Alæxis_¿question? 18:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede

Regarding this change to the lede, it's POV to say that these are occupied territories when they are described/recognised as such only by some countries and international organisations. As can be seen from the International Position section, this term was used by a number of countries but the UN never used it and the EU only used it once in a report on a completely different matter. There is a difference between not recognising Abkhazia and S Ossetia as sovereign states (which is the position of the overwhelming majority of other countries) and considering them to be occupied by Russia (which is a position of a much smaller number of countries and organisations). Therefore I suggest to revert this change back to

“ Occupied territories of Georgia (Georgian: საქართველოს ოკუპირებული ტერიტორიები) consist of the partially recognized nation-states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose status is a matter of international dispute. According to Georgia these territories are occupied by Russia after the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. ”

The wording could be tweaked as long as it remains clear that the occupation is not an indisputable fact.Alæxis_¿question? 20:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this discussion is good to prevent future misunderstandings, but what you did is pushing of your POV, since you claimed in edit that it is considered occupied only by Georgia which is not true (reverting the article to a stable version isn't POV). I suggest to wait and to ask other editors, mainly those who edited and wrote this article to participate in the discussion. --g. balaxaZe★ 21:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure let's wait for the feedback. Here's another version, I don't see any POV here. Alæxis_¿question? 17:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

“ Occupied territories of Georgia (Georgian: საქართველოს ოკუპირებული ტერიტორიები) consist of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose status is a matter of international dispute. According to Georgia and several other countries and international bodies these territories are occupied by Russia after the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. ”

Of course, the occupying powers and their supporters deny the occupation. When most of the world recognises the territory A as part of the country B, but country C has stationed troops in the territory A without getting approval from the country B, then this is the classic definition of military occupation. Russia violated international law by occupying the Georgian territories. Russia had an obligation to withdraw troops from the separatist regions. Instead, Russia declared the occupied territories to be independent from Georgia. Some even consider Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be puppet states of Russia. The European Parliament, the institution of the EU, accepts as factual that Russian occupation of the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Osssetia occurred. It is so immensely stupid to advance the argument that the recognition of the territories as occupied by the US, EU, NATO and OSCE is less important than the recognition of independence by Russia and some tiny states. It can be easily observed that no UN-member state has recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia since 2011, when the US and the EU recognised the territories as occupied.

Note: The user page of Alaexis suggests that he could be Russian. I believe that nationalistic feelings of some people get hurt by the negative connotation the term 'military occupation' carries and they are trying to eradicate the factual mention of actual military occupation from the article, since military occupation of the territories renders the claims of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia dubious. Such partisan actvity harms encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia.178.51.78.245 (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The last variant I've suggested doesn't deny the occupation, it clarifies that this is the position of Georgia and some other countries and international bodies. Inferring that other countries recognise these territories as occupied from the fact that they don't recognise them is original research. Alæxis_¿question? 19:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Occupied territories of Georgia → Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia – This article title assumes that the occupied territories are part of Georgia, a claim which is a major point of contention between Russia and Georgia. The proposed title is both more precise, as it states the occupying power and the territories in question, and more neutral, as it does not take sides in the dispute over these territories' status as part of Georgia or as independent states. 2601:644:1:B7CB:44D2:D1A7:14DD:E76 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 19:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The proposed title is also not neutral as it assumes that Abkhazia and SO are occupied by Russia - which is obviously not the position of Russia, Abkhazia and SO themselves (their position is that Russian forces are there according to the treaties between Russia and these countries). Alaexis_¿question? 07:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Is there a better way to describe the topic of this article? 2601:644:1:B7CB:ADF3:3A9C:4DA0:F916 (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The line under the title mentions the phrase "Russian military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia," which does appear neutral to me (nobody contests the fact of such presence). Does that sound good?--R8R (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't claim that the title "Occupied territories of Georgia" isn't neutral because it is clearly shown in the article that this is how vast majority of the world sees these regions (including international organizations). Russian views can't be considered because it is a part of the ongoing conflict with Georgia.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is pretty accurate because the international community, including Russia, recognised the territories as Georgian at the time of their occupation. Even the Russian maps did not doubt before the war that the territories belonged to Georgia and did not show them as separate [1]. Before the war, the territories were mostly governed by Georgia and Russia went to the war to gain control of the territories because Georgia would never give up them willingly. Now, the proposal stipulates for the recognition of the territories as uncontested territories of the Russian-sponsored states Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is a violation of international law which states that the territorial changes effected by means of war, invasion and occupation are illegal and invalid. The legislative assemblies and diplomats of many influential countries have insisted in explicit terms that Abkhazia and South Ossetia must be deoccupied and restored to Georgia. Demands that the viewpoint of Russia and Russian-sponsored states have to be taken into account is a violation of Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Russian nationality of editors advocating for elimination of the term 'occupation' is alarming as such classification of military presence is perceived by them to be detrimental for Russia's image. 94.112.171.189 (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the previous editor. Furthermore, the current title makes it quite clear that the article deals with the territories regarded as occupied by Georgia and is, thus, NPOV. This position is shared by many foreign governments and international organizations. The argument that the Russian military presence is a result of "international treaties" is flawed as this is only Russia's position and thus represents a minority view.--Kober^Talk 16:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

