Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Abkhazia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Infobox dispute

At CMD's request I'm copying the relevant portion of my response to the page protection above—the part about the infobox dispute—to a new section.
Basically, while I understand Chipmunkdavis's frustration with the Georgian nationalists, and strongly commend his efforts to fight ethnic POV-pushing here and elsewhere, I think that in this case the Georgian editors have a point, even if they can't be bothered to articulate it themselves. I agree with the Georgian editors that the infoboxes for both entities claiming to control the territory of Abkhazia should be included, though I'm not sure I agree with the order in which they'd put them.

The Republic of Abkhazia currently controls 100% of the territory it claims, and that same exact territory is claimed by Georgia to constitute the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. This is different from Kosovo, where part of the territory is controlled by Serbia. However Abkhazia is also different from South Ossetia and and Northern Cyprus. While all three states de facto control all the territory that they claim and yet are recognized by only a small minority of nations, neither South Ossetia nor Northern Cyprus is an administrative division of Georgia or the Republic of Cyprus.

Abkhazia however is a subdivision of the Republic of Georgia, and both the Autonomous Republic and the Republic claim the same land. Effectively the Georgian position is that the Autonomous Republic is the legitimate authority, and that the territory is part of Georgia. The Russian/RoA position is that the Republic of Abkhazia is the legitimate authority, and that Abkhazia is an independent territory. The Republic of Abkhazia has control on the ground and recognition from Russia and a handful of other countries (all of which are either ALBA members or recipients of considerable Russian aid), while the Autonomous Republic/Georgian claim has the de jure recognition of the vast majority of the world's countries.

I've noticed that English-language media tends to refer to Abkhazia by terms such as "breakaway region of Georgia." This treatment seems to suggest a view that Abkhazia is rightfully a part of Georgia, but also seems to acknowledge the legitimacy of the RoA claim, or at least recognize the facts on the ground. I would therefore contend that the Georgian editor is absolutely right that we really need to include both infoboxes or neither. As for which should go first, I'm inclined to suggest that we should include the Republic of Abkhazia's first. While most reliable sources do treat it as a breakaway province of Georgia, it would be somewhat absurd to put an entity that controls none of the land before the one that controls all of it, whatever the strength of the sources and legal claims of the former. — Quintucket (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User Quintucket if Russians will come and occupy New England, establish their marionette government and the Republic of New England, after this if you say that this is not right and unacceptable, Georgian user with surname Balakhadze call you American nationalist and this will be right ?--Balakhadze 16:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position. But the fact of the matter is that there's a lot of ethnic disputes on Wikipedia over everything from territorial disputes to historic figures. Historically these disputes have been won by whichever side caused the most trouble (it's why Macedonia is a disambiguation page even though an English speaker using the word will mean the country three times out of four), and a lot of us are getting tired of it. The fact is that you and another user were violating the spirit of WP:EDITWAR and refusing to discuss the issue with Chipmunkdavis when he brought it up on the talk page. There are some users who can contribute productively despite their strong nationalist biases, but these users generally are willing to stop edit-warring long enough to talk things out on the talk page. While I agree with you on most of the substance of your position regarding the infobox (except the placement), I completely agree with Chipmunkdavis that your behavior was quite poor. −Quintucket (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Slight side note: I was not the one who initially brought this up on the talk page. Credit for that should go to Lfdder, not me. CMD (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Quintucket. Every breakaway state is claimed by the state they broke away from, in some form or another. Whether or not the official administrative setup of the claimant state aligns with the area they don't control doesn't affect this. Do we treat the claim on South Ossetia as less relevant because no Georgian division exactly matches the area Georgia doesn't control? Such an action makes little sense, as Georgia has a full claim over both, and could do whatever it wants with its official administrative structure without regard to the facts on the ground (as indeed they did with South Ossetia). Similarly Cyprus has a full claim over all of Northern Cyprus, despite not having the uncontrolled area match a particular administrative division. Whatever the official administrative situation of the claimant state, it shouldn't affect the claim itself, or our presentation of it, either positively or negatively (terms which no doubt apply to different things depending on opinion). Similarly, reliable sources noting the area is a breakaway state/republic/region/province of Georgia, and noting the Republic of Abkhazia functions on the ground, are not commenting on the legitimacy - positively or negatively - of either's claim, but simply noting the reality that Abkhazia was part of Georgia before it broke away, and that the breakaway government controls the territory (furthermore, adjectives like "breakaway" are a quick and concise way imply a lack of recognition).

As for infoboxes, they're meant to provide a snapshot of information to the reader. Two infoboxes gives two sets of information, and the problem with the second one is that it presents things as straightforward in a way they're not, as it's representing what is just a legal claim as something that's fully applied. It presents a flag and CoA, that while official (I think they are at least, so far the only source I've actually seen of them notes them as just proposed, but I doubt there's a great deal of sources on the matter), would never be seen in Abkhazia. It then gives two official languages, Georgian and Abkhazian, the first of which is not used in official discourse in Abkhazia (and I doubt it's used very much publicly either, if only due to fear). It then presents as a government something that lacks the hallmark of what makes a government a government; governing. It then notes the currency of Abkhazia is the Georgian Lari, which again is doubtfully in wide usage, if any at all.

In the end, people (and countries) can debate ad infinitum about the legitimacy or illegality of a certain situation or position. More solid are the facts on what's actually happening, and these are what our infoboxes present. We don't have a Taiwan Province infobox on Taiwan, or some sort of Republic of China infobox on China. We don't have some sort of Jammu and Kashmir infobox on Azad Kashmir. We don't have an infobox for the Polish government-in-exile on People's Republic of Poland, or infoboxes for the pre-1940 Baltic governments on their respective Soviet Socialist Republic pages, even though these governments-in-exile continued to conduct diplomacy even after the end of the Second World War (eg. Estonian government-in-exile and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic). Such infoboxes, presenting a theoretical situation extrapolated from political or legal claims, would be detrimental to readers, confusing the issue rather than helping them understand the situation. The same applies here. CMD (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For Kashmir, Kosovo, and the West Bank we have one article about the geographic area, as well as articles for Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, and Gilgit–Baltistan; for Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija; and for the Palestinian Authority and Judea and Samaria. The Taiwan/China thing is a whole other issue, due to the one-China policy among other things, however it's worth noting that the Taiwan province of the PRC is not coterminous with the territory of the ROC, which also includes some territory that both countries recognize as Fujian province.

