Jump to content

Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Issues with Definition

Hi all, Please assist me to resolve the problem with the info box of Republic of Abkhazia which is placed on right side of the article.

Problem: Definition "Republic of Abkhazia" is not common or legal and it's not recognized internationally. Info box misleads audience, giving expression that "Republic of Abkhazia" is official name and commonly used. It also features symbols of separatist government, which are presented as official symbols for Abkhazia.

Description: Common name of Abkhazia since Soviet times is Autonomious Republic of Abkhazia. Internationally Abkhazia is referred as Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia or Abkhazia. This is due to the fact that UN, U.S. all European countries and almost all countries in the world recognize Abkhazia as the part of Georgia with it's legal status "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia". Only Russia, which occupied Abkhazia in 1993 and few Anti_western countries call Abkhazia "Republic of Abkhazia". In 2015 Google map added word "Autonomous" to "Republic of Abkhazia"[1]. Later it started referring a Abkhazia.

Resolution: There must be clear definition for the information presented in info box. It should include first official name, status and heraldic of de jure authorities, as well as de facto titles and symbols, but with clear description that these names and symbols are not common, and not recognized by UN, EU and the world except of Russia, Venecuela and some other countries. --188.169.46.141 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither that name of "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" are the common name of the area, which is just "Abkhazia", like the article title. The infobox is set up as it is to reflect the situation on the ground, but if you look at the very first paragraph of the lead, you will see the situation wrt Georgian sovereignty explained, while details of limited recognition you request are already present in the infobox as it stands.
As an aside, as far as I'm aware there are no official heraldry symbols for the Abkhazian government-in-exile, although if that is changed it would be good to know. CMD (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
CMD well noted. Both are not common. But As far as I know Wiki reffers to official name first and then to others. Though using Abkhazia the the general title is OK. But the info box misleads users. There must be two Boxes: One for Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Second for Separatists Republic of Abkhazia.
Yes, there are official symbols. I just lack of knowladge to insert them into this article. Hope others will help.
These two boxes should be filled with relative symbols and titles. Otherwise, now, this box show partly Separatists republic and rest Autonomous republic.
Current symbol is for partly recognized/separatist republic of Abkhazia. CAption below the flag should say "Flag of Partly recognized Republic of Abkhazia"
--188.169.46.141 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The Heraldry for the Autonomous Republic shown on the heraldry website are just proposals, I do not believe they have been adopted into law. They are not for example used on the official website.
The infoboxes have been discussed before, and as I noted, the current one reflects the governing structure actually in use. The government-in-exile has its own page, linked in the lead. I trust readers to be able to figure out that Abkhazia is only partially recognised due to its prominent mention, it is bad writing to mention it every single time the separatist republic is mentioned. CMD (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The Heraldry for the Autonomous Republic is used on official website of Georgia's State Council of Heraldry

It shows both: Flag of Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Coat of Arms. There is no single word that symbols are not approved by the law. But I will double check it. Meanwhile the rest - Infobox with Title and status of Autonomous Republic must be added. OK. I understand that the current info box refers to "Republic of Abkhazia" (parttly recognzed) but till there is no second info box for Autonomous Republic, it misleads readers. --ZviadPochkhua (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

--ZviadPochkhua (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

CMD Government in exile has own wiki page but it's not about country, but governmental body. current article is about Abkhazia and it show only one governing structure - illegitimate body. Not adding legitimate body to the info-box misleads readers. Your argument that all readers are well educated is quite weak. Many in USA identify Republic of Georgia as State of Georgia in USA. And many in Russia still believe that Georgia is part of URSS. What I propose is very simple: to have 2 info box. Do you see something problematic in it? --ZviadPochkhua (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the heradly website. The Heraldry Council came up with those symbols a few years ago now, and listed them as proposed symbols when it did so. The website has changed a bit since then, but given the complete lack of text on that website (which in general is not that well maintained, search through it a bit and there's still some places where Abkhazia is represented by a blank shield for example), I do not take it as a source for their proposals making it into law.
I disagree that it is misleading to present the governance as it exists on the ground. On the contrary, it would be very misleading to present an infobox, with associated demographics economics etc., for a body which exerts no influence on said parameters. The current infobox clearly notes the lack of recognition, and and the lead gives a concise explanation of the situation. All the government-in-exile is is a governmental body, it does not exert a governing structure. My argument was not that readers are well-educated, but that they could read what's already blatantly obvious on the page. CMD (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It was misleading for me, since I decided to correct it. It's misleading for many of my foreign friends. Of course it's up to Wiki editors, but it decision should not be biased. Now it now shows different attitude towards identical situations. For example Crimea (occupied by Russia) and Abkhazia (Occupied by Russia) . For Crimea there is a separated article and for Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia page is redirected to this page and protected from editing.
This condition creates feeling that editing wa conducted unfairly and base on political motivation.
My opinion remains: Article Abkhazia lacks of infobox on Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia.
--ZviadPochkhua (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The infobox contains: "Partially recognised", "First international recognition", "Annulled by Georgia immediately thereafter", "By Russia. Another 3 UN member states also recognise Abkhazia's independence". The first paragraph of the lead contains: "partially recognised state", "separatist Abkhazian state", "recognised only by Russia and a small number of other countries", "the majority of the world's governments consider Abkhazia part of Georgia", "Georgia officially considers the area an autonomous republic, the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia." If people feel mislead after all of those, then I suggest there is little that can be done.
Crimea is a markedly different case, given the Ukrainian autonomous administration of Crimea was actually exercised for over two decades, and the article is useful in covering that. The Georgian Autonomous government on the other hand exercised limited control during the war immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and over bits of the Kodori Valley and surroundings for two years. CMD (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
CMD Thank you for editing. Well done. Now it looks better.

