Jump to content

Talk:Abkhazia/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Not 'de facto independent' but 'partially recognized'

A country is not a 'de facto independent' since at least one other state of UN recognizes its sovereignity, but 'de jure' independent state. This is an international Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia were recognized by a UN member Russian Federation. Here is a quote from the 'de facto' article of Wikipedia: '...a nation with de facto independence, like Somaliland, is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory.' We may use the 'partially recognized' characteristic as appropriate both here and in South Ossetia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.148.66 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Bearing in mind that Russia basically decides what happens there and is an occupying power, is "de facto independent" true? They're not independent of Russia, more a puppet state gently being annexed...
Furthermore, three of the four refs for "de facto independent" are older than 5 years. Should we get some newer citations? Malick78 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
First, Russia doesn't fully decide what happens there. It couldn't impose the Abkhazian president against the will of its people, for example.
Some experts would explicitly disagree with you that Abkhazia is a puppet state:[1]
This is from the article by Thomas de Waal from London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting.
It's undeniable that Russia has very strong influence in Abkhazia. However it would be wrong to call it a 'puppet state', imho. Finally, it's far from certain that it's being annexed (even gently). Do you have sources proving that this is indeed what has been happening over the last 5 years? Alæxis¿question? 09:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
actually the main difference between de-facto independent and de-jure independent would be whether the country in question declared independence unilaterally or with the consent of the "mother country". Just because a country is recognised, like Kosovo is, doesn't mean it's de jure, as Kosovo's independence is not permitted in the Serbian constitution.Guitar3000 (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
That bit in bold suggests that a lot of people agree that it's a puppet-state. The author is therefore going against the grain with his opinion. Malick78 (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
How is that kosovo is not a de fact independent but a de jure independent state when most countries in the world still don't recognize it. There is no mention on the kosovo page of de facto status.
Furthermore, under waht grounds is Abhkazia being called a puppet state? It's clearly synthesis and POV, without support. And even using that logic, Abhkazia is well more viable than South Ossetia as an independent state. BUt that's irrelevant. Guitar3000, may well have a valid point, but then it should be states on the kosovo page too. In the interests of consistency across wikipedia the same pattern should be followed.
What does "most distant observers" mean? distant geographically, ie- Nicaragua? Or distant intellectually, ie- Ingushetia, or even North Ossetia. The point is this is an ambiguous term. Without sources there ascertations cannot be made. As the IP cited above (from wikipedia, and hopefully sourced on that page), the definition falls within place.
Unless, of course, this should follow arbitration as a tag on to kosovo's arbitration. Lihaas (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:SILENCE "It is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, you can assume that silence implies consensus." Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia: second paragraph in lead section

As an impartial outside reader (I am neither Georgian nor Abkhazian) I am frustrated by the recent edit-warring between Cityvalyu and a group of other editors. Two observations:

(a) The resolution of the Georgian Parliament cannot be dismissed as an unreliable source. It is an official state document in English and specifically uses the word "occupied". By putting "Russian-occupied territory" in quotation marks we indicate that we are quoting from this document, and it is not permissible to change a direct quotation to a free construction, such as Russian-administered territory. The second citation is from a Georgian news agency and can be dropped as biased. Its main contribution, however, is the use of the adjective "non-binding" in reference to the Parliamentary resolution. I think this is highly significant and actually goes to show the lack of Georgian bias in this news item.

(b) The insertion of Kosovo in the first sentence of the paragraph looks odd and inappropriate. If there is a need to discuss analogies between Abkhazia and Kosovo, this should be done properly and comprehensively in a separate sentence or paragraph, but somewhere else in the article – not in the lead.

I am correcting the wording of the second paragraph in line with these thoughts. To me it now reads balanced and NPOV. I appeal to you most strongly to stop this edit-warring: please consider the general user of Wikipedia who needs stable authoritative information, without daily or even hourly reversals. --Zlerman (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil.ge is generally a very good source, because it just presents who said what, from all sides. sephia karta 17:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased statements in 4th paragraph

I find the following sentences objectionable: "During 2008 South Ossetia War in August 2008, Russian and Abkhazian forces attacked the Georgian police units located in the region, and occupied Kodori Gorge which had never been under the Russo-Abkhazian control before. The majority of the population was forced to flee the gorge and to move Western Georgia." The statement that the population was "forced to flee" is dubious. Most accounts indicate that the civilian population panicked when the Georgian forces packed up and left, and did the same. The article that is cited is no longer available, and I have not seen any other articles indicating that this was a forced expulsion. A more impartial sentence would be: "The majority of the population fled the gorge and moved to Western Georgia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.178.52 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

on this edit. I tried to separate statements with different levels of credibility. The first tells us that many Abkhaz left/were expelled and that various new peoples were settled in Abkhazia by the Tsarist government. I've brought one ref for this but I don't think anyone would dispute it. So here I've removed "Modern Abkhaz historians maintain" as it's in reality a mainstream version of events.

The second statement is that Georgian tribes inhabited Abkhazia since the times of Colchis. As far as I understand it's a mainstream view among Georgian historians so it should be attributed like 'according to Georgian historians' Here I haven't changed anything besides moving the ref and doing a minor rewording that did not alter the meaning.

In the third statement another theory is described according to which Abkhaz are the descendants of 16th-century migrants from North Caucasus. Unlike the previous one this theory is marginal - we have a reference telling that it has little support among Georgian academics. So the words "According to these scholars" were clearly misleading and I've changed them to "Some Georgian scholars even claim". Alæxis¿question? 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

"The population (including all ethnic groups) of Abkhazia are mostly Orthodox Christians with a Sunni Muslim minority." Is this assertion really correct? According to the Abkhaz Muslims' organization, there are only 200 Muslims in the region.

"По данным ДУМ [Духовное управление мусульман Абхазии], на сегодняшний день в Абхазии живущих по исламу насчитывается около 200 человек. Каждую пятницу они молятся в импровизированных мечетях в Сухуме и Гудауте. Эти помещения переданы им правительством Абхазии на время - до строительства и функционирования мечетей, однако в Абхазии до сих пор не построено ни одной мечети."[2].

Also, the Freedom House report cited in the article dates to May 2007. A few months later, an Abkhaz imam was assassinated, the fact that alarmed local Muslims. According to Apsnypress, "Духовное управление мусульман /ДУМ/ Абхазии обеспокоено ситуацией, сложившейся вокруг мусульманской общины республики. Об этом заявил руководитель администрации ДУМ Тимур Дзыба сегодня, 27 августа, на пресс-конференции. По его словам, ничем не оправдана негативная информация о развитии ислама в Абхазии." Is not this also part of religious discrimination? --KoberTalk 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction with numbers. There may be 200 strict adherents of Islam in Abkhazia but a lot more identify themselves as Muslim but don't follow all the rituals.
What do you mean by discrimination? There's no such word in the article you've cited. The murder of Hamzat Gitsba was an important incident and it did alarm Abkhazian Muslims. However it's already mentioned in the article about the religion in Abkhazia and I don't think it should be mentioned here as well.
No new churches have been built in Abkhazia as well. Is it also a sign of discrimination? Alæxis¿question? 12:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia should lead to a disambiguation page

To increase neutrality on Wikipedia and to help readers find the correct article, the word "Abkhazia" when searched should lead to a disambiguation page. It should contain the following links:

  1. Republic of Abkhazia
  2. Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia
  3. Abkhaz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
  4. Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia
  5. Principality of Abkhazia
  6. Kingdom of Abkhazia