We could of course have one article for Abkhazia and separate ones for the Republic and the Autonomous Republic, however this would be absurd since the official territory of all three is coterminous, as is the region of Abkhazia and the de facto territory of the Republic. As for Abkhazia being a government-in-exile, the overwhelming majority of countries support the Georgian claim, and the majority of sources treat it as part of Georgia, which gives it far more de jure legal standing than any of the governments-in-exile you mentioned currently have.

In this regard it's worth noting our treatment of Kyrenia District, an administrative subdivision of both the Republic of Cyprus and TRNC. Kyrenia/Girne District is de facto controlled by the TRNC, however the claims of the Cypriot government, which include a Nicosia-based government-in-exile for the district, are recognized by nearly all of the world's countries and most sources. Though we use the Greek name (which I presume is more common in English) and lack any infobox, we otherwise seem to give equal weight to both claims. This equal-treatment is the position that I suggest we take on Abkhazia. −Quintucket (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a mistake to think of these as articles for "geographic areas" and take that to mean some natural neutral term. In every case these are areas defined completely by politics and political boundaries, and not by any geographical features (unless we count political geography I suppose). As for the recognition aspect, it's worth noting that countries recognise the territorial integrity of Georgia, not any particular subnational government; most likely want some sort of settlement with the separatist government.

There's a habit in much writing on wikipedia to dance around charged issues rather than addressing them, although it's not intentional or purposeful, but perhaps conflict avoidance and repetition. In your above statement for example, you refer to Kyrenia as "de facto controlled" by the TRNC. De facto is completely redundant to controlled, yet it's often thrown in, because people feel some latin words will somehow add/remove legitimacy to various words, and others will copy this. Adding redundancy to the text doesn't help the reader, but makes them work harder to reach a certain understanding. There's no problem giving equal weight to each claim, or perhaps more weight to a claim that sources put more weight behind, it that's the case. This is what NPOV actually is, rather than always presenting all claims on equal footing, and is the reason we note explicitly that a majority of countries do not recognise Abkhazia's independence (not that anyone ever complains that this information which is actually not part of the claims themselves is presented). However, infoboxes are supposed to be a method to convey quick information to the reader; they're not a tool to enforce claims with, and they shouldn't be treated with the huge amount of symbolism they often are. However politically correct a supposedly equal treatment presentation may be, it doesn't justify presenting legal fiction to the reader as fact. As I explained above, the second infobox isn't going to help the reader at all, and surely helping the reader is what we're supposed to do? CMD (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying precisely to avoid dancing around charged issues that I'm willing to say that the Russian position has no legal standing, beyond that of control. The Russians were clear in early 2008 that any international recognition of Kosovo would result in a retaliatory recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However despite their best efforts Abkhazia continues to look less like Kosovo−recognized by a slowly increasing majority of UN members—than like Northern Cyprus: a spiteful invasion of a small country by a larger neighbor, recognition of independent bits of that country by said neighbor (and in Abkhazia's case also a tiny number of virulently anti-American or easily bribeable governments).

Recognizing Abkhazia as a de facto independent entity—full stop—makes sense on Wikivoyage. where the goal is to help the traveler, and the independent visa regime is more important than legal claims. However it does not make sense on Wikipedia. As I've said, nearly all English-language sources present it as part of Georgia—even if they usually refer to its government's seperatist inclinations—and it seems to be that it would be very undue weight to present it as anything other than sovereign de facto, and Georgian territory de jure, which is more or less what we do in the text (and what we do for the infobox in Kyrenia city, though I don't think there's a way to do it parsimoniously for this article).

There's nothing wrong with legal fictions if they're commonly used in the sources, and if we acknowledge them as such. We employ them extensively in biographies of living persons, with very good reason. We employ them in plenty of other cases of international relations. We present Somalia as one country, even though we acknowledge the fractured nature on the ground in the article itself. During the Libyan Civil War, some users wanted to acknowledge the facts on the ground by presenting Libya as two states, and were rightly prevented from doing so. We categorize El Aaiun as being part of a non-self-governing territory, because that's how the UN classifies it, and on United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories we treat Spain as the administering power, because that's what the UN claims. —Quintucket (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure recognition equates to legality exactly, and am unaware of any decisions made on the matter similar to the one on Kosovo. There may be, but in either case, that's something to be said in the text, not in any infobox. We don't mention Abkhazia as just a full stop de facto entity, we very clearly note the position it is in with regards to recognition. This however is unrelated to the infobox, which at no point says something is or isn't de jure. Furthermore, the legal fiction this infobox presents is rarely if ever shown in sources, and it's definitely not common. I haven't seen any source which says the Georgian Lari is used in Abkhazia. I haven't even seen any sources noting the Autonomous government as "the Abkhazian government" (although I'm sure some exist with qualifications of some sort, and perhaps even a few without).

In addition, something that perhaps hasn't been taken into account is that the Republic of Abkhazia infobox isn't a statement of the Republic's POV, despite what some seem to think. The map highlights the rest of Georgia. The sovereignty section notes independence is not widely recognised, and includes the Georgian declaration of independence and the Georgian annulment of the initial Abkhazian statements. We even note it remains part of the Georgian telephone system. Such helpful notes are lost when one simply crafts two infoboxes each to suit a particular POV. CMD (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Since the territory of Abkhazia is currently coterminous with the Republic of Abkhazia, and the article covers both, can we add a hatnote. Something like "This is about the region and the breakaway entity that governs it. For the autonomous republic of Georgia, see Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia."

I'm not thrilled with this solution, because it would seem to suggest Abkhazia's legitimacy is on par with that of Taiwan's (plenty of countries have strong unofficial relations with Taiwan, none do with Abkhazia), but it seems like a hatnote deals with the ugliness of two infoboxes and recognizes the facts on the ground, while still being reasonably fair to the Georgian position.

Would this be acceptable to our Georgian contributors? Balakhadze, Recent info, and Kober, are you following this discussion? How does that sound? —Quintucket (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, no. I've read comments above and I'm saying, no. CMD wants infobox about de facto separatist Abkhazia's infobox, I want actual de jure Abkhazia's infobox. User CMD Georgian Lari is currency of whole Georgia, thus also in Abkhazia. If you want to find out more about Abkhazia's actual de jure government see this link [1] and about Abkhazia this [2] --Balakhadze 12:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The reader will learn about Abkhazia's breakaway status whether s/he'll start reading from the lede or from infobox. Also, the current infobox already does not fit in one screen, so we should rather trim it down than add more of them. Alæxis_¿question? 14:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Участник Alæxis, it will be more better, if we withdraw it at all.--Balakhadze 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We commonly use the de facto currency when an official one is different, as with hyperinflation in Zimbabwe and adoption of the Euro in pre-independence Kosovo. The issue of the lari is therefore a non-issue. My main concerns with having only the separatist infobox is that it doesn't show the flag and coat of arms of the ARoA (even though I personally think that the RoA ones are prettier), that it uses the long-form name of the RoA in English, Abkhaz, and Russian, and that it puts the Georgian name after the Russian one, and that these points seem to lend legitimacy to the RoA.