As regard to the difference between Crimean and Abkhaz Autonomous Republics. As far as I understand, your point is that Crimea's Autonomous Republic used its status since the collapse of Soviet Union till the occupation and in Georgia control governance was partly lost.

I agree that current government is de-factor ruler, so that proves importance of having it on page. But the status of Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is internationally recognised till today and this status was exercised (de-facto) in upper Abkhazia till 2008 (Russo-Georgian War).
My suggestion is to have two info box for article. This does not contradicts with wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.7.64 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
My point was that the Crimean Autonomous Republic fully functioned for a long time, whereas Georgian governance of post-Soviet Abkhazia has never been fully established. Even the Chkhalta government only lasted a couple of years. I noted my issues with a second infobox above.
Also, although I suppose it may have happened a few times, I have not seen any statements from foreign governments recognising the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. They recognise Georgian sovereignty, which is not the same as recognising specific administrative structures.CMD (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Lol what does it mean "They recognise Georgian sovereignty, which is not the same as recognising specific administrative structures"?! They recognize Georgian statehood, Georgian law and Georgian sovereignty this includes everything. OMG some try so hard to diminish Georgia.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It means that we shouldn't extrapolate sources to say things they don't. It's hard to see how you feel this diminishes Georgia. Countries recognising sub-state structures can often lead to issues down the line (see: Kosovo). CMD (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
CMD Sorry, but your statement about recognition only Georgian sovereignty, excluding specific administrative structures, is senseless. Recognition of sovereignty means recognition of borders and it's governing structures. Government of Separatist Republic of Abkhazia does not recognize region as the part of Georgia. Do you mean that International community might recognize Georgia's sovereignty but not its governance? And remark regarding upper Abkhazia is not true. Autonomous Republic was controlling it since 1991. My question remains: What kind of problem you see in having two info-boxes? Becouse it seems like you are trying to hide Georgia's jurisdiction --ZviadPochkhua (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
No, a recognition of sovereignty is a recognition of sovereignty. Sovereignty generally includes the creation of governing structures regardless of outside interference. See for example any selection of China's statements on the matter. The international community recognises Georgian governance, but I have seen no specific statements saying they want that governance to be a certain way. Upper Abkhazia was controlled by a warlord until 2006, which is why the Autonomous government was based in Tbilisi until that time.
I stated my concerns above. Implying a governing structure where there is none does not help the reader. CMD (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with CMD that the lead overall gives sufficient weight to both points of view (de facto and de jure control), however, I also don't think that the infobox reflects that, since it gives one point of view much more prominence. I would like to see Crimea-style infobox, giving fair weight to both de facto and de jure situations. Further, I don't think the duration of control has anything to do with it: we present both administrations in the Crimean article not because Ukraine was administering it for some arbitrarily significant amount of time, but because both views have significant support and should be given WP:DUEWEIGHT. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest this Crimea-inspired "combined infobox". Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair weight does not mean equal weight, and I maintain that it is misleading to present a government that has never governed in line with one that actually does. This is not based on viewpoints, but on conveying the situation to the reader. This is in line with other articles on states with limited recognition, such as Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, State of Palestine, and Somaliland. CMD (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
How is it misleading? That's what "de facto" means! One government is actually governing (hence de facto), the other has a widely-recognized sovereignty (hence de jure). The situation is exactly like Crimea in this sense. By the way, I thought the infobox proposed by Seryo93 is excellent and much cleaner than I had thought possible (although minor adjustments are needed). No longer a penguin (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I find it misleading because it links the government-in-exile to things it has no relation to. It does not control currency or calling codes (contrary to the infobox the government has a +995 32 code as it operates out of Tbilisi). The population they will claim will likely be vastly different, as the Georgian autonomous government would likely count the tens of thousands of Georgians forced out of Abkhazia which as far as I know Abkhazia is happy to disown.
A different point is that it gives far too much prominence to an administration that is effectively a placeholder. It is the Georgian national government that participates in discussions around the issue, and is recognised to have sovereignty by almost all countries (sovereignty to my knowledge has not been divested into subnational administrations). Resolution to give Georgia any de-facto power would likely involve a restructuring of government anyway. The pre-2008 peace proposals for example offered a restructuring of the whole Georgian government, not just Abkhazia's.
While Seryo93's infobox is indeed remarkably clean, I do not feel that it would enhance the understanding of Abkhazia to readers. CMD (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I accept that it gives a lot of weight to the government in exile and it's personnel that have no power that I'm aware of. However, it gives proper weight to Georgian claims of sovereignty. I would suggest removing the Chairmen and the legislature, since they are insignificant. The rest are good reflection on what Georgia claims (Georgian as an official language, Georgian currency as the only valid currency), in contrast with the defacto information.
However, I don't see how other items in the infobox would be affected by this change. You say that Georgian government would claim a different population. Why would they? The population in the infobox is the population of the region and not even Georgian government would claim that all those Georgians are still in Abkhazia. What they (and other parties) have claimed, however, is that Abkhazian authorities have overstated population, and such claims, properly sourced, should be included regardless of whether we include Georgia as de jure sovereign. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
What do you think about Swedish example? First of all we agree there is no doubt that this article includes region also called as Abkhazia without any political charge. And then we have two issues de facto and de jure. CMD's claim that Georgia had lack of actual control has no actual weight, because in Soviet union this region was part of Georgian SSR (and by constitution Georgia was "independent SSR") that's why modern Georgian political entity took legacy of that SSR. After this I think we should give more quick information to the readers about current political situation in this region, de jure fact changes a lot for de facto Abkhazia so including information about de jure is essential to understand real situation.--g. balaxaZe★ 09:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I honestly like the version above] better. I think the Swedish version is too cumbersome and gives too much prominence to the Georgian administration. Whereas I think that Georgian sovereignty claim is significant, their administration body is much less so. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Going into further detail on the government-in-exile does not help readers understand the balance of each opinion, and would be a cosmetic change with the potential to obscure understanding given it links things that aren't linked. Currency for example, is more about what is accepted than what is legal (Zimbabwe officially uses a couple of currencies but unofficially many circulate, Scotland has no legal tender). Regarding population, I was trying to note that the government-in-exile has no association with the population figures given (The ministers themselves are not included in Abkhazia's population. Also, do you mean that population disputes should be in the infobox? I'd agree if Georgia had a more recent estimate than 2005, which is the latest we have in the article). On the other hand, the current infobox notes the de jure situation where it has actual impact, for example the map, where Georgia (inc. South Ossetia) is highlighted as it would be on most world maps (something not even done in most other limited state infoboxes), the sovereignty section where obviously it has the most impact, and (fascinatingly) in the telephone codes. CMD (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I like your suggested infobox No longer a penguin. And I think this will help to stop long-time dispute about infobox of the article (this is not the first time).--g. balaxaZe★ 18:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposed info-boxes are acceptable. I will vote for adaption if I may.