Not only will this will be more neutral, it will help readers find the correct article they are looking for. We need an admin to perform this task. Ijanderson (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I've asked if JHunterJ is willing to perform the required edits. Ijanderson (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
But why? Of the entities on that list, three are historical entities, and two are about the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, which is a government in exile that exists only juridically. Politically, Abkhazia is completely controlled by the Republic of Abkhazia. We don't have a disambiguation page at Laos linking to the Royal Lao Government in Exile either. You may think this situation is different because Abkhazia does not enjoy general international recognition, but I fail to see how that is relevant here. When a reader types Abkhazia, what they are probably looking for is Abkhazia, that break-away region, or Abkhazia, that place in the Caucasus that Russia recognised recently, and that is exactly where they end up at now. If we changed the set up to Abkhazia leading to a disambiguation page, they would be lost and have to identify Republic of Abkhazia as the article they were looking for. Really, we would be doing readers a disservice by going through with the change you propose. As for neutrality, while the legitimacy of the Republic of Abkhazia is debatable, this does not change the fact that we can report about it in a neutral way. sephia karta | di mi 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with Sephia karta here. At present the article about Abkhazia contains info about the region's history (and thus about entities #4-6), about the government in exile, about the actual government and information about the region in general (geography, religion, demographics, culture). Alæxis¿question? 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What you have said is true, but shouldn't we then merge (Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia) in to this article if it is about Abkhazia the region. This will become more NPOV as legally this is the correct Govt of Abkhazia, therefore it deserves a place on this article. Ijanderson (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend this approach:

  1. Create Abhazia (disambiguation) with the entries requested above.
  2. Add an {{otheruses}} hatnote to this article.
  3. If there appears to be possible consensus for moving the disambiguation page to the base name, follow the Wikipedia:Requested Moves process for making the consensus "official".
  4. When and if the move is performed, update all the incoming wikilinks to Abhazia to link to the correct article.

Having one article at the base name and other articles linked through a "base name (disambiguation)" page is not necessarily non-neutral. If one of the articles is the primary topic, then it should neutrally be at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


MERGER: Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia into this article

This article is about the region "Abkhazia" therefore it is only fair and neutral to include the legal officaly recognised Govt in to this article. This is where it belongs, not hidden on another article. The info box and everything should be on this article. A bit like the "Kosovo" article. We should include both govts on this page if it is about the region Abkhazia not the partially recognised country. This will make the article more NPOV. Also the article "Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" is not that big and would easily fit into this article and some of the history is on both articles. So not that much would have to be added. Ijanderson (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to merge that article into this one, meaning that the article about the government of AAR will be deleted? I don't think it's a good idea. Expanding the section about the government of AAR in this article is another issue. It's too short now indeed. What info would you want to include in this article? Alæxis¿question? 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should include most of it, like I said earlier, it isn't a big article therefore there isn't much to add.
  • Infobox
  • Part of the introduction
  • Part of the history
  • Heads of Government
  • Executive Branch
  • 1 Image

This won't be hard to do and the AAR article should be deleted once merged with this. I think it is extremely POV to include the illegitimate (illegal) Govt of Abkhazia on this article, but not the legitimate (legal) Govt. Including both will increase the articles neutrality. Ijanderson (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? What part of the history section do you want to add, and to what sections ('history' or 'government of the ARA')? What part of intro do you want to add?
Regarding the lists of the ARA officials I think that it would suffice to mention the chairman of the government. We don't have lists of presidents or prime ministers of the actual government here.
I'm not sure about the infobox. Generally in Wikipedia infoboxes aren't used for the governments in exile. On the other hand there's an article about Kosovo that features 3 infoboxes... Part of Kosovo, though, is not controlled by its de facto government (illegitimate, as you'd probably put it :) ) while the Government of ARA doesn't control any territory.
So, I agree with you that the section about the government of ARA should be expanded. At the same time we shouldn't give it undue prominence also, so I'm interested in what specifically do you wish to add to this article. Alæxis¿question? 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Like the Kosovo article we can have more than one info box. We should add all history which isn't already on this article. We should add part of the intro which isn't already the article. We should everything on AAR article which isnt on this article so that we are not repeating ourselves. Also on the Kosovo article we include the legitimate and the illegitimate govts; Rep of Kosovo and UNMIK. Shall I add part of the AAR article to [3] until we have discussed this further? If I add some, you will be able to see what I want to do. Ijanderson (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be more convenient if you first wrote here how do you want to change this section. I've copied below this section as it is currently; please change it as you wish. Then, when we'll have agreed on the section's contents we'll copy and paste it back into the article. Alæxis¿question? 06:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia has no governmental control over Abkhazia and is one of Saakashwili's proganda instruments. Even in Kodori times this government was senseless. Who should hear to the orders of this government? Please don't merge it with the main article. Mattiabonassotalk 10:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But don't you think it is POV to include the illegal govt, but not the legal govt? Ijanderson (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid the fact that "Georgia recognizes [the government in exile] as the only legitimate government of Abkhazia" does not make it the legal government of Abkhazia. What about international recognition from other countries? The "illegal" government is the de facto government of this "de facto independent, partially recognized country" (quite a mouthful, isn't it?) and I think the article should work with this, briefly mentioning the existence of the government in exile as just another fact of politics in this hopelessly complex situation. --Zlerman (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zlerman. To say that something is legal or illegal in international politics is not stating an objective fact, it is giving a political opinion, so we cannot use that as a basis. I could say that Tibet is illegally occupied by China, but we can't use that as a basis for anything here on Wikipedia. Besides, the article is just about the government of the Abkhazian Autonomous Repbublic of Abkhazia, not the political subidivision itself (a subtle distinction). Note that quite in parallel, we also have Government of the Republic of Abkhazia.sephia karta | di mi 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. However I have decided to agree with Alæxis proposal. Also FYI Tibet has always been recognised as a part of China. Even when it was briefly independent, it was completely unrecognised. Ijanderson (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there's a discussion going on here... Um, I made some unifying changes in several articles of the unrecognised states, making their leading paragraphs closer to the one in the Kosovo article. Feel free to critisise... :-) --Illythr (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia: Draft proposal

The Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is a government in exile that Georgia recognises as the legal government of Abkhazia, a region that has been de facto independent of Georgia, though with very little international recognition since the early 1990s. This pro-Georgian government maintained a foothold on Abkhazian territory until it was forced out by fighting in August 2008.

After the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993), Georgia proposed five-party talks involving this government, the Government of the de facto authorities of Abkhazia, the Government of Georgia, along with Russia and the UN as interested parties in order to settle the final status of Abkhazia within the framework of the Georgian state.[1] The Abkhaz side wanted assurances that Georgia would not try to solve the issue by force of arms before being a party to the talks. Between September 2006 and July 2008, this government had been headquartered in Upper Abkhazia but was forced out of all of Abkhazia in August 2008 during the 2008 South Ossetia War by the Military of Abkhazia. Upper Abkhazia is a territory that has population of c. 2,000 (1-1.5% of Abkhazia's post-war population) and is centered on the upper Kodori Valley (roughly 17% of the territory of the former Abkhaz ASSR). This government is also partly responsible for the affairs of some 250,000 IDPs who were forced to leave Abkhazia following the War in Abkhazia and ethnic cleansing that followed.[2][3]

History of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia

During the War in Abkhazia, the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, then called the "Council of Ministers of Abkhazia", left Abkhazia after the Abkhaz separatist forces took control of the region’s capital Sukhumi after heavy fighting on September 27 1993, leading to the Sukhumi Massacre, in which several members of the Abkhazian government of that time, including its chairman Zhiuli Shartava, were executed by the rebels. The Council of Ministers relocated to Georgia’s capital Tbilisi, where it operated as the Government of Abkhazia in exile for almost 13 years. During this period, the Government of Abkhazia in exile, led by Tamaz Nadareishvili, was known for a hard-line stance towards the Abkhaz problem and frequently voiced their opinion that the solution to the conflict can only be attained through Georgia's military response to secessionism. Later, Nadareishvili's administration was implicated in some internal controversies and had not taken an active part in the politics of Abkhazia until a new chairman, Irakli Alasania, was appointed by President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, his envoy in the peace talks over Abkhazia.