Here's my new suggestion:

1. We add a hatnote, as I suggested.

2. We use the short form of the English, Abkhaz, and Russian names in the infobox, as we already do with the Georgian one.

3. We move the Georgian name in front of the Russian one.

4. We add Georgian to official languages and explain the situation with a footnote. We add Mingrelian and Svan to the spoken languages field of the infobox.

In this way, the infobox is clearly about the territory and government that controls it—the situation on the ground. The only implicit acknowledgement of the RoA becomes the use of the Russian language and RoA coat of arms and flag, but these other changes, plus the hatnote make clear that no de jure recognition is implied, and we're only recognizing the facts as they are. Is this acceptable? —Quintucket (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Quintucket You are good negotiator, but as you wrote, there is still one but — flag and CoA of separatist Abkhazia. I'll agree with all your suggestions, but only in that case, if 5-th suggestion will be removing of flag and CoA. However I'm going to wait to other users opinion.--Balakhadze 17:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Because this article also covers the Republic of Abkhazia, we need to have its flag and coat of arms somewhere. And since we're trying to amend the infobox to describe the situation on the ground, I doubt that the ARoA flag has flown over Abkhazia since 2008. We do link to the articles Flag of Abkhazia and Emblem of Abkhazia; if it's really still a concern maybe we could put a footnote (though we already have quite a few). But yes, let's see what others have to say. —Quintucket (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If people feel a hatnote linking to the Georgian administration is necessary, I don't have any strong opposition to it. I don't think we should use shortform names in the infobox, because of consistency with the purpose of this infobox, and probably more relevantly because it would just duplicate the first sentence of the lead, which already has the shortform name in all three languages (+English). I don't think Georgian should be added to the infobox as an official language for the same logic as the currency listing, but as (I assume) it's a widely known and possibly still spoken (likely privately) language, and that seems to be the purpose of the spoken language section, adding that field doesn't seem like a bad idea. If Svan and Mingrelian are also widely used, they should be added there too. CMD (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Mingrelian and standard Georgian are still spoken by the Georgians who avoided ethnic cleansing in the 90's, and in the Gali area, where the Abkhaz allowed the Georgians to return. Perhaps we could put Georgian first in the spoken languages, and then either note in the official languages footnote that Georgian was an official language, or add a footnote after Georgian that it's a former official language still official in the ARoA.

Svan is more confusing. It was pretty much the sole spoken language of Upper Abkhazia prior to 2008. According to the article on Battle of the Kodori Valley, though the Svans of Kodori Gorge mostly fled, the RoA has not only let them return by asked them to, which some of them have. Of course the information is way out of date, but it's in line with current RoA policy. (Unlike South Ossetia under Eduard Kokoity, who seems determined to create an ethnically pure statelet, the goal of the RoA seems to be to keep out just enough Georgians to ensure a comfortable Abkhaz majority, and allow the rest in for a mixture of economic and PR reasons.)

As for using the shortform name, the possible redundancy doesn't bother me, but I'll see what others have to say. —Quintucket (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Short-form name is ok in my opinion (the simpler the better), adding spoken languages (Georgian, Armenian, Mingrelian?) is a good idea, in fact I believe once there was such a field there. Hatnote seems to me not adding to the conciseness of the lede, it's already quite obvious from the very first sentences what Abkhazia is and what is the scope of this article. Alæxis_¿question? 07:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is designed to show the longform name in the various languages, so such things don't clutter up the already cluttered lead, where, as prose, conciseness if much more important. I don't see how a language footnote will help, but there's no reason I can see not to put Georgian first, as it's the first alphabetically, and is probably more common. CMD (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Since there seems to be general consensus in favor of adding the spoken languages field I'm going to go ahead and do that. There also seems to be general consensus on putting the Georgian name ahead of the Russian one, but since it's in shortform and the rest is in longform I'll wait until we've reached agreement on that before either expanding it to the longform name or shortening the others. Likewise, I'm holding off on the hatnote since Alaexis objects.

The longform names with the hatnote (CMD's suggestion if I understand him) seems OK to me, but I'd like to hear from the Georgians, since it seems like something they might object to. The shortform name without a hatnote seems less ideal (Alaexis's proposal, I think), but if I shorten the lede as proposed above it would be fairly easy to find the link to the ARoA in the lede, so it doesn't seem to me to be the end of the world. I would like to hear what the Georgians have to say about the other proposals, and it would be nice to hear from a few more users if there are any lurking. —Quintucket (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it will be better if we shorten them, also the name of the article is "Abkhazia" and it will be more correct if infobox's name will be same. --Balakhadze 08:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, but if you have to choose, do you think the long-form name and a hatnote link to the ARoA, or the shortform name and no hatnote is a better compromise? —Quintucket (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Also I have a question about official languages, official languages of AR oh Abkhazia are Georgian, Abkhazian (source). So we have to add it in infobox. --Balakhadze 08:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As CMD suggested, we're recognizing the situation on the ground. If you went into a court in Sukhumi right now and spoke to them in Georgian, would they respond in Georgian, or tell you to speak in Russian? —Quintucket (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If there's no further feedback, I'm going to follow CMD's compromise, which I like slightly better, but I'll give people a few days to respond. This means changing the Georgian name to longform, moving it ahead of the Russian name, and adding a hatnote. I'll also remove the POV template unless there's any further comments. —Quintucket (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It means nothing what someone personally recognize or not, Infobox templates are like fact sheets (see Help:Infobox#What infoboxes do) so it is a fact, that official languages of Abkhazia are Georgian and Abkhazian and this have to be included in infobox. Also there must be official flag and CoA of Abkhazia. If separatist Abkhazia's signs are de-facto facts and they are shown, signs of Autonomous Abkhazia are de-jure facts thus they also must be shown.

If this impossible in infobox, because it represents only single flag and CoA, I suggest You to remove both unit's (ARoA & AR) signs from infobox and put them in those parts of the article where will be said about them.