--ZviadPochkhua (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Google Maps adds "Autonomous" before "Republic of Abkhazia" following Georgia's request". Agenda.ge.

Polling to adopt new infobox

Statements copied to RfC

It was several times that people had controversy about the current infobox. One thing is clear it's not well formed and misses many things. Due to this I think it's time to vote for adoption of a new infobox.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please have a read over WP:NOTVOTE. The correct procedure if you wish to escalate this is an WP:RfC, or something else in the WP:DR system. CMD (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Great great proposition! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree for reasons already stated with two proposed fixes. (1) The two Chairmen and legislature from the "Georgia (de jure)" section should be removed. The Georgian de jure claim is significant, but the administrative positions with no actual power are not. (2) Abkhaz and Russian should be added to spoken languages. They were excluded in the old infobox since they were in the "Official languages" field. But now that we have two "Official languages" fields, all of the major spoken languages should be repeated within Spoken languages. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 Comment: No longer a penguin we can agree about languages, but not about removing two de jure Chairmen, they are representatives of IDPs, they care about them and if someone (UN or etc) will decide to do something in Abkhazia they talk with them. They have weight (power) even in exile. They also care about those Abkhazians who come in Tbilisi or Zugdidi for medical treatment. --g. balaxaZe★ 11:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with the conclusion. As far as I can tell, the "de jure" chairmen have no power in Abkhazia, which is the subject of this article. In 2008, their administration was evacuated even from the small part of Abkhazia that they had some control over. Right now they seem to perform the sort of low-level administrative functions that would not be covered in any other infobox on a region. Also, a statement that "if someone (UN or etc) will decide to do something in Abkhazia they talk with them". I can only assume that any "talking" to them would be purely a gesture, since if you want to DO anything in Abkhazia, you would have to talk to de facto government. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Beside that actual control on the ground, de jure government claims all Abkhazia, so at least readers should know (see) who is a head of them, who organizes their governmental activities and so on.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No longer a penguin, this is an example of what I was discussing above when I was talking about the governments link with the population being very different.
Anyway, Giorgi Balakhadze, if you really want to go down this path again but do not know how to set up an RfC, I would be happy to do so for you?
Lastly, I encourage any interested users to read the discussions which resulted in the current compromise infobox, which take up basically the entirety of Archive 6 and conclude with the first section in Archive 7. CMD (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Archives or previous discussions do not mean that topics are closed and mustn't be changed for ever. Be happy and do RfC :) --g. balaxaZe★ 20:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
hi No longer a penguin. Your statement "if you want to DO anything in Abkhazia, you would have to talk to de facto government" does not correspond to reality. Till now, countries (except of Russia and Venezuela, Nikaragua) and their citizens can't do anything in Abkhazia in terms of long-term business. This is due to THE LAW OF GEORGIA ON OCCUPIED TERRITORIES and international diplomacy of Georgia, U.S. and EU. For entire world Abkhazia currently is considered as Bataclan theatre during the attack. Even De Facto government is wrongly referred here as so, since almost all Countries admit that It's Russia who keeps control over Abkhazia, including financial control. Russia promised to cover 61,5% of Abkhazian budget in 2016