Amid the ongoing Georgian police operation in Abkhazia's Kodori Gorge, in which a local militia, led by the defiant warlord Emzar Kvitsiani, has been largely disarmed, and the constitutional order restored in the area, President Saakashvili announced, on July 27 2006, that the authorities have decided to establish currently Tbilisi-based Abkhazian government-in-exile in the Kodori Gorge/Upper Abkhazia. "This decision means that for the first time since 1993 the government enters into the midst of Abkhazia, of our Abkhazia, to exercise Georgian jurisdiction and the Georgian constitutional order. This is very important fact and very fundamental political event," Saakashvili said in his televised address to the nation.[4] Malkhaz Akishbaia, elected in April 2006, is the current head of this government in exile.

During the Battle of the Kodori Valley Abkhazian forces loyal to the Government of the Republic of Abkhazia pushed the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia out of the region of Abkhazia. “the jurisdiction of the Abkhaz state has been restored in the upper Kodori Gorge.” Sergei Bagapsh, President of the Government of the Republic of Abkhazia said in a address to the Abkhazian people.[5]

Heads of the Government
Executive branch
Main office-holders
Office Name Party Since
Chairman of Cabinet of Ministers Malkhaz Akishbaia Abkhazeti June 2006
Chairman of the Supreme Council Temur Mzhavia Abkhazeti June 2006
Deputy of Supreme Council Ada Marshania Abkhazeti June 2006

We should add these two small sections and the little tables to go with it. There isn't much, it'd fit in the article easy. I did a preview of it and it seemed ok. Ijanderson (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference
  1. ^ The Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia on the measures of conflict settlement in Abkhazia
  2. ^ Birgitte Refslund Sørensen, Marc Vincent (2001), Caught Between Borders: Response Strategies of the Internally Displaced, pp. 234-5. Pluto Press, ISBN 0745318185.
  3. ^ On Ruins of Empire: Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Former Soviet Union Georgiy I. Mirsky, p. 72
  4. ^ Tbilisi-Based Abkhaz Government Moves to Kodori, Civil Georgia, July 27 2006. URL accessed on 2007-07-28.
  5. ^ Sergei Bagapsh announces restoration of control over Kodori Gorge


My proposal

Imho most of the other info is already present in the article (details about Upper Abkhazia) or isn't notable enough (for example lists of the heads of the government - as I've already said there are no lists of prime ministers or presidents of the de facto government). Alæxis¿question? 17:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ijanderson (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistency and Manor of Style

According to Wikipedia:ENGVAR, we should be consistent with spelling styles. I have noticed that the article spells recognis/ze in two different ways. We should only use one spelling and be consistent.
I propose that we use the British & Irish/ the European version(ise) because Abkhazia/Georgia/Russia (all parties involved with the article) are European, therefore it seems more appropriate to use the European version(ise) than to use the American version(ize).
Also I have noticed that regular contributers to this article use this version, such as Sephia karta, Alaexis, Illythr and myself.
Can we reach an agreement to use one version of the spelling please and archive the consensus. Your thoughts? Ijanderson (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Please note the following points:
1) There are 36 -ize endings in Abkhazia and only 16 -ise endings, so -ize seems to be the preferred usage for the editors in this article.
2) There is no consensus on -ise vs -ize endings in UK English: The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary lists recognize, organize, etc., as the main spelling, with recognise, organise, etc., listed as Also only. I have noticed that many scholarly UK journals now copy-edit manuscripts with -ize endings.
I recommend following The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary and changing (for consistency) all 16 -ise endings to the majority -ize endings. I have no view on the use of -re (centre for center) or -our (favour for favor) endings. --Zlerman (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The amount of ize and ise is irrelavant to form the bases of consensus. ize is rarely used in the UK and ROI. Only used by, media published pre WW2, "snobs" (ox-bridge) and the elite. The mainstream media does not use it and neither does your "average joe". We should not rush and make a decision yet until we have a consensus. Lets please wait for some other users opinions first. ise is also the version used by Russia Today ise is used by RTIjanderson (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

citizenship and taxes

Russia has also issued passports for the citizens of Abkhazia since 2000 (as the Abkhazian passports cannot be used for international travel) and subsequently paid retirement pensions and other monetary benefits. More than 80% of the Abkhazian population received Russian passports by 2006; however, Abkhazians do not pay Russian taxes, or serve in the Russian Army.[38][60]

I wonder what these statements are supposed to prove. First of all, any former USSR citizen could apply for Russian citizenship under provisions of Act on Citizenship of RSFSR of 1991 (art. 18g). Ethnic Abkhazians and Ossetians were not special in any way (a lot of Belarusians, Ukrainians, Georgians, etc opted for the Citizenship of Russia as well). Secondly, "Abkhazians do not pay Russian taxes, or serve in the Russian Army" is simply not true. That should have been "Abkhazians residing in Abkhazia do not pay some Russian income taxes and do not serve in the Russian Army", and the general rule is that Russian citizens residing abroad (independent of their ethnicity and the place of residence) do not serve in the Russian Army and Russian citizens who qualify as tax nonresidents do not pay taxes for any non-Russian, that is coming from a different country, income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.35.42 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The exact wording gives the impression that Abkhazians have special privileges wrt Russian citizenship, the RA and the Russian taxes, whereas they do not. 92.36.35.42 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about the modified version of the passage? Alæxis¿question? 06:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A misunderstanding or just a provocation for 3RR violation?

1, 2 Are these Zlerman edits a provocation or a bad language understanding example? I am not going to delete the mistake for the third time, but this continued reinserting under false pretext looks really strange.

FYI, Zlerman, "contemporaneous" in South Ossetia article, segond paragraph, means South Ossetia was a de facto state at the time when it recognized Abkhazia.

Here, in this article on Abkhazia, de facto, continuously reinserted by you, is a description of the modern state of South Ossetia, in 2009, and not in 2006. In 2009 South Ossetia is a state with limited recognition, which is clearly stated in the corresponding article, and the article about South Ossetia.

Please correct this factual mistake yourself, if this is really just a misunderstanding of a "contemporaneous" word meaning. FeelSunny (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There was absolutely no intention to provoke 3RR, and I apologize if I have inadvertently created this impression. The reason for my reverts is simple and straightforward: there is an established consensus version of the lead of this article, which uses "de facto" in a certain way. You are trying to change the consensus version (which is not mine, incidentally). As you no doubt know, the standard practice is go to the talk page and discuss the proposed change before changing the consensus version. Incidentally, I do not consider the reference to South Ossetia as de facto independent in 2009 a mistake and I will not "correct" it. You can open this issue for discussion on the talk page with an appropriately informative new section heading. --Zlerman (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

caves

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cave#Record_lengths.2C_depths.2C_pitches_and_volumes

Abkhazia has two of the world's deepest caves. I think this should be mentioned. 69.29.130.228 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Russian Revolution of 1917 led to the creation of an independent Georgia (which included Abkhazia) in 1918.