With regard to the name I prefer to shorten. --Balakhadze 15:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I don't think you'll achieve that. We're trying to reach a reasonable compromise, with an infobox that recognizes the facts on the ground, without implying anymore legal legitimacy of the RoA than needed to represent things as they stand. As they stand, you wouldn't be able to use the lari in Abkhazia, nor the Georgian language for official business, and I imagine you'd get in real trouble if you tried to fly the Georgian flag. This is why I propose the hatnote. But we don't have the consensus to include a hatnote and use the shortform name. —Quintucket (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't use the Greek name for Kyrenia; we use the English name, that was adapted from the Greek name many many moons ago. Kyrenia is Kyrenia in most English literature. Just like Kiev is Kiev and not Kyiv. — Lfdder (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said. Having lived in Turkey for awhile, I'll admit I have a tendency to carefully hedge any comment that might cause an argument, though in this case it was probably unnecessary. I will note that language changes, and I have in fact heard Brits use "Girne," though that was in Turkey, where they undoubtedly picked up the habit from Turks. "Kyrenia" is certainly far more commonly used in English, and I doubt "Girne" was ever heard on an Anglophone tongue prior to the Turkish invasion. −Quintucket (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

nice comments, but I remind you this is not a forum. Recent info (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you entirely understand the meaning of WP:FORUM. The only person here who posted a somewhat forum-like comment is Giorgi Balakhadze, who is essentially appealing to our emotions for support of the Georgian position, and I pointed that out to him above. The rest of us are trying to discuss whether or not Wikipedia policy dictates the inclusion of two infoboxes. —Quintucket (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Single infobox for the politically defined geographic entity, with respect to the actual situation in that entity, is a standard on Wikipedia. Look at the infobox of Mayotte or Falkland Islands. Mayotte have full French name in infobox (Department of M.), although the AU, and the UN recognise Comoros claim. Falkland Islands here don't have anything about Spanish, although Latin America recognizes Argentina's claim and Argentina claim Spanish as official language. Etc. The proposed adjustments are based on one side view, that Abkhazia IS de jure part of Georgia. But here is TWO de iure claim (Abkhazian and Georgian). Like as in hundereds other cases (Mayotte etc.). But legal disputes can not be a reason to completely non-standard mixing and distortion of the infoboxes (or even a reason for adding the second infobox). The fact that Abkhazia's lack of wider recognition and that the majority of States recognize Georgian claim (like states recognizes Comoros claim), is sufficiently clearly stated in the text of article. Proposed adjustments to go against standard of infobox. Today infobox is in accordance of standards (respect for the de jure position of de facto administrator if he manages the entire territory), infobox is the result of a long-term consensus, so far, I don't see a reason to edit it. Jan CZ (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

- "Actual situation" is not only situation on land, it also include actual De jure situation, thus this means that in infobox should be added information about AR of Abkhazia. Also as you wrote "here is TWO de iure claim (Abkhazian and Georgian)", you make mistake, separatist de jure ≠ to sovereign country de jure, separatists are only de facto (in practice but not legal).--Balakhadze 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  I find this constant use of the term de jure to be confusing and ambiguous. De jure means "concerning law", and is a good term to use to describe a dichotomy that exists when there is one legal system in place, for example the capital of Bolivia is Sucre de jure but La Paz de facto. However, in the case of Abhkazia there are two competing legal systems in place - the separatist republic presumably does not adhere to Georgian law, and may have its own set of laws. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations. This is a political situation and Abkhazia's separatist government is De facto!--Balakhadze 14:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  
  Here is the legal (De jure) government of Akhazia.--Balakhadze 14:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The differences are 1. Abkhazia is a state with limited recognition, not a territorial dispute, and 2. the claims of the Comoros and Argentina are likely the minority position in international relations, and definitely the minority position in reliable sources. Any atlas, encyclopedia, or travel guide you get will have the Falklands and Mayotte as distinct entities controlled by Britain and France; most show Taiwan as also distinct. Many have Kosovo in a distinct color; many even show the boundaries of Northern Cyprus, though in the same color as the south. I've never seen one that shows Abkhazia or Somaliland as being sovereign in the same way as the Falkands and Mayotte are depicted as falling under British and French sovereignty (nor as Taiwan is usually treated as a separate state, and Kosovo often is).. —Quintucket (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A state with limited recognition is a territorial dispute, it's a dispute over the entire territory between the separatist government and the claimant government. As with disputes over areas smaller than an entire country, different sides can hold different amounts of the disputed territory. The position of Comoros is as Jan CZ pointed out not a minority position in international relations, the UNGA has many times bashed France over it. I wouldn't call Argentina's position minority either, and the UN has kept British Territories on the decolonisation list, although the UN seems to be more neutral in this dispute than the Comoros one. As for the prevalence in reliable sources, when dealing with English sources, I've shared your experience. However, I've often been surprised by foreign language atlases. A Chinese one published in 2003 for example, still listed and presented Sikkim as an independent country. I suspect our atlas bias is one based on exposure to English sources (something I suspect may actually carry to other languages, as English has established its global dominance). I suspect age is also a factor. Both Somaliland and the various Soviet breakaways appeared in the early 1990s as the Cold War ended. Northern Cyprus is a much older dispute. Kosovo, with its US support, is of course, an anomaly here. Winners perhaps still write history. CMD (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The UNGA has bashed France over Comoros, but I'm not sure the details of those resolutions. I assumed they were like the ones over the Falklands, where a bunch of third-world states pass resolutions saying basically "both parties need to talk and come to a peaceful solution," as a way of expressing third-world solidarity without getting too much on Britain's bad side, but I could be wrong.

I don't actually own a foreign-language atlas. I don't think there's anything wrong with using English sources on the English Wikipedia, when those tend to be equal to or better than the equivalent foreign-language sources available. No English-speaking country is a direct party to the Northern Cyprus or Abkhazia/South Ossetia disputes, and we treat equal situations equally.

Again, I maintain that the Abkhazia-South Ossetia issue is far closer to Northern Cyprus than to any other territorial dispute (invasion of a small country by a much-larger neighboring country under grounds of "peacekeeping," followed by ethnic-cleansing and recognition of "independence" by the occupying power and the explicit rejection of the occupation and UDI by most of the world and an economic and diplomatic boycott of the offending territories. Rather than explain why Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not like any of the far more complex disputes around the world, I ask someone to explain to me: why shouldn't we follow the fairly simple precedent of Northern Cyprus? —Quintucket (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comoros is going a bit off topic now, but the Comoros UN mission has a list of resolutions here. They explicitly say "Reaffirms the sovereignty of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros over the island of Mayotte" and similar. There's no way Mayotte wants it though, considering two of Comoros' present islands have tried to secede from Comoros and become part of France again.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using English sources, I'm just noting they're not the only ones out there, but they're the common ones which result in what we as English speakers see what we see.