There attempts of Turkish entrepreneurs to start business in Abkhazia, but as far as I know almost all such attempts failed to Georgia's involvement. There is no recognition of elections in Abkhazia, and very few arguments proving real weight of De Facto government. It's obvious for me and the rest of community with knowledge of situation in Abkhazia that De Facto government of Abkhazia is the puppet structure with no real power. But Russia can be called De Facto. Please correct me if I'm not right while saying this. --ZviadPochkhua (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree per nom. –BruTe Talk 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree In the proposed infobox more square footage is devoted to the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (Georgian subdivision) than to the de facto government which gives it undue weight. While we can argue about the extent of (in)dependence of current Abkhazian government from/on Russia, it's indisputable that the AAR government now has no say whatsoever in the affairs of Abkhazia. Alæxis¿question? 13:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, there is an alternate variant, without administrative positions of AAR (instead, I've added "see details" link to article about that government). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Alæxis you think like communist scholars in regard to Big Soviet Encyclopedia, "oh this republic had more words or space not mine and etc". More square footage is a result of longer names of official organs and that's all not because we wrote more info about de jure subjects. Your argument is too weak and at some point pointless. And about AAR government's role we already have written above--g. balaxaZe★ 07:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Didn't see it, ya, it's better. The time zone also should be corrected as the de facto one is different from Georgian time (but that's the problem with the current one as well). The fundamental question of whether we should mention AAR in the infobox (=prominently) when it has zero influence on the situation on the ground remains. Note that the relation to Georgia is already mentioned in the infobox and the lead. I agree with CMD's comment above that it'd be helpful to use WP:RfC. Alæxis¿question? 09:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
        • If you like to speak about the ground then make Infobox about the ground and not about all Abkhazia which is not only situation on the ground and not only "AR" but AAR as well.--g. balaxaZe★ 16:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The current info-box is not a neutral summary of the territory's internationally disputed status. Opposition to the new box seems to be based on a preference for emphasizing de facto control, but this is not a refutation WP:NPOV's requirement of representing all significant viewpoints. WP:NOTVOTE. There was a concern that the proposed box gave WP:UNDUE weight to details of the government-in-exile, but this has been addressed in a compromise proposal. (There is no consensus on the use of the term de jure within the box. As an aside, de jure means literally "by law" and does not in modern English connote moral justification.) Rhoark (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the infobox in this article change from the current one to one such as this one? CMD (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree It was several times that people had controversy about the current infobox. One thing is clear it's not well formed and misses many things. --g. balaxaZe★ 18:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Great great proposition! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree for reasons already stated with two proposed fixes. (1) The two Chairmen and legislature from the "Georgia (de jure)" section should be removed. The Georgian de jure claim is significant, but the administrative positions with no actual power are not. (2) Abkhaz and Russian should be added to spoken languages. They were excluded in the old infobox since they were in the "Official languages" field. But now that we have two "Official languages" fields, all of the major spoken languages should be repeated within Spoken languages. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree per nom. –BruTe Talk 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree In the proposed infobox more square footage is devoted to the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (Georgian subdivision) than to the de facto government which gives it undue weight. While we can argue about the extent of (in)dependence of current Abkhazian government from/on Russia, it's indisputable that the AAR government now has no say whatsoever in the affairs of Abkhazia. Alæxis¿question? 13:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree per Alaexis. We have long held that Abkhazia is a de facto independent state per the declarative theory, albeit that it has limited recognition and is not a UN member. Thus it appears on List of sovereign states alongside Somaliland, Northern Cyprus and other similar entities. The proposed infobox (particularly with its use of de jure to describe the relationship of Ahkhazia with Georgia) somehow implies that it is legally bound to Georgia (which is what de jure means). This is not the case, however. Abkhazia has its own legal system, and has not been functionally part of Georgia since 1992, thus any reference to the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" is meaningless. Since we're treating this as an independent country, its infobox should be similar to that used for any other country, and the current one does that job fine, including dates of the various separations from Georgia.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree pare Alaexis and Amakuru. The new box puts too much weight to the "in exile" institutions which might or might not be legal/legitimate, but the fact is that their real influence is close to zero in the field (you can hardly purchase anything in laris in Abkhazia, and I doubt that Gvazava or Kolbaia are allowed to set foot there). Put the disclaimers wherever appropriate and describe the controversy, but the current infobox does the job just fine. While No longer a penguin stated (s)he agrees with the proposal, (s)he also advocated removal of the "Georgia (de jure)" section, which AFAICT results in the current solution, more or less (issues about languages and calling code still should be ironed out anyway). No such user (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment:I am telling again and again this infobox and article is not only about situation on the field or ground it is about all Abkhazia including its history, geography, people, development institutions (both de jure or de facto) and et cetera and et cetera. So please enough this one direction "arguments"--g. balaxaZe★ 16:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment: Just to be clear, No longer a penguin's problem with the "Georgia (de jure)" section was that the inclusion of unimportant Georgian government institutions/positions that did not actually govern the region was clutter, not that the entire section should be removed, and it's disingenuous to present their position as such. Removing those positions/institutions would still put Georgia's de jure claim to the region in a more prominent position and is closer to the proposed rather than the current infobox. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree - I don't like the proposed infobox. It's unlike any other infobox for a partially recognised country. I think we should keep the current infobox but add the information regarding the autonomous government. I'd just like to point out that the undue weight argument regarding the proposed infobox is very weak, I don't see how stating the region "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" (the only extra thing) is giving undue weight. I also don't agree with the argument "Since we're treating this as an independent country". We're not treating Abkhazia as an independent country as that'd be POV. We're treating Abkhazia as a partially recognised country and a disputed territory. I'm by no means a supporter of Abkhazia's independence however I don't think it would be fair to treat the Autonomous Government as equals to the Disputed Republic Government. The Disputed Republic Government actually governs Abkhazia. This is an encyclopaedia and we should be stating facts. Whilst the Autonomous Government is notable and should be included in this article, we need to show to our readers that they have no authority in the day-to-day administration and governance of Abkhazia. We don't want to be misleading our readers. IJA (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment:@IJA: for what you say we have two terms De facto and De jure so readers won't be misled. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment:@Giorgi Balakhadze: Some countries and RoA would argue that Abkhazia is de jure independent, so de jure according to whom? I still don't think it is fair to treat ARoA and RoA as equals in this as RoA actually administrates Abkhazia whereas ARoA is just a government in exile with no powers over Abkhazia. I agree that the ARoA should be mentioned in this article but not as equals with the RoA. IJA (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @IJA: what does it mean if they are equal or not?! Wikipedia is not a political institution to determine such things it is encyclopedia so for Wikipedia it is vital to be neutral and represent every side of issue without thinking "hm is it equal or not". Inxobox about Abkhazia needs de jure part without any further questions.--g. balaxaZe★ 19:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @Giorgi Balakhadze: - Neutrality is the prime reason why I'm opposed to the proposed infobox, the proposed infobox isn't neutral as it portrays ARoA on par with the RoA which isn't the case. That's why I proposed to have the current infobox but have a section in the introbox for the ARoA. IJA (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
          • @IJA: First of all the article is about region of Abkhazia not particularly about RoA or Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia so if we are neutral why we should show only RoA and not ARoA infobox (or top mentioned one)? This seems to be very biased.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
          • @Giorgi Balakhadze: Like it or not, the short title should be about the more important topic. This is why China is about the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China. Szqecs (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
            • @Giorgi Balakhadze: That's why I proposed adding a section to the current infobox about the ARoA. IJA (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
              • @IJA: But what about a title of the current infobox or flag section? It is also supports only one side.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
                • @Giorgi Balakhadze: That's the flag of the government which actually governs and administrates Abkhazia. All disputed disputed territories take precedent with the entity which governs the territory. What I'm proposing is to have an extra part to the infobox to include the government in exile. We don't normally include governments in exile in a territory's infobox but I'm being more than fair and lenient with my proposal. As I've said before, it'd be unfair and misleading to the reader to treat the government in exile the same as the government which actually governs the territory. IJA (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree In my opinion the proposal is good and contain important information, I disagree with those disagreeing. Abkhazia is de-facto an independent country but according to the international community, Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia, which in Georgia is the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Removing this will not be Neutral. Furthermore, any proposal for improvement, must be based on the structred offered by the RFC creater, I do not affirm that the infobox is by all means the best but I don't see a major problem with it, with emphasis on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree I disagree as it is an unrecognized state, it should still have its own infobox examples are South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Somaliland. Even certain rebel groups have country infoboxes - see Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. But if this goes through, we should probably move the current article about the partially recognized state to Republic of Abkhazia. Serafart (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree The current infobox was arrived at after a long period of discussion (conclusion here). This infobox informs the reader of the actual situation, presenting to the reader information about the government that governs. It also provides clarifications where this governance is affected by the international situation, such as the note of partial recognition in the sovereignty section along with the number of recognising countries, the note on Georgian annulment of the Abkhazian declaration of sovereignty, and international calling access. A previous comment brought up the question of neutrality, but there is no disagreement on the topic of our infobox, which is who governs Abkhazia. The disagreement is instead on whether that government is legal and right, and that is very clearly explained both in the clarifications mentioned above, and in the article text. Furthermore, presenting the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (ARoA) administration in the infobox presents them as a government when they have never actually governed. It would be a purely theoretical infobox section, and is misleading. The lari is not used in Abkhazia, and the Georgian language is suppressed, but the proposed infobox presents these both without question. Such a presentation actually obscures what the ARoA administration actually does, as while it does not govern, it performs other tasks such as providing representation for internally displaced people within Georgia proper. CMD (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
dear CMD I'm excited how easy is for you to write disagree. Seems like you did not read anything in discussion and just repeat Putin's words. It's obvious that users like you have nothing common with wikipedia but with politics. You are biased. the difference between us is that I love my country which is partly occupied by Russia, and you just play Putin's pupet game for reasons which are far from editing).

