Talk:Abkhazia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:25, 24 March 2007 editPernambuco (talk \| contribs)1,533 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:12, 19 November 2024 edit undoUnsungHistory (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users542 edits →Rayfield on the post-WW2 economy: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talkheader~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes }}
	{{Controversial}}		{{Controversial}}
			{{On this day\|date1=2010-08-26\|oldid1=381101873}}
	{{WPCD-places}}{{releaseversion\|class=B\|category=Geography}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Caucasia}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Abkhazia\|importance=Top}}
	{\| class="infobox" width="270px"
			{{WikiProject Caucasia\|importance=High}}
	\|-
			{{WikiProject Georgia (country)\|importance=High}}
	!align="center"\|]<br/>]
			{{WikiProject Russia\|importance=high\|hist=yes\|pol=yes}}
	----
			{{WikiProject Limited recognition\|importance=High}}
	\|-
			}}
	\|
			{{To do}}
	* ]
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	* ]
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes \|template=
	*
			}}
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 10
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Abkhazia/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{old move
			\|date1=28 July 2023\|from1=Abkhazia \|destination1=Republic of Abkhazia\|result1=not moved\|link1=Special:Permalink/1170854555#Requested move 28 July 2023
			\|date2=29 March 2024 \|from2=Abkhazia \|destination2=Republic of Abkhazia \|result2= not moved \|link2=Special:Permalink/1217432298#Requested move 29 March 2024
			}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (DRG and the Soviet Rule) ]. <!-- {"title":"DRG and the Soviet Rule","appear":{"revid":1076981361,"parentid":1076967288,"timestamp":"2022-03-14T00:23:41Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":,"replaced_anchors":{"After restoration of independence":"After the restoration of independence"}},"disappear":{"revid":1206497904,"parentid":1184191297,"timestamp":"2024-02-12T09:05:59Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
			}}

	== ~~Abkazia~~ ~~land~~ of ~~Georgia~~ ==		== "officially the Republic of Abkhazia" ==

			If its de jure status is that it's part of Georgia, shouldn't official name be "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia"? What does "officially" mean otherwise? It's obviously ]. Also, there are two articles on Crimea: ] and ] where first one refers to the general region, and the second one refers to the internationally-recognized jurisdiction. I think this is the correct and most neutral practice when it comes to territorial disputes. — ] (]) 16:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
	Ok! Now listen people! My name is George and I'm from Georgia. You all must know, that Abkazia is Georgia, not independent country. Georgia is independet country and Abkazia is Georgian land. There was Russian political games in Abkazia. We was friends, but Russia did all, for war. My father was fighting in Abkazia, not for Russians, not for politacal games...he was fighting for integrity of Georgia. Noone can take, not Abkazia and not Tskinvali. As our ancestors, we will fight for integrity of Georgia. Abkazians are Georgians...I'm from Imereti and I have friend from Racha, Achara, Guria... and we all are Georgians, as people from Abkazia. And you all who wrote this article must know, that Abkazia is not independent country, Abkazia is land of independent Georgia and I'll fight for this. <br />
			:The article about Crimea is about the peninsula itself, the administrative division articles are ] and ]. ] (]) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
	P.S. Sorry for my English...<br />
			::Adding on to that, the ''de jure'' Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has its own article: ]. <big>]]</big> 21:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
	"სამშობლოს არვის წავართმევთ<br />
			:Absolutely right I wanted to say exactly that ] (]) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
	ჩვენც ნურვინ შეგვეცილება<br />
			:Fully support removal of "official". It is ]. ] (]) 05:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
	თორემ ისეთ დღეს დავაყრით<br />
			::Saying it is "Officially Independent"is POV,but so is "It is Part of Georgia" ] (]) (]) 22:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	მკვდარსაც კი გაეცინება"<br />
	] 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			== Rayfield on the post-WW2 economy ==
	:So what? ] 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			I've removed some of the information that has been added, so I'd like to give an explanation here. This is what Rayfield writes in his ''Edge of Empires''
	See up --] 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			{{cquote\|Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves.}}
	::: Strange comments but suggesting what exactly ? ] 13:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

			Only the last sentence concerns Abkhazia directly. The previous sentences have to do with the general situation in Georgia. The 1948 reforms affected ''workers'' (as in factory workers), while peasants, including the ones resettled in Abkhazia, had no passports even before or after that.
	== Abkhazian Air Force ==

			I think it would be a good idea to describe the economical situation in Abkhazia in Soviet times in this article, but we should use sources which discuss Abkhazia rather than the whole Georgia or USSR-wide changes, unless they impacted Abkhazia in a major way. The 1948 measures tying workers to their jobs were unlikely to impact Abkhazia since there was very little industry there. ]<sub>]</sub> 15:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	] and I have created the beginning of an article on the ] based on the limited information available to us. I'm sure some of the editors here have access to better and more extensive information, and we invite your contributions! Thanks, ] <small>]</small> 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

			:"Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves."sounds very POV ] (]) (]) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	''<Off-topic discussion moved to new topic, "Russian propaganda?>'' -- ] <small>]</small> 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

			== Coherence in terming ==
	:: I suggest we keep the article but strip any propaganda from it ] 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

			I see that for Kosovo, it is stated that it is a country, while, accoding to UN, it is a province of Serbia.
	== Russian propaganda? ==
			Without entering the partisan discussion, and based on the Misplaced Pages definition of "country", I assume that the appropriate way to define Abkhazia, is that it is a ]:
			<blockquote>
			"''A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory''".</blockquote> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Requested move 29 March 2024 ==
	Askari Mark beleave me, many editors has not true information about abkazia. This article is sample Russian propagand--] 08:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

			<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	:Thank you for your warning, ], but having just re-read the article to see how it has evolved since I last read it, I don't think I can agree. Misplaced Pages is pledged to hold to a neutral point of view (NPOV), supporting neither the views of one side or the other, but outlining both. Can you show me the anti-Georgian bias in passages such as these?
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

			The result of the move request was: '''Not moved''' <small>(])</small> ] <sup>]·]'']</sup> 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
	::*''Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic within the de jure borders of Georgia, on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, bordering the Russian Federation to the north. Abkhazia’s independence is not recognized by any international organization or country and is regarded as an autonomous republic of Georgia, with Sukhumi as its capital.''
			----

			] → {{no redirect\|Republic of Abkhazia}} – The article looks like a chaotic mix of different kind of informations about historical Abkhazia, separatist Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. This looks confusing. The historical region of Abkhazia should have its own page Abkhazia (region) like ]. Politically, there is separatist Republic of Abkhazia, and there is also Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. The world (except five rogue states) recognizes Abkhazia as territory of Georgia. There should not be priority given to separatist narrative. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should have its own article ], where its history and controversy would be discussed. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should not be portrayed as heir to historical Abkhazia and the name Abkhazia should not be appropriated by it, this is violation of NPOV and FRINGE. Currently, the name Abkhazia is given to Republic of Abkhazia, because this article with the name of Abkhazia begins with the claim that Abkhazia is a partially recognized state. Why does not it begins with such text "Abkhazia is a region of Georgia"? This is violation of NPOV. Create separate article for separatist republic. This article '''Abkhazia''' should be disambiguous page, redirecting to separatist Republic of Abkhazia, Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Abkhazia (region). Most of the Misplaced Pages pages linked to this article are named Republic of Abkhazia: Georgian, Spanish, French, even Russian and Abkhazian wikipedia articles. ] (]) 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
	::*''On 21 February 1992, Georgia's ruling Military Council announced that it was abolishing the Soviet-era constitution and restoring the 1921 Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. Many Abkhaz interpreted this as an abolition of their autonomous status. In response, on 23 July 1992, the Abkhazia government effectively declared secession from Georgia, although this gesture went unrecognized by any other country.''

	::*''In spite of the 1994 ceasefire accord and the ongoing UN-monitored CIS peacekeeping operation, the conflict has not yet been resolved and the region remains divided between the two rival authorities, with over 83 percent of its territory controlled by the Russian-backed Sukhumi-based separatist government and about 17 percent governed by the representatives of the de jure Government of Abkhazia, the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia, located in the Kodori Valley, part of Georgian-controlled Upper Abkhazia.''

	::*''The United States, European Union and international organizations (UN, OSCE, Council of the European Union, etc.) recognize Abkhazia as an integral part of Georgia and are urging both sides to settle the conflict over Abkhazian autonomy through peaceful means. However, the Abkhaz separatist government and the majority of the current Abkhazian population (excluding ethnic Georgians who still populate the Gali District and the Kodori Gorge) consider Abkhazia a sovereign country, even though not recognized by any party in the world.''

	:As far as I can see, with content like this, the article appears rather even-handed. The fact that it is not pro-Georgian does not automatically mean it is pro-Russian. If you see ''specific'' statements that are anti-Georgian — not merely not pro-Georgian — then please identify them on this Talk page so that they can be addressed.