Abkhazia is as you say undeniably similar to Northern Cyprus. Would you expound on what precedent you mean in particular? (Our Northern Cyprus article has an infobox with even fewer caveats than the present infobox here does.) There's a lot of effort that's been expended getting Greek and Turkish editors to work together, that situation as a whole may end up a good case to follow. CMD (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen some Turkish sources that show Northern Cyprus as a Turkish province. I've seen Korean maps that show Dokdo as larger than Ulleungdo. Like you, I've seen Chinese maps and globes that have Sikkim as independent. I think that generally you need a country that has a free and independent press, which most countries don't. In particular I'd be leery of using Russian sources, and Spanish sources connected to ALBA in particular and Latin American leftism in general. If you can demonstrate that, for example; mainstream Finnish or Swiss sources treat Abkhazia as an independent country, I'd say that would carry a good deal more weight.

As for the Cyprus precedent, what I mean is that the same article is used for the conterminous province of Kyrenia/Girne in Cyprus and the TRNC. We don't have an infobox, but I'd expect that if we had one for the former we'd find some way to present both claims. as the article itself is well-balanced, though rather too short to tell. On the other hand the article for the city of Kyrenia says that the city is part of Cyprus de jure, and the TRNC de facto. I think that we could reasonably apply this to Abkhazian cities if we ever get around to cleaning up the mess we have in the way we deal with it right now.

As it relates to the article though, I'm responding to the arguments by Jan CZ that the de jure status is muddled. I'm saying that such an overwhelming majority of countries recognize the Georgian claim, and such a preponderance of sources treat Abkhazia as a special part of Georgia, that for our sources we should have no issue calling a spade a spade, and saying that Abkhazia is de jure Georgian territory, with a tiny minimum of recognition as an independent state. It doesn't have any particular relevance to our attempts to find a compromise above; I'm just saying that the Mayotte/Falklands analogy is a bad one, and when we look for analogies we should look at how we handle Northern Cyprus. Since South Ossetia isn't a subdivision of modern Georgia, we need little more qualification there than we would on Northern Cyprus (though there is some ambiguity with the Soviet-era subdivision). Since Abkhazia is a subdivision of Georgia, we need to tread more carefully, as we do on articles on parts of Northern Cyprus (Kyrenia Province and several cities), where territorial divisions are identical in the controlling and internationally recognized parties. —Quintucket (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The denial of a de jure position of Abchaz party is somewhat absurd. Please note a few points:

International recognition does not have a constitutive character, the number of States that have recognised the newly formed an independent State, has no effect on the legality of the creation of the State. The number has only practical and propaganda significance.

The number of States, recognized the Kosovo and Abkhazia, tell nothing about the legality of the origin and existence of these States, but only on the strength of the sponsors and opponents of those States (in these particular cases, an enormous diplomatic force of US and surprising weakness of Russia).

States on the issue of the recognition of other States be governed solely by their national, political and economic interests, rather than legal arguments. They do not have any obligation to comply with the legal arguments. To draw from their rational attitudes of the practical policy the legality of the existence of any other State is a mystery.

In the case of Kosovo, the ICJ stated that the Declaration of independence is GENERALLY not a violation of international law, except for those situations in which the SC UN has confirmed illegality (only Northern Cyprus + Rhodesia).

In the case of Kosovo the ICJ stated that the Declaration of independence is GENERALLY not a violation of the principle of territorial integrity, because that protects only against existing States (against annexation), rather than to secesionism. To respect the territorial integrity of States, is the commitment of existing States. For new State rules would apply only after its creation. I suggest you read carefully the text of the ICJ.

Also in the case of the dissolution of Yugoslavia the European Commission's legal opinion was that even today that born of State according to international law, in particular is still the question of facticity.

Abkhazia meets the criteria for an independent State according to the Montevideo convention, eg. according to international law.

We have a clear consensus on Wikipedia to the existence of 206 States, see List of sovereign states. Disputes about their legality belong to specialized articles, as well as disputes relating to the legality of the French Government over Mayotte (and hundreds of other legal disputes), certainly not to the infobox.

Of course I agree with the addition of colloquial languages, this is not a problem. Other proposed modifications but they mean just confusing the reader. Typically a one word name of the country. I understand the motivation, but the reader will not know who the President Ankvab is, in fact. Is he the President of RoA or AroA? Etc. The current infobox is fine, it is consistent with other infoboxes, including other states with limited recognition. Jan CZ (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Jan CZ, I notice that you seem to be regurgitating the Russian propaganda position. I briefly wondered if you might be a Russian nationalist yourself, but taking a look at your edit history I see that you seem to have a fascination with (and instinctive support for) states with limited recognition of all stripes. I too was once like this; it was learning about the history of the Caucasus in more detail: the thuggery and later the Islamic militancy of the Chechen separatist and the ethnic cleansing of the Georgian plurality in Abkhazia, which eventually lead me away from this position. So while I understand where you're coming from, Kosovo is entirely different from Abkhazia and South Ossetia; it's only Russian propaganda that tries to suggest otherwise.

The litmus test that you use: "if the UN Security Council doesn't condemn it, it's therefore legal." I don't know whether that's the correct interpretation of the ICJ ruling, but I'll note that it seems to me that you're trying to interpret the ruling yourself; I haven't seen anything by legal experts that would treat it as legitimizing Abkhazia. If the best you can do to distinguish Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus is the one test, I'd like to note that it's a very weak one. You either picked (or created) the one standard on which Russian can (and did) act unilaterally to set the rules. Russia has a UNSC veto, and of course cast the lone no-vote on resolutions condemning its actions in 2008.