These territories are not occupied by Russia

These territories are not occupied by Russia! According to that logic Kosovo would be still a NATO-Protectorate because of the foreign Military presence in this country. The Majority of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians were Russian Citizens before the Secession War started and South Ossetia and Abkhazia had been de facto sovereign Proto-States since the early and middle 1990ties.--92.211.155.49 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag

@HCPUNXKID:, please provide a reason for placing the NPOV tag here per the guidance here. Alaexis_¿question? 14:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Russian bases maps

Giorgi Balakhadze What source have you used for the maps of Russian bases in SO and Abkhazia? Alaexis_¿question? 06:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

,

US/Commonwealth spelling inconsistency

When going through the article just now applying {{convert}} I noticed that there was a mix of US ("meter") and Commonwealth ("metre") spellings being used. I've used the latter ("metre") where relevant for the convert templates for the sake of consistency. I've not looked to see if there are other spelling inconsistencies (e.g. "colour"/"color") but someone probably should. As there was no tag on the article, neither form predominated and I don't know which form Georgia normally uses my choice of Commonwealth spelling was arbitrary, if this is wrong then just add a spell=us parameter to each instance of the template. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Change title to "Russian occupied territories in Georgia"...

...analogous to other articles about russian occupied territories. 213.55.225.118 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 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. Appears to be a consensus towards this title for the time being. If there is any further discussion on Abkhazia, another RM may be needed. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Occupied territories of Georgia → Russian-occupied territories in Georgia – The current title is non-descript as well as a misnomer. The latter is perhaps the principle problem at present. The use of the word "of" is inherently ambiguous here: "Occupied territories of Georgia" could mean territories occupied by Georgia. At the very least, it should be "in Georgia". Furthermore, aside from it being worthwhile descriptively to add "Russian-" to the front of this, it would also make the article more consistent with A) Russian-occupied territories and B) Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine - though I now wince at the realization that that second title also uses "of". Iskandar323 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support current title could easily be misread. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and In ictu oculi. Analogous to the more-intuitive form Russian-occupied territories in Ukraine which currently redirects to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Support  The current title is ambiguous, this clarifies it perfectly.  —Michael Z. 03:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well, I am not so sure. Whereas Ukraine is clearly now occupied by Russia, and South Osetia is clearly a puppet state, Abkhazia is certainly more independent from Russia than Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics or South Osetia ever were. For example, they run competitive elections, and at least once the president candidate who was supported by Russia lost. Do we have arguments for COMMONNAME here? Otherwise making it "in Georgia" would be the easiest solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't deny that there are nuances to the different situations, but in the situation on the ground section here, it does not that there is A) a standing army of 5,000 Russian troops in Abkhazia, and that B) "Russia has control over Abkhazia's "borders", roads and sea - that there is a degree of local autonomy and democratic function does not make it "un-occupied". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  But anyway, isn't it incidental given that the title already labels the situation as such? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, I do not think so. I would call Abkhazia "Abkhazia-occupied". Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I see. Well I get your point, but can a territory even self-occupy, or is that just considered autonomy/independence? And that would suggest it shouldn't be on an article of occupied territories in the first place. However, where such ambiguity exists, doesn't Wikipedia tend to fall back on the majoritarian view of the international community? And I'm lead to believe, by resources such as this on the international recognition page, that it is not widely recognized as independent. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am not saying it is recognized as independent. It is pretty clear that Georgia considers Abkhazia occupied, and they actually do not care who occupies it. But we should follow COMMONNAME. Do the majority of sources consider Abkhazia as Russian-occupied territory? Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure. My approach here was principally from a descriptive title perspective, but I am certainly sure "Abkhazia-occupied" is not a common phraseology for describing the territory's situation. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am not advocating for this either. It looks to me like "In Georgia" would be the best solution for the time being. Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support  - I welcome any adjustment that improves clarity and accurately reflects the actual reality on the ground. In response to Ymblanter's arguments, any degree of "greater freedom" within a Russian-occupied areas does not render it un-"Russian-occupied". In the same way, there are regions in Russian Federation, some of which are krais and some of which are republics/autonomies. Abkhazia is still occupied even if it is in some way "more independent" within the Russian-occupied territories.Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:22, 26 January 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.

Propose split of Georgian Law

I propose that the most of the Georgian Law section be moved to a new article at Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia It will make is easier to communicate countries reactions to the Georgian law separate from their reactions to the Russian occupation. These are related but distinct issues. Daask (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

huh, no one's replied to this. are there any good academic overview sources for Georgian law on the breakaway states that could form the basis for a new article? the section as it stands is pretty poor-quality, mostly using news sources and Georgian law directly. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)