	:In writing the article on the ], I myself have tried to present as even-handed a story as possible, drawing upon a variety of sources and viewpoints. This was not easy, given the scarcity of English-language references, but that is the best I can do. If you can guide me to English-language Georgian sources on the Abkhaz air force and its operations, I would be just as interested in them as any coming from English-language Abkhazian or Russian sources. ] <small>]</small> 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

	I'll tell you, Abkazia is not de facto independent republic, Abkazia is de facto refublic. There are '''Russian''' and Abkazian separatists and Russia Rules Abkazia. anyway Abkazia is not independet. Maybe for this time is independent from Georgia, but not from Russia --] 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I understand what you mean, but Misplaced Pages requires us to draw upon reliable, independent sources and summarize what those sources say — and cite them. This is especially true when the topic of the article is controversial. For us to present what we ''believe'' to be the truth — especially as the one and only possible truth — is considered "point of view" (see ]) and, if uncited, it is at best "original research" (see ]).

	:I perceive that your main criticism of the article is that the Russian role — possibly to the extent that the ''de facto'' government is nothing but a Russian "puppet" government — is understated. If so, this aspect of the article can be better developed by identifying "reliable, independent" sources (preferably in English) that provide evidence supporting this theory. That would provide stronger substantiation than, say, a group of sources that are all pro-Georgian (which would be rightfully dismissed as POV, even if it were all true). ] <small>]</small> 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I would say an argument against that would be the fact that the last presidential elections were not won by Russia's favourite.] 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

	askari mark I understand wat u talk about, but only one wat I want to say : i didn't say that in this article all is not true, I said that in this article some parts is not true and bigest part(de facto independent republic of abkazia)is simple russian propagand, simple russian misinformation. Why is not writen independent republic of chechenya? becouse russians never assume this. This is world 💕 and this articles read whole world.<br />
	OK.. for example...do u know wat happen in abkazia? wat u know, u know from this article yes? do u know that we won this war in abkazia? and "georgian, but russian" man eduard shevardnadze said something like this : "return army from abkazia, we lose this war". there was an airport named "bombora" and there was arm and noone could enter there, but russians and shevardnadze admittance there "peace russian army", where is peace? they kill georgians in Gali. In past this war was russian political game and now this article is russian propagand<br />

	sephia, yes it's true that in last presidential elections did not won russian's favorite. there won half georgian. He's wife is georgian. He want to settle our sonflict. why? answer about this question is simple - not russia, not america, not china...shortly noone can separate georgians. only one what i want... i want that someone delete abkazia from independet countries.
	P.S. Sorry for my English
	--] 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	:But then if such a man could have become president, then surely Russia is not running the country? And you and I agree that Georgia is not running the country, so what other option does that leave than the conclusion that Abkhazia is currently de facto independent? I mean, you have the right to thoroughly dislike this fact, but to state that Abkhazia is currently indendent has got nothing to do with stating that Abkhazia should or should not be independent. ] 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	], I can understand your English okay, so you don't need to keep apologizing for it. However, your limited skill may be what is leading you to believe this article is about an ''independent'' Abkhazia. It is not. It is about an Abkhazia which some people want reunited with Georgia, some want to join Russia, and some want to be independent. As can be found in the editing history for this article, every time someone has tried to add such a claim to this article, an editor has removed it. The extracts I posted above show what is truly being stated in this article — that Abkhazia is a Georgian province chiefly controlled by separatists, but which no other nation (even Russia) recognizes as an independent land.

	As for myself, I study military conflicts around the world, so this article contains less than I know; however, to simply add further information I know about would be "original research". (In fact, if I had written a published article on the civil war, I personally would not be able to use it as a reference. With Misplaced Pages, I am limited by what sources I can find on the Internet or elsewhere in a language I can read.) That is where you could make a useful contribution to the development of this article. As I stated earlier, if you can locate sources readable by at least one of the contributing editors, post a link on this talk page. Don't worry about your command of English; other editors here can polish it. No one here is opposed to improving this article, even though we have editors who are partial to one side or another. The key is to rely as much as possible on sources not written by partisan authors. Best regards, ] <small>]</small> 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

	OK...if you study military conflicts around the world, then u know what heppened in Abkazia and u know that it's not writen here. you did not answer me on this question : why is not here - independent republic of chechnya? See this please http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Alaexis, he is from russia, why he thinks that our president has aggressive attempts to subjugate Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whith our land's people?!(abkazia and osetia were our lands about 25-30 centuries and more, in past half georgia's name was abkazia).when our president hepls south osetia and abkazia why south osetia's "president" has aggressive attitude with his own people? do you know that poeple who live in osetia wants to come back in gerogia? but they can't say this....and after this our president is aggressive?! why they deleted your post? and who delete it, i guess russians, maybe not russian, but russian's man.<br />
	this is slide show about war in abkazia - http://www.geoarmy.info/moxalise.wmv<br />
	and this is georgian rock music about abkazia, named - we remember - http://www.geoarmy.info/weremember.mp3<br />
	yea, we remember and we'll never forget it...not only we, our children will not forget it, and their children....<br />
	this is georgian reaction on georgian, russian and english languages - http://www.reaction.ge/<br />
	i don't know if u'll can download this from georgian ip<br />
	if u'll can't download this, then i'll upload on raphideshare<br />
	wat is this ? During war in Abkhazia (province of Georgia) war criminals killed more than 6 000 georgians.
	1 800 of them were killed by abkhazian criminals after war in Gali region, with help of Russian "Peacekeepers". this is fact...
	]
	]
	] 06:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


	:: Gnome, please look at Ldingley's userboxes ] . Mine are just as biased as his (although of course you agree with his position and don't agree with mine).

	::Anyway, could you propose specific parts of article you want to change? If you want your change to be accepted you have to find reliable and NPOV (=nonbiased) sources. The Georgian sites you have mentioned are obviously POV. The majority of the Russian and Abkhazian sites are also biased, of course. So most of the information in the article is supported by more or less NPOV sources such as Human Rights Watch report, UN resolutions and so on.

	:: If you want to change some part of the article please write here on the talk page what do you want to change and present some non-biased references. Good luck! ] 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Alaexis, Ldingley created his userboxes in response to the inflammatory ones invented by ] and quickly adopted by ] and yourself. I tried in vain to convince the valiant opponents of "Saakashvili’s aggressive attempts to subjugate Abkhazia and SO" that the move could only be divisive. You seem to be more cooperative and I appreciate your efforts to maintain NPOV. However, I still think that one of your Georgia-related userboxes is simply irredentist ("unification of Ossetia"? I’m sure you don’t mean the unification of Ossetia within Georgia) and the other is no less offending. Do you think that it is only Saakashvili ("the puppet of Bush’s bellicose administration" as one of your compatriots once put it here) who wants to restore the territorial integrity of Georgia while other Georgians are resolutely opposed to his "aggressive attempts"? You can freely substitute those two boxes with a single one "this user supports the partition of Georgia and Russian annexation of South Ossetia". Most of other users who support separatist movements prefer simple wording such as "this user supports the independence of X", while you have chosen the most offending way to express you political opinion. I hope you understand what I mean. Respectfully, ] 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Back to the subject, the article needs to be seriously reworked. First of all, it is becoming very long and some sections (e.g., Geography and Climate, and History) need to be abridged. Second, the article lacks the information about the poor human right conditions in Abkhazia, especially in the Georgian-populated Gali district where people are terrorized almost daily. The existing, but not widely publicized division among Abkhaz political leadership and the increasing tensions between the Abkhaz and Armenian communities are also overlooked. The Armenian Association of Georgia has recently reported several attacks on Armenian schools in Abkhazia. I'll try to find appropriate citations when I have enough time.--] 12:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	i already said what i want to change for this time. i want that wikipedia's administration delete abkazia from indefendent countries, or move in depended countries, or in de facto republics. as i know from your personal page u are russian. i don't have problems with russians. i have many, many russian friends and kinsman, i have russian cooperators and i don't have problems with them. but i have problems with russian politics.your pattern about south ossetia and abkazia...what it means?! saakashvili don't has aggressive attempts to subjugate Abkhazia and South Ossetia. if u watch free television, not federation's, or something like this...u see, that russian "peacekeepers", ossetian guardians and "naiomniki" shooting in georgian villiges. from where comes "naiomniki"? ossetia don't have not money, not army... of course from russia and don't argue about it...becouse it know u, it know me and it knows whole world.why u wrote about saakashvili and not about kokoiti, or not about someone else? if i'll tell you that chechenya is independent republic and war in chechen republic was terorism from russia, i guess u'll don't like this. i'll tell you...let about georgian lands articles write gerogians, couse we know about our country more than someone else and about other countries lets write people from other countries. yes, it's right that it's 💕, but with this article, autors insults georgian nation. i guess wikipedia don't want this, yes? correctives in this article i'll enter then, when administration will moves this article in de facto, or in defendent countries. and remember this, abkazia is not country, abkazia is province of georgia, but for now we have problems, for russian plitics and for georgian ex-politics too.i guess u don't have problems with georgia, and with georgians, but u have problems with georgian politics. so please, we don't need to insult each other, with articles. abkazia and ossia with peace, or with war also will be our, couse this provinces are our. i see that ppl in ossetia wants to come back, but russia don't let them...but abkazians....they have more and more less time to come back, or we will do this. and at last, i'm not politician, i'm not state clerk, i'm programer and designer, simple i'm student.so lets do this, here will come georgian historians and they will write article about abkazia, and if abkazians want, they will write too.. but they'll never be independent.if u want to know, i don't need peace with abkazians anymore. but it's only my consider--] 12:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	:2Kober. I don't see any point in discussing userboxes (at least here). Mine and yours are equally biased and offending and I certainly wasn't the person who started it. If you like I can substitute 'Mikhail Saakashvili's' with 'Georgia's' ))