By using any test in which Russia doesn't have sole veto power, it would seem that Abkhazia is no different from Northern Cyprus. Both are recognized by only a tiny minority of UN States, explicitly condemned by the majority, and neither is a member of any multilateral organization. (Taiwan and Kosovo are both members of several; though Taiwan usually has a special non-state status). Taiwan and Kosovo often appear as fully independent entities in third-party sources (with Taiwan I'd say it's the norm; it's too early to say with Kosovo), Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus almost never do. For all of its pocketbook diplomacy and leadership in the field of autocratic America-bashing, Russia hasn't been able to get recognition from the majority of ALBA states, the majority of the Pacific Island states that recognize Taiwan; it hasn't even been able to bring its puppet states into the CIS or State Union of Russia and Belarus. While they're all partially-recognized states outside of the UN there's a world of difference between Taiwan and Kosovo vs Northern Cyprus, and it is the latter which sets the precedent we should follow in dealing with Abkhazia. —Quintucket (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job Quintucket, I agree with you.--Balakhadze 22:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We have a dispute about the infobox and the core of the dispute lies in looking at de jure status of Abkhazia.

You claim that Abkhazia is de jure part of Georgia, and You defence this proposition by small numbers of international recognition. On the basis of the number of recognition (and on the basis of completely wrong historic considerations) also You try compare Abkhazia with Northern Cyprus. On the basis of Your claim (A = G) you want to change the infobox. You try position of one side and your POV show to the reader as the truth.

I say that there are two positions on the issue of de jure status. And also for the benefit of the other position there are many strong arguments. I've included a portion of them, there are a whole host of others. And, above all, we don't have the judgment of the Court in this legal dispute.

In the world there are hundreds of cases where two or more entities claims that the disputed territory is his de jure. Abkhazia or Mayotte are one of them.

Comparison of Abkhazia and Mayotte is completely in place, it is a legal dispute over sovereignty over the territory. In both cases, the majority of States of the world recognises the sovereignty of another entity than that in real terms manage the territory. But the views of foreign Governments they do not determine the legality, it is therefore in both cases, we respect the legal position of the real holder of the territory. Maybe that's his (Abkhazian, French) position illegal, but we have to respect the "presumption of innocence" until court decides otherwise. The view of any Governments or UNGA is not judicial decision of the competent court. In international law cases it is only ICJ.

In contrast, the comparison is flawed with Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is a fairly isolated case of the legal dispute, because on him we have a clear legal opinion of the International Court. Independence of Northern Cyprus was declared by UNSC as illegal, and this measures then was confirmed by the ICJ. Only in the case of TRNC we can therefore say that "city of Kyrenia is part of Cyprus de jure, and the TRNC de facto". For the vast majority of other disputed territory we can't say it.

Wikipedia is an free encyclopedia, not any government agency. Political views of the Governments of various countries or international governmental organisations do not imply that legal fact (under international law) is the same as with their position (in the cases of Abkhazia or any other). Wikipedia cannot and should not be control by the opinions of Governments. Our law is and must be NPOV. We cannot tell that Mayotte IS de jure part of the Comoros and Abkhazia IS de jure part of the Georgia to the readers as the fact. It is ONLY the view of one side.

Notes for Quintucket to his inappropriate personal attack. I was born in Czechoslovakia, which at that time was occupied by the Soviet Union (Russia). I did not and I haven't the slightest sympathy for the Russian imperialist policy. But that doesn't change anything on my belief that we need to be neutral, that we must respect the opinions of all parties of the conflict, that we have to strive for uniform standards, regardless of our personal sympathy, and that we must to generally respect the presumption of innocence of the real holder of the territory as a uniform standard of Wikipedia. Please, try your personal attacks and pseudo historical analysis to replace by arguments relevant to this discusion. Thanks. Jan CZ (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Jan CZ; I wasn't trying to attack you, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I did note that you were repeating talking points, but I did this to explain why I looked at your edit history. I suspected you of having as much of a dog in this fight as Giorgi, Kober, and Recent Info; by looking at your edit history determined that you didn't. I also said that looking at said history like you seemed to be one of those individuals who supports "self-determination" for any little patch of territory that can achieve de facto control, or even put up a substantial fight. There's nothing inherently wrong with such people; I used to be one myself and I've met plenty of people with similar views in the States. I do have an issue with that position, which amounts to knee-jerk support for the apparent underdog, and which gets to your complaints about my own POV.

I do of course have a POV on this issue. Everybody who has enough of an opinion on an issue to edit an article about it has some sort of opinion. In this case my POV is that as a rule I don't personally approve of any post-WWII unilateral declaration of independence, including that of Kosovo. I also think states have a moral obligation to negotiate with secessionist organizations which appear to demonstrate strong local support.

I also recognize that there is a tremendous difference between humanitarian intervention by neutral countries who hand a territory over to UN administration on one hand; and the invasion of a small country by a more powerful neighbor pursuing its own interests which ethnically cleanses inconvenient ethnic groups and creates a little puppet state dominated by said neighbor country's nationals. The fact that most countries now recognize Kosovo and it's managed to join several international organizations, while Northern Cyprus and Abkhazia go unrecognized, is of major import: it indicates that said countries and organizations also see a difference between the scenarios.

I see now where you're coming from on insisting that Northern Cyprus is sui generis, but the fact is that sources generally treat both Northern Cyprus and Abkhazia as being part of the parent state. Because you keep citing the ICJ opinion I finally read it, and I now see that you're definitely doing some personal interpretation. In the case of Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia (and the Republica Sprska) the ICJ states that it is responding to issues raised by "member states" (Austria and Russia), and notes that what with regards to Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia "the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law".[3]

The ICJ did not say that there is a presumption of non-illegality of a UDI, nor did it say that it takes a UNSC resolution to make a secession illegal. While the ICJ has taken the position that the TRNC's secession is plainly illegal and Kosovo's is not, it took no position one way or the other with regards to Abkhazia (in fact the criterion it lays out seem to my plain reading to indicate that Abkhazia's declaration of independence, supported as it was by Russia and ethnic cleansing, is illegal). This being the case, we should rely on the sources, which generally treat both entities as part of Georgia and Cyprus respectively. —Quintucket (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Çok sağol Quintucket, çok :) --Balakhadze 10:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose with regard to the infobox? Alæxis_¿question? 06:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that kind got lost in the text above, especially because I tend to respond to multiple comments in the same and section at the same time. I noted that while there seems to be general consensus for adding spoken languages and moving Georgian above Russian, regarding my other two suggestions I noted that you endorsed the shortform names and rejected the hatnote, while CMD endorsed the hatnote and rejected the shortform names.

So I asked and ask again, especially to users who aren't you, CMD, or myself: which is preferable: shortform name and no hatnote, or hatnote and longform names (including the Georgian version, for consistency)? Personally I like the latter slightly better, but have no strong opinion either way. (Though I certainly see where the Georgians are coming from, my main issue isn't with the infobox, but rather with the bad writing in the lede. However I've been waiting to try to fix that until the infobox is cleared up lest it prompt another discussion.) —Quintucket (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How scientific is this

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=528704&fileOId=624449

And how does it deserve to be in a wikipedia source. Abkhaz church was infested with kartvelian language for centuries, that would explain many burrowed words. Think of English, how many Greek words are there? As far as I know there were no Greek presence in either Britain or mainland Denmark where Anglo-Saxon's would burrow those many words.