this is totally absurd, Abhazia was part of independent caucasian highlanders federetion, White army(based on georgia) was an occupation force which invaded Abkhazia. Wikipedia English, is becoming pro-American rather than an independent and reliable source day by day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.99.181 (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the information is wrong. Abkhazia became a part of counter-revolutionary Zakavkazsky Committee, which included Georgia as well (Nov. 1917). Next year (Mar-Apr 1918) Abkhazia won independence by their own communistic forces without the Russian Red Army. It was invaded soon by Zakavkazsky Seim (another one counter-revolutionary organization) next month. Last time Abkhazia became Soviet during the Soviet-Georgian war in 1921. So it is difficult to say whether Abkhazia was seized by Russians or by Georgians, there were contrary tendencies among its own population. It would be more correct to say that Abkhazia was invaded several times from 1917 to 1921 by both Georgian and Russian forces, and both forces met some support and some resistance in Abkhazian inhabitants. If nobody minds, I'll change the corresponding phrases in the article. Pasteurizer (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sukhum vs Sukhumi

The best Wiki name for the capital of Abkhazia was discussed in length on Talk:Sukhumi it was decided that the best name should be Sukhumi t Sokhumi or Sukhum as it is much more used in modern English. There are POV notes in the city name as Sukhumi is considered more Georgian while Sukhum more Abkhazian (although the proper Georgian name is Sokhum and the proper Abkhaz name is Apsni). Please keep the neutral Sukhumi name as per the title of the city article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sukhum is considered more Abkhazian?? Sukhum is a Russian name. The proper Georgian name is Sokhumi, the proper Abkhaz name is Aqwa. — Apswaaa (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Circassiankama (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC) According to who is the word 'Sukhumi' neutral? Its official name is Sukhum, I am confused as to why this cannot be used. The "i" is a Georgian addition, and like it or not, Abkhazia is independent according to many standards. Politics aside, it is known as Sukhum and this should be reflected in this article about Abkhazia as well. I don't see the point of pandering. Please advise.

English language names are not subject to drastic change. Sukhumi is the accepted name in English and this is unlikely to change in the near future. --Illythr (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not the accepted change in English. It's the accepted name for Georgia. But I'll bite. We are after all dealing with an American stooge here. Yes, I am being bitter. Circassiankama (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)CircassianKama

You can restart this discussion by bringing a major English encyclopedia or dictionary listing the town name as "Sukhum". I don't think any exist. --Illythr (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for international recognition

All recognitions have been sourced and the recognitions as such are not disputed. There is no reason for the tag. Otto (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert from Kober

I don't understand why Kober deleted

"In late 2009 Russia began patrolling the Black Sea and detaining ships from Georgia trespassing in Abkhazian waters.[1]"

This seems to me factual and sourced non-POV information. Otto (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The passage was erroneously removed when reverting Circassiankama's mass POV pushing. I've restored it. --KoberTalk 04:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________

  1. ^ http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-09-16/georgian-trespasser-ships-abkhazia.html


new topic

I am unfamiliar with how to create a new "sub-topic" so typing this here. I have been continuously censored from including information in this article regarding the treatment Abkhazians have received from Georgians during the latter's invasion of Abkhazia in the late 1980's-early 1990's. I now realize that neutrality is laughable when it comes to this topic, but I would hypothetically like to fight for changes, or at least ask for a page that will be locked and free from outsiders being able to edit it. Since I'm sure that would not fly, let's go with the former suggestion.

I find it one-sided and wrong that accusations of ethnic cleansing against Georgians (the group that invaded Abkhazia to massacre the Abkhazian nation, there is proof of this btw) can be included in this article, but the Georgian crimes against the natives of Abkhazia cannot be? Does that make sense? Each time I have gone ahead and added some pertinent information which was printed in an UNPO report, it has been deleted. Biased much? These rules are ....petty and ridiculous. I understand the need for Wiki to remain "neutral" but to which extent does this neutrality extend itself to?

I would absolutely LOVE an answer.

Circassiankama (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)CircassianKama

I agree that some of the information you add should be in the article. I'll comment on this version of yours.
You've added the word 'slightly' to the passage 'The oppression of the Abkhaz was ended after Stalin's death' that changed its meaning significantly and have not provided any sources (the original passage is sourced in the History of the Abkhazia article [4], I'll add this reference to this article also). Please make sure that when you add/change anything you support it with reliable sources.
I've myself added Karkarashvili's words to the War in Abkhazia article long ago, whether they should be here is debatable. Maybe yes.
Then you've written:
Here there's an inaccuracy - this is all about the findings of UNPO, not UN mission. Back to the point, it's already written in the article that Georgian troops were able to march into Sukhumi [...] and subsequently engaged in ethnically based pillage and looting. I think that here it would be better not to inflate the article but just add the reference after this passage and maybe add a few words to it.
Here's your final sentence:
Here again there's inaccuracy with references on your side. Where's the main point (The intent of the invading Georgian forces to exterminate Abkhazians entirely from their native land was evident with the "removal or destruction of principal materials and buildings...) taken from? It's certainly not from HRW report (I've read it all), I've glanced other sources you've provided and the closest thing is It becomes difficult to negotiate ..., [Ardzinba] says, with a counterpart who has declared and shown intent to destroy you as a nation. This is not quite what you've written. The fact that Georgian forced destroyed the archives and many other cultural assets is undeniable, this is described in the War in Abkhazia article. I also think it should be mentioned briefly here. Alæxis¿question? 18:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates inconsistency

How could Freedom House 2007 report be mentioned in 2000 book??? In fact the freedom of religion is not mentioned in 2007 FH report on Abkhazia at all (compare the 2008 report also). I also could not find this information in the publicly available parts of the Karatnycky's book. Alæxis¿question? 12:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia for GA

I believe that this article already mostly satisfies Good Article criteria, so I think that it should be nominated for that status. Do you think that the article lacks something or some particular improvements should be made before the nomination? Alæxis¿question? 18:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I will go through the article these days, mainly to look for style, spelling, inaccuracies, dead links etc.sephia karta | di mi 15:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I partially rewrote the intro. I don't think I changed anything controversial, but the previous version was stable, so I am first putting it her for you to see and comment. Some things I changed:

- the old intro first said that Abkhazia declared independence 1991, and then two paragraphs further down that it declared independence in 1999. In fact, neither is true, if you read the 1999 declaration, what it declares is that Abkhazia has been independent since 1993. I think this is too complicated and not necessary for the intro though, so I dropped both. - the old intro talked about the 'continuing' presence of the UN and CIS missions, which no longer exist - of the first cluster of citations, two were dead links. I removed them, four sources should be enough for what is not a controversial statement. - I added information to the history paragraph of the intro

Abkhazia (Abkhaz: Аҧсны Apsny, Georgian: აფხაზეთი Apkhazeti, Russian: Абха́зия Abkhazia) is a political entity on the eastern coast of the Black Sea and the south-western flank of the Caucasus whose status is disputed. It considers itself independent (as the Republic of Abkhazia)[1][2][3][4], but this is recognised only by Russia, Nicaragua and Venezuela, and by South Ossetia and Transnistria, which are themselves in a similar situation as Abkhazia.[5].