	:2Gnome. You still haven't brought any piece of evidence... ] 13:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	: Abkazia is in the list of independent states because it is believed to be de facto independent. It is written in beginning of that article that Abkhazia is not recognised by any other coutry. If you want to remove it from that list you have to prove Abkhazia is NOT de facto independent, i. e. that it's part of Russia (de facto). It'll be quite hard because Russia has never recognised Abkhazia as one of its regions (and as independent state also, btw). The president of Abkhazia is also elected by its citizens and is not appointed like other Russian regional leaders, moreover, as Sephia Karta has written, the candidate supported by Russia was defeated in the last elections. ] 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	wat piece of evidence do u want?! do u ever been in georgia? do u know wat heppened in abkazia? do u know wat heppened in tbilisi? do u know why began war in abkazia? do u know who was fighting in this war? do u know why we lost abkazia? do u know abkazia's history? do u know who are abkazians? do u know where they came from? do u know who was king when abkazians came in georgia? do u know georgian? do u know georgia's history? do u know name of old west georgia? no!!! u don't know nothing and u wrote something misinformation. u russian say me that me georgian must give u piece of evidence?! who are u for georgians? who give u permision to write this misinformation. i'll tell u who are u? u are misinformator, simple russian politician. and u said that u know more then me?! u russian know more than me georgian?! about georgia?! i'll leave this topic for now, but i'll fight for deleting abkazia from indefendent countries. it in virtual... will come day, day of vendeta. and then we'll see who is independent.
	--] 14:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	== an outside opinion ==

	Hello, as an outsider to this article I would just like to point out that the first paragraph is both lopsided and contradictory. I would recommend something a little more NPOV. ''Abkhazia is a disputed territory within the borders of the Republic of Georgia.'' Rather than claiming it is a ''defacto republic.'' I would also point out that since there is a conflict on-going in Abkhazia the page should be tagged to reflect that. On this same point I would remind users to be careful of Recentism. Please don't make an edit unless it can be verified.--] 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm sorry but I thoroughly disagree with you here. There is nothing contradictory in the opening paragraph, its information is factually true (according to the sources, though Gnome(G) doesn't agree with this) and it is NPOV. Stating that Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic is merely an observation about the situation on the ground, and it does not in any way qualify this situation in terms of right or wrong. ] 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Guy, I'm sorry, but I think you are being too bold when challenging the internationally accepted sovereignity of Georgia over its lawful territories (in this case Abkhazia). Just a friendly advise: don't expose yourself to Ruskii propaganda for a long period of time. This will severely damage your brain. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


	::: Cailil, it's rather "'''de facto independent''' republic" than "de facto AND independent republic". The latter indeed makes no sense. What on-going conflict did you write about? ] 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	Conflict was probably an incorrect word - I was referring to the dispute over the territory between the governments.--] 14:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	: I'm surprised you've found that this article fails to reflect this conflict (which is dormant, fortunately). Sections 'Political status', 'Politics', 'History' and 'International involvement' thouroghly cover it. ] 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	I apologize if I'm being unclear. I am not referring to the rest of the article (in general I think its a pretty good analysis of Abkhazia), I'm strictly referring to the wording of the first paragraph - the header. I'm not disputing the truth of it, but as an outsider that first paragraph does not look NPOV '''enough'''. Enough weight is not given to both sides. I merely suggest that the disputed status of Abkhazia be noted with more neutrality than it is currently given. However, if there is a verifiable, objective source that backs this paragraph up, please reference it- that would probably allay any concerns I have over the paragraph.--] 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: May I suggest this ---Abhhazia is a seperatist region within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia that has declared itself an independent country. This de-facto independence has yet to be recognised by the international community and its sovereignty is a matter of intense conflict and dispute with Georgia. ] 13:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::: I think some people here won't like the word 'yet' in your variant. Myself I think the current version is good enough and need not be changed. ] 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::: yes, avoid use of the word ''yet'' and just change to this: "Abhhazia is a separatist region within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia that has declared itself an independent country. Its de-facto independence is currently not recognised by the international community and its sovereignty is a matter of intense conflict and dispute with Georgia" ] 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::: Why is it better than current version ?? ] 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::I agree with Pernambuco. Following a series of debates, a very similar intro has also been agreed upon in the ] article and I find it pretty accurate and neutral: "Transnistria... is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in eastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence as a separate republic...", etc.--]<sup>]</sup> 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::: This is hardly a good argument. Look at ] and ] articles. There the intros resemble the current one here. I'm not really against the change, I just don't see the reason behind it. I don't think changing for the sake of changing is a good idea. If anyone is unhappy with the current intro please give some arguments. ] 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::: I am forced to agree with Alaexis, he is right, there is no good argument for changing, I support Alaexis and withdraw my proposal ] 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Here we go again==

	Kober,we all know that in 1992 Abkhazia (or at least some circles of Abkhazian politicians) proclaimed independence.Then came a war which led to the current status quo.Do you agree?

	Although the independence of the Abkhazian Republic has never been recognized,it exists.You can't deny that fact.So let's use the official name of the (separatist) state.] 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	:The current wording seems to be grammatically incorrect: it looks like there is ONE Abkhazian separatist who wants to be independent. If 'separatist' is used as an adjective the phrase 'separatist appeal' does not make any sense anyway. Even if it's correct it could confuse international readers.

	:The majority of Abkhazia population (as well as its government) is pro-independence, so it may be right to write "''Abkhazian Republic's appeal to be recognised ...''".

	:Consider this fragment "''Russian-backed separatist government...''" - there are people in Russia who do not support or back Abkhazian separatists, but Russia ''as a state'' indeed supports Abkhazia. In the same way Abkhazia ''as a state'' strives for independence. That's how I understand it. ] 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	ok...if it is not russian's and separatistes article..why someone is deleting georgians true information? Dimts proclaimed independence is not enough. if country is independent, it must be recognized. when georgia proclaimed independence it was recognized. abkazians never get recognize not fro georgia, not from world. maybe they get it from russians, couse after that abkazia will be russian teritory.