And geographical names. How come an 8th century AD name explain a 1st century AD immigration while the name for the same city in Abkhaz is Aqwa (means turtle). They dismiss the facts for their political agenda. It is just like an Abkhaz saying Tbilisi is Abkhazian because it means hot waters in Abkhaz (The name Tbilisi derives from the Old Georgian word "Tpili" (თბილი), meaning warm). Well at least Abkhaz have a point that their language was not a religious medium.

The pre-historic culture of Abkhazia clearly shows a distinct culture from south( Dolmens are only found in Europe not Georgia or elsewhere in Asia). This page should be scientific not politic, Especially one that twisted with kartvelian chauvinism . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.20.251 (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Jan CZ

User:Jan CZ has reverted ([4][5]) my edits based on some consensus which supposedly exists. I've been involved on this article throughout the years and I'm not aware of such a consensus. Where is it? IJA (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a long-term, stable version of the article. If you want to change the stable version of the article, please try to get consensus on the talk page before edit. Thank You. Jan CZ (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So you lied in your edit summary? I don't want to change the stable version, I want to neutralise the biased one sided version on a article about Abkhazia as a whole, not just the self declared state. IJA (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The infobox and related matters has been discussed more than once. The current version is stable, is the result of long discussion and compromise. I didn't notice that you'd these discussions in the past actively participated, but now you've done major editing, regardless of the opinions of other editors. Without any new discussion. And you feel the need to attack on me because I disagree with your procedure? Please stop your personal attacks. Thanks. Jan CZ (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've not attacked you, I've challenged your reasoning behind your revert. I have been involved in the discussions. Check Archives 5 and 6. The discussions ended without anything. The pro-Abkhazia/ Russia camp were not willing to accept any comprise as they supported the POV status-quo which is disruptive and is classed as Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. I will restore my WP:ENGVAR edits which you reverted without reason. But the current version might be 'stable' but it is also biased and violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. IJA (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia infobox

This article is about the place Abkhazia as a whole. It isn't only about the self declared de facto entity the 'Republic of Abkhazia' which is only recognised by 5 UN states. I propose we have a second infobox underneath the current infobox to provide our audiences/ readers with details of the exiled 'Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia'. The current Infobox status quo has been achieved by WP:STONEWALL and is biased and it only portrays the nationalist unrecognised separatist Government of Abkhazia when the article is about Abkhazia as a whole. Now I have no issue with providing this information but it is unfair only providing this information and not information about the Autonomous Government which is be default recognised by the vast majority of the world. The current situation is giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to one side of the dispute and is therefore WP:POV. It is POV to show our readers that the separatist government's flag and Coat of Arms are the Flag and Coat of Arms of Abkhazia but the flag and oat of arms of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia aren't. It'd be more neutral to show both sets. This is why I propose a second infobox showing information relating to the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. This will stop the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT which is currently given in the article and will provide information of both sides of the dispute instead of one which is currently biased. Your thoughts please! IJA (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL is "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution" and is hardly applicable here, as there has never been a community consensus regarding the necessity of second infobox. Last time this issue was discussed here in June 2013 and several changes to the infobox were implemented. Because nothing on the ground has changed since then there are no new reasons in favour of adding it.

Undue weight is probably given to the Government of Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, as now it does not control any territory at all and does not govern in any meaningful way any people, including the Georgian refugees from Abkhazia. Alæxis_¿question? 20:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is extremely biased to say that the separatist flag and CoA is the flag of Abkhazia because only five countries in the world agree with that. Yes the people currently living in Abkhazia would agree with that, but the 200,000+ people who were born in Abkhazia but now live outside of Abkhazia because they were expelled would not agree that with agree with the separatist symbols. We can't just show one side of the dispute because that is biased.

Also WP:STONEWALL has three meanings, I notice you selectively chose just one of the meanings. One of the other definitions of WP:STONEWALL is "Bad faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised." Therefore it is very applicable here. IJA (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't recall what concessions have been made and then withheld, so I found the second meaning even less applicable:)

Also, I've just found another problem with AAR flag and coa. According to the State Council of Heraldry of Georgian Parliament these are projects and not accepted symbols. Alæxis_¿question? 07:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So instead of the reality Wikipedia now choses fairytales created by a fascist genocidal state. Doesnt matter a bit, Abkhazian flag (The hand can clearly be identified in the depictions of Leon II) is older than all of the states of Europe. Fine by me and a million Abkhaz diaspora, it only shows Wikipedian double standards.

Action required ASAP

This page serves as a one-sided promotion of separatist enclave rather than informative article about Abkhazia. Despite of my several attempts to suggest second side of the story it's been rewritten every-time. This article clearly parades Illegally operating attributes instead of symbols representing Abkhazia. ^[1] Abkhazia is recognized as an occupied territory since Russia maintains effective control over it through military forces. The whole world, 99% of worlds states together with int. institutions such as UN, EU, NATO, OSCE, and almost every authoritative body recognizes it as part of Georgia while this article only provides radically different statements.

First of all change the title of the article (Republic of Abkhazia) and make it Georgian autonomous republic of abkhazia or to avoid any political implications leave only Abkhazia without definition of its status.

Second please remove illegal flags and emblem as it does not represent that region especially after ethnic cleansing when majority of population are abandoned and place instead flags from legitimate sources or don't put any.

Third remove the separatist leadership and it's quasi legislation as an evidence of it's sovereignty. Nobody on earth recognizes that except Russia. Abkhazia has it's legitimate government and you may refer to that ^[2] or again erase this issue entirely to avoid speculation from anyone.

Hopefully admins of this page will be able to restore accuracy and defend it from further attacks and constant changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgianstar (talk • contribs) 08:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer in regards to material that may be considered illegal and censored in some countries. From Wikipedia's point of view, displaying the state symbols of an unrecognized or a partially recognized state serves a clear encyclopedic purpose. NPOV is maintained in that general non-recognition is clearly stated in the lead section, but the fact that all these unrecognized or largely unrecognized states do exist and have been in control over their claimed territory for some time makes Wikipedia prefer them when framing corresponding articles over project governments that don't. --illythr (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained edits by Chipmunkdavis?