Georgia considers Abkhazia part of its territory, bordering the region of Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti to the east. In Georgia's official subdivision it is an autonomous republic (Georgian: აფხაზეთის ავტონომიური რესპუბლიკა, apkhazetis avt'onomiuri resp'ublik'a, Abkhaz: Аҧснытәи Автономтәи Республика, Apsnitei Avtonomtei Respublika) whose government sits in exile in Tblisi. On 28 August 2008, the Parliament of Georgia passed a resolution declaring Abkhazia a "Russian-occupied territory".[6][7]

The status of Abkhazia is a central issue of the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict. The wider region formed part of the Soviet Union until 1991. As the Soviet Union began to disintegrate towards the end of the 1980s, ethnic tensions grew between Abkhaz and Georgians over Georgia's moves towards independence. This led to the 1992–1993 War in Abkhazia that resulted in a Georgian military defeat, de facto independence of Abkhazia and the mass exodus and ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population from Abkhazia. In spite of the 1994 ceasefire agreement, and years of negotiations the status dispute has not been resolved, and despite the long-time presence of a United Nations monitoring force and a Russian-dominated CIS peacekeeping operation, the conflict has flared up again on several occasions. In August 2008, the sides fought during the South Ossetia war, and this was followed by the formal recognition of Abkhazia by Russia, the annulment of the 1994 cease fire agreement and the termination of the UN and CIS missions.

sephia karta | di mi 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the History section needs to be revised. — Apswaaa (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to growing Russian influence

I have added this section because I was surprised there was no coverage of Abkhaz political developments since the beginning of 2009. I have tried my best to keep this neutral and have used a range of the limited online sources of information in English. I have called the section "Opposition to growing Russian influence" because that seems to me to be principly what the issue is, but perhaps it could also be "fears sovereignty is being undermined by Russia", but that seemed to be less neutral so I went with the former. This issue is probably going to become extremely contentious and we are no doubt going to see a disputed presidential election in December, so emotions will run high with the potential that the opposition will begin forging new ties (of convenience) with Georgia and the incumbent government strengthening ties with Russia. There is also a high chance of vandalism by editors partisan to one side or the other. I hope this addition is fair and neutral, that is the intention.James Frankcom 12:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe your addition was WP:UNDUE; it's not important enough regarding the country of Abkhazia. The addition was so long that it was not neutral. You should insert it in Politics of Abkhazia instead, and insert a short (one sentence should enough) summary in this article. Offliner (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added most of the text to the Politics of Abkhazia article making a few more edits. That article could use a lot of work, btw. I think that the pre-election situation should be summarised in this article in 3-4 sentences (elctions, candidates, criticism by opposition, government reaction). Alæxis¿question? 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added a much shorter summary version back on the main Abkhazia page as suggested. Because this is the first mention of any organised opposition to growing Russian influence (since recognition) I felt it did need a little bit explanation beyond just a sentence. I did my best! James Frankcom (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I really wouldn't say there is any 'organised' opposition to Russian influence as a whole right now. I'm rather skeptical regarding Khajimba's intentions, I think the only way to really find out where he or Butba stand politically is if one of them becomes president. Which is quite possible, but I would put my money on Bagapsh's re-election.sephia karta | di mi 13:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I can just imagine Bagapsh "winning" in that election in a way similar to the "victory" achieved by Viktor Yanukovich in the 2004 Presidential Elections in Ukraine.James Frankcom (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Funny you should say that, because the 2004 Abkhazian Presidential election was very similar to the Orange revolution, only with Khajimba in the role of Yanukovich. sephia karta | di mi 16:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support for Georgian territorial claims on Abkhazia

Some editors have repeatedly claimed that the fact that most sovereign states have not recognized Abkhazia somehow implies support for Georgian territorial claims on Abkhazia. This does not follow. While a number of states, perhaps even a majority, have referred to Georgian "territorial integrity", many have not. Looking at the list of 65 states listed as not recognising Abkhazia in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia only 35 mention Georgian "territorial integrity", while the other 30 do not, and a number are critical of Georgia's role in the 2008 war. Further, it is clear that a number of these were dissuaded from recognition by threats and inducements. All this underlines that the Wikipedia article should describe the actual position and not turn into a forum for Georgian exaggeration and hyperbole. This is an article about Abkhazia, NOT Georgia. Georgians, please do not take this personally. I have been to your country and I love it. But the way some of you see things is not necessarily the way an objective outsider with a grasp of the facts will want to phrase them. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"This is an article about Abkhazia, NOT Georgia" is the greatest argument I've ever heard. And your travels to Georgia have nothing to do with your adherence to NPOV. When referring to the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia article you have probably overlooked the fact that it is neither a complete list nor a source. And your calculation of countries is also flawed. Only NATO + EU would make the number of countries strongly supporting Georgia's territorial integrity 33; Plus Australia, Armenia, China, Ukraine, etc.
"Further, it is clear that a number of these were dissuaded from recognition by threats and inducements"? Please provide credible sources for your claims and then explain how this changes the fact that most UN members recognize Georgia in its sovereign territory.--KoberTalk 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is only a very partial list is precisely what I'm saying. Where is the list of "most" or even "all" (as was also claimed) members of the UN who have SAID they support Georgia's territorial claims? I said "a majority of", which I think is a sober compromise nobody can disagree with, even if it's not verifiable either. And even if individual foreign ministers do mouth the words "Georgia's territorial integrity", that isn't the same as saying "Abkhazia should be ruled by Georgia again". As for anybody that supports the idea that Abkhazia IS in Georgia, they must have been living in a cave for the past 18 years. I can even understand why a lot of Georgians are upset about the situation, but realistically Abkhazia agreeing to become part of Georgia again isn't ever going to happen, and Wikipedia isn't the place to pursue that vendetta. Oh, and last time I looked, neither NATO nor the EU were "countries".
I know International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia isn't a source, but it does quote a source detailing how the Belarus government was threatened by the Czech foreign minister. As for that source not being "credible", I don't see how you can get a source any more right-wing and pro-Western than Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, Bofor Tagar. The logic of the international relations is the opposite of what you are claiming. If you were right, then diplomacy would fall into the "guilty until proven innocent" paradigm, which of course would be absurd. It is all about sovereignty, which also implies control over a territory. As I already mentioned, you can also refer to United Nations Charter, Article 2.1, which says that "the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members", i.e. by default every member state is respecting and recognizing the sovereignty of all the other member states, unless it openly declares something else. And for the present, only 4 out of the 192 UN members (2%), have done so. All the other 188 members (98%) haven't changed their position regarding Abkhazia, which means that they are still considering it as being part of Georgia. There's no need of exceptional citation on that, other than the country's membership in the UN itself.