	people let georgians and not only them write true information and don't delete it.Dimts do u know wat happned in abkazia? maybe u know, maybe u know only this that "Abkhazia (or at least some circles of Abkhazian politicians) proclaimed independence".if u want to know true, let us write true--] 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	:The way you understand it, is not the way the international community interprets the events in Abkhazia. The full support of the Russian government to the separatist regime of Abkhazia within the de jure borders of Georgia (confirmed and supported by numerous UN resolutions, Security Consul Amendments, OSCE, EU, etc). Claiming and stating in the encyclopaedic article the following statement: Abkhazian Republic is definitely a non conformance approach to NPOV guidelines. There are many self designated republics and separatist enclaves in the world today, however, Misplaced Pages being as educational tool for the reader who has no background in abkhazian issues should find neutral and widely acceptable (with regards to international recognitions, designations and definitions) terminology. Therefore, we must not forget that de jure or de facto, the self imposed separatist wing of Abkhaz politicians who came to power thanks to the bloody ethnic war has no legal jurisdiction or has any authority according to international law to represent the population, jurisprudence/law and legal authority of Abkhazian Autonomous Republic. When or if Abkhaz separatist regime will gain recognition as legal governmental/authority (example: Palestinian Authority is a legal body governing the Palestinian affairs both internal and external) body by international community or Georgian government (under which jurisdiction and constitution the Autonomous Republic falls) we can use such terminology as Republic, Government, State or any other means ascribed to the real states. The enclaves such as Abkhazia are no states but enclaves of some regimes. I’m a firm supporter of international law, constitutional law and legality which comes with state affairs. This is not how I see it but how UN and other international organizations have interpreted and defined this issue. ] 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	:: Ldingley, do you think the current version is grammatically correct? btw, as a 'firm supporter of international law' you should now about ]. According to it international recognition is not required for the existence of the state. Does this convention still work or is it outdated? ] 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Montevideo Convention is not an universal agreement and Georgia is not a signatory to it. Neither are most of the World's countries. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::: It's not an universal agreement, but it was signed by US and EU also agrees with this convention in the matter of the state definition (see references in the article). Is there any alternative state definition (more widely accepted)? If there isn't one I think we should adhere to Montevideo definition. ] 10:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::: Heh this conversation is going off-topic plus goes into deep political discussion which has nothing to do with the encyclopaedic articles. Alexis, I understand your passionate ideals toward separatist causes on the Georgian territory (fanny how your opinion differs when it comes to Russia and Israel) and liberation, unification of some newly enchanted “states.” Its no surprise for me. However, as I said, this is encyclopaedic web site and not political discussion forum (you may join fellow aps’wa at www.abkhazia.org or “unified” Ossetians at www.ossetia.ru) . When claiming this and that we usually use references (valid ones and not the ones from Russian websites), sources (primary and secondary) and quotes from various news headlines. It’s not wise to drag the subject on the encyclopaedic article. It’s not a propaganda tool but an educational experience for the reader who had no idea before about this issue. So let’s keep politics out and concentrate on expanding and creating articles for encyclopaedic purposes. Cheers mite! p.s Montenegro example has no similarities or implications for Abkhazia, this has been confirmed by UN and EU. Georgian territorial integrity and the international support which stands behind it is far different, from the case on Montenegro (where the Yugoslav constitution allowed Montenegro to separate) and Putins favourite example Kosovo. Another thing, Russia fears "independent" Abkhazia more than Georgia. If setting such precedent, its territorial integrity in Caucasus will break as the thin ice on the melting point. Again we are venturing into politics. ] 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::: Ldingley, what Montenegro or Russian Caucasus have to do with the problem we are discussing? Unless you can read my thoughts please refrain from writing what '''I''' think about Russian or Israeli integrity or anything else in future. I'll write what I think myself if it's related to the subject :).
	:::::: Do you (as a native English-speaker) consider the current version (Abkhaz separatist appeal) grammatically correct? ] 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::: No I don't, will fix. BTW My name is Luis. You name is Alex or Alexander? Cheers. ] 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::: Ok, Luis. I prefer 'Alex'. Good luck. ] 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	This is harder than I thought.Let me explain.

	The article says "...Abkhaz separatist appeal to be recognized as an independent state...".Now for the first question.Who is this mysterious Abkhaz separatist?Is he a Forseman Apocalypse?Mabus from the prochesy of Nostradamus?Somebody you know?

	Question N2.What state wants to be recognized?Maybe the Abkhazian separatists took over London and proclaimed it an independent state?Or maybe they want the international community to recognize the evil Empire from Star Wars?

	That's why the quote "...Abkhazian Republic's appeal to be recognized as an independent state..." is the best option.] 14:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I’m sorry, but your questions (arguments?) with their Nostradamus/London/Star Wars rhetoric make little sense. Who are the Abkhaz separatists? It is becoming quite clear in the process of reading the article and the lead section thereof. What state wants to be recognized? An answer is basically the same and whether Abkhazia and fellow breakaway/occupied entities can be categorized as “states” is a subject of ongoing discussion here and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages.

	:I don’t think that “Abkhazian Republic's appeal to be recognized as an independent state” is the best option. I have to repeat myself: ethnic Georgians who still live within the de facto boundaries of the “Republic of Abkhazia” (and thus can be qualified as its population) or in the lands claimed but not controlled by this “republic” don’t want to secede from Georgia.

	:I don’t think that this “separatists vs. republic” issue is that big problem in the article. This is becoming just another fruitless (and typical for Misplaced Pages) “talk page” collision among different POVs. Folks, please stop treating the article as if reflects only a Georgian POV. In fact, is does not. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Your questions are too comical to be bothered with. How about you read some sources, books and documents and answer your own questions? Also please lets avoid political dogma here and while maintaining NPOV, concentrate on encyclopaedic style. ] 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	Could you explain why can't the term ''Abkhazian Republic'' be used?] 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	== New Athos problem ==

	wat is this?! it's name. translate name?! ok... someone transleted name...map is english...yea? if u translate novyy afon from russian it will be new afon. ]{{unsigned}}

	: To translate all geografical names literally is not always a good idea. However in this case it might be since English is more neutral than Russian, Georgian or Abkhazian version. The argument against the renaming is that this monastery was founded by Russians as Novyy Afon. I don't have an opinion on this problem. ] 07:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	::I would agree with Alaexis. It is better to use an English transliteration in this case so as to avoid another tide of edit wars on a relatively minor issue.--]<sup>]</sup> 08:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


	::: btw, there is another issue with the map. The accepted English name of the territory is Abkhazia, not Abkhazeti or Apsny. So if this map is to be completely English the Georgian version of the republic's name has to be removed as well.
	:::Another alternative is to give three-language territory name (Abkhazia, Apsny, Abkhazeti) and two-language names of the cities (Tkvarcheli, Tkuarchal; Gali, Gal). ] 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::: I dont think so, Gali and Tkhvarcheli is acceptable geographical names of these "cities." Gal and Tkhvarchal is the separatist new designation for this old ] names. ] 15:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Exactly. Alaexis, it is impossible to reflect everything in one map. The map should use the most widely accepted English names (Sukhumi, not Sukhum; Tkvarcheli, not Tkuarchal; Gali, not Gal). It is directly in accordance with the Misplaced Pages policy. The above map, however imperfect, is actually made and used by the UN. It can also be found at the UNOMIG (the UN mission operating in Abkhazia) website. I think it is wise to keep it in the article until the better one is created.--]<sup>]</sup> 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::: I can only repeat what I have written more clearly. There can be two alternative policies regarding the names on the map.
	:::: 1. Accepted English names only. This means S'''u'''khum'''i''', '''Tkvarcheli''', Gal'''i''' and '''Abkhazia'''.
	:::: 2. English, Georgian and Abkhazian variants. This means three names for some entities (like Abkhazia, Abkhazeti, Apsny) and two names for most of them (Gali, Gal; Tkuarcheli, Tkuarchal) because usually accepted English version coincides with Georgian one.
	:::: In MY opinion the current map is ok. However if someone wants to make a new one s/he should adhere to one of the aforementioned policies to be consistent. ] 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I fully agree. ] 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Well known? ==

	The article states that "Abkhazia is well known for its beauty and contrasting landscapes." I take issue with that statement. Who is it well known by? By what scale is this measured? I reccomend the sentence be deleted. The next sentence is descriptive and NPOV. "The landscapes of the region range from coastal forests (endemic pine forests near Bichvinta/Pitsunda) and citrus plantations, to eternal snows and glaciers to the north of the republic." ] 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:: I agree, it's not Sleeping-Beauty Land or Switzerland. ] 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Number of Georgian returnees to Gali ==