There are several issues with series of recent edits made by Chipmunkdavis. See comparison

"Georgia accuses the Abkhaz secessionists of having conducted a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing of between 200,000 to 240,000 Georgians" This part is inconsistent with another part of the article, subsection "Ethnic cleansing of Georgians". The subsection says that "Roughly up to 250,000 ethnic Georgians were expelled from their homes. Slightly over 200,000 Georgians remain displaced in Georgia proper." There are also sources given for verification.

Hamshemin Armenians is incorrect spelling. See Hemshin peoples for alternate spellings.

"Russians also moved into Abkhazia in great numbers". The sentence before this sentence already mentions Russians, so the word also isn't needed any more from pure Grammatical standpoint.

Why did you remove from See also puppet state? Abkhazia can sometimes be considered a puppet state, so it would help readers to read that article too.

Please don't try to jeopardize my edits again. --Zgagloev (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

These were part of reverts, not bold edits I made. Of the remaining, the estimate range of 200,000 to 240,000 is much better than an "up to" statement, as it gives an upper and lower bound, rather than just the higher one. There's no indication the 200,000 in this statement and in the other section are the same value. I removed "puppet state" and "self-determination" because the See Also isn't a place to push the occupation and independence arguments. CMD (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tuvalu takes back recognition of independence of Abkhazia

Tuvalu has taken back recognition of independence of Abkhazia. Please see tha link: http://www.interpressnews.ge/en/politicss/56198-tuvalu-takes-back-recognition-of-independence-of-abkhazia-and-so-called-south-ossetia.html http://1tv.ge/news-view/66428?lang=en Articel needs to be corrected! --D.Goletiani (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag

As WP:INFOBOXFLAG uses this article as an example of where the infobox should not have a flag, I've removed it. Obviously it should not be replaced without an agreed change to our guidance. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I note that the MOS has been changed, which is fine. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming consistency - Ochamchire/a

Let's be consistent with naming, WP:NAME says:

“

There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article.

”

In this case there's no compelling reason to use alternative name (Ochamchire) version throughout the article, it will just create confusion for the reader. There's a a lot of alternative names of localities in Abkhazia so let's stick with the ones used in the main articles about them(be they Georgian ones like Gulripshi or Abkhazian like Gagra). Alæxis_¿question? 20:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

abkhazia or/and avt/rep Abkhazia

Somebody in the world can explain me why I cant write another article "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia"(This is a redirect from a title that is fully protected from editing for any of several possible reasons. For more information follow the category link.)? This is part of Georgia and same time this region is managed by Russian federation by his marionet government and they call himself as "Abkazian republic". This flags and so on are emblems of unrecognized respublic! This is an official site of administration. of corse in the wikipedia there should be articles like: "abkazia" and ""rebublic of Abkhazhia"("Abkhazia", "republik of Abkazia" and "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" are different subjects and should be written artikles sepparately) but pliase dont violate our rights!

--Surprizi (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of this article (history, geography, demography etc) is about the region and not about the current government. Georgian Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is mentioned in the Politics secion alongside the de facto one. Also there's a special article dedicated to it. Alæxis_¿question? 13:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you ar wright, but if this artikle is only about region of Abkhazia you can't power to write in the tamplete only "Abkhazian republic" or prezident of this defacto republic. Georgian administration of autonomy republic hav manajers and full stuff, but there is not noting about them. I think its prefer to write members of official administration rather them defacto! But if you write defacto president you must write here aur administrations too!--Surprizi (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is artikle into georgian (autonomy ropublic of Abkhazia) where we write administration regions, but beside this we have article (abkazia). Abkhazia has his big history and write all details in one place its not normal. In the enciclopedy Abkazia should contain topics with "main articles". and if somebody chooses to read whole about A/R Abkhazia or Republic Abkhazia it is his wright. In may opinion Abkhazia should contain all story but should contain short topics!--Surprizi (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I forgot to say, I delate some vords in main tamplate. If this is about region, regions name is "Abkhazia" not "Republic Abkhazia". If you think that previous was write please write in the georgian part in tamplate as "Republik of Abkhazia" (აფხაზეთის რესპუბლიკა). But it would be the shame of wikipedya!--Surprizi (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Every time when I see this article's infobox it makes me feel that it's not real NPOV, because it shows only de facto situation and official data is not shown (but reader may be interested in this), we must determinate our policy. There is a two ways to be neutral: 1) we must have two infoboxes one for de facto Abkhazia and another for Abkhazian Autonomy as it is in Swedish Wikipedia good article ► Abchazien, or 2) we must not have political infoboxes and must describe Abkhazia region as geographical entity (e.g. main city, area, population and etc.) as it is in Georgia Wikipedia article ► აფხაზეთი. --g. balaxaZe★ 06:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you my friend! Swedish version is more suitable as I see.--Surprizi (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Photos

I wanted to let everyone editing this article know that I have 19 photos taken in Abkhazia in 2014 uploaded to the Commons and available here should you have any need. Interlaker (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Title of the article

Hello, On 16 September 2015, at the request of the Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations, the map of Georgia was updated on the website of the Geospatial Information Section of the United Nations. [[6]] [[7]] According to this regulations, made by the Uited Nations, please, note that by this new official UN map of Georgia, the primary name of Abkhazia part of Georgia is Abkhazeti. Please, use this name Abkhazeti as a primary name of the article and in any other articles of Wikipedia. Thank you!Abkhazian1 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Abkhazia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Abkhazia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080813035731/http://www.civil.ge/eng/detail.php?id=17617 to http://www.civil.ge/eng/detail.php?id=17617

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Corrected formatting/usage for //www.eek.gr/default.asp?pid=6&id=579

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Partially recognised independence from Georgia

In the article, in the infobox section it states "Partially recognised independence from Georgia". I oppose this. It should be "Independence from Georgia". Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru "fully" recognize Abkhazia, not "partially". "Partially recognised independence from Georgia" wants to imply "<97/193" countries recognize Abkhazia, but this gives rise to meaning confusion as I indicated.Woodgridge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Sentence is not complete, but "independence from Georgia" also can't work better for this part of infobox. If the idea is to have subtitle for section related to the declaration of independence of "Republic of Abkhazia" it should be like: Declaration of Independence and International recognition --ZviadPochkhua (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic 1922-1938

There existed Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, not mentioned here.Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttp://heraldika.ge/index.php?m=844

[2] ttp://scara.gov.ge/en/home.html

[1]

[2]