Dear all, when you put word disagree, please read discussion. Number of words "Disagree" does not change history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.136.9 (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Serafart: That'll just lead to POV Forking. IJA (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That is a good point. Serafart (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree This proposed change appears to heavily favour the government in exile, over the de facto state of Abkhazia by putting them on equal footing. Now we should remain as encyclopedic as possible, and that means not taking sides in international conflicts and reflecting what is the current status quo in the world today. In this case we have a small country that some countries recognise and others do not. We should not be changing the infobox on this page to somehow suggest that a government in exile has control over this de facto independent state. The current infobox does exactly what it is supposed to do. Outback the koala (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Outback the koala if you want to be fair you should say that it is not a country at all but a strategic entity which is under Russian army and politicians active control and that Russia uses and "supports" its "independence" just only for one reason to stop Georgia's move toward the West and NATO. Unlike some people that do not want to see real situation if you could ask about this Putin even he would agree that things are really like that. Some countries "recognized" Abkhazia? Will be better and fair to say (everyone knows) that Russia has bought these recognitions. I really want to make Wikipedia more neutral but some users just try implicitly to support Russian agenda and politics.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, setting aside your strong POV, let's simply look at another partially recognised country like Kosovo. On that page we rightly take the same approach, which, like the status quo here, is exceedingly neutral and reasonable. I understand that you feel very strongly about this topic, but if you take a step back, I think you'll see that not everyone who respectfully disagrees with you is a russian agent. Outback the koala (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
At first I didn't call anyone Russian agent but people mostly do not see real reasons on the background and only repeat or agree or receive Russian politics as normal and a fact. Second it is a lie that someone has no POV, everyone has POV since we are all individuals. --g. balaxaZe★ 23:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Outback the koala: Very weak comparison. Kosovo is recognized by 108 UN states, vs Separatist Abkhazia which is recognized by Russia which till today occupies this territory and keeps it isolated as buffer to NATO. Kosovo is a member country of the IMF and World Bank as the Republic of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded unanimously in 2010 that Kosovo's declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law. VS separatist Abkhazia where elections were never recognized by developed civilizations. I believe you know reasons why, but will repeat it: Akhazia is not a country, it does not have own government. It's occupied by Russia like Crimea, Tskhinvali Region. It's fully subsidized by Russia, which pays 60%. Almost all Abkhaz "leaders" have Russian citizenship. --ZviadPochkhua (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree 1. The "de jure" is biased. 2. I think the article should reflect reality, as is done for Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Clearly a step towards dePOVing, which is long overdue. --KoberTalk 04:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree There are more than enough arguments from supporters of the move and why this move is important, and almost no from opposite group. It's very obvious that current info-box misleads people - who are not aware of situation. We can't judge weight of Autonomous Republic vs Separatist republic by simply putting "Agree" or Disagree". Let's say: what are positive results of new infobox, and what negative? Till now, I have not seen explanation of latter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZviadPochkhua (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2016
    • @ZviadPochkhua: Negatives: 1. As I said, "de jure" means rightful entitlement. By using this term, we are taking sides in the dispute. 2. By putting Georgia in, you're suggesting that the actual government is less legitimate than, say, the PRC on China, otherwise China's box should be something like that too. If you do want to suggest that, then there needs to be another discussion on what counts as sufficiently legitimate and it's just gonna get too complicated. Szqecs (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Szqecs: 1. It's logical to vote for AGREE when positive prevails negative results. 2. I'm not sure what you say about china, but... Of course actual government in Abkhazia is less legitimate than Government of Autonomous Republic, at least TILL UN, EU, and the rest of world recognize elections in Abkhazia. Currently de facto government in Abkhazia represents Russian KGB that is not a secret for the world (maybe excluding some pro-Russian users). Do you have any different info?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teimuraztt (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 June 2016
      • @ZviadPochkhua: Please lay out the positives. It's too much work searching for them. As I said, if you want the new infobox because you think Georgia's claim in legitimate, you need to propose a criteria for inclusion, like how many countries need to recognize the claim for it to be in the box. That criteria needs to be agreed on, and it should apply to all disputed territories. Otherwise you are violating WP:NPOV, which is a big negative. Szqecs (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @Szqecs: Please read above discussion. This issue was answered above. Violation of NPOV is the current info box, which is clearly pro-Russian POV. As regard to criteria check Crimea article and find differences. To be fair while commenting or refusing proposed option, agree with the problem presented. Than propose your options. "Disagree" is the way to keep problem unresolved.--ZviadPochkhua (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Clearly the territory is disputed, we cannot skip that and mislead the readers by presenting only the usurpers POV. I think there could be a separate article for the Republic of Abkhazia, where such an infobox could stay, but Abkhazia ≠ Republic of Abkhazia, and now the actual redirect + the current infobox are really misleading to conclude that indeed, which is not correct. We definitely should change that, and the proposed change is a good movement in that direction. Kouber (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree see above. Deu. 12:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree, basically what I was thinking has already been said by Amakuru and CMD, but I will add some additional words. Georgia has 0.0% control over this piece of land which it claims are his since 1992. By that reason alone, it's pretty much nonsense to add such an info box. It claim "de jure" all it wants, but in reality, it has nothing to say. This infobox would obviously favor those who'd like to see Abkhazia as a state that is only "temporarily not under Georgian control", putting it on an equal level with that what is actual reality, namely that it's simply not part/not ruled/not part of Georgia for a decent amount of time. In my opinion, the lede summarized the matter more than well enough and I believe is clear enough regarding the situation, without giving any additional undue/nationalism-loaded weight, which the proposed infobox would give. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Article is about Abkhazia, but wrongly refers to info box of Republic of Abkhazia, promoting the POV of Russia = presenting ROA as the rightful governor of the region. Inbox must be unbiased. Current one is misleading, needs to have ARA info as well. --109.172.130.230 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) <----- another WP:SPA sock IP