	Alex, I’m afraid you have somewhat a strange understanding of NPOV :) Why have you selected an apparently erroneous (but more suitable for your POV) info from the document? The same pdf contains an absolutely contradictory info on the same subject which is consistent with other UN reports and similar documents. If you want, I will post direct quotations. Since you specialize in the Abkhazia-related topics, you should know perfectly well that Georgians are not allowed to freely return to the region and those who have returned are subjected to almost everyday attacks and mistreatment. I know that such things are not reported by Russian media, but check some Georgian sources from time to time. Just to hear the opposite side. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup> 12:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	: There aren't any contradictions actually. The data in chapter 2 is about 1998-2004 period, while the data in chapter 3 is about 1994-1998 period. I know about some human rights violations in Samyrzakan and I was sure someone would add info about them. ] 13:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	: The head of the Gal district of Abkhazian republic is Ruslan Kishmariya ( , ). I gather it's a Mingrelian surname. If I'm right the phrase about predominantly Abkhaz authorities is not valid. ] 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	::No. The information is valid and comes from the UN report cited in the article. Kishmaria is Abkhaz. Many ethnic Abkhaz have Mingrelian surnames. Don't you remember the Abkhaz writer Gulia or the former de facto prime minister Jergenia? There was also an Abkhaz butcher Papaskiri notorious for his crimes during the Sukhumi massacre of Georgians in 1993. The surname is clearly of Mingrelian origin, "skiri" meaning "a son".--]<sup>]</sup> 13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	::About 70% of Abkhaz has Mingrelian last names while the ones wich end with "bsh" "ba" are old ] names. Abkhaz even have last names which end in "dze" and "iani."] 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: I've looked at the list of the mp candidates from the Gal district . They are Yuri Kereselidze, Akhra Kvekveskiri, Ramin Chekheria, Tamaz Shonia, Vyacheslav Vardania. Are they all Abkhaz? Is there any good method of determining one's ethnicity?
	:::It seems like Abkhaz are more likely to have Russian names and seldom have Georgian ones (although this also happens). Anyway names like Tamaz, Akhra and Ramin sound Georgian to me. ] 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::I really don't get your point. First, Tamaz and Ramin are Persian names popular among both Georgians and Abkhaz. I've never heard of Akhra, but it sounds Abkhaz. Second, my info comes from the UN report which is a legitimate source. Third, it deals with the <u>current authorities</u>, not the "mp candidates" for the Gali district.--]<sup>]</sup> 08:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::: It's surely a legitimate source but this report was issued in June, 2004 and some things might have changed by now. ] 10:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Nothing has changed since then. If you are still in doubt, try to obtain more recent and neutral sources which would prove that Georgians also participate in the distric's governance.--]<sup>]</sup> 11:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::""Anyway names like Tamaz, Akhra and Ramin sound Georgian to me."" The fact that it "seems so to you" shows only one sad fact - that you have no idea about what are editing. Akhra and Ramin are not used by Georgians at all, while Tamaz is used by both Georgians and Abkhazians. ] 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::: Please refrain from personal insults. I can also make some nasty remark about your wiki-behaviour, English or contributions.
	:::::::: What about Ramin Katamadze? I've recently listened to a radio broadcast where he participated . So either he's not Georgian or you're wrong. Adiós. ] 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::: Well, if you can read, what is written on the link you provide, you will see that from the very beginning that person denounces his Georgian identity. In the same way if he were Richard Katamadze, this would not make Richard a Georgian name:).
	::::::::: And Akhra is Abkhaz name with no alternatives or usages by other nationalities. Thats why you should check information before saying "it seems so to me" and editing the article on such "grounds". ] 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::: I have NOT edited the article on these grounds. I've put only the facts from the UN report to the 'Political Status' section. I had some doubts about the phrase about the ethnicity of Gali district authorities so I raised this issue on the talk page. Currently there is no problem at all with it - you should've noted the argument had been dormant for almost a month before your post. ] 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

	What the heck is going on here! It seems to me a group of Russian web brigade activists have teamed up to wage a pro-separatist and Russian neo-imperialist prop. Guys, you are too brainwashed to stay neutral when writing this article. I was just wondering why Abkhaz users don't appear on Misplaced Pages. It would have been more interesting to work with them rather than listen to a bunch of Russian users who pretend to be very sympathetic towards the Abkhaz "self-determination" cause, but, in reality, they regard them as a barbarian and underdeveloped people. They have simply chosen to support the Abkhaz separatist ambitions due to the fact that Russian nationalists cannot reconcile with the fact that Georgia is independent and pro-Western. This is the main reason behind the current Russo-Georgian antagonism. And this is not just my opinion. Several indepedendent observers and analysts write about an extreme anti-Georgian public opinion in Russia.

	Now back to the article, why it is so surprisingly silent about the role of Russian Air Force in bombing and destroying Sokhumi? As far as I remember, the Russian defense minister and notorious Great Russian Chauvinist Grachev claimed that Georgians were bombing themselves. However, the Georgians shot down, in 1993, a Russian Su piloted by Major Shipko who had served in the Russian air forces and the UN military mission confirmed this fact.
	::: This is correct but was the Su on a bombing mission or spying ? ] 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	: There ARE Abkhaz users on wikipedia. Look here
	:This is the start page of Abkhaz wikipedia ] 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Gallery ==

	So I've made a small gallery of images found on WikiCommons and elsewhere. More photos are definitely needed so please feel free to upload them. One shouldn't forget about copyright of course and this stuff can be qute time-consuming :( <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

	::Good job. The photos are much needed and look great, but I think it would be better if we included them in the corresponding articles (eg Sokhumi, Gagra), not here.--]<sup>]</sup> 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: Some of them are originally from other articles (i. e. New Athos ones). However I don't think we should remove anything from here. Consider ], ] or ] article galleries. I fully agree to post them to their corresponding articles '''as well'''. ] 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::IMO, the galleries in the Georgia, Wales, and Spain articles are excessive '''as well'''.--]<sup>]</sup> 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Demographics -> table ==
	What about making a table in the demographics section merging the 1897, 1926, 1989 and 2003 censi data which is already present and adding 1939, 1959, 1970 data. Like the one . This way the information will be more easy to read imo. ] 16:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

	:It will be better to exclude the pre-Soviet demographics info from the table. The 1890s data are very contradictory. To give a preference to one source (B&E in your case) over the rest and include it in the table while footnoting others is kind of POV. Also, your assertion that the ''Sukhumi district occupied about the same territory as Abkhazian ASSR in Soviet times'' is not true, because the Abkhazian lands north of the Bzyb river (including Gagra) were detached from this district in 1904 to form a part of the Black Sea district. The area was later reconquered by the Georgian army from Denikin's Whites and reincluded in Abkhazia in 1919. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

	:: Currently there are 3 sets of pre-revolution numbers: from Encyclopedia of Islam (1881), from the B&E encyclopedia (actually based on the 1897-census data) and 1917 data. Before any further discusion could you provide reference for the latter statistics? Then we'll consider either moving all this info into table with appropriate footnotes or leaving pre-1926 numbers in the text.
	:: About Sukhum district. The important thing is that '''at the time of census''' Sukhum district had occupied the same territory as the Abkhazian ASSR did later. ] 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::Alex, please don’t remove referenced content. Yes, the source is a Georgian book published in Tbilisi. If you don’t trust it, you should find the sources that would prove otherwise. You can go to the nearest library and verify the 1917 rural census data. The way to deal with such things is by challenging them, not by removing them. Take care, ]<sup>]</sup> 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::: Actually I trust this data. You've pointed out recently that Gagra was part of Sochi district (or Chernomorski, not sure) since 1904 and till the Georgian conquest. Since the census was conducted by the Provisional Government Gagra wasn't included in Abkhazia. That's the reason behind conflicting numbers, I believe. ] 07:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::: So this data is not very relevant - it includes only '''rural''' population of '''part''' of the present-day Abkhazia. It certainly doesn't deserve to be put into the table near the census numbers for the whole Abkhazia. ] 07:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

	::::: Full support on this. I am an outsider, and neutral to this, in fact I dont know too much about the issue, but when someone who is an ordinary reader is seeing this article, it is very important that the information is presented in the correct way and no undue weight to items that do not raise to that level ] 13:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

	::::::: Well you see that would be difficult judging that Mr Alaexis has frankly pro-separatist agenda here on Misplaced Pages. Therefore, i have relay serious doubts that he will generate any neutral information for this article. By using Russian and Abkhaz sources and ignoring the rest is definitely a POV approach and will not be constructive, in fact it will lead to confrontation between disputed parties here on Misplaced Pages. This topic is extremely controversial and pro-separatist or pro-Russian approach is not a solution for creation of a neutral article, on contrary. . ] 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::: 2Luis. Being fully pro-Georgian isn't very helpful either. I haven't found any arguments in your last post so I presume you don't have anything against my proposal. ] 16:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::: Im definitely not pro-Georgian, I’m pro-reality (being Canadian, my country has no territorial disputed with Georgia). I have nothing against your census, it’s nicely done. However, please consider using more neutral sources rather than Islamic encyclopaedia written by a Russian (god knows where he took his census) and also 1800s Russian Encyclopaedia which labels Abkhaz as uncultured. Otherwise, I welcome your hard work for improving this article . Great job on photos. Hoping some day I can visit there again. ] 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::: Being Canadian does not make a person non-biased on all issues :).
	:::::::::: Please don't accuse me of what I haven't done. It was Kober who found 1881 info (look here - ). If you don't like it you may remove it, I have no objections. Regards. ] 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC

	I added another statistic, it comes from Daniel Müller's contribution to The Abkhazians: A handbook. I find it to be impartial and objective, and I think he does a good job at explaining who the Samurzaq'anoans were, by cross-tabulating nationality data against mother-tongue data. ] 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