The same applies for Chechnya, for example. We don't need a special declaration from every UN member, in order to say that the UN members consider this territory as belonging to Russia. Neither do we need it to say that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, etc. Kouber (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
As you yourself say, Kouber, sovereignty also implies actual de facto control of the territory concerned, and nobody thinks that Georgia has actually ruled Abkhazia since 1992, or, for that matter, that it did so prior to Stalin changing the Soviet constitution to incorporate Abkhazia into Georgia in 1931, and if they do, they're living in a fantasy world. I couldn't find the bit of the United Nations Charter where it says that members of the UN automatically sign up to all the other members' territorial claims on other countries, but, while we're on the subject, you might like to take a look at articles 33 [5] (pacific resolution of disputes, i.e. not trying to bomb people back into a country they seceded from) and article 73 [6] (responsibilities for non-self-governing territories, i.e. not driving them to rebellion in the first place) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofoc Tagar (talk • contribs) 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Bofoc Tagar (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Claiming that "Georgia didn't control Abkhazia prior to Stalin" only reveals your complete historic ignorance, and anyhow, it is way off the topic. As to the period after the War in Abkhazia, you are right - most of Abkhazia was controlled by a separatist government. But even then, Abkhazia was regarded by every UN member as being part of Georgia. There were no special declarations on that, other than the recognition of Georgia as a state, and the non-recognition of Abkhazia as such. Then that was enough to say that all UN members were considering Abkhazia part of Georgia. So, can you explain why such a special declaration wasn't needed before, but is necessary now? Or, try to explain why this is still not needed for the cases Chechnya and Nagorno-Karabakh? Thank you.
As to UN Charter articles #33 and #73, I don't see how these fit into the present discussion. Why did you mention them? Kouber (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The analogy you're looking for, Kouber, is the Republic of China (Taiwan). This has limited recognition, just like Abkhazia, but this does not necessarily imply that "most" or "all" of the members of the United Nations believe that the People's Republic of China does or should exercise sovereignty over it. The fact remains that until I see a list of most or all of the countries who are UN members who have said they support Georgian territorial claims on Abkhazia, any such statement is not verifiable. My statement "a majority of" covers what is likely to be the case, which may or may not cover "most". "All" or "all other" cannot be true, because a number of countries which have not recognised Abkhazia do not want Georgia to exercise sovereignty over it. The onus is on those who want to use words like "most" or "all other" to verify their assertion.
As for claims by Georgian nationalist "historians" to have "always" been in Abkhazia, I agree that that's getting away from the topic of this discussion, as were my references to UN Charter articles 33 and 73.Bofoc Tagar (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The case of Taiwan is completely different, as ROC and PRC are claiming sovereignty over the same territory, i.e. both are pretending to be the real China. There was official and explicit shift of international recognition from ROC to RPC. None of these is true for Abkhazia. There was no shift in official recognition of Abkhazia, except for 4 countries. The rest didn't officially changed their mind. And you can refer to their position in UN Resolution #1808, unanimously adopted by the Security Council on 15 April 2008, which "reaffirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders..."
Is that the document you wanted or you also need a proof that 192 - 4 = 188?... Kouber (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a Security Council resolution. It has 15 members, not 192. Plus, it is prior to the 2008 war against South Ossetia, which changed everything. Until then Abkhazia was just another frozen conflict and people could dream about one day going back to the status quo ante. From then on, the Abkhaz side feared annihilation from the much stronger Georgian side with its shiny new NATO weapons, and Russia had to stop sitting on the fence, and save the Abkhazians from who knows what fate. The closest expression of UN opinion I could find in a recent United Nations General Assembly resolution was GA/10853[7], which was a pretty mild resolution about the return of refugees in Georgia and its ex-colonies, supported by Georgia, and to which Russia proposed 'no action'. The result was that it was passed 48 in favour to 19 against, with 78 abstentions. This does however give some sort of indication for how much support there is for the Georgian position in the United Nations. Far from attracting "all bar 4" or "most" countries, it didn't even reach my proposed wording of "a majority of" ! Bofoc Tagar (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, as you can read, the "The UN Charter [...] authorizes the Security Council to take action on behalf of the members, and to make decisions and recommendations." You can also refer to UN Charter, Article 25: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Thus, it is evident that the part "all Member States", in the sentence I cited above from resolution #1808, points to all Member States of the United Nations (192), and not only to all Member States of the Security Council (15), as you are trying to interpret it.
Your alleged claim that the 2008 war "changed everything" is true only for 4 states, which openly declared their changed positions. The other 188 states didn't change their positions.
Your "Russia had to stop sitting on the fence, and save the Abkhazians from who knows what fate" argument is insane. First, Russia was arming these separatists for years, and introduced its army there months before August 2008, so it wasn't just "sitting". Second, Russia's actions in Abkhazia were proven completely illegal even by the EU report, so I do not understand your logic why "Russia had to" invade Abkhazia. Third, the "who knows what fate" alleged justification for invading another country could be used as an excuse by every country and it doesn't worth much. And finally, again it is way off the topic and doesn't support your claim of "UN members changed their positions" in any way. Kouber (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This is, at best, wishful thinking on your part. The fact that a body to which members belong takes decisions, which may even, according to the rules of that body, be "binding" on its members never necessarily means that all of those members can be said to support the decisions. For example, you might think that the fact that Iran and Israel are both members of the UN (in Iran's case, a founding member) means that they both acknowledge the other's sovereignty. But Iran doesn't even support Israel's right to exist. So, in order to say that a certain proportion of countries support the idea that another country has or should acquire sovereignty over a certain territory, you need to produce verifiable evidence that these governments themselves have expressed that view. You haven't provided that, and I don't believe that that exists in respect of "a majority of" or "most" or "all other" or "all" countries.
Whether Russia's actions were illegal or not is a matter of opinion and not relevant here, but the track record is that Georgians massacre Abkhazians, and Abkhazians massacre Georgians, so acting as a cheerleader for the Georgian government and pretending it has the moral high ground really isn't really very NPOV either. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As I already pointed out, Resolution #1808 "reaffirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders". None of the Member States have ever expressed its disagreement with this resolution, except four Member States - Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru. All the other 188 Member States still respect this resolution by not recognising the independence of Abkhazia, which implicitly means that they support the territorial integrity of Georgia, as stated in Resolution #1808. This fact remains, until you provide a verifiable source, indicating that the position of some of these 188 Member States have changed.
Iran doesn't recognise Israel and it is expressing it openly in an explicit manner. In our case, nobody is denying the territorial integrity of Georgia, except 4 states, which explicitly declared it. The position of the rest did not change implicitly or magically for some mysterious reason. Their position is remaining the same as before, until the states themselves explicitly express another view. Kouber (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See discussion continued below in RfC. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: "... consider Abkhazia part of Georgia's territory"