    • @LouisAragon: so what will you say about this ► Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea? Ans yes Abkhazia is temporarily not under Georgian control (you can't claim anything else) the same was with FRG about GDR... And I will repeat this territory is not created in 1992 but from far centuries was part of Georgian statehood, this article is not only about RoA but about whole region with its historical background and we have plenty of reasons to show this to readers and not hide for RoA's political promotion.--g. balaxaZe★ 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree totally agree. Abkhazia is the region and article is about Abkhazia which is presented now with De Jure and De Facto governments. Arguments about real weight of the Government of Autonomous Republic has nothing with the issue of having new proposed infobox. It's maybe topic for another article. But in this situation it can't determine existence of proposed info box.

Infobox helps users to understand main figures of Abkhazia. Existing infobox misleads users as shows that Abkhazia is The Republic of Abkhazia, which is not correct in terms of international law, recognition, etc. --Teimuraztt (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree The old infobox unjustly supports the Abkhaz separatists. The new infobox is neutral and reflects Abkhazia's disputed status.--Odabade90 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we are here to report on verifiable facts. And the facts say that Georgia has had no influence in Abkhazia since 1992. The insituttions mentioned in the proposed infobox are a complete fiction. There's no reason to treat this differently from Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Kosovo or any other disputed defacto state.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Amakuru it seems that you don't have an appropriate knowledge about the conflict and as a result you're writing very wrong "facts". First of all it must be explained what do you mean in "influence" and in "Abkhazia" because Georgia somehow maybe not de facto but still has latent influence, and also after 1992 for some period Kodori Gorge was under factual control. So the institution is not a fiction and functioned properly even on the territory of Abkhazia. Please gain some competence about the conflict and after make loud statements. --g. balaxaZe★ 21:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Separatist Abkhazia is recognized only by only a UN Member State, the Russia, which till today occupies this territory. --Skyfall (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree What needs to have been said has been said by Chipmunkdavis, Outback the koala and LouisAragon. We are not here to be the voice of the international community or right great wrongs. How the international community views Abkhazia does not dictate how we present it. The proposed infobox, as has been previously said, simply gives undue weight to the government-in-exile which has no real-life relevance in Abkhazia. The idea that the current infobox supports Abkhaz separatism or completely eschews the view of the international community is one that is inaccurate anyway given that in its current state, the infobox and the very first sentence of the article make it crystal clear that it is the position of the international community that Abkhazia is part of Georgia (please do note that this article is better at this than some other partially recognized state articles, there is no indication of the dispute in the infobox of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic for instance). Currencies that have no validity in Abkhazia, people who have no power in Abkhazia are minutiae to be discussed at the "Politics" section, irrelevant for the infobox as they do not enrich the outsider in the slightest in terms of information about how Abkhazia is governed. One can go on all the rhetoric about "promotion" of the Republic of Abkhazia, but simply presenting facts on the ground as it is is not promotion. It is, in fact, more appropriate to call the proposed infobox promotion of a certain political view (that of the int'l community is still a certain point of view) rather than giving it its due weight in the "independence" section of the infobox and then moving on with the fact that the Republic of Abkhazia is, for all encyclopedic purposes, the effective government in Abkhazia. --GGT (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • GGT what does it mean "we"?! You and people who thinks like you? "WE" are also those people who agrees" and their voice must be heard and reflected! --g. balaxaZe★ 14:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry if this could be taken personally. It simply was supposed to be a straightforward comment regarding my position on the mission of Wikipedia and what we as a community should be doing (on which I hope you do grant me the freedom to comment), based on an interpretation of the rules and established procedures here, the way other users here have repeatedly used the pronoun. No ideological warfare here, no one trying to silence anyone, nothing calling for the outraged tone and the underlines frankly. No need to divert any time to the semantics of the language one another is using. --GGT (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear **GGT if we follow "presenting facts on the ground", we should write on the top "Puppet Republic of Abkhazia". The fact that Russia is trying to promote status of "Republic of Abkhazia" does not mean that this corresponds to real situation. The idea of propaganda is to make people believe that this is true. And it works well in countries like Venezuela, Russia, Belarus. For the encyclopedic purposes, effective government in Abkhazia is Russia. Read above. Proposed info-box does not insist on pro-Georgian (pro-western) point of view. It shows information about both (Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic) allowing users quickly understand why Abkhazia is associated with both of them. While current box promotes status of Republic of Abkhazia, presenting it as rightful entitle. At first I proposed simple solution by adding word De-facto to the current info-box, but thanks to anti-Georgian users here change was refused.--ZviadPochkhua (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Andddddd we got another SPA/sock IP hopping in; 109.172.130.230. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Regardless of the outcome of this poll, I'd like to propose to make some simple research of (ZviadPochkhua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) in google. Also propose some brainstorming about motivation of users like LouisAragon to back KGB propaganda when it concerns territories occupied by Russia or articles about Georgia, the only western ally in Caucasus.--188.169.46.141 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree Totally inconsistent with the declarative principle on which other de facto sovereign territories are presented. It wouldn't make sense to change the infobox just on Abkhazia - you would have to change the whole policy. --Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 02:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Makes it clear that Akhazia's status is disputed. JamesBay (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree per the concerns raised above by other users about WP:NPOV and consistency with other articles. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree A good proposal. Useful changes should be welcomed on Wikipedia. The proposed infobox is more accurate than the current one because it shows that the region of Abkhazia is internationally recognised sovereign Georgian territory, although the territory is currently administered by the largely unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia.80.139.254.168 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC) <---- IP with only one edit made in total.
  • Agree The current infobox does not make it sufficiently clear that it's only partially recognized (and only by a few countries at that) and still seen as de jure Georgian by the international community. The proposed infobox is clearer and more neutral, though specific issues about where to (or if we should) put languages, calling codes, and minor government positions, can be ironed out afterwards. My preference would actually be for something in between the two, one that doesn't give so much prominence to organizations that don't actually rule the region, but one that explicitly includes the de jure claim and the de jure region of Georgia that it's internationally recognized as belonging to. So Agree with the need to show the de jure Georgian issue more clearly in the current infobox, but leaning no Disagree on giving potentially undue prominence as in the proposed infobox.(clarified 19:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)) --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • no Disagree Governments in exile should not feature prominently in the articles of the territories they don't control. In addition, it is POV to describe a government in exile as the de jure government. sephia karta | dimmi 18:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No, POV is what you say. All international organizations recognize de jure government and in international relations they are superior than de facto marionette government.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:49, 1 August 2016 (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.