	==Vandalism==

	:::: Ldingley,can I nicely ask you to please stop inserting the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words into the article, this is not Kosovo page. I am not POVing I am trying to remove 'Ethnic Cleansing' type hysteria from this page. I trust the other editors here support this. If not please advise. ] 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	::::: I have just done some research and there is an Ethnic Cleansing Page dedicated to Abkhazia, Could our 'Pro Reality' Mr Ldingley be right? Maybe I owe him an apology?. When I removed the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words from the main space he accused me of POV editing To me the term 'Ethnic Cleansing' have a special place in certain wars and this is not one of them. On research It appears that this editor has more than a POV on this subject. It was he that CREATED the Ethnic Cleansing page itself.. I do not want to be hard on you here but please do not RV me for POV when clearly you yourself have a very strong POV. I propose the 'Ethnic Cleansing' words to be deleted. We all accept there were tragic cilivian casulties but this was not a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing as suggested. ] 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Dear Buffadren, what are you talking about? It was exactly what an ethnic cleansing campaign is called and it is recongnized as such in the OSCE resolutions. The ethnic cleansing of Georgians was a deliberate policy aimed at changing the region's demograhic situation. Do you really think that the Abkhaz could have broken away in the presence of the Georgian majority of 300,000? What you call 'Ethnic Cleansing' type hysteria is actually a strong collection of facts. If anything, there are numerous sources for that. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
	: Kober, not quite right. The majority of republic's poptlation was non-Georgian in 1989 and, consequently, supported Abkhaz during the conflict. Regarding the issue itself I'm neutral. The fact is that the majority of ethnic Georgians left the reptblic after the war. How to nmame it is the matter of choice. ] 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	::: Civilians get killed in wars, soilders often wipe all in their paths, but there is a difference between military conduct violations and outright Ethnic Cleansing, Even the sanctimonious self-considered OSCE would not consider itself a nuetral in the dispute. ] 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	Buffadren you have demonstrated blunt POV pushing on this article past few days. In fact, you have removed all valuable data (supported by sources) and implemented your views and biased approach to this article. You did not consult anyone before deleting and removing the information from the article. Therefore, this is considered as vandalism and inappropriate behavior. The ethnic-cleansing has been recognized officially by numerous world organizations including UN. The Hague War Crimes tribunal has also launched the full investigation and prosecution process. Therefore, stop deleting, damaging the data on this article. First, present your sources and references for any claim, than consult your fellow Wikipedians if you want to remove anything from the article. So far you have demonstrated unconstructive, inappropriate and damaging behavior which will bring further rv wars and involvement of Administrators. Vandalism is not a way to express your views. ] 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	: There has not been a single person charged or convicted with Ethnic Cleansing in Abkhazia and if people like you with short horizon vision continue to push this here nobody ever will be. ] 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	:: Avoid any personal attacks against me and consult sources. I don’t see any point further continuing discussion with person who can’t communicate in civilized manner and engages in vandalism. I have been researching this topic since the start of the war and have traveled there numerously (including during the war). But im not obliged to prove anything to you. ] 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	:: Nobody is attacking you. I strongly urge you to listen to reason. What you are writing consitutes as an infringement of rightful ] under international law. ] 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	==Reference==

	Alex, your reference #14 has a problem, it damages the footnote section. Please see if you can fix it. It happaned to me before but i cant remember how to fix it. Best. ] 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	: I don't know what to do. I've tried to remove those three references but it didn't help, then I reverted to earlier edit and it still did not help :( ] 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	:: I've found the problem. It was my fault. I'll soon restore everytjhing. ] 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	::: Done it. ] 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::: Great, thanks a lot. ] 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

	== Demographics II ==

	Alex, can I ask you where your 1897 figures come from? I’ve just checked B&E and it only says "…абхазцев и самурзаканцев (86%), мингрельцев (5,5%), греков (3,5%), армян (1,5%), русских (ок. 2%), грузин (около 1%), немцев и проч", leaving the cryptic category of "Samurzakanians" open to conflicting interpretations. I gather your calculations are based upon the other B&E entry which places the number of ethnic Abkhaz at 70,000. However, it doesn’t specify whether the figure refers to the Abkhaz dwelling in Abkhazia or in the Russian Empire in general. On the other hand, we know from the 1911 Britannica that "Pop. 43,000, of whom '''two-thirds''' are Mingrelians and '''one-third''' Abkhasians, a Cherkess or Circassian race. The total number of Abkhasians in the '''two governments''' of Kutais and Kuban was 72,103 in 1897". (Note: Sukhumi District was part of the Kutaisi Guberniya under the Russian rule). Indeed, Abkhaz also lived (and live) outside Abkhazia, particularly in the ] area, ], ], and ] (where they had fled the Russian persecutions in the 1870s when Adjara was still part of the Ottoman Empire). I’m leaving the section as it is now for the time being but it definitely needs to be reworked to meet a NPOV standard and to eliminate any possible original research.--]<sup>]</sup> 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
	: For some reason they don't write '''in what year''' the population of Abkhazia was 43,000, so I have to assume it was 1911. So they claim Abkhaz numbered 43,000/3 = 14,000 in 1911 '''in Abkhasia''' (presumably Sukhum district). If we are to believe in the first Soviet census (giving 55 th.) this number is very very unlikely (considering the revolution and civil war that happened in between).
	: Now let's go back to 1897 figures. Unfortunately I don't know about Abkhaz population of Tbilisi or Ajaria so I have to assume if it were significant it would be reflected in the corresponding encyclopedia article (in EB1911 or B&E). On the contrary it's written in the article 'Russia. Population: Statistics (addition)' : "К черкесской группе — кабардинцы (98561), по сев. склону Кавказа в Терской и Кубанской обл., и '''абхазцы (72103) — в Кутаисской губ.''' и другие племена (46286) в Кубанской обл." You are right that Abaza (who live in Kuban) are included in the number of Abkhaz in the encyclopedia. However they numbered only 5,000 and I have taken it into account subtacting these 5,000 from the total of 72,103. ] 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

	::I don’t want to seem distrustful, but I’m going to need the hyperlinks to your references. I would also ask you to name the exact source about the number of Abaza. However, I still think that all these calculations are tentative. They are not supported by academic sources with the exception of outdated encyclopedias whose information is rather confusing and contradictory. That’s why I suggested leaving only the Soviet-era statistics. If you still insist on keeping the pre-Soviet figures, we will have to find something more useful in modern scholarly literature. I will probably return with some citations on the subject. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
	::: The 'Abaza' article is . The detailed list of the ethnicities of the Kutais guberniya (and of other ones) can be found . I insist that there is no reason to dismiss the results of the 1897 census - they are just as credible as all the Soviet census figures. ] 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

	::::I never said that we should dismiss the 1897 data even though they are far from being credible compared to the Soviet statistics. The census did not even classify ethnic groups properly (“Samurzakanians” is the most illustrative example). I just thought it would be better to move that data from the table to the text, explaining all inconsistencies across the contemporary sources. Actually, this seems to me the only way to avoid POV. A series of calculations and combinations you did can be qualified as original research. We cannot dismiss the 1911 EB either. “This number is very very unlikely” is not an argument. Britannica is an important source and it should be included in the section. The reader will decide which version to believe. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::::I added another statistic, it comes from Daniel Müller's contribution to The Abkhazians: A handbook. I find it to be impartial and objective, and I think he does a good job at explaining who the Samurzaq'anoans were, by cross-tabulating nationality data against mother-tongue data. ] 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Only God knows what a mixed Abkhaz-Mingrelian identity is. Never heard of such thing. Sephia, the book you are citing is notorious for its one-sided approach and is actually a political pamphlet edited by the established anti-Georgian demagogue George Hewitt who is, btw, educated in Tbilisi and fluent in Georgian, but evidently loves her Abkhaz wife too much to stay neutral. Anyway, the section desparately needs to be balanced by more neutral sources. I’m currently working on this.--]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::A mixed Abkhaz-Mingrelian identity means that part of the people consider themselves Abkhaz, part Mingrelian, part report Abkhaz as a mother tongue, part Mingrelian, and this need not match, so you have people that report Abkhaz nationality but Mingrelian mother tongue. Nothing so strange here that only God would know. I don't care that you find Hewitt not neutral (you may very well be right), the article is written by Daniel Müller, and unless you prove otherwise (e.g. by citing passages from the article that you find biased), he is a perfectly legitimate source. It's not as though he is inventing these figures, you know. ] 15:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