In Sephia Karta's original rewrite of the introductory section it was stated that Georgia considers Abkhazia part of Georgia's territory. I think no-one can dispute this, provided "Georgia" is understood here as a hypocorism for "the current Georgian government", and the statement is eminently verifiable. Since then, a number of editors have attempted to quantify support for the Georgian position by other governments. Reference has been made to those governments who officially recognise the government of Abkhazia, currently 4, and those editors have sought to include wording that "all other", or "most" members of the United Nations support the Georgian government position that it should exercise sovereignty over Abkhazia, which it has not done since 1993 with the exception of the Kodor valley, and since 2008 not even there. It does not follow that "all other" or "most" other countries support the Georgian position and I have repeatedly requested that these editors produce verification of the quantity of stated support for this territorial claim. This has not been forthcoming. First it was suggested that this was implied by membership of the UN, or by a Security Council (15 members, not 192) resolution passed prior to the 2008 war. Initially, I sought to tone this wording down and suggested "a majority of" as a compromise wording, considering that this was likely to be true on the basis of the tone and wording of the government statements listed in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Given the lack of support that there is for Georgia on the basis of United Nations General Assembly resolution GA/10853 [8] there is reason to doubt whether it would be true, let alone verifiable, to state that even "a majority of" countries support the Georgian claim. I therefore propose that this sentence be reverted to Sephia Karta's original wording.Bofoc Tagar (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Security Council has the mandate to issue statements and take decisions on behalf of all Member States, as described in UN Charter, Article 25. In the case of UN Resolution #1808, unanimously adopted by the Security Council on 15 April 2008, it "reaffirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders." This affirmation made on behalf of all UN Member States, was not explicitly denied by any Member State, except later by Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru. An openly declared alteration of their positions by the other 188 Member States is missing. Thus, the alleged claim that some countries, other than the above-mentioned 4, have changed their views regarding the territorial integrity of Georgia lacks verifiability. The statement should stay, per WP:NPOV. Kouber (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I favour the phrasing "most other states". While I agree that this is not necessarily a given (in the case of the Western Sahara there are states which consider it still to be part of Spain, rather than taking sides in the present conflict), my estimation is that this is true. sephia karta | di mi 14:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything, Kouber. The wording I propose is undisputed and verifiable, i.e. "Georgia", or "The Georgian government", "considers Abkhazia part of its territory". It is you that are making unverifiable and speculative assumptions. The wording of SCR 1808 (passed by representatives of 15 governments, at least one of whom has since changed their mind, and passed before Abkhazia became a de jure state) proves precisely nothing about the current actual positions of the "majority of" / "most of" / "all of" the 188 governments on whose "behalf" you or anybody else claims to speak.
My estimation was similar to yours, Sephia, in that I thought "a majority of" UN states might agree with the Georgian position, that is, until I saw the results of the vote on General Assembly Resolution 10853. The truth is, we have no idea how many countries (other than Georgia and the usual suspects) think Georgia should exercise sovereignty over Abkhazia again, and any such statement would be unverifiable and speculative. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I provided a source, confirming the position of all UN Member States. It is not my WP:OR, as you can see in my response to Mkativerata below. You, on the other hand, are claiming that the position of 188 UN Members (or part of them) changed implicitly for some mysterious reason, without any public declaration made, which is indeed something that is not verifiable, so I am asking you once again to provide a source which can confirm this claim. The GAR 10853 is irrelevant, as its topic is the return of the refugees, not the territorial integrity of Georgia, and anyhow, it was adopted! So how can an adopted resolution concerning refugees be used to prove the allegation that countries changed their positions regarding the territorial integrity of Georgia!?
And we know exactly how many countries consider Abkhazia as part of Georgia. First, Georgia was granted membership to UN on 31 July 1992 after an unanimous decision by the General Assembly. Afterwards, there were numerous resolutions, confirming the fact that indeed Abkhazia is part of Georgia. Finally we have four members that publicly changed their mind. Nothing more, nothing less. We can make simple arithmetic calculations, don't we? Kouber (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My outside view: Resolution 1808 gives no support for the claim that "all other" or "most states" support Georgia's assertion of sovereignty. Res 1808 "Reaffirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders". Different states may have different recognitions of Georgia's borders. Many may be silent. The statement in the resolution is, in my view and as is frequently the case with these resolutions, deliberately ambiguous. Further, given the pace of change of events since the resolution, it cannot be said to represent a current position. In any case, I think that relying on that resolution to conclude that "all other" or "most" states recognise Georgia is original research. It is deriving speculative conclusions from a primary source. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the statement in the resolution ambiguous? It was adopted before Russia's recognition of the region when all states had the same recognition of Georgia's borders. Some of the signatories changed their minds, others did not. What is OR here? --KoberTalk 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Taking a statement of 15 countries and inferring from that it represents the recognition by "all other states" or "most states" of Georgia's current borders, is original research. Its analysis of a source; and a contestable analysis at that. As WP:OR states: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source". Resolution 1808 can be presented in the article, but it has to be presented for what it is, not what editors think it means or represents about an existing state of affairs. If secondary sources have analysed Resolution 1808 as representing widespread recognition of Georgian sovereignty, then by all means the statement can be made, with the secondary sources cited. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a direct reference to Georgia's territorial integrity in the resolution. Plus we have affirmations of it by many governments. There are no "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" in the article.--KoberTalk 06:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A resolution signed by 15 countries, not 100. Deriving "recognition by most countries" from that source can only be interpretive or evaluative, even if it wasn't out of date. It's a slam dunk case of original research. I suggest if we can't resolve the WP:OR question here, we take it to the WP:No original research/Noticeboard. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does. This resolution reaffirms in a straight forward way the support of all Member States to the territorial integrity of Georgia. It is not my WP:OR, because this exact conclusion from Resolution 1808 was raised in the UNSC talks from 28 August 2008.
"[USA] ... condemned Russia’s decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent States. The recognition of independence was incompatible with the provisions of the United Nations Charter and of Security Council resolutions. In its first operative paragraph, resolution 1808 ... spelled out that the Security Council reaffirmed the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia within internationally recognized borders. That unanimously adopted resolution had now been disregarded by the Russian Federation."
Notice that Russia didn't deny the conclusion itself, thus admitting implicitly that the recognition (of A and SO) is breaching Resolution 1808. And, as there were no subsequent UNSC resolutions on Abkhazia, neither other statements from any UN Member (except 4), concerning the issue, we can rely on the last such official declaration, made on behalf of all UN Members, namely Resolution 1808.
As an additional proof of WP:NOR, you can refer to this article from 17 June 2009: "...Abkhazia being legally part of Georgia – something all UN members save Russia and Nicaragua recognise." Kouber (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a statement by the United States, and would support the wording "Georgia and the United States believe Abkhazia is/should be part of Georgia". You may claim that the wording in the Guardian article is WP:V for your interpretation, Kouber, but it is patently not true and a POV exaggeration, because it makes no mention of Venezuela or Nauru. Also, interestingly, it links to a Reuters report saying how the way UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon refers to Abkhazia has changed. By your logic, we would now have to start saying that "the countries of the UN don't think Abkhazia is in Georgia". Oh, and your claim that there were no other statements from any UN Member is WP:ORIG and beggars belief. You could have a look at statements in discussion of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 10853, for example. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the statement of the USA is supporting the wording "USA considers that Russia violated resolution 1808", which Russia didn't deny. The Guardian article is not an exaggeration, simply it was published before Venezuela and Nauru recognised A and SO. And if there are any statements from UN Members, concerning Georgia's territorial integrity, and expressing their changed position on the issue, please, you are welcome to present them. I do not see such in Resolution 10853.
Concerning your Reuters link, it is explicitly epxlained that "It was the Secretary-General's own decision to rename the report". It wasn't neither a UNSC Resolution, nor the official position of any UN Member, so I don't see how "my" logic would apply there.
My point is simple. The non-recognition of Abkhazia by a UN Member, given its initial support to the territorial integrity of Georgia, means that it still treats Abkhazia as part of Georgia, until it explicitly declares the contrary. The same logic applies to the article for Northern Cyprus, for example, where no source is cited, other than the lack of recognition by countries, other than Turkey. Or you would now claim that only because Russia decided to occupy Abkhazia, suddenly all previous declarations by all UN Members are reset!? Or you would claim that all these UN Members started to treat Abkhazia as neutral territory? Or what? Kouber (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on such a consensus Sephia karta, as it is quite important to give the readers balanced view. So, a wording like "The Georgian government and most of the world consider Abkhazia part of Georgia's territory." looks fair to me. Kouber (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The Reuters article is a valid source for that because it says it directly. UN Resolution 1808 as I've said above is not a valid source for the statement. Everything you've said above only convinces me further that it is original research, because you are using other sources to try to support your interpretation of UN Resolution 1808: classic original research. I'd therefore say the compromise looks good although the source should be changed to the Reuters article and any other secondary source that can be found. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand the Reuters article and the Guardian article are out of date because of subsequent events, and therefore cannot provide verification for the current state of things. Plus, one might charitably state that they both display an unexamined acceptance of the Western narrative (indeed, quite a common narrative when countries try to secede from their erstwhile masters, Biafra, Kosovo etc.). Less charitably, one might state that they have an axe to grind for "their" side in the dispute. In either case, the question of NPOV arises. The assertion as expressed in these sources is in any case demonstrably untrue, because it can be verified that countries other than those which have officially recognised Abkhazia have stated that Georgia should not exercise sovereignty there, e.g. Cuba, Iran. Objectively, we have no idea whether "most" countries support the Georgian position or not, so it is not suitable as a wording. Without doubt there is a section of world opinion which dislikes both sides, and still others who neither know nor care. However, I would argue that a compromise wording such as "The Georgian government and a large number of countries throughout the world consider Abkhazia part of Georgia's territory" is indisputably correct, verifiable, NPOV and cannot be regarded as speculation. -- Bofoc Tagar (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't regard the present wording in Kouber's last edit as "ideal" or even "true", but at least the source cited is now relatively up to date, even if it also contains the same hyperbole, perhaps for journalistic reasons, and is as balanced as one can expect for Western media (i.e. not very), and the WP article now doesn't try to claim that a primary source allows one to draw extravagant conclusions. I'm prepared to let it stand, and propose we remove the RfC tag.
Just one thing, though, can Alaexis or somebody please explain what the hell is wrong with spelling "ecumenical" without an "o"???? -- Bofoc Tagar (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you closing this RfC as we have a consensus solution. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made a minor edit - the article said that the territory was regarded as "apart of Georgia" when that sentence really appears to have intended to say "a part" (two words). I have changed it to "a part". Jnmwiki (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