As an attempt to a compromise

What do disagrees think about this ► User:Giorgi_Balakhadze/sandbox infobox without those parts of de jure section which were controversial to you (de jure government have to be mentioned anyway)--g. balaxaZe★ 22:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That infobox remains a massive deviation from all similar infoboxes, and sheds a lot of information that is present in the current infobox (which was a compromise following the last discussion). CMD (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It was a previous discussion now we have new, period.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because that infobox would state that Georgia administrates Abkhazia when in reality it doesn't, that would be misleading for our readers. IJA (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
IJA there is a word de jure what is misleading there?--g. balaxaZe★ 21:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to repeat myself. IJA (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
IJA your opposition of de jure administration is weak, yes Georgia has no de facto control but without Georgia's de jure agreement on something no single international organization or etc is able to do anything there. Georgia has a control over Abkhazia and it is a de jure control and it has an impact.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually I take a NPOV over the term de jure unlike yourself. IJA (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@IJA: Georgia's de jure control of Abkhazia is a fact, if you want I can find sources that prove this. But don't make me waste time when it is clear without any POV.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Giorgi Balakhadze: There are plenty of sources to say that the Republic of Abkhazia's independence is legal (I personally support Georgia's claim over Abkhazia btw). The right to Self-determination is a cardinal principle of international law, which is why some argue that Abkhazia's independence is legal. Don't forget that four UN countries legally recognise Abkhazia as an independent country (even if some of them were bribed); we can't disregard their and the Republic of Abkhazia's legal argument. Here on Wikipedia we must be neutral. It'd be POV to say that the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is the legal Government of Abkhazia when some argue that the Republic of Abkhazia is the legal Government of Abkhazia. Wikipedia must be neutral in legal disputes and not take sides as to whom is the legal government. IJA (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@IJA: Abkhazian separatists has no legal argument, it is a right of Self-determination not of killing innocent people and starting ethnic cleansing of more than half of your population, even now many of "Abkhazians" have Megrelian surnames. To demolish any imagination about legal rights everybody can read this link: http://scara.gov.ge/en/2010-07-05-08-39-35.html --g. balaxaZe★ 18:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Giorgi Balakhadze: Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Regards IJA (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@IJA: read some background info about Abkhazia. What about self-determination of 60% of Abkhazia's population which can't return to their homes thanks to Russian occupants?

--188.169.46.141 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that per WP:NOTAFORUM. PS I am fully aware of Abhkazia's history. Regards IJA (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternative option to compromise

Check Puppet State of Abkhazia article and sources. Abkhazia's de facto republic may refer to Puppet State. It's funny when one tries to call illegitimate government as the real government on the ground, hiding the fact that it's ruled by Russian KGB and never been elected. While looking at how aggressively are insisting anti-Georgian groups in wiki to promote Republic of Abkhazia, I propose to rename/correct title of info box to: Puppet State of Abkhazia. This move will focus readers on real Abkhazia and real situation on ground. --109.172.130.230 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
How many more sock IP's/accounts are you going to use? - LouisAragon (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear I guess you know your native proverb: "Каждый судит в меру своей испорченности". This is the newsroom. While we all are busy with local things, we still find time sometime to track Anti-Georgian activists with aim to promote pro-russian POV.

Join us in editing of articles about bombing of civilians in Chechnia, media "freedom" in Russia, corruption.--109.172.130.230 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Transnistria

Transnistria is recognized by Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition Woodgridge (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

OK... What do you want us to do? This information is already included in the article and the international recognition article. I don't see a purpose to this thread. It is entirely redundant. IJA (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Giorgi Balakhadze claimed otherwise and changed the heading: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abkhazia&diff=728930177&oldid=728795671 The heading should be kept.Woodgridge (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Woodgridge has been blocked.Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The user was identified as a sock, so I've struck all their comments on this talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Humorous Flag of Bigoted ignorance.

The True Abkhaz flag represents Abkhaz Kingdom (The hand) with white stripes (Snowy mountains, and Christianity), and Green stripes (Ancient Forests, and Islam) and stars representing land of Abkhazia. Abkhazia never used Cross as a means of self identification. Yes there are some Abkhaz family seals with cross in it but there is at least one accommodating a swastika.


Is this an encyclopedia or a site for colonist Kartvelian bigotry and hate speech?

Dear user, Silvery Right Palm is shown on Genuise map of 1314-1315 (*c.1385. Guillem Soler.Biblioteca Nacional, París.)[1] and the map says: “lands of the Greatest King of Georgia". Right Palm was the symbol of Georgia, though Abkhazia was also considered as the name to Western Georgia.

On the same regions you can find Georgia's 5 cross flag. Meaning the incorporation of Dadiani's lands into Georgian Kingdom[2]. Right Palm is also shown on the regions of current Gagra, Gonio, and Sukhumi. It also appeared on the Portolane of Gilermo Soler[*c.1380. Guillem Soler.Biblioteca Nacional, París]to indicate Sukhumi as the residence of Dadiani. “Silvery Right Palm ” is not Apsua but oldest Georgian symbol, which means ruler or sovereign[3].

References

  1. ^ "*c.1385. Guillem Soler.Biblioteca Nacional, París". *c.1385. Guillem Soler.Biblioteca Nacional, París.
  2. ^ "1339. Angelino Dulcert. Biblioteca Nacional, París".
  3. ^ "The Genoese trading factors in Abkhazia".

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links 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:

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

checkY 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.

☒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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Afro-Abkhazians

An IP editor inserted an ethnic group here which is not attested to in the source. While there is evidence that a small group of Afro-Abkhazians were still present up until the late 19th and early 20th century, there are no sources to suggest that they still exist as an ethnic group in the current day. If someone has reliably sourced information that there is still such a community, please feel free to add them along with the source. If not, the ethnicity section could potentially be expanded to include recent past ethnicities, but it must be WP:DUE and include other minority groups who have either died out or assimilated into larger ethnic populations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your work on the article! Alæxis¿question? 21:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Official Currency

Sorry, but the "Abkhazian apsar" is not used in Abkhazia. The Russian ruble is the only kind of currency used in Abkhazia. I've been there, I know personally. Andrew Gunner (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Andrew Gunner (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abkhazia/Archive_8&oldid=1142751237"