	:Don’t overreact. The figures are not invented, but they are interpreted differently. That’s why I said that the section should be balanced with the information from different sources. There is not a single reference to any "mixed identity" in the Imperial Russian demographic accounts. The 1886 data contains a separate category called "Samurzakanians" (without any further details about their identity), while the 1897 census classifies them together with Abkhaz. In the 1922-23 All-Georgian Census (which included Abkhazia) Samurzakanians are also counted as Abkhaz, but in the later censuses they are classified as Georgians. Neither Muller not Hewett is the only author who has studied Abkhazia. Most scholars I have read agree that the Samurzakanians were chiefly Georgians (Mingrelians) with a minority of Abkhaz. Don’t you think that all these controversies should be reflected in the article to meet a NPOV policy?--]<sup>]</sup> 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
	:: 2 Sephia karta. Thx for adding this info.
	:: Kober, you are artificially making the issue more complex than it really is. The 1897 census grouped the people by their mother-language (Georgian, Mingrelian, Abkhaz; no mention of Samurzakan language because it doesn't exist). There were 59,469 Abkhaz (by mother-language) in the Kutaisi guberniya in 1897.
	:: BE does not even state to what year do their numbers belong. Let's add something like: "EB1911 states that Abkhaz numbered one third of 43,000 '''sometime'''". Of course we cannot divide 43,000 by 3 because it would be original research :)
	::ps. Btw your link to EB1911 does not work any more. ] 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::Hmm... Artificially complicating? I ''would rather call it striving for consistency'' :) The 1897 census categorizes Samurzakanians together with Abkhaz. Not on a language basis, I guess. As for 1911EB, you could think of a better solution. Just insert a verbatim quotation (don't be afraid of copyright problems; the edition is in public domain) something like this: "According to the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica,... in '''the early 1900s'''". Why to make things ''artificially complex''? Anyway, I see no point in further arguing over the topic until I find enough time to retrieve some other academic sources and rewrite the section. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

	== Ethnic Cleansing==

	We have already had the Ethnic Cleansing debate here and I though the matter was solved. Today ], having had nothing more to contribute to the talk page debate took matters in his own hands and having waited like a tiger in the long grass and kept low for a week, changed it again. without comment here. NOT ACCEPTABLE !!!. ] 14:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks for comparing me(?) to a tiger :) However I don't quite underatand what do you mean. I haven't changed anything related to the ethnic cleansing in this article lately. Check the history. ] 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
	::My apologies ] you are correct it was not you and I would have been surprised if it was. but it was ] ] 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
	::: Koper needs to learn to discuss things before he makes changes, will he never learn, not everyone has his point of view, some people are more neutral ] 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::Pernambuco, you don't even know what you are talking about. You need to learn to assume a good faith of other users and expand your rudimental knowledge of the Abkhazian conflict before posting your absolutely pointless remarks here. FYI, the issue was discussed and there was no consenus on the removal of the ethnic cleasning passage.

	::::Buffadren, I have explained my reasoning in the edit summary. The passage doesn't state that the ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia is an undisputable fact. It only speaks about the OSCE recognition. Our opinion about this organization is not relevant here. Misplaced Pages requires us to report the facts. And the fact is that the OSCE resolutions contain a reference to the ethnic cleansing of Georgians. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

	::::: I've added the link to a Budapest OSCE resolution. Hope it'll help. ] 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

	==Shorten This==

	Here is text that ends the political section and I think it is too long. I suggest reducing the wording without reducing its substance. Also it is a bit weassel worded.

	:The United Nations and other international organizations have been fruitlessly urging the Abkhaz de facto authorities “to refrain from adopting measures incompatible with the right to return and with international human rights standards, such as discriminatory legislation… to cooperate in the establishment of a permanent international human rights office in Gali and to admit United Nations civilian police without further delay.”

	Perhaps this version,
	::The United Nations and other international organizations have urged the Abkhaz authorities to; refrain from using measures that interfere with people's right to return, not to use discriminatory legislation, and to facilitate an human rights office in Gali, and to admit UN civilian police.] 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

	== War of Abkhazia website ==

	So what useful informarmation does give to us?
	One major problem with it is that it's in construction.

			:* '''Oppose''' per previous comments in last RM. Common name/primary topic etc. ] (]) 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
	1. The history of Abkhazia section is only half-made and does not have history of Abkhazia since 16 c.
			::Why exactly should Abkhazia necessarly mean separatist Republic of Abkhazia and not Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia? For this confusion to be avoided, the move needs to be made. Otherwise, the lead needs to be changed to be more neutral. Most of the states in the world don't percieve Abkhazia as a state, but as autonomous region of Abkhazia. Writing otherwise is violation of NPOV and FRINGE rule.] (]) 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

			:::Because in reality, the separatists are in control, hence most references to Abkhazia will mean this. ] (]) 05:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
	2. The timeline of the conflict contains 5 (five) items.
			::::In reality, Russia is in control of affairs there. And most references don't say that Abkhazia is not Georgia. While saying Abkhazia, most of the references say that it is a Georgian region. Only small number say that it is independendent. While talking about separatist officials, they usually say "''de facto'' Abkhazian officials" or "separatist Abkhazian officials" and such things to avoid confusion. ''De facto'' control alone does not everything since they are locked from communicating with the civilized world and are left to Russia only. They are not recognized ''de jure'', which is notable thing. ] (]) 06:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This is just rehashing the same argument by the previous proposer in the last RM. If you have a new argument, then you can mention that. ] (]) 06:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' this sounds like a split request, and not a move request. ] is for that purpose -- ] (]) 07:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. This page is about Abkhazia as a territory, i.e. as described on page ]. Nothing prevents from creating a separate page, ], which would be about the modern-day separatist unrecognized state (briefly described in a section of this page, ]). ] (]) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' per previous rm and ] ''']]''' 18:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' per previous RM. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a separate article. ]] 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Comment'''. Until relatively recently something similar was practiced in the case of ] where there were 3 separate articles on the partially recognised state, nominal Serbian province not in control of the area and the region itself. For some reason the practice was changed. I was not an active participants so I don't know all the details and reasoning used there but if you look further maybe you can identify relevant discussions and find something useful, applicable or relevant for this case as well.--] (]) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
			::All the previous examples, such as Kosovo and China, were removed as they were essentially ]s. In those cases, and this one, the "region" was defined by the geopolitical region. ] (]) 02:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
			</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

			== Misleading toponym section ==
	Otherwise this site contains several photos of Tkvarcheli and a few articles of varying quality.
	Imho this site does not deserve to be put in the external sources. There is already quite a few pro-Georgian sites there. ] 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

			First phrase of the toponym section: ''"Abkhazia (] <sup>]</sup> ] or ] <sup>]</sup> ]) is etymologized as a land of the soul"'' is misleading. Abkhazia isn't etymologized as a land of soul - Apsny is. Word Abkhazia is russified form of Apkhazeti which is thought to be of Kartvelian origin. ] (]) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Dear Alex, why have decided that you own this article and can remove everything you deem to be "pro-Georgian"? Being yourself anti-Georgian, you can hardly be impartial when assessing the neutrality of the source. I regret that I have not enough time right now to counter this Soviet-style agit-prop campaign on Georgia conflicts-related topics. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

			:I've rewritten this section, lmk what you think. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:: ''you can hardly be impartial when assessing the neutrality of the source''
	:: Who can, then? You? Or probably Luis?
	:: Besides, if you read carefully what I've written you would've noted that my problem with this site is not that it's pro-Georgian. ] 14:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

			== Wikidata links ==
	::: Together with couple of unfinished sections, this site contains a number of informative articles, links, pictures and other pieces of information concerning the conflcit. You cannot remove the link just because you don't like it. ] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

			Wikidata has one item for the Republic of Abkhazia here:
	:::: That was not what he said, and biased links are allowed but at the same time, this particular link doesnt meet the rules for external links, if you dont know it, then see ] ......and one more thing, is this site Pirveli's own website or is he involved with it, or what? ] 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
			https://www.wikidata.org/Q31354462
			and a separate item for the region of Abkhazia here:
			https://www.wikidata.org/Q23334

			It looks like there are only 13 translations of Misplaced Pages (including the version in Russian, aka Русский) that have a separate article for each of those items. 160 other translations of Misplaced Pages (including the English version) only have a single article that covers both topics. My question is: should those 160 translations link to the first item or the second item? I'd suggest they should link to the first item, and I'd also suggest that for clarity the second item should be renamed to something like Abkhazia (region). Although I'm ok with having them link to the second item, if that's what other people prefer. But right now it looks like it's some of each. There are 16 translations of Misplaced Pages (including the version in French, aka Français) that only link to the first item. 135 translations (including the version in Portuguese, aka Português) that only link to the second item. 2 translations (including this version in English) that link to the first item but have a redirect that links to the second item. And 7 translations (including the version in Spanish, aka Español) that link to the second item but have a redirect that links to the first item. It looks like all the wikinews and wikivoyage translations (including the version in Portuguese) link to the first item only. - ] (]) 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::: As for this: ], You should read it carefully yourself, this site does not fall to the category of links that should be avoided. As for your last sentence, I hope you asked the question, not made a comment. Because if this is a question, I just answer NO. And if this was comment, then I accuse you of slender. If it is your habit of making sites and then putting them here, this does not mean that other people also do this. ] 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

			:You likely have to ask this on Wikidata, figuring out how they differentiate the items. ] (]) 06:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: there's no need to get personal, and I am aware of the rules, now one of the rules is that wiki-pedia is edited by consensus, and you do not impose yourself, clearly theres no consensus for this link yet, so keep it out of the main article until the issue is decided here in talk and dont become an edit warrior. I dont know what slender is, but you can accuse me of it if you want, that is fine. just remember, it is best to not accuse anyone of anything but best to work in peace and consensus ] 03:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
			:And don't forget ] which has strange English sitelink. ] (]) 20:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:12, 19 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abkhazia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 26, 2010.