that was my bad. Outback the koala (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Soviet constitution

Article says:

Invoking the right of secession under an interpretation of Articles 70 and 72 of the USSR Constitution,[14] in 1992 the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia.

The way this is worded suggests that there was such a right under the USSR constitution, when a reasonable interpretation of the document does not support that view. The quoted articles, 70:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.

and 72:

Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

(Quoted from reference cited in article, namely this.)

Now, article 70 says nothing specifically about secession. At best, one could argue that the principles such as "free self-determination" and "voluntary association" imply a right to secession, but that is very arguable. As to article 72, it explicitly mentions the right of secession, but specifically for Union Republics, not ASSRs such as Abkhazia. So, Abkhazia has no right to succeed under article 72; and article 70 nowhere mentions a right to secession. In fact, one could argue, that insofar as article 70 implies a right to secession, that implied right is expressed by article 72; the fact that a right to secession is mentioned for Union Republics, but not for ASSRs, can be taken to mean that ASSRs had no such right under the Soviet consitution.

-No one denies that abkhazia did not have the right to secede from the USSR under article 72. However, the interpretation is based on the fact that Abkhazia was from 1917 to 1931 a SSR, and did have the right to secede legally from the USSR, up until 1931. Stalin took this right away from the Abkhazian people, without their consultaion. This is more than Kosovo ever had, as far as I know, they never had the right legally for independence. Also, Abkhazia and South Ossetia lived as separate subjects under the russian empire for centuries prior to being incorporated into Georgia in 1931.Guitar3000 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

- Guitar3000's argument has no grounds because before Stalin incorporated Abkhazian SSR into Georgian SSR, the status of Abkhazian SSR was given to Abkhazia by Soviet as well, after 1921 Soviet annexation of Georgia. So basically, Stalin took away that what communists had given in the first place. The point is that at the time (!) Abkhazia tried to secede it was not an SSR and had no right to do so. Previous development can not legally be used in the argument because the territory had been annexed many times. Should we argue that Turkey also has some rights on the land because when Russian empire occupied it, the territory had been occupied by Ottoman Empire? This line of argument quickly becomes completely ridiculous. Historically, Abkhazia is an ancient Georgian teritory, part of Georgian kingdoms of Kolkha and Egrisi. It had been occupied by many empires (Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman, Russian) but that does not make it legal part of any of those. By the time Abkhazian separatists tried to secede in 1992, it was internationally-recognized (inlcuding: by Russia) part of Georgia and there's no legal ground in the International law by which Abkhazian separatists had any right to do so. Russia only unilaterally "recognized" Abkhazia in 2008 after the war with Georgia (very "impartial" approach, indeed) and had literally bought or pressured recognition from couple of other countries. None of this strengthens Abkhazia's claim on legal independence, even partial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.111.114 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(Of course, I am assuming through all of this the English translation referenced above is reasonably accurate, since I don't speak Russian. But, since this translation was published in 1985 by a Soviet publisher, I assume that amounts to official endorsement by the Soviet government.)

So, here we have an article, claiming that the Soviet constitution says things which it doesn't appear to say, and not even referencing who makes these claims. So I think this sentence has to go. --SJK (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also questioned this change, and I agree with you. I've restored the original wording. Khoikhoi 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
since the removed text depicts the position accurately without ambiguity (see:Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.), may i point out to kho khoi that he lacks the consensus to change the long standing "status quo"..i oppose the removal of referenced consensus text UNILATERALLY(vandalism?)..Shall restore status quo till consensus is arrived at talk page..Cityvalyu (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't the status quo, as I've pointed out, it was only changed very recently. "Practice what you preach". ;-) Khoikhoi 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


This is the article from the 1990 USSR law on secession (and my approximate translation of it) and not from the 1977 Constitution. Indeed according to this law a separate referendum had to be held in an autonomous republic if its parent union republic wished to secede from USSR. Alæxis¿question? 07:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The link you give above for the USSR law on secession returns an error on my computer. Could you please check and correct the link to this important document? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Corrected. Here's another link to the external site. Alæxis¿question? 06:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Great. Many thanks. --Zlerman (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia's (latest) declaration of independence upon which Medvedev extended his recognition dates to 1999. I don't think that any of the Soviet legal acts was valid at that time. --KoberTalk 13:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think between 1992-1999, Abkhazia's constitutional status (from its own perspective) was quite confused. I don't know whether it considered itself independent. The UN secretary general reports say that Abkhazia did not consider itself to have any constitutional links to Georgia. We would have to have a look whether its parliament passed any relevant acts during or shortly after the war. sephia karta 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That's why I'm opposed to mentioning all these legalistic claims and counter-claims in the lead section. --KoberTalk 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
We do not have to mention any claims. We only have to mention what sources speak about. Verifiability, not truth. FeelSunny (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Transnistria

"It considers itself an independent state (the Republic of Abkhazia),[5][6][7][8] but this is recognised only by Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru,[9] South Ossetia, and Transnistria, the last two of which are themselves in a situation similar to Abkhazia's.[10]" I can't find any information in the sources provided to back up the statement that Transnistria recognises Abkhazia as an independent state. Anyone able to back this claim up?Jimjamjak (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

They all are members of the Commonwealth of Unrecognized States (abbreviated СНГ-2 in Russian, because simple СНГ is the Commonwealth of Independent States, see the Russian article) along with Nagorno-Karabakh, and they all recognize each other. E.g. here we can see a treaty between three unrecognized repiblics concluded in 2006. Hellerick (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In English it is sometimes also referred to as the "CIS-2" because of the russian play on words. Outback the koala (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

Per 1993 United Nations commission definition, Wikipedia defines Ethnic cleansing as: "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing). During and after the 1992-1993 war Abkhaz government deliberately removed 250,000 Georgian from their homes and threw them out of the territory. 250,000 is almost half of the population and more than current population. This is a key fact that is in direct relationship with the disputed status of Abkhazia. Nobody can talk about any rights of population's right to self-identification when half of the population was forcefully removed and a massive ethnic cleansing was performed.

Ethnic Cleansing Citations:

OSCE, Lisbon Summit, Lisbon Document, 1996 p.8 [9]:

OSCE Budapest Summit, Budapest Document, 1994, 5-6 December, p.7 [10]:

.

Ethnic Cleansing was also, declared by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolutions 1633, 1647, 1648, 1664, 1683 from the 2008-2009 as well as NATO Parliamentary Assembly Declaration 373 from 18.11.08

Can somebody explain why this is not a sub-chapter and clearly stated? There're only couple of by-the-way references. This article can not possibly be objective and truthful when such important factor of current state on the territory is deliberately hidden under the covers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.111.114 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Olga Oliker, Thomas S. Szayna. Faultlines of Conflict in Central Asia and the South Caucasus: Implications for the U.S. Army. Rand Corporation, 2003, ISBN 0833032607
  2. ^ Abkhazia: ten years on. By Rachel Clogg, Conciliation Resources, 2001
  3. ^ Emmanuel Karagiannis. Energy and Security in the Caucasus. Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0700714812
  4. ^ GuardianUnlimited. Georgia up in arms over Olympic cash
  5. ^ "Абхазия, Южная Осетия и Приднестровье признали независимость друг друга и призвали всех к этому же". Newsru. 2006-11-17. Retrieved 2008-08-26.
  6. ^ Resolution of the Parliament of Georgia declaring Abkhazia and South Ossetia occupied territories, 28 August 2008.
  7. ^ Abkhazia, S.Ossetia Formally Declared Occupied Territory. Civil Georgia. 2008-08-28
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abkhazia/Archive_4&oldid=1254647223"