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Abkhazia Top‑importance

	Abkhazia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbkhaziaWikipedia:WikiProject AbkhaziaTemplate:WikiProject AbkhaziaAbkhazia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Caucasia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia

Georgia (country) High‑importance

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: History / Politics and law High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Limited recognition High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Abkhazia: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-01-14

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : (or rather proposals) Culture (Literature, Architecture)
- Detail the relationship with the South Ossetian war
- Discuss ties with the Abazaz and the Circassians
- Discuss the reputation of long living among the abkhazians (there are books on this)

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 28 July 2023, from Abkhazia to Republic of Abkhazia, see discussion.
Not moved, 29 March 2024, from Abkhazia to Republic of Abkhazia, see discussion.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (DRG and the Soviet Rule) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

"officially the Republic of Abkhazia"

If its de jure status is that it's part of Georgia, shouldn't official name be "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia"? What does "officially" mean otherwise? It's obviously WP:POV. Also, there are two articles on Crimea: Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea where first one refers to the general region, and the second one refers to the internationally-recognized jurisdiction. I think this is the correct and most neutral practice when it comes to territorial disputes. — 185.115.4.187 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The article about Crimea is about the peninsula itself, the administrative division articles are Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Mellk (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding on to that, the de jure Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has its own article: Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Yue🌙 21:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely right I wanted to say exactly that Vanikobar (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully support removal of "official". It is WP:POV. Vnar123 (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying it is "Officially Independent"is POV,but so is "It is Part of Georgia" UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 22:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Rayfield on the post-WW2 economy

I've removed some of the information that has been added, so I'd like to give an explanation here. This is what Rayfield writes in his Edge of Empires

“

Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves.

”

Only the last sentence concerns Abkhazia directly. The previous sentences have to do with the general situation in Georgia. The 1948 reforms affected workers (as in factory workers), while peasants, including the ones resettled in Abkhazia, had no passports even before or after that.

I think it would be a good idea to describe the economical situation in Abkhazia in Soviet times in this article, but we should use sources which discuss Abkhazia rather than the whole Georgia or USSR-wide changes, unless they impacted Abkhazia in a major way. The 1948 measures tying workers to their jobs were unlikely to impact Abkhazia since there was very little industry there. Alaexis_¿question? 15:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Life in Georgia was grim: there were only old men, boys and invalids to help the women work the fields and the factories. (The population in 1945, 3,232,000, was 10 per cent smaller than in 1939: it would not return to 1939’s level until 1960.) The produce of the countryside and towns went to feed and rebuild European Russia. For want of goods, or a market economy, money lost its value; inflation soared. Serfdom was now introduced into industry, as well as agriculture: from 1948 workers were deprived of passports, and leaving a job became impossible. (In 1949 Beria proposed giving workers and peasants passports and freedom of movement, but his proposal was rejected on the grounds that labour was scarce.) Reluctant workers could be deported for eight years’ forced labour in ‘remote districts’. Some 9,000 peasant households were resettled between 1947 and 1952 from the highlands to underpopulated areas – Abkhazia, the newly drained Mingrelian marshes and newly irrigated Samgori fields – and left to fend for themselves."sounds very POV UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Coherence in terming

I see that for Kosovo, it is stated that it is a country, while, accoding to UN, it is a province of Serbia. Without entering the partisan discussion, and based on the Misplaced Pages definition of "country", I assume that the appropriate way to define Abkhazia, is that it is a country:

"A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.12.175 (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2024

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: Not moved (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Abkhazia → Republic of Abkhazia – The article looks like a chaotic mix of different kind of informations about historical Abkhazia, separatist Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. This looks confusing. The historical region of Abkhazia should have its own page Abkhazia (region) like Syria (region). Politically, there is separatist Republic of Abkhazia, and there is also Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia within Georgia. The world (except five rogue states) recognizes Abkhazia as territory of Georgia. There should not be priority given to separatist narrative. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should have its own article Republic of Abkhazia, where its history and controversy would be discussed. Separatist Republic of Abkhazia should not be portrayed as heir to historical Abkhazia and the name Abkhazia should not be appropriated by it, this is violation of NPOV and FRINGE. Currently, the name Abkhazia is given to Republic of Abkhazia, because this article with the name of Abkhazia begins with the claim that Abkhazia is a partially recognized state. Why does not it begins with such text "Abkhazia is a region of Georgia"? This is violation of NPOV. Create separate article for separatist republic. This article Abkhazia should be disambiguous page, redirecting to separatist Republic of Abkhazia, Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Abkhazia (region). Most of the Misplaced Pages pages linked to this article are named Republic of Abkhazia: Georgian, Spanish, French, even Russian and Abkhazian wikipedia articles. Vnar123 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per previous comments in last RM. Common name/primary topic etc. Mellk (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly should Abkhazia necessarly mean separatist Republic of Abkhazia and not Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia? For this confusion to be avoided, the move needs to be made. Otherwise, the lead needs to be changed to be more neutral. Most of the states in the world don't percieve Abkhazia as a state, but as autonomous region of Abkhazia. Writing otherwise is violation of NPOV and FRINGE rule.Vnar123 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Because in reality, the separatists are in control, hence most references to Abkhazia will mean this. Mellk (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

In reality, Russia is in control of affairs there. And most references don't say that Abkhazia is not Georgia. While saying Abkhazia, most of the references say that it is a Georgian region. Only small number say that it is independendent. While talking about separatist officials, they usually say "de facto Abkhazian officials" or "separatist Abkhazian officials" and such things to avoid confusion. De facto control alone does not everything since they are locked from communicating with the civilized world and are left to Russia only. They are not recognized de jure, which is notable thing. Vnar123 (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is just rehashing the same argument by the previous proposer in the last RM. If you have a new argument, then you can mention that. Mellk (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment this sounds like a split request, and not a move request. WP:Proposed splits is for that purpose -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This page is about Abkhazia as a territory, i.e. as described on page History of Abkhazia. Nothing prevents from creating a separate page, Republic of Abkhazia, which would be about the modern-day separatist unrecognized state (briefly described in a section of this page, Abkhazia#Republic_of_Abkhazia). My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per previous rm and wp:snow Abo Yemen ✉ 18:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per previous RM. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a separate article. DrowssapSMM 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Until relatively recently something similar was practiced in the case of Kosovo where there were 3 separate articles on the partially recognised state, nominal Serbian province not in control of the area and the region itself. For some reason the practice was changed. I was not an active participants so I don't know all the details and reasoning used there but if you look further maybe you can identify relevant discussions and find something useful, applicable or relevant for this case as well.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

All the previous examples, such as Kosovo and China, were removed as they were essentially WP:POVFORKs. In those cases, and this one, the "region" was defined by the geopolitical region. CMD (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2024 (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.

Misleading toponym section

First phrase of the toponym section: "Abkhazia (/æbˈkɑːziə/ ab-KAH-zee-ə or /æbˈkeɪziə/ ab-KAY-zee-ə) is etymologized as a land of the soul" is misleading. Abkhazia isn't etymologized as a land of soul - Apsny is. Word Abkhazia is russified form of Apkhazeti which is thought to be of Kartvelian origin. Lemabeta (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section, lmk what you think. Alaexis_¿question? 20:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata links

Wikidata has one item for the Republic of Abkhazia here: https://www.wikidata.org/Q31354462 and a separate item for the region of Abkhazia here: https://www.wikidata.org/Q23334

It looks like there are only 13 translations of Misplaced Pages (including the version in Russian, aka Русский) that have a separate article for each of those items. 160 other translations of Misplaced Pages (including the English version) only have a single article that covers both topics. My question is: should those 160 translations link to the first item or the second item? I'd suggest they should link to the first item, and I'd also suggest that for clarity the second item should be renamed to something like Abkhazia (region). Although I'm ok with having them link to the second item, if that's what other people prefer. But right now it looks like it's some of each. There are 16 translations of Misplaced Pages (including the version in French, aka Français) that only link to the first item. 135 translations (including the version in Portuguese, aka Português) that only link to the second item. 2 translations (including this version in English) that link to the first item but have a redirect that links to the second item. And 7 translations (including the version in Spanish, aka Español) that link to the second item but have a redirect that links to the first item. It looks like all the wikinews and wikivoyage translations (including the version in Portuguese) link to the first item only. - Burner89751654 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You likely have to ask this on Wikidata, figuring out how they differentiate the items. CMD (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

And don't forget d:Q2914461 which has strange English sitelink. Infovarius (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: